View Poll Results: What did you think of the question?

Voters
51. You may not vote on this poll
  • It was unfair

    10 19.61%
  • It was inapropriate

    13 25.49%
  • It was sexist

    14 27.45%
  • none of those

    30 58.82%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 11 of 15 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 148

Thread: What Did You Think Of This Question?

  1. #101
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,561

    Re: What Did You Think Of This Question?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    The words you choose hint that you don't understand the Christian view of submission in the first place, to then pose an informed objection. To me it sounds like you're rebounding this story off of America's history of woman's suffrage and Liberal Feminism rather than the biblical standard for establishing legitimacy of a woman's authority.

    As Queen Elizabeth demonstrated, women do not need men in order for their authority to be legitimate.
    But the real question is, would Bachmann demonstrate the same thing?
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

  2. #102
    Sage
    lpast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Fla
    Last Seen
    05-21-16 @ 10:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    13,565

    Re: What Did You Think Of This Question?

    [QUOTE=MistressNomad;1059728475]Of course they don't. But according to some interpretations of the Bible, they do. Whether or not this is reflected in reality makes no difference to whether or not people believe it.

    Is that not, in fact, exactly what she said she did? Did she not, in fact, say that she chose her specific career, which she didn't want, because her husband told her to? Is that not, in fact, the only reason she gave?



    It doesn't matter what your entirely subjective, and in this case, apologetic interpretation of the Bible is. She said what she said. She did not want to be a tax lawyer, in fact she hated the idea. But she did it because her husband told her to. That is what she said. I don't need to "understand" anything about your apologetics to understand what she said.


    Thats right Mistress and her saying she did not want to be a tax lawyer and becoming one because she submitted to her husband made the question absolutely appropriate....it was not a hypothetical question it was clarifying what she herself had already claimed to be true.

  3. #103
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: What Did You Think Of This Question?

    Quote Originally Posted by MistressNomad View Post
    Of course they don't. But according to some interpretations of the Bible, they do. Whether or not this is reflected in reality makes no difference to whether or not people believe it.

    Is that not, in fact, exactly what she said she did? Did she not, in fact, say that she chose her specific career, which she didn't want, because her husband told her to? Is that not, in fact, the only reason she gave?

    It doesn't matter what your entirely subjective, and in this case, apologetic interpretation of the Bible is. She said what she said. She did not want to be a tax lawyer, in fact she hated the idea. But she did it because her husband told her to. That is what she said. I don't need to "understand" anything about your apologetics to understand what she said.
    Another way she could have answered the question better would be to confirm her submission to the authority of the Constitution; an authority which by default trumps her husband in all respects. Only through the established process can her husband exert authority over her as President.

  4. #104
    User
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    131

    Re: What Did You Think Of This Question?

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    During the republican debate this week, Michelle Bachmann was asked the following:



    Her answer, in part:



    This question has raised a firestorm over whether it was fair or appropriate. It came about from this comment she made where she said that she finished her degree because her husband told her so and women are supposed to be submissive to their husbands(can't find quote at the moment, if any one else can, will edit it in and give credit).

    So, we the question fair? Was it appropriate? Was it sexist? You can choose more than one.
    Fair? The question came from her best buddy's at foxnews lol.

  5. #105
    Professor
    NGNM85's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Last Seen
    11-10-17 @ 11:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    1,571

    Re: What Did You Think Of This Question?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    The words you choose hint that you don't understand the Christian view of submission in the first place, to then pose an informed objection. To me it sounds like you're rebounding this story off of America's history of woman's suffrage and Liberal Feminism rather than the biblical standard for establishing legitimacy of a woman's authority.

    As Queen Elizabeth demonstrated, women do not need men in order for their authority to be legitimate.
    I don't think it's that clear cut. I don't see any scriptural basis for making this distinction. Based on passages such as these;

    "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything." (Ephesians 5:22-24)

    "Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. (I Timothy 2:11-14)

    "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." (I Corinthians 11:3)


    One could make a perfectly cogent case that Christian women are obligated to be subservient to their husbands in every sphere of life. As I said; there don't appear to be any exceptions specified. The question is not; 'How do modern Christian apologists typically interpret these passages?', it's; 'How does Michelle Bachmann interpret these passages?'
    Economic Left/Right: -7.25, Authoritarian/Libertarian:-7.13
    All over the place, from the popular culture to the propaganda system, there is constant pressure to make people feel that they are helpless, that the only role they can have is to ratify decisions and to consume. -Noam Chomsky

  6. #106
    Sage
    SmokeAndMirrors's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    RVA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,170

    Re: What Did You Think Of This Question?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Another way she could have answered the question better would be to confirm her submission to the authority of the Constitution; an authority which by default trumps her husband in all respects. Only through the established process can her husband exert authority over her as President.
    Yes, but she didn't. Perhaps because she doesn't believe that. She's certainly smart enough to have thought of it, and yet she didn't say it. She answered it by giving some sort of weird answer about how "submit" and "respect" mean they same thing. Which obviously they don't. She is simply trying to cover up her own inability to lead due to her beliefs. And for all we know, she's doing it at her husband's behest.

    And her original statement included nothing about a mutual submissiveness - it was only about women submitting. And the Bible is fairly consistent in that message.
    Last edited by SmokeAndMirrors; 08-15-11 at 12:33 AM.

  7. #107
    Guru

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:36 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,203

    Re: What Did You Think Of This Question?

    Quote Originally Posted by NGNM85 View Post
    How does Michelle Bachmann interpret these passages?'
    I think she answered that on Thursday night.

  8. #108
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: What Did You Think Of This Question?

    Quote Originally Posted by NGNM85 View Post
    I don't think it's that clear cut. I don't see any scriptural basis for making this distinction. Based on passages such as these;

    "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything." (Ephesians 5:22-24)

    "Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. (I Timothy 2:11-14)

    "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." (I Corinthians 11:3)


    One could make a perfectly cogent case that Christian women are obligated to be subservient to their husbands in every sphere of life. As I said; there don't appear to be any exceptions specified. The question is not; 'How do modern Christian apologists typically interpret these passages?', it's; 'How does Michelle Bachmann interpret these passages?'
    The separation of Church and State severs any biblical based authority her husband would hold over her with respect to POTUS.

  9. #109
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: What Did You Think Of This Question?

    Quote Originally Posted by MistressNomad View Post
    Yes, but she didn't. Perhaps because she doesn't believe that. She's certainly smart enough to have thought of it, and yet she didn't say it. She answered it by giving some sort of weird answer about how "submit" and "respect" mean they same thing. Which obviously they don't. She is simply trying to cover up her own inability to lead due to her beliefs. And for all we know, she's doing it at her husband's behest.

    And her original statement included nothing about a mutual submissiveness - it was only about women submitting. And the Bible is fairly consistent in that message.
    I think your views prove my original claim about this question:

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    IMO the question, as delivered, did a good job of calling back to Leftist fears of religion being inserted into law, and of Feminists seeing this candidate as a threat to ending women's suffrage.
    I can't imagine that a she would be the first President who's ear was bent to their spouse.

    In a world of special-interest lobbyists, campaign donors and back-room deals, we at least have the benefit of knowing up front the people who influence her most.
    Last edited by Jerry; 08-15-11 at 12:49 AM.

  10. #110
    Sage
    SmokeAndMirrors's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    RVA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,170

    Re: What Did You Think Of This Question?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    The separation of Church and State severs any biblical based authority her husband would hold over her with respect to POTUS.
    But how is anyone going to know if she's simply doing what her husband tells her to? She's one of those people who believes we are a "Christian nation," and that the Bible is the ultimate authority. Her statement that she submits to her husband, up to spending tons of money on a degree for a career she hates and carrying on doing it for over a decade, suggests that she is one of those people (not that it needs to suggest anything, since she has blatantly said things like that).

    You are right in a legal sense. That does not mean Bachmann will respect that. And we have no way to make sure she does.

    Bush said "god told him" to invade Iraq, after all. While you are absolutely right, we as a country do not hold people accountable for ruling by their religion. In fact, one of our parties endorses it and some people in this country won't vote for anyone who isn't extremely, fanatically Christian.

Page 11 of 15 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •