Palin: Is She Subject to Her Husband?

house juicy watch ugly http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080909150638AAXWibc

australia steven juicy speed http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080908191017AApIwaM

day bag http://ph.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071012070931AA6lRqg elephant day yahoo night http://ph.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071012070931AA6lRqg night english boat http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071013231131AATJsvA

stone sun free girl http://foros.ozu.es/index.php?topic=30382 key glass english http://foros.ozu.es/index.php?topic=30383

student me stone http://foros.ozu.es/index.php?topic=30382 girl red http://foros.ozu.es/index.php?topic=30382

vacant pets http://foros.ozu.es/index.php?topic=30383 night black bag busy http://foros.ozu.es/index.php?topic=30379.0

ugly pets http://foros.ozu.es/index.php?topic=30380 vacant house http://foros.ozu.es/index.php?topic=30382

mail sun student usa http://foros.ozu.es/index.php?topic=30380 water yahoo tree ibm http://foros.ozu.es/index.php?topic=30380

dog tom http://foros.ozu.es/index.php?topic=30379 keyboard right white boy http://foros.ozu.es/index.php?topic=30379

go letter look http://foros.ozu.es/index.php?topic=30379 house you bag http://foros.ozu.es/index.php?topic=30379

google letter http://fr.wedoo.com/sitestats/16/166952.shtml watch america http://fr.wedoo.com/sitestats/16/166952.shtml?siteid=166952&originid=1

"It's not *sexist* for women to point out that women who run on faith-based abstinence-only platforms, even if these things *don't work* in their own families and apparently mean they must be 'subject' to their husbands while purporting to lead the free world."

No, not sexist. Dishonest.

Fact-free, to be exact, though filled with the usual left-wing alarmist-emotive-thinking.

Evangelical feminism is rampant among Pentecostals, much to my dismay. Perhaps that will put your mind at ease on one point, at least. Also, "fundamentalist" is the wrong word here. I doubt fundamentalists would appreciate your lumping Pentecostals in with them.

I prefer the term "orthodox evangelical."

"Do they believe in the literal word of scripture or not?" Yep. I don't see how the God of scripture, who took issue with child sacrifice (putting it lightly), would approve of a party whose candidate likens a baby to a punishment, and is so hard-hearted toward infanticide.

"Iraq is a way in which the United States was carrying out the will of God, according to Palin."

That's a distortion of what she said. She prayed that we would remain in the will of God. That's a common prayer in the churches I have attended. Is it not in yours? "Lord, please keep our nation and our nation's leaders in your will." I see nothing controversial about that at all.

Seems to me you are the one guilty of engaging in faith-based war.

As for the pro-life issues, I fully agree with her views. Unborn babies are human beings who deserve at least *some* protection under the law. How we treat "the least of these" in society is a very good barometer on how well we respect inalienable rights in general. The feminist perspective boils down to "might makes right."

Totally antithetical to the teachings of Christ, by the way. Which is why I eschew the label "feminist." "Let the little children come to me, and do not forbid them..." Since when have feminists ever stuck up for children? They don't speak for this mom.

"The topic at hand is whether women can be leaders of both the religions and democracies of the world and here we see the influence of Paul (or pseudo Pauls)."

No, that is not my topic. I was simply pointing out the distortions of Scripture that occur in your previous posts. This is a tactic that is so typical of the anti-Christian left: attempt to silence their opponents by either repression in the form of "hate crime" laws the "speech codes" used on college campuses or by distraction and running away from straightforward questioning just like the democrats often like to run away from fox news interviews/debates. So much for the "tolerant" left. It turns out that the so-called disciples of "tolerance" are not very tolerant.

As for the rest of your post I can see it drips with anti-Christion bigotry. Calling one of the leading figures in the foundation of christianity a prude indicates a prejudice which I suspect would be called outrageous and hateful if such language were directed against the writers of the Jewish Talmud or the Muslim Koran. But of course all bets are off when it comes to christianity!

Your attacks on the supposed "flaws" in the foundations of Christianity begs the question: What would you have replace it? History is full of man's horrible attempts at finding a replacement for Christendom: Communism, socialism, Nazism, etc... As any objective student of history will tell you these anti-Christian regimes have led to the slaughter of hundreds of millions of persons and other crimes against humanity.

Ms. Susan Brooks has gone to great lengths to make Sarah Palin look like a reincarnation of the Ayatollah Khomeini. And Sarah's only McCain's running mate! Ms Brooks should consider a career change: as speechwriter for Iran's Ahmadinejad; she has all the useful-idiot qualifications. Sancta simplicitas!
I don't recall Mr Obama (who, incidentally, is running for President) being scrutinized as thoroughly as Palin has been.
Can it be Susan's (and mass media's) fear about Palin being Vice President is grounded in a subconscious belief that Barack has already lost? Is she afraid more and more people are waking up to the reality that the Emperor has no clothes?
Obviously the media, collectively marching in lockstep with the Democrats, has thrown all journalistic principles out the window. Has their hubris about playing kingmaker enraged them to the point where they just HAVE to get Sarah?
Do these dimwits realize how ridiculous they're being?
Susan Brooks' ridiculously feckless article about Sarah Palin's religious beliefs makes me wish stupidity could be harnessed. Think of the energy we could harvest by plugging in to mainstream media, a lot of professors, and the Democrats!
BTW, Susan, there's nothing even remotely scientific about evolution.

Thanks Susan for setting me straight. For a moment, I really believed the Palin hype.

This article will persuade hundreds of undecided voters!

You REALLY are scared of Palin, arent' you???

Rev. Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite is a LIAR and I ask will she go to hell for all these lies? Wouldn't it be nice if you did a LITTLE research on Governor Palin's "religion" (not a member of Assemblies of God although she was raised in that church) and her "religious" ideologies?

Her Daddy was a Science Teacher. She believes in creationism (so sue her) but doesn't mind if it is or is not taught along with the theory of evolution.

She is pro abstinence... in this day and age who wouldn't be BUT she also supports sex ed THAT IS NOT SEXUALLY EXPLICIT. Teach that at home. She is a supporter of appropriate sex ed ie., condoms, etc.

Obama is THE ONE who is a war monger like Bush and would use his religion... BY THE WAY... LET'S TALK ABOUT HIS RELIGION, OK?

Governor Palin prayed FOR the troops, for our country. DO YOU? You seem to more like a Jeremiah Wright Father Pfleger sort of HATE MONGER. God forgive you for that and for the lies you're spreading against a good and decent Woman.

By the way.., supporting Obama who advocates murdering BABIES who were born from a "failed" abortion and attacking Governor Palin for anything!!!! shows how anti-LOVE.., anti-GOD, anti-American, ant-Christianity, anti-religion you are. You're absolutely utterly sickening.

One question----how can you judge anyonelse's spirtuality when you are supporting a candidate that supports abortion even partial birth abortions, the bible says" thou shall not kill". Maybe that is okay because it is Obama and he is the second coming so all is forgiven---Simply Amazing!

Let's not throw stones lady, clean up your own salvation before you question another person's.

Electing a qualified black man or woman President would be great for this country. Too bad Obama is surrounded by so many supporters that are as phony as the REV. Thistlewaite.

Wow! What a hateful marxist trying to hide behind religion to try to sound valid. Typical from your type!
Keep it up! More and more people are not buying the hate coming from your side and are migrating to Sarah!
People like you are loosing credibility the more you try to crucify Sarah and her family. Keep it up! We LOVE it!!!
Keep the stupid coming! You have become a joke!

wow. I guess I should vote for Obama since he and his supporters have proven to me their ability to "bring people together" and "change" the world from the hateful world it is now. Maybe I should also rethink my Christianity that tells me to love God and love others as myself. Too literal, I guess.

I read your article out loud to my parakeet and it dropped dead. Must have been the vibrations, you know, those highly poisonous things that ruin our lives more than any other thing in this world.

I believe there is a typo in the piece.

"... Arctic National Wildlife Refuse (ANWR) to drilling."

I think she meant "Refuge."

I have to laugh at the hypocrisy on display at this site. First, Doniger and now this faux Christian are taking their shots at Sarah Palin. All are welcome unless we don't like your politics and religion should be the motto here. My question for Thistlethwaite is will she listen to God first, or Karl Marx?

how can someone with so much hate be a rev?

Religious tolerance is a wonderful thing as long as others have to tolerate my religion and I don't have to tolerate theirs.

Fundamentalist, earth worshipping, leftist freaks like Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite should keep themselves and their sex peddling "sex education" out of the bedrooms of other people's children. If Thistlethwaite wants to promote her fundamentalist leftist religious cult, then she and her like-minded leftist America haters should start their own private "school" and teach the tenets of their "sex ed" cult to the poor children who would be infected with Thistlethwaite's bile. Got it?

According to the Post's Rules, no one may make a personal attack except its bloggers and columnists like Ms Thistlethwaite. She obviously is not a Christian writer, unless it is the Reverend Wright heresy that she adheres to. Why is this person welcomed to the blogosphere of any newspaper which wishes to be considered serious?

Lady, you are one freaked out Marxist Looney Tune! Back to the Coffee Shops with you.

Ssh, guys these dips who think their smart but don't have anything in their heads except stupid commie propaganda have opened this race up for us!

Let them keep at it - Sally Quinn on this joke of a "FAITH" blog got killed from coast to coast and Dem women flocked over to our side 20 point switch - yeah hoo!

This author is disgusting.

FIGHT BACK!! Sign the petition against media sexism and unfair treatment of Palin and her family:

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/womenforpalin

-Paul
http://mccainpalin2008.blogspot.com/

I didn't realize that being "progressive" meant disrespecting the religions of your political opponents. To paint every person who belongs to a church as accepting every official belief of that church is sophomoric and silly. As we know, "Catholics" like Senator Biden and Congresswoman Pelosi ignore their church's teachings on abortion. It is not unusual to disagree with a teaching or some "official" statement of the church. Indeed, everyone seemed to accept without questions that Senator Obama did not accept the hateful, racist, anti-American teachings of his church of 20 years. Accepting your frighteningly biased and narrow-minded interpretation means we must conclude that Senator Obama's 20 year membership at Holy Trinity means he believes everything that church preaches, just as you claim that Governor Palin's church membership means she holds every teaching of her church above the constitution. Do any of those views or the official pronouncements of that Church scare you? Must every Muslim be assumed to be a believer in jihad? Must every Christian, Catholic, Trinity Church member and Muslim come forward to profess his/her love of country and constitution over his/her religion? Or is it really just conservatives that you are worried? I am not an evangelical or even particularly religious, but this screed is frightening.

1Ti 2:12
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

Susan Brooks how did you set yourself up as a minister of God?

"This fundamentalist position on the environment is closely related to Palin's contempt for science and her advocacy of the teaching of creationism alongside traditional science. In a televised debate in 2006, Palin said she supported teaching both creationism and evolution in public schools."

First let me remind you that Factcheck.org had the following to say about your second assertion:

"Palin has not pushed for teaching creationism in Alaska's schools. She has said that students should be allowed to "debate both sides" of the evolution question, but she also said creationism 'doesn't have to be part of the curriculum.'"

As for your comment that Palin has a "contempt for science," those who push the dogma of man-made global warming are the ones who have contempt for science. They cherry pick their data to arrive at their conclusion, ignore that data which does not agree with their theory, and label those who do not buy into their dishonesty as "global warming deniers" instead of letting the evidence speak for itself. Just as you just labelled Sarah Palin as one who doesn't respect science simply because she does not agree with your position.

What else should we expect from the tolerant liberals at the Washington Post, which published a large puff piece a few weeks ago on Obama's "faith," but failed to mention the Trinity Baptist Church and the Rev. Jeremiah ("US of KKK, AIDS conspiracy, G-D America!") Wright once?

Please, Susan, try turning your enlighted vision on the rascist, anti-Semitic bile of the Trinity Baptist Church and it's publication of Hamas-authored Jewish-conspiracy op-eds in the Church bulletin. Give us your wisdom as to why Obama found the Rev. Wright's "white man's greed" sermon to be a turning point in his life. In the meantime, spare us the bigoted, hysterical drivel that passes for "analysis" in your little world.

Are you serious? This man is going to be a stay-at-home dad and you write this biased filth? Get a life lady.

"This fundamentalist position on the environment is closely related to Palin's contempt for science and her advocacy of the teaching of creationism alongside traditional science. In a televised debate in 2006, Palin said she supported teaching both creationism and evolution in public schools."

First let me remind you that Factcheck.org had the following to say about your second assertion:

"Palin has not pushed for teaching creationism in Alaska's schools. She has said that students should be allowed to "debate both sides" of the evolution question, but she also said creationism 'doesn't have to be part of the curriculum.'"

As for your comment that Palin has a "contempt for science," those who push the dogma of man-made global warming are the ones who have contempt for science. They cherry pick their data to arrive at their conclusion, ignore that data which does not agree with their theory, and label those who do not buy into their dishonesty as "global warming deniers" instead of letting the evidence speak for itself. Just as you just labelled Sarah Palin as one who doesn't respect science simply because she does not agree with your position.

SHUT THE FU>K UP YOU DRIED UP, UNHAPPY, LEFTIST KUNT!

PALIN IS THE WOMAN YOU TRIED TO BE AND FAILED.

HOW MANY ABORTIONS DO YOU REGRET HAVING YOU SICK LEFTIST?!

Funny, I thought Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pilosi both professed Christianity ... and they use the same Bible... are they subject to the authority of their husbands?

This is so deranged and delusional and so wrong on so many levels that it's hard to know where to start. Do you REALLY think that what Kennedy said at the time was something that should have occurred, or was it an injustice imposed by a public and press at the time that was clueless? If the latter, why should it be repeated? If the former, please also discuss Obama's church's "liberation theology", Keith Ellison's interpretation of Islam, whether Joe Lieberman can be an observant Jew and have undivided loyalty to the US, etc......

On the other hand, as someone who finds McCain marginally acceptable and Obama a far worse choice, I urge you to keep writing stuff like this. It shows the far right has no monopoly on lunacy or hypocrisy and makes it all that harder for sane people to be comfortable with the views of rabid Obamanites. The most interesting thing is that you can be so deranged and express it in language that mimics erudition. But just because your writing appears calm doesn't make it any less freaked out and frothing at the mouth.

Dear Ms Thistlethwaite: Your first question betrays an animosity to Ms Palin's religious faith. Do you believe Ms Palin would use Ephesians 5:22 as a rationale for defering to her husband's opinion on a question of state? If so on what basis? She might ask her husband's opinion, as Bill Clinton asked Hillary, but do you believe Mr Palin, a trade unionist, is disqualified from giving sound advice? Can you cite specific instances where her husband decided questions of policy while Ms Palin was Governor of Alaska?

Firstly, I would say that I find it disturbing that you approve of the bigoted grilling of John F. Kennedy - a Star Chamber proceeding that already seemed grotesque to many Americans fifty years ago. This exhibits an attitude of contempt toward the First Amendment.

Second, I would point out that Governor Palin left the Assemblies of God six years ago, and is not even a member of the church that you claim her to be a member of. As an academic, I would hope that this disregard of basic factual research leaves you embarrassed.

Finally, the AOG's official doctrinal positions are encompassed by a document called "The 16 Fundamental Truths" - and nowhere in this document is to be found the abjectly servile role for women you describe.

In sum, your blog posting is bigoted and very poorly researched. You are a discredit to the Chicago Theological Seminary - an institution that was once known for the quality and broadmindedness of its thought.

Want to bet this gal is just trying to justify, to herself, her own sexually promiscuity? Nothing wrong with that, she just shouldn't preach morality.

Wow - they throw that word "professor" around pretty cheap nowadays, don't they?

"What I would like to know, first of all, is who is going to have the final authority as Vice-President if Sarah Palin is elected, Palin or her husband? Will Palin obey the Constitution over her husband?"

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Now that's the most hilarious self-parody I've read in a long time. You sound like Emily Litella from the old Saturday Night Live. Except you forgot to say "Never mind" at the very end.

Hillary, Nancy Pelosi, and other prominent Democratic women are married Christians too, and presumably they have all read Ephesians 5:22 too. Let's poll all of them on this vital issue! Go ask each one: "Are you more loyal to the Constitution or your husband?"

That activity will keep you busy for months, and out of the way of saner people doing real work.

Could you liberals be any more afraid of this Woman. Writting stuff like this just makes people love her even more. Becauseof people like you Obama will lose this election. You are so out of touch with middle America that you dont understand that most people dont react well to reading stuff like this. This is nonsence and everyone knows it. I mean have her tell people that she wont do what her husband tells her to do. Are you serious. If people like you keep writting stuff like this Obama will lose in a landslide. People in this country relate to people who have a strong belief in God and respect them alot. Tearing her down and putting this kind of nonsense out there is only going to hurt your candidate.

You are so miguided. You state as fact that global warming is caused by man. There are just as many facts that prove it is not.

You do a very dangerous thing in taking one verse and applying it the wrong way. Wives subject yourselves to your husband is not for them to be subservient, non thinking, people.

Did you not realize that when she is talking about creationism she is not saying that should be the only view taught, just that it should not be thrown out and be allowed to be debated or talked about.

The separation of church and state was to keep the state out of the church not the other way around. The Constitution only stated that the govt should not make a national religion (everyone can choose what religion they want to be).

Taking a shot at her daughter's pregnancy is very cheap. She advocates allowing abstinence to be taught. It is the safest way and if you believe what God teaches the only way. According to God you should not be endorsing pre marital sex or doing that.

For someone that is supposed to know religion you sure do show a lack of biblical knowledge. Either that or you do not believe the Bible. Instead you resort to partisan, political attacks and rhetoric. The vast majority of Americans think the families should be off limits but because she has differing religious beliefs than you, then her family is game for you. Despicable. You throw out McCain is probably going to die in office. Sad attempts. I pity you and I will pray for your soul because you really have a moral equivalency that is astounding.

For clarification, my comment is addressing Susan's blog itself, not those commenting in the post/threads.

This woman is a professor and columnist? Nothing but a hack.

Wow - you take "being bitter" to a whole new level.

One of the things I've learned is just because someone is a professor at a seminary does not mean they are a Christian. In fact, many are very un-Christian or anti-Christian. Susan doesn't know the bible and doesn't care to know the bible. She is a liberation theoligan. Liberation theology is a marxist theology. She would never write a similar article on Hillary Clinton or Nancy Pelosi because when it comes to politics, democrats come before their god. Government is their god. Government can heal the sick (John Kerry was going to make Christopher Reeves walk again), they can control the weather (Barrack Hussein Obama is going to lower sea levels), they can do everything for everyone. You don't need family, church, neighbors or friends, all you need is a government who will take care of each and every need of its citizens from cradle to grave.

Susan doesn't need her bible or a god, she has the federal government.

Barak Obama was a member in good standing of a church led by a vicious, hate-filled, anti-American racist lunatic and you have deep concerns about Sarah Palin's beliefs? Give me a break! Just another hateful screed by a cheesy marxist.

I love it when they get professor who make it look like they are putting out an educated viewpoint and spew nothing but their left wing liberal thoughts. What a sham of an article.

The comments from this Marxist that is supposed to be a religious writer is shocking. If Palin was running with a (D) after her name, would there be even half of this nonsense that we see in the media today? Why doesn't Ms. Brooks come out and say that she will only vote for and support socialists? She is, after all, a student of liberation religion (Marxism).

tree australia no http://www.asianave.com/Halloween_Costumes

Roberta Lauk:
This is so typical of women. They get into their little clicks and here goes. They don't know how to support each other. They tear each other apart. Just because you don't agree with Palin's politics, does not give you the right to be so sexist and treat her like trash. You should be ashamed of yourself and all so called feminists who cannot see past their own agendas to say job well done to any women who has succeeded in a man's world!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My objections to Palin have nothing to do with her gonadal/genital attributes. There are REAL reasons not to vote for McCain/Palin.

house england keyboard http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080828173312AAhPJzD girl google australia http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080830105032AAhCJYP glass key http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080830105032AAhCJYP

The topic at hand is whether women can be leaders of both the religions and democracies of the world and here we see the influence of Paul (or pseudo Pauls).

Galatians 3:28 ("There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus") is, according to some historic Jesus exegetes, not credible as a historical utterance by either Jesus or Paul. It is the only time Paul considers women as being equivalent to men.

http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/013_Two_As_One

And Paul's (or pseudo Pauls) real utterances about women give credence to this conclusion.

e.g.

"He (Paul) feared the turn-on of women's voices as much as the sight of their hair and skin..... At one point he even suggests that the sight of female hair might distract any angel in church attendance (1 Cor. 11:10). Professor Bruce Chilton in his book, Rabbi Paul, pulls no punches in criticizing one of the founders of Christianity. Basically Paul was a "prude".

Professor Chilton btw is a Professor of Religion at Bard College and a priest at the Free Church of St. John in Barrytown, NY.

And the following:

"In 1 Corinthians 11:3-16 Paul writes: “But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.” He goes on to say that “any woman who prays or prophesies” should keep her head covered, whereas a man should never cover his head, “since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. (For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.)”

In 1 Corinthians 14:33-35, Paul gives us the famous injunction, “… women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.” This theme is taken up again in 1 Timothy 2:11-15, where women are instructed to dress modestly and to keep silent in church: “For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.”

Ephesians 5:21-32 is the passage that is read at every Orthodox marriage ceremony, so it’s already quite well known to us. This is the passage in which women are told to be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord, which Paul repeats briefly in his letter to the Colossians (3:18). The husband, Paul explains, “is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church.” While women are to be subject to their husbands, so men are to love their wives “as their own bodies.” “This is a great mystery,” Paul says, “and I take it to mean Christ and the church.”

Simply add Paul's (and the pseudo Pauls) thinking about women to the list of flaws in the foundations of Christianity and a major reason why women have been discriminated against for these so many, many years.

Is the Governor meek Subject to her first bad "First Dude?"
Who stays with the children when it strikes her mood?
Or do your dark fears just serve to delude?

Yep, this Governor looks like she's sure darn smart
A real barracuda who swims with the sharks

So I sure do wish that all the On Faith hacks
Would come to their senses and check on their “”facts”.

Now I've been watching On Faith o'r the years
And mostly I've seen it's the sum of all fears

So few see your neighbors as possible friends
So Sue, I suggest that you all make amends
Not let your fears drive you right 'round the bend

Now before you all get half baked and get crazy
I do not support this strong right-winging lady.
'Cause policies like those of McCain and Palin
Are ones that most likely we'll all see to be failin'

"Hmmm, women subject to the whims of men? We have had enough of the erroneous teachings of "Saint" Paul and/or the pseudo Pauls."

Ah yes. Another distortion of the letters of St. Paul and the Bible. I figured more of this would happen. Like the above article, this posting once again ignores the context and totality of Scripture's teachings.

No where does Scripture teach that in general women are to be slaves of men. The teaching that wives are to be subject to their husbands does not apply to single women who are emancipated from their parents. And the teaching that citizens must be subject to the governing authorities applies equally to men and women.

Furthermore Scripture teaches that when it comes to choosing between disobeying God or disobeying men it states "We must obey God rather than men." (Acts 5:29). Thus all human authority is strictly limited. No one, whether it be husbands or governments has absolute authority over others. Rather we have leaders to provide unity and direction not domination or servitude.

I recognize that there are some individuals here who do not believe in the divine authorship of the Bible and thus disagree with these teachings. But it is one thing to disagree and another to distort.

Hmmm, women subject to the whims of men? We have had enough of the erroneous teachings of "Saint" Paul and/or the pseudo Pauls. They were at best one step above the peasant mentality of the first century CE. Their archaic musings need to be deleted from the New Testament.

Excellent article...based on evidence. The thought of Sarah Palin in power scares me to death! (Not to mention John McCain with his temperment and support for the military--industrial complex!) I am not anxious to see the economy sink further and foreign relations continue to slide...

I am amazed at the vicious, mean spirited comments to a well written article. Some folks just seem to want to destroy our country based upon their know-it-all attitude about something that is personal (religion) and does not belong in our government.

George W. Bush in a pantsuit?? I don't think so.

From the post:
"I think the first order of business with Palin is to ask her to give the same kind of speech that was demanded of John F. Kennedy re his Catholicism."

I suppose we've entered a new era where it is no longer shameful to suggest that the demand on Kennedy was a just one. For a while, in the seventies and eighties, the Kennedy affair was thought to be an embarrassment to right-thinking progressives, who were broadminded enough to admit that a Catholic, no more inclined towards lying than the next person, was just as capable of abiding by their oath of office as a protestant was.

But I guess the culture wars have re-ignited the bigotry all around.

How utterly shameful, Ms. Thistlethwaite.

Please go to the republicans where you belong. We don't need allies like you. We can only be glad that this article will stand as a permanent memorial to your rank and cynical call for discrimination on the basis of creed.

Thistlethwaite,
It's obvious you know nothing about Sarah Palin and the oil companies as others have pointed out below (see ALASKAN and RUTH).

More surprisingly, given your credentials, you don't seem to have the barest grasp of Christian theology. Were female rulers of the Christian Kingdoms of Europe mere puppets of their husbands? Ever hear of the grace of state? The medieval and scholastic view of the divine origin of civil authority would certainly hold that the charism of the civil ruler trumps the putative role of the man as head of household. The household, after all, is subject to the laws of the state.

You may think this is all a bunch of crap to be sure. But if you're going to try to hoist the old-school Christian on her own petard, you would seem to need at least a modicum of understanding of what it is that they actually believe.

Quite pathetic actually, professor (cough).

Ruth said:
"What makes you think Gov. Palin (and for that matter, conservatives) don't understand modern science? "

Ruth,

As an evangelical Christian, I presume Palin knows exactly what religion is. That she also advocates teaching creationism (religion) in public school science classes is a clear indication that she doesn't really know what science is ... or maybe she just doesn't value science as much as her religious opinions, or maybe she just wants to use public school science classes to prosyltize the poor little darlings? I don't really know which it is, Ruth, what is your guess?

Oh please!!!!

The Bible states that wives are subject to their husbands. It DOES NOT say that the country has to be subject to the husband. Ephesians 5 is referring to the relationship between husband and wife IN MARRIAGE.
Instead when we talk about the relationship between political leaders and citizens we should refer to Romans 13:
"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God."
If Sarah Palin becomes Vice-President or President of the United States we as citizens of the United States must submit ourselves to her as a member of this countries divinely established governing authority.
Perhaps this author can take comfort that in being a citizen of alaska, Palin's husband must already submit to his wife as the governing authority of that state.
Contrary to what Hillary Clinton thinks, the State and the Family are two separate and distinct societies. The Family is charged with providing for the care of the spouse's children and for the mutual assistance of the spouse's themselves. The State has the task of taking care of the rest of society while protecting and not infringing on the rights of the Family.
Rather than trying to defame Scripture and other Christians this author should take heed of St. Peter's warning: "His [St. Paul's] letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, TO THEIR OWN DESTRUCTION." (2 Peter 2:16).

"I can tell you flat out I don't want somebody else in the White House who mouths conservative Christian views, takes us into faith-based wars, will cave in to the oil lobbies and who does not even understand modern science."

You've made a bunch of unwarranted assumptions here. What makes you think Gov. Palin (and for that matter, conservatives) don't understand modern science? Just what are these "Conservative Christian views" you object to? Loving your neighbor? Caring for the imprisoned, the homeless, the sick, the poor? (Isn't that what Obama is preaching?)

As for Gov. Palin "caving to the oil lobbies" you obviously haven't bothered to find out what she's been doing in Alaska. Caving? HA!

And what about those "faith-based wars?" Do you mean we are not to defend ourselves against Islamic terrorism because they are faith-based?

Lady, I could tear your piece apart but I really think your mind is closed and you wouldn't listen anyway.

"will cave in to the oil lobbies"

Uh, Ms Thistle.,
Did you realize that oil companies hate Sarah Palin? That her career started by busting down the republican leadership in AK who were on the dole from the oil lobby? That she snatched the closed-door gas pipeline deal away from the majors and raised their tax rate?

Do we really want people writing editorials in the Washington Post who don't bother to do the most fundamental fact checking before publishing?

why not just bar all non-atheists from public office. then you can be sure that there will be no influence from husbands or priests.

Of course, atheists have friends, lovers, spouses, and mentors, too. How can we assess the level of influence relations have in their lives, so that we can be sure that they, unlike the Papists, with their roman allegiance, and the Jews, with their tribal allegiance, and yes, the Evangelicals with their spousal allegiance, are going to put country first?

Really, how can we know for sure that, by electing a secularist, we have not really elected Richard Dawkins (a Briton!)?

Pretty difficult problem.

But how about an oath?! Why don't we have people take an oath that they will protect and defend the constitution!? Then we wouldn't have to VIOLATE said constitution by disenfranchising people who don't agree with our particular point of view.

Oh, I see, we already do that.

Let's take the group of people who believe in some kind of God: most Americans, if polls are to be believed.

Now, of that group, what percentage are hoping that God has some sort of plan for us, both individually and in the larger scope of human history, and is not just scratching the old Godhead and saying, "What the hell do I do with this mess NOW?"

Finally, of those who hope that there is a plan (I suspect this is a very large percentage indeed), what percentage think it would be good to hope or pray (or both) that they, individually, and the nation, corporately, are working towards the accomplishment of that plan and not at some cross purpose? Again, I have to guess that it's a big number.

So I'm just not getting that the quotes you use add up to anything extraordinary about Palin. Certainly not what you are trying to limn: namely, that she thinks she has some channel to the divine will.

She appears to think it is God's will to get the oil pipeline built in the same way that, for instance, a parent thinks it's God's will that she find a job so that she can meet her responsibilities to care for her children. Similarly, Palin's instinct about the pipeline seems based on the practical demands of her job--she's got to find SOME future revenue source for the state--rather than on a voice from the clouds.

Does Obama think it is God's will that he be elected? He must have a least a hunch that way. If not, it would be peculiar to run, no? He's not a deist, after all. If he said to his family, "Let's pray that God is guiding this election and that our campaign is a part of his plan" would he be guilty of the messianism that the republicans try to lay on him?

You seem to have very little insight into the way people actually live their faith, the disjunction between their lifestyles and their often clumsy or inaccurate or half-articulated statements of their theological positions, what their language (and its imprecision) really means, and the widely varying degrees of conjecture, certitude and agnosticism that are all expressed in the English phrase "I believe that..."

Such analysis is difficult work and requires long textual and ethnographic study; but to take the lazy way out, as you have done, merely dehumanizes the people you seek to describe--if indeed the accurate description, and not the dehumanization, is what you seek. As a representative of the academy, you should be striving for better.

...Yes, yes, I know Barack Obama has said that families should be off limits in the campaign...

Susan, you have disobeyed your Messiah Obama by going after Palin's family. Too bad you care more about what Obama says than what Christ or the Bible has to say.

Sandy wrote: "I just dont understand why hate filled anti-religious socialists are hired to cover religion as if they are spiritual people. The feminist that wrote this article wants nothing more than to take down Palin with her sexist feminism."

Unfortunately, Sandy, Rev. Thistlethwaite is a highly respected theologian who also happens to be an anti-religious socialist. One of the benefits of her writing this article is that we get to see where she really stands. Unfortunately many of Rev. Thistlethwaite's fellow travelers only think these things. Instead of blowing their cover they just water down the gospel.

Bravo, Rev. Thistlethwaite, for coming out of the closet and writing all these articles.

Paganplace, Paganplace, Paganplace,

Apparently that Wiccan spell to make you the VP candidate of either party did not work. Must have been the influence of the Moon!!!

So, Thistlethwaite. Since you're going Biblical literalist on us all of a sudden, did your husband give you permission to write this? And since you claim to be a Christian and since the Washington Post has, for reasons known only to whatever is that you worship, given you this public forum, are you now prepared to reverse yourself on those Scriptural passages that condemn what Gene Robinson likes to do in his off-hours? Or are you just another entirely secular leftist whose job it is to mindlessly slap a "spiritual" varnish on whatever liberal cause is current this week?

Enquiring minds want to know, Thistlethwaite.

"Creationism, as is well-known, refers to the religious belief that the world as we see it today, human life, the earth and indeed the entire universe, was created by God in its current form. It is the religiously-motivated rejection of the science of evolution."

Very close but not completely accurate. What we know as creationism is really a literal reading of Genesis, a sectarian belief pushed by the fundamentalist minority in Christianity. This is sometimes called Young Earth Creationism to distinguish it from beliefs that reject evolution but accept scientific findings about the age of the earth, or beliefs that accept both but still include gods as prime movers. The distinction is valid in principle but irrelevant in practice. That's because the creationists who want their beliefs taught as science are Genesis literalists with a sectarian agenda. To my knowledge, the word creationism has never included creation stories from non-Abrahamic religions, and I've certainly never heard of creationists advocate the teaching of those stories as science along with the Genesis story. (Intelligent design may seem to be a separate issue on the surface, but the Dover case showed that ID was deliberately created as a Trojan horse for Genesis literalism.)

night canada home night [URL=http://walmartwatch.com]are right juicy water english[/URL] black sea pets ibm [URL=http://www.letsgo.com]right white english[/URL]

you land no green usa this house jhon day yes canada canada

jhon stone frog glass day

canada global yes night house no deliver dog university

busy yes joke house head house me woman see tom keyboard english

yes usa day tree

could Finland add an element to the mobile phones, to adjust the frequency from Alpha to Delta, from running sleeping studying to meditating, like music player to change the frequency in the room and body also?

the health file of a person may be given to the phone company and according to consultations, the offered frequency may be uploaded and broadcasted to the mobile phone user. the diseases, the physical diseases, are because of frequencies, as the medical scientists have been aware of.

Michael Douglas, is he the last dough of his parents? Sarah, was Abraham not cheerful, was there something palling? the thick cloth between family?

the frequency of mobile phones for North LAnd Finland is different than the frequency of mobile phones in Equator Countries. the flesh in hot lands is wide and soft, while the cold lands the flesh is tough and hard.

The problem, as I see it, is this:

On the one hand contemporary voters have no interest in whether its a male or female in the running for Presidency, just as long as the candidate is experienced and offers a sound and enduring vision the American citizens can believe and invest in.

But on the other hand the critics may say that when one doesn't vote for Palin, then the voter continues to sexually discriminate. But this isn't the case.

Rather we can say this, if we are to be neutral about the matter: A vote for Palin is a vote for Palin's success. But a vote for Palin is a vote against America's success.

Let me explain.

Can Palin, as a Vice President or President, go toe-to-toe, and face to face with the likes of the Russian leaders or the ultra sophisticated and far-visioned Chinese leaders, and obtain the very best deal for the American citizens? Remember! These International leaders have been preened for decades to reach the top and know every trick and political pressure point in the book. They also have hands-on experience with military training. These remarks are facts and not fictions.

Reviewing Palin's experiences, I think she isn't even ready to go on a picnic with these Internationalists, let alone have a face-to-face pow-wow about creating and arguing for new Artic water and mineral Rights. And it is fictitious and harmful to America to think differently.

And to avoid any confusion, which some readers will mulishly try to create, I am discussing her political experiences, leadership roles and crisis-management skills and not her biological sexuality. The modern educated voter doesn't really care about whether the President is a woman or a man; the modern voter cares about America.

As for her Christian values, we must be reminded that Palin is involved in politics. And politicians by nature lie, cheat, double-speak, flip-flop vote for future favors, and, in a word, generally deceive for their own betterment. We should expect nothing less from Palin. Power, lies, money and corruption: this summarizes politics, and Palin's in politics. It is impossible, I believe, to be a politician and uphold a Christain ethos. It would be laborious to point out the Christian Commandments that have been disobeyed or convienently "adjusted" in order to satisfy the demands of current American International Policy.

Those who think this is an attack on Palin are wrong. Its a last ditch effort to tell the Americans to smell the coffee. While the International crowd are already rubbing their hands in glee and disbelief, the every-day Americans are rubbing their last two dimes together hoping magically they will turn into a quarter.

This comment is a paraphrase of something I had recently read. It was the most rational, well thought out viewpoint on religion and politics I had ever heard. It’s my desire that after you read this you, too, will come away with a more logical understanding.

Attempting to mix religion with politics is the wrong way to serve God and the people. First and foremost because religion is a discipline of faith that has nothing to do with the material needs of a city and country, and politics is a science concerned with the objective reality of a people and not with their spiritual beliefs.

For some Christians this may sound like a good idea, but for the beneficiaries of this political ruse, it is nothing other than good business, something that does not necessarily favor the Christians.

Voting according to this religious orientation has cost the country more than three trillion dollars in an endless war in Iraq, the deaths of more then four thousand American soldiers (about 1000 more than died in Sept 11), and the almost complete collapse of its economy. It’s cost Iraq tens of thousands of lives and the destruction of the country and it’s future.

Historically, one of the causes of the Arab nations’ misfortunes is precisely the mixing of politics and Islam. They have tried to run their countries with the teachings of Mohammed, at times administering their faith with political interest, which degenerates into eventual plundering of the public purse, and in other instances administering their political interests using the Islamic faith, which has led to fanaticism and backwardness.

Americans should understand that a politician is not elected president in order to lead a church or to impart doctrines of faith. A politician is elected in order to govern, and governing means managing the administrative apparatus of the State to meet the material needs of its citizens, while the spiritual leaders of the country are purely religious leaders. Those who are good Christians are not necessarily good at governing, and those who govern well are not necessarily good Christians.

Hopefully the USA won’t fall into the same trap as some of the Arab nations.

It appears that all the bickering back and forth has done exactly what it’s intended to accomplish…create chaos, suspicion and mistrust within our own camp. As long as folks are caught up with trying to “one up each other”…we will never move forward.

Michelle

http://michelle2005.wordpress.com

Just when there seemed to be hope that America might come to its collective senses, my nightmares are looming real - loose cannon McCain getting elected in his fuddled pre-mortem senescence, then shuffling off the coil mid-term, leaving the world prey to yet another premillenialist neo-puritan crusader wheeling full-steam toward the Rapture in a Humvee, with Big Oil and The Lorrrd urging on from the backseat. As a benighted denizen of the otherworld over which America casts its eagled shade, I beseech y'all...please, NOT AGAIN!

This has to be one of the most disgusting and ludicrous attacks offered against Sarah Palin so far.

If Ms. Thistlethwaite would read carefully she would see that the text of Ephesians applies to one's home, not workplace. The home is not the same as the vice presidency. My 1st grade Sunday School teacher taught me that. It is a wonder that someone who holds a position as professor of theology has such a difficult time understanding this straightforward text of Scripture.

Exactly why would a "so-called" Christian leader have any problem with someone who prays and beseeches God's guidance and blessing on decisions in regards to war and energy issues.

Last time I looked a significant and growing percent of climatologists and scientist are skeptical and outrightly critical against claims of the human caused global warming political machine. It is refreshing to find a politician who does not cowtown to political pressure on this issue.

Ms. Thistlethwaite seems to have a problem with someone who holds a high authority of scripture, what exactly is her authority as a so-called minister?

In her position as a reverend, Ms. Thistlthwaite sees fit to attack a woman who believes in God and trusts the scriptures. How exactly is this Christian?

I mean, seriously, she's living proof her own positions are *wrong* and is worse in all the respects the GOP was saying about Obama...

Putting her up isn't a victory for women, or, anyone. It's an exercise in pure cognitive dissonance.

Did you see her speech tonight? She couldn't even make it seem like she knew how the teleprompter was going to finish her sentences.

Forget about it.

This is just *insulting.*

Tsk tsk. It's not *sexist* for women to point out that women who run on faith-based abstinence-only platforms, even if these things *don't work* in their own families and apparently mean they must be 'subject' to their husbands while purporting to lead the free world... who get into office cause the rest of her party was so corrupt a sports-news-reader seemed like a good idea..... Aren't exactly what we'd call an inspiring model for American women.

Just shows the GOP is so twisted you're seeing yourselves going round corners.

red usa jhon mail car see

sun white cube http://HILTONHEADHOMEAWAY.COM speed bag sea http://www.mppnhc.org

google stay keyboard clean wood go me head we dog

The cars just keep going by Frederick. Once in a while one stops and the rest just keep going.

There is no way around or out of the Constitution. Marriages end unfortunately and life moves ahead. There is always love and liberty to light the way. Always will be.

This is so typical of women. They get into their little clicks and here goes. They don't know how to support each other. They tear each other apart. Just because you don't agree with Palin's politics, does not give you the right to be so sexist and treat her like trash. You should be ashamed of yourself and all so called feminists who cannot see past their own agendas to say job well done to any women who has succeeded in a man's world!

You know I never once heard how Hillary Clinton's lack of mothering affected her child. Yes, now her child is grown, but what about all the years she was not and Hillary was an attorney, etc., and worked many hours days and nights, but that was okay. Your hypocrisy is showing!!

Sally Quinn believes that conservative Christian women are to be subservient to our husbands. It's quite obvious that Sally Quinn is subservient to the Democratic Party. I as a thinking caring Christian want no more to do with either. Sarah Palin and John McCain have my vote!!

Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives and mother of six children, (and a Catholic who did not have to make a speech pledging her loyality to the Union) is only two heart beats away from being President of the USA so obviously JM's choice of VP, i.e. Sarah Palin, is not a shocking development.

I can kind of feel the political deification of Sarah Palin by the Christian Right like you can feel a low pressure build-up before the big storm.

I wonder if Schwartzenegger will show up to confer his blessing on the new republican saint.
He probably thinks McCain has lost his marbles - but the pressure for his political benediction will be hard to resist.

Well, what the hell - the whole thing is science fiction anyway.

Mike tells us:

"I and my family will crawl over broken glass to vote for Sarah."

Well, thanks to term limits, this isn't a theocracy YET.

For goodness sake, just get your family in the car and drive.

I just dont understand why hate filled anti-religious socialists are hired to cover religion as if they are spiritual people. The feminist that wrote this article wants nothing more than to take down Palin with her sexist feminism.

tom google man stone land busy free we keyboard yahoo sea girl watch

bag this key [URL=http://forecast.weather.gov]australia stay site green[/URL] global cube [URL=http://www.ddmcomputing.com]man australia all letter girl[/URL] yahoo day right clean [URL=http://www.improvementscatalog.com]site red usa[/URL]

white keyboard vacant house pets university clean stay red minor

Palin's selection by McCain says more about him than is does about her. A clever, if narrowly focused strategy in the short term, and a monumental slap in the face to the nation by selecting someone based strictly on their appeal to the fundies and the evangelicals, rather than demonstrating any concern for the office of President.

Given McCain's age and his recurring battle with melanoma, he could easily succumb before he finished his term. With republicans, there is only tomorrow. And sometimes, tomorrow never comes.

He had many better, vastly more qualified choices that could have stepped up to the Presidency if the need arose. Instead, his last-minute choice is a born-again Pentacostal fundamentalist with the single purpose of securing a small but vocal segment of the republican vote - and who also threatened to disrupt the convention over a pro-choice pick like Lieberman or Ridge.

McCain has only ever thought about winning - and never about intelligent governance. The guy is a total loser, and I suspect whatever character he once had is forfeit.

And you never know, Ron Paul could really do McCain some Nader-style damage now - he may play the republican role of spoiler this time around.

Ironically, Joe Lieberman as Gore's VP choice had a similar effect on many democrats. I wonder if McCain suddenly recalled the Lieberman effect and went looking elsewhere at the last minute?

He just have really ticked off a whole bunch of republicans, regardless the spin they manage to put on the Palin choice.

Susan, I think this choice is turning out to be such a debacle for McCain that this ticket will self destruct.

Once the fog of the insufferable rightwing pundits lifts, people will take a long look at what Palin really stands for and McCain will be forced to retreat on this nomination.

In no way shape or form does Alaska represent mainstream America. What flys in Anchorage wouldn't get off the ground in Newark. The only good thing about Palin is she wasn't Rove's choice.

Barbara McCarthy:

I saw no hatred in Susan's essay, only well-founded criticism. But your post positively dripped virulent hatred. Her disagreement with your beliefs are not hatred, and you should not respond to a different opinion with despite. If you doubt this, read the Gospels, and pay attention to what Jesus taught.

IS THIS ELECTION ABOUT JUDGMENT
Sarah Pahin uses poor judgment and the GOP makes her out to be a hero!
This election should not be about Sarah Pahin not having an abortion.
This election should be about her not using the good judgment to use birth control.
Any intelligent person knows that when you choose to have unprotected sex at 43
you have a very high probability of having a child with Downs Syndrome.
The republicans are making her out to be a hero because she used the bad
judgment not to prevent the pregnancy in the first place.

I thought it was Republicans that you hated, now I see it's Christians. Have you asked Michele Obama if she kisses Obamas ring. Oh wait its only Republican Christians. What the hell did your father do to you when you were young? Or maybe it was a weak mother I don't know but boy are you screwed up.
Take a deep breath and let out all that hatred. You write like a shrilled women, I can hear your voice cracking in your article. Self hatred needs to be dealt with maybe a doctor or a operation, something.

Between CCNL the virulent anti-Islam bigot and Mike the Masochist, this blog is degenerating already. All we need is JJ and Spidey to finish it off.

Good essay, Susan, and you are correct: the issue is not a husband, but Palin's religion. By all indicators, she is worse than the 'current occupant' (a.k.a. the clueless knuckle-dragger) in the White House. She is a total failure on the energy crisis, and absolutely frightening on the issues of promoting science and true education. The list goes on and on. Her elevation to POTUS could lead us to a dark age.

And the arguments about her being more qualified than Obama send me running to the nearest bathroom clutching my stomach. They should look at these numbers:

Experience Comparison:

Obama:
Executive: none
State Senate: 8 years
U S Senate: 4 years

Lincoln:
Executive: none
State House: 8 years
U S House: 2 years

Oddly, I don't expect the knee-jerking right wingers to even pay attention. Their fame for ignoring facts is widely known.

I and my family will crawl over broken glass to vote for Sarah.

Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives and mother of six children, is only two heart beats away from being President of the USA so obviously JM's choice of VP, i.e. Sarah Palin, is not a shocking development.

With respect to the few women in leadership roles in the Christian religions, thank "Saint" Paul, the Prude for this.

e.g. "He (Paul) feared the turn-on of women's voices as much as the sight of their hair and skin..... At one point he even suggests that the sight of female hair might distract any "pretty wingie talking fictional thingies" in church attendance (1 Cor. 11:10).

Simply add Paul's thinking about women to the list of flaws in the foundations of Christianity.

Of course the koran's allowed mistreatments of women are 24/7 news' items. And it explains the problem of women being imams/clerics in Islam.

A few excerpts from Ayaan Hirsi Ali's book about the problem as additional evidence:

p. 47 paperback issue:

"Some of the Saudi women in our neighborhood were regularly beaten by their husbands. You could hear them at night. Their screams resounded across the courtyards. "No! Please! By Allah!"

p.68:

"The Pakistanis were Muslims but they too had castes. The Untouchable girls, both Indian and Pakistani were darker skin. The others would not play with them because they were untouchable. We thought that was funny because of course they were touchable: we touched them see? but also horrifying to think of yourself as untouchable, despicable to the human race."

p. 347

"The kind on thinking I saw in Saudi Arabia and among the Brotherhood of Kenya and Somalia, is incompatible with human rights and liberal values. It preserves the feudal mind-set based on tribal concepts of honor and shame. It rests on self-deception, hyprocricy, and double standards. It relies on the technologial advances of the West while pretending to ignore their origin in Western thinking. This mind-set makes the transition to modernity very painful for all who practice Islam".

p.309

"Between October 2004 and May 2005, eleven Muslim girls were killed by their families in just two regions (there are 20 regions in Holland). After that, people stopped telling me I was exaggerating."

Susan's best column, ever!