home
RSS
August 15th, 2011
04:31 PM ET

Your Take: Bachmann on wifely submission

By Eric Marrapodi, CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor

(CNN)– On Friday we posted a story about U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann responding to a question about a biblical admonition for wives to be submissive to their husbands during Thursday's Republican presidential debate. The question drew boos from the audience. Bachmann replied by saying that she loved and respected her husband.

The very fact she got the question has drawn lots of attention from the media. It also has a lot of people talking about the meaning of the biblical passage about submission that appears in the fifth chatper of Ephesians.

Byron York, the Washington Examiner columnist who posed the question, has taken a lot of heat.

In a Monday column, Bork explained why he asked it.  Bachmann had talked about submitting to her husband in a 2006 stump speech at a church while she was running for Congress.  The clip went viral in 2006 when it was picked up by anti-Bachmann opponents.

York prefaced his question at the debate by citing the 2006 speech, in which she talked about continuing her education at her husband's urging and paraphrased Ephesians 5.  In his column he wrote about the role of the 2006 speech in provoking his question:

But Bachmann's statement - in public, on stage, microphone in hand, in the context of a political campaign - raised a legitimate question.  What role does her husband play in her performance in public office?  With that in mind, I asked Bachmann this question...

York noted in his column that his question opened the flood gates for others to query Bachmann about biblical submission. On Sunday, following her win in the Ames, Iowa straw poll, Bachmann was asked about submission to her husband on "Meet the Press."

Over at RealClearReligion Jeffery Weiss wrote that Bachmann "should submit a different answer," suggesting her answer at the debate was evasive.

It's wonderful that she's got a happy marriage filled with mutual respect. That kind of deep and mutual respect is surely part of the Ephesians equation. But when push comes to shove, when does she hear the call of God when her husband speaks? And what happens if the call comes in at 3 a.m.?

On Salon.com, Sarah Posner, wrote that the submission question had as much to do with who would be calling the shots in the White House were Bachmann to be elected as it had to do with the Congresswoman's faith.

It’s common for Christian politicians questioned about their adherence to submission theology to dodge a scriptural explanation, as Bachmann did. After all, while dominionist-minded evangelicals like Bachmann intentionally set out to bring their "biblical worldview" into politics, they recognize that it’s bad 21st century politics - especially for a female candidate - to admit to a theology that could cause the same gasps and boos from voters who would recoil at the image of an obedient wife as president of the United States.

Our Friday piece generated over 1,600 comments that contained a lot of strong opinions on the matter. Lots of commenters wrang their hands at what they saw as violation of the separation of church and state:

Jair
Bachmann has spoken of the importance of her faith to a degree where it must be examined. Also, this BS about "submission" meaning something different today is not accurate. My mother is a 60 yr old christian. She is submissive to my father, due to both religion and culture. If she were elected, my father would really make the final call. That is the issue at hand. Is Bachmann submissive to her husband, to the effect that electing her would by proxy be electing her husband. Current translations of the Bible mean nothing. What does Michelle Bachmann believe or how does she intend to act on a policy?

Denise
I really would like to see a clearer line drawn between church and state. The question is: As a candidate, and if she holds a higher office, can she separate church and state, or are her religious values so predominant in her life that she cannot make decisions for citizens without having her faith take priority. Every President, and any leader for free citizens, for that matter, need to make decisions that are not faith-based. Can she do that? I am not so sure, but the question applies to all candidates.

And there was plenty of debate about the meaning of the word "submissive."

MTATL67
SUBMISSIVE – characterized by tendencies to yield to the will or authority of others
RESPECT – The condition of being esteemed or honored
Yes, yes I see how the definition of these two words are the same and interchangeable.
Typical politician BS say something without actually saying anything at all.
She did not answer a damn thing.

w w
Ms. Bachmann answered in the correct way. It is society and culture that has changed the perception of 'Submission' into something negative. Submission is Respect, whether to your spouse, an employer, the law, an educator, a superior officer, etc.
It is unfortunate that candidates who have declared themselves to be of Evangelical faith are being targeted by these types of questions. It would be informative and more encompassing, if moderators in future debates would ask questions pertaining to Judaism, Mormonism, Islam or other belief systems. If they ask of one, they should ask of all.

Martin T
What Michele is saying is "the bible is the inerrant word of God, except when I say it isn't" And, isn't that so typical of the Christian response to these types of questions. Believe what the bible says, but only to the point that I interpret it. Use the words when they can be used to strike fear or make a point against someone, then interpret them when they don't agree with your current situation.

The fact question was brought up all also generated some spirited debate.

eightoeight
The question may seem stupid to some, but the fact that Bachmann has strongly identified herself as a Christian and seems to use her faith as a cornerstone of her campaign makes me wonder how much of an influence her husband would be if she were elected as President. I think her answer was as good as she could have given, but what actually goes on behind closed doors is another matter.

TexasCentrist
It's all non sequitur anyway. Arguing about whether she is consistent with the Bible is pointless given that it's all interpretation anyway. If religion were based on fact, don't you think God could manage to make his intentions clear? The idea that He could be so enigmatic and we have to figure out the ambiguities is ridiculous.

Jasie
I don't understand why people assume that if you vote for Bachmann then you're voting for her husband too. She's a woman in the modern day, not the sixties or ancient times.

If that's the way some people want to think, for all you know, Michelle could be calling the shots.

What are your thoughts about the submission question, Bachmann's answer, and the coverage that followed?

- CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor

Filed under: Belief • Bible • Christianity • Church and state • Michele Bachmann • Politics

soundoff (205 Responses)
  1. anonymous

    While I agree that Rep. Bachmann's answer was somewhat brief, I think we must look at the fact that she had a very short time to answer, and that she answered it well in the limited time she had. I think the point she is trying to make is that within their marriage Rep. Bachmann submits by respecting her husband as the leader (especially spiritually) of the family, but that does not mean that her husband tells her what to do all the time, especially in politics. It's clear that Rep. Bachmann has very strong opinions, beliefs, and political views of her own, and makes her own policy decisions. When she's on the floor of the House, or out campaigning, we don't see her husband whispering what her next move or word or policy decision should be in her ear or any other such nonsense. It appears that the two are very similar in their beliefs and have a special way that they relate to each other, founded on and culminating in a complete respect for each other within their marriage. If this makes their marriage stronger, it will probably make her service to the people of the United States stronger. Dysfunctional marriages we have seen time and time again cause division and scandal that hurt our government's effectiveness. While I understand the hesitation of those that don't share Rep. Bachmann's passionate faith and conservative views on marriage, I think they should see them as a strong moral foundation, and a source of energy and strength, not a distraction. She stands by what she believes is right, which I think is important in government.

    August 15, 2011 at 7:47 pm |
    • LinCA

      @anonymous

      You said "While I agree that Rep. Bachmann's answer was somewhat brief, I think we must look at the fact that she had a very short time to answer, and that she answered it well in the limited time she had."
      Considering that, for starters, a simple "Yes" or "No" would have been more to the point as well as much shorter, I think she never intended to truly answer the question.

      You said "I think the point she is trying to make is that within their marriage Rep. Bachmann submits by respecting her husband as the leader (especially spiritually) of the family, but that does not mean that her husband tells her what to do all the time, especially in politics."
      That appears to be the spin she wants to put on it. Whether you buy into that baloney, is entirely up to you.

      You said "It's clear that Rep. Bachmann has very strong opinions, beliefs, and political views of her own, and makes her own policy decisions. When she's on the floor of the House, or out campaigning, we don't see her husband whispering what her next move or word or policy decision should be in her ear or any other such nonsense. It appears that the two are very similar in their beliefs and have a special way that they relate to each other, founded on and culminating in a complete respect for each other within their marriage. If this makes their marriage stronger, it will probably make her service to the people of the United States stronger. Dysfunctional marriages we have seen time and time again cause division and scandal that hurt our government's effectiveness."
      You appear to be jumping to a conclusion here. Do you have any supporting evidence to suggest that cheating bastards in Congress are any less effective in governing? It appears that the public has less tolerance for them than the boundless ignorance displayed by the fanatical religious dolts. That doesn't mean that there is a correlation between their behavior and their ability to make rational decisions.

      You said "While I understand the hesitation of those that don't share Rep. Bachmann's passionate faith and conservative views on marriage, I think they should see them as a strong moral foundation, and a source of energy and strength, not a distraction. She stands by what she believes is right, which I think is important in government."
      There is a difference between standing by your beliefs and being rigid in them.

      Because any society is made up of people with a wide variety of views, their elected officials have to work together to ensure that whatever is done to govern that society is done in a way that best represents all citizens. That doesn't mean that everyone will get their way. It means that, on balance, everyone will be equally represented. Therefor, for a civilized society to function, the ability to compromise by its leaders is an absolute requirement.

      By pledging to not compromise politicians either become the playground bullies, if they are in the majority, or the whining child in the candy aisle, if they are in the minority. Either way is childish. Those unwilling to consider compromise are unfit to govern.

      Bachmann, her fellow tea party morons and a lot of other republicans have taken to signing pledges lately. By doing so, they remove the one thing in politics that makes it suitable to govern a civilized society. They've removed their ability to compromise and by doing so have shown themselves to be unfit for elected office.

      August 16, 2011 at 12:39 pm |
  2. bigwilliestyles

    If the biblical quote means respect, why didn't they just say respect? Perhaps the word didn't exit at that time; but I doubt that.

    August 15, 2011 at 7:18 pm |
  3. fernace

    My biggest issue with the evangelical politicians is the very important separation of church & state! Too many seem very ambiguous on that issue, to the point that the wording of the amendment is taken into question! I want nothing to do with a candidate for presidency, who can't or wont uphold the "blueprint" the nation was built on! As far as the submission issue, it was interesting how "religious experts" immediately started a discussion of translation, Greek & the word "submissions" various interpretations! That's not what happens on this blog, for ex.,when people want clarification about certain passages or the issue of biblical contradiction! Then it's the Word of God & what's written can't be challenged with any logical questions! That would be blasphemous! I have read the bible page to page in 2 languages & have an evangelical background! I know for a fact that the bible was interpreted by my former church, Ver Batim! All that "respect, love & support" from Michele is just political subterfuge!!

    August 15, 2011 at 7:15 pm |
    • LetsAllJumptToConclusions

      The separation of church and state clause has to be one of the most ignorant topics of debate I have ever encountered, maybe because I tend to follow an Existential line of thinking.

      As far as people are concerned, EVERYBODY is governed by some perception of reality. Whether you define your perception as ordained by God or simply the objective universe is your own interpretation, but are you really suggesting that people shouldn't attempt to promote policy that they believe in, simply because they believe in it? Granted, I am in no way a fan of a "sheep" for President, every person should have a mind and will of their own. But just because somebody happens to align with a belief system shared by others, suddenly that becomes an infringement of government?

      Separation of Church and State applies to the government having no say in what the church does, and the church having no say in what the government does. That doesn't mean a person in power can't have beliefs or even act on those beliefs, so long as it is based on their own choice making, and not some organization. If you ask me, we should apply Separation of Church and State to special interest groups and big businesses who parade congressmen around like puppets.

      August 16, 2011 at 2:02 pm |
  4. Cnn Stynx

    Do you know how Yellow Journalism is defined? CNN

    August 15, 2011 at 7:12 pm |
  5. Rosemary Peppercorn

    Why, why, why, oh, WHY didn't anyone ask the obvious question of Bachmann: "DOES YOUR HUSBAND SUBMIT TO YOU?"

    August 15, 2011 at 6:31 pm |
    • DamianKnight

      ...because the question was in reference to the noted scripture. They were trying to trap her by saying, "If you adhere to the Bible, do you submit to your husband?" The Bible doesn't talk about husbands submitting to their wives. It commands husbands to love their wife as Christ loved the church. Funny thing is, he should be, if he follows that scripture. Christ taught the church, humbled himself for the church, lived his life to support and raise up the church, and eventually died for the church.

      August 15, 2011 at 6:45 pm |
    • Stevie7

      @DamianKnight
      And christ also commanded the church. Christ didn't submit to the will of the church – its the other way around.

      August 16, 2011 at 7:34 am |
  6. Reality

    E. Marrapodi noted: "The very fact she got the question has drawn lots of attention from the media. It also has a lot of people talking about the meaning of the biblical passage about submission that appears in the fifth chatper (strange spelling- secret word filters at CNN but no spelling checker ?) of Ephesians."

    Well E.M. finally got the chapter correct. He, however, again failed to note that said passage, as per most contemporary NT scholars, was not from "St." Paul but was from a pseudo Paul as was the entire Epistle to the Ephesians.

    Some added notes about "St." Paul:

    o Did Paul see the physical, risen, simple preacher man aka Jesus on the way to Da-mascus? Or was it in a drunken stu-por/dream/hal-lucination brought on by his per-se-cu-tion of the Christians? It is obvious that Paul knew all about Jesus since he was a rabbinic per-sec-utor of said Christian cu-lt. And why pray tell did Jesus not appear to Tiberius or Caligula or Nero?? Sure would have saved a lot of time.

    It was obvious that Judaism in its conflict with Rome was about to be relegated to a second class cu-lt. Paul saw the "writing on the wall" and set about getting ahead of the destruction of Jerusalem and the near an-nih-ilation of the Jewish race.

    And please note the "trips" Paul took. Definitely not affordable by a poor Roman Jew.

    Also please note the extensive monies collected from the Ge-ntiles for famine relief in Palestine. That won the day for the Ge-ntiles entry into the new Jewish cu-lt without having to undergo circ-umcision.

    Also please note, Paul's death appears to be heavily embellished. See Professor JD Crossan's book, In Search of Paul, p. 401 for a good review of the history of his ma-rtyrdom i.e. Paul (as was Peter) was rounded up along with many Christians in Ne-ro's purge of the c-ult using the great fire of Rome as the pretext for the exec-utions. No special death wishes granted. It was a group execu-tion.

    With respect to Paul's "unchristian", pru-dish comments about women, Professor Bruce Chilton, a contemporary historic Jesus and Paul exegete says it best:

    "He (Paul) feared the tu-rn-on of women's voices as much as the sight of their hair and skin..... At one point he even suggests that the sight of female hair might distract any angel ("pretty, wingie, talking, fictional thingie") in church attendance (1 Cor. 11:10)."

    Simply add Paul's (and pseudo Pauls') thinking about women to the list of flaws in the foundations of Catholicism/Christianity.

    And from Father Raymond Brown's ep-ic NT reference book.

    Excerpts: The First Letter to Ti-mothy

    p. 654, 80-90% of the critical sch-olars believe the letter was written by a pseudo Paul toward the end of the first century, early second century.

    "Authenticity – Probably written by a disciple of Paul or a sympathetic commentator on the Pauline heritage several decades after the apostle's death.

    p. 639 ditto for T-itus

    See also Professor JD Crossan's conclusions in his book (with Professor Jonathan Reed), In Search of Paul, about Timothy and T-itus. (Same conclusions as Father Brown).

    See also Professor Bruce Chilton's book, Rabbi Paul.

    And http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Epistle_to_Timothy#The_challenge_to_Pauline_authorship

    August 15, 2011 at 6:26 pm |
    • Martin T

      Question: How does this relate to the topic? Just curious is all.

      August 15, 2011 at 6:36 pm |
    • herbert juarez

      Just click report abuse ,all reality does is copy paste the same drivel on all the stories.Maybe if everyone rejected these posts he'd grow up.

      August 15, 2011 at 7:54 pm |
    • Ben

      Most of Reality's posts are fine, and actually quite relevant to the topic. In this case, the relevance is that Reality is pointing out some things that are behind the question, including the origin of submission by wives that the bible seems to demand.

      I'm personally fine with Reality coping and pasting from whatever library he has to copy from, as long as there is some relevance or merit to the content, and in this case, I think there is.

      So, go, Reality, go. We need your fact-based content to combat the whacko religious extremists who are doing their own copy and paste jobs, especially from Christian sites that I won't even mention because I don't want them to get traffic.

      August 15, 2011 at 9:07 pm |
    • Lemon Sherbet

      OK, Ben, but herbert juarez' posts are generally lacking reason and lacking sense. Maybe if he learns some basic logic and reaches puberty he'll grow up a bit.

      August 15, 2011 at 9:11 pm |
    • Reality

      Ben,

      The commentary about Paul was not copied from some library but was gleaned/summarized from many sources most of which are refererenced.

      August 15, 2011 at 11:22 pm |
  7. Tace Caudex

    All I know is she knows how to take a corndog!

    August 15, 2011 at 6:13 pm |
  8. Anon

    It's kinda scary that this dominionist maniac has a chance of actually becoming the POTUS.

    August 15, 2011 at 5:47 pm |
  9. Bernie

    republican charlatan politicians have been playing the religion trump card to garner christian fundamentalist support since ronald reagan rode into the white house . michele bachmann, rick perry and the like would sell our country to the devil to get elected . anything else they profess to believe in is a joke .

    August 15, 2011 at 5:43 pm |
  10. Martin T

    I will say this, I am happy to see the subject of religious views being openly asked of today's candidates and not just swallowed whole as has been the way of the past. For way too long, religions have been given a PASS when it came to the hard questions, it was simply assumed that asking tough religous questions were off the table.

    I was watching a show recently where Stephen Hawkins was trying to explain how god could be removed from the equation of who or what created the universe and afterwards there was a representative from the religious side of the house who even went so far as to say that "Scientists have agreed to stay out of the debate on whether god created the universe, and stick to the science of what happened after the creation." This kind of mentality needs to stop.

    August 15, 2011 at 5:43 pm |
    • Frogist

      @Martin T: I agree. To be fair, I don't think I would support the question York asked if Bachmann herself had not brought it up. Looking at how willingly candidates tout their religious cred to garner votes, I think it's about time people started asking questions like York's. But the question isn't really worth anything if the media doesn't then press for honest answers instead of that saccharine BS Bachmann offered up. If they do that, at least I hope it will discourage candidates from playing up their religion like it was an actual qualification.

      August 15, 2011 at 6:03 pm |
  11. Take Too

    Michele Bachmann should submit to her wife. Michele can`t always be the pitcher.

    August 15, 2011 at 5:37 pm |
    • Martin T

      OUCH, you didn't just go there..... LOL

      August 15, 2011 at 5:38 pm |
  12. martin

    well is she say's she will have to ask her hubby what to do and get approval,,,, great president

    August 15, 2011 at 5:30 pm |
    • Martin T

      Yeah, probably NOT... If she does it that way, martin

      August 15, 2011 at 5:37 pm |
  13. Carlos Mruphy

    Sadly, this is Very relevant.

    The cornerstone of her life is the fact that the Bilble is exactly correct. Hence, the Grand Canyon was a sand-pit washed away by Noah's flood-waters.

    The real question becomes will she outlaw Red Lobster and stone the CEO of that corporation? That is in the Bible as well.

    August 15, 2011 at 5:24 pm |
    • John

      Lol awesome.

      August 16, 2011 at 12:41 pm |
  14. Anti Christian Taliban Schizophrenics

    And they never quote ME!!!!! W T F

    August 15, 2011 at 5:23 pm |
    • Martin T

      Totally, but let me tell you, it's lonely at the top.... boo hoo...

      August 15, 2011 at 5:25 pm |
  15. Debra

    I don't see what all the fuss is about. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the wife submits to the husband in her job. It clearly states that is in the marriage. If she were elected to the Presidency, her husband wouldn't have any authority over her decisions in office. This is no-brainer to christians and should be to anyone else.

    August 15, 2011 at 5:14 pm |
    • Martin T

      The problem with that "logic" is that MOST Christians don't have the ability, nor the belief, that there is a separation between work and home. Heck the Christians can't even agree on Separation of Church and State, and I'm betting Michele is no different. Also, show me where the bible even says ANYTHING about a woman being the President of the US? Or even working, for that matter....

      August 15, 2011 at 5:18 pm |
    • Stevie7

      The bible says submits. period. The question, if tongue in cheek, is still valid. Using your logic, abortion is ok because the bible isn't explicit about how fetuses should be treated. Or perhaps lying is ok as long as you lie on the internet because the bible existed in a time before the internet.

      August 15, 2011 at 5:19 pm |
    • theheath

      Naive.

      August 15, 2011 at 5:28 pm |
    • Frogist

      @Debra: Here's where it gets tricky. If Marcus says to Michele, "If you raise the debt ceiling, it will hurt my feelings. I am your husband and you are supposed to consider my feelings when you do things." Does that fall under her job or her marriage? Obviously both. And since she specifically "respects" the part of the Bible to do with marriage, she will submit to his wants. Phrased in that manner, Marcus can do as he wishes to control the country. Silly as it seems, it's very probable since she has submitted before.

      August 15, 2011 at 5:36 pm |
  16. frank burnsf

    Since obviously everyone should respect everyone, if Bachmann's statement is correct, then the verse in the Bible about woman submitting to their husbands says nothing at all about what women should do. So she is saying that verse in Bible is meaningless. But of course she really believes it says they should submit - hence her comment about yielding to his wishes about law school, even though she didn't want to go. The upshot? We saw a point where Bachmann had to choose between publicly affirming her religious beliefs and saying what she figured was necessary politically - and I guess we all know what she did.

    August 15, 2011 at 5:06 pm |
  17. Dean

    Nowhere does the submission to a husband in Christianity require a woman to submit to her husband over matters of her job. How stupid to even be brought up, can you see a Christian wife who happens to be a brain surgeon having to submit to her husband on how to perform the surgery? This is nothing but Christian faith bashing, all intellectual honesty has left the media!

    August 15, 2011 at 5:04 pm |
    • Martin T

      Dean, I see your point, but disagree. The POTUS is NOT a brain surgeon but the leader of the most powerful nation in the world; hence, the necessity to have strength and the ability to see ALL sides of a debate. We are talking about someone who may or may not have EVERY decision clouded by her religious views and that would NOT be representing the entire US population. I know it would scare the heck out of me to think that her husband was making ANY national decisions given his views on certain social issues.

      August 15, 2011 at 5:10 pm |
    • Martin T

      Further, this also brings up another very strong and valid point, the context of when the bible itself was written. There is a strong argument that MUCH if not ALL of the bible is obsolete and no longer has any validity in today's society. You see, you are applying the context of the words, written in a time when women did NOT work, to a society where women can even be the President of the US. See the difference and the problem with this?

      August 15, 2011 at 5:13 pm |
    • J.W

      Also, most women were uneducated at that time. Today women and men have equal opportunities as far as education.

      August 15, 2011 at 5:19 pm |
    • pnclaw

      I have a different take. I agree with the biblical teaching. The question could have come from others with the intention to mock a candidate's faith and gender. But looking at the context, and having heard Byron York before, I tend to believe that there was no malice but a journalistic digging, granted that Byron could have phrased the question differently.
      Candidates should not be given passes to answer questions that are important, in the name of political correctness. Candidate Obama was given generous passes by the media and his excited supporters. He was not vatted thoroughly. Candidate Bachmann was asked a serious question. She answered it without having gone into theological dissertation about wifely submission. Let's be charitable, and let's stay with honesty and fairness. Let's give Byron York a break..

      August 15, 2011 at 5:29 pm |
    • Martin T

      So, PNCLAW you believe EVERYTHING in the bible is the inerrant word of god? The problem with that is it is an impossible task to believe it all and live in today's society. So, what parts of the bible are god's and what part are man's?

      August 15, 2011 at 5:33 pm |
  18. J.W

    Why do they never put my comments in any of these articles? They are so brilliant.

    August 15, 2011 at 4:59 pm |
    • DamianKnight

      I know, right? They never quote me either. Sad, sad.

      August 15, 2011 at 5:04 pm |
    • Martin T

      I agree, what are they thinking..?

      August 15, 2011 at 5:07 pm |
    • J.W

      Damian we are two of the greatest minds on here too. I guess we just arent appreciated in our own time.

      August 15, 2011 at 5:09 pm |
    • Frogist

      Apparently Martin T is the special one! The rest of us are just nobodys... Harumph! =(

      August 15, 2011 at 5:19 pm |
    • Martin T

      Hey it's not like I paid them or anything... I'd take you all to the TOP if I could... really... LOL

      August 15, 2011 at 5:23 pm |
    • J.W

      I am going to start saying something profound on every article. But not this one because they are not going to Your Take a Your Take article.

      August 15, 2011 at 5:28 pm |
    • DamianKnight

      J.W., maybe we're like artists...you know, our value goes up once we die! Yeah...that's it... 🙂

      August 15, 2011 at 5:28 pm |
    • Frogist

      @JW: I think we should just start copy/pasting other people's comments. That way they will think we are being cleverer and we'll get mentioned too. That's my new plan!

      August 15, 2011 at 5:51 pm |
    • Anti Christian Taliban Schizophrenics

      DamianKnight

      J.W., maybe we're like artists...you know, our value goes up once we die! Yeah...that's it...

      =-----
      An artist has better odds winning the powerball, rather than being a successful artist (in the terms of Picasso etc).

      August 15, 2011 at 6:27 pm |
  19. Martin T

    I'm somebody, I got quoted in a CNN Blog... Yay me! Also, I have to ask why haven't the media types asked her about killing her unruly children, stoning us Atheists, and slavery, oh wait, she did mention slavery, didn't she...

    August 15, 2011 at 4:58 pm |
  20. LeeRich

    Then shouldn't the bible also say :Husbands submit to your wives? If the "respect' is mutual.......

    August 15, 2011 at 4:44 pm |
    • Luke

      Considering it took until the 20th century for women to even have the right to vote in America, I think you are barking up the wrong tree.

      August 15, 2011 at 5:02 pm |
    • pnclaw

      Bible does say for husbands to love their wives, as Christ loves the church, meaning sacrificially, selflessly. It is a concept believers understand. They would support their spouses to submit to a higher authority and be accountable to the offices the spouses occupy whether the White House, congress, school board, or what have you. Roland Martin has a good piece explaining the concept. Google it. Thanks for asking.

      August 15, 2011 at 5:17 pm |
    • Stevie7

      @pnclaw, using the example of men should love their wives as Christ loves the church, you just reinforce the problem. The church necessarily submits to christ's will. Christ is the one who calls the shots. The church (the wife) should submit to christ's will (the husband).

      August 15, 2011 at 5:24 pm |
    • Frogist

      @pnclaw: I'll google that article. Thanks for the heads up.
      But LeeRich has a point. And you do not dispute it. It says "submit" for wives, but "love" for husbands. If you wish to interpret submit = love, that's really up to the individual. But if it was mutual, as we are expected to believe, then the laguange should have matched up as well. As it stands, and as Bachmann herself interpreted it, it's women giving up their independent will to men.

      August 15, 2011 at 5:24 pm |
    • Martin T

      Frogist, you bring up valid point, but I'll take it one step further. The original "bible writings" have been interpreted and re-interpreted from one language to another so many times we don't really know what the original might have said. So much of the bible's original writings have been lost to time, so to me, it's all a crap shoot. I look at the bible the same way I look at Greek and Roman literature about their gods, it's just a good read if you can swallow or look past the BS.

      August 15, 2011 at 5:36 pm |
    • Frogist

      @pnclaw: I read the Roland Martin article here:
      http://newsone.com/nation/washington-watch/rolandsmartin/roland-martin-bachmann-submission-question-was-offensive/
      Is that the correct one?
      But I have to disagree with him as well. He seems to want to impart some sort of se-xist bias on York. But it isn't the question, or the questioner who are se-xist here at all. It is the scripture that asks for submission of a woman to a man that is se-xist. As a woman, I would very much have asked that question of her because I find the concept of giving over your will to another individual because of your gender to be very wrong. Especially in terms of what I can expect in a female president. So Martin is wrong on both those counts. As for why submission to a husband who submits to god is wrong... Well why can't a woman forgo the middleman and submit to god herself? Why specifically tell her to submit to a male but not vice versa.
      Sorry if this post is a little unfinished. I have to run!
      Have a good day!

      August 15, 2011 at 6:19 pm |
1 2 3 4
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.