Posted on 07/09/2011 3:46:42 PM PDT by Anamnesis
Face it, Bachmann was toast before she was a slice of bread.
That’s my girl!!! YOU GO SARAH!!!
It actually does apply to women leading the country. The reasoning is rooted in the order in creation, and, therefore, applies everywhere. However, as with the home in exceptional circumstances, women can lead nations in exceptional circumstances. It’s just not something that should happen under normal circumstances. However, when women are the only ones willing and able to lead, then we have no choice in the matter. As far as I can see, the Palin and Bachmann (more so Palin) seem to be the only ones actually capable of accomplishing the task before us. I like Cain for the most part, but it’s hard to see him taking off and he doesn’t seem to be running his campaign effectively. I think Palin might be the only one who has what it takes.
In contrast, Alaskan constitution was designed to have a very powerful governor as a true CEO.
Truly Reaganesque rhetoric, Mrs. President!
______________________________________________________________I think she will be formally addressed as Madame President.
Norm, I think it is a mistake to conflate household authority structure with the exercise of public authority. Reformed theologian Abraham Kuyper, who is still of some reputation in Iowa’s Christian/Dutch Reformed circles, gave us a notation by which to understand it, called the spheres of influence.
Picture it as a three-dimensional Venn diagram. The Family sphere is authority exercised within the family and its jurisdiction is limited only to tings that concern the family as a family. Where any member of the family is a civil officer, that sphere of influence, the Civil sphere, overlaps the Family sphere, but only partially. That is, there are things which still are only under family jurisdiction, but the civil jurisdiction can reach both outward to any appropriate civil task outside the family, and inward to any family task that falls under civil jurisdiction.
In other words, MB or SP could easily regard their husbands as the head of their home, and at the same time command their husband’s obedience under the civil authority on such things as are properly under that authority, and this on the premise that God has granted both authorities, and cannot contradict Himself. And I haven’t even gotten to ecclesiastical authority. So in this respect, there really is no conflict between the Biblical order for households versus the civil magistrate, even when one individual lives in both spheres. It’s a nonissue in the more well-informed segment of Iowa’s reformed community.
One of her professors (I believe in Idaho) stated that Sarah was one of the most gifted writers he ever taught.
Sarah is more intelligent than 99.99999999 % of the "elites" from any Ivy school, or elsewhere.
My point here is simply this. MB made a very secular mistake in bringing her private religious beliefs (ultimately over leadership/authority) into the public forum for the express purpose of currying favor. That may play well with people who share her view and that is 100% fine by me. Her beliefs are also 100% fine by me. I have no problem with them at all on a personal level.
The problem is the fact that she now has to justify what should be a personal matter for the remainder of her dwindling campaign to every person who holds a different view over Who is the ‘boss’ in the family, putting into legitimate question IMO if her husband’s edicts will drive her Presidential decision making. She opened herself up to it, mistakenly, and now the MSMlibs will carve it on her political tombstone.
SP probably does regard Todd as head of the household. She is not however making it an issue to attempt to gain favor of traditionalist Christian families to get their votes. (This would be blatant pandering at it’s worst...which is what MB is unfortunately doing.) As such, the MSMlibs cannot use it against SP as an albatross/wedge issue between secular and Christian voters. That’s the difference.
While this is true, and allows the ideal to be exercised one place but not another, the ideal for all spheres would be to have male headship. However, all spheres can have female headship under exceptional circumstances as well. The church should have stricter standards for those exceptional circumstances, however, since it is supposed to show the light to the rest of the community.
Thanks for sure, wow...make it stop!
obviously so.
Inapprropriate. Go away.
Got your email...my replies are still being bounced.
Any remaining moths in my wallet will receive their freedom once Sarah announces.
Seems that there was an effective woman leader or two mentioned in the Old Testament....just saying.
Just in case you missed this, our gal Sarah took zero behind the woodshed.
The church is a different matter of course but within a civil/secular society God can and does allow for "extraordinary" circumstances and we are in those indeed at this time.
I won't get into the MB/SP debate but I agree that neither should be trapped into a "God-ordained order vs. Civil servant order" trap put out by the gotcha media. Under these exceptional circumstances either could step in and run a "non-God-ordained (secular)" democracy and still heed their private Christian belief that the husband is head of the wife which is God-ordained.
ping
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.