Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
I can’t believe we’re still talking about Rep. Michele Bachmann and wifely submission, but let’s review a little bit before we can hopefully move on from the topic.
To quickly recap, Bachmann was asked during the debate in Iowa:
In 2006, when you were running for Congress, you described a moment in your life when your husband said you should study for a degree in tax law. You said you hated the idea, and then you explained: ‘But the Lord said, be submissive. Wives, you are to be submissive to your husband.’ As president, would you be submissive to your husband?
Last week, I wrote that I felt the question during the debate in Iowa for Bachmann was not completely irrelevant, since she brought it up in the past. However, if the question had been framed differently (“Some evangelicals believe that wives should be submissive to their husbands. Will you be submissive to your husband?”), it would have pretty strange. If you aren’t familiar with the biblical passages on submission, it can sound a little odd, but “submission” can manifests itself very differently for various couples.
Please do not misunderstand me: I am not in defend-anyone-mode, including York or Bachmann. We are purely interested in how the media covers religion and politics and what kinds of questions are being raised as a result of that coverage.
Some reporters are still eager to learn more about this area of submission in Bachmann’s personal life, so it seems appropriate to revisit this area. Stephen A. highlighted further GR discussion in a comment about MSNBC’s Meet the Press interview between David Gregory and Bachmann:
Did anyone catch the Meet the Press interview with Rep. Bachmann Sunday?
Host David Gregory tried to get her to say (and strongly implied that) she “heard voices” (ala schizophrenia) because she had earlier admitted she had “listened” to God’s will when choosing a career and running for public office.
Talk about NOT getting religion!
I don’t share her beliefs and am not likely to support her politically but as a reporter, I would NEVER be so ignorant of religion that I’d ask such a thing in that way.
Yes, this interview is fairly stressful for people who are eager to see journalists covering religion in politics in a fair and balanced manner. Let’s start with the beginning of the portion on faith and beliefs.
MR. GREGORY: From the economy, I want to move on to another topic that’s deeply meaningful and important to you, and that’s your faith in God. This is something that not only motivates you as a person, inspires you as you try to live a virtuous life, but it’s also been very important to your political identity as well. And I want to ask you about, not only the role God plays in, in your life but to what extent he’s a motivator for decisions that you make.
Let’s discuss this line of questioning. It comes across that though having something outside of yourself possibly motivating and influencing your beliefs and actions would be absolutely nuts. Perhaps we should recall some of our current president’s words earlier this year at the National Prayer Breakfast.
“When I wake in the morning, I wait on the Lord, I ask him to give me the strength to do right by our country and our people,” Obama said. “And when I go to bed at night, I wait on the Lord and I ask him to forgive me my sins and to look after my family and to make me an instrument of the Lord.”
Obama also plugged Charity: Water and its founder, Scott Harrison, saying, “That’s the kind of faith that moves mountains.”
Of course, Obama’s faith and Bachmann’s faith may play out very differently in terms of policy, but we probably should not be terribly shocked that a person leading our nation seeks a higher power.
Gregory does go into the submission angle, playing the 2006 clip without offering any context.
MR. GREGORY: Is that your view for women in America? Is that your vision for them?
Why would Gregory think that because Bachmann chooses to be submissive to her husband that it would be her vision for all women in America? What we need to recognize is that Bachmann was speaking at the Living Word Church in Brooklyn Park, Minn., back in 2006. You need this piece of info to understand that she was speaking to a particular audience that might already refer to a certain set of shared beliefs before you jump into the question about whether that might influence her if she became president. Bachmann gave the same answer she gave in the debate, which is that she and her husband respect each other.
MR. GREGORY: But you said that Gald — God called me to run for Congress. God has said certain things about, you know, going to law school, about pursuing other decisions in your life. There’s a difference between God as a sense of comfort and safe harbor and inspiration, and God telling you to take a particular action.
There’s a warm and fuzzy faith that we many of us can get behind but suddenly if a candidate feels called to pursuing a particular career path, that’s going too far?
The rest of the interview focuses on the same kinds of question on her views about gay couples and qualified candidates for the judicial system or her administration, if she won the election. The questioning goes around and around in circles and doesn’t seem to advance anything new, since Bachmann continues her line, “I’m not judging. I’m running for the presidency of the United States.” Maybe if Gregory found more original questions that other reporters haven’t already picked over, he might have uncovered more interesting answers.
MR. GREGORY: One last one on this. Can a gay couple with — who adopt children in your mind be considered a family?
REP. BACHMANN: When it comes to marriage and family, my opinion is that marriage is between a man and a woman. And I think that’s, that’s been my view, and I think that’s important.
MR. GREGORY: So a gay couple with kids would not be considered a family to you?
Perhaps voters as less interested in her personal views about whether a gay couple is considered “a family,” but how that manifests itself into policy. As president, for instance, would she attempt to do anything on the federal level on adoption and gay couples?
Back to the beginning of the subject, asking about wifely submission was OK (a little silly, but okay) for about two minutes and has provoked some interesting discussion and introspection about marriage, but we need to move on — quickly, before we forget that there are many, many other issues to discuss.
So, what kinds of questions are you looking for from the candidates as it relates to religion and politics?
 | Posted at 3:46 pm |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (13) |
August 16, 2011, at 5:11 pm
The kind of pc questions Gregory asks comes from a deep and disturbing bias about people who take religion seriously. Gregory might profitably have explored the relationship between her religious beliefs and her espousal of certain social policies. He might have asked her how she reconciles her belief in the Gospel of Jesus Christ with her votes in Congress on health care, the transfer of resources from the poor to the rich, taxation and other matters. Such questions have been noticeably absent. But I have given up on media types asking intelligent questions about religion and politicians. Even Christianity Today’s interviews with candidates have given us nothing but the most superficial understanding of the politicians and their “religion”.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
12 
7
August 16, 2011, at 5:27 pm
Thanks, Dan. Super encouraging. How about you help us think about how you would exactly ask those kinds of questions so they don’t seem out of the blue.
Hot debate. What do you think?
6 
8
August 16, 2011, at 6:16 pm
Since many reporters are not interested in covering Bachmann in a fair manner, why would we expect them to cover her religion in a fair manner?
Hot debate. What do you think?
11 
13
August 16, 2011, at 6:31 pm
Questions on religion and policy should be kept completely separate—otherwise you are setting up a religious test for public office—a real constitutional no-no (although some people like Gregory don’t seem to be able to find a way to separate the two when questioning candidates who are known to be believers.)
On the other hand, it is candidates who are being bought, sold, and delivered by secular organizations who should be grilled on their ethical and ideological ties to such organizations—-and that is constitutional. But how often does the media dig as deeply along these lines as it does when it comes to looking for a place to stick a knife in the back of a religious person????
Hot debate. What do you think?
11 
14
August 16, 2011, at 7:03 pm
Two things, Deacon:
First, religious tests for public office are a constitutional no-no; but a reporter asking questions of a religious nature to a candidate isn’t it. Religious tests are laws (sometimes in the form of loyalty oaths) prohibiting people outside of certain religious faith(s) from attaining elected office.
Second, when you ask about candidates “who are being bought, sold, and being delivered by secular organizations” what do you mean by secular organizations here? Are you referring to organizations that are simply non-religious or organizations who are looking to keep the government secular (free from religious influence)? Can you provide examples where candidates are being endorsed (whether overtly or not) by controversial secular organizations and the media is not questioning those candidates?
Thanks!
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
13 
8
August 16, 2011, at 7:54 pm
What about candidates—like Bachmann and many others—whose religion shapes their policies and their character? And who claim their particular religious beliefs make them qualified to be president? Should reporters ignore them?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
20 
6
August 16, 2011, at 11:05 pm
Rep. Bachmann was speaking about being submissive to her husband by virtue of her status as a political leader, and she has continued with numerous similar pronouncements to promote her political career among the Christian right.
Of course it’s legitimate to ask her to explain what Ms. Bachmann means by saying she submitted to her husband’s urging that she take a job with the IRS as an attorney. Her response that submission really — as a biblical term — means respect was, what, evasive? disingenuous? misleading? distorted? a naked falsehood? Nowhere in that account did she describe anything that sounds like her husband’s respect for her many objections to his idea for her career choice.
Uses of the Greek word hupotasso (submit) do not in the New Testament or its contemporary literature mean mutual, reciprocal respect. That’s just a made up meaning of convenience, very handy for Ms. Bachmann’s political purposes but unrelated to biblical usage.
Since Michele Bachmann has chosen to use her religion as a tool (weapon?) for her political advancement, she’s going to have to be held accountable for honest, legitimate, and consistent theological understanding. So far, not so good.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
16 
9
August 16, 2011, at 11:40 pm
It’s not like the woman doesn’t have a legislative record: how has her idea of submission worked so far?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
10 
4
August 17, 2011, at 10:11 am
The whole “submission” question, as generally asked, is so out of context as to be meaningless. There are far more interesting questions about church/state relationships arising out her education and history that deserve to be asked, and would be more relevant to the position she seeks.
Like or Dislike:
4 
3
August 17, 2011, at 1:49 pm
Mike O. I had in mind organizations like Planned Parenthood which gets gobs of tax -payer money to do what millions of Americas object to. And rarely does the media do anything but side with PP and their political cronies. In fact if some investigators bring out how bad PP is run, the messengers get savagely attacked in the media instead of the media doing some real digging and investigative reporting of their own.
And there are certainly ways a competent reporter can ask public policy questions of a candidate without turning an interview into an inquisition on the candidate’s religion. It shouldn’t matter what a person’s religion is, but on where he or she stands on each and every public policy issue that may come up and how they have voted in legislatures or acted as governors.
A candidate or party can be virtually married to and fully financed by a George Soros these days (in the last presidential cycle he even terrorized Dem candidates into not going to a scheduled nationally televised debate -that then had to be cancelled.) But mention religion and out come the long knives and a long list of “gotcha” questions.
Hot debate. What do you think?
5 
10
August 17, 2011, at 10:11 pm
I took this question by Gregory: “God has said certain things about, you know, going to law school, about pursuing other decisions in your life. There’s a difference between God as a sense of comfort and safe harbor and inspiration, and God telling you to take a particular action” to be the sort of bewildered thing people who don’t know certain kinds of Christians really don’t understand. If you don’t pray at all, you think that people who pray and ask God to direct them are hearing little voices that they must obey robotically. If you do pray, but you pray a different way — as a Catholic, for instance, I don’t pray that way — you may have to get to know people who do before you understand them. I once explained to a Jewish friend that a neighbor of mine never spoke a sentence that didn’t include “putting something before God,” or “God put it into my heart to do this,” and so on — and that she wasn’t crazy!!
I think it would come as a shock to many people that there are LARGE numbers of Americans who talk, think, and pray that way. These media people think they know “how things are,” but the truth is most of them only associate with other people like themselves. They don’t know what to make of their fellow citizens.
Hot debate. What do you think?
6 
5
August 19, 2011, at 12:06 pm
Gail,
Maybe they don’t know “what to make of their fellow citizens” because those fellow citizens refuse to explain themselves. Take Bachmann’s statements that homosexuality is “part of Satan”, and is “personal bondage”. How are her fellow citizens to understand these words as something other than what they appear to mean, if she refuses to explain?
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
August 21, 2011, at 11:13 am
You are all missing the point. The questioning by the press is merited because their is a distinct separation of church and state. If you are going to be 100% influenced in your version of religion, then you are going to be against all others that do not beleif in your religion. Also, the press is smelling that she is being a hypocrite when she is using God as her ticket to the White House. This should make us all mad that she is using the Lords name in vain. She is running to represent the United States and that includes all christians, muslims, jewish, agnostics and atheist. Let her run on actual policy rather than piggy backing on God.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0