Menu
Jump to content

What's with the ads?

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Beth in SW WA

McCain picked Sarah Palen, Governor of Alaska, as VP

Recommended Posts

I'm just curious- what about Joan of Arc? Was she called because all the French men were too weak?

 

I'm sure Joan of Arc's contemporaries would agree that the officers and men who had failed to lift the siege of Orleans were, at the same time, both shamed and thankful (in that order) for her leadership and subsequent success.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't believe creation stories should be taught in science class. I believe *all* creation stories should be taught as part of ancient history, comparative religion, mythology or somesuch- as I taught my kids.

 

And I do fear Christianity being pushed on my children (as it was pushed on me in public schools)- it's one of the reasons I started homeschooling.

 

She does support the HS and this is good for us all. I'm not minding the Christian teaching in school but I don't remember being taught it. Hey you are in CO. What part? I graduated from Jefferson High. It was a nice school then but not now from what I've heard. None of the same teachers are there anymore... since it was a 100 years ago that I was there. lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, it is my opinion that it's a slap in the face to all women, and all we have fought for for the last 100 years. Sure, he picked a woman, but he picked the one that conservative men are least likely to be threatened by, one that "knows her place" so to speak.

 

The Republicans are experts at alienating a large number of party members.

 

 

Ok-so by extension is it a slap in the face to all African-Americans that the democrats picked a candidate who is half white?

 

I'm sorry, I don't think being asked by your party to represent it and potentially serve your country is a slap in the face to anyone. If you dislike Palin's politics or her opinions that is one thing but don't assume that the choice of a conservative woman is a slap in the face to all women. There seem to be many women impressed thus far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just one example:

 

http://mccainsource.com/homefront?id=0003

 

McCain Voted Against Increasing Benefits For Children With Special Needs In The Social Security Act. In 1997, McCain voted to table an amendment that would revise the Social Security Act to include additional benefits for children with special needs, including physical, speech and language therapy, and mental health services. The motion to table passed 57-43. [s 947, Vote #128, 6/25/97]

 

 

...and, um, that's pretty much right in line with where many conservatives stand wrt the subject of Social Security itself. That becomes a pro, not a con. You can be supportive of special needs children and against FEDERAL programs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But creationism isn't science, so it doesn't belong in a science classroom. I would have no objection to creationism being taught as an elective for people who want their kids to learn that. But isn't that what Sunday School is for?

 

Creationism might not be science, but evolution is NOT a fact about creation.

 

If one is taught then the other should. As homeschoolers we know that all the things we want to teach don't fall nicely into a box labeled "science" or "philosophy". We teach what needs to be taught.

 

Maybe a theory of creation class would be acceptable. A class where "all" theories of creation are taught.

 

You are right, Sunday School is where a child should learn the beliefs of their religion, including their creation story.

 

So in public school they would learn different theories and at home and church they would learn what their family and religion believes is correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But creationism isn't science, so it doesn't belong in a science classroom. I would have no objection to creationism being taught as an elective for people who want their kids to learn that. But isn't that what Sunday School is for?

 

But for me evolution is NOt something I want taught either or at least the way its taught. I'm having all kinds of problems with that right now so if both were taught together the students would have more info otherwise the same could be said about evolution being taught as an elective too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok-so by extension is it a slap in the face to all African-Americans that the democrats picked a candidate who is half white?

 

I'm sorry, I don't think being asked by your party to represent it and potentially serve your country is a slap in the face to anyone. If you dislike Palin's politics or her opinions that is one thing but don't assume that the choice of a conservative woman is a slap in the face to all women. There seem to be many women impressed thus far.

 

Barack Obama was not elected as the Democratic Candidate because of his race.

 

If Palin was picked because of HER and HER record and experience, not for political reasons because she is a woman, this would be a non-issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But creationism isn't science, so it doesn't belong in a science classroom. I would have no objection to creationism being taught as an elective for people who want their kids to learn that. But isn't that what Sunday School is for?

 

 

Well, that depends on your belief in "Science" I belive creationism can be taught from a scientific point of view. If creationism should be taught as an elective than evolution should be treated the same. There are a lot of evolution theories that can not be proven as well, yet we believe it b/c that is what is taught. I, personally would not care "how" creationism would be offered only that it would be a choice.

 

Just for the record, I believe both sides have a lot of credibility. There are some things that are proven by science, some things that science can not explain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Creationism might not be science, but evolution is NOT a fact about creation.

 

If one is taught then the other should. As homeschoolers we know that all the things we want to teach don't fall nicely into a box labeled "science" or "philosophy". We teach what needs to be taught.

 

Maybe a theory of creation class would be acceptable. A class where "all" theories of creation are taught.

 

You are right, Sunday School is where a child should learn the beliefs of their religion, including their creation story.

 

So in public school they would learn different theories and at home and church they would learn what their family and religion believes is correct.

Exactly because the Indians believe this, the Jews believe this, etc... tribes, Egypt, Greece and so on. They are History whether it's personally believed or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...and, um, that's pretty much right in line with where many conservatives stand wrt the subject of Social Security itself. That becomes a pro, not a con. You can be supportive of special needs children and against FEDERAL programs.

 

Oh, that's right- it's called the "your on your own" plan. Forgot, sorry. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, that depends on your belief in "Science" I belive creationism can be taught from a scientific point of view. If creationism should be taught as an elective than evolution should be treated the same. There are a lot of evolution theories that can not be proven as well, yet we believe it b/c that is what is taught. I, personally would not care "how" creationism would be offered only that it would be a choice.

 

Just for the record, I believe both sides have a lot of credibility. There are some things that are proven by science, some things that science can not explain.

 

Interesting and I do agree that both should be taught.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sure Joan of Arc's contemporaries would agree that the officers and men who had failed to lift the siege of Orleans were, at the same time, both shamed and thankful (in that order) for her leadership and subsequent success.

 

Yes, I agree. But I wasn't asking what her contemporaries thought.

 

My question is- do people who believe that women shouldn't lead men think that Joan of Arc was called because the men of the day were whimps?

 

Does God call women to lead for the sole purpose of shaming men, or because there are no men available that are capable of leading at the time the women are called?

 

I'm just trying to get a better understanding of your thought process, because I really don't understand it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Barack Obama was not elected as the Democratic Candidate because of his race.

 

If Palin was picked because of HER and HER record and experience, not for political reasons because she is a woman, this would be a non-issue.

 

 

And Sarah Palin was not selected as the Republican VP Candidate because of her sex.

 

 

as sooo many people have already stated, she WAS picked because of her very CONSERVATIVE views and very CONSERVATIVE actions as governor. The selection of a CONSERVATIVE vp [since McCain is not a conservative] has been an ongoing debate in Republican circles for weeks!! months!! if you hadn't noticed, quite a few Republicans have expressed some serious reservations about voting because of McCain's liberal views. It's only the Democrats who are trying to spin this as "they just picked her cuz she's a woman."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...and, um, that's pretty much right in line with where many conservatives stand wrt the subject of Social Security itself. That becomes a pro, not a con. You can be supportive of special needs children and against FEDERAL programs.

 

Oh but lets forget in Arizona the schools spend money to teach English to Illegal immigrants and can't buy the program to teach my dyslexic son. He had a huge IEP. When I pulled him to HS and thought he would still get Occupational Therapy and Speech they told me that they don't have to and they choose not to. I still pay taxes for the school but they don't want to give the services that they will get funding for. Wow... Most of the districts allow kids to have those services when HS but not ours. McCain helps get the bucks to ESL program though. Talk about a slap in my face. Perhaps I should write him or call his office regarding this. lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And Sarah Palin was not selected as the Republican VP Candidate because of her sex.

 

 

as sooo many people have already stated, she WAS picked because of her very CONSERVATIVE views and very CONSERVATIVE actions as governor. The selection of a CONSERVATIVE vp [since McCain is not a conservative] has been an ongoing debate in Republican circles for weeks!! months!! if you hadn't noticed, quite a few Republicans have expressed some serious reservations about voting because of McCain's liberal views. It's only the Democrats who are trying to spin this as "they just picked her cuz she's a woman."

 

The standing joke here is that he is a Democrat in drag....:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, that's right- it's called the "your on your own" plan. Forgot, sorry. :D

 

 

well, no, it's not, but there's a difference between being "on your own" and simply limiting the scope of gvt programs ;)

 

I'd be happy with the same retirement program that is offered to members of Congress :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh but lets forget in Arizona the schools spend money to teach English to Illegal immigrants and can't buy the program to teach my dyslexic son. He had a huge IEP. When I pulled him to HS and thought he would still get Occupational Therapy and Speech they told me that they don't have to and they choose not to. I still pay taxes for the school but they don't want to give the services that they will get funding for. Wow... Most of the districts allow kids to have those services when HS but not ours. McCain helps get the bucks to ESL program though. Talk about a slap in my face. Perhaps I should write him or call his office regarding this. lol

 

bingo.

which is exactly why he's not viewed as a serious conservative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
well, no, it's not, but there's a difference between being "on your own" and simply limiting the scope of gvt programs ;)

 

I'd be happy with the same retirement program that is offered to members of Congress :D

 

Me too.... any takers? :D

 

:lol::lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be happy with the same retirement program that is offered to members of Congress :D

 

Wouldn't that be nice? Ha! :D

 

Actually, I think that most of the pay for the members of Congress should be taken away and given to the military! :D They get to stay in their cushy offices, but that's it. Give the money to those that actually deserve it. How's that for a cynic? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does God call women to lead for the sole purpose of shaming men, or because there are no men available that are capable of leading at the time the women are called?

 

It is my understanding in exploring the same issue that the two options are not mutually exclusive. Different people are called at different times for different purposes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Barack Obama was not elected as the Democratic Candidate because of his race.

 

If Palin was picked because of HER and HER record and experience, not for political reasons because she is a woman, this would be a non-issue.

 

So what you are saying is that no woman would ever be qualified to be chosen on her merit as a candidate?

 

Hmmm...so when the democrats are choosing Ferraro and Clinton to run in national races and primaries that is merit but if the republicans choose a woman that is a political ploy?

 

An argument like that would seem to be a slap in the face to conservative women. They are to be used only as political tools while the real women, the qualified women are members of the democratic party?

 

These are the sort of arguments that make women eat each other alive over who is the proper model. Oddly, men seem to fight over the issues when aligning themselves with a side while women devolve into leaving the issues alone and trying to define who is a real woman.

 

Palin is a political candidate, chosen for her experience as a governor and what she brings to the race personally. While I am pleased that the republicans have put a woman in our nation's largest political race I will continue to judge Palin by her stand on the issues not her gender as I will judge McCain on the issues not his age and Obama on the issues not his race. That is the test of the electorate, can we continue to judge candidates based on the issues and their beliefs rather than their appearance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wouldn't that be nice? Ha! :D

 

Actually, I think that most of the pay for the members of Congress should be taken away and given to the military! :D They get to stay in their cushy offices, but that's it. Give the money to those that actually deserve it. How's that for a cynic? ;)

 

:hurray:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Sarah Palin "play" as a female Ronald Reagan? As I've thought about this today, that's what I'm thinking.

 

I think Reagan was popular because he could communicate in a way that sounded like a regular ole person with common sense and an optimistic, can-do approach. I think she's going to end up filling that vacancy. She's a great communicator. She sounds authentic. She sounds like she has common sense and a fighting, can-do spirit. I'm guessing that, in addition to solidifying McCain's base, she's going to appeal to Reagan Democrats. We'll see.:lurk5:

 

I said elsewhere in this thread that I think she's going to play like a female Ross Perot and appeal to populists (to give Biden a run for the working class vote - some might call those folks the Reagan Democrats, but I don't think this is exactly the same demographic).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bingo.

which is exactly why he's not viewed as a serious conservative.

 

I put a call into the Dept of Ed because it says shall give them. I thought shall meant they had to. The superintendent ignores me most of the time or forgets to call me back.:001_rolleyes: serious rolling eyes. Hubby wants me to go to the board and ask them why. I may do that. I have no insurance and he could use these services. They don't innerfer with our education content. The deal is that they are outside services. I figure it wouldn't hurt since I'm still a voter and I can vote them out or in. They also violated his IEP big time and my other sons. I don't want the to go back there but hubby feels that we should at least make things a little uncomfortable for them. It can help another kid who isn't HS but needs adults to stick up for them. I don't know if I want to do anything. It just makes me mad in general.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wouldn't that be nice? Ha! :D

 

Actually, I think that most of the pay for the members of Congress should be taken away and given to the military! :D They get to stay in their cushy offices, but that's it. Give the money to those that actually deserve it. How's that for a cynic? ;)

 

Yep, then we will get real people working for real people. Like I said before just because Biden has been doing it for so long doesn't mean the pay check and pension aren't his reasons more than the people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But for me evolution is NOt something I want taught either or at least the way its taught. I'm having all kinds of problems with that right now so if both were taught together the students would have more info otherwise the same could be said about evolution being taught as an elective too.

 

I like the idea of them all being taught as electives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And Sarah Palin was not selected as the Republican VP Candidate because of her sex.

 

 

as sooo many people have already stated, she WAS picked because of her very CONSERVATIVE views and very CONSERVATIVE actions as governor. The selection of a CONSERVATIVE vp [since McCain is not a conservative] has been an ongoing debate in Republican circles for weeks!! months!! if you hadn't noticed, quite a few Republicans have expressed some serious reservations about voting because of McCain's liberal views. It's only the Democrats who are trying to spin this as "they just picked her cuz she's a woman."

 

I totally respect your opinion, but the woman was only vetted for like 2 days. John McCain met this woman ONCE before he picked her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is my understanding in exploring the same issue that the two options are not mutually exclusive. Different people are called at different times for different purposes.

 

Thanks for helping me out here, Peek. Here's what I don't understand. According to the info on the blog linked by Rowan Tree, "a sword does not belong in a woman's hands" and, "God establishing women to rule over the children of Israel is an element of His judgment and curse upon Israel’s disobedience."

 

This leads me to believe that the blogger believes women are only called to lead to somehow punish or shame the people being led. What do you think? Is that what the blogger and Rowan believe?

 

What do you believe? (I generally can understand your beliefs, so I'm just curious as to how yours compare to the linked blog. Thanks!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have no problem with multiple creation stories being taught in school. I covered these before ancient history.

 

However I do think they should be covered in a philosophy class, not a science class.

 

Evolution should be in the philosophy class, too. It is a theory which is unprovable by scientific method, just like creation.

 

Science classes should stick to true science: hypotheses can be directly observed and verified through repetition which achieves the same result. Can't do that with the OT Creation story, and can't do that with evolution either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Barack Obama was not elected as the Democratic Candidate because of his race.

 

If Palin was picked because of HER and HER record and experience, not for political reasons because she is a woman, this would be a non-issue.

 

Do you really think Obama's race wasn't ANY part of the reason he was chosen? The way I see it is the dems had a choice between race and gender and they figured race would win over gender. I'm saying this because Clinton and Obama have similar ideas; I'm considering the playing field being level with race and gender the only issue. Of course, Clinton has more experience than Obama.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, it is my opinion that it's a slap in the face to all women, and all we have fought for for the last 100 years. Sure, he picked a woman, but he picked the one that conservative men are least likely to be threatened by, one that "knows her place" so to speak.

 

The Republicans are experts at alienating a large number of party members.

 

That's an inaccurate comment. It's not a slap in my face and from what I'm hearing a lot of conservative and moderate women they agree with me. I think that's an arrogant statement not based on facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you really think Obama's race wasn't ANY part of the reason he was chosen? The way I see it is the dems had a choice between race and gender and they figured race would win over gender. I'm saying this because Clinton and Obama have similar ideas; I'm considering the playing field being level with race and gender the only issue. Of course, Clinton has more experience than Obama.

 

From my perspective, they didn't want the Clinton's at all. Someone has an axe to grind with them and I think that her name is Nancy Pelosi. :D Nancy, I believe, loves her power, and would love nothing more than to see Hillary not get Presidency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's an inaccurate comment. It's not a slap in my face and I from what I'm hearing a lot of conservative and moderate women agree with me. I think that's an arrogant statement not based on facts.

 

Well, just know that there are many others out there who are fighting for the rights of you and your daughters to hold any opinion you wish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wouldn't that be nice? Ha! :D

 

Actually, I think that most of the pay for the members of Congress should be taken away and given to the military! :D They get to stay in their cushy offices, but that's it. Give the money to those that actually deserve it. How's that for a cynic? ;)

 

 

I KNEW I liked you for a reason! Sign me up for that plan!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, just know that there are many others out there who are fighting for the rights of you and your daughters to hold any opinion you wish.

 

I can fight for my own rights thank you. I am a veteran, a former activist, and a moderate feminist who does not believe in the regular feminist agenda and so am not welcome. I don't need people to make decisions for my welfare or my daughters' that conflict with my values.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can fight for my own rights thank you. I am a veteran, a former activist, and a moderate feminist who does not believe in the regular feminist agenda and so am not welcome. I don't need people to make decisions for my welfare or my daughters' that conflict with my values.

 

I agree with this, problem is women like Palin want to make decisions for me and my girls for which I don't agree as well. Both parties are the same (all about control). They just want to control different aspects of out lives. I too fall short of the left/radical feminist view, but Ms. Palin's views are aberrant to mine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, I agree. But I wasn't asking what her contemporaries thought.

 

My question is- do people who believe that women shouldn't lead men think that Joan of Arc was called because the men of the day were whimps?

 

Does God call women to lead for the sole purpose of shaming men, or because there are no men available that are capable of leading at the time the women are called?

 

I'm just trying to get a better understanding of your thought process, because I really don't understand it.

 

I agree with Peek a Boo, "It is my understanding in exploring the same issue that the two options are not mutually exclusive. Different people are called at different times for different purposes."

 

I think the blog I referenced spells it out fairly well from a Scriptural standpoint. I don't necessarily believe we can interpret God's providence in a particular instance so that we could conclude that He is shaming our nation by His appointment of Polin as VP (assuming she is elected), or that He is commenting on the inability of the men who are left unchosen by McCain. However, I do think that this, or something like it, is the general mindset of the Scriptures. I would rather say that the circumstance of women taking up leadership in the State is often an unfortunate necessity - which may, of course, be used by God to bless. God's pattern is to shame the strong by using the weak to save (1 Cor. 1:27). This highlights His mercy at the same time that it demonstrates man's (or men's) ineptitude. When I say "weak" in reference to women, I'm thinking in terms of 1 Pet. 3.7 where he calls the wife the "weaker vessel." I don't think this is a judgment of quality. Rather, it is a comment on the nature of woman. She is a weaker, i.e., a "delicate" vessel while the man is a stronger, "cruder" instrument. They are made for different uses. A tea cup is delicate but not very appropriate vessel for hammering nails. A hammer is useless for the sophistication of tea-time, but is good for construction, even if it's not much to look at. And so, when God uses a tea cup to drive nails, it suggests He finds the hammer useless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I totally respect your opinion, but the woman was only vetted for like 2 days. John McCain met this woman ONCE before he picked her.

 

Maybe he liked the look of her political record.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Evolution should be in the philosophy class, too. It is a theory which is unprovable by scientific method, just like creation.

 

Science classes should stick to true science: hypotheses can be directly observed and verified through repetition which achieves the same result. Can't do that with the OT Creation story, and can't do that with evolution either.

 

Yay! :iagree::iagree:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can fight for my own rights thank you. I am a veteran, a former activist, and a moderate feminist who does not believe in the regular feminist agenda and so am not welcome. I don't need people to make decisions for my welfare or my daughters' that conflict with my values.

 

I didn't mean to offend. But a lot of women are VERY angry about this choice. Like I said, I respect your opinion. I will fight to the death for your right to have it, but what I won't do is sit and pretend that Palin represents the views of the majority of American women.

 

If she cared and understood the majority of American women she would know that we don't want other women to have abortions, so we want programs funded that will prevent women from getting pregnant in the first place. She would not be in favor of women going into unsanitary, unsafe conditions for medical procedures because all the real clinics are illegal. She would want those women who DO choose life to have quality daycare, quality schools, and health care for their children.

 

If she were a caring mother who cared about other people's children as much as her own, why would she get behind the senator with one of the WORST voting records against children in the Senate?

http://www.childrensdefense.org/site/PageServer?pagename=act_learn_scorecard2007

 

If you are for her because she is a Conservative, hey that's great. But I am fully convinced that the Republicans did this because they think Democratic women are stupid. Goody for them that they got some Conservative backpats too.

 

Smoke and mirrors. (not that it doesn't go on on both sides)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree with this, problem is women like Palin want to make decisions for me and my girls for which I don't agree as well. Both parties are the same (all about control). They just want to control different aspects of out lives. I too fall short of the left/radical feminist view, but Ms. Palin's views are aberrant to mine.

 

I can understand how you feel because I've felt that way about candidates, too. I've been disillusioned with both parties and all politicians for quite a while. People have to stand up for what they believe in. I totally respect that and expect it but to make a comment like "a slap in all women's faces" doesn't fly with me.

 

If we're talking about abortion we could apply nearly the same intolerant quotes about both candidates equally. It's very polarizing. Abortion is not going away. I have a complicated personal view about it that would have me flamed from both sides that I don't need to share nor defend. But there are other issues, too.

 

I probably won't be voting for Obama but I don't feel the need to make negative posts about him that are not based on fact. I don't like it from either side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, just know that there are many others out there who are fighting for the rights of you and your daughters to hold any opinion you wish.

 

 

This is exactly the problem with what has become the reality of the feminist movement. Instead of working for a world where women actually have a choice in lifestyle they are only supporting women who wish to give up motherhood and homemaking; they are focused on the "working woman". They think that all women must fall into a particular box-liberal, working, supportive of certain issues. A movement for the equality of women would respect choices. That would also include the choice to stay home with their families rather than work outside the home. There are plenty fighting for the rights of women from both sides of the fence.

 

I say again, women will get nowhere until they stop trying to define "woman" rather than accepting differences and fighting over the issues. You are choosing a very narrow definition of who is a true woman. From the examples on this board alone women are varied in religion, politics, race, educational theories, and preference in feminine products.

 

If you disagree with a woman for her politics-attack her politics. But these constant snide and snarky insults to conservative (and perhaps even moderate women or just those pleased to see a woman on the ticket) are just ridiculous. Honest, sincere, real women are voting for a variety of candidates in this race; stop slapping those that disagree with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I totally respect your opinion, but the woman was only vetted for like 2 days. John McCain met this woman ONCE before he picked her.

 

 

I'm sure he didn't give it any serious thought or study before he chose her. WOW! This goes back to the idea that maybe, just maybe she was chosen because of her credentials, not in spite of them. This is McCain's last big shot. I seriously doubt he glanced at her resume and said, "She'll do!" He's nothing if not savvy about politics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for helping me out here, Peek. Here's what I don't understand. According to the info on the blog linked by Rowan Tree, "a sword does not belong in a woman's hands" and, "God establishing women to rule over the children of Israel is an element of His judgment and curse upon Israel’s disobedience."

 

This leads me to believe that the blogger believes women are only called to lead to somehow punish or shame the people being led. What do you think? Is that what the blogger and Rowan believe?

 

What do you believe? (I generally can understand your beliefs, so I'm just curious as to how yours compare to the linked blog. Thanks!)

 

i probably won't be as helpful for you this time around ;)

 

since I don't hold a belief one way or the other [both arguments have scriptural backing] I tend to toss this in the "personal conviction" category.

That's not a very popular position amongst Christians: I do the same w/ baptism and communion: different people have different beliefs --based on scripture-- of how best to handle those issues. And many do NOT see them as personal conviction/doctrinal issues, but as serious issues that can absolutely affect whether your belief of salvation is genuine or not --they see it as a test of "which God" you claim to follow.

 

My only concern when it comes to doctrinal issues is that your issue be based on scripture and faith. As such, there is plenty of scripture for women being their dh's helpmeet and keeper of the home, and there is plenty of scripture about strong women being called to speak up.

 

I can't say whether Palin's running is appropriate or not at this point. I know *I* wouldn't try to involve myself in a campaign as a candidate w/ young kids. I say that as someone who is active in local politics [sat on the Parks and rec board, currently on the Library Advisory Board, and was instrumental in helping to get the current mayor elected -he's a homeschool dad down the street ;)....] and just might run for City Council at some point. i do think there is a lot to the aspect of being CALLED to a position. the problem w/ being called is you're likely the only person who can hear that particular calling, lol. but I think it is fair to test everything in this regard, and people who are called to do something will be ready for that testing.

 

In short, I support the blogger's right to believe those things, but i also support another Christian's right to diagree with his interpretation. You can be a "good Christian" and still have a wrong interpretation of scripture :D

 

clear as mud?:tongue_smilie:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I probably won't be voting for Obama but I don't feel the need to make negative posts about him that are not based on fact. I don't like it from either side.

 

But her positions are not shared by the majority of the American women- that is fact, and the Republicans rolled her out like "Here is your skirt, now go vote."

 

It's not the women who support her I'm against- far far from it. It's the tactics used by the Republican party. I'm a registered Republican. I have a good reason to be mad as h*** about this just like some Conservative women have a right to be throwing parties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I totally respect your opinion, but the woman was only vetted for like 2 days. John McCain met this woman ONCE before he picked her.

 

what??

so you TOTALLY missed allll the news that was surrounding her [and others] for WEEKS?? Do you REALLY think that as one of the few WOMEN GOVERNORS in the country she was completely UNNOTICED till the last TWO DAYS?

seriously??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't get that at all from this selection. I don't get it. Weren't you already an Obama supporter though before Palin was picked? I'm not sure what you have to be mad about. Oh, and do you have numbers on American women's views on Palin's positions? Thanks. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If she cared and understood the majority of American women she would know that we don't want other women to have abortions, so we want programs funded that will prevent women from getting pregnant in the first place. She would not be in favor of women going into unsanitary, unsafe conditions for medical procedures because all the real clinics are illegal. She would want those women who DO choose life to have quality daycare, quality schools, and health care for their children.

 

If she were a caring mother who cared about other people's children as much as her own, why would she get behind the senator with one of the WORST voting records against children in the Senate?

http://www.childrensdefense.org/site/PageServer?pagename=act_learn_scorecard2007

 

 

"If she were..."?? You're implying that she does NOT care, does NOT understand American women, and does NOT care about other people's children, which is a mighty arrogant place to be. I can't speak for whether she does or does not.

 

Don't you see that there is more to it than this? I think it is extremely narrow-minded to say that the majority of women "want programs funded that will prevent women from getting pregnant", because while I certainly am in favor of not getting pg in the first place, it's about how to accomplish that. Not every woman follows the Dem logic that a government program funded by more taxes will solve the issue of millions of babies aborted for the sake of convenience. Conservatives who vote against this or that 'program' aren't voting against it because they are hard-hearted haters of special needs children who want women to have back-alley unsterile abortions. They vote against programs because they are full of pork, or because legislation and tax money doesn't change peoples' behavior in the bedroom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...