In a speech at a mega-church in the Minneapolis area back in 2006, Michele Bachmann explained her decision to pursue tax law. It wasn't her choice, exactly. God had already told her to go to law school; God had also told her to marry a fellow named Marcus Bachmann. Now Marcus told her "to go and get a post-doctorate degree in tax law." This was not a particular desire of Michele's ("Tax law? I hate taxes!"), but she was certain God was speaking through her husband.That's the beginning of the article. I'm not sure there anything but blather in the rest of the article. Interesting issue, though. Care to discuss it?
"Why should I go and do something like that?" she recalled thinking. "But the Lord says, 'Be submissive wives; you are to be submissive to your husbands.'"
July 2, 2011
"How can a woman who believes in submitting to her husband's will aspire to be president of the United States?"
Libby Copeland looks at Michelle Bachmann's religious orientation. Copeland presents evidence that Bachmann is serious about submission:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
148 comments:
Won't JFK just do whatever the Pope tells him to?
"How can a woman who believes in submitting to her husband's will aspire to be president of the United States?"
How can a man, with no discernible skills other than self-promotion, aspire to be president of the United States?
Barry believes in submitting to his wife's will.
Hmmm, mebbe Libby is right.
I look forward to knowing more about our next president [whoever that may be] than I know about our current president.
Though how will she answer the deeply probing "boxers or briefs" question?
@Kevin--beat me to it!
In this context, I don't wish to discuss it too much, because this is a hit piece on Bachmann and perhaps religion in the public square (and I don't find Bachmann the best candidate at all, much like Palin).
Lining up behind it are many illiberal types who wish to pursue freedom of speech (for me but not for thee), absolute egalitarianism, gender equality, equality of outcomes etc.
There is a kind of gnosticism behind much of their faith in equality, positive rights, and social justice...and they act accordingly as all true believers seem to do....
Hence Bachmann, Palin, Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck in response to this failure of modern liberalism.
The submission of will in faith, though, is an interesting topic, and capable of great evil and corruption. One of the deepest themese of the Enlightenment.
I have to admit that the self-appointed elite media houses (NYT, NPR, PBS, HuffPost, DailyBeast, AndySully, Daily Kos, Ezra "Journ'o'list" Klein, TalkingPointsMemo, etc.) do not know what to do with Michelle Bachman.
They just cannot deal with GOP woman. This is where I part ways with Dems. Why cannot a GOP woman run for higher office? Why must they project her to be someone they want her to be? They loved Hillary, because they could relate to her - husband infidelities, wife, the one Wellesley speech - but not archived - about women rights, etc.).
This is sad that the greatest country in the world has freest press that is scared of GOP woman who have their own worldview.
Beam me out of this planet!
NB: I have contributed to MB campaign. Yes, I still believe O-B 2 will win.
Evangelical women are the new Catholics.
My bride made sure "obey" was not in our vows. My sister was a born again and believed in the submission thing. It's more mainstream than you might think in the fundamentalist culture. My mother's thoughts on this and most things were, "To each their own."
Taken in context with the whole of the letter from Paul to the Collosians (who were experienceing more than a few problems at the time) chapter 3, His instructions for familes and to slaves and masters require a new reflection of Jesus, his love, sacrifice and actions. Love, obedience, and service are to be perfomred "in the Lord"
So I believe she's telling us she is a Christian.
Bachmann worships God.
Obama worships the mirror.
You decide whats better
We must be tolerant and respectful of other people's beliefs and philosophies.
Unless they're Christian and then fuck them! Fucking Christians.
Seriously isn't this anti Christian bigotry? There's a word for hating Jews and a word for hating Muslims, and a word for hating Gays.
But there's not a word for hating Christians and yet its one of the most common bigotries around today.
Forget Bachmann - I'm still waiting for the leftwing feminist outrage over the treatment of women in Islam by Islamic males.
Oh that's right - leftwing feminist outrage only applies to the left's religion - politics.
Why is it that leftists have no problem entertaining the idea of Muslims enforcing sharia law in democratic countries, yet raise their noses at any Christian acting in accordance with their own faith? Is Michelle Bachmann not acting on her own? Has she ever once said anything or acted in any way as if this was something she wanted everyone to do? Sharia law would certainly not allow for people to all make their own decisions based on their personal faith, yet leftists see no problem with that.
But there's not a word for hating Christians and yet its one of the most common bigotries around today.
Indeed. Why, it takes tremendous courage for anyone to identify themselves as Christian, seeing all of the barriers put up against them.
But for a poliical candidate to actually come out and acknowledge her identification with this despised movement, is absolutely inspiring.
I wish the article discussed Bachmann's decision in more depth. Why did her husband feel that tax law was the right thing to do? Was it a case of going into practice and making money right away vs more school and a bigger payoff later? If two people are married, the decision to go back to school is necessarily going to be a collaborative decision.
It's always tough to put together the elements that make up someone else's decision.
Modern evangelical faith has a nuanced and sophisticated view of what submission means in the New Testament. It can only be caricatured by liberals, so I'm not sure it is worth the effort to try to explain it to them. I do think the very first post from Paul Z. is perhaps the best one so far, however. Whatever the responsibility to submit in a given relationship might mean, the higher duty is always to one's conscience before God. Frankly, it is the libs who seem to be more prone to submission to mind meld and group think than modern evangelicals. Too many of them have no soul to which to be true. How else do you explain their submission to the MSM as an arbiter of any kind of objective reporting of the truth of what's out there?
God is likely to tell Michele Bachmann to do what she wanted to do in the first place, and her husband would not want to stand in the way of God's will now, would he?
Slate does this sort of crap. It's just a +1 to the currrent Bachmann hit parade.
God help us if the went after Obama's faux pas' like they go after conservatives...
"But for a poliical candidate to actually come out and acknowledge her identification with this despised movement, is absolutely inspiring."
Your own snark post sort of confirms what I said.
For what it's worth, Queen Victoria was very emphatic about including "obey" in her marriage vows to Prince Albert. However, she made a distinction between her role in the marriage and her role as the queen.
Mostly, though, this sounds like a made up issue. Has Bachmann actually said that she would be subservient to her husband in policy issues? Has she done this previously? Is it a reasonable extrapolation from her actions? If not, this sounds like this cycle's version of the magic Mormon underwear stories.
Liberals are jealous because they want you to submit to the government, not God or family.
Libby sounds like an extremist Christophobe.
I'm not all that into the "secret code" sort of analysis that goes on every so often, but there's some truth to it here.
Maybe, though, it's more "expressed in tribal lingo" sort of thing.
Basically, this isn't any different than any husband who listens to the nudging counsel of his wife, or any woman who listens to her husband. When people marry someone they respect, they listen to them.
Here, the language is put into the format of a shared religious vocabulary, but it's the same thing. She respects her husband, he encouraged a path in law. That she grudgingly agreed is noted in the "she was certain God was speaking..." part.
In other words, she didn't want to so much, but knew that he was right, probably because of some already expressed career aspirations.
When we make a choice that we grudgingly know is right, we like to share the blame and point to what pushed us to take those steps. In different cultures there's different ways of expressing this.
Moreover, she's just being explicit in the very long standing tradition of ambitious leaders having ambitious spouses who push them towards their ambitions. There's first ladies aplenty who, one might say, the man submitted to in all kinds of ways, knowing they had a pulse on some shared goal and were worth listening to.
It's what happens when equals marry each other.
Heterosexual white male here.
Spent 25 years in academe being insulted to my face by radical feminists. I mention these bald facts because I think the quote in question is not about Bachmann or the presidential race but about heterosexual human reslations seen through the lens of Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan, i.e, as a war of everyman with everywoman and vice-versa. Read Catharine MacKinnon (BTW., is there a "cathar" in Catharine MacKinnon??) and be instructed. Heterosexual human relations are simply war by other means. Obey your husband? Obey the person who is your enemy? What can you be thinking, girl? To feminists I say: do the deed, expect to pay the price. Never met a male of any walk of life who didn't agree with the above. Unless, of course, they were academics.
The tactical argument -- "Marcus will tell President Bachmann to do something. And she'll do it! -- is laughable, of course. Michelle gets to decide, after all, when God is or is not speaking through her husband.
The broader argument seems to be something more contemporary and bizarre: Must the president be a megalomaniac? Once it was requisite that a person of character demonstrate humility. The only qualified person to lead was the one who acknowledged his or her own limitations.
The Feminist ego is so fragile that they appear to literally interpret biblical submission as a subordinate status in the mindset of obeying; when that is not the correct interpretation. The selfishness inherent to modern leftist feminists may inhibit them from comprehending the idea of shared willful submission in a meaningful relationship.
http://bible.org/seriespage/submission-christian-wife-ephesians-521-32
Bachmann is no pushover. Which is why Libby wrote that hit piece; to chip away at the reality of Bachmann's strengths as a woman. I find it so fascinating that feminists can hate another woman so much; and work so hard to undermine the accomplishments of other women. What, or whom, exactly is Libby submitting to to do such a thing?
rmblam wrote: What, or whom, exactly is Libby submitting to to do such a thing?
Touché
Last I checked, both Chris Christy and Mitch Daniels submitted to the will of their wives..
I do however, see what the issue is-
Besides the blatant swipe at Christianity, to love, cherish, and respect your spouse; i.e. family values is not going to win many friends on the left.
(The Uncredentialed Crypto Jew)
This is simple. Bachmann is a REPUBLICAN who goes to church. As such she is a religious fanatic/crazy…Barak goes to Jeremiah Wright for 22 years, no big deal. As long as he was on our side, Joe Lieberman was engaging and refreshing, as a Jew. Really it comes down to Bachmann is a REPUBLICAN.
As to “submit” it’s funny…as I understand it, in that passage we are laying out a set of relationships. Christ as Head of His Church, husband as Christ and head of his family. The husband was to be Christ-like, sacrificing ALL for his “Church.” Followers submit to Christ, wives submit to their husbands. Christ dies for His followers; the husband must be prepared to do the same for HIS followers. Once you begin to “unpack” it it’s not a call for Dominance or Submission, but of service and sacrifice. As we see Christ, in the role of Leader as Servant as the model of “leadership” of the Church, and hence as a model for husbands. But I wouldn’t expect a Media person to understand the nuances of “those people.”
There is also the “out” requiring Christians to “Love others as you love YOURSELF.” That is a statement of EQUALITY, not submission. IF you love yourself you do not hand with the abusive and neglectful husband. Taken together we see “submission” really means something rather different than Modern Feminists might suppose. The husband must be prepared to sacrifice EVERYTHING for his family, as Christ sacrificed for the Mankind….and if the husband is NOT, then the husband disobeys Christ’s Commandment…and is NOT worthy of “submission” and should the failure be severe enough a Christian womon I under an obligation to Love Herself and LEAVE the disobedient husband…because again, Christ commands us to love ourselves AND others, not simply others OR ourselves…and if we cannot love ourselves we cannot love others.
But, and I apologize, as a Jew for commenting on this issue and for the length of the post. These are concepts that modern Journalism and Feminists will NOT examine, at least as long as they are applied to a Republican, ESPECIALLY a Republican who attends church.
Bachmanm is actually a Saulite rather than a Christian, tho I wouldn't expect her to admit that.
(The Uncredentialed Crypto Jew)
Bachmanm is actually a Saulite rather than a Christian, tho I wouldn't expect her to admit that.
Excuse me, a WHAT?
I wonder what that the author thinks of Hillary running?
Does tolerating the ceaseless sexual adventures of your husband count as submission, or is it something more sophisticated because it is not Biblical?
Remember when Slate did that whole series on Black Liberation theology? Neither do I.
Clearly Michelle Bachman is a flake...
or something like that.
But certainly not normal; not like us.
Btw, when is the LA Times going to release the Khalidi tape?
(The Uncredentialed Crypto Jew)
Does tolerating the ceaseless sexual adventures of your husband count as submission, or is it something more sophisticated because it is not Biblical?
Remember Bill Clinton kept Abortion legal, and for that all womyn should have been willing to provide “Lewisnki’is”, IIRC. I assume that would have required Hillary’s acquiescence.
Does anyone seriously believe that Michelle Bachman is submissive? Ridiculous.
The left simply must destroy conservative blacks and conservative women. To the left, these people are affronts to nature, a dangerous mutation that must be eradicated. The will do anything to destroy them.
We all know that one spouse should not submit to the will of the other. Except of course when one of the spouses wants to go out to leather bars and find strangers to have anonymous sex with. That's what one calls "monogamish".
Obama said, in an interview with Christianity Today in 2008:
I am a Christian, and I am a devout Christian. I believe in the redemptive death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I believe that that faith gives me a path to be cleansed of sin and have eternal life. But most importantly, I believe in the example that Jesus set by feeding the hungry and healing the sick and always prioritizing the least of these over the powerful.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/januaryweb-only/104-32.0.html?start=2
Why are Bachmann's religious beliefs of more interest to the MSM than Obama's? Obama believes that Christ was literally raised from the dead two millenia ago and somehow this resulted in the forgiveness -- by God -- of sins that Obama had not yet committed.
And yet he thinks that even more important than this bizarre belief is the example Christ set by using his supernatural powers to feed and heal people.
(The Uncredentialed Crypto Jew)
The left simply must destroy conservative blacks and conservative women.
There are “Conservatives”….but there are NO Conservative Womon or Conservative Blacks….there are Oreo’s who betray the Civil Rights Movement for their Thirty P{pieces of Silver. There are persons who have Ovaries, who betray the Sisterhood, but in NO sense are these individuals wither Black or Female.
As Paul #1 Commenter says, this is just a variation on the Will JFK just do the pope's bidding kind of article.
And it deserves to be considered just as much.
Bible reference: Ephesians 5 both calls on wives to submit and calls on husbands to love wives 'as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for it' I.e., relinquished His God prerogatives, abased Himself, came to Earth and died for the church. A Christian husband is called on to put his wife's well being above his own, even to the point of his own death for her. St. Paul concludes the passage by calling on both spouses to submit to each other out of reverance for God.
Hope this helps.
'Why are Bachmann's religious beliefs of more interest to the MSM than Obama's?'
Because many Lefties are kind of like Muslims; they're ok with religion as long as their ideals are in power (two Muslims I know always point out how tolerant the Caliphate was to Christians, Jews etc)
I think Pelosi, Wasserman-Schultz, Van Jones, Cash for Clunkers, the Green Team, community activism put Obama pretty far left, but now he's still stuck not being Left enough for these people, and way too far Left for the rest of us.
And the economy's in the shitter.
Once you begin to “unpack” it it’s not a call for Dominance or Submission, but of service and sacrifice.
Sacrifice and service?! This is the presidency we're talking about! As demonstrated by the Current Occupant, it's clearly about Celebrity and Sloth.
The biggest mistake people make is in thinking that "submission" means "subservience". It doesn't.
It does have to do with working together for the same goals rather than being at cross-purposes. It makes the husband and wife equal partners in the marriage, with the same intrinsic dignity and worth, and yet they are different.
The husband has the authority (and sometimes the heavy responsibility) to lead the family -- but he must always consider what is best for the wife (and children, if any), and not just for himself. He is called to be unselfish...
...and that's because, in the same passage, St. Paul said that husbands must LOVE their wives as Christ loved us. That's a mighty self-sacrificial love. It also was radical, in those times, for men to be told they had to love their wives (as in protect them, care for them, respect them, and even die for them), since wives were considered property.
So you can't understand a wife's call to submission unless you understand a husband's call to love.
And both of those concepts are nearly impossible for post-Christian moderns to grasp, when they've been taught the lie that men and women are the same and interchangeable, that fathers aren't necessary, that men are useless, that men can marry men and women marry women... etc.
Also, from MB's story, you can see that a wife's submission doesn't mean that she's locked in the kitchen. There is nothing about a Christian marriage that requires rigid "gender roles", as they say.
Church history is filled with strong women who did non-traditional things. St. Joan of Arc, one of my favorites, comes to mind, as well as St. Catherine of Sienna who told the Pope where to go (literally; she told him to go back to Rome from his exile in France), and Zelie Martin, the mother of St. Therese the Little Flower, who ran a lace-making business... and many more.
That question itself is a let's start division among Christians ploy. Atheists could care less whether a non-existent God has a will. The males-only leadership question causes Christians to fall out among themselves. In both Bachmann and Palin's cases their husbands seem to be mature men who are supportive of their wive's talents. All married couples know that is a big plus, and has no downside at all. IMO there can be a time when God uses a political leader. For example: 1) King Cyrus in scripture, and 2) General Patton's career between August 1944 and May 1945. When God does so will something to happen, far in advance, then as with those two leadership examples, try as many adversaries may, no one can stop Him or the servant he briefly uses to accomplish His will.
(The Uncredentialed Crypto Jew)
This is the presidency we're talking about! As demonstrated by the Current Occupant, it's clearly about Celebrity and Sloth..
I wasn’t really speaking of the current POTUS, but of an idealized MARRIAGE…any way what have you got against Golf or the Spanish Riviera…and the kids get their homework done a day early!
Like Paul Zrimsek.
2nd point: I like when people hold others to what they say. Good thing to do.
However I weary of the self righteous left trying to interpret a Christian's relationship with his/her God from their own (usually God-negative) non-relational understanding.
3rd point: How about asking some serious questions of ...
(also mentioned above).
And Jeremiah Wright?
Bill Ayers?
Frank Marshall Davis?
Recipients of Annenberg grants?
How come no one has asked the 'probing' questions of anyone but the female conservatives?
Isn't it interesting the the two most high profile female go-getters on the conservative side .. are married.
wv yings
A bunch of yings to go with the yangs who are grasping for straws.
How about some policy and position discussion?.
Re: the "Saulite" wierdness. You see that thrown around by trolls on Jawa Report and other anti-sharia sites. Apparently it's the way a certain faith rationalizes saying Jesus was a prophet and then killing those who believe in him. They project all their leader's evils onto Paul and say that's who Christians actually worship.
Terry quoted Obama sermonizing to enhance his chances to be elected:
"But most importantly, I believe in the example that Jesus set by feeding the hungry and healing the sick and always prioritizing the least of these over the powerful."
From what the MSM has told us so far about Obama and Bachmann, I think Backmann beats Obama on this score by a mile.
So what goes on between two people in a marriage is no one's business, when its a Democrat but not when its a Republican? Again?
Instead, we'll just rely on a person of no integrity like Dan Savage telling us that monogamy is "hard".
Overheard about ten years ago in a B&B run by evangelical Christians in Fredericksburg, TX:
Older Guy (Owner): ...Well, the Bible says that wives should submit to their husbands....
Younger Woman (soon to take over B&B): It also says that husbands should love their wives as Christ loved the Church. If my husband loved me like that, I wouldn't have any problem submitting to him!
Does it really look like to anyone out there that there's an epidemic of low-church chicks taking guff from their hubbies?
Proverbs 31.
About a wife. Check it out. This woman is no slouch or doormat.
Proverbs 31:11 "Her husband has full confidence in her."
I think this is an important line of inquiry and deserves to be answered seriously by Mrs. Bachmann so that we know her mind.
I think a clear statement of her opinion on what submission in marriage means, and how the role of submissive wife and mother intersects with political power and authority would be helpful and enlightening.
We used to have Presidents who submitted to God.
I don't doubt the Kinsley crowd wouldn't like them, either.
WV "menets" Boys.
The biggest mistake people make is in thinking that "submission" means "subservience".
Well, you have to give the enlightened Left a pass on this. When they hear "submission" their first thought is "what was my safe-word again?".
Paul is a hero to Christians, although he could pull a Prosser sometimes. I am put in remembrance of an event Luke reported in Acts 19 in Ephesus when a non-Christian deliverance team tried to cast out a demon from a man "in the name of Jesus whom Paul preaches, but the demon in the man spoke back and said " Jesus I recognize , and Paul I have heard about, but who are you?" and then he beat up the 7 man team . The word gets around in the spirit world on whom to fear.
My wife and I are not religious but she set me up on this issue. We were discussing how to decide issues we were divided upon. She said it should be 60-40% in my favor which I instinctually did not like without really knowing why. I realize now that the extra 20% was her down payment so that she could force me to make the hard decisions and then she would be free to complain about them if they didn't work out.
Ah, naive youth. Men have no idea how ill-prepared they are to deal with women until they have been through the wringer a few times.
The master narrative for feminists is a sub-set of melodramatic plot-lines. This subset is "the female victimage narrative," of which the historical model (cf. writings of Andrea Dworkin, MacKinnon's coevil) is the Marquis De Sade.
That Sade's narratives are part of a satirical late-18th-century rejection of female victim narrative--the gothic novel with its perpetually attacked females--and therefore an example of peculiarly sick humor, is all lost on modern academic feminists, who as we all know have no sense of humor.
Dworkin says in print that the story of Sade's "Justine" is the story of all human male-female relations. The first version of "Justine" is a short, very funny narrative, in which a perpetually victimized female never catches on to the fact that she's trapped in a satirical plot in which she is the object of the satire. How could she catch on? She's literarily illiterate, and of course has no sense of humor.
IOW, the grounding feminist narrative is the sadomasochistic narrative in which dominance and submission feed off each other. Bachmann obeys her husband? What is she, a sadomasochistic groupie?
Now the left has a problem w/submission?
What's next, they're gonna insist everyone does it missionary?
Yeesh.
My bride made sure "obey" was not in our vows. My sister was a born again and believed in the submission thing. It's more mainstream than you might think in the fundamentalist culture. My mother's thoughts on this and most things were, "To each their own."
What is this stereotying Spinelli?
I said obey
No big deal at all.
She's a US rep. US reps don't become President. The End.
Blogger Lagernoggin said...
I think this is an important line of inquiry and deserves to be answered seriously by Mrs. Bachmann so that we know her mind.
I think a clear statement of her opinion on what submission in marriage means, and how the role of submissive wife and mother intersects with political power and authority would be helpful and enlightening.
--------------
Why hasn't the marriage relationship of every male president been questioned?
Obama appears to be a whipped man, how do we know Michelle isn't making political decisions? Wasn't it the 3 Amigas that got us involved in Libya??? Ya, I'd like to know his mind....
Her opinion on submission to her husband in their relationship is based on Biblical principles, which Joe (The Uncredentialed Crypto Jew) aptly explained @ 9:37.
I think you're just looking for another "gotcha" soundbite. bullshit! (And I gotta go haul a load of sheep manure, so I knows when I'm smelling crap!)
Bachman's a tough, confident woman and a lot of people can't deal with it.
The classical Christian marriage vow (the Hindu also) is about unity in all things, not submission in any way. Does one flesh have multiple wills? Multiple impulses, yes, but not multiple wills, not in marriage. That's the reality of marriage: unity. Anyone who thinks it's about submission in any way isn't married, they're in a relationship, a dualistic interaction between unequals.
Wait a minute-
Are they trying to say Bachmann is a mulsim?
Michelle Burquemann....?
I remember seeing a network correspondent interview Sarah Palin's pastor during the last election. The pastor seemed likable and good natured. Nonetheless, the correspondent kept probing him about evolution, abortion. etc., trying to pinpoint some beliefs that were out of step with the American public. The pastor responded in a reasonable manner, and the correspondent kept probing.....This was at the time of the Rev. Wright dust up. The newsmen took it upon themselves to inform us of the prophetic tradition and the myriad good works that the Reverend performed....The liberals can't see it, but their bias is very blatant, much more so than quirks in Christian beliefs. Can any liberal tell me what are the beliefs of the Rev. Wright regarding gay marriage, evolution, or abortion. If not, why not?
John Lynch said...
She's a US rep. US reps don't become President. The End
Always a first time.
I don't think she has the time in grade to make it - now.
Down the road is another story.
We just made an exception for a US Senator. How's that working out?
Another shallow, lazy, intellectually dishonest lefty--who'da thunkit?
This "hit piece" carries the implication that if Michele Bachmann wins the election, then on Inauguration Day her pledge to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, so help me God," will actually be credible.
Sounds good to me.
This hit job is doing something really important -- laying the groundwork for dirt on Marcus Bachmann to be politically damning to Michelle Bachmann.
So let's get this strait...
To be religious and 'submissive to your husband' disqualifies you for, I guess, any public office.
And by inference to be religious and follow God's laws would disqualify you for office (and I would think Muslim, Christian, Judaism, etc.. are all DQ'ed.)
So that leaves what? Atheist? The only governments I know that demands that kind of limitation are the COMMUNIST.
(The Uncredentialed Crypto Jew)
Blogger Lagernoggin said...
I think this is an important line of inquiry and deserves to be answered seriously by Mrs. Bachmann so that we know her mind.
Tell you what Laggernoggin I’ll join you in a call for Bachmann to ‘splain herself when:
1) Barak Obama ‘splains Black Liberation Theology and how it has affected his worldview and Presidency; and
2) Joe Lieberman ‘splains how it’s wrong for Him to turn o the light in his apartment, on the Sabbath, but it’s Ok for someone else to turn them on for him and Hadassa?
a) Sub-variant question being If you benefit from a non-“kosher” act, AlGore turning on the lights, how can you be said to obeying Yhwh’s Commandments about keeping the Sabbath holy?; and
b) Isn’t this needless legalism/formalism in religion, missing the point of religion, losing the substance for the form, and can a person make it to Heaven IF they keep all the Mosaic/Talmudic Laws, but love not their neighbor?
3) Someone inquires of Jim Wallis and the “Sojourners”:
a) Where Christ espoused a “Social Gospel” and “Collective Salvation”; and
b) Suggested it was GOVERNMENT’S job to help the Poor, as opposed to the INDIVIDUAL’S job; and
c) How compelling me to pay for Welfare makes me less a sinner and Jim Wallis any more holy.
When someone asks these “moral paragons” some questions about THEIR theology(ies) I might be tempted to ask Bachmann about hers. But thank you for your “concern.”
laying the groundwork for dirt on Marcus Bachmann to be politically damning to Michelle Bachmann.
Went to the link and then read some comments. I have never understand the critique of someone who speaks poorly of homosexuals that suggests their a closeted gay.
Hypocrisy or even the hint of hypocrisy really is the greatest sin, isn't it?
Having watched that clip I now wonder if that was Anthony Weiner's kid brother being interviewed.
It's astonishing how it's come to be scandalous to consider as "abnormal" sexual practices that would lead to the extinction of the human race if they were universally and exclusively followed.
Lest this comment be misinterpreted, it is not a call for persecution or vilification of gays. It's a call for tolerance of opinions that dissent from the new sexual orthodoxy.
Oh, and while we're discussing the views of candidates' spouses, what was it that Michelle Obama said about gay marriage the other day?
Good grief, if there ever was a woman who submitted to her husband's will (or wont, as it were), it's progressive icon Hillary Clinton.
They've always made a big deal about Hillary giving up her own career for "love" in Arkansas. Truth is, she bombed out in DC and her next best choice was to attach herself to rising star Bill's coattails. That attachment was so vital to her own political aspirations, she had to "submit" to his appetites for other women. She had to "submit" to becoming his doormat. So, I don't want to hear about Michelle Bachmann's submissions.
I always thought that "submitting" to her husband was a euphemism for a wife's dedication to keeping him sexually satisfied. IOW, sound marital advice.
Silly, the snark and jokes are pretty sound responses.
But to offer some serious commentary...
How many presidents have we learned, then or later, were "submissive" to their wives?
So even if you think Rep. Bachmann has wacky religious ideas--abstract them out--and it's still pretty likely that her spouse will have a great degree of influence over her decisions.
Meanwhile, it's pretty silly to point to Rep. Bachmann as exhibit "A" of a weak, mousy doormat or a Stepford Wife. Wasn't that the knock on Mrs. Bush or Mrs. Reagan? And then we found out otherwise?
What's really interesting in this general topic area is how Sarah Palin often refers to Todd as her "helpmate," which is a very odd sounding statement to a conservative Christian, who believes that women are to be the helpmates of their men and not the other way around. I don't think the media picks up on this because they don't have the background to sensitize them to it, but it's almost a subversive statement in some quarters, and is a clue that SP isn't quite as fundie as otherwise believed.
(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
which is a very odd sounding statement to a conservative Christian, who believes that women are to be the helpmates of their men
HUH…
But from the beginning of creation, `God made them male and female.'
`For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife,
and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh.
What therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder."
So why wouldn’t Todd be a “helpmate?” They are ONE BODY….Two have become one…Todd is her helpmate and vice versa…it is what Yhwh Commands of us.
As Christians say, “we are many parts, all one body”:
... The eye cannot say to the hand, “I don’t need you!” And the head cannot say to the feet, “I don’t need you!” 22 On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23 and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor.
The Eye helps the hand helps the foot helps the ear….each is a helpmate of the other, and ALL of one body…
The question makes no sense to me. Why would that have any affect on her aspirations to be President?
(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
The question makes no sense to me. Why would that have any affect on her aspirations to be President?
That’s ‘cuz you are a dum ‘ole girl and wouldn’t understand all the complexities…Don’t worry your pretty little head about it, Honey….
Joe will be taking a long vacation now, and changing his name, to avoid Freeman or Dust Bunny Queen
Plus she's a REPUBLICAN, this isn't designed to inform but to make you think, "Bachmann crazee...."
Why would that have any affect on her aspirations to be President?
What Joanna said upthread.
Oh, I see. The author then asks,
Is she going to have to ask Marcus' permission every time she wants to throw a state dinner?
So the author doesn't know what wives be submissive to your husbands means and her readers are assumed to be similarly ignorant.
You would think it would be obvious that the submission is within the marriage, within joint decisions. It does not mean that the woman needs to run her every move by her husband, nor does it mean that he must act for her in her professional capacity. Honey, can I have a sales meeting with my staff today?
You wouldn't have thought that anyone in America would be so ignorant of the Christians who surround them, but then, you would've thought wrong.
When it comes to the left, I've pretty much come around to the belief that one should never ascribe to ignorance what can be explained by vileness.
Hypocrisy or not, the middle of America as well as liberal Democrats has a hard time swallowing the Goddesses the Republican Religious Right worships.
The polls on Palin and Bachmann reflect that.
It's an electability problem.
Just as libertarians have made Ron Paul their God and snap at people that tell them the guy is just not that electable.
"Thats not important! What is important is Ron Paul passes all my tests! Even if he loses to Obama, he will send them all a message!!"
"We used to have Presidents who submitted to God."
When?
After 35 yrs as an evangelical and now a full-fledged Orthodox Christian, I know lots of women who hold MB's position. They are the toughest women I know.
They establish genuine, mutually respectful partnerships with their husbands that make them both better people.
They raise big families and routinely take in other people's children, both formally and informally.
They run successful businesses and have significant careers, while keeping their church communities humming along via assorted good works. They are smart, articulate, focused, and driven. And they are nobody's push-over.
They are people of deep faith, working out their salvation with fear and trembling, who recognize that the central quality of the Christian life is humility. And when husbands live out their call to be the head of the house as Christ was the head of the Church, both those men and their wives know full well that Christ died for the Church, in perfect humility himself.
"Does anyone seriously believe that Michelle Bachman is submissive? Ridiculous."
Or Sarah Palin?
Except for the fact that they are, and the problem understanding it is understanding submission as an active verb instead of a personality trait.
One of the earliest news clips I saw of Sarah Palin that impressed me was an interview after one of Todd's Irondog wins (she was wearing her hoochi-hoop earrings) and the interviewer tried to get her on the tried and true "gonna keep my man in line" script over what she was going to "allow" Todd to do with the prize money. She refused to play. In fact, I think that what she said was something very like, "How is that up to me? I'm not going to tell him what he can do." I could have cheered. I can hardly express how much I dislike the "men are so stupid and irresponsible and I'm in charge" script.
Bachmann and Palin, both, are profoundly ambitious women. But what they *aren't* is in competition with their husbands. And I dare say that their husbands are not intimidated or threatened by them either, because of the sort of terribly serious consideration that Bachmann describes giving her husband's opinions.
What is pathetic is that since Jimmah Carter (I can still remember the Newsweek cover emblazoned with "The Evangelicals"in 1976) that the news media still remains ignorant, willfully I believe, of Evangelical Christians, their beliefs and practices. To not understand Evangelical Protestantism is to admit ignorance of American culture and history.
(The Crypto Jew)
What is pathetic is that since Jimmah Carter (I can still remember the Newsweek cover emblazoned with "The Evangelicals"in 1976) that the news media still remains ignorant, willfully I believe, of Evangelical Christians, their beliefs and practices. To not understand Evangelical Protestantism is to admit ignorance of American culture and history.
Gee dood/doodette that would mean we'd actually have TALK to “those people.” Come to some understanding, possibly even if not agreement, some acceptance of them....what would happen then, what would all my friends think?!
It's dood. And the point is well taken.
Are we all now other people's theologians? How about we stop wringing hands over other's beliefs. After all, most theology looks crackpot to outsiders, and quite a bit to insiders. So what?
The situation with Bachmann's husband seems to have worked out better than for DSK's wife,...
(The Crypto Jew)
Are we all now other people's theologians? How about we stop wringing hands over other's beliefs. After all, most theology looks crackpot to outsiders, and quite a bit to insiders. So what?
SPLITTER...I'll bet you're a member of Liberation Front for the People of Judea!
Caplight wrote:
the news media still remains ignorant, willfully I believe, of Evangelical Christians, their beliefs and practices. To not understand Evangelical Protestantism is to admit ignorance of American culture and history.
I don't think that the problem is ignorance. The MSM is just as ignorant of what is preached at black churches as they are of what is preached at evangelical churches, but you will never see an article in Slate titled "Can Obama be President? His Religion Tells Him He Must Hate America and White People."
I agree that there is ignorance about Black Christianity s well. MSM types probably think Jesse and Al are real Black pastors. Hence they were shocked to discover the level of support in the AA community for traditioanal marriage and Prop 8.
What's important to me is that Black churches don't let out till 1:00 pm or later on Sundays. Otherwise we white Christians would have to wait in line at restaurants.
Fen,
When they hear "submission" their first thought is "what was my safe-word again?".
LOL! That was good.
Democrat safe words: racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe.
Those are all-purpose safe words, intended to squelch any conservative activity.
I think what a lot of us are afraid of is having a President who wakes up one morning and says God told her to invade Iran.
To pray for strength and guidance and the courage to do what is right is one thing. To expect literal answers to prayers or to be "told" to do something is, uhm, not someone I would vote for.
When you have no argument, blame religion.
It's like Chris Wallace's question: "Are you a flake?"
Or what happened to poor Prosser, because he's not gifted with throwing bullshit.
Sometimes, things get printed that make absolutely no common sense.
You know Michele Bachmann has parented 23 kids! Here, again, you see religion at work.
In another culture they'd have written the story: "There is an old lady who lives in a shoe and she has so many kids she doesn't know what to do."
However, all that's been proven so far is that Michelle Bachmann has a heart, as well as a mind.
And, if she wants to run for president, it's up to her to move those mountains.
I actually never met a person who put the "dream of running to be president," into operation.
Then, again, I'd never be pleasant to Libby Copeland.
There are drawbacks to wanting to become president. So, more power to her!
(The Crypto Jew)
I think what a lot of us are afraid of is having a President who wakes up one morning and says God told her to invade Iran.
To pray for strength and guidance and the courage to do what is right is one thing. To expect literal answers to prayers or to be "told" to do something is, uhm, not someone I would vote for.
1)Uh and where have Palin OR Bachmann said “Yhwh Spoke and said [].”?
2)You have a very passive Yhwh, a Yhwh that says WHAT YOU WANT TO HEAR, IT SEEMS. What if Yhwh says, “Invade Iran?” You have Frank Luntz Yhwh who listens to your prayers, and then affirms your decision it seems.
The rest of the article offered some information on how evangelicals reconcile this issue. Not blather.
Not a hit piece. Not something you'd find in the National Review, but not a hit piece.
Perhaps the issue is whether or not the husband will become the secret President. No, because church rule and the American State are and always will be separate. Bachmann can easily be our President without getting permission from any secret President like Obama has to get from George Soros. Submission in scripture is a personal relationship issue. Jesus is in submission to The Father, and that seems to be working out fine for their relationship.
As a two-"l" Michelle, I bear it constantly in mind that Michele Bachmann is a one-"l" Michele. It's the same sort of hypersensitivity that you get when your married surname is "Thomson" and everyone constantly wants to, as it were, P in it.
wv: demberi. Dem beri damn well be coming along eventually; what's the point of living surrounded by blackberry bushes if they aren't flowering by July?
crosspatch wrote:
I think what a lot of us are afraid of is having a President who wakes up one morning and says God told her to invade Iran.
As opposed to a president that wakes up one morning and says "God told me to nationalize healthcare"? Obama seems to think (if you take him at his word) that the God of Abraham became flesh and healed people with a touch -- or even just the power of His name -- and the proper expression of faith in this unwittnessed miracle is to put the government in charge of financing health care.
That is no less bizarre than a president who wakes up one morning and says God told her to invade Iran.
"However, all that's been proven so far is that Michelle Bachmann has a heart, as well as a mind."
Where has it be proven that Ms. Bachmann has a mind?
She has one "l" in her name because the other submitted.
And isn't the current President not only Christian but respectful of his wife?
Weren't almost all human leaders in history believers in one religion or another?
Who cares?
"As opposed to a president that wakes up one morning and says 'God told me to nationalize healthcare'? Obama seems to think (if you take him at his word) that the God of Abraham became flesh and healed people with a touch -- or even just the power of His name -- and the proper expression of faith in this unwittnessed miracle is to put the government in charge of financing health care.
That is no less bizarre than a president who wakes up one morning and says God told her to invade Iran."
Um, a couple of points:
Where has Obama ever claimed "God told him" to do anything?
Also, where do you get the idea that he has nationalized healthcare or that he has put the govt. in charge of financing healthcare? He hasn't and it isn't. (More's the pity that he hasn't...that's what we need.) He gave us Romney's plan of forcing people to buy insurance.
As a side point, there is no equivalency between a President--under whatever purported motivation--passing healthcare legislation and another President invading Iran. The one aims, however well or badly conceived and however ultimately successful or not, to make healthcare available to American citizens, while the other involves blowing up neighborhoods where families live, destroying families, killing and maiming men, women, old people and children; rendering the survivors in many cases homeless or refugees; despoiling the environment with our use of depleted uranium, (as we have done in Iraq); in general, creating a hell on earth...for no good reason.
In short, the one aims to help sick Americans and the other aims to kill innocent non-Americans.
Well, Seeing Red, presumably you're a woman. What the fuck are you talking about re: stereotyping?? Firstly, I didn't even imply the vow to obey was a big deal to me..I didn't give a rat's ass. It was important to my bride..and there you have "To each their own." You apparently don't have a clue what that means. I'm guessing you're a red haired controlling bitch. If I'm going to be accused of something I might as well get my $ worth! And, when I pray I'll thank God you're not my bride.
Robert Cook wrote:
"Where has it be proven that Ms. Bachmann has a mind?"
Law School graduate?
Passed the bar?
Post JD studies at William & Mary?
(The Crypto Jew)
Oh Terry, Terry Bachmann can't have a brains, SHE'S A REPUBLICAN....EVERYONE KNOWS they is stoopit. Only Marxists like Cooke is smart, Cookie and jon kery, of course....
Robert Cook wrote:
Um, a couple of points: . . .
I was referencing an earlier comment which had Obama (in a 2008 interview with Christianity Today) saying " . . .I believe in the example that Jesus set by feeding the hungry and healing the sick and always prioritizing the least of these over the powerful."
My point, which may have been too subtle for some folks, was that there was just as much reason to believe that Obama made health care reform a priority because of his religious beliefs as there is that Bachmann would invade Iran because of her religious beliefs. That is, if a politician has religious beliefs that incline them towards certain public policies, it is a cheap shot to say that is somehow the equivalent of them waking up one morning and saying "God told me to invade Iran" or "God told me to reform health care".
I believe that, in the proper context (say, a speech to religious leaders), Obama would link his support for healthcare reform to his religious beliefs, but this is only my opinion. You may believe otherwise.
Your belief that reforming healthcare is better than invading Iran is a personal thing. There are many Americans, just as smart and as civilly engaged as you are, that would have had Obama spend his first year in office devoting his energy to keeping Iran free of nuclear weapons rather than reforming healthcare.
If Iran announced next week that it had installed nuclear warheads on its missiles and was annexing Eastern Iraq & Eastern Saudi Arabia even you might come to think that Obama's priorities were out of wack.
"Robert Cook wrote:
'Where has it be proven that Ms. Bachmann has a mind?'
"Law School graduate?
Passed the bar?
Post JD studies at William & Mary?"
I've known some law school grads who were not particularly bright, and there are plenty of bad lawyers out there.
What has Ms. Bachmann said or done that suggests she "has a mind?"
"There are many Americans, just as smart and as civilly engaged as you are, that would have had Obama spend his first year in office devoting his energy to keeping Iran free of nuclear weapons rather than reforming healthcare."
There is no evidence that Iran has any nuclear weapons. Why would Obama devote energy to preventing that which is not, and how would he have gone about that?
Personally, I think the more nations that have nukes, the worse and more dangerous for the world, but I don't have any particular fear of Iran having nukes, as opposed to all the other nations that do. The Iranian government may be authoritarian, but they are rational, and assuming they ever developed nukes, they are not going to start launching them at other nations, as that would invite upon themselves retaliatory annihilation.
American is a far more belligerent and aggressive nation than Iran, and we have more nukes than anybody.
Robert Cook, I imagine that some law schools graduate stupid people but until I read your comment I assumed that passing the bar was a test of learning, and that acquiring an advanced degree from a prestigious law school required the ability to apply learned knowledge at a high level.
In other words, if passing the bar and getting post-doctoral certifications does not prove that a person "has a mind", what does? Agreement with your prefered political positions?
Perhaps your standards are simply too high for mortals to achieve.
"Robert Cook wrote:
'Where has it be proven that Ms. Bachmann has a mind?'
"Law School graduate?
Passed the bar?
Post JD studies at William & Mary?"
I've known some law school grads who were not particularly bright, and there are plenty of bad lawyers out there.
What has Ms. Bachmann said or done that suggests she "has a mind?"
You have to realize that some of us had fathers who underlined those lines in the bible with yellow highlighter and used them to berate, browbeat and generally abuse our mothers until such as they wised up - not much different from Sharia law, really, and only 30ish years ago. Nor was my mom unique back then (and this was the 80s!).
Now is that really feminism's fault? No, but that kind of thing was likely a major cause of the feminism you all hate. I had a friend 1st gen from Lebanon and she did indeed have it worse, but not by much.
It has since gone from being genuinely felt, to merely being a bad collective memory that has hardened into elite kneejerk snobbery - or maybe I just don't see it anymore in my world.
Having said that, it's pretty clear that is not Michelle Bachmann's situation.
My parents were Catholic, btw, not Evangelical.
Robert Cook wrote:
Where has it be proven that Ms. Bachmann has a mind?
Where has it been proven she doesn't?
BTW, you might want to fix your typos before accusing others of being stupid; it doesn't reflect well on you.
Why should the woman submit? Because this is the alternative:
http://www.leatherlollipop.com/pd_ballet.cfm
You do the math.
From the bible link above, the key quote seems to be:
" 22Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
23For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
24Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing."
Seems pretty clear, the husband plays the role of Christ in the marriage. If Bachmann actually believes this, she should explain how this would effect her presidential decision making.
It is nearly impossible to take seriously anybody who thinks the bible is word for word true and thinks that they understand much about "god".
"Robert Cook wrote:
Where has it be proven that Ms. Bachmann has a mind?
Where has it been proven she doesn't?
BTW, you might want to fix your typos before accusing others of being stupid; it doesn't reflect well on you."
I did not say she was stupid--although she may be, and she certainly seems to believe in imaginary things, which could simply be delusion. I question whether she has a mind. That is to say, that she is of uncommonly discerning and sharp intelligence.
Someone claimed "she has a mind". To single out this quality about her suggests that she has demonstrated distinctive intelligence...I ask, "how so?"
Don't feel defensive...I think few in Washington, of either gender or party, have shown they have minds worth remarking upon, and many, to judge by their public statements and behavior, are dull-witted charlatans.
"Robert Cook, I imagine that some law schools graduate stupid people but until I read your comment I assumed that passing the bar was a test of learning, and that acquiring an advanced degree from a prestigious law school required the ability to apply learned knowledge at a high level.
In other words, if passing the bar and getting post-doctoral certifications does not prove that a person 'has a mind', what does?"
Ms. Bachmann does not have a doctoral certification, so how can she have a "post-doctoral" certification? She has a J.D. in Law, and an L.L.M. in tax law. An L.L.M. just means one has taken additional training in a specialty of law after having acquired a J.D.
Robert Cook, Do you know what the "D" in "JD" stands for? I didn't say that Bachmann had a PhD.
Are you on a hair splitting expedition? For God's sake the woman has more legal training than Obama. You are digging your hole deeper, my friend.
Terry, the "D" in J.D. notwithstanding, a law degree is not a doctoral certification in the way we think of doctoral certifications. No one refers to or considers lawyers as "doctors." It is not a Ph.D. (or an M.D.) and requires far less training than do those certifications.
A J.D. should be considered equivalent to a Master's degree.
It would be interesting to see what this writer would say about Keith Ellison's views, or Nikki Haley's for that matter. Christians are one group that is still fair game for gross discrimination. Two others: Fat people and smokers.
John Casteel
The Democrats would never elect anyone like this, because submission to one's spouse would interfere with the sacred duty to submit to SEIU.
Also, the Democrats will never elect a woman, period.
As I suspected, a hair splitting expedition, Robert Cooke, but I commend you for splitting hairs as you move goalposts.
Well done, sir, well done!
Since you've already reduced a three-year law school degree, plus passing the bar, plus post-JD certification to a two-year masters degree, in your next comment you will likely describe Bachmann's accomplishments as being equivalent to an associates degree in Media Studies!
Being POTUS is a job. She can't do her job properly because she submits to will of her husband. Ergo, no fundamental Christian woman can hold a job because their submission to their husband would preclude them from appropriate job performance.
(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
Steve Koch wrote:
From the bible link above, the key quote seems to be:
" 22Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
23For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
24Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing."
Seems pretty clear, the husband plays the role of Christ in the marriage. If Bachmann actually believes this, she should explain how this would effect her presidential decision making.
Thank you for your “concern” good sirrah…
Let me suggest:
My posting at 9.37 yesterday; and
My posting at 1.01 PM yesterday; and
It would be interesting to see what this writer would say about Keith Ellison's views, or Nikki Haley's for that matter. Christians are one group that is still fair game for gross discrimination. Two others: Fat people and smokers.
John Casteel
Always lotsa of “questions” for the Christians, who are REPUBLICAN, not so for those non-Christian or for the Non-Republican. IF you are NOT a “concern” troll go and ask the same questions of people NOT named Bachmann or Palin. If you ARE a “concern troll” just realizes that you get no answers until the others provide their answers.
And Robert, the biggest difference between a JD and a PhD as far as "training" goes is that JD's don't do a dissertation.
Believe it or not, despite his gig teaching law at the University of Chicago, many people would say that because he did not publish Obama was no more an "academic" than a substitute teacher at a public high school.
I think Dark Eden could use some sensitivity training to deal with his/her obvious Christophobia.
You cannot be Christian and not be Evangelical, period. By definition all Christians are Evangelical. If you find a Christian who does not believe in the gospel please let me know. Remember that the next time some moronic lefty or msm dolt uses Evangelical derisively.
jdkchem wrote:
Remember that the next time some moronic lefty or msm dolt uses Evangelical derisively.
Jimmy Carter is an Evangelical.
Hey Robert Cook,
A Google search for "legal post-doctoral" returns almost 13 million hits. Half of them on the first couple of pages appear to be law schools publicizing their post-doctoral fellowships.
For someone with such a rarified opinion of his own capability to judge intelligence, you are a fucking idiot.
Blowhard.
"its one of the most common bigotries around today."
And why is any Christian surprised? Since Christ Himself told us we would be hated and even killed for following Him?
wv:fecoi. Sort of like Eloi, but smellier.
The lead quote is a mix of two distinct concepts. One is submission to the will of hubby; the other is submission to a bizarre notion of the circuitous way the Divine chooses to communicate with us mortals.
I don't mind the first; there are any number of things a President should submit to, the major one (in the US system) being the vast collection of statutes constituting the Law of the Land.
The second is creepy, though.
"Mostly, though, this sounds like a made up issue. Has Bachmann actually said that she would be subservient to her husband in policy issues? Has she done this previously? Is it a reasonable extrapolation from her actions? If not, this sounds like this cycle's version of the magic Mormon underwear stories."
Meh. This is just recycled Palin-bashing. Of course, when asked for examples of how Palin had used executive authority to impose her beliefs, the Copperheads couldn't come up with a single example that wasn't instantly and massively debunked.
They continue to trot them out, though; the ability to lie in spite of evidence is a characteristic of the Copperhead species.
From the Copeland article:
God had already told her to go to law school; God had also told her to marry a fellow named Marcus Bachmann. Now Marcus told her "to go and get a post-doctorate degree in tax law."This was not a particular desire of Michele's ("Tax law? I hate taxes!"), but she was certain God was speaking through her husband.
I wonder if Copeland thinks that Bachmann's husband will use the same tone of voice when he commands her to build him an ark of acacia wood; two and a half cubits its length, a cubit and a half its width, and a cubit and a half its height, overlaid with pure gold inside and outside,
"The one aims, however well or badly conceived and however ultimately successful or not, to make healthcare available to enslave certain American citizens to provide for the moocher class whether American citizens or not,"
FTFY. Copperhead.
You love slavery. Your party always has. And just as in the first Civil War, free men and women are going to resist.
And I dare you to find a Bible verse where Christ commanded that charity be conducted with other people's money stolen by force. I, OTOH, can cite dozens where He ordained charity as an individual duty, to be performed as anonymously as possible.
Hey, Terry, if you want to continue speaking about Ms. Bachmann as if she has acquired "doctoral and post-doctoral" credentials, because it satisfies your need to think of her as "brainy," be my guest. You still sound like you're using language to inflate her level of academic achievement, (which you are), and it still does not prove she is possessed of a mind worth remarking upon.
Now...beyond all appearances or utterances to date, she may have a keen mind, but that remains yet to be demonstrated.
MB definitely has a mind, I can assure you. She practices tax law.
Wow, how utterly shocking, someone who doesn't understand basic Biblical NT principles completely missing the point.
Two fundamentals this author misses. First, "To submit" when translated to it's original Greek in this context, doesn't have to do with being lorded over by another, but is used in military terms to describe the different positions of the soldiers in the unit. The idea is the military unit cannot succeed without a someone leading the formation, people flanking, and people taking up the rear. No part of the formation is less important than the other, yet as a whole, the unit cannot succeed unless someone plays their part. Let alone immediately following that verse it goes on to say how husband's should love their wives and give themselves up for them like Christ did for the Church.
Second, the in the NT when it describes men's roles as the leader of the house and church, it is speaking in terms of spiritual roles. Going back to the idea of a military unit, if both partners try and fulfill the same role, the unit will not function. Same with spirituality roles in the marriage. This is not about who is allowed to hold what jobs outside the marriage.
What about all this "submission" stuff?
Well, it's orthodox Christianity, of course: More straightforwardly taught in the Bible than, for example, the Trinity. All married, serious Christians hold it in some form or other.
But remember: It can be understood and practiced in many forms.
How does Bachmann's family understand and practice it?
We don't know. And there's little point commenting on it -- let alone assuming it's some crazy alien way of thinking -- until we do.
I find it quite reasonable in practice, and thus no cause for alarm, unless one harbors a knee-jerk tendency to get shrill about such things.
For example, I was raised in a conservative Southern Baptist congregation which forbids female pastors and deacons.
For some, that might sound troglodytic. But here is what I was taught marital "submission" meant (in that presumed citadel of chauvinism):
1. That wives submit to their husbands NOT as a slave submits to a cruel and unconcerned master, but as an Executive Officer to the ship's captain: Doesn't contradict him in front of the troops (=the kids), helps him make sure stuff gets done and gets done right, and advises him of what's going on in the ship (=the household).
2. That we are told in another place there is to be "mutual submission, one to another." Hmm. That's either a contradiction, or can be resolved by saying that each spouse has areas of responsibility in which they are in charge, and in which they should be deferred to. If my XO is an expert in reactor operation (or my wife an expert in homeschooling curricula) I defer to the expert.
3. That husbands are commanded love their wives "as Christ loved the church, in that He gave Himself up for her." The husband's role is therefore to be a giving and sacrificial one; he is not permitted to wield his authority any other way.
Now in a council of two, if the two cannot agree after much talk but a decision still must be made, someone must have the tie-breaking vote: That's the husband.
But a person with a tie-breaking vote must have some guidance how to use that vote, and he is required to use it self-sacrificially for the benefit of the other person.
In practice, this works out this way: My wife wants to do X; I want to do Y; we talk it out; in the 1% of occasions that we can't come to an agreement, I wield my tie-breaking authority to choose whichever option is best for her, and to utterly quash anything self-serving in my own position.
We are, as a result, one of those endearingly annoying families where discussions are more drawn-out than necessary because we're bending over backwards to help the other person get their way.
I offer my personal experience only as an example. I think it works well, so I'm not inclined to regard Bachmann's situation as a matter of concern.
But her and her spouse's understanding and practice may be rather different; my own experience may be irrelevant.
So: There is no reason for hyperventilation, or even offering much opinion, until we know more.
Post a Comment