Bachmann’s faith takes center stage at Liberty University

Michele Bachmann meets with students before giving an address at Liberty University.
Photo courtesy of Liberty University
Michele Bachmann meets with students before giving an address at Liberty University.

Comments (22)

  1. Submitted by Tim Walker on 09/28/2011 - 01:52 pm.

    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.

  2. Submitted by Paul Udstrand on 09/28/2011 - 02:23 pm.

    Hello, there’s no area of Backmann’s life where her faith doesn’t take center stage.

  3. Submitted by Thomas Swift on 09/28/2011 - 05:00 pm.

    “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"...

  4. Submitted by Dennis Tester on 09/28/2011 - 06:16 pm.

    “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.

  5. Submitted by Rachel Kahler on 09/28/2011 - 06:46 pm.

    @#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.

  6. Submitted by Jon Kingstad on 09/28/2011 - 08:40 pm.

    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.

  7. Submitted by Dennis Tester on 09/28/2011 - 08:47 pm.

    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.

  8. Submitted by Richard Schulze on 09/29/2011 - 06:55 am.

    Ugh, just arm these evangelical warriors with swords and send them off to the Levant already.

  9. Submitted by Neal Rovick on 09/29/2011 - 07:33 am.

    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..

  10. Submitted by Richard Schulze on 09/29/2011 - 07:39 am.

    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.

  11. Submitted by Paul Udstrand on 09/29/2011 - 08:33 am.

    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.

  12. Submitted by Beryl John-Knudson on 09/29/2011 - 08:48 am.

    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.

  13. Submitted by Thomas Swift on 09/29/2011 - 09:06 am.

    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’.

  14. Submitted by Rachel Kahler on 09/29/2011 - 10:17 am.

    @ 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.

  15. Submitted by Paul Udstrand on 09/29/2011 - 11:53 am.

    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.

  16. Submitted by Dennis Tester on 09/29/2011 - 12:50 pm.

    “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”

  17. Submitted by Paul Udstrand on 09/29/2011 - 02:19 pm.

    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.

  18. Submitted by Jan Menke on 09/29/2011 - 05:53 pm.

    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.

  19. Submitted by Paul Udstrand on 09/29/2011 - 07:42 pm.

    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.

  20. Submitted by Bernice Vetsch on 09/29/2011 - 07:46 pm.

    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?

  21. Submitted by Thomas Swift on 09/30/2011 - 08:58 am.

    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.

  22. Submitted by will lynott on 09/30/2011 - 07:42 pm.

    “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.

Leave a Reply