Did McAin’t Think This One Through?29 August, 2008
Yeah, I know, stupid question, right?
John McAin’t has had a problem with the evangelical right wing. The fruit loops who think America was founded as a Christian nation; that our Constitution is based upon the Ten Commandments; that public school children need to be forced to pray; that any woman who is pregnant should be forced to carry the fetus to term; that facts don’t matter because faith changes facts; and that evolution is ‘just a theory’ have just never been wild about McAin’t. He keeps flip-flopping on abortion, he has no clue what church he belongs to, and had the nerve to call the radical religious right ‘agents of intolerance.’
To sooth the vile and vicious beast, he named Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate. Palin believes that women should not be in charge of their own bodies, that schools should ‘teach the controversy,’ and that a personal relationship with a mythical super-Santa up in the sky should determine what she ‘thinks’ about anything. In short, he is running with an inexperienced small town mayor who will get him votes because she is (a) a woman, (b) a Right-wing zealot, (c) a real Christian, (d) anti-gay and (e) a woman.
The pick is cynical. He thinks (or rather his Rovian minions think) that because she’s a woman, she will steal all the Hillary Democrats and at the same time she will mollify the religious right. I think he’s wrong on both counts.
First, the Hillary Democrats will not magically vote their ovaries for a Vice Presidential candidate who stands for everything Hillary Clinton doesn’t. Second, Timothy 2:11 – 12.
Timothy 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
Timothy 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
The religious supporters of the Republican Party tend to come from the evangelical and Biblical literalist insane part of Christianity. They actually believe that the adulterated and mistranslated legends about a mythical mystic are, even when they contradict themselves, the absolute and unchanging truth.
So women are expected to be silent and learn (I presume learn their place (under men)). Doesn’t the Vice Presidential candidate spend a great deal of time campaigning? You know, giving speeches. Giving press conferences (oh, wait, Republicans don’t DO press conferences). Talking to donors. Sounds like she is going against the Bible.
A woman is not supposed to teach. So how is she supposed to convince people that restricting rights and giving lots of money to big business is the way to go?
A woman should not usurp authority over man. If McAin’t is elected and then one of his four cancers, or his heart, kills him (and I am not advocating this, just playing what if), Palin would become President. She would be in charge of the Executive Branch of the United States Government. There are lots of men who work for the Executive Branch (I’m one). But the Bible says she cannot be in charge of men.
So if Biblical literalist Christians actually believe what they say they believe, they cannot, under any circumstances, vote for a McAin’t/Palin ticket. It goes against the Bible.
Of course, Biblical literalists tend to pick and choose what parts of the Bible are relevant: stoning people who work on Sunday or wear cloth with different threads or eat shellfish all seem to have gone by the wayside as ‘no longer relevant.’
So I guess that cognitive dissonance will kick in and the sheeple will just vote for Republicans because the are the god party. And the Bible only tells the truth when it is convenient. And doesn’t require actual, you know, effort.