Posted on 05/24/2004 7:49:55 PM PDT by churchillbuff
Got to agree
I agree... four days out of seven away from one's children. Who cares about political power? I want to be mommy and put my babies to bed.
I don't disagree but I suspect he didn't sway many people to his point of view.
Sounds like common sense to me.
But what really causes me to scratch my head is why these working mothers of youngsters don't revel in their awesome power to affect the future.
"can do as good a job being parents as they can being legislators."
Let me just say that while these women are being legislators someone else is raising their children. So they must not be good legislators because they are slacking in the parent department This may sound harsh but I have been a nanny for seven years and I know that the ones who suffer the most from a working mother are their children.
Do I think it is sinful........not sure.
As for the merits of their protest . . . well, there are a lot of two-income households. If they disagree with the reverend, don't listen to him.
Is this the same Ralph Drollinger who was a Center for the UCLA Bruins basketball team back under Coach Wooden, and then turned down an NBA offer from the Boston Celtics to pursue ministry?
I'd have to ask: where's the child's daddy?
Children have 2 parents, after all.
Making one's children suffer for one's own ambition... yes that's sinful. Were it absolute necessity, no, but that is clearly not applicable to any of the cases in question.
Lawmakers should not deliberately intimidate anyone's profession of beliefs.
If you are truly BLESSED like me and your husband works and you are able to stay home with the kids when they are little that is GREAT! If you are a single mom and you HAVE to work to feed your little angels..... well................
Why, didn't you know? Anyone with 12 credits of early childhood education is better trained to bring up children than birth parents!
Oh, there's no question about that...
That's ok with me because these "mothers" (and I use the term very very lightly) are actually raising future conservative republicans and just don't know it yet.
I don't see how Rev. Drollinger gets all this from Proverbs 31. In fact, if you actually read it, it seems to contradict what he is saying.
For example:
Proverbs 31:14 She is like the merchants' ships; she bringeth her food from afar.
Proverbs 31:31 Give her of the fruit of her hands; and let her own works praise her in the gates.
It starts off as words of a prophecy told to King Lemuel by his mother concerning, among other things, strong drink, and then launches into a description of a virtuous woman. None of the virtues listed is in conflict with being a virtuous woman, but moreover, there is no commandment that any woman must have all these virtues anyway.
Looks more to me like Rev. Drollinger is taking it upon himself to assume the mantle of God, who alone determines what sin is (Deuteronomy 5:7), not some self-appointed accuser.
His citation does not support his charges. He might be better served attending to his own sins, rather than inventing false sins to accuse others of committing.
I agree with the Reverend.
bump!
Captain Cook, Shaggy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.