Dan Kimball has a very interesting post about the apparent contradiction between conservative Christians, who often don’t allow women to speak in church, supporting Sarah Palin’s candidacy for Vice President so enthusiastically (with the real possibility that she could be the leader of the country). You can read his post here.
Yeah, odd, isn’t it.
They pick a woman who is opposed to the rights of women.
Reminds me of their pick of Clarence Thomas – the only judge in the entire US opposed to civil rights.
They are really good at deceiving the public.
You might like my latest blog on the subject:
If there is a contradiction here, it goes back a ways. Our first female VP nominee was a Catholic (i.e. certain church leadership positions are not open to her). Even when women were treated like second- or third-class citizens 400-500 years ago, Catholic Spain and Anglican England had a Queen Isabella and a Queen Elizabeth leading their respective counries. Sarah Palin’s candidacy is nothing new on this front. There have been many female leaders supported by the “conservative Christians” described by Kimball.
Kevin Watson said:
christianliberal – thanks for stopping by. I am not sure I agree with all of your presuppositions on this. I guess I unwittingly opened a can of worms I did not intend to open. I do not intend to turn this blog into a political commentary, so I won’t say much except that I know of some women who would not agree with your assessment that Palin is a women who is opposed to the rights of women.
BW – Thanks for the history lesson! Palin’s candidacy may not be new on this front, but I still found Kimball’s post interesting. I had not thought previously about the fact that some Christians would not be willing to sit under the leadership of a woman in church, but they would be willing to have a woman lead the country. Just thought it was interesting…