Replies

Since you didn’t ping any of these other freepers to defend their position, I’ll go ahead and do it for them.

On the other hand, this isn’t a religion forum, so I’ll not bother with a biblical treatise on the proper biblical roles of men and women in society.

Children deserve to have parents raise them. That doesn’t have to be the woman, but it should be one of the two parents. And in most cases, men have the better jobs and so you expect the women to be the child-rearers. Of course, they are the child-bearers, which impacts their work anyway, so logically it makes sense they would rear the children as well.

It is unnatural for a mother to work so she can pay some other person to raise her kids. If we weren’t talking about Sarah Palin, we’d have a lot more people in agreement on this issue, but because the argument got sucked into the “Palin good, everybody else bad” maelstrom, we can’t have a reasonable discussion.

Personally, I think Sarah Palin should do what she thinks best, as her religious beliefs are her own, and not mine to judge. But likewise she should not judge others for their religious beliefs, and her ridicule of people who believe differently from her was unwise.

There are millions of women who are trying to live by the biblical principles they believe in, and to be mocked and ridiculed for it is unbecoming.

the use of terms such as you used in your post (like misogynist) is indicative that the argument is at least somewhat accurate, as these are feminist words seeking to deny that there is a familial heirarchy that is explained by God in his word.

For my family, if my wife had wanted to work after kids, I would have been home raising them. She didn’t want to work, so that’s how we did it. Women working full-time all the time is really a modern construct, born of the materialist anti-religious brainwashing of the feminist movement and the liberal philosophy. We need more money to buy more things, and that means going into debt and making women work full-time jobs so there are two incomes to spend on big-screen TVs.

The widespread acceptance of the idea that all women should work also contributes to the high divorce rate. Men feel comfortable abandoning their commitments, since women should be able to support themselves. Women likewise feel less obligated to try to work things out, since they can make money on their own. The kids of course are still abandoned and torn apart, but the parents have money and can live their own selfish lives without worry.

The large influx of women into the workplace also puts out of balance our economic system. We need twice as many jobs per family, and since the families with two workers have a lot more money, they can spend more on houses and cars and all sorts of things. This contributed to inflation, and also means that other women feel forced into the workplace since the goods and services cost so much more.

In essense, women working caused a huge “family earning inflation” that makes it harder for single-income families.

From a religious perspective, nobody should be getting their worth, self or other, from having a job. Jobs are a means to an end, which is providing for your family. Raising children is a very important job, and by debasing that job and suggesting that it is beneath the dignity of a woman, modern society dismisses the history of man and insults religious upbringing and teaching.

There, I think I covered most of the arguments. No need to thank me. Just think twice before you insult the religion of a sizable minority of the people in this country, and denigrate the fine spiritual women who are trying against the force of modern debased culture to live their lives as Women of God.

It is unnatural for a mother to work so she can pay some other person to raise her kids.

I would argue that the freedom not to 'work' (not counting homemaking) is actually only a recent phenomenon that had a narrow window of popularity. In reality, is outside of most of human history. If you go back to early hunter/gatherers, women raised daughters and they worked together while the men raised the sons, each 'working' with their child in their own skill-craft. In other words, both the mother and father 'worked' and the children's rearmament were part of that job, be it in a workplace (think pre-19th century apprenticeship into various guilds and crafts) or hunting and gathering. In the 1800s, a woman may have been a seamstress and would bring her daughter to the job to learn the skill while a man may be a bricklayer and bring his son to the job. This would be very similar to Biblical times as well. The idea of a mother staying home to raise all the children (male and female) while the male is away as a sole-provider, is a Western, mid-20th century notion. As for 'paying' someone to raise your kids, the ideas of nannies goes back centuries (and actually transcends classes in Western culture) and before that, it was common for grandparents to step into this role as well.

If Sarah Palin were one of those “career” women who dump their kids off to be raised by strangers, you might have a point...but she’s not, and you sound foolish trying to paint her as such.

Perhaps you didn’t read her book or don’t know the facts, but she spends more time with her children than most “stay at home mothers” I know do. They have the luxury of a very helpful extended family to help out, and Todd takes on a lot of responsibility when he needs to, but Sarah also has brought her children with her on most of what she has done.

She is probably the strongest pro-family advocate to have ever run for the Presidency in my lifetime.

Since you are so into literal interpretations of the Bible, I’m guessing you feel Ronald Reagen was one of our worst Presidents ever! (He was divorced after all...the bible addresses this explicitly - SIN!!)

You people are doing the equivalent of hiding under your pews. How is your religious zealotry different than the Taliban, other than you have a different, less violent book to follow? You don’t want a President, you want a preacher.

So tell me, is Huckahillbilly pious enough for you? Does his family structure meet your religious test?...With his dog torturing son and his furloughing of murders (out of his CHRISTIAN COMPASSION) what a pant load...