From the Los Angeles Times


To some evangelicals, Palin's career
violates biblical teachings





Audra Trujillo, right, signs up for a bible study class at Placerita Baptist Church in Newhall, Calif.

The Alaska governor has lifted John McCain's support among conservative Christians, but some believe her work outside the home has turned 'husbands lead, wives submit' on its head.
October 1, 2008

In a white-steepled church along a stretch in picturesque canyon country, the preacher laid out the basic blueprint of a godly marriage: Husbands lead, wives submit.

Speaking recently before hundreds of worshipers at Placerita Baptist Church in Newhall, guest preacher Chris Mueller affirmed the view that loving male headship and gracious wifely submission are God's plan for spouses.

Placerita, like many conservative Christian churches, teaches that a wife's role is to be her husband's helpmate (Genesis), "workers at home" (Titus) and submissive to her husband in everything (Ephesians).

So how do these congregants square such teachings with their support for Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the conservative evangelical Christian who is aiming to become vice president while her teenage daughter is pregnant, her infant son has Down syndrome and her husband took a leave from work to serve as "Mr. Mom," as People magazine put it?

"It's probably presumptuous of us to figure out how she is going to balance all of this," said Pat Ennis, a Placerita congregant who heads the home economics department at The Master's College, a Christian institution in Santa Clarita. "The most important thing is that she can do it in God's strength."

Ennis reflects nationwide polling showing widespread support for Palin, Republican Sen. John McCain's running mate, among evangelical Christians. Earlier this year, some evangelicals criticized McCain for not speaking as openly about his faith as some candidates.

But according to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, his standing among white evangelical Protestant registered voters has risen from 61% in June to 71% in a poll conducted Sept. 9-14. Evangelical Christians form the bulwark of the Republican voting base.

And many, like Ennis, see no conflict between Palin's candidacy and biblical teachings on women's roles.

Many say that biblical restrictions on women's leadership apply to church and home, not the secular world -- clearing the way for a woman to run the nation but not a congregation. And so long as Palin's husband, Todd, approves, they say, her career conforms with teachings on wifely duties.

But to others, this view contradicts biblical teaching.

"The Palin selection is the single most dangerous event in the conscience of the Christian community in the last 10 years at least," said Doug Phillips, president of Vision Forum, a Texas-based ministry. "The unabashed, unquestioning support of Sarah Palin and all she represents marks a fundamental departure from our historic position of family priorities -- of moms being at home with young children, of moms being helpers to their husbands, the priority of being keepers of the home."

Voddie Baucham, a Texas pastor who has criticized the Palin selection as anti-family in a series of blogs, said that the overwhelming evangelical support demonstrates a willingness to sacrifice biblical principles for politics. "Evangelicalism has lost its biblical perspective and its prophetic voice," Baucham wrote. "Men who should be standing guard as the conscience of the country are instead falling in line with the feminist agenda and calling a family tragedy . . . a shining example of family values."

In an interview, Baucham said the hundreds of responses he's received are running 20 to 1 in his favor. But he said he has also been castigated for "breaking ranks" by some, who argue the election is too important to raise divisive issues.

He and other like-minded pastors disagree. "It's more important for us to truthfully represent the priorities of Scripture than it is for us to win an election," Phillips said.

Palin may have taken center stage at the moment, but the evangelical Christian world has been buffeted for years by growing tensions between those who support egalitarian roles for men and women and those who promote "complementarianism." That's the view that God values men and women equally but granted them distinctly different roles.

Some of the debate centers on whether the Bible allows women to serve as civil leaders. Vision Forum leaders argue that it does not. They cite passages in Genesis, Isaiah, Ephesians and elsewhere that they say establishes male headship over women and are critical of female leadership.

Others counter that restrictions on female leadership apply only to church and home. They include Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Kentucky; and Randy Stinson, whose Kentucky-based Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood was established to combat growing feminism in evangelical churches.

Most of the debate on Palin, however, centers on whether a mother with young children is violating Scripture by running for such a demanding office as vice president. The key biblical verse at issue is Titus 2:5, which many evangelical Christians believe lays out God's command to younger women to be workers at home subject to their husbands.

Although many conservative Christians agree that women should place homemaking over working outside, many are hesitant to apply those views to Palin. Christian author Martha Peace, whose book "The Excellent Wife" tells women to submit to husbands and be good homemakers, said she would not make the same choice as Palin.

Ditto for Richard Land, who heads the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission and recommended Palin to the McCain campaign. He also would not do as the Palins have done. "I'm not hard-wired to be the 'First Dude,' " he said.

But Peace and Land are two of many who say the public should stay out of what is a matter between the Palins and their pastor. "I wouldn't presume to make that judgment for another family," Land said.

Others cite biblical passages they believe affirm Palin's decision to join the GOP ticket.

Take the woman at Placerita Baptist Church, where the women's ministry offers classes on "Heavenly Homemaking" and Bible classes on the apostle Paul's epistle that declared husbands are the head of wives, as Christ is the head of the church.

Eighteen women gathered recently to discuss Palin. They included stay-at-home moms and home-schoolers, small business owners and nurses, some with high school diplomas and others with doctoral degrees. All of them expressed support of Palin, particularly for standing against abortion and embracing her infant son.

Janice Hodgson, who worked in the mortgage business until recently, said Proverbs 31 offers a positive view of working women with servants -- suggesting, she said, that it is fine for Palin to hire nannies to help care for her children.

Barbara Barrick, the women's ministry coordinator, said she looks to Deborah, a prophetess and judge, as a biblical example of a female leader. Ennis cited Abraham's wife, Sarah, and Queen Esther as other women called by God for special missions.


http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-ev...?track=ntothtml

• On common ground with a Palin fan
• Underestimate Palin at your own risk, former rivals say
• Candidates call for bipartisan support of rescue plan

So the majority of women who hold down jobs outside the home are in sin because they are not chained and shackled to the stove in the kitchen or to the washer and dryer?

God didn't seem to have any problem making Esther the second in command of Persia and co-ruler as Queen. Now did He?

-7

no he did not hay may be i should sheckle my fiancee soon to be my wife who is a filapino pastor to the kitchen sink and give her enough chain to move around the home and tell her your duty to me is to serve me do all the house work look after the kids and have a meal ready when i come home for lunch and for dinner and tel her if she rejects what i have to say she wil be in error and it says adam was born first not eve and if you cant handle this task you are seen as a women who is going to be punished

but i am one of these guys that loves what god did for us males and i am thank ful that he gave eve to adam

i love my fiancee to death and i thank god for the women he has given me and i wil not tel my fiance she has to serve me only we work together as a team i do half the house work and the cooking and the washing and washing the dishes

so what is wrong with having palin serving by mac cains side if mac cain wins ?


these evangelicals have gone i think to far i have been doing a fair bit of digging on the evangelical movement in your country and its blown me away by what i am reading concerning the evangelical movement

i am praying from Australia that john mac cain and sarah palin win the election i dont want to see obama win and then watch from this side of the world what mess he is going to get your country into




Damo

I totally agree, Damo 7... Women were liberated from the subservient Law when the Blood of Christ's Body poured out and down from the Cross as He hung and dangled there exposed to the elements.

-7

amen and what these clowns seem to forget it was the women who were at the foot of the cross while the dicsiples were no were to be seen

its just amazes me how people like to take things out of contex

this is what i am noticing when i read my bible to the way the spirit is leading me

i said to one guy were where the men why were not the disciples with the women

i could get no honest answer all i was given was the old testament laws and told to take a good look at them


hear is something else i was told to look at



Matthew 10 English standard version

5 these twelve that jesus sent out instructing them go no where among the Gentiles and enter no town of the samaritans

6 but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of israel


jesus mission was to reach the jews and liberate them from the yokes the scribes and pharisees and saudducees were placing on them but what he had to say it offended the scribes and pharisees and sadducees

he gave the disciples clear instructions and told them to avoid the Gentiles and enterr no town of the samaritans


jesus did not once look down on the women who were his followers nor did he look down on mary magdallen and condem her when the pharisees and sadducees brought before him a women who was cought in adultery

its like these evangelicals are trying to send john mac cain a strong message dont forget your roots and dont forget the old laws

i feel that sarah palin wil do a darn good job when the time comes if john mac cain ever falls sick or has to go out of the country for a meeting

i sort of cracked up when i read this


we have a female prime minster who runs this country when kevin rud goes abroad and we have a female governer


the role has been a males role and kevin rud broke the tradition he is a born again christian our Australian prime minister but he has a job to do i should know we pray for him and he puts in prayer requests for what he is asking us christians in the city who have come behind him kevin rud knows he has born again christians praying for him

i think its time for these evangelicals to stop the bickering and stop looking at the old ways and focus on praying for your country and supporting john mac cain

if i was an american citazen i would be supporting john mac cain and palin

i think were the problem lies is her strong ties to the assemblys off god church




Damo

Christian Theology

September 4, 2008

Sarah Palin is a Christian so she can't hold political office


Sarah Palin is a Christian so she can't hold political office. Is that the message that we're supposed to get?

The enforcers of Militant Secular Orthodoxy are pushing the God button again. I don't usually get involved in politics but this is really more of a theological matter that the anti-theists are trying to press into their political agenda, so I might as well chime in. The accusation, if such a thing could actually be taken to be an accusation, is that Sarah Palins got religion. Not just that, because when Barack Obama gets religion it seems to be acceptable, but Palin's religion is historically orthodox and she actually believes what it teaches. As long as someone is a member of a religion to which they give no actual credence, that kind of thing is acceptable to the theologically challenged and agnostically confused. They then call it "spirituality" because that doesn't imply a meaningful claim about the real world. But she actually believes things; spooky God things.

So do I, and to the shock and embarrassment of the hardcore secularists, so do most people. We don't push it at people or make a long public display of such things. We don't stand on the street corners with bullhorns shouting out the imminent end of all things, we don't even have the little Jesus fish on the bumpers of our cars, but we are out there among you. Is that so disturbing? That we don't wear armbands or Christian headgear to identify the faithful? That we could be, and by sheer numbers probably are, right next to you, freely moving about, at all levels of society; every race, gender neutral, age non-specific, demographically unchartable. (We do teach that people should love their neighbors as themselves. I'm sure that's scary.)

Here is one of the things that Sarah Palin said recently…

"Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God," she exhorted the congregants. "That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan."1

The aggressive anti-theological crowd have taken this as saying exactly the opposite of what it does say. It suits their purpose to do so. What she is obviously saying, and what any Christian would take her as saying, is that we should pray that what God's plan is should also be our plan, and that it should come to pass as God sees best. This is not rocket science folks. "Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done, on Earth as it is in heaven." It's not original. It's not even a particularly innovative application of the principle. It's just the Lord's Prayer for goodness sake. What do they expect her to pray for? For God's will to not be done? As a general rule, we Christians don't pray that kind of thing.

As for the "task from God" thing, it is supposed to be a task from God, clearly and unabashedly. She wasn't giving a sermon here so it wasn't necessary for her to explain every theological nuance in detail, especially to an audience that understood her tenor, but to those young men and women going oversees, to deliver a people from abuse and oppression is a task from God. She was not saying anything creepy, like that she had some kind of personal message from Gabriel that God said to start a war, or that she knew in a personal way that the war was God's will, but only that God's will would be done, that we should try to make sure that God's will is being done, and that the military personnel involved are doing what they think is right under the circumstances. If we are in a war, we want it to be a just war.

We want to know, and so we pray, that our leaders are sending out our young men and women on a task that is from God, and not on one that He would not like. Who doesn't? If they are wrong, then we would want it to be stopped and reparations to be paid, but as with most things in life, it's hard to tell. You have competing goods: the good of helping the oppressed far away, and the good of keeping our own safe at home. Both are good. Which one should we do? God help us.

Notably, she did not give either this administration nor the war, God's endorsement. She might think it so, but it was not said.

From some blog:

"Religion, however, was not strictly a thread in Palin's foreign policy. It was part of her energy proposals as well. Just prior to discussing Iraq, Alaska's governor asked the audience to pray for another matter — a $30 billion national gas pipeline project that she wanted built in the state. "I think God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that," she said."2

So what? She thinks it is God's will? Good. I don't want any politician doing things that they think are not God's will. God's will is that everybody do what is best for their neighbor, and by extension, to the community and the world. I don't want to elect anybody that thinks that God's will is either irrelevant or something dangerous. I want everybody, all the time, trying to do what they think the will of God is. We will disagree about what we think it is, but that's why we have a political process in which no one person gets too much power. These are Christian ideals, the separation of powers, limited human authority, and popular sovereignty through representational government, due to the fallenness of man. Everybody should want to do God's will, but hey, we can be wrong.

Whatever most of the people think is right at the time is the rule we will follow, but it should be because they think it is good, not just because it is what they want. People getting what they want without thorough reflection on the greater good is the primary source of suffering in the world today. The general will of God is always love for one's neighbor. Under specific conditions though, we might need to protect the weak or the innocent from harm, and that might require reasonable force limited by necessity. There is only a contradiction here for people that don't think that the latter is a form of the former. How to work that out in a political system with competing worldviews and competing interests, is politics.

Christopher Neiswonger



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/02/p...h_n_123205.html 1, 2

<h2 id="comments">25 Comments » </h2>

1. Not a fundamentalist, will she let her children read Harry Potter? That's the million dollar question. Christians are wonderful wacko's are wacko's, can her kids watch a Harry Potter video, if not why? Some one will ask her, so she better think about the answer?
   
   Comment by dummidumbwit — September 4, 2008 @ 9:16 pm
2. I really doubt that that is the million dollar question.
   
   Maybe we should try to major on the majors a bit?
   
   Neiswonger
   
   Comment by Neiswonger — September 4, 2008 @ 9:19 pm
3. It would express, the same concept as her positions on Life, just a softer angle, most Pentecostals are told it is from the Devil (Harry Potter) and it's so simple, less confrontational? Easy for the Joe sixpack to understand.But yes the Abortion positions and the Creationist public school option are there with a host of others.
   
   Comment by dummidumbwit — September 4, 2008 @ 9:38 pm
4. I guess I'm Joe sixpack, because I don't know what you are saying.
   
   Neiswonger
   
   Comment by Neiswonger — September 4, 2008 @ 9:45 pm
5. "Benjamin Franklin stood one day and said, …"I have lived a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth: that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?" And then he called that Constitutional Convention to open each day with prayer, which it did." - Ronald Reagan*
   
   Neither Franklin nor Reagan are my theological beacons; however, we do live in a nation that has historically and collectively believed that we are subject to God's will and that we ought to pray in order to understand that WE do not ultimately rule our destiny. This is why, as a society, we have historically valued and promoted the clearest tenets of the Bible.
   
   http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/spee...988/072888b.htm
   
   Comment by RevK — September 4, 2008 @ 11:44 pm
6. Hey… Reagan was a scots-irish Presbyterian. I'd think you would like that.
   
   Comment by Neiswonger — September 5, 2008 @ 12:05 am
7. Sarah Palin sat through a sermon where the preacher asserted that God caused the Jews to suffer terrorist attacks because they rejected the Christ, it's on record and will come out. Ronald Reagan was a mainstream Christian like most of us and would have gotten up and walked out. Palin is from the Assembly of God Church who are outside of the mainstream of what existed in 1776 till now, thats why I think she will be found out to have views that will prove damaging to the McCain campaign, and I recommend asking if she will let her children read Harry Potter, or a harder examination of what she believes, it is important to know.
   
   Comment by dummidumbwit — September 5, 2008 @ 12:27 am
8. Oh come on. It was a visiting representative of an organization of which she has given no public support whatsoever. (Jews for Jesus)And He was Jewish. So your next crack about anti-semitism should remain crackless. And I don't think there is any evangelical group that is more passionately pro-Israel than Pentecostals.
   
   And I've sat through much stupider things than that in mainstrean church services, and so did Ronald Reagan. That's what we do when people say stupid things in churches. Sit quietly and wait for our coffee and donut.
   
   Speculation about what God does or does not do is common enough in all churches. Really you should be complimenting her for having poise under difficult circumstances when people are saying silly things. Can you imagine what would happen if everybody threw a fit everytime the Clergy went a little nutty? We'd never get though a service. I need my coffee and donut too much for that.
   
   Neiswonger
   
   Comment by Neiswonger — September 5, 2008 @ 12:41 am
9. If Palin were an atheist the Left would rip into her. If Palin were a Jew, the Left would rip into her. If Palin were Mother Teresa the Left would rip into her.
   
   The Left hates, can't stand, abhores any Republican…especially from a "minority" group or group normally not identified with conservatism.
   Blacks, women, Jews, teachers, union members, all are held in particular contempt by the Left…for they are traitors.
   
   The Left in America, which is now the Democratic Party leadership is an unabashed socialist, elitist, racist, hateful, amoral bunch of Marxists who hate this country and what it stands for and want to turn it into something else. Something else more tolerable to our enemies.
   
   I wish this country had a million more Sarah Palins.
   
   Thanks.
   
   - Steve Martin
   
   Comment by Steve Martin — September 5, 2008 @ 2:09 pm
10. [...] Apologetics.com Neiswonger Law and Theology « Human Life and Human Rights? Sarah Palin is a Christian so she can't hold political office September 5, 2008 Sarah Palin is a Christian so she can't hold political office. Is that the message that we're su… [...]
    
    Pingback by Sarah Palin is a Christian so she can't hold political office « Apologetics.com Neiswonger — September 5, 2008 @ 5:07 pm
11. Great blog Chris! Sarah seems to be a very impressive woman.
    Just when I thought I would have a difficult time even voting this year, it seems we have a bit of sunshine!
    
    Love Ya!
    
    Comment by Pastor Bob — September 5, 2008 @ 6:44 pm
12. Yeah, she is really a breath of fresh air. I mean Obama is interesting and passionate, and McCain is a very respectable guy with depth of experience, but who is there for ME to vote for? I want to vote for someone that I think would think about things and do the things that I might think and do under the circumstances. That's why we elect people. I see all of the obvious weaknesses she has, but still, there is no one else that I have actually liked involved in the political process for a long time. I mean, guys like you don't run Bob. Too busy doing the more important things I suppose.
    
    Christopher
    
    Comment by Neiswonger — September 5, 2008 @ 6:45 pm
13. Why is Harry Potter important? I never read it, but I LOVE the movies. The children's pastor of the church I attend will not let his kids watch or read it because the wizards (witches and warlocks) are good guys. His defense is VERY biblical. . . "Have nothing to do with witchcraft" etc. The Bible declares witchcraft to be an abomination. Now, I can dissect that, and say why I disagree with him on that stance, but he is taking very literally something that his religion has written down in it's annals, how is that freakish? He appears much more mainstream than many "mainstream" people out there to begin with. . .
    
    Comment by Master Nyte — September 5, 2008 @ 8:00 pm
14. I simply refuse to engage Harry Potter books as being a legitimate issue in relation to this post.
    
    That being said, out of relation to the post, I know people that read their children the books that are obviously very sincere Christians, and people that don't read their children the books that are very sincere Christians. I guess I will inevitably need to deal with this kind of issue when my children reach the age when this kind of material might become age appropriate.
    
    I'm sure that there are some children that because of their sensitivity to themes found in the materials might not be suited to this kind of thing at all, and then others for whom it could be nothing more than a harmless excursion into popular fiction. Certainly, if a parent does not think it appropriate reading or viewing, they cannot be found at fault because that is their God given role as the provider and protector of the child's fragile well being. I seriously doubt that God would find any fault in a parent failing to promote "Harry Potter", or even "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe" (C.S. Lewis) in their family entertainment. If nothing else, there is certainly no need for it.
    
    So things like this are minor and disputable matters that can carry us away from very important and central issues, like whether killing unborn children is acceptable in a society that should long ago have outgrown such obvious violations of human rights, that is one's daughter becomes pregnant (Palin), it is not a punishment upon the child that she gives birth to your grandchild (Obama's stated position). There are really important things to think about here and we would best focus upon things that are obvious and immediate rather than things obfuscatory and peripheral.
    
    Neiswonger
    
    Comment by Neiswonger — September 5, 2008 @ 8:18 pm
15. Sarah Palin, the posterchild of the religious right, is the mother of a severely disabled child with Downs Syndrome. I know, the media and Sarah herself refers to Trig as a child with "special needs," as if this somehow describes a child who is allergic to milk and must drink non-diary formula instead. But the type of disability Trig has is serious and he will require much care and attention from his mother. The question becomes what sort of woman is Sarah Palin, who needs to feed what is obviously a wildly ambitious nature to pursue the vice presidency while she has a disabled infant at home requiring the care of his mother? If McCain and Palin are elected, Palin will see her salary bump up and she will be able to afford nanny-care from people who specialize in rearing disabled children but doesn't this call into doubt the decision to keep Trig in the first place? Many women have given up careers in order to care for such infants. Not Sarah Palin. It's more than a little odd.
    
    Comment by Christopher — September 5, 2008 @ 10:37 pm
16. As a card carrying member of the religious right, which really just means having any identifiable religion whatsoever to the irreligious left, I must admit, I have not seen the new poster. I hope it's a good one.
    
    I think your concern about the well being of the children is a valid concern. I don't really know how they are going to work that one out. I know that most families do work it out from sheer necessity. I'm sure they will also. There are though very real concerns for the larger community and the world as a whole that could either justify, or at least mitigate, some kinds of creativity in taking care of the children in order to present them with a better world.
    
    It's serious business raising children, but we do need to be concerned with what kind of a world they grow up in, and what kind of a world we leave them. If Sarah Palin is given this opportunity she will have the duty to be both a mother and a leader, just as many have had to be both a father and a leader.
    
    And the White House does not have a policy against children in the Oval Office. It's not like she will be under some requirement to leave the kids at the sitter.
    
    Neiswonger
    
    Comment by Neiswonger — September 5, 2008 @ 10:55 pm
17. hehe
    
    That's kind of you to say - but we would REALLY be in trouble if I were in politics! I am too thin skinned! But - what about guys like you?
    
    Comment by Pastor Bob — September 5, 2008 @ 11:48 pm
18. Me? I'm plenty thick in the skin category, but not suited to that kind of thing. Politicians are a strange breed indeed. Sides, you can't run for office with a name like "Neiswonger"! By the time people figure out it's a name the election would be over.
    
    N
    
    Comment by Neiswonger — September 5, 2008 @ 11:49 pm
19. Obama is a Christian and more than qualified to be President.
    
    Palin's problem aren't only her fundamentalist brand of Cristianity, but her lack of real experience with anything other than Alaska, her penchant for abusing Executive power, and her refusal to answer real and pertinent questions because of some faux evil media.
    
    She also, for a Vice President, has a much higher chance (historically about 20%) of taking the higher office. When she talks about "God's plan for Iraq", the problem is that if she takes over it is *her plan*. And it was never God's plan to invade Iraq, it was the Neocons.
    
    Comment by RoPiNi — September 6, 2008 @ 5:20 pm
20. What in particular makes Obama so qualified?
    
    Is it his #1 liberal voting record in the Senate (when he bothered to show up)?
    
    Is it his association (for many years) with a church that hates what America stands for?
    
    Is it his associations with criminals and unrepentant domestic terrorists?
    
    Is the fact that he would already have surrendered to our Islamist enemy?
    
    Is it the fact that in his books he clearly shows animosity towards white men and the white grandparents who raised him?
    
    Change is not always good you know.
    
    Obama is a young man…with old, tired, failed socialist ideas.
    
    That's not the kind of change I want.
    
    Comment by theoldadam — September 6, 2008 @ 8:36 pm
21. Christopher, I just read the comments and now I understand why you rarely post politically themed blogs. I thought you might find it interesting that the whole "Palin" subject was brought up at a club which I attend whose members are of all ages, come from every walk of life and represent, what I believe to be, a fair cross section of society. The one thing we all agreed on (regardless of political affiliation) was that she was being unfairly attacked by liberal politicians and that the media is going far out of its way to portray her in a negative light. I think the message which the extreme liberals and their buddies in the media are trying to place in the public consciousness may just backfire do to the forcefulness with which it is being thrust at us. Even the "Joe Six-Packs" in our little group seemed to see through these tactics.
    
    Chris, I think what "dummidumbwit" was trying to communicate was the very real possibility of Palin being perceived by (or more likely, portrayed to) the public to be an overly religious "wacko" by reducing all of the real issues down and encapsulating them into the more humorous and made up "Harry Potter" issue which he was saying would be an example more easily grasped by the average "Joe Six-pack" than the real issues such as abortion and creationism in public schools. The language wasn't very clear but I don't think he was implying that anyone who couldn't follow what he was saying is simple-minded.
    
    Also Mr. Martin, I don't think it's fair to say the entire left hates. I know plenty of people who fit into that classification who are just as reasonable as the majority of people on this blog seem to be. I can't speak for you but I think you may be referring to the more extreme liberals. Whether they do hate or not I can't say but I can say it sounds like you might be engaged in a bit of hatefulness yourself. I know it's hard but please try not to hate the hate mongers. If you really think about it I'm sure you are far too intelligent and mature to be drawn into such a futile pastime.
    
    "theoldadam", I agree with many of your points against voting for Obama, but I do want to say that although change might not always be good neither is stagnation. Right now, it seems the public feels a change is necessary. What I am more concerned with is that when change happens it is the right change. The feeling I get from the Obama campaign is that they sense the winds of change blowing through our country and so they have chosen to use the word change as a sort of banner or standard which they hold out in front of their campaign, but that they really have no real intention of making the changes which are being called for by the people.
    
    Also, I don't know who you are talking about when you refer to our "Islamist Enemy". That terminology sounds either hateful or ignorant. Are you referring to Militant Extremist sects? We may or may not have pure intentions in our occupation of Iraq. Either way, an occupying force from any country whether European or American, secular or religious, in an overwhelmingly Islamic country has never been accepted by the Islamic world. If you remember, this didn't happen in the Gulf War because we went in, did our thing and then left ASAP. What we essentially did in going to Iraq and "making house" was declare Iraq to be the "theatre" for the inevitable struggle by Militant Extremist Islamic sects from the whole of the Islamic world against the United States occupation of an Islamic country. These groups aren't even from Iraq, hence the term "insurgents". You wouldn't build a football stadium and then become suprised when football teams turn out to play. Iraqis have been left with not only the damage done during the occupation but have been caught in the crossfire between our troops and these insurgents. We brought these Militant Extremists and their recruiters to Iraq by baiting them. The insurgency aside, our leaders say they want to establish a democracy in Iraq but true democracy is an impossibility at this time and even its own people know this. Iraq is made up of three distinctly different types of Islamic believers who are, often times, violently opposed to eachother, two of which are the minority. If democratic elections take place then of course the majority will take control of the government on every level and there is guaranteed to be discrimination against the religious minorities. Resistance and bloodshed will follow. It will be a situation similar to that in Ireland, where the Protestants and the Catholics fought violently back and forth for decades. It wasn't really about religious differences but more about discrimination. These are the reasons why we are starting to see Iraqis finding these Militant Extremist groups more attractive. The one thing they can all agree on is the United States has screwed them over and these groups are making promises of a better future. To the average Iraqi these organizations are more like freedom fighters than terrorists. Whether we want to admit it or not we are responsible for that. Either our leaders knew all this was likely going to happen, which is disturbing, or they were ignorant of these dynamics when they made the decision to invade, possibly even more disturbing (they invaded Iraq on false premises, I might add, as Al Quaeda and the Taliban had a tenuous, if any, affiliation with Iraq). All this inconsideration and/or lack of education before major decision making by our leaders regarding the fate of another people and our ignorant, blind approval of their decision would seem to make us more of the aggresors in this situation. Maybe Islam isn't our enemy. Maybe our own ignorance is.
    
    Thanks for hearing me out.
    
    By the way, I am patriotic and I love this country and its freedoms but I do not blindly accept everything we do as a nation as good or right under the pretense of patriotism. Patriotism is just nationalism for your own country and nationalism tends to be insular and exceedingly dangerous to the well-being of mankind as a whole. Also, I love and respect God more than anything, but because of this I will never use God as an exuse to promote my own will. I am a Christian, not a selfist. I don't pick and choose from the teachings in the Bible to suit my own interests. Instead, I try to include a sense of compassion in everything I do and say. I think we could afford to try this strategy with the rest of the world.
    
    Comment by Ian Pettit — September 9, 2008 @ 3:07 pm
22. Chris,
    Of course we as believers would like our political leaders to seek God's guidance and count on his direction as they make their decisions. And broadly speaking, invoking his name in public is something that is an American tradition and quit innoncent. However, the difference with Ms. Palin is her association of the Almighty with specific and contoversial policy proposals. To public associate a Christian worldview with the war in Iraq and the building of a gas pipeline as a public official not only irresponsible, but it diminishes the power of Christ's transformative work.
    
    Comment by Erik — September 16, 2008 @ 11:11 pm
23. I don't know… If I was going to war with Iraq I would want it to be God's will. If I was going to lunch I would want it to be God's will. Wanting what we do to be God's will seems like pretty middle-of-the-road Christian thinking.
    
    Wanting something to be God's will is about the same as wanting it to be the right thing to do, but for people that really think there is a right thing to do. Now if she were saying that she wants us to build a pipeline because God told her to and anybody that disagrees is a bad person then I guess we could dismiss her as a kook, but if what she thinks is that she believes that it is in the best interest of the people that elected her and so she thinks it is God's will because it is for the common good, and so because she believes it she wants people to pray that that is what comes to pass, that seems like fair game.
    
    It's like football. Both teams pray. Only one team wins. Ultimately God does have a position on pipelines, because He has a position on everything. Maybe He likes it; maybe He doesn't. I don't know. Don't care much either. But, If I were in the position to have the option of building a pipeline, I can tell you seriously, that I would pray about it, and I would pray that what I choose to do would be in God's will. "Not my will but thy will be done."
    
    If you think this is unusual I'll be glad to hear how? That's something the naysayers haven't come up with yet.
    
    And if someone thinks that we should pray that our decisions agree with the will of God until, but only until, those decisions have ramifications that are political or public or controversial, I would think that it is exactly the opposite. Those are the kinds of decisions that require a great deal of prayer.
    
    Neiswonger
    
    Comment by Neiswonger — September 16, 2008 @ 11:33 pm
24. Having watched her for awhile, I changed my mind, It did seem like it might be an easy attack (her opinion on Harry Potter and the Wasilla Public Library), her comments on the Iraq (and Terrorism) war and God were thought out enough to excite the base, w/o getting painted as a Zealot (by all but the most biased, I mean it's been gone over and changes nothing), so I'm now on the forget about Palin and attack John McCain like a good democrat. The luster is fading fast enough to get back to the real business of beating up on John McCain (bless his misguided Reaganite Heart)?
    
    Comment by dummidumbwit — September 17, 2008 @ 4:27 pm

http://christiantheology.wordpress.com/2008/09/04/sarah-palin-is-a-christian-so-she-can%E2%80%99t-hold-political-office/

but George bush has a catholic who writes his speeches and is not George bush suppose to be a born again christian ?

so whats wrong with having a christian like sarah palin


our Australian prime minister kevin rud is a born again christian and we dont have no problem with a born again christian running our country

its just funny reading this and hearing that this is what the public of america should be hearing i saw her tonight on news in the debate she had with the oposition she handled her self very wel he though was al over the place sarah palin kept her cool and asked if she could cal him joe


Damo

September 20 / 21, 2008
The Politics of Tribulation

Sarah Palin and the Rapture
By RAYMOND J. LAWRENCE

Is this country ready for a president who is excited about and eagerly looking forward to the Rapture?

The Rapture, as it is called, is the imaginary day when Jesus will come down from the sky and lift up into heaven all those who are saved, leaving behind all unbelievers to destruction and death?

Anyone who believes in the Rapture scenario will likely interpret a catastrophic nuclear exchange as the opening scene of the Rapture. Thus an American president who believes in the Rapture would arguably have at least some ambivalence toward a nuclear holocaust. A believer in the Rapture with his or her fingers on the nuclear trigger might even be tempted to bring on the Rapture. The Rapture, for those who believe in it, is hardly a negative event. Rather it is culmination of everything they hope for, deliverance into the heavenly arms of Jesus.

Presumably Sarah Palin believes in the Rapture. It is one of the doctrines of her religion, and she has nowhere disavowed it. Are Americans ready to sleep at night with a President who longs for the Rapture?

The doctrine of the Rapture is a very recent invention within some of the radical fringe churches of Christianity. The Rapture doctrine is first cousin to millennialism, the belief promoted by various groups who have predicted that "the end is near." Millennialist groups have popped up and burnt out from time to time throughout Christian history.

The Rapture doctrine has no support in the historic Christianity of any of the main traditions - Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or Protestant. The doctrine of the Rapture is cobbled together from several obscure, unrelated comments drawn from the epistles of Paul the Apostle. No credible biblical scholar in two thousand years of Christian history has taken seriously the Rapture doctrine, millennialism, or anything similar to it.

The American people ought to be concerned about the religious beliefs of its political leaders as those beliefs may determine the life of the nation as a whole. It would be foolish of the American people not to be deeply concerned about the religious beliefs of Sara Palin, who may be elected Vice President for the oldest President ever inaugurated into the office.

When John F. Kennedy campaigned for the presidency in 1960, many Americans were concerned about his commitment to the Roman Catholic Chruch. The fear was that he might be subject to directions from Catholic priests, or from the Pope, since he was a practicing Catholic, and Catholic leaders are typically quite directive and authoritarian. Kennedy answered that concern in speaking to the Houston Ministerial Association during the campaign. He declared boldly and correctly that no political leader should take directives from religious authorities whatsoever. He claimed a commitment to the strict separation of church and state. Kennedy's assurances were widely accepted by the public.

The Sarah Palin problem is somewhat different. The concern is not whether she would take orders from her pastor. That is unlikely. Her church does not typically exercise that sort of authority. The problem is both more simple and more worrisome. The public must presume that Palin believes in the Rapture, since it is one of the central doctrines of her church. Furthermore, the American people should assume that Palin's personal religious beliefs will have consequences in her decision-making as a President. Both Palin and McCain have already made clear that their religious views about abortion will determine presidential appointments to the courts.

The press and much of the public seem reluctant to engage Palin on her religious views, considering them to be a personal matter. In certain respects that is admirable restraint. We do not want candidates for office grilled on their private religious views as long as those views do not impinge upon the public welfare. Whether an individual believes in the bodily assumption of the Virgin Mary, predestination, or other such religious views should not be subject to political scrutiny. Such beliefs have no inherent impact on public policy.

However, a belief in the Rapture as an historic event toward which history is rapidly moving, is a belief with potentially catastrophic political implications. Do the American people want a believer in such a fantasy to hold in her hands the nuclear power to destroy civilization?

Raymond J. Lawrence is an Episcopal cleric, recently retired Director of Pastoral Care, New York Presbyterian Hospital, and author of numerous opinion pieces in newspapers in the U.S., and author of the recently published, Sexual Liberation: The Scandal of Christendom (Praeger). He can be reached at: raymondlawrence@mac.com




http://www.counterpunch.org/lawrence09202008.html