Michele Bachmann's Views About 'Christian Submission'

Are Michele Bachmann's Views About 'Christian Submission' Even More Extreme Than She's Letting On?
The people, churches and groups that shaped Bachmann's thinking are far more anti-woman than most Americans fully comprehend.
http://www.alternet.org/story/15203...ion'_even_more_extreme_than_she's_letting_on/

Michele Bachmann told a barefaced lie the other day. She was asked in the Republican candidates' debate with the other Republican contenders, “As president, would you be submissive to your husband?"



Bachmann answered: “Marcus and I will be married for 33 years this September 10th. I’m in love with him. I’m so proud of him. And both he and I — what submission means to us, if that’s what your question is, it means respect. I respect my husband. He’s a wonderful, godly man, and a great father. And he respects me as his wife.”

She either lied, has changed her mind, or she says one thing to a national audiance and another to her hard-right evangelical followers.

Here's what she said in answer to the same question in 2006: “The Lord says be submissive. Wives, you are to be submissive to your husbands.”

As Jill Lawrence noted:

Back in October 2006, recounting her life journey to an audience at the Living Word Christian Center, Bachmann talked about “receiving Jesus” at 16, studying hard, meeting her future husband at college, and earning a law degree. “My husband said ‘Now you need to go and get a post-doctorate degree in tax law.’ Tax law! I hate taxes—why should I go and do something like that?” she told the audience. “But the Lord says be submissive. Wives, you are to be submissive to your husbands.” Bachmann said she never had taken a tax course, “never had a desire for it,” but “I was going to be faithful to what I felt God was calling me to do through my husband.” Later, when the opportunity to run for Congress arose, “my husband said, ‘You need to do this,’ and I wasn’t so sure.” She became sure two days later, after praying and fasting with her husband.
The real story here is that Bachmann understands just how extreme her part of the evangelical movement is. She also understands that a certain amount of godly lying will be needed to mask that. She understood that the question she was asked the other day was about a biblical teaching that is misogynistic to the core and advocates total submission of a wife to a husband. It is teaching she's signed on to long ago.

The people, churches and groups that shaped Bachmann's thinking are far more anti-woman than most Americans fully comprehend.



There is a background to this.

The issue of wifely submission is at the heart of the entire anti-feminist agenda that shaped Bachmann. I should know. As I describe in my book Sex, Mom and God, the current crop of religious right leaders -- including Michele Bachamnn -- got their ideas and inspiration from my family’s work, books and film series. As the New Yorker correctly noted about my late father and the movies I directed when I was his nepotistic sidekick:

[Bachmann and her husband] experienced a life-altering event: they watched a series of films by the evangelist and theologian Francis Schaeffer called “How Should We Then Live?” Schaeffer, who ran a mission in the Swiss Alps known as L’Abri (“the shelter”), opposed liberal trends in theology. One of the most influential evangelical thinkers of the nineteen-seventies and early eighties, he has been credited with getting a generation of Christians involved in politics.

Continued..
http://www.alternet.org/story/15203...ion'_even_more_extreme_than_she's_letting_on/

 

Whatever she did, it seems to have worked out pretty well for her. Obama was a prominent member of a church run by a crazed anti-american, marxist racist but the media studiously ignored it. Suddenly, with Bachmann and of course Romney, religion becomes a crucial factor.

 

+1

Because liberals can't argue issues, they have to personally attack.

 

Democratic Strategist Powers Slams Media for Misrepresenting Bachmann, Evangelical View on Submission in Marriage
By Ken Shepherd | August 16, 2011 | 10:44

She never mentioned colleague Michelle Goldberg by name, but it's hard to think that Democratic strategist and Fox News contributor Kirsten Powers didn't have her in mind when she penned her August 15 Daily Beast column, "Stop Attacking Evangelicals!"

You may recall that on August 14, Goldberg laid out her Michele Bachmann-is-a-theocrat conspiracy theory.

"Welcome to the last bastion of sanctioned bigotry: ignorant attacks against evangelicals," Powers opened her column, adding that "Since Rep. Michele Bachmann was asked in a debate whether she would be submissive to her husband as president, the punditry has morphed into a morass of armchair theologians pushing flawed interpretations of what submission means in a biblical context."

"Thankfully, nowhere have we seen this kind of behavior relating to Mormons (yet) or Muslims, but it’s open season on the evangelical faith," Powers added, going on to explain the evangelical understanding of the Bible's injunction to wives to submit to their husbands and husbands to love their lives in a sacrificial Christ-like manner:

Amen, sister.

 

Jesus, who never married and wait for it, was born of a virgin birth, has views on marriage.

Pardon me, but what the fuck would he know?
Wot, god told him how to only have sex for procreation, AFTER, he stopped a prostitute from being stoned to death? AFTER he never had sex, himself?


Fuck me, if Michelle Bachmann is the best the human race has to offer, then the human race has run it's term limit.
Sure, i would go their, but that's not the point.