I understand the reason for such a question to be asked because shes a heavy duty Christian... but i think it was inappropriate because the question was ignorant about common christian views/stances. It sounded as if a Left wing atheist was trying to throw a "Gotchya" question and bash both her and Christianity.
I only really care if Bachmann cares. I think it has some legitimate things about to become a little angry over, but if your the type of person that is layed-back and "meh-whatever question ya wanna throw at me" kind of person then i don't see the problem.
Ah yes - Paul and his noble Roman ass. . . which has many contradictions in the Bible - reading his works is like making sense of a schizophrenic's diary entries and others who wrote about him weren't much more squared away on who he was, either.
The catholic church should have conviened a little further on him before they wrote him up.
A screaming comes across the sky.
It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare it to now.Pynchon - Gravity's Rainbow
Considering she made the earlier statement about subservience, and I've known a number of Christians who take that very literally to mean a woman is subservient to her man, I was ok with the question. When you make religion a big part of your public persona, I think it's appropriate to take a candidates religious views into account when they are very open about using their religion in political campaigning and speeches.
Taken out of context that could be used to imply men dominate their submissive wives. Taken in context it is but one half of the equation. Husbands...love your wives and Christ loved the church. Translation live for them, respect them. Be honorable. If necessary, die for them. Its a pretty powerful description for a healthy relationship. I dont see anywhere where it gives the husband the right to direct or dictate to a woman their responsibilities as an elected official. Such a thing would be outside the scope of the cited scripture.
I cant see how anyone can be UPSET about the question. If a candidate makes religion a focal point of their personality, then people have the right to ask to what level that applies. Candidate Gingrich will likely have to field questions why he was with another woman while still married. The difference of course is that none of the media ever came out and asked "Mr Clinton...just how many other fat chicks HAVE you been boffing while you have been married?" Or of Mr Kerry...since you already have your first and second wives money, should something ever happen to Theresa will you marry another Yeti just because they are loaded?
she publicly admitted that she did not want to pursue the study of tax law
but she acquiesced to her husband's desire that she undertake such a curriculum
what other major matters would she defer to her husband's position instead of her own, if - may God help us - she were elected to the presidency?
“I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on what’s being proposed here, he’d agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute.” - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.