Michele Bachmann Defines Submissiveness


In the recent Republican presidential debate held in Iowa on August 11, 2011, one of the moderators asked U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn) about her 2006 remarks that she studied tax law because her husband told her to, even though she hated the idea. At the time Bachmann said, “But the Lord said, ‘Be submissive. Wives, you are to be submissive to your husbands.'”

He then asked her, “As president, would you be submissive to your husband?”

Bachmann paused for a few moments and then responded with what was, essentially, a non-answer:

Marcus and I will be married for 33 years this September 10th. I’m in love with him. I’m so proud of him,” she said. “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. That’s how we operate our marriage. We respect each other. We love each other.”

The key words in her answer are … “what submission means … is respect.”

Apparently Michele is unaware that submission and respect have two quite different meanings:

Definition of Respect

  • An attitude of admiration or esteem
  • Regard highly; think much of
  • A feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements.

Definition of Submissive

  • Characterized by tendencies to yield to the will or authority of others
  • Inclined or willing to submit to orders or wishes of others
  • Of, tending towards, or indicating submission, humility, or servility
  • Synonyms: obedient, subordinate, subservient

Michele, you weren’t asked how much you and and your husband respect each other. You were asked: “As president, would you be submissive to your husband?”

In 2006, you apparently subscribed to these bible instructions. It would seem you have now, for expediency’s sake, chosen to sweep this belief under the rug.

How typical of a politician.

Religion in Politics – The Ongoing Battle


The following is the introduction to an article written by Rev. Howard Bess on ConsortiumNews.com:

Though the United States has a tradition of separating church and state, the 2012 presidential campaign may test the limits of that tolerance. Not only do some Republicans continue to question Barack Obama’s Christianity, but GOP front-runner Mitt Romney is a Mormon and other contenders, such as Sarah Palin, are Christian fundamentalists.

In my opinion (and I don’t think I’m alone in this), politics and religion do not mix! Religion (worship of one’s god in whatever form desired) belongs in a church, temple, or other religious edifice. It DOES NOT belong in politics. NO person, no matter what their faith or political affiliation, has the right to push their particular theology onto the American people.

Issues such as pro-life (anti-abortion), gay marriage, family values, or any other moral concern are individual matters and should NEVER be part of politics. Good grief! Every person that votes is considered an adult — and adults can think for themselves. We don’t need or want someone else forcing us to live according to their beliefs.

I admit, I used to be very conservative in my beliefs and strongly supported “born again” presidents such as Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush for their unwavering stand for Christianity. But I’ve changed. I guess I became an adult.

Contrary to what many, many people believe, this country is not a “Christian Nation” (see this article). Even though Fundamentalist Christians would like the American public to believe the so-called founding fathers intended to establish this country on “biblical principles,” history simply does not support this view. The original leaders of our nation were not Bible-believing Christians; they were Deists.

An individual (docfloss) contributed what I believe was a very thoughtful comment to the article by Rev. Bess (referenced at the beginning of this posting). I urge you to read it.

Critical Thinking and Truth

I haven’t posted for quite some time, but this morning I read something that jumped off the page at me. It was written by syndicated columnist, Leonard Pitts. He wrote:

But then, that’s the state of critical thinking these days: ignore any inconvenient truth, any unsettling information that might force you to think or even look with new eyes upon, say, the edifice of justice. Accept only those ‘facts’ that support what you already believe. (Emphasis added)

Amen, brother!

Pitts’ statement struck a deep cord within me. I get so riled at the number of people who, as Pitts writes, accept as “truth” anything that they already believe in. This is particularly true in the areas of religion and politics.

Instead of doing the background research to find out if what they have heard, read, or been taught is accurate, they will adamantly argue their case as hard and cold fact.

It is as though critical thinking has become a forbidden action. Or maybe it’s just because we’ve become lazy. It’s far easier to watch the 24-hour news feed on TV then to do our own research. Gosh! That might mean reading a book or even turning on the computer to search the internet.

Truth is defined as “a fact that has been verified.” It is not truth simply because our so-called ‘leaders’ (the people who rule, guide and/or inspire us) have said it is so.

If you are politically minded, make it a habit to visit Politifact.com or FactCheck.org to find out how much of what your favorite political leader says is actually true.

And if you’re a religious person, try looking at your faith objectively. Look below the surface. You may be surprised to learn that not everything you heard in Sunday School is ‘truth.’ A wise person once said “If you’re going to put all your faith into something, you need to thoroughly examine it to make sure your faith is justified.”

To know is more than to believe.

Christie (O’Donnell) Want a Cracker?

Last night I watched the debate between Christine O’Donnell (R) and Chris Coons (D), candidates for the U.S. Senate in the upcoming election.

I do not live in Delaware, but with all the hullabaloo about Ms. O’Donnell, I was curious to hear what she had to say.

I could scarcely believe my ears. She rambled. She ranted. She attacked. But most of all, she parroted. Nearly everything out of her mouth was nothing but conservative rhetoric.

Fresh ideas? Innovative solutions? Hardly.

And she seemed to lack the ability to answer yes or no when asked a direct question. Instead, she rambled at length, never failing to insert the trigger words and phrases conservatives know and love. As one news source put it, “O’Donnell was sometimes at a loss for words and other times flat-out unwilling to entertain the question during the debate.”

When asked if she still believes evolution to be a myth, she begged off by saying, “What I believe is irrelevant.” Really? When it comes to the matter of whether the schools might one day be required to teach “creationism” along with evolution, her stand on the issue is very relevant.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with the philosophies expressed by either candidate, Christine O’Donnell’s political inexperience was painfully evident in her parrotlike answers.