MinnPost’s Daily Newsletter
The latest on the politics and policy shaping Minnesota.
Delivered straight
to your inbox.
Stay in the know.
MinnPost’s top stories delivered straight to your inbox Monday through Saturday.
LYNCHBURG, Va. — Presidential candidate Michele Bachmann shared the story of her Christian roots in a speech to the student body of the Liberty University, a Christian college, on Wednesday morning.
Bachmann, a social conservative whose Christian faith has been central to her political philosophy, told the crowd about growing up in a Lutheran household without understanding the faith she’d been born into. She accepted Christ at the age of 16, and decided to start waking up at 5 each morning to read the Bible.
“As a new believer in Jesus Christ, I could not get enough of the word of God,” she said.
The theme of her speech was her campaign’s new mantra: Don’t settle. In a normal political stump speech, this message would be about choosing a committed conservative as the Republican presidential nominee. In this setting, though, Bachmann’s message was more about not settling in life.
“I charge you: Don’t settle,” she said. “Don’t settle with this gift God has given to you. Don’t settle with your personal life, don’t settle when it comes to your career, and certainly don’t settle when it comes to your relationship with Jesus Christ.”
Bachmann said that faith guided her life, from marrying her husband, Marcus, to having her children and bringing foster children into their home. The “don’t settle” attitude also inspired her to get into politics.
“I am not willing that we settle,” she said. “You deserve more than a nation that settles.”
Bachmann also laid out her political philosophy based on the quotation from the Declaration of Independence that all men are “endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
“It’s not government who gave us our rights; it is God who gave us our rights,” she said. “If God was our creator who gave them to us, no government can take them away from us.”
Bachmann said her favorite Bible verse is 2 Corinthians 3:17: “Now the Lord is the spirit, and where the spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.” That happens to be the official verse of Liberty University.
“It’s also the animating principle of this great nation, liberty” she said. “It’s the essence of our Christian life, and it’s the essence of the founding of this nation.”
Questions of faith
Bachmann’s faith has been, at times, a controversial part of her campaign. Marcus Bachmann’s religious counseling service has drawn fire for its use of so-called reparative therapy for homosexuals, and Bachmann’s admission that she follows the Bible’s advice by submitting to her husband even came up during a presidential debate.
During a question-and-answer session with law and government students, someone asked her what she meant by that.
“It means respect, and it’s mutual respect … I think the scripture really teaches that husbands are supposed to lay their lives down for their wives, so women actually have a better part of this bargain,” she joked.
Bachmann said she respects Marcus’ “headship of our home, and he respects me in our marriage and our relationship.” She told a story about Marcus’s decision to go into ministry even as she wanted to go into law school.
“God had called him into ministry, so I had to step back from law school and move with him so that we could go into ministry,” she said. “There were nights that I cried and I just said, ‘Lord, I don’t understand this, why do I have to put my dream on the shelf?’ But I also knew that I needed to defer what I wanted in deference to my husband. That was a good decision that I made … the Lord is a long-term God, and when we put our hands in his and trust him for the long-term, he really does know best.”
Another student asked about evangelicals who wouldn’t vote for Bachmann because of her gender. “They are looking to the scripture where it says women are not to have authority over men. How would you respond to that?”
Bachmann said there is a difference between spiritual and secular authority, and that the presidency is the latter.
“I am not running to be anyone’s spiritual authority,” she said. “[My political background] does not put me in any way in a spiritual authority over a man. I’m not a spiritual authority over my husband and I certainly wouldn’t presume to be a spiritual authority over any man in the United States.”
Bachmann pointed to Proverbs 31, which describes a “wife of noble character” who provides for the household by looking after the children, preparing meals and working as a trader.
“She certainly is fulfilling an occupation,” Bachmann said. “That’s certainly what the office of the presidency is as well.”
Mandatory speech for students
About 10,000 people attend Bachmann’s speech, held during a convocation event that was mandatory for students. Although she had previously won a student straw poll on campus, there were some in the assembly who were not familiar with her or her message.
But students Jennifer Rose and Claire Martin came away impressed. The two remembered listening to another presidential candidate, Rick Perry, speak earlier this year and they said Bachmann was more memorable.
“She’s amazing,” Rose said. “I would vote for her.”
Bachmann already had Dana Kohn’s vote. The freshman said she was impressed by Bachmann’s speech and the convictions backing it up.
“She’s not ashamed of what she believes … and she’s not going to sugar-coat it,” she said. Looking to her friends, Kohn said, “I love Michele Bachmann. I thought I was going to cry.”
Evangelical minister Jerry Falwell founded Liberty University as Lynchburg Baptist College in 1971. Today the school has more than 73,000 students (on campus and online) and it’s touted as the largest Christian university in the world.
Bachmann is the fifth presidential candidate to speak at Liberty recently. Others include Herman Cain, Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich and, most recently, Perry, who appeared here on Sept. 14.
Jerry Falwell Jr., Liberty’s president and chancellor, said the school’s students are most likely to identify with Bachmann over the other candidates, given her background and her faith.
But Bachamnn’s political positions, especially the preference for limited government and personal freedoms espoused by the tea party, are also ones Liberty’s students relate best to, Falwell said.
“That’s why Liberty [University] was named ‘Liberty’ so many years ago,” he said.
Liberty invited Bachmann to speak in April, more than a month before she declared her presidential candidacy. Falwell said the school has invited every presidential candidate to give an address at Liberty, including Mitt Romney, a Mormon, and President Barack Obama, a Democrat.
Falwell said he hasn’t endorsed a candidate and didn’t indicate if he will before Republicans have a nominee.
Devin Henry can be reached at dhenry@minnpost.com.
Two things Republicans like to say:
1. The U.S. Constitution merely enumerates several fundamental, God-given rights.
2. Illegal immigrants don’t have these rights.
Rep. Bachmann made point #1 in her speech.
But I guess there weren’t any students in the audience who might have challenged Rep. Bachmann about point #2.
Pity, that.
Hello, there’s no area of Backmann’s life where her faith doesn’t take center stage.
“Hello, there’s no area of Backmann’s life where her faith doesn’t take center stage.”<---(Pause to wipe dripping distain off quoted selection)...This, from the *same* leftist who, just *moments ago* chastised me for my inability to conceive of a leftist that is "religious". Keep 'em coming Paul. You've perfectly framed my conclusions regarding lefties of "faith"...
“Falwell said the school has invited every presidential candidate to give an address at Liberty, including Mitt Romney, a Mormon, and President Barack Obama, a Democrat.”
LOL! The point being, democrats worship Government and/or Mother Earth.
@#3
There’s a difference between being “religious” or “spiritual” (the two not to be mistaken as the same thing) and having either take center stage. I can disdain Ms. Bachmann for putting her religion at the forefront of her Presidential run, as religion should not be at the center of government at any level, but particularly at the level of President. I could respect her more if she didn’t use it as a tool rather than support.
I’d draw a distinction between being “religious” or “pious” and being “sanctimonious”, which of course has a pejorative connotation because it also suggests hypocrisy. Bachmann is purely sanctimonious, a trait which appeals to her sanctimonious followers. They cannot imagine anyone having faith and not trying to make a buck off of it.
Wow, Rachel, you would have been downright apoplectic if you had been around when FDR said on national radio, “I ask you to join with me in prayer.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQkxr0zdBvM&feature=related
I wonder why democrats ever voted for such a religious nutcase.
Ugh, just arm these evangelical warriors with swords and send them off to the Levant already.
So is Bachmann “picking and choosing” her scripture?
(quote)
…Remember that all scripture is God-breathed [2 Timothy 3:16] for instruction to conform us to God’s will and all scripture must be obeyed….
…We can read the Lord’s thoughts on this matter in 1 Corinthians…in verse 3; ‘I want you to know and realise that Christ is the Head of every man, the head of a woman
is her husband, and the Head of Christ is God’…Verse 5; ‘Any woman who publicly prays or prophesies, teaches refutes, reproves or admonishes with her head uncovered dishonours her head [husband]; it is the same as if her head were shaved’….Verse 7; ‘For a man ought not to have his head covered for he is the image and glory of God [his function of government reflects the majesty of the divine Rule] but the woman is the glory of the man’.
Verse 8; ‘For man was not created from woman, but woman from man’. Verse 9; ‘Neither was man created for the woman but the woman was created for the man’. Verse 10; ‘Therefore, she should be subject to his authority and should cover her head as a symbol
of her submission to authority, that she may show reverence as do the angels and not displease them’. Verse 15; ‘If a woman has long hair it is her glory; for her hair has been given to her for a covering’. Verse 16; ‘If anyone is disposed to be argumentative and contentious about this, we recognise no
other worship than this, nor do the churches of God generally’…
Read more about this in 1 Corinthians 14:34 & 35; ‘The women should keep quiet in the churches, for they are not authorised to speak. They should take a subordinate place, just as the law also says, but if there is anything they want to learn, they should ask their own husbands at home, for it is
disgraceful for a woman to talk in church; for her to usurp and exercise authority over men in the church’.
..In contrast, it is considered service to the Lord when a woman is submissive. See Ephesians 5:22 to 24; ‘Wives, be subject to your own husbands as a service to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is Head of the church, Himself the Saviour of His body. As the church is
subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands’….
…See Apostle Paul speaking again. 1 Timothy 2:11 to 15; ‘Let a woman learn in quietness, in entire submissiveness. I allow no woman to teach or have authority over men; she is to remain silent in the assembly, for Adam was formed first, then Eve, and it was not Adam who was deceived, but it was the woman who was deceived and deluded and fell into transgression. Nevertheless, the sentence
put on women does not hinder their soul’s salvation. They will be saved if they continue in faith and love and holiness, through the birth of the Divine Child’.
Titus 2:3 to 5 says; ‘Bid the older women to be reverent and become engaged in sacred service, not slanderers or slaves to drink. They are to give good counsel and be teachers of what is right and noble so that they will wisely train the young women to be temperate, and to love their husbands and children and be self-controlled, chaste, homemakers, good-natured, subordinating themselves to their husbands, that the word of God may not be exposed to reproach’.
(end quote)
http://www.bibleabookoftruth.com/ShouldWomenHaveAuthorityOverMen.pdf
So what is she doing–going to a “holy” university and daring to instruct men in what they should do? And what is Mac Hammond doing, having her talk at this church?
Sinful, I tell you, sinful..
Actually, it was Paul who said that wives should submit to their husbands. But it’s alright with me for a candidate who can’t win to mistake herself for Daniel. The big issue is if enough Americans to elect a President see themselves as victims, we’re in trouble.
Actually, the funny thing about Bachmann, and some of her supporters here, is that they are devoid of faith. One of the things that’s always irked me about fundamentalism is that loudest proclaimers of faith actually have no faith, and don’t even seem to understand faith as a basic principle.
Faith is a decision to believe something despite a lack of evidence, or even in the face of contrary evidence. Faith acknowledges it’s potential errors and chooses to believe anyways. Bachmann and ilk here have replaced faith with absolute certainty as if they’ve seen some kind of “proof” that their beliefs are incontrovertible. They forget that believing in something that’s infallible doesn’t make them infallible.
So I guess the headline here really should that Bachmann’s “hubris” takes center stage since she clearly has no real conception of faith.
This is most certainly true, maybe:
I believe there is a God of Bachmannism…but this god is based on distortions and misinformation; a she-god image Michelle probably sees in the mirror every morning I suppose? A politically motivated she-god preying not praying; and slowly fading?
May all other gods before us be amazed..amen.
Rachel; Abraham Lincoln’s 2nd inagural speech:
“Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said “the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.”
Distain away!
Paul opines: “So I guess the headline here really should that Bachmann’s “hubris” takes center stage since she clearly has no real conception of faith.”
So now *you* are the arbitor of religous faith, Paul? LOL…keep ’em comin’.
@ Mr. Tester and Mr. Swift,
I will ask you kindly to refrain from telling me what I think or how I would act.
We all live in THIS time, in a country that does NOT have an official religion. And in THIS time, we are more diverse than we have been at any other time in history. At THIS time, it is imperative that we live together as AMERICANS, not Christians and Muslims and Jews and Buddhists and athiests. At THIS time, it is appropriate to pray but it is not appropriate to play one religion against the other in order to choose WHICH Americans are TRUE Americans and in order to be elected as head of an AMERICA of MANY religions. It was NEVER inappropriate to pray, and still is not, but a religious fundamentalist has no place in the Federal government.
You have both suggested that I would be driven crazy by previous presidents for praying in public and with the public. Possibly. Simply because they are now known to history as great leaders does not mean that I would have agreed with ALL of their actions in THEIR times or in THIS one. As a person of Christian FAITH (but of little RELIGION), I find hypocrisy, particularly in the name of Christ, abhorrent. As I have said, it is one thing to hold your religion to your heart in order to steel your nerves or support your deeds, it is quite another to wave it as a flag and to bend it to your own will to manipulate the masses. Ms. Bachmann is doing the latter. And that, is worthy of disDain.
Thom-
//So now *you* are the arbitor of religous faith, Paul? LOL…keep ’em comin’.
Not MY definition of faith. Of course you have your own definition of faith… which is precisely my point.
“Faith is a decision to believe something despite a lack of evidence, or even in the face of contrary evidence. Faith acknowledges it’s potential errors and chooses to believe anyways.”
Oh, I get it. Like “Global Warming”
Dennis presents us with yet another fundamentalist example of confusion. The whole attempt to attack science as faith, and establish faith as science demonstrates another side effect of faithlessness. Only someone who doesn’t understand faith would try to establish they’re religious beliefs as scientific fact (i.e. creationism etc. ) and establish science as faith. The effect is that you render both science and religion incoherent. Global warming becomes an article of faith while Genesis becomes a scientific fact.
If Faith is so damned important to her, let her join the Ministry and forget about aspiring to a job she’s highly unqualified for. Personally, I want people who can govern and replace the third graders presently in Washington. So far she’s demonstrated she’s not one of them, and mouthing a bunch of biblical rhetoric ain’t gonna cut it.
Ask the people in the 6th Minnesota Congressional district how they feel about the number of votes she’s missed and the half assed job she’s doing as their Representative. She’s supposed to be a “Congresswoman” isn’t she?. If she’s that, I’m Donald Duck.
I’d bet they’re probably wishing they had their money back.
Jan #18 raises another interesting question. On a very basic level how well can fundamentalist function within a secular government? Faith may be a important personal issue, but what does it have to do with governance in a secular system?
Our civic elections are not about making religious judgements. We are not voting for the person we think is the most religious, we’re voting for people to represent us in the government and there’s nothing about being religious that qualifies someone to govern. You can verify a candidates factual, biographical, and historical claims. You cannot know if anyone will be judged worthy to enter Gods kingdom because you’re not God. Believing in God doesn’t make you God… not even close, even I know that. If you make religion your only electoral criteria you create a party that’s a magnate for sociopaths and con-men because they know all they have to do is tell you what you want to hear, and such people tend to be very convincing liars.
Neal R (#9) — Mr. Hammond is campaigning with and for Michele Bachmann and has openly endorsed her candidacy.
Has he at last gone far enough to lose for his church the tax-exampt status he now enjoys, I wonder?
If you make class warfare your only electoral criteria you create a party that’s a magnate for sociopaths and con-men because they know all they have to do is tell you what you want to hear, and such people tend to be very convincing liars.
If you make sexual preference your only electoral criteria you create a party that’s a magnate for sociopaths and con-men because they know all they have to do is tell you what you want to hear, and such people tend to be very convincing liars.
If you make organized labor your only electoral criteria you create a party that’s a magnate for sociopaths and con-men because they know all they have to do is tell you what you want to hear, and such people tend to be very convincing liars.
If you make race and gender your only electoral criteria you create a party that’s a magnate for sociopaths and con-men because they know all they have to do is tell you what you want to hear, and such people tend to be very convincing liars.
The world is full of convincing liars telling us what we want to hear. What’s new under the sun?
I don’t want a theocracy anymore than the most virulent secular humanist. But someone’s religious faith, and their practise of it tells us a lot about how a person will use political power.
Jimmy Carter is known as one of the most hapless Presidents we’ve ever had. In office, and after, he clearly let his religious faith guide his actions. In office that caused indecision which led to inaction when issues that challenged his morality demanded his attention; out of office, where he can choose what demands his attention he’s an international rock star of humanitarian causes.
Michele Bachmann is no less genuine in the practise of her faith, but where Carter’s faith paralyzed him, Bachmann’s practise includes a fearless willingness to put her faith into action.
I don’t agree with Bachmann’s dogma, but the moral code it concludes with suits me to a tee. I think, looked at honestly, it is that moral code, not the dogma, or her lack of experience (You just elected a community organizer for God’s sake!) leftists are so afraid of.
“Oh, I get it. Like “Global Warming.”
#16, you seem to have overlooked the part about “lack of evidence.”
#13, I disdain to spell disdain as “distain.” Willful ignorance is ugly.