Fellas, I have already started this conversation via email with Tim, but I am very interested in how we should or should not be supporting Sarah Palin as VP nominee with McCain. The short of the matter is I would vote republican simply on the issue of abortion, not to mention the other social and non-social viewpoints that I agree with. I think every one of us would agree that every election is a vote for which is better or a vote against who is worse, depending on if your a cup 1/2 full or cup 1/2 empty kinda guy.
What I am more interested in is how you all percieve Sarah Palin as a potential VP. What does scripture say about this? What does scripture say about the role of women and gender equality. What does scripture say about women that are gifted to minister through teaching? What does scripture say about women working and raising a family?
To get things rolling I will open the discussion asking for responces to the following:
Proverbs 31 - interpretations?
http://www.raystedman.org/misc/woteach.html - rebuttles?
Thanks fellas, and I love you guys!
(ps. where is spell check on this thing?)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
25 comments:
Being too tired/lazy to read the second reference and having read the first (I do plan on reading the second at some point as a brief forray into its content was intriguing)...I will shamelessly give my uneducated and highly biased opinion, prepare for some Propaganda!
1) Sarah Palin is George Bush in a skirt. She is a zionist of the first degree and stripe who elevates Israel to an esteemed position, is dangerously pro-war (an undesirable trait in John McKain's running mate), and has proved herself very adept at manipulating the political machine that she deprecates in her speeches (i.e. pork barrel politics). I admire her personal strength and resolve and agree with her values. I just don't think she's actually that much different than any other politician who has claimed religious values(true though they be) to gain votes.
2)The abortion Herring: Who is better, someone who spends the lives of young men and women in the pursuit of bad information and empire building politics or someone who allows abortion to continue while promising to reduce its incidence? My point is that I think Republicans use the abortion thing as a red herring and a trump card. We're still going to have to fight abortion no matter who is in the white house. So I'd rather have someone there who is not going to send us into war with Russia and maybe be indifferent to abortion (b'c the fight against abortion is going to be a local one for some time I think).
3) We should always vote our consciences not the lesser of two evils. With your vote you endorse a platform...I would not do that unless you substantially support it.
Alright I'm done, throw your darts!
I refer to the earlier discussion for the women in leadership roles part of the post
am I the only one who sees the comments in .5 size font? what the crap
Yeah... it would have behooved me to read the PCK topic discussion ahead of time eh. I was out of the blogging arena when that discussion went down and have not gone back to review, but will take a gander. Thanks.
Lg.I.M. ...you're point about the war deaths vs. abortion deaths is intriguing. I'm not sure if I can transition into a full on evaluation of war justice and politics, but your question makes me think a bit... For the argument to work, the war must be classified as more in contradiction to God's will than the abortion deaths. Simply, you could go numbers to numbers. Or you could systematically put out projections on the total talley of people effected by each death, but d*amn, how the heck do you do that? This turns into a very difficult ethical questions very quickly. I am going to think about it though.
By the way, the abortion issue may be used as a red herring by some politicians to pull at the emotional strings of voters in efforts to steer them away from other issues upon which the said republican may have a questionable standing... but in truth, we are talking about human lives that are DIRECTLY and IMMEDIATELY effected by this issue. The other issues, whether they be education, poverty, the economy, health care, and even war are further removed from this direct correlation and are based upon predictors and future possible outcomes (however certain they may appear to be). So, do we put more emphasis on the here-and-now of what we can (attempt) to regulate/steer in our country, or do we try to regulate/steer these other issues in a more humane direction? They answer is BOTH. But, MY CONSCIOUS is weighted more towards the 3,000 unborn children aborted each day in America whom we can be certain are completely INNOCENT of any wrongdoing.
If John McCain promised (and we could be sure that he could/would carry through) that the day after he was elected he would declare abortion illegal (dubious constitutionally I know but bare with me), but he said that he felt war with Russia was necessary. I would both vote for him and go to war in that cause. Only because it would mean the end of abortion. This is not, however, how politics works. With John McCain and Sarah Palin in office I think we have a high likelihood of both war on all fronts and continued abortion domestically. Here's why:
1)John McCain is an old man who is set in his ways and is unlikely to listen to a female VP (even if she has been most useful to him in garnering popularity). McCain has recently become pro-life b/c it will help him get elected (he was known for his prochoice stance in his earlier political career--somebody check me on this though).
2)Palin is VP not P
3)McCain is a war monger of the worst sort and we can count on foreign relations going to hell in a hand basket as soon as he is sworn in (a bit of an overstatement I know).
So my point is not that we should ignore abortion and focus elsewhere. It is that McCain and Palin are not going to solve abortion any more effectively than Obama and Biden (A staunch Roman Catholic by the way) in my opinion. Given that reality, I prefer the candidate that is not going to lead our country into unnecessary war (all other things being equal.
War Vs. Abortion
The simple fact is that governments sacrifice the young. God warned Israel of that when they demanded a King. It continues in our day with abortion and War. But you're right Clayton, the justness of the war must be taken into account, and that is a monumental task. I dont think the current war is anything close to just...but many disagree.
I'll disagree with the war comment, but frankly I'm tired of talking about it so I'm not saying anything else about it.
I'm voting for McCain and Palin bc they are more conservative than Obama. We can argue all day long on how McCain hasn't voted very conservatively in teh past 10 years but he's still better than the alternative. And since history has proven time and time again voting third party is a useless delusion I'm going with the above.
I'm not voting for church office here so I'm not really going at this from the standpoint of can a woman lead.
I think Palin can handle being VP and her popularity in Alaska speaks for itself.
Third party voting--
Here are a few other useless delusions from the history box:1) 300 Spartans successfully defying the Persian empire(forgive the accidental association with recent film) 2)A small British fleet led by Sir Walter Releigh trashing the far superior numbers of the Spanish Armada 3) A group of pilgrims with no experience in native agriculture, or war for that matter, making a go of it in hostile territory, riddled with disease, and hopelessly outnumbered by powerful indian tribes on all sides. 4) A minority group from 13 English colonies defying the British Empire.
I'm not trying to be an ass, I just think that its good to remember that impossible things DO actually happen in this world. Usually it requires great sacrifice, determination, lots of hard hard work, and ALWAYS the providential guiding of God's hand, but it CAN be done. Applied to the DEMS Vs. REPS this means that if you want Washington and our country to bounce back and forth between two arms of the same monster...vote for the lesser of two evils. If you really want to fight for change, strive for something outside the established system (i.e. a viable third party). We have got to start thinking generationally. Voting 3rd party may not have an immediate effect for 100's of years but eventually (and most changes in history are gradual ones)...it might make all the difference and accomplish real change.
Of course, there are those that vote Republican of Conscience because they honestly agree and support Republican ideals. This is another discussion. I just want to hone in on the "its useless to vote third party because they can't get elected" argument.
I've heard it said before that no Christian can justify voting Democrat when comparing the party's endorsed stances on social issues to those of the Republicans. Of course, candidates don't always walk the party line with every issue.
...not saying I agree, but an interesting thought.
Sam, I love your spirit but I see a major flaw in your reasoning: Those are all instances of minority groups rising to defeat the majority by force. That's not exactly how democratic voting works. You have to be the majority by popularity, not ass-kick-ability.
So, my reasoning is more in line with the Blakester on this one.
That's not to say that a third party may one day gain enough popularity to compete, but it would have to be tackled a little differently:
Here's what I mean.... Nobody is gonna elect a loser from either of the 2 parties that decides to run as an independent/third party. Sorry Ron Paul. For a third party guy to really have a chance, he's gotta gain ground during the primaries. Thus, he has to decide up front that he's gonna run against the 2 big dogs. In order to do that, he's gotta have constituents. How do you get constituents? By already being a popular third party/independent politician (how many of those do we have... I honestly don't know?) or you gotta buy them, i.e. fund raising. In order to do that you gotta have a ton of freakin money... I mean a TON of freakin money!
So... my question to you: How many billionaires do you know that are good Christian fellas with enough popularity and savvy to pull it off? Please let me know.
Another follow-up thought...
Why would a rich popular savvy Christian politician choose to run as a third party candidate in the first place, when he could run as a Republican and have a better chance simply b/c he would be republican? Unless maybe he wanted to completely distinguish himself from both parties in the beginning of the race... in order to do that though, I think he would have to already have a good deal of popularity.
Either way... it's a tough feat!
Clayton hit on the answer. If you want to have a chance to actually make a difference, why not stay in the Republican party and fight it out. Reform it from within. Be another Reagan or Goldwater who brought conservatism back with a vengeance.
Imagine if all the Libertarians or Constitutionalists, or whatever new name you give yourself stay in the Republican party and fight tooth and nail against the neo-cons. What do you think would happen, how much could you change/save from the ideals that made this country great?
But instead people gave up, quit, "took a stand", or whatever excuse they gave to pack up their ball and go home.
The Spartans/Colonialists/English navy didn't fight for 176 years and then suddenly win. Third parties have been around since 1832 and none have ever even come close to changing our current system. If you want to have an effect you stay in the Republican party and you fight for your ideals.
Gnetlemen start your engines...good stuff all. Great thoughts and challenges. I will take them one at a time
1) Historical examples of minority POLITICAL movements becoming majorities: 1) Christianity not just growing as a religion but becoming the official religion of the Roman empire. 2) Lets not totally throw out the example of our own independence either...the "sons of liberty" under Sam Adams and other "radical fringe groups" were a political minority in the colonies at first. The group of politicians wanting to go to war in the continental congress were also a minority group at first until events changed that shifted public opinion to their side. 3) my other examples are simply examples of historical impossibility that suddenly became possible. I don't think it matters that they were military not political events. The obstacles were different but the principle is the same (and the time frame is irrelevant): impossible things can happen because no one can predict what changes will occur to favor the seemingly weaker implausible group. I think you would be hard pressed to convince the Spartans at Thermopylae that Persian swords are less daunting than grumpy greedy constituents.
Reform Vs. Taking a stand:
I think that you could make the argument that it is necessary to reform not replace if we were talking about politics in general and whether or not we should withdraw or participate. There is nothing sacred or even compelling about the Republican party though. To leave it is not to abandon the fight but to acknowledge that competition is always more healthy than oligopoly. We currently have a cartel system in politics. There are two firms that control the balance of power (i.e. taxes, funding, regulation of commerce, foreign policy) and are therefore completely able to manipulate it to favor themselves and prevent true competition in the market place of political power. The question is not whether or not to stay or leave the Republican party, rather it is how can we best reform politics and our country. I believe that the answer to that is to give people more options than they currently have so that the balance of power shifts away from the establishment b/c the fact remains that both Republicans and Democrats believe in big government (whether they use it to tax and bring universal health care or to wage war they both believe in and perpetuate it), and BIG government (not government in general) is a whore house. It doesn't matter who the madam is...its still a whore house. That last line is an old saying that I really like...its not meant to be inflammatory.
Great discussion guys keep it coming.
And third parties HAVE changed our system...even if they have not succeeded in getting a president elected. Reagan was deeply affected by libertarian view points even though running as a Republican. And I encourage you to think about whether or not Reagan would get the Republican nomination in today's society. Ron Paul tried to run as a Republican and was laughed out of the room. The message was clear, true undiluted third party politics are not welcomed by the big boys.
Some of the best political involvement I've ever seen is when I watched Christians standing by an abortion clinic door NOT 1. holding up signs, 2. voting for the right candidate, or 3. chaining themselves to the door. BUT 4. asking the future mothers if they would give birth to the baby so that the Christians could find it a home with a family that wanted a baby.
This is a truly convicting memory and I thought I'd share it.
...that gave me chills JB.
I should know better than to get into a historical debate with an Elder... I will continue after some thought and consultation with my bride.
Let me ask you this. What would have happened if Reagan had of left the Republican party and tried to run third party? Where would our country be had Reagan not been elected?
We have a two party system right now. Why is a 3 party system any less in danger of becoming a cartel? Most cartels involve 3 or more parties. Competition is a good thing of course. But you don't have to form a third party to have competing ideas. People have choices all the time and they chose amongst those choices in the primaries.
Ron Paul had his shot, and he proved lacking. It has nothing to do with a lack of competition, but his product was found inferior. I'm not here to argue the merit of his product, but only to point that if the "party of conservatism" ran RP out the door, why would he garner more support in a general election? And furthermore by voting for a candidate who has no viable chance of winning, you are increasing the likelihood of a marxist taking the high office.
I don't like the fact I the Republican party put up McCain as the candidate. But its all the more reason for conservatives to stand together within the party and fight that much harder so that maybe one day a Ron Paul (who isn't obsessed with the gold standard) can get his chance.
The reason a third party (or a fourth or a fifth), not a third opinion, is necessary is because if you run as a Republican or Democrat you automatically rule out the chance of dramatically changing anything because you have accepted big government as a given. Big government is the problem...not who runs it and no matter who you elect as president, if they are a Republican or a Democrat they are not going to reduce the size and scope of government significantly because they are so deeply invested in it remaining large.
Where would we be if Reagan hadn't been elected? I have no idea...I'll tell you where we are even though he was elected, however: Perched precariously on piles and piles of debt, watching it slowly dissappear from under our feet as we desperately try to prop ourselves back up on...you guessed it...more and more debt, more and more government intervention. Its a vicious cycle and it will continue to repeat because big government is a two headed monster that devours everything in its way. And our solution seems to be...give power to the head on the left instead of the head on the right.
Voting in Marxists (unintentionally of course): I think that this argument is fundamentally pragmatic and not principial. When faced with two bad choices the response should be no to both, not yes to the lesser of two evils (which is still evil by the way). We should not be relative in our morality or our politics.
I wish I had more time, but here's my two cents:
1) the point of a third party is never political dominance. It is natural for the political system of a county to be reduced to diametrical opposition, especially in western societies where we tend to cast everything in terms of binary opposition (good vs. evil, blue vs. red, white vs. black). The point of the third party is to exert a kind of pressure on the dynamics of the binary pair that cannot be exerted from within them. When a significant minority of people show that they are willing to abandon the majority parties in favor of ideological third parties, it has an effect (Ross Perot is the latest example of a third party candidate getting enough votes to significantly effect the way the major parties looked at elections).
2) Vocal, ideologically committed, separatist minorities have been instrumental in many of the United States' most important historical moments. They are not always successful, but they are more often than not the source of radical change within the political system when it does happen. One could point not only to the "independence faction" in the continental congress, which was outnumbered for a long time by members who favored accommodation to Britain and working within the existing system, but also to the Pilgrims, who were a separatist group from the Anglican church, and to the southern fire eaters, a small but ideologically influential group of southern politicians who steered the South towards secession despite being few in number and despite significant Unionist sentiment. One could also point to the true Abolitionists in the North at the time, an ideological, separatist minority if there ever was one, but a minority that preserved and championed an idea, building a one-issue political party (the Republicans) from it.
3) The point is the existence and preservation of alternatives within our national political discourse. The mere existence of alternatives is important even to those fighting for change within the current system (the more real the possibility that you might jump ship the better the chance they'll listen to you). Fighting for reform within the system is admirable and necessary, but in the end I think it is just as important (indeed, more so) to embody the existence of alternatives. This makes the major parties react, refine, and hopefully change their message in a way that working from within can't. Working from within only works if you have real power, otherwise they'll just nod at you and take your vote. It's easy to say the separatist tack won't win, because it often doesn't. But when it does, and it has, it's momentous.
Now, it is also important to move past simple alternatives to the Repubs and Dems. At this point it's worth considering that any party will be a slave to people's expectations of what government should do for them. It would have been politically disastrous for the current administration to refuse a massive economic fix of the kind currently before congress, despite the clear fact that it runs counter to any formulation of free market ideology that they claim to hold.
This is why Ron Paul was important, because he was not so much running FOR president as he was running AGAINST the office of president as it is presently understood. Whether McCain or Obama wins doesn't truly matter since both will be held to an understanding of the executive branch that expects it to wield massive power to achieve results that will be felt at the local level.
A three party system could be just as bad as our current system, but I doubt it. The mere fact of having three options instead of two would demand from political parties more definition, more discussion, and less posturing because it breaks the mold of binary opposition that lends itself so well to a simplistic and deceptive "choice."
Okay. I'm not sure yet where I stand on this issue, but I think some of this boils down to "soapbox syndrome." Extremism is great when you have something with some leverage. Abolitionists: they had “all men are created equal” and “in the image of God” on their side to appeal to the hearts and minds of people. What do we have? The Constitution? What’s that? Merely some paper with polite suggestions now. I believe that we should be radical with our belief and action in our commitment to Christ-like government. However, government is not this savior. Less government is not the savior. Christian government is not the savior. All government is evil. Evil, but necessary. So really this “lesser of two evils” argument means absolutely nothing.
I recently spoke with my buddy who is an infantry Marine who has served in both Iraq and Afghanistan. I probed his brain for thoughts on this issue. I personally cannot speak with any sort of expertise on this issue, but I'm opening myself to correction by expressing the way I see things.
1. If you don't vote for McCain you are "voting" for Obama. (I don't necessarily believe this, but it is somewhat true)
2. Obama is (by his beliefs and opinions) the worst candidate for an American president that we have ever seen. Obama is a racist and a Marxist. He desires the death of the unborn, he hates America, and he hates the One True God! This man is DANGEROUS.
3. My friend (the Marine) said, "Forget ‘just war’, fact is we're at war. Period. All other issues aside, I would much rather work for McCain than Obama while at war. McCain is an honorable man.” (whether you believe this or not, it matters not. I'm just reporting)
Let the correction begin...
"Soap Box Syndrom": Yes yes guilty as charged I'm afraid. But having lots of fun with it nonetheless (-:
Point 1: Government is evil...yet we should vote, serve in the military, and elect presidents thereby perpetuating this evil by participating in it?
Point 2: So your argument, John, if I understand it is that we don't have a uniting principle around which to rally in our desire for small government or reform, and government is evil anyway so why bother?
First off how can something that is at its core evil, be necessary? And why should we be radical in our devotion to Christ-like government if it is evil?
Second, I think we are confusing problems and solutions. If you ask, what is the answer to the predicament of the human soul we would all of course say Jesus Christ. If we ask what is the answer for the broken garage door out back we would probably say a ratchet and a screw driver. Underlying that answer would of course be the admission that the watchman watches in vain without the help of God and the garage door repairman repairs in vain as well without divine intervention at every moment of his struggle. The practical answer to the practical question still remains, however. So when we ask what is the answer to government largess and corruption, I would of course agree with you that the answer is Jesus. We must keep going, however, and propose a practical solution. My solution is smaller government and my uniting principal is the corruption present in large government throughout history that is not present to such an extent in smaller governments. For instance: The Welfare State (creating and enabling an addiction just as crippling as an drug), large offensive militaries conquering and spreading the in-vogue governmental style as the new gospel, and a tax burden so great that it is actually theft not the just demands of a govnerment acting on behalf of its people.
Responding to your friend:
1. Again, do we vote conscience or probability. I think conscience.
2. I agree that Obama is a Marxist (although the rhetoric gets a little out of hand). He is a redistributionist of the worst/best kind. The problem of course is that the Church has not stepped up and cared for the poor. So the choice is let them starve(or live without health care in this case) or let the government take care of them. I leave it to you...its not an easy decision. Also, I am very skeptical of all the other accusations leveled at Obama. I have a hard time believing that someone would run for president of the US if they hated America. They might hate your vision for America or they may hate what America has done in the past...I do to sometimes...but that hardly makes them the next Adolph Hitler. As for his religion...he is pluralistic, so is George Bush, but he does proclaim Christ. How come everybody believes McCain/Bush/Palin but not Obama? It is political sympathy and media spin (conservative and liberal) not fact based judgement.
3. I certainly understand that some in the military would be more comfortable with McCain. However, it is just this sort of good old boy, honor code, lets-forget-that- whether-or-not-it-is-a-"just"-war matters-IMMENSELY-when-lives-are being-spent attitude that gets wars started and lives wasted. I would much rather have a leader that can nuance issues and go to war only as a last resort when diplomacy has failed than one who is likely to embroil the US in war with every major/minor power from China and Russia to Iran.
Dont get me wrong I dislike Obama and McCain equally. I just think that the rhetoric against Obama gets a little out of hand and McCain gets off the hook for past indescretions. And lets not forget that McCain's greatest claim to honor, his torture and imprisonment, was quickly followed by the greatest blow to that honor (deserting and cheating on a faithful wife who had waited on him for 5 years).
Alright...I await correction as well.
Just to add some current events: Thoughts on the VP debate last night? I though Palin came through hanging on for dear life while Biden showed great command of issues and foreign policy (although I obviously disagreed with his positions with the exception of the War). Any disagreements, agreements, general thoughts?
Post a Comment