you can still be a Christian and be a liberal at the same time. there’s a lot of us out there. i think causes such as promoting peace and encouraging concern for the less fortunate are very Biblical.

That’s true. I was mostly pointing to other related issues — abortion, feminism (Rush-an translation: feminazis), homosexual couples are just as much Biblical couples, animal rights must be just as important as human rights, New Deal was best thing that every happened to America, all-paths-lead-to-God (or gods) kind of thinking. By the book modern, American humanist liberalism. It took realizing what the Bible said to reject some of this junk.

Never fear though, Joseph, I have my complaints with my own side of the aisle too. I see no reason to be loyal to a political movement unless it does what is right. I’m working up a blog post in my head about that, so stay tuned.

what’s wrong with feminism? i myself am becoming more and more of a feminist. i dont support abortion, but i do support pay equality, child-raising equality, and housework-equality. i also have NO problem with women preaching from the pulpit or leading worship either.

While feminism was once mostly about getting pay equality (fair enough) it has taken many radical movements under its wing — abortion, homosexuality (the former chairwoman of NOW had a homosexual “partner” in addition to a husband!), etc. Radical feminism also often supports pornography and prostitution under the guise of insuring women the right to do whatever they want.

Feminists have also rejected, despite overwhelming proof, that there is really any difference between men and women. Studies, however, confirm that men and women think differently. That isn’t a bad thing — it’s a good thing. The problem is the least radical form of radical feminism is so wrapped up in “unisex” ideology they forget that. The most radical form of feminism is far worse, however. The form I just mentioned only is slightly harmful in that it tries to get men and women to act and do the same things the same way. The radicalest (is that a word?) variety actually seem to be for turning the tables — actually either explicitly or implicitly supporting putting men at a disadvantage rather than simply getting an “equal” position.

Finally, the radical feminists in the church are going as far as blasphemous goals to get what they want. For instance, feminists in the United Church of Christ (my old denomination) have introduced GODDESS WORSHIP of the “goddess sophia” (from the Greek word for wisdom). This is because they can’t accept the God of the Bible, since He is male according to the Bible. They even have a hard time with Jesus in the flesh being male, and with this two “problems” feminists have sponsored projects such as TNIV (Today’s New International Version) which takes male pronouns in the Bible and changes many to neuter pronouns, “he or she” statements, or (IIRC) even feminine pronouns.

-Tim

well, i’m a feminist as far as pay equality goes, and as well as men taking equal shares of the childcare, housework, and domestic burdens.

when i am married and have kids, i want either my wife or i to stay home with them. when my kids are on the way, my wife and i will sit down and pray and discuss about who’s going to stay at home when the baby arrives. would i stay at home with my kids? yes, i would have no problem doing so. why should my wife be the one expected to stay at home? if my wife has the better job and is making more money and if it’s clearly better that she should be the breadwinner, i have no problem being a stay-at-home dad.

before my kids come, i fully expect myself to pitch in equally with the housework, cooking, etc. why should my wife have to work a job and then come home and do everything? that’s 100% unfair.

this is not the 1950’s anymore (fortunately!), and we need to eliminate 1950’s ways of thinking from America which are no longer applicable. the idea that women take care of the kids and that women hold down the domestic fort has been outdated and useless for some time now, and a lot of the old school type guys my age (i’m 22) who expect to find women who ascribe to the 1950’s ways of thinking are going to wind up single for a long time or they will be very unhappy in marriage.

you wanna read a good book? read The Second Shift by Arlie Hochschild. it has a lot of info about what happens when guys dont share the housework, childcare, etc and when women have to work a job outside the home and when they also have to do a majority of the domestic duties. i don’t know if you’re married or dating or whatever, but unless you find some Christian girl who is willing to be “submissive” (out of a horrible misinterpretation of the Bible, most of the time), it’s going to be really rare to find a woman in the future who wont be expecting her husband to shoulder his burden of childcare and housework, at least that’s how i see it going down.

Well, I think you missed what I was saying. I have no problem with what you say. What I am talking about is something quite different from that. (Just to answer your question, I’m neither married nor dating, but that is by choice).

-Tim

i got what you said.

i was just trying to clarify about the ways in which i’m a feminist. like the discipline of sociology, there are many different kinds of feminists. i have to be very careful when i say “i’m a feminist” cause a lot of people take that to mean i’m pro-choice, etc etc. for the record, i’m not the only feminist who’s pro-life, check out http://www.feministsforlife.org/ for some other feminists who are pro-life just like you and i.

what’s wrong with the gov’t enforcing pay equality though? if a woman does the same exact job as a man does, and they are both equally qualified and have similar credentials, they both should be paid the same. plain and simple. also, while we’re at it, being a stay-at-home parent should be counted as a job with economic worth and value as far as social security and taxes go.

The thing I don’t like about the Government enforcing pay is that its a very tricky subject. Let’s say you have a woman who is very good at a job and a man that is very good at a job. They both have numerous years of experience. The boss decides to give the man a raise because the man is friendlier and since this is a customer centric job, that is important to the company. Now, how do you measure “friendliness”? Obviously, it could be very true that the man is better suited not because of his gender but because of this immeasurable quality, it would be very hard if the Government decides to investigate to prove that this wasn’t a case of “discrimination.”

Also, how do you avoid “reverse discrimination”? Consider that perhaps an employer passes up a very qualified male to a very qualified female even though if both pontential employees were male the first would have been selected for whatever reason. This is possible: a employer fearing they may look like they are discrimination will discriminate against the party they don’t fear discriminating against. See what I mean?

As far as taxes and social security go for stay-at-home parents, I’m not sure I catch your drift. Are you suggesting that the taxes should be just as high for stay-at-home parents (i.e. as if they were earning X dollars more than they really are)? I guess that would work as far as SS goes. Perhaps a solution would be to allow stay-at-home parents to opt in to social security if they wished to…

what i was saying was (i’m really tempted to tell you to read The Second Shift to get my points, cause it’s a well written and entertaining work which explains this and a lot of my other points) that caring for a child should have some sort of economic value attached to it. right now, it doesn’t count for anything. it should count for a tax credit, perhaps?

That would be good, IMO. Very good. I’ll have to take a look at that book… Thanks!