I have been listening to someone on another forum who appreciates fiscal conservatism, but would discard social conservatism. That would be a grave error. Liberalism is like a cell, locking us in a small room and telling us that within that small room we may do as we please. Conservatism is setting us free... but a free man must have constraints on his behavior, or it is an act of unkindness to give him his liberty. Social conservatism is made up of those restraints, while fiscal conservatism is our freedom.
Conservatives Christians have been instructed by God Himself to see that their society cares for the poor. While liberals, even liberal Christians, would seek government seizure and redistribution towards this end, Conservative Christians consider the myriads of Bible passages confirming the importance of owning your own property and being personally responsible for it's use. Even slaves in the Old Testament could own their own property, and even married women, under the guidelines of submission, were encouraged to own and profit from their personal holdings apart from their husbands.
This theme of voluntary generosity is carried into the New Testament, in which we find that the sin of Ananias and Sapphire was not merely greed, but lying to put on a false show of piety. The words I find telling in this passage, found at the end of Acts chapter 4 and the beginning of Acts chapter 5, is the following explanation: "Before you sold the land, was it not your own? And when you had sold it, was the money not in your control?" Peter was making it clear that the 'socialism' shown by the early Christians was entirely voluntary. I have mostly abandoned for now my effort to get all the way through the Koran, but as an interesting contrast, the beginning parts of the Koran insist that mandatory charity is one of the necessities to earn paradise.
Why is charity urged, but not detailed and coerced, in the Bible? Christianity is a bit more complicated than most world religions. Rather than being a simple to-do list, it is about transformation into a certain kind of person. Instead of constantly going to a 'well' to draw out virtues of the soul, we are to be a 'spring of water' out of which these virtues naturally bubble out and overflow. Telling us exactly what we must give and why would do us little good if we are ever to be mature Christians seeking Jesus of our own accord. That is why the kind of control shown by a socialistic government is absent from the Bible, leaving us only with the command to become a generous people, and the sense that if we do so, proper care of the poor will naturally follow.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Parable of the Jacuzzi
One day the king who ruled the land decided to go visit some of his peasants. He was rather surprised to see the sorry state of their house and asked if there was anything he could do for them.
"Yes," the peasant father said. "You take such a high percentage of our goods as tax. If you took a lower percentage, then we could sell what we did not eat and fix the house."
This did not appeal to the king, however, and in his incredible generosity chose to give them a jacuzzi, so that their backs would not hurt and they could work more hours for him.
Years later, he revisited, to see that they had not prospered as he had hoped. The jacuzzi sat empty and dry in the back yard of the increasingly shabby house. "What is this?" he demanded. "Why aren't you using the jacuzzi I gave you so that your backs wouldn't hurt and you could work longer hours?"
"Sire, we can't afford the water to fill the jacuzzi, or the electricity to run it," the peasant father tried to explain. "In addition, it is taking up part of the yard that I could have used for gardening, and we are producing even less than before. Please take it back and give us more of our goods back instead. We know what we need, and if we only have the means, we can do it ourselves."
But the king left, angered that his subjects were so inconsiderate as to not profit from his generosity.
I am the full-time homemaker of a single-income family in the Working-Class income area. We lose 15% of our income altogether to income taxes and other mandatory government social programs. We cannot apply for Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, food stamps, or even heat assistance. We have no guarantee of Social Security.
Obama wants to give us extended preschool which we won't use, extended after-school programs that our homeschooled kid is not allowed to join, daycare money that we don't need, and credits for buying a "clean" car that we can't afford. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, though I know he is not listening...
Stop giving us jacuzzi's, Obama! Let us keep more of our own goods! Then we can sell what we do not eat and fix the house!
"Yes," the peasant father said. "You take such a high percentage of our goods as tax. If you took a lower percentage, then we could sell what we did not eat and fix the house."
This did not appeal to the king, however, and in his incredible generosity chose to give them a jacuzzi, so that their backs would not hurt and they could work more hours for him.
Years later, he revisited, to see that they had not prospered as he had hoped. The jacuzzi sat empty and dry in the back yard of the increasingly shabby house. "What is this?" he demanded. "Why aren't you using the jacuzzi I gave you so that your backs wouldn't hurt and you could work longer hours?"
"Sire, we can't afford the water to fill the jacuzzi, or the electricity to run it," the peasant father tried to explain. "In addition, it is taking up part of the yard that I could have used for gardening, and we are producing even less than before. Please take it back and give us more of our goods back instead. We know what we need, and if we only have the means, we can do it ourselves."
But the king left, angered that his subjects were so inconsiderate as to not profit from his generosity.
I am the full-time homemaker of a single-income family in the Working-Class income area. We lose 15% of our income altogether to income taxes and other mandatory government social programs. We cannot apply for Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, food stamps, or even heat assistance. We have no guarantee of Social Security.
Obama wants to give us extended preschool which we won't use, extended after-school programs that our homeschooled kid is not allowed to join, daycare money that we don't need, and credits for buying a "clean" car that we can't afford. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, though I know he is not listening...
Stop giving us jacuzzi's, Obama! Let us keep more of our own goods! Then we can sell what we do not eat and fix the house!
Thursday, November 6, 2008
What should we do now?
As some of those who follow this blog might have guessed by some of my previous posts, I am not a hard-left liberal Democrat, which means my politics are not those of our president-elect. Though my politics lean towards Libertarian, my actual worldview is probably best described as Conservative Christian. Yesterday was not a very nice day for Conservative Christians.
I had my moment of despair, an entire hour early in the morning, and I pulled together. That's something that the Conservative Christian does better than many other worldviews. God is still in control, and we are not to worry unduly about the future, because it will take care of itself. God gives us the grace we need to deal with our current situation, and when I have to I can focus very small until I reach the point where I know what to do next. Sometimes in these troubled times that focus narrows down to "take the clothes out of the washing machine", which I do. I immediately begin to feel better.
Then I began hearing from other troubled friends, some conservative, some Christian, some moderate, some liberal. Some were telling me that everything would work out fine now because they had faith in their candidate's economic plan. As a conservative, I find his plan makes no realistic sense, so that was not much help. A fellow Conservative Christian reminded me that God is on His throne and hasn't stopped caring for us, and that is the word I began to spread, because that's how we think.
So for those who have wandered, like I did until my fellows reminded me, into the mire of worldly fears and frantic worries, what should we do now?
Live.
I might not know what to do if my taxes are raised, but I know that the laundry needs doing, and there's a package of sugar cookie dough that is going to go bad if it's not used, and my son needs his homeschooling lesson done. My mother's car is being repaired and I'm providing rides for her meanwhile. So I can't just sit paralyzed with fears that God did not mean for me to carry; I need to hand those fears over to Him along with my entire future, and go get ready for the present trial.
And as I do I realize that the present trial isn't really all that bad. Sugar cookies are fun to roll out and decorate with my son. My mother's a great conversationalist and we're good friends, so no car ride with her is ever dull or painful. The laundry is laundry, no worse than it's ever been, and there is such a good feeling when I know my clothing is clean and in it's drawers.
How will Conservative Christians live for the next few years, with liberal extremism in office? Sure, it can be done. I'll try to push myself to write the thoughts always swirling in my head and tell you more about how in the coming days. But for right now, I simply say this: Work, play, laugh, love, and learn. The presidential election did not take away your home or vanish your to-do list. Prepare for winter and save your money. God will take care of the future.
I had my moment of despair, an entire hour early in the morning, and I pulled together. That's something that the Conservative Christian does better than many other worldviews. God is still in control, and we are not to worry unduly about the future, because it will take care of itself. God gives us the grace we need to deal with our current situation, and when I have to I can focus very small until I reach the point where I know what to do next. Sometimes in these troubled times that focus narrows down to "take the clothes out of the washing machine", which I do. I immediately begin to feel better.
Then I began hearing from other troubled friends, some conservative, some Christian, some moderate, some liberal. Some were telling me that everything would work out fine now because they had faith in their candidate's economic plan. As a conservative, I find his plan makes no realistic sense, so that was not much help. A fellow Conservative Christian reminded me that God is on His throne and hasn't stopped caring for us, and that is the word I began to spread, because that's how we think.
So for those who have wandered, like I did until my fellows reminded me, into the mire of worldly fears and frantic worries, what should we do now?
Live.
I might not know what to do if my taxes are raised, but I know that the laundry needs doing, and there's a package of sugar cookie dough that is going to go bad if it's not used, and my son needs his homeschooling lesson done. My mother's car is being repaired and I'm providing rides for her meanwhile. So I can't just sit paralyzed with fears that God did not mean for me to carry; I need to hand those fears over to Him along with my entire future, and go get ready for the present trial.
And as I do I realize that the present trial isn't really all that bad. Sugar cookies are fun to roll out and decorate with my son. My mother's a great conversationalist and we're good friends, so no car ride with her is ever dull or painful. The laundry is laundry, no worse than it's ever been, and there is such a good feeling when I know my clothing is clean and in it's drawers.
How will Conservative Christians live for the next few years, with liberal extremism in office? Sure, it can be done. I'll try to push myself to write the thoughts always swirling in my head and tell you more about how in the coming days. But for right now, I simply say this: Work, play, laugh, love, and learn. The presidential election did not take away your home or vanish your to-do list. Prepare for winter and save your money. God will take care of the future.
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Pushing Lifestyle Through Taxes
I have been watching this election season avidly, scrutinizing the candidates' plans, and discovered in dismay that one has managed to dupe us with promises of more and more money... unless you make over $250K/year. Or maybe it's $200K/year. It might be $150K/year. As of yesterday, it was $120K/year, which puts the "rich folk" label on a dual wage-earner household in which both members have middle-class jobs. But that's besides the point. The Democrats have been inciting class hatred for decades now.
What struck me about this new plan is the part that almost nobody is talking about. Obama's plan is touted as a tax cut, but it actually is not a tax cut at all. His plan involves tons of new tax credits. There are two important differences between the two. The first is that a tax cut reduces the amount of money that government takes from you, while a tax credit increases the amount that the government gives back. The second, and the focus of my post today, is that tax cuts apply according to income regardless of lifestyle, while you must qualify for a tax credit by meeting a special set of circumstances.
A lot of people have been offering me a website that supposedly asks you a few questions and calculates how much more money Obama plans to give you. I checked the site myself and found that my number is very, very low. So low, in fact, that the Bush tax cuts "for the rich" gave me more money than Obama is promising me, even as he desires to roll back those cuts. Basically, I will come out on the bad side if he is elected. Am I rich?
Obama's Families In Trouble on his half-hour infomercial made me laugh. One woman worries that she won't be able to stock as much snack food in her fridge. Another woman, sporting a $40/month acrylic nail job, mourns about the difficulty she has buying milk. Look, hon, I do nothing with my nails so I can afford milk.
My husband makes a decent wage, and I am a homemaker and homeschooling mother. That combination puts us in the same income level as "Working Class", and the only thing that would technically push us into "Lower Middle Class" is my husband's job type. We have a fixed-rate mortgage that we staunchly refused to convert to variable-rate when the interest levels for variable bounced to 1%, mostly because we already knew that they would rise above 10% at some point in the next thirty years. People don't seem to know how to plan further than the next five years anymore.
Our tax burden, federal, state, Social Security, and Medicaid all comes up to about 20% of our income. Our mortgage payment is over half of our net income. We pay next for electricity, auto insurance, and phone service (including internet). We own both our cars outright. We do not own a cell phone, not even an emergency plan. With all of that, the rest of our income is spent on food and gas, plus any emergencies, mostly auto repair, that demand a response. We have no entertainment budget.
Our food budget is 2/3rds of what a family our size would get on welfare, and it will be a little over half that when the baby is born. We actually took the unusual step of applying for energy assistance this year, and found that we were only $500/year over the mark. That puts us, by the way, just above 150% of the state poverty level. You would think Obama would be falling all over himself to help us, right? Why will his new plan benefit us almost nothing? Simple: we do not fit into his 'poor person lifestyle'. In plainer talk, we don't qualify for his tax credits, which include:
* Doubling the earned income tax credit if you pay child support
* $4K tax credit if you paid college tuition
* $7K tax credit if you bought a "clean car"
* $6K tax credit if you pay for daycare
So basically, since my husband has not abandoned his family, neither of us are in college, we can't afford to buy a car, and I choose to raise our children myself, we don't qualify for any of those Obama Tax Credits. There are more, of course, and we don't qualify for them either. Education tax credits do not apply to homeschoolers, etc.
So it doesn't matter to Obama that next spring we will have a food budget nearly half of that from a family on welfare, or that we are likely to put our winter oil tank fill on the credit card because we simply do not have it in the bank, even though we do not make any of the poor choices that land many other families in poverty. This is not class warfare anymore. We are "rich", not because we make a lot of money, but because we don't live the way he expects us to. Perhaps, and this is admittedly a conjecture, we do not live the way that contributes to the socialist society the Democrats wish to impose. And so we must be punished until we fall into line.
Already my husband knows of coworkers, even in his white-collar workplace, who choose not to marry their girlfriends for the simple reason that the state will provide for them better then their men can. One in particular, with full intention to be a good father to his girlfriend's baby, nevertheless waited until the child was born before marriage so that the state would provide her with the prenatal care she needed, the care that he could not provide himself, even as he was taxed at or near the same 20%-when-counting-federal/state/SS/etc. rate that my husband and I suffer under.
I say 'suffer', but we're holding our own. Even on such a small food budget, I still provide good meals for my family by resorting to beans, rice, potatoes, and other simple and unpackaged foods. The woman in Obama's infomercial with snacks in her refrigerator made me simply shake my head, because we simply cannot afford any snack foods in our budget. According to Obama, she needs more help than we do.
This is no longer just about Democratic class warfare. This is about the government rewarding some lifestyles over others. If you try to work hard, live frugally, and trouble no man, raising your children within the framework of a traditional family, the Democrats do not care about you.
What struck me about this new plan is the part that almost nobody is talking about. Obama's plan is touted as a tax cut, but it actually is not a tax cut at all. His plan involves tons of new tax credits. There are two important differences between the two. The first is that a tax cut reduces the amount of money that government takes from you, while a tax credit increases the amount that the government gives back. The second, and the focus of my post today, is that tax cuts apply according to income regardless of lifestyle, while you must qualify for a tax credit by meeting a special set of circumstances.
A lot of people have been offering me a website that supposedly asks you a few questions and calculates how much more money Obama plans to give you. I checked the site myself and found that my number is very, very low. So low, in fact, that the Bush tax cuts "for the rich" gave me more money than Obama is promising me, even as he desires to roll back those cuts. Basically, I will come out on the bad side if he is elected. Am I rich?
Obama's Families In Trouble on his half-hour infomercial made me laugh. One woman worries that she won't be able to stock as much snack food in her fridge. Another woman, sporting a $40/month acrylic nail job, mourns about the difficulty she has buying milk. Look, hon, I do nothing with my nails so I can afford milk.
My husband makes a decent wage, and I am a homemaker and homeschooling mother. That combination puts us in the same income level as "Working Class", and the only thing that would technically push us into "Lower Middle Class" is my husband's job type. We have a fixed-rate mortgage that we staunchly refused to convert to variable-rate when the interest levels for variable bounced to 1%, mostly because we already knew that they would rise above 10% at some point in the next thirty years. People don't seem to know how to plan further than the next five years anymore.
Our tax burden, federal, state, Social Security, and Medicaid all comes up to about 20% of our income. Our mortgage payment is over half of our net income. We pay next for electricity, auto insurance, and phone service (including internet). We own both our cars outright. We do not own a cell phone, not even an emergency plan. With all of that, the rest of our income is spent on food and gas, plus any emergencies, mostly auto repair, that demand a response. We have no entertainment budget.
Our food budget is 2/3rds of what a family our size would get on welfare, and it will be a little over half that when the baby is born. We actually took the unusual step of applying for energy assistance this year, and found that we were only $500/year over the mark. That puts us, by the way, just above 150% of the state poverty level. You would think Obama would be falling all over himself to help us, right? Why will his new plan benefit us almost nothing? Simple: we do not fit into his 'poor person lifestyle'. In plainer talk, we don't qualify for his tax credits, which include:
* Doubling the earned income tax credit if you pay child support
* $4K tax credit if you paid college tuition
* $7K tax credit if you bought a "clean car"
* $6K tax credit if you pay for daycare
So basically, since my husband has not abandoned his family, neither of us are in college, we can't afford to buy a car, and I choose to raise our children myself, we don't qualify for any of those Obama Tax Credits. There are more, of course, and we don't qualify for them either. Education tax credits do not apply to homeschoolers, etc.
So it doesn't matter to Obama that next spring we will have a food budget nearly half of that from a family on welfare, or that we are likely to put our winter oil tank fill on the credit card because we simply do not have it in the bank, even though we do not make any of the poor choices that land many other families in poverty. This is not class warfare anymore. We are "rich", not because we make a lot of money, but because we don't live the way he expects us to. Perhaps, and this is admittedly a conjecture, we do not live the way that contributes to the socialist society the Democrats wish to impose. And so we must be punished until we fall into line.
Already my husband knows of coworkers, even in his white-collar workplace, who choose not to marry their girlfriends for the simple reason that the state will provide for them better then their men can. One in particular, with full intention to be a good father to his girlfriend's baby, nevertheless waited until the child was born before marriage so that the state would provide her with the prenatal care she needed, the care that he could not provide himself, even as he was taxed at or near the same 20%-when-counting-federal/state/SS/etc. rate that my husband and I suffer under.
I say 'suffer', but we're holding our own. Even on such a small food budget, I still provide good meals for my family by resorting to beans, rice, potatoes, and other simple and unpackaged foods. The woman in Obama's infomercial with snacks in her refrigerator made me simply shake my head, because we simply cannot afford any snack foods in our budget. According to Obama, she needs more help than we do.
This is no longer just about Democratic class warfare. This is about the government rewarding some lifestyles over others. If you try to work hard, live frugally, and trouble no man, raising your children within the framework of a traditional family, the Democrats do not care about you.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
9/11 celebration
This morning, I lit candles on the dining room table, which I do for special days or when I just feel like it. I did it today for 9/11, for the planes and the towers and the people and the silent skies for weeks afterwards.
That isn't the extent of my observance, though.
9/11 isn't just a day to solemnly read names of the dead, to mourn the towers, and to watch the flaming footage again and again and again. It's more than that now, as we hit Year 7 after the first event and take a look at what has and hasn't happened.
Civilians in many other countries live in fear.. or despite the fear.. of terrorist attack. They know any place they go could suddenly end up engulfed in flames, shrapnel flying in all directions. They know they are part of a war zone that, unlike the usual gentlemanly rules of war, is targeted at them.
On 9/11, those terrorists tried to make us one of those places. They failed.
Now, this is the day we acknowledge that. This day reminds us that we struck back. Bin Laden said "Submit" and we said "Submit THIS!" So today I light candles in the morning and then I say "Submit this!"
I'm about to head out to do my foodshopping without fear, knowing that whatever awaits me there, a suicide vest will not even be a remote possibility. Then I'm going to go home and cook a good party dinner. We're going to eat pork! I don't often have pig products just because my stomach doesn't always take to it well, but today is different! Today is the day we eat pork and celebrate, because we are not afraid.
I won't be watching any news/television broadcasts, but we might put on a movie or play video games later.
Anybody who wishes to 'steal my idea' may do so with utter impunity. Remember. Don't forget. Don't lose sight of it. But don't despair, and grieve only as befits you. Then go find your own way of saying "Submit this!"
That isn't the extent of my observance, though.
9/11 isn't just a day to solemnly read names of the dead, to mourn the towers, and to watch the flaming footage again and again and again. It's more than that now, as we hit Year 7 after the first event and take a look at what has and hasn't happened.
Civilians in many other countries live in fear.. or despite the fear.. of terrorist attack. They know any place they go could suddenly end up engulfed in flames, shrapnel flying in all directions. They know they are part of a war zone that, unlike the usual gentlemanly rules of war, is targeted at them.
On 9/11, those terrorists tried to make us one of those places. They failed.
Now, this is the day we acknowledge that. This day reminds us that we struck back. Bin Laden said "Submit" and we said "Submit THIS!" So today I light candles in the morning and then I say "Submit this!"
I'm about to head out to do my foodshopping without fear, knowing that whatever awaits me there, a suicide vest will not even be a remote possibility. Then I'm going to go home and cook a good party dinner. We're going to eat pork! I don't often have pig products just because my stomach doesn't always take to it well, but today is different! Today is the day we eat pork and celebrate, because we are not afraid.
I won't be watching any news/television broadcasts, but we might put on a movie or play video games later.
Anybody who wishes to 'steal my idea' may do so with utter impunity. Remember. Don't forget. Don't lose sight of it. But don't despair, and grieve only as befits you. Then go find your own way of saying "Submit this!"
Monday, September 1, 2008
Anti-anti-feminism? Or not quite?
Since McCain has made his unexpected VP pick, forums and blogs everywhere have been alight. Especially in the media areas where I watch, suddenly everyone wants to talk about this not-unknown-for-long woman, governor of a state most people don't even think about on a semi-regular basis.
I, being a bit of an 'anti-feminist', track sites with similar beliefs, of course, and I've been surprised to see an ultra-conservative backlash against this VP pick. I've been even more surprised to find that I, usually pretty nearly solid in my agreement with them, find myself a bit at odds. There are two main areas in dispute, and I plan to lay out my own thoughts on each one separately.
1. Sarah Palin, being a mother of young children, especially one with Down Syndrome, should be at home taking care of them.
I'm not sure where people who worry over this think the Palin children and husband actually are. I recommend http://www.mccainblogette.com/postings/083008_0928.shtml for an answer. In case you don't feel like wading through the pictures, I can tell you myself... her family is with her. For hours and sometimes days between campaign trips, she will have plenty of time to spend with husband and children, feeding her baby and snuggling with him. She may well have more time to spend with her family than any mother who is not homeschooling. Even during events, her family are no further away from backstage, and, increasingly, out in the front alongside her.
Palin is headed for a position that allows her to work in the same building that she and her family will live. The other working women afforded her level of flexibility, mostly schoolteachers, small business owners, or telecommuters, are often in the ranks of the anti-feminist groups and accepted by them. What is the difference here? It may have something to do with the second issue: Authority.
2. What's a woman doing taking authority over men? Indeed, placing herself in the line of succession for the most powerful job in the country?
Well, women in Ancient Israel might have taken issue with this question. As I said before, I agree with anti-feminist groups largely for the most part. In this area, though, I have some concern that they are taking an extremist position against an extremist position rather than looking to restore a proper balance. From wives frequently ruling their husbands, they push for a time when women are more or less ruled by men. I take a different tack, and one that I believe to be Biblically supported.
As I just mentioned, women in Ancient Israel might take issue with this view. During the Golden Ages of Israel, women had a great many rights not allowed to those in 1700's America, which even then was not the time of terrible oppression feminists claim it to be. In Ancient Israel, not only could women own and inherit property, but they had equal access to the courts and equal access with non-Levites to the Temple.
The Bible, when it speaks of submission to men, is clearly laying out the proper roles within a family. The husband is the CO, and the wife is the XO. However, these positions hold only within the family. As an example, when I conduct family business outside the home, I am not subordinate to any man with whom I may deal. My position as XO of the family trumps his position as outside the family, and he will not induce me to do anything against my family's betterment simply for the sake of being male. This position was supported even in America of the 1800's. If the husband died, the widow owned his property and cast votes in the family name.
A lot of people have been quoting the Old Testament case of Deborah as 'proof' that having a woman take a position of power over men outside of the family is a shameful thing. However, there are numerous instances of Old Testament women judging in the gates, owning and profiting from their own land and businesses (even married women), founding cities, and building bridges. In the New Testament, women commonly founded and led early churches, and Paul had plenty of them to greet and bless in each of his letters. There are two sets of verses usually used against this, but I believe one of them actually supports women's authority and the other is taken out of context.
The first involves women praying with their head covered (or with long hair). People claim that these verses establish all women as subserviant to all men as a matter of nature. "For God is the head of man, but man is the head of woman, and man was not created for woman, but woman for man." What they seem to be missing is the import of the last verse: "For this reason and for the angels, women should pray with a symbol of authority on their heads." This line of reasoning does not end with "women serving men is a matter of nature." It follows on to say, "Because nature suggests that women do not have the authority of men, women should pray with a symbol of authority on their heads." We are different than men, and we take different roles in marriage, but we are not lesser in God's eyes.
The second is a little trickier. After several occasions of Paul talking about how we are all equal in Christ, man and woman, free and slave, after all the times he's cheered on the women leaders in the church, suddenly he declares that "the women shouldn't teach" because "Adam was formed first, and Eve was the one who sinned first." What's he talking about? Many people have taken it to mean that no woman should teach any man, but if you look at the context, you see a slightly different story.
Paul wrote his famous statement to Timothy, in Ephesus. Ephesus was home to the Diana cult. (Diana is also known as Artemis.) In Acts, we got to read about this cult causing a riot and nearly getting the early Christians in a lot of trouble. It turns out that their troublemaking had not ended there. The cult was very feminist-minded, and members who joined churches began distorting Scripture to suit themselves. "Eve was created first, before Adam," they'd teach loudly. "Eve did not sin, so women are not under the same curse as men."
Now his statement makes much more sense when taken with his previous affirmation of female leaders, doesn't it? "Timothy, your women need to stop preaching. Adam was created first, not Eve, and Eve did sin... she's not excluded from the sin curse."
On the matter of women in authority, by the way, my mother had a very interesting take on it. A housewife and mother for about as long as I've been alive, she pointed out that political leadership involves administrating the will of the people and has since the peasants forced the King of England to sign the Magna Carta. "Women make excellent administrators," she pointed out.
To conclude, I'd like to point out that the loudest people speaking against Palin's position due to her sex are not the conservative Christians. They are the liberals, particularly the liberal feminists. Why are they on this tack? Why do they care? They don't, to be honest. But they'll do anything they can, including trying to use our own arguments on us, to prevent her from winning this election. I hope to predict that they will fail because they do believe the bad light they cast us in, the distorted view that we believe woman is inherently inferior to man, that holding values mean we must crucify anyone who doesn't live up to our standard, and that "it's important for mothers to raise their children" means "mothers had better not move from the kitchen... ever!"
I, being a bit of an 'anti-feminist', track sites with similar beliefs, of course, and I've been surprised to see an ultra-conservative backlash against this VP pick. I've been even more surprised to find that I, usually pretty nearly solid in my agreement with them, find myself a bit at odds. There are two main areas in dispute, and I plan to lay out my own thoughts on each one separately.
1. Sarah Palin, being a mother of young children, especially one with Down Syndrome, should be at home taking care of them.
I'm not sure where people who worry over this think the Palin children and husband actually are. I recommend http://www.mccainblogette.com/postings/083008_0928.shtml for an answer. In case you don't feel like wading through the pictures, I can tell you myself... her family is with her. For hours and sometimes days between campaign trips, she will have plenty of time to spend with husband and children, feeding her baby and snuggling with him. She may well have more time to spend with her family than any mother who is not homeschooling. Even during events, her family are no further away from backstage, and, increasingly, out in the front alongside her.
Palin is headed for a position that allows her to work in the same building that she and her family will live. The other working women afforded her level of flexibility, mostly schoolteachers, small business owners, or telecommuters, are often in the ranks of the anti-feminist groups and accepted by them. What is the difference here? It may have something to do with the second issue: Authority.
2. What's a woman doing taking authority over men? Indeed, placing herself in the line of succession for the most powerful job in the country?
Well, women in Ancient Israel might have taken issue with this question. As I said before, I agree with anti-feminist groups largely for the most part. In this area, though, I have some concern that they are taking an extremist position against an extremist position rather than looking to restore a proper balance. From wives frequently ruling their husbands, they push for a time when women are more or less ruled by men. I take a different tack, and one that I believe to be Biblically supported.
As I just mentioned, women in Ancient Israel might take issue with this view. During the Golden Ages of Israel, women had a great many rights not allowed to those in 1700's America, which even then was not the time of terrible oppression feminists claim it to be. In Ancient Israel, not only could women own and inherit property, but they had equal access to the courts and equal access with non-Levites to the Temple.
The Bible, when it speaks of submission to men, is clearly laying out the proper roles within a family. The husband is the CO, and the wife is the XO. However, these positions hold only within the family. As an example, when I conduct family business outside the home, I am not subordinate to any man with whom I may deal. My position as XO of the family trumps his position as outside the family, and he will not induce me to do anything against my family's betterment simply for the sake of being male. This position was supported even in America of the 1800's. If the husband died, the widow owned his property and cast votes in the family name.
A lot of people have been quoting the Old Testament case of Deborah as 'proof' that having a woman take a position of power over men outside of the family is a shameful thing. However, there are numerous instances of Old Testament women judging in the gates, owning and profiting from their own land and businesses (even married women), founding cities, and building bridges. In the New Testament, women commonly founded and led early churches, and Paul had plenty of them to greet and bless in each of his letters. There are two sets of verses usually used against this, but I believe one of them actually supports women's authority and the other is taken out of context.
The first involves women praying with their head covered (or with long hair). People claim that these verses establish all women as subserviant to all men as a matter of nature. "For God is the head of man, but man is the head of woman, and man was not created for woman, but woman for man." What they seem to be missing is the import of the last verse: "For this reason and for the angels, women should pray with a symbol of authority on their heads." This line of reasoning does not end with "women serving men is a matter of nature." It follows on to say, "Because nature suggests that women do not have the authority of men, women should pray with a symbol of authority on their heads." We are different than men, and we take different roles in marriage, but we are not lesser in God's eyes.
The second is a little trickier. After several occasions of Paul talking about how we are all equal in Christ, man and woman, free and slave, after all the times he's cheered on the women leaders in the church, suddenly he declares that "the women shouldn't teach" because "Adam was formed first, and Eve was the one who sinned first." What's he talking about? Many people have taken it to mean that no woman should teach any man, but if you look at the context, you see a slightly different story.
Paul wrote his famous statement to Timothy, in Ephesus. Ephesus was home to the Diana cult. (Diana is also known as Artemis.) In Acts, we got to read about this cult causing a riot and nearly getting the early Christians in a lot of trouble. It turns out that their troublemaking had not ended there. The cult was very feminist-minded, and members who joined churches began distorting Scripture to suit themselves. "Eve was created first, before Adam," they'd teach loudly. "Eve did not sin, so women are not under the same curse as men."
Now his statement makes much more sense when taken with his previous affirmation of female leaders, doesn't it? "Timothy, your women need to stop preaching. Adam was created first, not Eve, and Eve did sin... she's not excluded from the sin curse."
On the matter of women in authority, by the way, my mother had a very interesting take on it. A housewife and mother for about as long as I've been alive, she pointed out that political leadership involves administrating the will of the people and has since the peasants forced the King of England to sign the Magna Carta. "Women make excellent administrators," she pointed out.
To conclude, I'd like to point out that the loudest people speaking against Palin's position due to her sex are not the conservative Christians. They are the liberals, particularly the liberal feminists. Why are they on this tack? Why do they care? They don't, to be honest. But they'll do anything they can, including trying to use our own arguments on us, to prevent her from winning this election. I hope to predict that they will fail because they do believe the bad light they cast us in, the distorted view that we believe woman is inherently inferior to man, that holding values mean we must crucify anyone who doesn't live up to our standard, and that "it's important for mothers to raise their children" means "mothers had better not move from the kitchen... ever!"
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Do-Nothing Democrats
The oil situation in my country is mirrored neatly by the water situation in my town, and the crux of the problem lies with the same people: the Democrats who are in charge.
My town is currently under an extreme water shortage. Residents are not allowed to water their lawns, wash their cars, or even water their vegetable gardens. Luckily, the last hasn't been too terrible, because this was the fourth wettest July on record, and June was also considerably wetter than normal. The rain has soaked the ground, filling streams nearly to overflowing. Every time it rains, as it's doing today, there are flood watches across the state. Half the time, they turn into flood warnings in one area or another.
Does this sound contradictory? It should. The United States is sitting on a wealth of oil, and my town is sitting on a wealth of water. So why are prices high? Why is my town under water restriction of the highest order?
One of the town wells broke down and has not been repaired. Another one was taken offline, I'm not sure exactly why, leaving only one well to service the entire area. The people voted into charge of my town are overwhelmingly Democrat, as our Congress currently has Democratic control of both houses, and they have not repaired either of the two wells in reserve nor sought to drill a third. We have a reservoir in town, kept off-limits and unused. There was some talk in a town meeting half a year ago of opening the reservoir to supplement the single well, but it has not yet happened.
The local Democrats have, however, secured a multi-million grant from the state in order to vastly reduce the debt we are about to take on in purchasing a large area of recreational forest. It's a very pretty property and, once the lead cleanup finishes and a large-scale poison ivy eradication effort is undertaken, may even be safe to visit.
The Congressional Democrats have turned out the lights on the Republicans, who are even now standing in the dark telling the Democrats and the rest of the country that the working poor need to be able to get to work and keep their houses warm in the upcoming winter.
I think we need some Republicans at my town hall telling the Democrats that their citizens need water.
My town is currently under an extreme water shortage. Residents are not allowed to water their lawns, wash their cars, or even water their vegetable gardens. Luckily, the last hasn't been too terrible, because this was the fourth wettest July on record, and June was also considerably wetter than normal. The rain has soaked the ground, filling streams nearly to overflowing. Every time it rains, as it's doing today, there are flood watches across the state. Half the time, they turn into flood warnings in one area or another.
Does this sound contradictory? It should. The United States is sitting on a wealth of oil, and my town is sitting on a wealth of water. So why are prices high? Why is my town under water restriction of the highest order?
One of the town wells broke down and has not been repaired. Another one was taken offline, I'm not sure exactly why, leaving only one well to service the entire area. The people voted into charge of my town are overwhelmingly Democrat, as our Congress currently has Democratic control of both houses, and they have not repaired either of the two wells in reserve nor sought to drill a third. We have a reservoir in town, kept off-limits and unused. There was some talk in a town meeting half a year ago of opening the reservoir to supplement the single well, but it has not yet happened.
The local Democrats have, however, secured a multi-million grant from the state in order to vastly reduce the debt we are about to take on in purchasing a large area of recreational forest. It's a very pretty property and, once the lead cleanup finishes and a large-scale poison ivy eradication effort is undertaken, may even be safe to visit.
The Congressional Democrats have turned out the lights on the Republicans, who are even now standing in the dark telling the Democrats and the rest of the country that the working poor need to be able to get to work and keep their houses warm in the upcoming winter.
I think we need some Republicans at my town hall telling the Democrats that their citizens need water.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)