How to Take Away Palin's Religious Right Voters

[Waiting For Everyman]

Impossible? Oh boy, this could be Porky Palin's BIGGEST PROBLEM of them all, if widely promoted.

THE BIBLE FORBIDS FUNDIES FROM VOTING FOR HER!!!

And where does this quandary come from? Complementarians - that's the new lingo for male headship. PLEASE read this article. Even though it may sound silly, this is the "silver bullet" with Palin's own voters. The "powers" in the Religious Right who back Palin don't care about this b/c they aren't really believers anyway, they only use the churches to deliver votes. But the rank and file will care a lot. Furthermore, it's why the Religious Right really can't use ANY woman to carry it's anti-feminist water for them, as they have been getting away with doing. All it needs is to make the argument, and keep making it, to stop that abusive practice.

The excerpt below is by a blogger who makes an argument that the Complementarians are all in a tizzy about on their own websites. For us, it doesn't matter who the writer is because they themselves are taking it very seriously. I've been in the fundies' circles many years ago, and also know something about the Bible, so I know this argument is very valid. What follows is just the beginning and the end of it, you'll need to read the link for the specific reasons why the Bible says fundies can't vote for her. As the last point, the author debunks the rationale of using Deborah of the Old Testament, to make voting for Palin alright...

Sarah "Serpico" Palin And The Christian's Quandry Part III
08/30/08 | by jetbrane | Categories: Politics
Now comes the “Quandry” part. In many respects Sarah Palin looks to be a an attractive candidate. Who could not admire and energetically cheer her decision to have a downs syndrome child? Just thinking of her decision to have this child brings tears to my eyes. Who could not want to support her and so stick their thumb in the eye of those in the liberal mainstream establishment who hate any thing that smacks ever so slightly of something remotely Christian? Sarah Palin seemingly has many of the right convictions but according to God’s word she is not the man for the job of Vice President and Christians who take Scripture seriously would be hard pressed to justify a vote for her.

First, Scripture teaches that God’s created order disallows a woman as civil magistrate. Though most American citizens and most American Christians hate it, the reality is that God’s word teaches that Man was to be the covenant head, and that woman was made to be man’s companion and help-meet. Scripture teaches (I Tim. 2:13, I Cor. 11:13, I Cor. 11:8-9) that the creation order was by design and that the teleological end of that creation order, in regard to male female relationships was that man should have positional, authority and leadership priority. The position of men and women in this regard is not something that is cultural, nor is it something that came about because of the fall, but rather the position of men and women is anchored in the creation order. People are welcome to defy that order but someone has to be the one who tells them that the snap-back of reality is painful.

Some will argue here that I am applying something that is perhaps true of the church and the family but is in no way true of the civil realm. This is not solid reasoning. First, Scripture clearly teaches that men are to be leaders in each of these authoritative realms that God has ordained. The man is to servant-rule in the home (Eph. 5:22-24), the church (I Tim. 2:11-14, I Cor. 14:34-35) and the civil realm (I Cor. 11:3, Ex. 18:21). It would be passing strange were God to ordain men to rule in realm of the Church and Family but allow Women to rule in the civil realm. Indeed, such an arrangement would make God the author of confusion. The fact remains, as our climate indicates, that if it is ever argued that women should be allowed to be leaders in any one realm only a matter of time will separate that argument from the argument that allows women to lead in all spheres.

To round off this first point we should answer a ready objection. Some will contend that even though it is not God’s ideal that women lead as civil magistrates that Christians still ought to vote for a female candidate if she is better qualified than her opposing male candidate. The problem with this argument is that such reasoning would lead us to similarly reason that a wife that is better qualified to lead her home than her husband should be allowed to do so on that basis. The problem in such reasoning is apparent.

Second, Scripture explicitly teaches that one qualification for civil magistrate is maleness...

...

Fifthly, the example of Deborah proves at best that God will use female leadership as a reproach to men to accomplish his ends. Many will appeal to Deborah as an example of God using women as civil magistrates. The problem with this is that the account of Deborah clearly indicates the weakness of men. Also from Scripture we learn that God directly raised up Deborah to do his work, in light of the weakness of men. I seriously doubt that anyone would make the argument that God has directly raised up, in a revelatory sense, Sarah Palin in light of the weakness of men to be a civil magistrate.

Also on this score we must be careful that we don’t take an instance from one of Israel’s lowest and most confused points to overturn the clear and explicit teaching of Scripture on male leadership in the civil realm. God can speak through Donkeys but we would be wrong to set out in the pastures waiting for God’s Word from an Ass. Even so God can lead through women in the civil magistrate but it is sin for us to vote for women against God’s explicit Word in hope that God will give us another Deborah.

Finally, some will argue that as America is not a covenanted nation then Christians shouldn’t have to worry about God’s standards on voting. It is true that America is not a covenanted nation but it is not true that God’s standards therefore do not apply to the Christians dwelling in the non-covenanted nation. Christians for their part must continue to apply God’s standards and that means not voting in favor of God’s judgment.

Everything I’ve read suggests that Sarah Palin is a fine woman. Unfortunately, as I said earlier, though she seems to be ideologically in the right place, she remains the wrong man for the Vice Presidency. Still, because of this Nomination I see John McCain winning convincingly in November. Would that Christians wouldn’t join themselves with this judgment.

http://ironink.org/index.php?blog=1&title=sarah_serpico_palin_and_the_christian_s__2&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

"The wrong man for the Vice Presidency"... wouldn't that make a great catch-phrase, or bumper sticker in their own fundie circles?

The hardcore can't have it both ways. They can't say Palin can rule in the civil realm, but women can't rule in the church. They can't be against feminism, and promote Palin. If they hold onto her, they give up the reason for holding onto her. Just like Obama, she's a personified message - but her message is a logical absurdity!

YIKES! They're screwn. And I'm sure they don't want us (or most fundies) to notice it. Christian Dems, all Dems, really should take some of the logic in this piece and use it to make some talking points the family values set would respond to. Or at least some that would make her puppetmasters look pretty silly and cynical to women and independents.

For fundies, the post above handles the situation pretty well. For other voters leaving Scripture out of it, anti-abortionism, which is her primary stated goal, has to stand on one of two grounds: it's either anti-feminist (a control women thing), or anti-killing. Well if it's anti-killing, then what about the capital punishment and gun-lobby problem? So then what does that leave? Controling women! But then, the Repubs are always about cheap or unpaid labor. Kinda like the Old South... or colonialism. That's Palin's agenda for her puppetmasters, whether she's brainwashed into it or a willing 'Uncle Tom'.

When you think about it, though, it really is kind of ridiculous for fundie Complementarians to have a WOMAN champion. As much as the idea of a woman VP candidate works for us (or anyone else), it REALLY doesn't work for fundies. The mental gymnastics it takes is pretzelfying.

To really get the full humor of this dilemma, check out some Complementarian info below:

http://www.theopedia.com/Complementarianism

Next are two VERY interesting articles on Palin's religious-political agenda and backers.

http://religiondispatches.org/art420.php

http://religiondispatches.org/art417.php


Here's what I think the overall picture is:
1) The religious right should be persuading people about abortion in the marketplace of ideas, not legislating their views by force. That's what the Bible says too, btw.

2) The Dems too, should be persuading voters out of the religious right, by showing them that they are in bed with very non-Christian global power-tripper financial elites. Not engaging that debate, keeps losing elections for us. Each election, we keep trying to just overcome the given fact that millions of our people are brainwashed into this viewpoint. Sometime, that has to be corrected rather than conceded. Maybe it would be good to do that BEFORE elections come up. We have most of the "thinkers" on our side, so why are we so bad at this? Maybe, because we don't know the other side's rationale well enough to shoot holes in it?

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

1. this might make a couple of them

pause

[Waiting For Everyman]

6. And the early Christians shared property "in common" too

Or communes, as we might say.

[SheilaT]

10. Great bumper sticker!

Where can I get one?

[seemunkee]

2. Sorry but you are using logic

That usually doesn't work with that crowd

[zbdent]

3. Why do I get the feeling that this was written up when it appeared that

Hillary would become the Dem nominee, and that someone just now discovered it on an abandoned thumb drive and decided it could be used against McCain?

[Waiting For Everyman]

7. They've always been saying that about women candidates, especially Hillary.

But it's also why they can't have their own "Hillary". Both won't wash. At least some of them are honest enough to know it.

[Honeycombe8]

4. No issue here. She IS in the position of "help-mate" to McCain. She won't have important

official duties. She will be an "advocate," is what she said.

That's why they don't care about her experience or college record. She's being hired to look good, support McCain and the Party, be snide and sarcastic, be female to attract female voters AND men who like good lookin' women AND be harder to be attacked. That's about it, I think.

[renie408]

5. The problem is that REAL fundies are probably a very small percentage. FAKE fundies, however, are

legion.

[kayell]

8. You expect logic and internal consistancy from fundies?!

I'm sorry, and it would be nice if it worked that way, but these people have a LONG history of cherry picking the bible. Even though they are "strict bible literalists" and many of them are closet dominionists, they still know that while the bible was just kidding about eating shellfish (Red Lobster after church) and that whole mixed fibers thing (poly-cotton dresses for church), it absolutely, totally meant it about the evils of gays.

Don't worry, they have more work arounds than you can imagine. Most of them have to do with Jesus over turning the law - the same law they can get just as rabid about if they want to apply it to their enemies.

Added: Remember, this is the same crowd that flocked around Phyllis Schlafly, a woman who made a full time career (requiring extensive travel and time away from her husband) of preaching that the only place for a woman was in the home. Cognitive dissonance holds no terror for them.

[mwooldri]

9. Here's Devil's Advocate here...

Remember what Failin' asked - what exactly does the VP do? Basically, officially it's sit and wait for the Prez to die, oh and there's that chair the Senate thing and have a casting vote if there's a 50/50 tie. Way things are going it'll be a Democratic majority in the Senate so not too many 50/50 votes to preside over, plus the VP gets to appoint on a rotating basis a stand-in in the Senate for them, so the VP doesn't actually have to show up in Senate either.

So there isn't much officially that the VP is "required" to do, all other duties are effectively delegated from the Prez. In any case it's going to be a male head; we're electing Obama or McSame, not Biden or Failin'. To use the household analogy quoted in the parent post, it's the President who is "head of household" and VP is the "supporting spouse".

But I bet you: the vast majority of those who believe a woman can't be head of anything who turn up to vote will vote for McSame.

Mark.