Key evangelical leaders rallied to Sarah Palin's support Monday amid news that her 17-year-old daughter, Bristol, was having a child. "Before, they were excited about her, with the Down syndrome baby," conservative, anti-tax activist Grover Norquist said. "But now with this, they are over the moon. It reinforces the fact that this family lives its pro-life values."What? What?? Where are your God damn principles, evangelicals? An unmarried teenager is pregnant out of wedlock!! Isn't this the kind of thing you usually get pissed about? Where's THAT reaction now? Over the fucking MOON? Give me a break.
ps. I assume you all already heard the news about young Bristol's (second? ;) pregnancy. I was enjoying a lovely afternoon in the park at the time.
pps. also, we're already using the woman as a political prop. Can we stop using "the Down syndrome baby" too?
5 comments:
I don't know why people are saying this quashes the whole "Trig is Sarah's daughter's baby" argument. Yes, if Bristol is 5 months pregnant, that means SHE can't have given birth to Trig 4 months ago, but last I checked, Sarah has another daughter who is perfectly capable of bearing children. Couldn't Trig be Willow's baby? Oh, it's like a bad soap opera!
As a former member of the Evangelical subculture, I feel compelled to write on this one.
SERIOUSLY? SERIOUSLY? Last time I checked, in small town America and definitely in Fungelical groups, teenagers unable to control their sexuality (not to mention those who have gone all the way and were stupid enough to get pregnant) are subject to massive amounts of gossip, discrimination, and judgement. If Gov. Palin was a preacher instead of governor, she could have lost her job because of a pregnant teenager.
Now all of the sudden Evengelical leaders want us to ignore the "bad parenting" that produced the pregnancy and celebrate that the young woman will be stuck with a child and marriage she didn't plan for?
My bet: Messaging around the need for parents to steer teenagers clear of sexuality and sin has been too entrenched in Evangelical Christians and they won't tow the leaders' line on this one.
2 cents from a current "evangelical". [Not intending to step on Joni, I know exactly what she means and it frustrates me as well.]
It's important to keep in mind that the people quoted in the article are [in word or deed] campaigning for McCain and will therefore excuse a lot of things. It's also important to keep in mind that "evangelicals" are not this massive cohesive pro-republican block. (http://www.matthew25.org/)
I was pleased to see Obama come out strongly against media scrutiny of Bristol and it's really not about her, but rather the McCain campaign's clear failure to fully vet Gov. Palin.
Hey Brendan - you're absolutely right. I intended to use the terminology as the McCain adviser used it - to refer to whatever "key evangelical leaders" he's talking about, and expose their hypocracy.
In fact, knowing you and Joni has opened my eyes to the vast array of what "evangelical Christians," so often thrown into the same ideological pot, can believe on a wide array of social and public issues - and warned me against stereotyping the group. So I definitely appreciate your comment. :)
So I think the issue here is more a matter examples. And sadly thrust in the spotlight was Palin's daughter. No she does not belong in the spotlight as an example, but since she is in the light, she falls into an extremely observable example of that said controversy.
Any person can say abtinance works for anything. If I absain from cupcakes, I won't gain weight. If I abstain from drugs, I won't become a drug addict. But to leave the message so simple, with no substance or support, should be considered a crime against education on any topic.
Even if they want to stick strictly with abstenance, there is a responsibilty to re-enforce this abstinence "education". That is how all education works - building, using, re-enforcing, or it's lost. To be a good abstaining education, examples of situations of possible exposure and self control and alternatives should be considered.
It's a matter of mass "my child would never"... Until, woops!
Post a Comment