I’d like to encourage any readers to take a look at Anne’s BRILLIANT post “What Exactly is a Helpmeet?” when considering how to think about Sarah Palin’s nomination for the Vice Presidency and why every patriarchalists’ knickers are knotted, bloomers are in a bunch, hair is on fire over it. I actually read somewhere (and I can’t remember right now, for the life of me) that Palin will be serving as John McCain’s helpmeet if she wins this election. I can’t believe this person was serious. They must seriously have no idea what a helpmeet is, what is their function, how only husbands and wives can have that kind of relationship, that not all women are called to be that… or what true marital partnership is about. The give and take, the fluidity, the organic nature of marriage must be totally lost on this person. It makes me so sad… it really does. I’m just beginning to discover and develop this kind of relationship with my husband as I come out of the duldrums of self-inflicted patriarchalism. And what little I’ve experienced has been glorious! But I digress..
Of course, if you choose to vote for Palin, and you claim to be a Christian, well, you’re just a “Christian” because no real, authentic Christian could stand to have a woman second in line for the presidency. Never mind that she has a fantastic political record. Never mind that she possesses the views that hundreds of thousands of Christians in this country profess to hold. Never mind that there is no sales tax or income tax in Alaska thanks to her and the people actually get a rebate from the state every year based on family size and not on income.
Nope. She wears a skirt and has the wrong body parts so she can’t lead the nation. She’s just as bad as Hillary! If McCain wins, God is going to put this country under judgment! Its an EMBARASSMENT for our country to have a female leader of this magnitude. Deborah was an embarassment for Israel. Palin will be for us! {{For any obtuse readers out there, those last lines are supposed to be dripping with sarcasm)).
Well, count me in as one of those “Christians” who has fallen for this brilliant political move on John McCain’s part. I wasn’t going to vote at all- and I was most certainly NOT going to vote for the Constitution Party candidate- but now, I probably will take the time to go cast my vote this November. I’m actually looking forward to it.
Brilliant piece!
Perhaps what this world needs is more assemblies being run by moms with babe in sling. For some reason, Palin, babe in sling, Senate gavel in hand sort of sits well with me.
“The give and take, the fluidity, the organic nature of marriage must be totally lost on this person. It makes me so sad… it really does. I’m just beginning to discover and develop this kind of relationship with my husband as I come out of the duldrums of self-inflicted patriarchalism. And what little I’ve experienced has been glorious! But I digress..”
With the slight confusion regarding what a carbon backbone has to do with marriage (ducking) I have had the same experience of freedom and pure joy in my relationship with my husband upon breaking free of the bondage of patriarchal philosophy. You don’t need to be a rocket surgeon to realize *I’d* be happier with an egalitarian marriage, but my *husband* is much more content with an egalitarian template.
Back to Palin; call me wicked, but I am properly amused at the Patrist’s dilema, vote for a woman, or vote for the candidate that will promote abortion rights, gay equity, more opportunities for women in the millitary, and any number of other issues that make conservative patriarchal hearts constrict in entirely pathological ways.
Agreed! Palin is inspiring. But if you look out you will see that most Christians are in favor of her rather than against her. Just look at her record, she strongly supports Christian values and I think most Christians see that as what matters most.
I, too, feel the same way. I wasn’t so thrilled about McCain, but Palin is kind of exciting. She seems to be extremely bright and I look forward to new things from her.
I’ll be the first to bite. I’m thrilled about this. THRILLED with capital letters!
I was a bit apathetic before…probably going to go McCain, but not feeling good about it. Palin adds excitement for me because she is NORMAL, AVERAGE, MOM’ISH TYPE PERSON. She’s one of us.
I could talk about that forever. But let me move on to what I’m scratching my head at. Many Christian/church folks are up in arms about her being in the VP office and being a mother.
What about Barack Obama? Isn’t he a DAD/FATHER to 2 very young girls??? (anyone remember that sappy moment at the DNC when his daughter looked at the sat feed of her Daddy and said “where are you now, Daddy?”)
If being a mom to young kids disqualifies Palin from office, then it should be fair to say being a dad to young kids disqualifies Obama too. Or, are we saying that Moms are more important in the life of a child than dads are?
Do we have a gender bias in the Christian church? Hmmmmm?
I for one think if any woman can wear many hats, it is Palin.
I just wish she was running for PRESIDENT.
I was so apathetic… so apathetic…demoralized…annoyed…by our political picture…
…until Palin, that is!
G.I. Wife said: Palin is kind of exciting. She seems to be extremely bright and I look forward to new things from her.
Yeah – and one of the new things I’m looking forward to is her debate with Biden. I think he’s going to be a quivering mass of oozing raw meat when she’s done with him. (Sorry for the graphic description, but I really think she’s going to chew him up and spit him out – and do it without appearing mean, just appearing more smarter, quicker, livelier, and less angry.
NormalMiddle said: I just wish she was running for PRESIDENT
Remember … John McCain is 137 years old (or something like that). She may very well be running for president. GO PALIN!!
Normal, I AGREE with you! I absolutely love what I’ve read about Palin so far – and I’m a card carrying Democrat. There’s just something so down-to-earth about her. According to my mom, we needed fear about McCain – Mom’s fairly convinced Palin will be Pres by the end of McCain’s first term. Either way, I wish we could cherry-pick the Veep and Pres, separate and removed from any party lines. Then I’d have a great time voting!
The sad thing is, and I’m gonna say it becase I know a few of you have stopped by my pathetic excuse of a blog…I just plain don’t like McCain. I’m not hot on Biden either, and Obama’s okay…
I know it is my civic duty and all, but I still just don’t want to vote. Blah.
But Palin is pretty awesome, from what I’ve read. Conservative, but not so cram-the-GOP-down-your-throat-you-wanna-puke-and-go-vote-Libertarian.
I just want a nice, middle of the road conservative who isn’t about sending my baby to war in Iraq, who gets the cost of living to a reasonable level in this country, and who takes care of our poor.
And I must admit…I can’t wait to see what certain Patriarchialists have to say about this. *giggle*
LOL I just love you, Lindsey
I think Rebecca said it SO well. . .
“Oh, it’s OK to be a mother, as long as you usually keep your baby hidden away. And it’s most unprofessional to attempt to conduct business with your baby in a sling! It’s as if motherhood is best kept under wraps. It’s just to be done at home, hidden away, almost like a shameful secret.
Governor Palin is exposing the lie to all that. She is completely, unashamedly, unapologetically, a mother.”
I’m thrilled about this. THRILLED with capital letters!
I, too, am quite fond of capital letters.
I’m going to agree here. When I heard about Palin, I too was very excited. I am a stay-at-home,working from home, homeschooling mom, and I am not offended.
When I was in Patrio circles and asked the age old question about Deborah (the judge) I was told that she was an exception to the norm…that God had to use a woman because there were no righteous men to lead their country. If I hear any complaints from Christian men about Palin…that will be my answer.
I think millions of Christians are breathing a sigh of relief and they don’t care that she is a woman. They are finally able to vote with a clear conscience for someone who supports what they support.
I’ve been reading a few blogs by women who are against Palin because of her being a mom, etc. I would like to point out that when serving in public office you are signing up as a public servant. It is not easy, it is a sacrifice. Anyone, man or woman, no matter how capable, will sacrifice time away from family, in order to serve. She is not a supermom, she can’t have it all…but together…as a team…she and her husband can accomplish a healthy, happy family and she can serve her country…no one is asking her to do it all. These are serious times and I think that her family will be proud that she stood up and accepted the call of duty…the duty to do what is right and to make a difference when we can. I believe she can.
I’m liking what I see in her biography–and that she has a son who may be shipped off to Iraq unlike the majority of the other bigwigs in Washington speaks volumes.
However, I’m an Obama girl since I heard him speak at the 2004 Democratic Convention–this is the first year I have EVER given money to a presidential campaign, the first year since 1984 that I haven’t felt that I was choosing the lesser of two evils, and dang, now you can figure out how old I am.
But acme, Obama openly supports partial-term abortion! He’s not a safe vote, not at all.
Whoops, I meant partial BIRTH.
Normal,
Well said! I was thinking the same thing about all the fathers who are in politics who have young children. Why don’t we hear gnashing over that?
I just went to the McCain/Palin rally just minutes from where I live in MO. It was FANTASTIC! I am also THRILLED about Palin.
Richard,
I totally agree with you about her making lunchmeat out of Biden in any debate (in spite of what the Patriarchs Wives are saying).
Cally,
It was Jenny Chancey who said that Palin is now McCain’s “helpmate”. God help us all.
Did anybody catch Rick Warren’s q and a with Obama and McCain? It was supposed to be with them together, but Obama refused to do that, so Warren interviewed Obama first, and McCain second, asking them identical questions.
IMO, McCain won hands down. Obama stammers, hedged, and oftentimes said lots of words that meant nothing, and McCain was much more quick and to the point and you know where he stood — which was to appoint judges that would uphold the Constitution, pro-life committed to fighting terrorism, and more.
But what struck me the most was McCain recounting the time as a POW when he was offered release and refused it, and was sent back to his cell. It wasn’t the Stockholm Syndrome, though.
He refused his release because he knew strings had been pulled for him by his father to get out ahead of a POW who was scheduled for release before him, who was still there, for he had been there longer.
It takes tremendous integrity and courage to do the right thing when you are sick and are periodically tortured for information by your captors, but do that he did.
The combination of seeing McCain answer Warren’s questions, and his choice of VP have made me more confident to cast my ballot for him this November.
And what in the world is Ron Paul doing having his own convention?
http://buriedtreasurebooks.com/weblog/?p=2481
Really, why does she beat around the bush about her real feelings?
“Third, I have heard so many parrot the Deborah argument that I am inclined to pick Deborah as my least favorite biblical personality, though I can’t quite bring myself to do that (I do, however, prefer Jael, who stayed at home and used her warm milk strategy to defeat the great General Sisera). I do agree that Deborah was a great woman of God, but she is in no way a role model for Christian women everywhere to claw their way to the top, though discontented Christian women in this feminist climate want to claim her as their patron saint.”
Go and read the whole article on Sarah Palin.
Christian women are using Deborah in order to “claw their way to the top”? And women who refer to Deborah are “discontented”?
I wonder if she has heard of “poisoning the well” or “loaded rhetoric”?
Why is it when a woman is successful, some like to accuse her of “clawing” her way there?
Clawing one’s way to the top is not a female thing. After all, there are male cats, too.
I could just as well say that many of these males in the patrio circles have clawed their way to the top and I would be much more correct than what she has stated.
OK, this is going to be one unpopular statement . . .
Palin has been put in just because she will get the reaction that she’s got from you guys – finally someone we can vote for who’s a Christian and a female and not tainted by association with Bush and his insane war mongering.
She’s a – not stalking horse, that’s not the right word – a decoy, a red herring, a deliberate choice to remove female support from Obama. She’s a deceitful choice designed simply to win. You think she’ll be allowed influence – I doubt it!
People who vote for her are asking for more of the same that they’ve had from Bush – war mongering, no commitment to the environment or global issues, the sub-prime mortgage crisis, unemployment, rising gas prices, a government that only supports the rich and white (think Katrina victims) . . .
It’s your election, and it’s none of my business. But people here, sitting with an angry Russia on the geographical doorstep, a Russia worried that it will be the next country to be ‘invaded’ for oil on the pretext that its government is undesirable, a Russia inflamed by statements from your government about its conduct of matters that are Russia’s concern not America’s – thinking people here, by and large, want Obama to succeed.
I do not think you can imagine the detestation and contempt in which Bush and his government are held here and in Europe, (nor, it is fair to add the detestation and contempt many of us here have for our own Blair/Brown government for so slavishly following your lead against massive public protest in our country against the Iraq War) nor, I think can you imagine the damage that has been done to our perception of your society. Far from looking up to you as the guardians of liberty, as some of the more patriocentric websites seem to think, Iraq, Kyoto, Guantanamo Bay, rendition, and all the militaristic posturing that we get, your gun culture that is infecting us, your sub-prime mortgage crisis which is affecting our economy, and your cultural imperialism that infects the world, make reverence for America as the land of the brave and the free a vanishingly rare commodity here and now . . .
I’m sorry.
We have faults issues and problems too. But sometimes you seem so – parochial, so insular in your views. And so naive. Yes, abortion is a critical issue. Child murder is a national, international world disgrace. But so is judicial murder, the death penalty, drive-by shootings, unbridled consumerism, torture in Guantanamo . . . so is racism which is still endemic in the USA, so is the fact that your poor can’t afford medical treatment . . . so is world degradation of habitat and the increasing problem of global warming.
We’re no better. But how, how can you be suckered into voting for McCain simply because he’s dressed up his campaign with a pretty woman? It’s top-dressing – what you get is more of the same old beans.
I apologise in advance for offending you by plain speaking. I don’t like MY government either – but fortunately my government has little influence in the world. Yours does. Do you really not understand the seriousness of the Russia issue? Or global warming?
Written in despair and almost reluctantly, because I like you guys and I hate to criticise – but in no anger . . . Please – think about it.
Lynn – I missed the Rick Warren interviews the first time around, but Fox News rebroadcast it I think this past Saturday. I saw the whole thing and was also very impressed with McCain’s answers. I think I had underestimated him in the past.
Obama made a few attempts at humor, which to me appeared to be very politically themed in nature, as opposed to McCains very genuine, self-deprecating humor.
I have grown in respect for McCain apart from the announcement of his running mate. But when you add Gov. Palin into the mix, there is simply no choice for me at all. I have not been excited about an election since I voted for Ronald Reagan in his first term (against Jimmy Carter – 1980). But I am very excited about this one.
Re: Ron Paul – Perhaps a few people had begun to forget what a nutcase he is and he felt the need to remind us all.
And Corrie – I’m a bit jealous that you were able to go to that rally. That must have been inspiring.
It makes my head hurt how, with this group, the “roles of women and men” seen to hold the same importance as who Jesus Christ is. And sometimes even more importance. Don’t they get tired of harping on this? (I get tired of harping against it sometimes; that’s why I don’t visit here every day.)
I don’t really discuss politics much but Jennifer hit the nail on the head for me concerning Obama. I do think that some of his policies sound good (keeping in mind that he IS still a politician so how many promises would he actually fulfill?) but him being for partial-birth abortion cancels out all of that for me. How anyone can not want to outlaw such a heinous form of abortion is beyond me.
Typical to use the cat analogy when refering to women.
What have the males been doing all these years?
They’re manly and assertive.
Jennifer, I don’t think ANY politician is a safe choice, because I cannot put my trust in as frail a vessel as another human being. Further, I am not a one-issue voter; I want to vote all of my values as a Chrisitan. The environment, the war in Iraq, poverty are all life issues.
If you’re interested in reading more, read http://www.sojo.net or read this voters guide: http://www.sojo.net/action/alerts/VOP_voter-guide.pdf
Well…After reading even MORE about Palin, and now the revelation that her 17 year old daughter is pregnant, the grace in which she is handling this is just, well….CLASSY. I can’t think of a better word on a Monday. She could be holding up the old adage that her daughter ‘shamed’ the family, etc….but instead, she’s embracing THIS baby as well, and the father! I just hope her love and grace extended in statements to the media is also extended behind closed doors. While I, as others on this blog, support abortion in the case of a mom’s life being in jeopardy, I can’t say, in good conscience that I’m still pro-choice 100% of the time.
I seriously think this year I’ll be voting Republican. And I’ve never done that, not in the 8 years since I first started being able to vote. (I didn’t vote for Kerry, if ya’ll are wondering. I wrote in Bert and Ernie that election.) And if my husband is reading this (I know you read this blog too, honey.), don’t get too excited. This isn’t a final decision.
This is not meant to be a personal attack on any of the patrios, but Jennie Chancey’s statement just shows how off base that entire camp is! I wonder how Palin’s husband would feel about a statement like that!
Corrie, Carmon seriously needs a hobby that consists of something other than judging others’ lives. Is she the sort to buckle and close down threads under pressure?
Wow. . . what a contrast in attitudes:
Obama: “Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”
Palin: “We’re proud of Bristol’s decision to have her baby and even prouder to become grandparents. . . .Bristol and the young man she will marry are going to realize very quickly the difficulties of raising a child, which is why they will have the love and support of our entire family.”
Joanna from England,
Are you a Christian? Do you know that God has commanded the death penalty for murderers, that God has actually forbidden socialism as you would have it in you country? If not, you seriously need to consider a study of the book of Deutoronomy.
Your statements seem to be completely humanist and atheist in their essence, and hence irrelevent to this discussion. Has it ever occurred to you that maybe the problems in the UK are a direct result of the socialist reforms that poeple like you have supported? This country will never be perfect, nor will any country ever succeed in surviving if it embraces the liberal agenda that people like you are so deceived into thinking true and possible. Your agenda basically takes the people into consideration, yes, but it gives the government all the power it wants in order to enforce your opinions on those people, who may not even want your way of life. Therein lies your ultimate demise. The longest lasting civilizations in the world have followed strict laws giving much freedom to those who make money and own property, which is necessary for individual self-respect and the good psyche of the nation as a whole.
So please, if you don’t like us, stay off our land, and off our politics. And if you love your ideas so much, why not move to a place like Russia, where those ideas were brought to fruition during the Cold War.
By the way, our “poor” get better and faster medical treatment than your country could ever give at this point. You are so decieved. You really need to start listening to some different news.
————————————————————————
Johanna from England – I agree with one of the statements in your overly long intrusion into the politics of a nation you are not part of: It’s your election, and it’s none of my business.
I, for one, am not looking for a change from Bush’s war-mongering. And if McCain had chosen someone who was not calculated to draw in more votes, he would be a very bad candidate indeed. That is the political system – like it or not.
I am excited by Gov. Palin’s addition to the Republican ticket because from what I have seen of her so far she has integrity, she takes the proper stand on all of the issues that matter to me, and she is intelligent and well-spoken. I agree that she is attractive, but that has zero importance in the election process for most Republicans. Now, on the Democrat side looks is of vital importance – but my impression of the Replubicans is that they tend to be much more drivien by credentials than by looks.
Johanna – When Tony Blair and George Bush joined forces to defeat evil in the world there were different responses. England, as a whole, chose the direction that such notables as Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher had warned against – total and complete capitulation to those who hate Western Civilization and would prefer to wipe us all off the map. I am hoping that the U.S. will chose the other direction, whether or not it is popular with those who do not live within the sovereign borders of the U.S.
Emily, I don’t have time to respond to your entire comment at the moment, but I wanted to state that, in my experience, this statement is patently false. As an American who, at one time, benefited from Britain’s socialized medicine, I was able to see three doctors very easily over the span of two days in no time at all. In contrast, I spent 3.5 hours in a county hospital emergency room waiting to see a doctor while my son was writhing in pain and, in the end, never got to see one because it was taking so long and my son was improving. Have you ever waited in a county emergency room where people who don’t even have insurance and are inelligble for it due to their immigration status are taken before you?
The reason socialized medicine won’t work here is due to our huge population, but it does work in other countries and I think its a good thing. The job that I just started offers health insurance that only covers me. It would cost us over $700 a month to insure my husband and my children. Imagine if you had a whole quiverfull of children!
“What is it exactly that the VP does everyday?”
- Sarah Palin
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RN5xbWtNSU&feature=bz302
America is dead. The dream is dead. I’m taking my toys and moving to Mars.
Joanna-from-England, thank you for providing your input–and we definitely need to hear from the rest of the world, especially from our allies. This is why i have the BBC on my news bookmarks so that I can get a little distance from the inhouse perspectives.
Emily, your response is classic.
Cally – If you check your insurance coverage carefully, I think you’ll find that after the large expense of adding a spouse, children tend to be a relatively small increase. And usually one child or 347 children cost the same addition – as it is simply a switch to a family account instead of a sigle or primary plus spouse policy.
I may be wrong, but that is how it has worked in all of the employment insurance plans I have seen.
Folks, as a Brit proudly looking forward to becoming a naturalised American citizen, might I try to bridge the gap in the last few comments?
I think that Joanna’s comments are always insightful and gracious, and while I’m sure there are many Europeans with snooty, disdainful, and misinformed ideas of America, she certainly isn’t one of them. Can we disagree with her a bit more respectfully? She made her points very respectfully.
Richard, the fact is that the US President is the leader of the ‘Free World’. Joanna may not get a vote, but the outcome of the election is going to effect her – effect her hugely. She is entitled to her opinion on it. Contrary to what she herself said, it IS her business. Not as much as it is Americans’, but still.
The arguments for and against socialised medicine are many and varied. I will say that I’m glad my husband and I aren’t poor, when we’re in America. I will also say that the English NHS isn’t the be all and end all of socialised medicine, and by far the best health experience I’ve had was in France, where – despite the language barrier – I’d much rather be sick than anywhere else.
The socialism debate is an interesting one. By all means let’s have it. Where does the Bible suggest that access to health care and education should be based on one’s individual wealth? But let’s try to remember that we are all Christians here, and our world views are heavily influenced by the environment we grew up in (like that interesting thread we had at TW a while ago), and NONE of those environments are ANYTHING close to our HEAVENLY kingdom, and as such, are ALL very very flawed!
Heehee – I wonder when I get naturalised, will I have to start spelling it ‘naturalized’?!
Claire – No man is an island. Everything every one of us does impacts others … and, yes, the outcome of the U.S. election will impact others greatly.
On the other hand. England is a democracy. The United States is a democratic republic. The education system in both of these countries have done a very, very poor job at educating their people about the meaning of this.
The citizenry of a sovereign nation is responsible to vote in the best interests of their nation. No one else can be allowed to mess in the political affairs of that nation.
Sure – in an open discussion, those outside the U.S. are perfectly welcome to express why their nation is heading toward Sharia law, and those who are U.S. citizens are welcome to make strong comments about why we do not allow those who would willingly hand their nation over to terrorists are not allowed to vote in our elections. That’s the nature of discussion.
For some context: my sister is a missionary to Bangladesh. She has read much of the anti-American post from Asia and Europe. She laid out her reasons for thinking that those outside the U.S. should be allowed a vote in the U.S. presidential elections. I responded with my reason for pressing charges of traitorous activity against anyone who would encourage non-U.S. citizens to interfere in our national politics by means of vote.
I believe this strongly. But it is just one perspective in the ongoing discussion. I welcome all explanations of why GB has progressively lost its dominance in the world politic through capitulation to opposing forces. But I’m not likely to encourage similar action on the part of the U.S. citizens.
My strongest reaction to Joanna’s comments, though, had to do with the assumption that we all see Bush as a warmonger. We do not. Most of us do not. We don’t like war either. And George Bush does not like war either. The blatantly false depiction of our president is something that all Americans should speak against. Whether Republican, Democrat, or Independent. Whether native, naturalized, or in process. Blood is thicker than water.
I do not think you can imagine the detestation and contempt in which Bush and his government are held here and in Europe
Joanna from England, I hear you, but you don’t have to travel all the way to Europe to figure it out! I live in Canada. You need travel no further than that
As to people outside the US having the right to an opinion on this election, I live a scant two-hour drive north of the US/Canadian border. You had better believe I have an opinion! I am not likely to voice it at top volume (or online at all) but I have an opinion nevertheless, because whoever is appointed to lead America is going to have a profound impact on Canada (and the rest of the “free world” too, as Claire wisely observed). After all, whether your neighbour chooses to barbeque or burn garbage in his garden is going to affect the aroma of your home too, n’est-ce-pas?
To say those of us outside of America are watching this election very closely is putting it in the mildest of terms. I firmly believe we have ample reason to do so.
With respect, I believe that comment #25 is comparing apples and oranges.
Barak Obama is commenting on a hypothetical situation. While I do *not* believe in any way that children are a punishment, I also believe that most parents would *not* want their children to get pregnant as a consequence of disobeying the parents’ strictures against premarital sex. Whatever a parent’s own beliefs about birth control, I believe it is deeply wrong to deprive a teenaged child *accurate* information about the benefits and risks of non-abortifacent birth control – to speak out against premarital sex but leave no safety net for the child who loves God but strays, or the child who has yet to encounter God.
Sarah Palin is commenting on *actual* news she has had several months to digest – as almost mother would, she is offering her daughter support in a trying time, and welcoming new life. How do we know that Barak Obama would not do the same for his daughters, were an out-of-wedlock pregnancy to occur? He would probably have the same mixed feelings that Mrs. Palin does – sorrow for the end of his daughter’s childhood, soberness regarding the challenges facing her, but excitement about the new baby’s approach. I do find it somewhat disingenuous for Mrs. Palin and her husband to applaud their daughter for a “decision” that politically speaking, they believe should not be hers to make – that is, in their ideal world, she would *have* to keep her child.
Just to clarify, I am pro-life. I am not always sure the pro-life cause is best advanced through a blunt instrument like the law – when really, *hearts* need to be changed. But I wonder if a young girl’s feelings of fear, doubt, and apprehension – or even opposition – can’t fully be expressed or acknowledged – and therefore, *met* – because her mother has suddently become such a prominent symbol of the pro-life movement.
Sorry Claire, I somehow don’t get how our politics immediately affect Joanna. I don’t recall her saying that she’d be living here.
“As almost mother would, she is offering her daughter support in a trying time, and welcoming new life. How do we know that Barak Obama would not do the same for his daughters, were an out-of-wedlock pregnancy to occur? He would probably have the same mixed feelings that Mrs. Palin does – sorrow for the end of his daughter’s childhood, soberness regarding the challenges facing her, but excitement about the new baby’s approach”
Catherine, I don’t buy that for a second. Why would someone as rabidly pro-murder choice as Obama even for a second consider welcoming a child? The man believes in late-term abortion!! He said so himself!! What on earth could induce anyone to doubt his own word for it? Unplanned pregnancy is an inconvenience for everyone, but unlike Palin, Obama doesn’t believe there are any hindrances whatever to making a “choice” on whether to keep it. And frankly, if you were totally ignorant of the scientific facts of a fetus’s development and the emotional damage that could be done, why WOULDN’T you choose abortion over an inconvenient pregnancy? The scary thing is, Obama’s not ignorant of the facts; he knows them well.
I fully believe Obama would support his daughters..during the process of their abortions.
Re: 37
Just for clarification: the American president is seen as leader of the free world and the allies seem to follow in alongside or behind somewhat. Not always, but generally. For eg. Canada did not immediately join the Americans in the Iraqi war but did follow sometime afterward. American politics do affect those who do not live in the U.S.
There is a common saying here in Canada, that we sleep with an elephant and when she rolls over we feel it. Another saying here is, “America sneezes and Canada catches a cold. ” This applies to politics, economics, religion, culture etc. A recent economic example is the American subprime mortgage crisis which has affected two huge Canadian banks, that I’m aware of.
Our newspapers and periodicals are filled with discussion of American politics because it does affect those who do not live there.
Regarding Joanna-from-England’s original comments. My opinion is this. She points out that there are some very big issues which may profoundly impact us here in NA and Europe and GB receiving no or little mention by American politicians or press. It would be good to know what American presidential candidates think about these things, given their inherent role and influence on the world political stage.
So if patrios think that being in the VP slot makes Palin McCain’s help meet then what is Biden to Obama? Just wondering.
American politics certainly do affect other nations and their citizens.
American political leaders make policy and enact laws that affect the American economy. When the American government spends more than it brings in, it affects the world economy. One small change in interest rates, for example, has a big effect on world markets. American trade policy has a huge effect worldwide.
If you want a scary education, look into what nation holds more of the U.S. national debt than any other.
Look at the selectiveness of who the U.S. declares war on.
Look at the kind of pressure the U.S. exerts diplomatically on other nations to “support” U.S. policies.
Like it or not, a big nation like the U.S. has a great deal of effect on other nations, big and small. And I don’t mean only economically.
Whom we elect President does affect other countries. I don’t think other countries’ citizens should vote, but I’m also not naive enough to think that other nations’ interests aren’t being represented pretty powerfully in the extensive lobbying that goes on here in the U.S. Just as we affect other countries’ affairs, they affect ours.
We may rail against one world government — and for good reason, but we’re more “one world” than we sometimes are willing to admit. John Donne’s observation about “no man [being] an island” applies equally well to nations.
Oops, sorry, Richard; I didn’t catch that you’d also referred to John Donne.
I cannot explain the excitement I felt when I heard McCain’s announcement. If Hillary had won the nomination, I would have had a hard time *not* voting for her (I am completely anti-abortion). I even talked to my husband about it–”How long will it be until we have this chance again? Look at how well people had to know Hillary for them to take her seriously?!”
McCain is my *new* favorite, LOL. (BTW, Richard, Ron Paul is not a nutcase–he is a good man and he is passionate about our Constitutional rights.).
Jennie Chancey is welcome to her opinion, as are the pinpoint percentage who might agree with her. I cannot understand the obsession on this site with Jennie–a few years ago, I corresponded with her and found her to be a kind lady.
Have you all lived long enough to encounter the realization that hearing something about someone is *never* the same as hearing it from that person? I find, for myself, that I am much more gracious with people in person–I can see them as humans, and easily give them the benefit of the doubt that they are striving, as I am, to be the best person they can be.
I’d like to ask Joanna from England, who asserts that racism is still endemic in America, how many non-white Prime Ministers has England had?
Here is one Alaskan that is so excited about the VP pick. I think Palin will put new life into a stale, good ol’ boy campaign. And “Troopergate” is nothing new here. I’ve been reading about it in the newspapers for two months. The guy tried out his taser on this 11 yr old stepson to see ‘what it would feel like’ and has been reprimanded several times for using his cop power to get out of a couple jams while drunk and violent. And to Larry King, you sould like an idiot when you call our Troopers ‘sheriffs’. We have no sheriffs in Alaska. And the pregnant daughter media frenzy is just so irrelevant to me. Leave the kids alone! Accolades to Sarah for standing behind the family in tough times.
Here is Obama’s response to the press’s coverage of Palin’s daughter’s pregnancy.
“I’ve heard some of the news on this, so let me be as clear as possible. I have said before and I will repeat again: I think people’s families are off-limits. And people’s children are especially off-limits.
This shouldn’t be part of our politics. It has no relevance to Governor Palin’s performance as a governor, or her potential performance as a vice president. So, I would strongly urge people to back off these kinds of stories.
You know, my mother had me when she was 18. And how families deals with issues, and teenage children, that shouldn’t be part of our politics. And I hope that anybody supporting me understands that’s off-limits.”
Jennifer, the President is the leader of the Free World. Economically and militarily, his actions affect everyone. You’re right that many aspects of the race don’t affect Joanna, and of course no non-American has the right to vote, and Americans have a better grasp of practically all aspects of the race than non-Americans do. But the opinion of a outsider is still valuable. I don’t buy that just because England isn’t a democratic republic, the opinions of English people are null and void. It’s worthwhile to discuss politics with people with different opinions. And while I’d never say that the impact of US foreign policy abroad should be the MAIN thing people vote on, I think disregarding it makes as little sense as, say, disregarding a politician’s stance on immigration, or education. It’s up to each individual to decide what issues are most important, and all Joanna has said is, please, give this (foreign affairs) consideration, and here’s what I think.
But Richard, Joanna’s view of the President and the war in Iraq is actually more in line with most Americans. Bush has a 30% approval rating. Over 60% of people believe that the decision to go into Iraq was a mistake, and even more think that we should leave now. Of course, you have a different opinion – but you can’t fault Joanna for being out of touch – she thinks the same as most people do. And Britain IS in Iraq WITH America (a sacrifice shamefully forgotten by most of the media over here – you’d think it was an entirely unilateral move on the US’s part, listening to most discussion). So it’s not surprising Joanna has views on how it’s going.
All this talk of treachery seems terribly excessive. Joanna is just expressing her opinion in the hopes that some Americans consider it worthwhile to listen. She’s not trying to force anyone to do anything, and she doesn’t believe she’s entitled to a vote. You allow she should have an opinion – so what’s the problem with expressing it?
And finally – this has been on my mind since my previous comment – I don’t know if it’s intentional irony on your part – (if it is, touche!) but “capitulation to opposing forces” and praising the attitudes of Churchill and Maggie Thatcher?? I must say, THOSE are opinions that wouldn’t win you much support in Britain. Yes, Maggie warned against capitulating – she ‘stood up’ to Irish republicans, imprisoned them without trial, watched as they starved to death, and put the peace process back ten years. Yes, I’m so glad we resisted – it was wonderful to watch my neighbours be blown to bits in Omagh (not to mention the other acts of violence and terror on BOTH sides of the community). Stupid, stupid Tony Blair, capitulating and making ‘peace’ so that people could live their lives and Belfast become normal again.
The view of Churchill as a ‘Great Briton’ is sadly well-cemented. But personally I do not think that a political career spent railing at anything and everything, even if you are lucky (and it was luck, it certainly wasn’t sympathy with the Jewish plight or even a dislike of Hitler) for six months, excuses using the army to break up strikes, opposing women’s suffrage, approving the use of poisonous gases on “uncivilised tribes” and saying that Native Americans and Aborigines should be grateful a “superior race” had come to replace them. Oh, and he planned to let Ghandi die on hunger strike. Because those savages couldn’t possibly govern themselves. Again – what a wonderful attitude to non-Western societies. Just what we need to be adopting at the moment, I don’t think.
Britain’s dominance was founded on colonies that stretched across the world. Surely you can’t say that we were wrong to let them go? You’re right, Churchill wouldn’t have. But that was because he was a racist old coot. Should we have clung on to India? We’d be many times more powerful. But, you know, it would have been wrong.
Anyway, if it was irony, as I said, touche
My question is since they don’t vote for themselves (Jennie Chancey has stated publicly that Matt votes for the household) why are they blogging about it? If they truly believe that husbands/fathers are the only ones who vote then why are Mrs. Chancey etc seemingly trying to influence the vote? Just my thought. BTW I support McCain/Palin.
I can understand your viewpoint, Jennifer.
It is like someone from an alcoholic family attempting to directly influence another family with their dysfunctional values.
No one has argued that when a nation makes a decision, that it does not impact other nations … that would be foolish and purile to say the least.
England, France, Germany, et al, have made some pretty foolish decisions that have had a direct impact on the USA (e.g., French & Indian War, WWI, WWII, Viet Nam, etc.).
I find it to be the height of hypocrisy when citizens from other countries presume on the culture of the United States and begin to employ emotional abuse (name calling, false depictions, insults, etc.) at us.
I have YET to see a European take responsibility for their behavior and how that has had an impact on the USA. Yet, Americans are to take their abuse and do what they say cuz they have got it all together?
Oh yeah … right …
If they want to come to the USA and become citizens … great. In the meantime, they need to curb their arrogant behavior.
This nonsense needs to stop.
Generally, I immediately respond to such a person in one of two ways …
• turn that person off & totally ignore them and respond immediately like RichardD … Johanna from England – I agree with one of the statements in your overly long intrusion into the politics of a nation you are not part of: It’s your election, and it’s none of my business.
or
• take the opposite (e.g., you people are warmongers … golly gee, I didn’t know I was a war monger, but since you are from Europe and another country, I guess you are right & I am wrong … so, yup, I wanna cause grief and havoc everywhere … isn’t that amazing, you don’t know me and presume my motives and stance on issues? … it’s kinda psychic really! … so I guess you are right! NOT!)
Why should this kind of nonsense stop?
Simply because those hurling these statements are insulting and rude. As family members begin to attend abuse classes for physical/sexual/emotional/spiritual abuse, they begin to learn that hurling insults is not a way to endear themselves to others.
In like manner, those that hurl insults & assign all kinds of abusive rhetoric need to recognize that healthy folks will tend to respond to this nonsense in one of the two ways listed above.
[One who has been burned shakes head and walks away in disgust)
Joanna, I am not going to defend my country to you. But I am a bit surprised that you think America has so much power over Europe. I mean, think of the Euro. It is killing the dollar.
)
But, lets step back for a moment and look at this from a Biblical point of view. The world is passing away. It is going to be burned up when the Lord comes back. If you read history, it is the same stuff over and over just the players change and the weapons are more destructive. There is nothing new.
In the long view, who ever wins will make no major difference. What will make a difference is how the Body of Christ all over the world stores up treasures in heaven. That is where we will be spending all of our time.
Joanna-
I wish Bush would have taken a different approach regarding how to defeat an enemy who is committed to the destruction of Western Civilization, but he had to make some very hard decisions after we were attacked. I believe he should have done much more and in a much more direct way.
I for one take people at their word if they say their goal is to destroy America, I believe them.
How do you defeat terrorism?
You dramatically decrease the number of terrorists that exist on the face of the earth.
This is a world war that will be waged for many years to come.
When the next Hitler has your country at the end of its rope, we will come and save you again and we will probably even consider helping France.
I am a first generation American born in the US to Canadian parents of Scottish descent who remember their history and how the British forced some of the Scottish Highlanders to immigrate to Canada ( BTW: that is how the area named Nova Scotia received its name) after taking theier wives and their lands away from them during the time of ethnic cleansing.
So you can take a hard look at your own country’s history while you are bashing mine.
BTW, I love traveling and visiting with people in the UK they are much warmer and cordial in person.
All of my extended family on my parent’s side still live in Canada and all I can say about Canada is wow how things have changed and not for the good.
I was visiting my Mother-in Law in Sweden when Bush won his second term and you should have seen the shock of the Swedish people.
I have witnessed first hand the one sided propaganda on both Swedish and British TV it is truly amazing.
I say get ready to be shocked again!
BurnedOne – thanks. That was very eloquently put and, I believe, quite true. My response, which was admittedly a bit overboard, was more a response to false assertions, false accusations, and what seems to be a lack of understanding of the U.S. political process. I’ll try to tone it down a bit. However, the best way a non-U.S. citizen can get involved in the world of U.S. politics is to pray for the U.S. electorate and to pray for the person who is eventually chosen to lead this great nation. God is able to change the course of rivers and to change the course of the king’s heart, so the best bet would be to go into your prayer closet and pray that God’s will be done.
And Lin – You too, were very eloquent and quite accurate in what you wrote. I do think our election is very important to us and we should be involved in the political process. But it is not the ultimate thing.
A song from the Imperials said:
It’s not Conservative or Liberal, however they’re defined – It’s not about interpretations or judgments of the mind – It’s the opposite of politics, power, and prestige – It’s about a simple message, and whether we believe
It’s still the cross, it’s still the blood of Calavary
That cleanses sin and sets the captives free
It’s still the name, the name of Jesus
That has the power to save the lost
It’s still the cross.
oh … for the record … I forgot to say that I think Palin is inspiring! I am THRILLED that she was the one decided upon for vice president. She is an absolutely BRILLIANT choice!
prior to this … my family of procreation were all thinking about voting for Obama … now, my family of procreation will be volunteering to go out to help Palin win this November!
by the by, I have a question … if Palin is a so-called “help-meet” to McCain … what does that make Biden? does that make Biden?
Folks, as in my previous comment, I will freely admit that Britain has tremendous flaws and there are many things America does much better than Britain. Our history in the world has in many ways been absolutely shameful. Indeed, there have been no non-white Prime Ministers (although the non-white population of Britain is both much smaller and more recently arrived than in the US), and though we have had a female Prime Minister, as I said above, in many ways she was a disgrace, and I wouldn’t use her to say we were any more pro-female than many other countries.
Basically, I completely agree with Lin’s very wise words above. The fact is that none of our governments on earth can come CLOSE to what the Heavenly Kingdom will be like. We can strive for the best, but we must never forget that our human systems are ALL very flawed.
And now I’ll back out of this discussion
Emily-
Do you really want to live under the law of Dueteronomy?
Under such laws Sarah Palins daughter might be put to death right along with a murderer.
You might be banished or put to death for eating bacon…
And where does the Bible say “Socialism” is cursed? Last time I read Revelation-the whore of Babylon is depicted as a city of merchants and business.
I’m shocked that a site opposing Patriarchy can’t see that a return to Dueteronomy is exactly the same justification for the Patriarchy crowd…honestly…I’m scratching my head…
Peace-MM
Debra,
I think Obama’s response to the news about Palin’s daughter is right on. Thanks for posting it.
I think sometimes christians forget that we are not to hold the world to the standards that God has given to his people.
Joanna-from-England: “People who vote for her are asking for more of the same that they’ve had from Bush – war mongering, no commitment to the environment or global issues, the sub-prime mortgage crisis, unemployment, rising gas prices, a government that only supports the rich and white (think Katrina victims) . . .”
First of all, Joanna, for the record. I want our troops pulled out of Iraq, but not because I think Bush is a warmonger.
In WWII, after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor and we retaliated with Nuclear, we turned and helped Japan rebuild their country. Japan appreciated and has been a friend ever since.
We Americans have made a mistake. We assumed that Iraq would respond like Japan.
We were wrong.
Iraw was not ready for our kind of help. And probably still isn’t. (Could go on and on about why I think such differences exist. But this is already going to be way too long.)
We live in a different world than during WWII
So I agree. I don’t like the war.
But for the record, before our country moved into war most to all of the liberal democrats were in favor including Hillary Clinton. I have no doubt that Obama would have been if he had been around.
I am HIGHLY offended at your term warmongering.
I will concede that we should not be there now However we are kind of stuck. But the term warmongering is clearly over the top. It is way past reasonable.
And the fact that you think that our government only supports the rich proves one thing to me.
You listen to lies and want to believe them.
I work in social services and we are constantly helping the poor. We have poured more money into helping the poor that you would ever know. If I had half the money the government spent on some of these poor children and divided it four ways between my children, I’d be thrilled.
As far as Katrina is concerned, you need to get a clue.
During the winter that followed, Colorado, Wyoming, and several other states experienced a once in a hundred year snow storm. Cattle died because they couldn’t get food to them. Power was out for weeks. Air ports were shut down and you couldn’t drive one city block to get anywhere.
But instead of raping and looting like some of your saintified Katrina victims, the locals helped each other in order to survive the bitter cold. They went out into sub zero temperatures to pull people from stranded vehicles and gave them a place to stay until the worst was over.
And I promise you, Katrina victims have gotten tons more help and are still getting more help than the snowstorm victims and more recent flood victims will ever, ever see.
Just because they were the noisy wheel that squeaked the loudest and were never satisfied doesn’t mean they didn’t get help.
So before you go around accusing Bush of this or that or some other thing, you better get your facts straight because they are screwed up royal.
There is an Anti-Bush media that is not giving you the whole story.
I’m sorry you’ve been suckered into their web of lies and half-truths. But there’s not a lot I can do about it.
(I would address global issues, mortgage crisis etc, but I’ve simply run out of time and this is far too long to keep anyone truely interest.)
Where do I start?
This is a blog/website on which I believed discussion was a possibility. If it is not acceptable for an outsider to make comments about your politics, then I apologise. But I thought it was a place where I could make comments and have them discussed. Yes, I used strong language. Politics is an emotive subject, and I agree totally with the lady who commented from Canada that when America sneezes – we all catch a cold. Your government is the most important and influential one in the free world. That being so, do you expect people not to comment or have opinions?
Richard, I accept that what I say was unpleasant to hear, but I would not respond to anyone who discussed/criticised British politics in the way that I have been responded to here. British politics are equally at fault in many areas; Britain has a long history of oppression – we invented the concentration camp in the Boer war, you only have to look at the shocking photographs to realise where Hitler got the idea from. We have made many mistakes too. Also. I do have friends in the army, air force and navy here and honour their sacrifices even as I deplore the situation that renders it necessary.
The essence of free speech is the freedom to make comments that are controversial and to discuss them. However I accept that this is perhaps not the forum: equally I will repeat that to expect your government not to be the subject of comment given your importance and power is at best naive and at worst disingenuous.
I apologise to those people who think I don’t like you – I do, and have worked with many delightful Americans. I do not propose to dignify Emily’s drive-by with any other comment than to say that only God knows what is in my heart, and he will judge me. I agree with Lin to an extent – how we conduct ourselves during the end times is going to make a difference. But since no man is an island, and the actions of all affect all, I do feel that all should be able to comment about actions that do affect all. To continue the quote from John Donne – ‘therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee.’
Moderators, I believe you have my email. At your discretion, please release it to anyone who requests it to continue this discussion, which I am happy to carry on in a civilised fashion off the board here. If you wish me to make any other statement here, please ask me to.
Tia,
Excellent point! Yes, why is Jennie Chancey blogging about Palin/McCain if she doesn’t vote? I believe it is about time that the patriocentric women start actually behaving according to their own prescribed doctrine. They need to not be concerned about the things that only concern men and the elections only concerning the patrio-menfolk. They can go back to their needles and thread and discussing how to love their husbands and children and leave all the election pontificating to the men because that belongs to the realm of men.
Katherine,
Obsession?
Also, we have made our remarks based solely on what Jennie Chancey has stated not on what we have heard she stated to someone else. Anyone can go to her site and read what she has to say for herself.
No one said anything about her being unkind, did they? We are speaking about what she teaches and that is what we are examining.
Joanna from England,
In reference to #18 (and I have not yet read any other comments past #18):
I agree completely with what you say.
If Palin were running as the presidential candidate, then I would vote for her. But I cannot vote for McCain, even while Palin is so appealing. And I do find her to be so. I don’t think that there’s anything that could cause me to find Palin more appealing, as she just couldn’t be a better candidate, from what I’ve seen. I would vote for her this instant.
One of the only other things about McCain that I like is that the Democrats report in multiple places that McCain has always voted for pro-life supreme court justices (Roberts, Alito, Bork, in what I’ve read specifically). On Vision Forum’s blog, Phillips quotes the Constitution Party candidate who claims that McCain has voted for liberal, pro-death judges ???? Who here is not telling the truth and why? Without looking at the actual voting record of McCain directly, it sounds like if you are a single issue pro-life voter, McCain’s your man. Again, this is about the only good thing that the man has going for him, IMO.
Here’s one of the more significant problems that I have with McCain that have nothing to do with reasons some of these other reportedly Christian evangelicals and patriocentrists:
We have one precious document that provides our government with freedom and defines who we are as a people — our Constitution. McCain has said that for clean government, he is willing to get rid of the First Amendment Rights that provide our freedoms to us. In the context of discussing The Patriot Act, he did not say that he thought that there should be a new Amendment or a Resolution or another measure to provide for “clean Government.” His solution was to glibly do away with the First amendment that states that provides for freedom. He would do away with the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause — two of the the primary factors which makes us uniquely American as provided for in the First Amendment.
“I work in Washington and I know that money corrupts. And I and a lot of other people were trying to stop that corruption. Obviously, from what we’ve been seeing lately, we didn’t complete the job. But I would rather have a clean government than one where quote First Amendment rights are being respected that has become corrupt. If I had my choice, I’d rather have the clean government.”
The end justifies the means for McCain in this respect (and this would do away with the means that provides for the end). Who else do we know that operates as though the “end justifies the means”?
A vote for McCain may be a vote against Obama, but a vote for Palin is still a vote for McCain.
In the “Fisher King” film, Jeff Bridges’ character hangs a pine tree air freshener around the neck of Robin Williams (who plays a street person in great need of a bath). McCain can drape Palin around his neck in just the same way so that he smells more sweet to conservatives, but he still smells like “anti-First Amendment” to me.
I may write my father’s name in on the ballot in November, or perhaps the name of my cat. I can’t vote for someone whose heart does not sing for the First Amendment.
Ah. He voted for Ginsberg and Breyer.
But he also voted for Bork, Alito, Thomas and Roberts.
So, does he just vote in favor of any judge that’s nominated?
Was that last post too tough or inappropriate to get through? Just curious.
“I find it to be the height of hypocrisy when citizens from other countries presume on the culture of the United States and begin to employ emotional abuse (name calling, false depictions, insults, etc.) at us.”
To be honest, BurnedOne, I find it the height of hypocrisy to begin a post containing these words by comparing Joanna to an alcoholic. Joanna never called Americans, as a whole, warmongers. And in her post she said MANY times that Britain wasn’t perfect and was in many ways worse than the US.
I don’t understand why she should be responded to so rudely. She wasn’t in the least ‘abusive’. Maybe you have dealt with rude and obnoxious Britons before, but that is no reason to assume all Brits are like that. Lord knows, I’ve met enough obnoxious people on both sides of the pond to know neither nation has a monopoly on rudeness!
I completely agree with what you said about the VP being helpmeets though! What about Biden indeed!
Joanna-in-England,
I’ve had the same thought, that she could just be a tactic, which is always a possibility. However, I seriously think that with the serious introduction of the idea of a woman in the White House (in an office other than the First Lady) that Hillary made more comfortable to the average American, that it just happened to be the right time to bring out what has been called the “Republican’s rising star”.
As for Palin getting women’s votes simply because she’s a woman, I’m beginning to think it’s actually going to cost her many women’s votes. Her approval rating with women is at 36%. Politics aside, I think this is why: She knowingly gave birth to a Down Syndrome child, and with the amount of women who have had abortions in this country for less reasons, they feel indicted. Even for those that haven’t had abortions and aren’t totally pro-choice might feel a little this woman who has shown them up in a situation where they might not have had that much courage. It’s just theory, though.
Tulipgirl,
Is that a straight Obama quote? If so, he’s more tactless than I thought.
Rightly or wrongly, I am rather getting the impression that I am the lone person here that thinks the USA should be over in Iraq & Afghanistan. If I had my way, we would also be in Iran.
Frankly, I am sick & tired of terrorists.
We have the ability to take them on and I think we should.
I saw what the terrorists did when I was a kid during the 1968 Olympics. I saw what these beasts did when they threw a sick old man in a wheel chair over the side of a ship. I saw what they did to our soldiers in Lebanon. I witnessed their many acts of brutality and cruelty.
I’m sick of it.
Yes … I have gone to the military to sign up … at present, I am too old; however, if you give me a gun, I would be more than willing to shoot it at my enemies and the enemies of my country … any time, any place, any where … nor would I feel guilty or allow anyone to try to intimidate me into feeling guilty or ashamed of my country, my president, and my land.
I truly wished we had a president like Teddy Roosevelt of “speak softly & carry a big stick” fame. Why? He held that if one American was hurt, we all were and we were to go PROTECT them! What a novel thought! which I wish Americans & Europeans held to.
So, I grew up watching the terrorists get away with more and more and more. I’m sick of it. As a parent, I absolutely NEVER allowed my children to get away with terroristic type behaviors at all.
Joanna-from-England … I was and remain offended at you verbally attacking MY president. I was and remain offended at you saying my system of government is unjust.
By making these types of emotionally abusive comments does not endear one’s self to others and THEN to say that you will discuss things with others in a civil manner?????
That is just out and out twisted thinking AND abusive!
Previously, I was more than willing to discuss this subject with you, but I am no longer willing to do so.
Why?
You obviously think being rude, making uncalled for attacks, and then playing the martyr is okay to do when discussing politics. You excuse your behavior by saying political discussions are emotive. Again, you took no responsibility for your behavior or language. I pray you will learn how to do so.
[Again, One Who Has Been Burned walks away in disgust]
oh … I forgot to say …
RichardD … I do not think your statements were overboard in the least
Johanna – you said: This is a blog/website on which I believed discussion was a possibility. If it is not acceptable for an outsider to make comments about your politics, then I apologise. But I thought it was a place where I could make comments and have them discussed.
I believe that is what has happened here. You commented, and we discussed. You apparently don’t like the direction of the discussion any more than we like your anti-American/anti-Bush statements. We’ve each discussed this. That is the purpose of this forum and as you’ve said, politics is emotive.
My objections to your initial comment were strong because you said essentially nothing that was true. Your assumptions were wrong. Your accusations were false. Your recommendations were, in my opinion, very wrong-headed. And much of what you said I have heard from the myriad agenda driven (read lying) media sources.
In a general public discussion, making false accusations against the leader of a group you do not belong to is likely to result in strong responses, whether the respondents agree with you or not. It’s the blood-is-thicker-than-water concept. United we stand, divided we fall. So when under attack, we unite.
For the record: Gallup Poll says that more than 80% of Republicans give George Bush a favorable rating. That is far removed from the widely reported favorable rating that hovers in the mid 30s. But that is because this is talking about Republicans, which is the group that you described as somewhat imcompetent because we are falling for Governor Palin.
I would not be one of those people who give George Bush a favorable rating. I don’t think he’s done a great job and I had to hold my nose while I voted for him (twice) just as I held my nose when I voted for his father. But, George Bush is not a warmonger. He hates war just as much as anybody. And that is why he chose to protect US citizens from war. Yes, that has a negative impact on those who live outside of our borders. Sorry about that. But when it comes to protecting your own house, you have to protect your own house. If that means your neighbor gets shot, oh well. You put a flower on the grave and hope that the next neighbor has the sense to stand up for evil before you have to.
Dawn – what in the Bible makes you think we are not to hold the world to God’s standards? Everyone is to meet God’s standard or else they end up in hell. It would be very unloving indeed if we did not proclaim that fact to the world.
That doesn’t mean that we should force people to believe in Christ at the end of a sword, but to tell them that they are required to live to God’s standard is the essence of evangelism.
Mara R.–Word.
“all I can say about Canada is wow how things have changed and not for the good.”
Thankyou, Pierre Elliot Trudeau.
Would fixation be a better word than obsession?
I haven’t read her latest book, but I know that the title of this blog, White Washed Feminists, is in response to it.
I haven’t seen where anyone (of the WWF’s here) agrees with any of her opinions, so why the fixation? It seems people are waiting, with bated breath, for her next article so that they can talk about how *wrong* she is.
“Also, we have made our remarks based solely on what Jennie Chancey has stated not on what we have heard she stated to someone else.”
Right–what she has stated *about* herself.
“I haven’t read her latest book, but I know that the title of this blog, White Washed Feminists, is in response to it.”
It’s a response to her own judgement and obsession with women who dare disagree in the body of Christ. Quite fixated, that woman is, if she needs to make a whole judgemental nickname for them.
OWHBB,
referring to your comment #66.
I do think we need to be fighting terrorism.
I just don’t think the present tactics are the most effective. They come from a previous era.
I feel we are speading ourselves too thin over there. I want a strong military, not one depleted by playing wop-a-mole with a bunch of cowards.
No, I have no suggestions on how to do it different. And until I do, I can make none.
I want our troops out because I don’t want to waste anymore American (or Brit or Aussie) lives on these countries that cannot, as a whole, comprehend freedom.
But I see no way out yet.
Withdrawing, at this point, looks like it would just leave those countries to explode or implode or something because freedom is simply not possible.
I don’t know.
I’m not making sense.
Just letting you know, I agree that terrorism must not be allowed to go unchecked.
But I question our present tactics and Iraq’s ability to govern itself without a tyrant keeping order.
Perhaps I’m hoping in a false hope, believing that there must be a better way when no such way exists.
One Who Has Been Burned,
You are not the only one here who thinks we need to be over there.
I hate war, I hate what is going on over there, I hate that I’ve watched friend’s husbands come home after three tours in Iraq with shrapnel in hands and knees and back and have the injuries virtually eliminate the dreams of what they want to do in life and have to start from scratch to refocus their life. I hate it.
But for all that, they would do it all over again, because they know that they would rather it be them over there than the Jihadist’s coming over here and blowing their little girls up.
Maybe this wasn’t the right tactic, but being as how we don’t and won’t ever have all the info that those who had to make that call had, we’ll never know for sure. But nearly every soldier who has been or is over there will tell you that they want the job done right. Let’s now waste what they worked hard for.
Thank you for posting my further comment. I appreciate those who have responded.
Richard, I don’t have a problem with the comments that were made insofar as they were comments questioning my stance or disagreeing with what I said. Disagree with me all you like – I am only deterred from arguing by a feeling that the moderators may prefer this discussion to take place somewhere else, which is why I offered my email. Again, I repeat, free discussion is the mark of a civilised society. If I were not prepared to be disagreed with I would not make statements that I understand are likely to be unpopular. I have no inclination now to run and hide, I am happy to discuss or not to discuss this issue as the moderators of the blog see fit: equally I am happy to speak to people who disagree with me by email if that is what the moderators prefer, in order to avoid offence to people who are not happy to have this blog discuss this issue.
However, this group, as a group, holds a mirror up to patriocentricity and asks it to be accountable for the statements that have been made by its members and leaders. Being a Berean requires this.
Bereans also question, surely, any system, government, or organisation that arrogates to itself authority, because by virtue of it claiming authority it also lays itself open to critique and discussion. Also, there is no law that says one has to be inside the system to critique it. You (plural – all here) critique patriocentricity from outside it and inside it. I have offered a Berean criticism of your government, and a statement, which at least one of you agrees with, that Palin may be a purely tactical appointment.
You and anyone else can be at liberty to assume that I am an ignorant outsider motivated by a love of terrorists and hatred of freedom, but an automatic ‘this woman hates America because she has dared to hold a view that does not support us 100%’ reaction is not constructive, not the attitude of a Berean, nor does it further the discussion that is proper between thinking adults.
Patriotism is admirable: but I cannot respect blind patriotism. ‘My country, right or wrong’ has led to wars and injustices, deaths and disasters beyond count.
As for me, I accept that my understanding may be flawed, but at least give me credit for wide reading and discussion and a sound knowledge of history – both mine and yours – without which I would not have spoken: it would indeed be ignorant and bigoted of me to speak without having done any study.
Mara – in the 1980s under Saddam Hussein, who was a tyrant, Iraq was not free. But equally it was not a breeding ground for fanatical Muslim anti-American terrorism. Quite singularly among the Gulf states it was a secular-to-moderately Muslim country where women could work if they needed to, drive cars freely, not wear the veil, choose to see a female doctor because there were female doctors, educate their children as they wished – under the rule of a tyrant who punished dissent with death. Saddam’s mistake was invading Kuwait – Kuwait, not America – because it was small, vulnerable, oil-rich and there.
America, and Britain intervened, for reasons that may or may not have been driven by self interest. There was a war. It was pursued to the borders of Iraq, but not across them, and the status quo was restored, with a sovereign (and corrupt) royal family in Kuwait, and Iraq licking its wounds under sanctions as punitive as those set upon Germany at the Treaty of Versailles that ended the 1914-1918 war, and led to the German recession that allowed the rise of National Socialism and the atrocities of Hitler. Iraq was broken, defeated, impoverished and its children began to starve. It still, however, remained a secular society, not a fanatically Muslim one. The ruling Muslims were Sunni, not Shia and not the fanatical Wahabist sect bred in Saudi Arabia.
America was attacked by Saudi-bred, Afghan trained terrorists. In revenge for this atrocity war was started in Afghanistan – a war into which we followed you out of affection, a historical bond and loyalty. Our people, including parents of children I have taught, are dying there yet. No other country has given America the support it has asked for in Afghanistan, no other country has put so much financial support in in terms of the troops and armaments we have committed. (Neither has any other country done so in Iraq.) Thus my economy, as well as my politics, is directly impacted.
The Afghan ‘war against terrorism’ was then extended, on grounds which we, the English, later discovered to be lies – yes, we were lied to by our government, in the interests of following you – into Iraq, which, although impoverished and under a tyrant was STILL a secular society led by Sunni, not Shia Muslims.
That war, as wars do, destabilised the political status quo in Iraq, and as with the biblical analogy of the man from whom one devil was cast out and into whom seven devils then entered, the secular Sunnis being overthrown allowed the fanatical Shias and Wahabists to gain power; consequently Iraq is no longer a secular society but religious faction controlled, and, because of their perceived sense of injustice over what they now consider an American ‘invasion’, it is now a breeding ground for terrorism far more virulent than that which led to the fall of the Twin Towers.
Under these circumstances, and given that I personally was involved in the situation leading up to Desert Shield in 1990 and 1991, it would be strange if I did not want a) to be a responsible citizen by considering the global impact of the war in Iraq and the political issues it puts into play for me, and b) to consider how this political situation is likely to impact on my future. Nor is it surprising, given the history of the situation that I should feel that what you do in your country affects what I do in mine.
Under these circumstances, while I accept that I may not be as aware of the minutiae of your election as you are, it is surely reasonable that I as well as every other thinking knowledgeable adult on the planet, should be concerned about its outcome.
Again, moderators, I defer to your judgement in posting this: if you would like to post it, allow people to reply and then not have me reply to any further comments in order for the thread to return to another topic, you need only say so. I apologise again to those whom my language offended – detestation and contempt, parochial, insular, and warmongering are strong terms. However, disliking or taking offence at the terms I used, will not alter the fact that there are people who feel that those terms are appropriate.
That this is regrettable and painful does not make it any less true, as the fact that the UK could be described as small-minded, celebrity-obsessed, shabbily dirty, suffering from short-termism in politics, riven by faction fighting, way down the educational league tables, morally bankrupt . . . need I continue . . is also true, regrettable, painful to hear, and even more painful for me to say, because like you I love, but not blindly, my country, and would love to see it a shining light for the world.
thank you Mara R. … I realize I have a very STRONG reaction to terrorism … and … I am more than willing to put my money where my mouth is … this terroristic crap has GOT to stop NOW!
“Johanna – you said: This is a blog/website on which I believed discussion was a possibility. If it is not acceptable for an outsider to make comments about your politics, then I apologise. But I thought it was a place where I could make comments and have them discussed.
I believe that is what has happened here. You commented, and we discussed. You apparently don’t like the direction of the discussion any more than we like your anti-American/anti-Bush statements. We’ve each discussed this. That is the purpose of this forum and as you’ve said, politics is emotive. ”
Honestly. . . I thought it was a bit harsher than “we discussed.” While I take issue with some of your observations Joanna, I was really taken aback by how strident the responses were. . .
I’ve lived in Europe as well. And the view of the US where we lived was very mixed. A good portion was based on false impressions and selective reporting. On the other hand, impressions are all that many people have to go on. . . and I think it is good to hear what people in Europe perceive about the US and think. As Joanna rightly pointed out, the US has been placed in many situations in a leadership role.
That said, I believe that McCain/Palin will do a much better job of ending the wars WELL, and not simply withdrawing and leaving Iraq and Afghanistan in chaos.
Richard,
For the record: Gallup Poll says that more than 80% of Republicans give George Bush a favorable rating. That is far removed from the widely reported favorable rating that hovers in the mid 30s. But that is because this is talking about Republicans, which is the group that you described as somewhat imcompetent because we are falling for Governor Palin.
The President isn’t just the President of the Republicans. He’s the President of the ENTIRE country. He has a duty to listen to, and to honor, and to make compromises for even the citizens who didn’t vote for him. If we only toe party lines, then we’ve lost what it means to be a country with liberty and justice for ALL.
Johanna-
BTW: If you are not from the United Sates you should at least become familiar with how our government is set up before you make certain comments. Being ignorant about the subject you are commenting on just makes you look silly. It would be like me going to the UK and commenting on your government from a US government structure/viewpoint.
For instance:
The president of the United States is not in control of the mortgage/lending industry. He is the Executive Branch of our government.
The legislative branch passes laws that govern our lending system.
The truth is that legislation passed in the early-mid 1990′s is the reason we have the so-called sub-prime mortgage market collapse.
This legislation in the guise of compassion lowered the standards required to obtain a mortgage. Underwriting guidelines were loosened progressively over the past ten years and the results are predictable.
It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that if you do not take peoples ability to repay a debt into consideration and you give them $0 down loans with $0 out of pocket closing costs along with an adjustable rate mortgage and mandatory pre-payments penalties that you will experience a huge amount of foreclosures.
I have been in the residential real estate business for about 20 years and knew this was coming for the past 6 years it was just inevitable.
George Bush had nothing to do with the idiotic legislation that caused this problem.
Before spouting off you should at least buy a basic textbook that explains how our government is set up.
One who ahs been burned-
As my comments alluded to, you are not alone in thinking we need to aggressively fight terrorism and terrorist regimes/governments.
I just think a lot of it can be done with the infiltration of terror groups and radical mosques, and a lot of the fighting can be done by air to degrade/destroy a terrorist governments military assets, targeting known terrorists and eliminating them with specific air strikes and with strategic special ops extraction and seek and destroy missions.
That way we limit the US casualties expended on fighting these vermin.
some of my thoughts on Sarah Palin and the patriocentrists:
http://thatmom.wordpress.com/2008/09/03/sarah-palin%E2%80%99s-candidacy-shines-light-on-hypocrisy-among-patriocentrists/
RichardD,
Salvation is not about Standards, it is about accepting a free gift given to us by the Father. But to hold some one to the standards the Father has asked his children to live by is very wrong. Otherwise you will have unsaved people wondering why they need salvation at all.
Katherine,
“I haven’t seen where anyone (of the WWF’s here) agrees with any of her opinions, so why the fixation? It seems people are waiting, with bated breath, for her next article so that they can talk about how *wrong* she is.”
Let’s cut through the smelly stuff, okay?
You used charged rhetoric like obsessed and now fixation to describe our RESPONSE to what these people are teaching?
Turn your mirror on them. Are they not, by your own definition, obsessed and fixated concerning any one and any thing that does measure up to their own definitions of biblical womanhood? Are they not fixated and obsessed, by your definition, with feminists and feminism and so-called feminists?
Are they not waiting with baited breath, according to your reasoning and logic, for the next situation or article that a feminist or so-called feminist writes?
Come on. You need to stop using one measuring stick of us and one for your friends.
I am okay with you calling us fixated and obsessed as long as you also apply those terms consistently.
I am merely responding to their own fixations and obsessions. Certainly you can see that?
““Also, we have made our remarks based solely on what Jennie Chancey has stated not on what we have heard she stated to someone else.”
Right–what she has stated *about* herself.”
HUH?
Katherine, we are discussing Chancey’s latest statement about how Palin will essentially be McCain’s “helpmate”.
Where is the disconnect?
We aren’t discussing what she has stated about herself. We are discussing what she said about Palin.
Karen, could you please enlarge the text on your article about Palin, or the article itself? Thanks
Palin for President!
Joanna-from-England,
Thank you for coming back and talking to us.
You most likely have better knowledge than I on Iraq.
But I still maintain that just because people have taken on a hateful attitude toward Bush and the US and agree with that list you gave that included the words warmongering and Katrina victims, just because a lot of people have decided what you listed is true doesn’t make it is so.
But since you have challenged my thinking, I’ve fallen back a bit and looked again at why I’ve come to the conclusions that I have. These sort of challenges aren’t always a bad things even if we don’t like them at first.
And upon looking back at my reasoning I’ve decided that since you have given your perspective from England, let me give you mine from living in Illinois, the present home state of Obama and the former home state of Hillary.
Chicago is located in Illinois. You probably knew that. But you may not know that Chicago politics are some of the most corrupt around. There is a Political Machine up there (I live down state) that produces political animals like Hillary who helped Bill Clinton with his Slash and Burn tactics that ran rampant in our White House for eight years. They did such things as unleashing the IRS on people who bought attention to some of their criminal acts. (It is also criminal to send the IRS to terrorize your politcal opponents.)
I grew up in Springfield Illinois, the Land of Lincoln.
It is the present day capital of Illinos in spite of the fact that our Chicago born governer refuses to live there.
It was good enough for Abraham Lincoln, but not good enough for Governor Rod Blagojevich another political animal produced by the Chicago Political Machine.
Obama is also a product of the Machine. He is not what he seems.
Here is one Wall Street Journal article you may like to look over.
http://online.wsj.com/article_print/SB122005063234084813.html
My dad worked high up for the State of Illinois for many years. I’m aware of the way things work around here.
I have an automatic and immediate suspicion of any Chicago politician. And usually that suspicion is correct.
I cannot vote for Obama. And I have waaaay more reason than just his pro-choice stance.
McCain doesn’t have a snow ball’s chance in h*ll here in Illinois. And before Palin, I had no reason to vote for anyone at all.
My vote still probably won’t count. But at least I can vote for something in hopes that no matter what happens, even if we get Obama for four or eight years, then maybe we could get Palin after that.
She is more in keeping with the frontier spirit that Abraham Lincoln possessed than anything Chicago can produce.
Lisa said: The President isn’t just the President of the Republicans. He’s the President of the ENTIRE country.
Lisa – Joanna from England accused us of falling for Palin and in that context said that we had all rejected “Bush’s warmongering.” The folks who have “fallen” for Palin are Republicans so it really matters not one whit what the rest of the country thinks. She wasn’t talking about the rest of the country. She was talking about the portion of the country that gives Bush an 80% approval rating.
Dawn – Holding folks to God’s standard is how we show them their need for salvation. It is not a matter of enforcing their adherence to it. It is a matter of showing them that we ALL miss the mark “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”
We are always required to hold everything up to the standard of God.
During her mayoral administration most of the actual
work of running this small city was turned over to an
administrator. She had been pushed to hire this
administrator by party power-brokers after she had
gotten herself into some trouble over precipitous
firings which had given rise to a recall campaign.
Sarah campaigned in Wasilla as a “fiscal conservative”.
During her 6 years as Mayor, she increased general
government expenditures by over 33%. During those same
6 years the amount of taxes collected by the City
increased by 38%. This was during a period of low
inflation (1996-2002). She reduced progressive property
taxes and increased a regressive sales tax which taxed
even food. The tax cuts that she promoted benefited
large corporate property owners way more than they
benefited residents.
The huge increases in tax revenues during her mayoral
administration weren’t enough to fund everything on her
wish list though, borrowed money was needed, too. She
inherited a city with zero debt, but left it with
indebtedness of over $22 million. What did Mayor Palin
encourage the voters to borrow money for? Was it the
infrastructure that she said she supported? The sewage
treatment plant that the city lacked? or a new library?
No. $1m for a park. $15m-plus for construction of a
multi-use sports complex which she rushed through to
build on a piece of property that the City didn’t even
have clear title to, that was still in litigation 7 yrs
later–to the delight of the lawyers involved! The
sports complex itself is a nice addition to the
community but a huge money pit, not the profit-
generator she claimed it would be. She also supported
bonds for $5.5m for road projects that could have been
done in 5-7 yrs without any borrowing.
While Mayor, City Hall was extensively remodeled and
her office redecorated more than once.
These are small numbers, but Wasilla is a very small
city.
Since I’m throwing around links to articles, here’s one I haven’t read all the way through.
The rest of you can look it over if you want and tell me what you think.
http://www.alaskamagazine.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=876&Itemid=141
Interesting, musicman. One hundred and eighty degrees opposite everything else I have heard from Alaskans, non-Alaskans, news reporters, non-news reporters, Republicans, Democrats, Independents, talking heads, leaders of our nation and peons. But I’ll add it to the asterisk that indicates small print that should be considered after everything else I’ve heard has turned out to be true.
When I was little, my best friend lived next door. Many parents forget that “little pitchers have big ears” and so I heard many things I am sure my friend’s parents did not want me to hear some things.
One of the phrases I kept hearing my friend’s parents say was “what will the neighbors think?”
As a result, my friend’s parents frequently became paralyzed with respect to actions needed to be taken.
I learned a lot from that …
Yes … it IS important to be mindful of what others think and to be nurturing … but this should NEVER EVER EVER take priority over integrity, what is right, and standing for justice
So, yes, I have friends in Europe, Canada, South American, and several other places on our planet … just in case others were wondering … yes I DO care about what they think about the USA … but NEVER EVER EVERT
As I was growing up, my best friend lived next door. Both my friend and I became such fixtures in each others homes that frequently our parents would be quite candid in their speech to one another and on the telephone forgetting the old addage that “little pitchers have big ears”.
One phrase my friend’s mom and dad would frequently use was “what will the neighbors think?”
At times this question … “what will the neighbors think?” … left my friend’s parents paralyzed. Rather than following their own convictions, they allowed the thoughts of others to direct and dictate their course of action.
I have watched this same kind of mentality occur within several segments of society. All one needs to do is go into any book store and there will be found shelves and shelves and shelves of self-help book catering to those that are fearful of “what will the neighbors think?”
This is another aspect of the patriarchy movement that has really never been addressed … although it has been touched on fromn time to time.
Yes it IS important to be concerned about the sensibilities of others.
It IS important to be caring and nurturing to others; however, one can NEVER EVER EVER do this at the expense of integrity, honor, and doing what is right.
This is the essense of character … doing what is right regardless of what others say, threaten, or intimidate
It IS important to remember what parents and grandparents of my generation would say, “If your friends told you to jump off a bridge would you do it?”
There comes a time in everyone’s life that it is imperative NOT
So, to my friends in the UK, the Continent, South America, Australia, New Zealand, and elsewhere (and, yes, I do have friends there), I do care to a certain extent what you think … but NEVER EVER EVER at the expensive of the lives of my family, friends, church, land, and country.
If you are truly the allies to the USA as you claim to be, you would never demand such a thing [See: 2 Cor 13]. Also, you would never be so arrogant as to mock my country, my president and Americans in general by discounting thoughts and, in a way, belittling the stance of others that disagree with you by hiding legitimate concerns by condescending phrases, cliches and buzz words.
Yikes … I dunno what happened, but I lost half of my post … so let me see if I can retrieve it …
As I was saying …
So, yes, I have friends in Europe, Canada, South America, Australia, New Zealand and several other places on our planet … just in case others were wondering … yes I DO care about what they think about the USA … but NEVER EVER EVER at the expense of the protection of my family, my country, and my land.
Nor would those that claim to be an ally of our country ever be so arrogant & smug as to employ emotional blackmail (name calling, false accusations, demeaning remarks, etc.).
[See: 2 Cor 13]
The same mentality of “what will the neighbors think?” seems to be present in many aspects of our society. Just look in any large bookstore & one will find several shelves devoted to self-help books all catering to that fear of “what will the neighbors think?”
I also think this mentality is at the root of the so-called patriarchy movement and needs to be explored in more depth. It is my manipulating that fear of “what will the neighbors think” that they can control those adhering to this fear.
As Christians, we are called to stand up for truth, justice, honor, duty, and integrity … even if that means others will subtly and not-so-subtly mock and belittle us.
So, yes to a certain extend I care what other countries think of the USA … but when push comes to shove … I have my priorities straight and will defend the weak and helpless … part of that means going after terrorists no matter where they are …
again … I wish we had Teddy Roosevelt with us today!
yikes … now I have a bunch of posts … ladies .. Comment #94 was what I wanted to post could you get rid of the posts before and after it?
I’m going to bed … obviously I’m over tired and making too many errors!
I am so sorry!
“Let’s cut through the smelly stuff, okay?”
Uhm…excuse me?
I read Nathaniel Darnell’s blog tonight where he lists what “other biblically-minded Christians are saying about Sarah Palin”. Here’s who he quotes: Voddie Baucham, Doug Phillips, William Einwechter, CS Hayden, Elijah Brown, Jennie Chancey, and Jasmine Baucham. Each of these people have direct, first-degree ties to VFM. Can he find anyone who is not a hyper-pat who will agree with his perspective?
Dear all,
OWHBB said ‘If you are truly the allies to the USA as you claim to be, you would never demand such a thing [See: 2 Cor 13]. Also, you would never be so arrogant as to mock my country, my president and Americans in general by discounting thoughts and, in a way, belittling the stance of others that disagree with you by hiding legitimate concerns by condescending phrases, cliches and buzz words.’
If we discuss this any further, I am worried it will inevitably turn into a war of personalities with rather a lot of ‘well you said”no I meant’ ‘yes but you said’ This won’t help matters.
My intention was not to ‘mock’ or ‘condescend’(OWHBB) or ‘accuse’ (Richard). If I appear arrogant, I’m sorry. What would people like me to rectify or recant? My tone of voice, my ideas, my statements about your country, my language or my being here? What would be your desirable outcome for this conversation? That may sound sarcastic: it’s not. What would you like me to do to remedy the offence I have caused you?
My intention was simply to:
a) state my belief that Palin may have been chosen quite cynically as McCain’s running mate to make political capital and win votes, rather than for any other reason.
b) explain that since Mr Bush is the leader of the most powerful nation in the free world, there are many people abroad who are concerned about the outcome of your election, particularly in Britain and Europe because having seen what has happened in Afghanisatan and Iraq, and having been involved in it, we do not want to see it happen with Russia and Iran.
c) point out that rightly or wrongly the PERCEPTION (This is an underline, not a shout) of some of the ‘people abroad’ mentioned in b) is that Mr Bush and his government have mishandled their foreign politics over his term of office and that we are all the poorer and less safe because of it.
d) and that equally the perception of some people in Britain and Europe is that they would feel more comfortable with a change of government in America and less aggressive rhetoric from the White House. This is why, on his recent European tour, Obama received almost celebrity billing in newspapers as politically diverse as the British Telegraph and the British Independent, France’s Le Monde and Figaro, Germany’s Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung and assorted other European papers which I didn’t, at the time, read as I only speak French and a little German in addition to English.
e) and in conclusion that it was regrettably the case that actions for which Bush and his government were being held responsible had damaged some people’s good opinion of America.
I have already apologised for using strong (although surely not ‘emotionally abusive’) language, and explained that I have similar doubts about the integrity, honour and wisdom of my own government and that these grieve me very deeply, as I am sure that any doubts you have about your government’s integrity, honour or wisdom grieve you, especially if those doubts are voiced, or touched on, by an outsider.
I certainly do not intend to belittle the stance of anyone who disagrees with me: they are entitled to their opinion as I am to mine. I cannot, however, respect a patriotism that is blind and unquestioning, any more than I can respect love for a child uncoupled from discipline. But I am not accusing anyone here of displaying such patriotism: if these words sting perhaps those whom they sting should ask why.
Mara – thanks for replying. My connection with Desert Shield was both personal, and painful: I would prefer not to go into it, but would ask you to accept that I was in a situation where I was involved at a political level.
I am aware of the corrupt nature of Chicago politics both past and present, and I understand people’s views about both the Clintons in this respect: they certainly wouldn’t get my vote: I think they’re shifty to the last degree. I’ll do some more research and would really like to come back to you when I’ve read the Wall Street Journal article you referenced as well as the other one. I agree with you that Lincoln was one of THE great men of history – his story and example are really inspiring. I’d vote for him for Prime Minister here . . .
Hutch: the argumentum ad hominem is not a valid way of dialectically thrashing an opponent. If you wish to believe I am ignorant, I won’t attempt to stop you.
I repeat:
My intention was not to ‘mock’ or ‘condescend’(OWHBB) or ‘accuse’ (Richard). If I appear arrogant, I’m sorry. What would people like me to rectify or recant? My tone of voice, my ideas, my statements about your country, my language or my being here? What would be your desirable outcome for this conversation? That may sound sarcastic: it’s not. What would you like me to do to remedy the offence I have caused you?
When friends fall out there should be a reconciliation, even if they disagree still. What would the people I have upset like me to do about it?
Oh, Cally, I’m fairly sure if one does a search of the articles on those folk’s blogs/websites one can find plenty of hinting that hyper-pats are really the only “biblically-minded Christians” out there.
There are examples of this mindset in the comments on <a href=”http://buriedtreasurebooks.com/weblog/?p=2481″Carmen’s blog article about Palin .
Joanna-
You said: Hutch: the argumentum ad hominem is not a valid way of dialectically thrashing an opponent. If you wish to believe I am ignorant, I won’t attempt to stop you.
I did not say you are ignorant in general. I am sure that you are not. I am sure you have an accurate understanding of many things. I said you are ignorant of how our government is set up if you believe the spin doctors from the left that blame the surge of foreclosures on George Bush.
Ignorant is not a curse word, it just means when it comes to the subject matter you do not know what you are talking about, that is not an opinion, it is a verifiable fact.
You said: more of the same that they’ve had from Bush – war mongering, no commitment to the environment or global issues, the sub-prime mortgage crisis, unemployment, rising gas prices, a government that only supports the rich and white (think Katrina victims) . . .
I will not even go into your comment on “a government that only supports the rich and white” as it is just laughable. It sounds like you are repeating the CNN talking points.
You said: What would the people I have upset like me to do about it?
I was never upset. I was just correcting your errors.
I do not expect you to do anything but exactly what you have been doing all along as evidenced by all of what you just posted above.
You also said: This is why, on his recent European tour, Obama received almost celebrity billing in newspapers as politically diverse as the British Telegraph and the British Independent, France’s Le Monde and Figaro, Germany’s Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung and assorted other European papers which I didn’t, at the time, read as I only speak French and a little German in addition to English.
I cannot think of a better reason to make sure our Momma beats your Obama.
Momma Palin that is! Grin.
I will wait for your next feigned apology laced with further attacks and mischaracterizations of George Bush and the United States.
Joanna –
You have internal contradictions in your series of posts and they are increasing in frequency. In fact, there are internal inconsistencies in your last comment all by itself:
1) I cannot, however, respect a patriotism that is blind and unquestioning
2) My intention was not to ‘mock’ or ‘condescend’(OWHBB) or ‘accuse’ (Richard).
The first statement above sounds like something that is condescending, accusatory, and quite possible mocking.
From your gentler and gentler tones in these comments, I take it that you realize that you spoke in a way that was not advisable and are trying to correct the problem. But you’re not likely to correct the problem as long as you retain the attitude against Americans that gives rise to your mocking, your condescension, and your accusation.
The best way for you to correct this would be to apologize for your accusations instead of defending by saying, “When I accused and mocked I didn’t mean it in an accusatory or mocking way.” The term disengenuous springs to mind.
What I think you’re missing in this conversation comes out in the first phrase I quoted above. You apparently think that our defense of our nation when under attack verbally is the same as following blindly and unquestioningly. That is simply not the case. We do not follow blindly, which point is proven by the fact that we’re all following the details of this election. And we do question OUR government. That is something that we may do, just as you may question your government. You may not, however, question my government in my presence without getting a strong response. It is none of your business, to put it frankly. Yes, it may very well impact you just as your subjugation of Ireland and Scotland impact folks who live outside of the UK. But it does not give me the right to approach Britons and call into question the actions of their sovereign nation of which I am not a part. In a more private venue, I might discuss such things with an English friend. But even then I would be extremely cautious.
As far as what we would like to see — I certainly would not want you to leave this forum. The views of those outside of our country contribute greatly to our discussions. I would however like for you to be overly careful, extremely cautious, and blatantly respectful to our nation and its leaders if the topic is our nation and its leaders. In other words, if we’re talking about a woman’s ability to drive tanks, you are welcome to say, “I can’t believe that Dukakis posed with that oversized helmet. What a stupid move.” If, however, we’re discussing past elections and the political gaffs thereof, you should probably phrase it more like, “I was suprised when Dukakis posed with that tank. It sure didn’t help his campaign.”
I hope you understand this. And you’ll notice that when I talked about your leaders (I mentioned Blair, Thatcher, and Churchill) I said only good things about them. That is why I refrained from mentioning some of the other leaders you have had who I don’t respect. It is not really any of my business and is the better part of discretion to leave my negative thoughts out when speaking to someone who is a citizen of England.
I hope you understand this. It is not that we are not interested in your thoughts on our politics or our political process, it’s just that we will group and defend if we are attacked. And in the US, if you attack the party we don’t agree with, we will still defend our country. United we stand.
As one US citizen put it:
From the sound up in Long Island out to San Francisco Bay
And every thing that’s in between them is our home
And we may have done a little bit of fighting amongst ourselves
But you outside people best leave us alone
Cause we’ll all stick together and you can take that to the bank
That’s the cowboys and the hippies and the rebels and the yanks
You just go and lay your head on a Pittsburgh Steelers fan
And I think you’re gonna finally understand
“As far as what we would like to see… It is not that we are not interested in your thoughts on our politics or our political process, it’s just that we will group and defend if we are attacked.”
Richard, speak for yourself. Many commenters here want to engage with Joanna.
“1) I cannot, however, respect a patriotism that is blind and unquestioning
2) My intention was not to ‘mock’ or ‘condescend’(OWHBB) or ‘accuse’ (Richard).
The first statement above sounds like something that is condescending, accusatory, and quite possible mocking. “
Maybe to you. I don’t respect any position that is blind and unquestioning either. I think Joanna’s earlier Bereans analogy was very apt. It is not ‘condescending’ not to respect something. It is not ‘accusatory’ to state that blind unquestioning allegiance is a bad thing. And it is not mockery.
“And you’ll notice that when I talked about your leaders (I mentioned Blair, Thatcher, and Churchill) I said only good things about them.”
Yeah, and as I pointed out, you were completely off-base in your praise. You may lack the political and historical knowledge to discuss Churchill and Thatcher, but that does not mean that non-Americans lack the knowledge to discuss Obama, McCain, or anybody else. And, again, Joanna is in fact on the same page as many, many Americans (and her comments are concerning ‘Americans’, not just ‘Republicans’).
“we will group and defend if we are attacked”
Discussing politics is not automatically an attack. Criticising a politician or campaign is not even automatically an attack. And even if it were, this “we’ll shut our ears and shout you down” attitude is redolent of nothing but the schoolyard.
Richard, one last thing:
This is by far the most unpleasant generalisation that has been made about any country:
“England, as a whole, chose the direction that such notables as Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher had warned against – total and complete capitulation to those who hate Western Civilization and would prefer to wipe us all off the map.”
It’s complete rubbish and extremely offensive. It actually is condescending, accusatory, and mocking. You might have said nice (erm, wrong) things about individual politicians. This characterisation of all Britons as “capitulators” is bizarre, uncalled for, and completely goes against your later comments. It’s far from the “blatant respect” you’re demanding from Joanna.
Ok, I know three comments in a row is a little crazy! Sorry guys, been travelling for eighteen hours and I’m on my way to bed!
But there is one last inconsistency in your comments Richard, and I don’t mean to pick on you, but I do really disagree with the way you’re going about things here.
I’m sorry, but these comments completely contradict each other:
[Richard on Sept 4]
“But it does not give me the right to approach Britons and call into question the actions of their sovereign nation of which I am not a part. In a more private venue, I might discuss such things with an English friend.
[Richard on Sept 1]
But it is just one perspective in the ongoing discussion. I welcome all explanations of why GB has progressively lost its dominance in the world politic through capitulation to opposing forces.
It’s ok for you to call for a chat about the fall of the British Empire, (and to insinuate, if I’m not mistaken, that Britain is on the road to sharia law?? Apologies if I didn’t read that right. I hope it isn’t a as condescending and mocking as it might appear). Or is it not ok?
Katherine,
Your response is exactly what I am talking about when I say “let’s cut through the smelly stuff”.
I clearly explained my point to you and all you comment on is my statement about cutting through the smelly stuff?
Just read the rest of #84 to see what I was referring to.
I am referring to the hypocritical measuring stick you are using.
If you aren’t willing to engage me in the substance of my statement, I don’t know what else to say. But, saying “excuse me” when my words were more than plain is not going to do anything but annoy and frustrate.
Things are kinda tense.
Time for a joke.
I think I’ll pick on… Illinois!
A Springfield official was in charge of getting a fence built and took bids from three contrators, one from Chicago, one from Springfield, and one from Litchfield (Illinois, small town U.S.A., full of good, moral upstanding citizens that believe in hard work, truth, justice, and the American way. And no, I don’t live there. There are many such small towns in Illinois and I do live in one of those.)
Anyway, the official took the bids.
Mr. Litchfield bid $700.
Mr. Springfield bid $1000.
And Mr. Chicago bid $2700.
The official pulled Mr. Chicago aside and asked him, “Why is your bid so much higher than the others?”
Mr. Chicago responded. “$1000 for you. $1000 for me. And $700 for the idiot from Litchfield who’s gonna build the fence.”
The official went with Mr. Chicago’s bid.
Claire – if you look back through the history of this blog, you will find that I try not engage with folks who have not thought through what I have said and are instead engaging at a gut-emotional level without actually interacting with my words. If you’d like to take another shot at it, I’ll discuss it further with you. But for now, you obviously did not read what I said and are interacting with straw men and ghosts. Have fun.
Corrie,
First, I have to wonder, if *I* started a post with a phrase like, “Let’s cut through the smelly stuff”, would it be allowed through moderation? I have a hunch that it would not. IMO, the comment was unnecessary.
Your response followed your opening in it’s condescending tone. That was quite a little rant.
You refer to “these people” and “your friends”. You are taking my original post beyond Jennie Chancey.
Is Jennie Chancey singling you out, by name, and dissecting your opinions?
Do you consider Jennie Chancey *your* teacher? If so, I see no fault in you engaging in a debate with her over her “teachings”. I, personally, do not see her articles as teachings–I see them as her opinions. If I want to write about being anti-vaccinations, or if America was in on 9/11, I am not necessarily trying to teach the masses. I am voicing my opinion, as many others across the web strive to do on their blogs or websites. The authors on this blog are doing the same–are they here as teachers?
IMO, Jennie is being labeled as a “teacher” so that others can attempt to justify their on-going criticism of her.
As I stated, I have not read her latest book. I have read reviews of it and I listened to a FOTF interview, and it sounds like a very encouraging book. I do not even know if, once I have read it, if I should learn from it and experiment with any suggested tips, I would consider Jennie my “teacher”. It might feel more like encouragement from a friend.
Finally, I am Catholic and somewhere between a “white-washed feminist” and a woman who thinks feminists ruined some of the finer points of being a woman. IMO, patriarchy is definitely a particular lifestyle that certain people seek out. I think it is safe to assume that Jennie has that audience in mind when she is writing.
While I’ve been doing some soul searching I keep hearing a phrase that is thrown around very loosely in the media lately with respect to Palin’s nomination as the GOP VP and her responsibilities to her family. Basically it goes something like this, “No one would ever ask that of a man.” The heart of this declaration is that of equality. However, is that what women really want… absolute unconditional unrestricted equality… really?
Every year there is a triathlon contested in my town and two athletes get paid $250,000 each. One of these athletes finishes first while the other comes in around one hundredth place twenty minutes later. Now why do athletes who don’t win get paid as if they won? Call me Sarah… I want to be a part of that “special elite” division.
Please understand I’m all for equality… equal pay for EQUAL PERFORMANCE. Yet there seems to be a group of under performers who demand the payout to be symmetrical. I’m finding that those who push for equality want to pick-and-choose the things they want to be equal and out of this two systems have surfaced.
No one would ever ask a man to lose a race and is equality what women really want… really?
Be careful you might get what you push for.
Claire – you are doing some interesting chronological gymnastics in your selective quoting. The comments I made that were strong about England were in response to Joanna’s direct attack on my nation and its leaders and its people.
And, I, for one, thank you for the third comment. It was the first one that actually interacted with what I said.
So … what I am saying is that I will make strong statements and call into question your nation’s issues if you have inadvisably and disrespectfully attacked my nation, my nation’s leaders, or my nation’s people. You have already removed the gloves. But otherwise I will speak respectfully of your nation and its policies whether I agree with them or not. I will not use ad hominem, and will not accuse falsely, I will not call into question the judgment of the citizens. Joanna did all these things against my nation, my nation’s leaders, and my nations citizenry.
Richard, each of my comments was preceded by a quote from you. I don’t see how this could be called “not interacting with your words”.
However, I agree that the argument hasn’t taken a very productive or Christ-honouring turn. Let’s leave it here so.
But, Mrs. Chancey doesn’t share her ideas as opinions. She shares them as the right thing to do for all Christian women. And I don’t criticize Mrs. Chancey, just those opinions/ideas/teachings.
If I want to share my opinion about vaccination, that’s one thing. If I want to share it as the right way to go for all parents all the time, and that if you’re truly a Christian you’ll do it my way, I think it’s totally fair to critique and criticize it.
For those interested, Us magazine is conducting a poll about Sarah Palin. You can check it out here. It’s toward the bottom of the page under a large photo of Gov. Palin.
Claire – I have found a high amount of below-the-belt argumentation done in the blogosphere. After a major tidal wave of it a while back, I am much more cautious that I was before.
You have just presented a hit and run on me, which is a continuation of your lack of appropriate interaction.
Richard, each of my comments was preceded by a quote from you. I don’t see how this could be called “not interacting with your words”.
However, I agree that the argument hasn’t taken a very productive or Christ-honouring turn. Let’s leave it here so.
In other words: Here’s my defense and now that I’ve had the last word, let’s leave it alone.
In comment 103, you quoted one phrase and then told me to speak for myself because you want Joanna to continue posting here. Of course, you ignored in my same comment from which you took that out-of-context phrase the fact that I also said that I did not want Joanna to leave this forum.
You then quoted my comments where I quoted Joanna when she mocked and condescended and accused after she had said that she cannot respect a blind and unquestioning patriotism. You said Maybe to you. I don’t respect any position that is blind and unquestioning either.
Of course, once again – you took part of my comment and left out the context in which I said that we are not doing either of those things.
You then made the huge non sequitor of quoting my comments about mentioning English leaders whom I respect and pointing out that I chose them so that I could say good things about the leaders. You responded by saying Yeah, and as I pointed out, you were completely off-base in your praise.
Okay – so what? Your differing opinion of those leaders has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that I chose them because I could say good things about them rather than choosing English leaders about whom I have nothing good to say.
You then presented an ad hominem against me by saying You may lack the political and historical knowledge to discuss Churchill and Thatcher, but that does not mean that non-Americans lack the knowledge to discuss Obama, McCain, or anybody else.
You then presented another totally irrelevant argument by quoting my comment that “we will group and defend if we are attacked” and responding with: Discussing politics is not automatically an attack. Nor did I say that it was. However, Joanna did attack George Bush by making false and uninformed accusations against him and did attack the American electorate by saying that we were falling for her without thinking, and did attack the US by presenting our this nation as a bully in her comments.
The fact that you seem to be blindly following your fellow countryman in an unquestioning manner makes it look like a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
I’m not going to continue through the remainder of your logical fallacies and inproper debating techniques. I think I’ve covered enough of them now.
Hey Mick,
Good to see ya.
You aren’t sore because Anne’s husband still hasn’t answered or even acknowledged your questions on the, “It’s not all a women’s fault” thread, are you?
Anyway, about your comment here.
I’m not sure where you are coming from, exactly. Maybe you have had dealings with radical, secular feminists who want to see you castrated.
If this is so, then I guess I have to be a little understanding of you frustrations and assure you that I, for one, do not have this hateful attitude toward all men.
I also want to assure you that I understand the physical differences between men and women.
I KNOW that if there were a physical battle between my husband and myself that he would win hands down because of his strength as a man.
I also know that he is not capable of carrying and bearing the four children that we have had together.
Just because he is capable of kicking my hiney any day of the week doesn’t mean his mind is any sharper than mine. If you asked him, he’d tell you, I’m the more logical one. His strengths are in the creative and musical arenas.
And just because he can’t give birth and nurse doesn’t mean he is in any way less than me. It would be wrong, wrong, wrong for me to look down my nose at him because he simply wasn’t capable.
It is just as wrong for men to look down their noses as women for their physical limitations.
A man in politics is able to have a family because his wife steps in and takes up the slack for him. It is a sacrifice that she is willing to make to promote her husband, and most likely promote the kind of politics she agrees with.
I contend that it can be the same in the reverse.
You may not agree with me. And I’m fine with that.
But to me, comparing tri-atheletes to politics is about the same as saying not being able to give birth disqualifies a man from caring for the elderly and children.
Physical ability cannot be a measure of mental ability. If so, all the geniuses would be Mr. Universes and runners up.
Anyway, I wasn’t kidding when I said I was glad to see ya.
I don’t always like what you say. And I’m still not sure where you are coming from with many of your comments.
But that doesn’t I wish you’d go away.
Joanna-from-England,
I agree totally that Palin is McCain’s cynical attempt to salvage what he can of the fundagelical vote after he distanced himself from Hagee and Parsley. It was cleverly designed to appeal to the gut emotions of every day American women who are disillusioned with both the left and the far right.
And RichardD? Bush and Cheney are by definition warmongers because it was their job to peddle the Iraq imbroglio to the American people after it was sold to them by the military industrial complex. Kinda like a used car that changes hands huh?
What’s that you say? More blathering from a loony lefty?
No, Dwight Eisenhower was one of the finest warriors this country has ever produced and he said much the same in his farewell address to the nation on 17 January 1961.
Eisenhower warned of the potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power and we didn’t listen.
For anyone who’s interested in other credible sources, I would suggest Neil Sheehan’s “A Bright Shining lie – John Paul Vann and America in Vietnam” and also: “About Face” by Col. David H. Hackworth.
‘I have an automatic and immediate suspicion of any Chicago politician. And usually that suspicion is correct.”
ITA.
I don’t usually flag blogs, and I’ve glanced at some pretty sick ones out there, but I felt compelled to flag the following blog.
I would suggest liberals and conservatives both flag this blog for hate speech against the disabled.
http://downspalin.blogspot.com/
*edited by admin for clarity, per the request of the poster.
Thank you, Lynn. That made me literally nauseous.
I hope you mean thank you for alerting you to the blog so you could complain about it, and not that I made you nauseous!
LOL! Yes, I meant the blog!
The “hyper-pats” are not happy and they are bloging wildly about the evils of a women running for public office.
From DP’s blog:
In commenting on the evangelical church’s enthusiastic embrace of the candidacy of Sarah Palin, Doug Phillips wrote these very sobering words: “. . . the widespread acceptance of a pro-life professing Christian Republican, self-proclaimed feminist mother of an infant and four children as a candidate for the highest office of the land is the single most dangerous event for the conscience of the Christian community of the last ten years at least. The IQ of the Christian community has dropped 50 points. In order to win an election they have sold the core of what is right and true about the defining issue of our generation—the family! Once this threshold is passed, it will be virtually impossible apart from widespread repentance to recapture this ground.”
Voddie Baucham, another “hyper-pat” makes it clear that he will neither for John McCain or for Barrack Obama.
I would just like to go on the record to encourage all “hyper-pats” to follow Voddie and Doug’s lead and only vote for your own independent fringe group candidates that support all of your miss-interpretations of scripture.
That way you will effectively stay out of the political decision making process as the insignificant and marginalized group that you are.
Make that “Vote” for: Voddie Baucham, another “hyper-pat” makes it clear that he will neither vote for John McCain or for Barrack Obama.
Hutch – I agree with you completely. Those who promote “voting your principles” have good intentions. Well, many of them do. But in their effort to make a point to the two major parties, they are ignoring the dynamic affect of involvement or disinvolvement in the political process.
I discussed this with a friend of mine last night who is a Ron Paul supporter and is considering voting third party in this election (his first presidential election) in order to make a point.
I was raised in a church that taught that Christians should not go to movie theaters. When I was a teenager, they held a write-in campaign against the local theater that they thought was showing too many R-rated movies instead of G-rated movies. The theater responded that “no one comes to the G-rated movies.” And why not? Because the Christians in that town didn’t go to the theaters, which removed them from the theater-going process and left the theaters to the passions of the unregenerate world.
I think the same holds true for politics. If conservative Christians (and hyper morons like the Patrios) remove themselves from the political process, the major parties will not even consider their desires because they are not part of the process. At least if we Christians make a showing, the parties will have to consider our desires.
Does any of that make sense?
Don’t worry Hutch. I knew you meant vote. I drop words all the time. And, ohhh the misspellings I’ve been guilty of…
As far as DP’s quote:
“the widespread acceptance of a pro-life professing Christian Republican, self-proclaimed feminist mother of an infant and four children as a candidate for the highest office of the land is the single most dangerous event for the conscience of the Christian community of the last ten years at least.”
Who knew women were so dangerous? Who knew women had so much power to be so dangerous? This falls in the same catagory of men not being able to have male bonded relationships in the work place with women around. Who knew women were so powerful that they can emasculate men by their very presence?
I think Doug Phillip’s quote shows his personal knee-knocking fear and insecurity of women rather than God’s.
Someone pray for this man that he gets over his deep seated insecurities before he has a stroke.
“The IQ of the Christian community has dropped 50 points.”
i.e. If you vote for a girl, you’re stupid.
Reminds me of my sons when they went through their “girls are stupid” stage.
“In order to win an election they have sold the core of what is right and true about the defining issue of our generation—the family!”
Have I said lately that I’m sooo glad that I don’t live in a family as defined by Doug Phillips?
I cannot respect his definition of what is right and true because it is so colored by his childish perceptions rather than ANYTHING the Bible says.
“Once this threshold is passed, it will be virtually impossible apart from widespread repentance to recapture this ground.”
Thaaaaaank God!!!
I cannot bear the thought of my daughters living in families defined by DP and VF.
I’d rather have them live in a world that honors women such as Deborah, Elizabeth I, and Golda Meier (sp?). These women were blessings to their countries, not curses.
I’m disgusted by the DP/VF view where women can only be either veiled or emasculating.
When will these women hater/fearmongers learn that women are human. They are not of lesser essence than men. Neither are they the greatest force of evil against men.
That idea is based in pagan Greek thought, not the Bible.
Hey, Hutchy.
I encourage you to go to the true womanhood blog linked in the blogroll.
I think you are man enough to handle it.
I don’t think all the estrogen there will have any effect on your testosterone levels.
Richard is handling it just fine, but he might enjoy the company of one other likeminded male.
I was just there after I left my post above and I saw the same quote from Phillips that you posted.
There’s more political discussion going on there than here.
Richard-
I think you are right on.
Mara-
I will check it out.
Mara R,
In comment 126, you mentioned:
Who knew women were so dangerous? Who knew women had so much power to be so dangerous? This falls in the same catagory of men not being able to have male bonded relationships in the work place with women around. Who knew women were so powerful that they can emasculate men by their very presence?
I think Doug Phillip’s quote shows his personal knee-knocking fear and insecurity of women rather than God’s.
When I was researching the agrarian writings that early Christian Reconstructionists encouraged people to read in order to build arguments from the Christian cause of the Old South, I found the same kinds of God-limiting fear in those writings. They state that life-changing power of the Word of God cannot be effective for people who live in cities. It seems to have some effect, but it is of little value. I guess they never read that verse about the Word going forth from God’s mouth, accomplishing exactly what God intended it to do. God’s Word only really works well when people are living an agrarian lifestyle.
I’m also reminded Randy Stinson’s post about how all of this evil supposed “feminism” presents a danger and threat to the Gospel. http://www.cbmw.org/Blog/Posts/Is-Complementarianism-a-Merely-Personal-Conviction
Russell Moore says “it is a threat to the Gospel itself” in a Mark 9 interview from last May.
How can this be? God speaks and the earth melts. God is sovereign, is He not? (…particularly if one follows a Reformed faith as all these men profess.)
Many who contribute here on this blog have pointed out here and in other places that it always falls to women to submit in order for men to be enabled to realize the authority that God has given them. Well, if God bestowed this divine “role” upon them, why does so much of the teaching focus on women playing along? That is quite telling about the group and the mindset.
Actually, in the Bible, I’ve only ever found one thing that does make the Word of God ineffective. It’s not women and their behavior, it is the traditions of men.
Cindy K-
Indeed. And this from men who are supposed to be good Calvinists! Is anything or anyone able to keep God from achieving his purposes? A threat to the gospel? Give me a break. How/when did God get so small?
From: “Pastor” (I use that term loosely) Kevin Swanson:
“We’re just not quite sure a feminist governor from Alaska with a year’s experience in governance (not to mention her 17-year-old daughter pregnant out of wedlock doing her part to contribute to the further demise of the family), working for John McCain will do any more than GWB did to salvage the economy, halt the growth of government, repair the family, and quiet the Sodomites beating down our doors. Call it a breach in confidence. Oh well. At least her daughter wasn’t a lesbian.”
What an obnoxious little jerk-another woman hating weenie.
Have you noticed on Doug’s blog that his latest theme is that Christian leaders are coming out against Palin, but they are the same 7-10 people from his own little marginalized and insignificant group?
Hutch wrote: “Christian leaders are coming out against Palin”
Huh?
Many Christian leaders are coming out FOR Palin … I’ll only mention two …
• Dobson
• Southern Baptist Convention
Those that try to cloak their hostility and abuse to Palin, it would seem, just have their head in the sand … it is so sad to see these marginalized and insignificant groups evilly plot and carefully perform character assassination on Palin … yet, I take comfort in the thought that “God will not be mocked” … She took on the good ole’ boy network in Alaska and won … she can take on these weasels and, through God’s power, help take down these obnoxious self-proclaimed so-called “christian” “leaders”
Forgot to say that the left has Sarah Palin connected, directly or indirectly, with a wide variety of Christian-related groups and movements, including Hobby Lobby, Eagle Forum, Focus on the Family, Feminists For Life, Campus Crusade for Christ, Fellowship of Christian Athletes, Concerned Women for America, Bearing Fruit Communications, Athletes in Action, Military Religious Freedom Foundation and Chi Alpha.
In fact, the Chicago Tribune’s 6 September 2008 article entitled “How religion guides Palin,” seem to be quite concerned about how Palin may remotivate Christians.
[See:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-palin-religion_06sep06,0,3371419.story
The Chicago Tribune’s article starts with the sentence …
“When Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin promised to lead the nation with a “servant’s heart,” evangelical Christians immediately recognized her as one of their own.”
check out what World Magazine has to say about Palin at http://www.worldmag.com/webextra/14364
World Magazine snippet …
“Sarah Palin is pro-life and pro-marriage. She served as head of her high school’s chapter of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes. Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, told CBS last month that of all of McCain’s potential VP picks, Palin would most energize evangelicals … Sarah Palin is no “yes” woman.”
I said Doug Phillips latest blog theme is that Christian leaders are coming out against Palin.
And I aid the so called Christian leaders are the same 7-10 VF clones/lackeys.
Interesting post, related to this one. . .
Palin as a new Eve (mini-rant)
these marginalized and insignificant groups evilly plot and carefully perform character assassination on Palin
Can you link to or point out an example of this? I’ve seen a lot of evil plotting and character assassination coming from the left, but not from Christians (although I did see a self-proclaimed progressive Christian say that McCain chose Palin in order to gain “the stupid vote”).
Word Girl wrote: “I’ve seen a lot of evil plotting and character assassination coming from the left”
correct
Hutch wrote: “Phillips latest blog theme is that Christian leaders are coming out against Palin.”
Actually, my posts are in agreement with Hutch’s statements (in a tongue and cheek manner) …
Please refer to Hutch’s latest statement (Comment #134) to find verification for a marginalized group making character assassination statements on Palin … I will NOT go to their web site to help inflate their web site visitor numbers …
Indeed, it is amusing to watch the patrios wail over this. ALL they fuss about is the fact that the possible VP lacks male organs: never mind Obama’s pro-death beliefs for babies, never mind the fact he’s as stable in convictions as quicksand. ALL they care about is that a woman might be second-in-command. The one who’s ruffled her feathers the most, interestingly, is Carmon Friedrich. She’s spluttered indignations and out-of-context Bible passages against Palin, thrown in insults against Hilary to boot, and spun like an indignant tornado into even the Bayly Brothers’ blog to fuss about how THEY weren’t upset enough about Palin. I stopped being angry at her a while ago, when I finally realized that this issue was making her a lot more upset than it was making me. Let her cluck non-stop; the country’s changing for the better, with women finally stepping up more as man’s fellow-rulers the way they were always meant to, and there’s nothing she can do about it.
It just interests me to note that women still get more angry at women, somtimes, than men do. Sure, the male so-called pastors and theology experts like Morecraft, Baucham, and Einwechter produce predictably flawed “Scriptural” articles and speeches denouncing women, but for the most part the patrio men have been calm, at least in comparison to the patrio women. Even the Bayly brothers were fairly unruffled in the face of a possible Queen Esther-like occurance, and James Mcdonald hasn’t uttered a peep; it is the women who have spun into anti-feminist frenzies. Carmon has had a serious venom attack, one woman actually carried this nonsense to an otherwise secular website and caterwauled to any who would listen, and Jenny Chancy wrote an article about why women shouldn’t even vote. I guess it’s not surprising the “submissive” women resent strong women even more than their men do; perhaps they resent them for what they themselves, as women, don’t have? Whatever their reasons, their objections are louder and fussier than their male counterparts’ (the exception being Douglas Phillips, whose rooster beak clucks as loudly as his hens’. He may speak against men being like women till he’s blue in the face, but he certainly doesn’t mind fussing like them)
The only thing that still angers me is how some people are foolishly refusing to vote for McCain and voting for a third party, in the naive belief that they can actually make a difference. The fact that they would risk putting a baby-killing president on board rather than vote for a woman VP is unbelievable. How deep does their hatred run?