home
RSS
My Take: 5 biblical passages for Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry
What parts of the Bible do candidates really follow?
August 16th, 2011
10:57 AM ET

My Take: 5 biblical passages for Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry

Editor's Note: Stephen Prothero, a Boston University religion scholar and author of "God is Not One: The Eight Rival Religions that Run the World," is a regular CNN Belief Blog contributor.

By Stephen Prothero, Special to CNN

The audience booed when columnist Byron York asked U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota at the Republican presidential debate last week, if, as president, she would be “submissive to her husband.”

That question would have been out of order if she had excluded her evangelical Protestant faith from her presidential campaign. But she has made her faith as a Bible believer central to that campaign, so voters have a right to know which parts of the Bible she really believes in, and which parts (if any) she ignores.

Unfortunately, we cannot ask God whether He has in fact called Bachmann to be president, but we can ask her to interpret what she affirms to be the Word of God.

The same goes for Texas Governor Rick Perry, who earlier this month led “The Response,” a prayer and fasting event at a Houston football stadium that had the look and feel of an evangelical revival.

So here are my five Bible quotations for the two Republican presidential candidates now vying most vociferously for the evangelical Protestant vote.

1.  “Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands” (Colossians 3:18).

Should female presidents submit to their first husbands? As it should be obvious to anyone who saw this portion of the debate, Bachmann did not answer this question. She said she respected her husband. She said he respected her. But the question was about submission, not respect.

When John F. Kennedy was running for president, some voters were worried about whether, as president, he would take his marching orders from someone else. That someone else was not Jacqueline Onassis but the pope.

In a famous speech delivered on September 12, 1960, in Houston, he answered the question clearly and definitely. “I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute; where no Catholic prelate would tell the President - should he be Catholic - how to act.”

He also drew a sharp distinction between his private religious views and his public political views, pledging that his private faith would have no bearing on his actions as president. “Whatever issue may come before me as President, if I should be elected, on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject, I will make my decision in accordance with these views - in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be in the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressure or dictates.”

I would like to know whether Bachmann will say the same about her evangelical Protestantism. If her husband tells her to veto a bill, will she submit to him? Is there any separation for her, as there was for Kennedy, between her private religious doctrines (in this case, that wives should be submissive to their husbands) and her public responsibilities (to act as "the decider")?

2. “But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you” (Matthew 6:6).

When I watched Perry’s performance at “The Response,” this Bible quote came to mind. I would like to know what he thinks of it.

Should Christians make a show of praying in public? This passage at least would seem to say no. In fact, it seems to say that when you pray you should go into your room and shut the door before addressing God. But perhaps I am misreading it. Either way, I would like for Perry to tell me what he makes of this Bible passage. And Bachmann, too, while we are at it.

3.  “Thou shalt not kill” (Exodus 20:13).

Part of the Ten Commandments, this passage has been used by many social conservatives to argue against Roe v. Wade and abortion rights. After all, if God said, “Thou shalt not kill” then why are we taking lives inside the womb?  But if God said, “Thou shalt not kill” then why are we allowing capital punishment?

I would like to hear from both Perry and Bachmann about how they read this passage, and how it can simultaneously justify opposition to abortion rights and support for the death penalty. (During his term as Texas governor, Perry has overseen 234 executions. Bachmann's position on the issue is unclear.)

4.  “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s” (Luke 20:25).

This famous quotation, which appears in parallel form in the Gospels of Mark and Matthew, arises when Jesus is asked a "gotcha" question about paying taxes to the Roman government. It has been read in various ways by various Christians.

Nonetheless, Jesus seems to be drawing a clear distinction here between religious and secular authority - a distinction that neither Perry nor Bachmann appears to see.

Admittedly, neither of these candidates agrees with the famous metaphor of Thomas Jefferson famous metaphor of a “wall of separation between church and state” but does either see a line of demarcation of any sort - a picket fence, perhaps - between “what is Caesar’s” and “what is God’s”?

5.  “Blessed are the poor" (Luke 6:20).

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus famously begins, “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:3). In Luke, he says, more simply, “Blessed are the poor, for yours is the kingdom of God” (Luke 6:20).

This Lukan passage is a key source in the social teachings of the Roman Catholic Church for the so-called “preferential option for the poor”—the notion that Christian communities have a particular responsibility to take care of the poor in their midst.

How do Perry and Bachmann read this passage? Did Luke mess up by leaving out "in spirit"? Or did Jesus really say "Blessed are the poor"? And if he did say that, what did he mean by it? Do his words carry any meaning for us today, and to the way we craft our federal budget?

I have more quotations, of course, but these five will do for now.

I presume both candidates will acknowledge that these passages are, in fact, in the Bible. And I take it for granted that, as self-professed Bible-believing Christians, they believe these passages are true. But what truths do they teach? And what import, if any, do those truths have on their public policies?

I understand the impulse to draft Jesus into your political campaign. At least in U.S. politics, Jesus is good for business. But if you are going to call Jesus to your side, you need to let voters know how that affects your politics. Might you change your mind if you saw that a political position of yours was contradicted by the Bible? Or is the Bible a dead letter, useful for invoking divine authority but never for correction or reprove?

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Stephen Prothero.

- CNN Belief Blog contributor

Filed under: Bachmann • Bible • Christianity • Politics • Rick Perry • United States

soundoff (1,020 Responses)
  1. shawbrooke

    We should all give those political figures credit for not" casting their pearls before swine". Trying to explain something profound to someone who is playing games would certainly qualify as "casting pearls before swine".

    August 16, 2011 at 8:03 pm |
  2. Peter

    I don't care what the hell either one of them believes. It doesn't belong as the basis of government.

    August 16, 2011 at 7:46 pm |
  3. girl256

    Im sorry Prothero but you are taking these verses out of context.Youre interpretation of Thou shalt not kill if you read the bible youd see instances when killing was ok because it was for war. The verse about praying in private is also taken out of context, it was said because in that place there where ppl that prayed out loud to show off and it aws just God lettign them know just because you pray an hr doesnt make u bttr than the person who prays for 5 min. There was a lesson in it. It doesnt mean you cant pray out loud in front of ppl. that was directed to a specific situation. So my friend fist you should read the Bible and become a believer for you to ever understand the content in it. Without that you will alywas be ignorant and interpret it with ignorance.

    August 16, 2011 at 7:31 pm |
    • Castiel

      Everyone has their own interpretation of the context. That's the terror of it.

      August 16, 2011 at 7:46 pm |
    • Wiz

      It's nice to know that the Ten Commandments have a context. "Thou shalt not kill" seemed pretty clear, but now I know that killing is ok sometimes. Or whenever I disagree with someone (basis of war).

      August 16, 2011 at 7:46 pm |
    • Terre08

      @ girl256 Hilarious, who would have expected a bible thumper saying that the quotes are taken out of context! How the h e l l do you know that? So from your point of view all the things that fit your narrow mind should be taken at face value while the rest are taken out of context. What about the death penalty for adultery, not valid anymore because if it isn't 50% of christians should be executed. You just showed everyone that most christians are truly evil.

      August 16, 2011 at 8:18 pm |
    • Martin T

      Therein lies the problem with both the bible and the Christian religion, interpretation! EVERYTHING in the bible is subject to interpretation and is interpreted on many levels by many people; hence the fact that there are many, many different "sects" or denominations of Christianity. One would think that an all knowing, all seeing, all EvERYTHING god would have forseen these issues...

      August 16, 2011 at 9:15 pm |
    • Ike

      Context is context and it means everything. "Thou shalt not kill" in Hebrew literally means 'Thou shalt not murder". There is no contradiction when it comes to war, defense and justice. People that have a problem with this should be wary that they are not being hypocritical say in killing a bug, virus, etc.

      August 17, 2011 at 3:22 pm |
  4. james stirk

    Trying to use their religious beliefs as a political tool is really wrong.

    August 16, 2011 at 7:26 pm |
    • Anti Christian Taliban Schizophrenics

      james stirk

      Trying to use their religious beliefs as a political tool is really wrong.
      -----
      They are christians, do you expect anything less???????????

      August 16, 2011 at 7:32 pm |
    • carolyn

      You mean like they did with Barack Obama.

      August 17, 2011 at 1:20 pm |
  5. shinden

    God save me from your followers.

    August 16, 2011 at 7:15 pm |
    • Sean

      Like

      August 17, 2011 at 4:10 pm |
  6. Your PalBob

    Nice try Prothero, but your understanding of a bible passage is as open to interpretation as Bachmann's. Let us remember the dangers of taking everything we read in the Bible literally. It's a collection of writings that has been translated over and over with changes in meanings and interpretations. It's an argument that cannot be won.

    "There are no facts, there are only interpretations" Nietzsche

    August 16, 2011 at 7:10 pm |
    • Sean

      Show me the verse that says: Don’t take this literally but….

      Gotta love the New Age Xtians… they will do anything to keep their ‘faith’ relevant.

      August 17, 2011 at 4:12 pm |
    • Jeremy

      "Facts are the enemy of Truth!", Don Quixote

      August 22, 2011 at 4:10 pm |
  7. ginobean

    Is the Bible useful for invoking divine authority but never for correction or reprove?

    All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right. 2 Tim 3:16

    August 16, 2011 at 6:39 pm |
    • tribble10

      So it's ok to sleep with your daughters like Lot did or smash a few babies like in the psalm???

      August 16, 2011 at 6:57 pm |
    • herbert juarez

      @ tribble
      replying to the tribble drivel
      1.Lot did not "sleep" with his daughters in that sense.His daughters according to the Bible deceived him and Lot
      was unaware of what happened,but that is not the point of the story.The story concerns the founding of two nations who would become the sworn enemies of Israel, at the time of the Exodus. There is more but I doubt you've ever read the actual account.It seems you are repeating something you have heard or read ,rather than finding out for yourself.
      2."smashing babies like in the psalms"Psalm 137 ,you didn't read that either did you?It deals with the realities of war,and the enemies of Jerusalem who committed those kinds of acts upon Jewish children.The psalm is a lament and a cry for revenge and justice.A far cry from an endorsement, as you would have people believe.

      August 16, 2011 at 7:26 pm |
    • Anti Christian Taliban Schizophrenics

      herbert juarez you are simnply confused and wrong

      August 16, 2011 at 7:29 pm |
    • herbert juarez

      @ anti christian
      easy fix
      read the books! Genesis chapter19 verses30-38
      Psalm 137: there are only 9 verses

      August 16, 2011 at 7:45 pm |
    • Martin T

      Hey Herbert, so LOT didn't Sleep with his daughters, I think he did; further, he DID offer his daughters to the men of Gmorrah to appease them when they wanted the angels sent by god, and wanted them to do with his daughters what they would. Come on READ the entire passage instead of trying to mine what you want out of it, and again interpreting what YOU want it to say.

      August 16, 2011 at 9:18 pm |
    • herbert juarez

      @ martin t
      Did read it. The issue in Sodom wasn't brought up so I did not feel compelled to answer it,The implication that Lot deliberately "slept" with his daughters is at issue here .He did not choose to" sleep" with them and was deceived in the matter,the entire episode is referenced in both my original reply and the text cited. Since you raise the Sodom(not Gmorrah sp?) issue ,I will respond to that as well.Lot did offer his daughters as appeasement to the men of Sodom,it was an an unneeded gesture as the "men" who were visiting as his guests, were more than able to take care of themselves and Lots family,which they did.

      August 16, 2011 at 9:34 pm |
  8. sybaris

    "When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and waving a cross"

    August 16, 2011 at 6:14 pm |
    • Anti Christian Taliban Schizophrenics

      Sinclair Lewis was spot on

      August 16, 2011 at 7:24 pm |
    • JamesT297

      Amen and TOO LATE. They are already among us.

      August 17, 2011 at 12:31 pm |
  9. sybaris

    1. “Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands” (Colossians 3:18)

    You do realize this was written over 2000 years ago by men in a misogynistic society

    August 16, 2011 at 6:10 pm |
    • Erik

      While that view may have been "written over 2000 years ago by men in a misogynistic society", it is still embraced as a central tenet in the church that Mrs. Bachmann belonged to – the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod.

      She did recently leave that church for political reasons, similar to how Obama left Jeremiah Wright's church. But it is still a valid question whether Bachmann still believes in the doctrines of the church she was a member of her whole life.

      August 16, 2011 at 6:48 pm |
    • gateway

      We do. The questions is does Bachman realize that?

      August 17, 2011 at 5:33 pm |
  10. Jack

    Bachmann and Perry are CINOs.

    August 16, 2011 at 6:07 pm |
    • JamesT297

      And that makes them WAY too christian to lead this nation.

      August 17, 2011 at 12:32 pm |
  11. William

    If I were God's choice for President I would not have to run because God would just make it happen. People who declair themself as God's Choice then you had better beware. Especially Republicans whose fruit do not bare witness. I find it sad for some of these candidates because one day they will face our Creator. Being President is a Great responsibility not just to the people but also to God. We do not wrestle against flesh and Blood but against Principalities and Powers.

    August 16, 2011 at 6:01 pm |
  12. Derek Wain

    This is all inside Team Obama media nonsense.
    The ad hominem attacks against Bachmann by the media jackals have boomeranged against the Left and hugely helped Bachmann.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/how-attacking-michele-bachmann-is-making-her-stronger/2011/07/27/gIQAWdz4cI_blog.html
    Whenever the press attacks Bachmann, she gets a flood of support and money. She becomes ‘Every Woman,’ a misunderstood Tea Party mother of five facing down an elitist, arrogant, Obama-leaning press corps" The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
    8/14/11 Bachmann wins Iowa Straw Poll.

    August 16, 2011 at 5:23 pm |
    • William Demuth

      Huh?

      I am no Obama fan my any measure, but the idea that indoctrinated simpleton might have her finger on the button is absurd beyond measure.

      Half the republicans I know would put a bullet in her head before they would let that happen.

      August 16, 2011 at 5:31 pm |
  13. a person of the Name

    @ stevie7 so does the bible. I many truths in it.

    August 16, 2011 at 5:17 pm |
    • Sean

      So do fortune cookies.

      August 17, 2011 at 4:16 pm |
  14. may

    May the good Lord grant understanding to everyone who seeks to understand the written word of God-The Bible

    August 16, 2011 at 5:06 pm |
    • William Demuth

      Better to study math, where fact is fact, and dogma is discarded.

      Leave the Bronze Age in the past.

      August 16, 2011 at 5:17 pm |
    • may

      wd, curious what is the real reason you deny God? other than the facade of science can't prove him?

      August 16, 2011 at 6:02 pm |
    • sybaris

      Yeah, not real swift, your god depending on it's creation to spread its word.

      August 16, 2011 at 6:12 pm |
    • William Demuth

      Because God is a lie used to justify horrors.

      August 16, 2011 at 6:17 pm |
    • Stevie7

      @may,

      What is the reason that you deny Zeus? Answer that and you'll understand why atheists discredit your chosen deity.

      August 17, 2011 at 12:26 am |
  15. Dave

    If any of them were truely "professiing Christians" they all are ignoring what Jesus said:

    I John 2:15, 16: “Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.”

    True professing Christians are, according to Paul: I Thessalonians 5:18.

    – “Make it your ambition to lead a quiet life, to mind your own business and to work with your hands, just as we told you, so that your daily life may win the respect of outsiders and so that you will not be dependent on anybody.”

    and especially for Mrs. Bachmann – “I also want a woman to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.” I Timothy 2:9, 10

    August 16, 2011 at 4:58 pm |
    • Sean

      That just makes them average Christians. What is your point?

      August 17, 2011 at 4:22 pm |
  16. Michael Gardner

    Exudus 20:12 does not say what you are quoting. Maybe a little research would help. Exodus 20:12 is about honoring one's father and mother.

    Exodus 20:13 is the passage to which you are referring. HOWEVER, the prohibition is not of killing, it is of murder. This is a major distinction, and until you can respect what Christians believe enough to write properly about it, your opinion on faith should not be taken seriously.

    August 16, 2011 at 4:37 pm |
    • gayjesus

      Maybe his bible is a different version than yours? Are you using the crazy right-wing nutjob version?

      August 16, 2011 at 4:46 pm |
    • Michael Gardner

      I'm not a right-winger, pal; I'm just after the truth.

      The author of this article is using a scarecrow fallacy, building a pretend Christian position and tearing it down like it means something.

      August 16, 2011 at 4:51 pm |
    • William Demuth

      Hello

      I believe a great number of those who hold King James near and dear might disagree pal, as well as all the worlds Jews, who had your God before you did.

      A significant percentage (and probably the majority) of the population believe it to be "Thou Shall Not Kill"

      I believe the Protestants changed it so they could rationalize why Christian soldiers can kill Muslims and Jews and still be compliant.

      An army of zombies trained not to kill is not a very usefull army

      August 16, 2011 at 5:01 pm |
    • Michael Gardner

      Point taken about the KJV saying "kill," but you can't just assume that a word was changed and not simply translated more accurately.

      "We think that it's our English translation that is the inspired version, not only the English but our particular translation. There are a number of translations that properly translate that as murder, not merely kill, as if any killing is what God is against. That isn't what the Hebrew indicates and even if it said, "Thou shalt not kill", one has only to flip a few pages to see other commands that God gives right in that same passage that demand that the state, in this case the nation of Israel, take the life of criminals for certain crimes." – Greg Koukl

      August 16, 2011 at 5:16 pm |
    • William Demuth

      Michael Gardner

      Of course, YOUR interpretation of the supposedly divine writing is correct, and not that of the hundreds of millions of Jews and Christians who disagree.

      Standard Op Proc for zealots, claiming THEIR pipeline to the divine is pure.

      Besides, once once has killed the semantics seem so simple. When I kill it is justified, when you do it is not.

      August 16, 2011 at 5:23 pm |
    • William Demuth

      The idea that God might want man to kill is a tragic concept.

      The idea that a modern person might believe that is terrifiying.

      You see Koresh, the hijackers, the wacko in the Netherlands, the clowns in Jonestown, the zealots in Wacko, the loonies on Ruby Ridge, the PLO, the Klan, the IDF or ANYONE who kills because they believe God willed it is no differnt than the others.

      Just childish murderers who hide behind the cape of a retired Bronze Age super hero, and need absolution for their blood letting.

      August 16, 2011 at 5:28 pm |
    • J.W

      I will have to agree with you on that William. We have seen that throughout the War on Terror. If an Arab kills an American, it is terrorism, but if an American kills an Arab it is "defending our freedom"

      August 16, 2011 at 5:29 pm |
    • Joel Salomon

      William Demuth: Mr Gardner is correct in his translation. Those Christians who give a privileged status to the King James translation might have religious problems with war, capital punishment, etc., but “the world’s Jews”—at least those who can read the original Hebrew text—read the Commandment as “You shall not murder”.

      August 16, 2011 at 5:58 pm |
    • William Demuth

      Joel

      Both the Kineset, and five of the seven Jews I just querried disagree with you vehemetley.

      August 16, 2011 at 6:22 pm |
    • Markf

      Both Michael and Joel are completely correct. As in English, there are different words in Hebrew for "kill" and "murder". THe commandment clearly and unambiguously says, "Thou shalt not murder." Christians have been mistranslating this for centuries though some of the newer translations are finally correcting this error. Voting on whether some Jews believe it refers to kill does not make it so. Did the Jews you surveyed look up the original Hebrew?

      August 17, 2011 at 10:45 am |
    • Markf

      For an accurate and authentic translation of the Hebrew Bible, see http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0220.htm .

      August 17, 2011 at 11:13 am |
    • J.W

      But then you would also have to consider what would be murder. Is abortion murder? Is killing an enemy soldier in an unnecessary war murder?

      August 17, 2011 at 11:16 am |
  17. a person of the Name

    Sorry that was @ david

    August 16, 2011 at 4:22 pm |
  18. a person of the Name

    A man's way is right in his own eyes.

    August 16, 2011 at 4:20 pm |
    • William Demuth

      Something right with the world today, and everyone knows its wrong.

      August 16, 2011 at 5:02 pm |
    • Frogist

      We could tell em no or we could let it go
      But I would rather be hanging on

      August 17, 2011 at 9:30 am |
  19. Reality

    In case you missed the following on p. 1:

    What M. Bachmann and R. Perry's answers should be: (Tis odd that "Professor P should "thump" biblical passages when he is an atheist)

    1. Colossians 3:18, as per most contemporary NT scholars, was not written by "St". Paul but by a pseudo-Paul so it therefore carries no weight as to divine inspiration.

    2. Matt 6:6 , a single attestation from the third stratum (80-120 CE) historically unreliable. e.g. See Professor Gerd Ludemann in his book, Jesus After 2000 Years, p. 146.

    3. Exodus 20:12, as per 1.5 million Conservative Jews and their rabbis, there was no Exodus.

    To wit:

    The notion that the Bible is not literally true "is more or less settled and understood among most Conservative rabbis," observed David Wolpe, a rabbi at Sinai Temple in Los Angeles and a contributor to "Etz Hayim." But some congregants, he said, "may not like the stark airing of it." Last Passover, in a sermon to 2,200 congregants at his synagogue, Rabbi Wolpe frankly said that "virtually every modern archaeologist" agrees "that the way the Bible describes the Exodus is not the way that it happened, if it happened at all." The rabbi offered what he called a "LITANY OF DISILLUSION”' about the narrative, including contradictions, improbabilities, chronological lapses and the absence of corroborating evidence. In fact, he said, archaeologists digging in the Sinai have "found no trace of the tribes of Israel – not one shard of pottery."

    The Ten Commandments also were not Jewish originals. Analogous rules were written before the OT by King Hammurabi of Babylon and by the Egyptians i.e. the Book of the Dead. (Hammurabi's Code and the Book of the Dead are both on-line).

    4. Luke 20:25- authentic Jesus based on the conclusions of all contemporary NT scholars. However as with all the NT, one must keep in mind the following:

    Jesus was a bit "touched". After all he thought he spoke to Satan, thought he changed water into wine, thought he raised Lazarus from the dead etc. In today's world, said Jesus would be declared legally insane.

    Or did P, M, M, L and J simply make him into a first century magic-man via their epistles and gospels of semi-fiction? Most contemporary NT experts after thorough analyses of all the scriptures go with the latter magic-man conclusion with J's gospels being mostly fiction.

    Obviously, today's followers of Paul et al's "magic-man" are also a bit on the odd side believing in all the Christian mumbo jumbo about bodies resurrecting, and exorcisms, and miracles, and "magic-man atonement, and infallible, old, European, white men, and 24/7 body/blood sacrifices followed by consumption of said sacrifices. Yummy!!!!

    So why do we really care what a first century CE, illiterate, long-dead, preacher man would do or say?

    5. Luke 6:20 From Professor JD Crossan's analyses:

    Stratum: I (30-60 CE)
    Attestation: Triple
    Historicity: Positive
    Common Sayings Tradition: Yes

    But most if not all NT scholars conclude that Matthew's version of the Beat-itudes is historically the more accurate:

    Matt 5:3

    "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."

    So where did this simple preacher man come up with these beati-tudes? John the Baptist ?. Traveling Greek Cynics (See Professor JD Crossan's studies published in over 20 books on the historical Jesus). Then there is the issue of "insanity". Even Jesus' family thought he was a bit odd.

    Mark 3:20-21 "20 Then Jesus entered a house, and again a crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not even able to eat. 21 When his family[a] heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, “He is out of his mind.”

    BTW, Mark 3:20-21 has been judged to be authentic by most contemporary NT scholars.

    August 16, 2011 at 3:53 pm |
    • William Demuth

      Reality

      Please stop posting puke from six months ago.

      You slap up the same silliness OVER AND OVER AND OVER again.

      It makes you seem, well a bit crazy!

      August 16, 2011 at 5:05 pm |
    • Reality

      o Reiteration is great for the learning process. As is reading and rational thinking followed by conclusions based on all of it.

      August 16, 2011 at 6:02 pm |
    • William Demuth

      Indoctrination is what it is called. Alas we aint buying iy anymore.

      Repeated lies are still lies.

      August 16, 2011 at 6:25 pm |
    • Isolate

      The revelation of archaeological, scholarly and historical inaccuracies of events described in the Bible have no effect on True Believers. Like the unknown author of Epistle to the Hebrews, they know that, "... faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." ~ Heb 11:1. Also the "word of God," by the way.

      Once a True Believer assumes that a sacred text is infallible or the direct word of a god or gods, he or she is impervious to evidence to the contrary. That is the essence of faith, and why religious beliefs and scientific knowledge should be kept apart to insure the integrity of both. "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's," is good advice. Anyone True Believer who tries to wedge religious beliefs into civil government or civil education is violating the words attributed to Jesus, ie, the word of God.

      August 17, 2011 at 11:40 am |
    • Alex Gessong

      @Reality: Posting here, you may be "a voice crying in the wilderness." 😉 "There are none so deaf as those who will not hear."

      August 17, 2011 at 7:08 pm |
  20. mikey

    She actually did give the correct answer biblically...just saying...read it in context instead of throwing her in the spotlight for something she did wrong.

    August 16, 2011 at 3:48 pm |
    • Frogist

      @mikey: That's your interpretation. But it doesn't match up with what is in that particular piece of scripture.

      August 16, 2011 at 4:03 pm |
    • William Demuth

      Correct answer biblicaly

      Thats like saying the correct answer "Star Trekishly"

      We all know that both of them are stories twisted to suit the zealots needs, or to cover their lies.

      August 16, 2011 at 5:16 pm |
    • Alex Gessong

      @Mikey: actually she sidestepped the question. She was no more correct in answering the question than she was when she said that yesterday was Elvis Pressley's birthday. The question was simple: should a wife submit to her husband? That's a "yes" or a "no", possibly with some additional explanation for why the reply is "yes" or "no". She didn't do that. Her answer was not correct, because it had nothing to do with the question. Avoiding the question makes it appear that she either has no answer or is afraid of the question. If she ends up as the GOP nominee, she will get shredded in an actual Presidential debate. This is why the early election season is good: it helps identify which candidates are weak so that they can be eliminated. Like Tim Pawlenty, whose campaign folded after a meaningless straw poll. Bachmann is a weak candidate. Only question is when her campaign will collapse.

      August 17, 2011 at 7:17 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
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.