Doug Phillips, a popular Christian leader and president of Vision Forum, has stated that Palin’s VP “violates biblical teachings.” He also says she has “a very anti-family voting record.”
Palin, according to Phillips, is not as conservative as many may believe. “Her actual record is a very anti-family record. Sarah Palin is on record as being pro-evolution, pro-contraceptive discussion at taxpayer expense at government schools,” he adds.
What nonsense. So voting “pro-evolution” (which I have a hard time believing since she’s a crazy creationist) is now considered “very anti-family”?
Here is a woman who is anti-abortion, pro-abstinence, and conservative as they come, yet Phillips says Palin has a “very anti-family voting record” and thinks she should not be allowed to be VP simply because she was born without a penis.
And to think I used to actually like this guy when I was Christian!
(via)
Doesn’t the bible say something about not allowing women to have authority over man? It’s probably in the old testament, but that hasn’t stopped anyone from quoting Levictus on homosexual relations. (Double standards / picking and choosing, OT is valid/invalid depending on subject)
Well, he might be a misogynistic bastard, but I for one am glad that the ultra-Christians seem to have a hard time agreeing and getting along.
They do enough damage divided. If they were one strong group I would expect them to accomplish even more limitations on women’s, homosexual’s and non-Christian’s rights, and outright bans on sex education and so on. The little differences that keep them apart at least keeps them from reaching their true political potential.
Their quibbling doesn’t give much credence to their claim that their religion is a perfect moral guide though…
On another aside, regarding Palin. When I first heard that McCain had nominated Palin for VP I was extremely surprised. Especially since Michael Palin isn’t even eligible to be president, what with him being a British citizen and all. Then I found out that he was talking about an entirely different, and a lot less fun, Palin. Too bad, Michael Palin would have been a lot more entertaining in the VP-debates, I can promise you that :)
@Proto: You’d think it was in the OT, but it’s actually in the NT. Paul says:
Of course there is a lot of debate over what this actually means. Some say it is just cultural and does not need to be obeyed. Others say this is only for inside church (most Christians, I think). Others say it is any kind of authority. Others say it’s fine she has authority as long as her husband gives her the authority, as she would be under his authority.
Yes — welcome to Christianity, where hardly anyone agrees about how to interpret the “most important book in the world” that God himself wrote. I guess he just wasn’t clear enough — but shouldn’t he have known that since he’s all-knowing? He must of done it purposely to send more people to hell.
It’s amusing that they only insist on the literal interpretation of the first part of the verse — it is very rare you find a church where women do not talk at all!
How is it that religion does not simply implode upon itself?
Any chance this is just a ploy by some of her right-wingnut friends, to make a show of distancing her from her more extreme views? Some kind of attempt to make her more palatable to the country at large? I don’t know how wide of an audience this guy reaches, so I don’t know how much good it would do.
@Digital Dame: No, I think he is quite serious. A good part of the time when I was a Christian I would have felt similarly.
His entire ministry is basically a longing for the pre-American Revolution days. It’s pretty funny.
It just doesn’t seem to make any sense, she’s clearly an “end times” creationist, I don’t know how he can call her “pro evolution”.
I doubt this guy would like living like a Puritan, if that’s what he thinks is the “good old days”. Six hours in church every Sunday (then again, he might). I wonder if he’s ever played cards, or attended the theater (both prohibited by Puritanism). Can’t use music in church services, no candles either, and that’s just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. I don’t know if that’s what he’s after, but I doubt he’d much enjoy such an austere lifestyle.
@Daniel:
> “welcome to Christianity, where hardly anyone agrees about how to interpret the “most important book in the world” that God himself wrote. I guess he just wasn’t clear enough”.
Well, I suppose he didn’t have any lawyers to proof-read it for ambiguities, as there are no lawyers in Heaven.
They’re kind of like a pound full of rabid dogs, it’s kinda fun to watch them snap and bite one another, but you do tend to worry that it’s catching.
‘Anti-family’ is just a dog-whistle phrase for… um…
actually, it seems to mean, once you parse it, ‘Someone this pastor doesn’t like’. No unified meaning at all.
Daniel…
If you were a big Doug Philips fan, I totally understand why you are no longer a Christian.
@Wade: Ha! I actually wasn’t a big Doug Phillips fan — though I did admire him for a few years. I got into that whole family integrated/calvinist/complimentarian thing for a while.
I just realized–this isn’t righty code–it’s lefty code! He’s not using “anti-family” in the classic sense, he’s using it in the Sister Sledge sense!
Pingback: Maybe This is Reverse Psychology | All Reason