Should fundamentalists encourage pro-abortion, pro-public-school and anti-marriage policies?

Here’s a post from Newsbusters about a group of “patriarchal” Christians that opposed the nomination of Sarah Palin for the post of vice presidency based on their interpretation of the Bible.


The Los Angeles Times seems to have taken a sudden new interest in biblical study. No, they haven’t become religious or anything close to that. Instead, they are microanalyzing the Bible for passages that they think they can use to slam Sarah Palin for running for vice-president. They are also searching the countryside to dig up the very few strongly religious Christians they can find who think Palin is wrong to run for public office.

Should fundamentalists directly or indirectly support the election of Barack Obama, which caused disastrous effects in society, (increasing abortion, enabling a stronger influence for public schools, and potentially legalizing same-sex marriage, for starters)?

Does Scripture actually justify any of these radically left-wing positions? Won’t these fundamentalist Christians be judged based on the fruits of their opposition to Sarah Palin? Don’t Christians have a responsibility to be educated about the consequences of their positions? Isn’t it important to interpret the Bible correctly?

See my previous post on the need to have an influence in the public square in the most effective ways possible.

Another point of view

A mother of 12 writes:

It is a continual source of amazement to me that some Evangelicals/Protestants raise such a ruckus about Catholics believing in the spiritual authority of the Pope, even while setting up little mini-Popes of their own – and that these leaders disobey God’s imperative to servant leadership in order to revel in their pedestal status.

Often these begin as well-intentioned people seeking righteousness, but then giving into the temptation of spiritual pride. Like the Pharisees Jesus condemned, they become white-washed sepulchers.

Our family’s experience in a legalistic church (mercifully brief 1989-1990) was filled with people bossing us around, telling us that they had a Word for us from God. How dared they presume that God would speak to a stranger rather than guiding us Himself?

And how dare the Vision Forum crowd presume to become the Pope to Sarah Palin?

The truth is that these well-meaning people have become isolated and insulated, building an alternative universe and then judging the outside world by their self-imposed standards rather than by the historical truth of a heavenly Father who throughout the Bible has chosen unlikely leaders and who has warned us about making our own.

Found here.

9 thoughts on “Should fundamentalists encourage pro-abortion, pro-public-school and anti-marriage policies?”

  1. “Should fundamentalists directly or indirectly support the election of Barack Obama,”


    “Does Scripture actually justify any of these radically left-wing positions? ”


    “Will Christians be judged based on their fruits?”

    Yup. Each of us has once to live, and then judgement.

    “Do Christians have a responsibility to be educated about the consequences of their positions?”


    “Is it important to interpret the Bible correctly?”

    Oh most definitely. That said, I hope that they come out with a long list of new left wing talking points “from the bible”. That always opens up the door to talk about scripture. :)


  2. I’m not a fan of women trying to lead countries. Sarah’s meltdown over being constantly criticized helps demonstrate the natural female inadequacy in that role. And add to it the fact that her daughter wound up getting pregnant out of wedlock (to a lousy kid who did *not* marry her), and you really start to pile up evidence for why women should focus on their families first.

    Imo, women in legislative roles (like Bachmann) are in a somewhat better position. They don’t directly command authority like executives do. But all else being equal, I’d still rather vote for a man. Encouraging these feminist upstarts in order to save the GOP is just a short-term fix at best.

    So yeah, I was a little bit torn even back when I voted for Palin.


    1. For heaven’s sake, Drew. Sarah Palin is NOT demonstrating the “natural inadequacy” of women. (I always find it terribly amusing when men deride women as “biologically inadequate.” Seems to be projecting some insecurities….)

      She did not “melt down.” She was attacked in the most vicious manner that no HUMAN should tolerate. The attacks are not part and parcel of her role; we do not require that Barack Obama or John McCain submit to relentless frivolous ethics investigations, at a cost of over a half-million dollars to themselves; we do not require that they abide by the exploitation of their children; nor do we mandate that they be smeared, derided, and lied about for months after their candidacies end and they have retreated from the public eye.

      Should that come to be, Drew, our politicians will not be the men that woman-haters like you so desperately want; they will be egomaniacs, narcissists, and deviants of the highest order, for those are the only people who would be willing to play by the rules that were forced upon Gov. Palin.

      That much is obvious. That you do not see that shows that you are blinded by your need to feel superiour to women. Sad to live your life like that.


      1. I don’t agree. George Bush tolerated that type of garbage throughout his presidency. Clinton got attacked fiercely as well, and Reagan and many other presidents have suffered from fierce attacks. Sarah Palin’s justification for resigning was weak. If Alaska’s ethics rules are causing you to waste too much time or money defending against critics, then you change the laws. Does she really think things would be much different if she were elected President?

        But even if you want to argue that she wasn’t ACTUALLY emotionally weak, she definitely LOOKED weak by resigning. By resigning from office so early, I think Palin has pretty solidly disqualified herself from the 2012 election. If she’d just stayed put — even if the ethics complaints paralyzed her administration completely for the next year or so — then she would’ve looked at least been able to tout her role as governor and her (previous) accomplishments with the oil and stuff. Now, she just looks like a quitter.


        1. I’m not sure I see Palin as more of a quitter or an opportunist. She almost gives the impression of attention-deficit disorder. She left her job as governor to pursue other jobs and more money. The governorship was treated as simply a means to Palin’s ends.

          By the way, there is no evidence that the election of Barack Obama has led to an increase in abortions. On the other hand, it has led to an increase in births (not evidence of a decrease in abortions, mind you.)

          Palin was never attacked for anything but her own hypocrisy and stupidity. If you have an example demonstrating otherwise, please point me to it. Obama has been attacked as being a non-citizen, a radical Muslim, a socialist, and an anti-gun zealot – all of which are demonstrably false. Clinton was accused of a multitude of real and imagined crimes, none of which were confirmed by conviction in a court of law. Bush, on the other hand, has admitted to impeachable offenses including violation of FISA, authorization of torture in violation of US law, and declassifying the status of a covert agent for political purposes (to name a few).


          1. “a socialist, and an anti-gun zealot – all of which are demonstrably false”

            Google Obama New Party
            Google Obama ban manufacture sale handguns

            “Clinton was ” impeached.

            “Bush, on the other hand” was never impeached.

            You have the Birther/Muslim stuff right. That’s for whackos.


  3. I find it extremely difficult to understand how a group of people deciding to vote according to their conscience and understanding of scripture is playing “Pope” to anyone. Last I heard they weren’t threatening Palin with excommunication (she doesn’t even go to one of their churches) or eternal damnation in hell if she ran for office.

    It may be a matter of philosophical debate whether we have an obligation to vote for the lesser of two evils, or if we should vote for the best option in order to make a statement even if that party cannot win. What is not really up for debate is that it is perfectly legitimate to criticize and point out weaknesses in politicians and political parties, even those you might ultimately vote for.

    Anyway, I don’t think Vision Forum and co handed Obama the election. If they were actually so influential that they were the swing vote, well maybe the Republicans will listen to their concerns next time. That’s how politics works. Lost elections are more important in changing party policy than victorious elections.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s