Saturday, August 20, 2011

Revising America - Bachmann Style

There are few things more disheartening to me than to see people of the Christian faith attach themselves to the bandwagon(s) of political candidates for no reason other than having heard a candidate spout a couple of religious buzzwords. A candidate mentions "faith" or "family values", or in some cases "pro-life", and voters/potential voters are ready to hitch up to them for the long haul - with no idea what those words actually mean to the candidate, and no idea what motivates the candidate's ideas on faith.

I hate our current presidential primary process. I'm of the opinion that it doesn't yield an electable candidate from ANY party these days. Every word and move of the candidate is scrutinized, with mass media at every turn, from the pros, to the tabloid crowd, to Joe the Plumber types with hand-held cameras and video-phones, to bloggers like yours truly (even though I don't do a lot of politics here). Any and every shred of honesty, dignity, and integrity is ground out of a person when they always have to be "on" - trying to please and appease just enough of the audience, issuing enough vague but tasty soundbites, non-denial denials, forward-thinking backpedals, half-truths and whole lies to get themselves elected. Playing to their base, but trying to do so in such a way as to not play to their base and appear appealing to the other side and the all-important "swing voter" segment.

Much of the conservative sector of Christianity is likely to attach itself to candidates like Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry, being lured in by the "pro-life" aura of both, swayed by Bachmann's use of words like "godly" and "submissive" *wink*, failing to see past the religiosity of those words to the core of what she's driven by, and swayed by Perry promoting notions like "public schools should teach creationism" without thinking of the ramifications of the idea. Where the rubber meets the road, more professing Christians are worried about their culture, and the promotion thereof, than their faith, and the promotion thereof...and such gives rise to the dangers of fundamentalist Christianity.

For any of the readers here who may be near to jumping on the Bachmann bandwagon, you should seriously consider what's said in this interview about Bachmann's religious beliefs - and their source. Please watch, and consider, what's said in the video there. She's a P/QF whackadoodle, influenced by hyper-fundamentalist cultural "Christians" (read: cultic nutjobs) like Francis Schaeffer and Rousas Rushdoony.

I think Frank Schaeffer is spot on in the above interview. Despite draping themselves in the American flag, people like Bachmann (and Perry) loathe America as it exists today. They want to change practically everything about it that doesn't fit within a narrow, fundamentalist view of what American society should be, and I agree with Schaeffer that if the hyper-fundamentalists have their way, America would look something more like a "Christian" version of modern day Iran than anything the founding fathers ever envisioned (a theme I've consistently harped on from the beginning of this blog). I'm no fan of the absolute power of judges in our judicial system, but I'm an absolute enemy to any political or judicial system where judges are accountable to religious rulers or religious law. That isn't freedom in any fashion.

From the link on Rushdoony above...

"The purpose of regeneration is that man reconstruct all things in conformity to God's order, not in terms of man's desire for peace," Rushdoony warned in his Institutes of Biblical Law. "This purpose and mission involves law and coercion."
Let me repeat all of this in easy to understand words – Rushdoony believed that his system would be based on violence and coercion, not the ballot box.
Apparently the 1988 Bill Moyers video 'God and Politics: On Earth as it is in Heaven' states that Rushdoony believed that the bible identified 15 crimes against the family worthy of the death penalty.
In fact, we have been unable to find such as list (at least based wholly on Rushdoony’s statements alone. From what we can see with the turgid prose and mediaeval theology of The Institutes of Biblical Law, it seems highly likely that that 15 cases could be inferred from Rushdoony’s work.
The late Greg Bahnsan, an Orthodox Presbyterian minister and follower of Rushdoony, listed fifteen crimes that deserve capital punishment in the Reconstructed society. These included murder, rape, sodomy, Sabbath breaking, apostasy, witchcraft, blasphemy and incorrigibility in children.
Rushdoony told Bill Moyers in 1988 that "The Bible identifies 15 crimes against the family worthy of the death penalty. Abortion is treason against the family and deserves the death penalty. Adultery is treason to the family; adulterers should be put to death. Homosexuality is treason to the family, and it too, is worthy of death." (R.J. Rushdoony, to Bill Moyers on television. From a PBS Home Video: God and Politics: On Earth as it is in Heaven, 1988.)
These are the ideas of the people who've influenced Bachmann. Rushdoony himself is considered the originator of many, maybe most, of the modern P/QF ideas, or at a minimum, responsible for the original ideas (worship of the nuclear family unit/authority-submission concepts/neo-conservative homeschooling) that the whackadoodles who succeeded him built upon.

Bachmann was asked about being submissive to her husband during the FoxNews Republican candidate debate on August 11th. She's yet to directly answer that question. Anyone in her campaign with any political savvy knows that if she answers that question honestly and directly, she has NO chance to win the election. Hence, you get half-truths, deflections, and rabbit trails about "respect". The fact of the matter is, few of us feel that someone who can't even lead within her own home is qualified to be the Leader of the Free World.  As you can see, the "submission" issue is already grinding the honesty and integrity (assuming some exists) right out of her.
Her views on homosexuality are downright ignorant. From the link...

Bachmann and her husband, Marcus Bachmann, run a Christian counseling business that offers "reparative" therapy for homosexuality, which backers believe can "cure" people of being gay. Marcus Bachmann stressed that the facility only offers "reparative" therapy if a client requests that type of treatment.


At the rate she's already dodging and weaving her way around tough questions with non-answers, at the rate she shifts and forms her words and answers based on the pulse of the audience, she may spontaneously combust from lack of integrity before the primary process even gets kicked off.

But at least she's been entertaining...

Those remarks were uttered on August 16th...the 34th anniversary of Elvis' death.

If you decide to vote for this woman, don't say you weren't warned. Her America of choice looks nothing like America as we know it, nor does it resemble any America that's ever existed anywhere outside of the narrow minds and revised history of fundamentalist Christianity.


  1. All these right wingers are scary. Hopefully, the right is fractured with GOP, TEA, and LIB that none of them stand a snowball's chance in Hell.

    Funny ow she is QF/P when not a single adherent of that philosophy will even think of voting for her!

    Obama 2012...he needs to ball up, but at least he will not strip women of their rights (I am not talking about abortion, here) and respects the fact that we are a nation of varied beliefs and all have equal rights! He cares about the poor- he just needs to grow a spine and take care of them!

  2. Even scarier than Bachmann (because she is easy to think of as some sort of Lone Ranger right-wingnut in Congress) is how many people with extremist "fringe" Christian connections are governors, congressmen/women, and Washington "advisors" of repute. A Rushdooney-style coup d'etat is not that far-fetched and we could easily be living with our own Christian Taliban legally ensconced in power. How have so many people already been elected into these positions?

  3. I am so sick of these far right wingers thinking they can force they're religion on everybody else. I am a christian, but I also know that alot of people out there aren't. Why should they be forcefed my beliefs? God gave us all a choice, and if they decide to do take him, that is their problem. I can let my religion show in what I do and what I say, but I should not be forcing it on others who choose not to partake. Religion should stay out of government period.

  4. How have so many people already been elected into these positions?

    My opinion - Naive voters reacting to buzzwords and culturally driven fear-mongering.

    You're right. It isn't all that far-fetched.

  5. I don't think anyone takes her seriously. She just gets attention because she's a woman and because she's controversial (the "Marriage Vow," etc.) Also, she's from Iowa, so we have to expect a lot of publicity right now.

  6. I am amazed at how anyone can read words like "The Bible identifies 15 crimes against the family worthy of the death penalty. Abortion is treason against the family and deserves the death penalty. Adultery is treason to the family; adulterers should be put to death. Homosexuality is treason to the family, and it too, is worthy of death" and not see the inherent idolatry. Nowhere is God mentioned in that paragraph. The things mentioned are presented as a sin against the almighty family, not against God. Sometimes I wonder which one people actually end up worshiping...

  7. @Joi...With my ex's family, there was no question. While "God" got some lip service, there were any number of things - family, human father, the bible, among others - which were the genuine objects and entities of worship. No question about it.

  8. That's an interesting point you bring up about Bachmann. I did not realize that she was connected to the P/QF movement in some way. That makes me wary of voting for her. Prior to reading this post, I was thinking of voting for her. But now I will scrutinize that idea more. I definitely do not want someone in office that goes beyond what the Bible says regarding how men and women relate to one another, etc. I wonder if she really is P/QF because from what I hear about the movement, she should not even have authority much less be President of the United States.

  9. I can just imagine the predicament and arguments this candidate provokes in the p/qf circles.

    "But she's a woman, we can not vote for her!"
    "But she's under submission to her husband."
    "Then why isn't her husband running instead?"
    "Good question. But maybe we'll have to bend a bit on this one. Because she IS under her husband, so we'd kinda just be voting for him."
    "Hmm... good point."
    "And look at all she, I mean he, stands for! This is the man! We need him in the office to save America."
    "But we'd be voting for a woman..."
    "I know..."

  10. Until a few weeks ago, Michelle Bachmann and her husband were members of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS). I am a member of WELS and I also briefly attended a Vision Forum home church.

    WELS and Vision Forum both advocate the idea of complementarism, which means that men and women are supposed to have different but complementary roles. Women in WELS are not allowed to vote or hold any position of authority.

    But the orthodox Lutheran doctrine of WELS is very different from the Calvinistic/reconstructionist doctrine of Vision Forum and their allies. WELS does not advocate dominionism, teaches that Christians must submit to all civic authorities and makes no political endorsements. Nor does WELS advocate the quiverful doctrine.

    Michelle Bachmann and her husband recently resigned from WELS so she could run for office. Being a WELS member became a political embarrassment for her because it teaches that the Pope is the antichrist. This doctrine is not emphasized and I have never heard it mentioned in church, but it can be found somewhere in the WELS literature and some enterprising reporters found it.

  11. I'm surprised her husband allows her to run for president considering that she's a woman. i agree with one of the comments at the top that the people she's trying to get votes from (QF/P) wouldn't be caught dead voting for a woman.

  12. Lewis.

    I'm going to need some more information here. As far as I can see, there are three main points from that interview that you derive your conclusions from:

    1. Michelle stated that she submitted to her husband in 2006.

    So, one had to go back five years to find some statement that a stupid politician spewed forth while pandering to her base at a church in Minneapolis, Minnesota. What's more, she was pandering to her base then, and subsequently pandered to the mainstream America at the Iowa debate.

    2. That she loves Francis Schaeffer based on a quote about a documentary.

    From this, you and Frank derive that she swallows everything Schaeffer says.

    3. Her husband runs an anti-gay clinic.

    I can't argue with this one. I don't like her stance on gay marriage whatsoever.

    But, what gets me is really number 1 and most of 2.

    She was pandering to her base, acting like a slithery politician, which I'm confident she is. Then, she pandered to others in the debate. So, why do we hang on her initial pander and then call her second pander a lie? Might it be the other way around? If she was truly P/QF, there is no way in hell she would be running for office. Not a chance. Her misogynistic husband would do it himself. He would also not allow her to go to law school.

    Something is wrong with these conclusions that Frank Schaeffer is making. They are flimsy at best. Sure, the first two I mentioned, if talked about by Bachmann ad nauseum, would cause me some serious concern, but a few stupid remarks to pander to whatever group she is pandering to does not.

    I freaking lie to people in my past to pretend that I am like them so that I can sit through a breakfast with no tension.

    One day, I wish that we can elect statesmen rather than politicians. Yes, a statesman would be one that tells people what he believes EVEN IF he knows that he is speaking to those that would disagree with him. Someone honest and truthful. Not a chameleon. Michelle Bachmann is not that. She is a politician. And, just like all politicians, I despise her for it.

  13. Bachmann is very scary, yes, but almost more scary is Perry, because he has a greater chance of actually winning than Bachmann and he holds essentially the same views as she does in just about everything.

  14. @Joe...I tend to think that her statement given to her church is more indicative of her true core belief (with the view on homosexuality serving as evidence), and her recent comments in regard to it where we see the politician in her coming out.

    Being influenced by Schaeffer's film and by the ideas of people like him may not define the entirety of who she is, but it does show us that, at least in one significant area, Bachmann lacks in spiritual and social/cultural discernment - and that's enough for me to be queasy with her in public service.

    @Libby...What scares me the most is, when looking at the current group of goofballs, my money would be on Perry to be our next POTUS. It isn't that every idea he's promoting is bad (I like some of his ideas about federal court appointees), but he's got a lot of weird religious and cultural baggage that sometimes brings to mind people like Dabney and the LotS. I actually see him more closely tied to a group like VF than Bachmann - if for no other reason than they'd accept and endorse him due to gender.

  15. Not to mention, Perry is chums with Bill Gothard and IHOP.

  16. @ Lewis, my first thought when Perry announced (other than what a two-faced liar, slippery snake he is based on this: and other inconsistencies...)

    Now the QF/P vote will go to Perry; Palin and Bachmann are not needed now that a man has stepped up to do the job.

    Isn't that the party line of QF/Pers about Deborah and Barak? God only used Deborah because no man would step up. Well, Rick Perry has the right DNA, so Palin and Bachman should turn over their war chests to him and start waving signs on his behalf now.


  17. "
    Now the QF/P vote will go to Perry; Palin and Bachmann are not needed now that a man has stepped up to do the job.

    Isn't that the party line of QF/Pers about Deborah and Barak? God only used Deborah because no man would step up. Well, Rick Perry has the right DNA, so Palin and Bachman should turn over their war chests to him and start waving signs on his behalf now."

    I've thought the same thing! All their "Deborah" talk and all. Bachmann was very popular, but as soon as Perry announced he took most of her supporters immediately (at least, this is the impression I've gotten).

  18. Perry is probably gonna soak up all of the religious vote away from Bachmann and any of the others counting on the evangelical vote. You guys are right - he irons out all of the doctrinal/gender wrinkles.

    He's got a lot going for him politically, superficially and otherwise. He looks presidential, his "Help Me Kickstart My Campaign With a Solid Evangelical Base" event disguised as a "prayer rally" was a shrewd manuever - especially the timing. And...he has all the right power connections (he's a Bilderberger).

    With a weak incumbent POTUS, I see the GOP rallying around him eventually. If they can get the Oval Office - and in this cycle it's ripe for the picking (barring a miracle)- I don't see the GOP offering up a sacrificial lamb like they did with Dole in '96, but rather uniting behind a strong candidate, which I'm afraid Perry may prove to be.

    All the more reason for me to re-register as an Independent.

  19. So. Who do you like in any of the fields? I'm a Chris Christie man, myself. He's not running though. He'd make a good VPOTUS.

  20. I really don't know. I may end up writing in Pat Paulson ;)

  21. I don't think I am going to vote this year... Read this from a friend.

    "I had a customer come in yesterday for a repair job and he shared some of his thoughts about voting, elections, and politics in general. Was pretty interesting. He quit voting a long time ago because he saw the trend where the person who spends the most money tends to win. He figures that instead of voting, the best way to get a candidate elected is to send them money(he doesn't make any political contributions). He quit complaining or following politics quite some time ago and said he feels much better for it. He made alot of valid points including one about how elections have become a business in themselves. Another point was made as to the futility of electing any candidate because there are only basicly 2 types of people running for office. One type seeks socialism or even communism with themselves as the head(democrats), while the other seeks merely to advance their personal fortune and the fortunes of their other "party" members(republicans). He said the other parties are merely allowed to exist to give the whole election the illusion of being something it really isn't. i spent about an hour and a half researching a few things he said. Actually seems to be pretty spot on. He looks at it as a source of amusement now. I also checked into him a bit. He appears to have been a successfull business man. Been retired for a long time."

    Profound I believe.

  22. Bachmann is the new Palin, imo. My guess is that the Tea Party had Palin all set to go in case Bachmann imploded before the Iowa straw poll. When she did well in it, they decided to go with her and Palin got the boot. But I don't doubt for a second that, had Bachmann bombed in Iowa, Sarah Palin's tour bus (which was conveniently located in IA at the time) would have been immediately draped in a flag and she'd have been stumping out in front of it.

    Perry's a total fraud. We lived in TX for 8 years under his governorship and he's suuuuuch a politician. Says whatever one group wants to hear and then turns around and agrees with an opposing one. Happened all the time. He's not pro-life, he's not by any means conservative, and if he's the republican candidate, there's not a chance in hell he'll win. The media would have a field day comparing him to Bush.

    /my $.02 ;)


  23. I'm pro-life and vote that way. But there's no way in hell I'd vote for either of those two crazies. How are they even elected officials in the first place? Is there really such a dearth of quality candidates that they were the lesser of two evils?!

  24. There is so much more to women's reproductive freedom than just the abortion issue. I am pro life and also very passionate about reproductive freedom. Ironically, Roe v. Wade has been used to deny women reproductive freedom.....The idea is that if a woman does not choose abortion, she is consenting in advance to anything deemed "needed" by her baby. Now we have the "pregnancy police," which is a great example of the meaning or irony.

    I'm going to stop my rant now before I burst a blood vessel.