• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What Did You Think Of This Question?

What did you think of the question?


  • Total voters
    44
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?'
 
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:
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.
 
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:

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:
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.
 
I think your views prove my original claim about this question:

My views? All I've done is repeat her words. They're hers, not mine. She could not have been plainer in expressing her views on female submission.

And all you've done in response is either come up with some muddled apologetic excuse for why it's not that big a deal, or pinned people as saying things they never said. You will not address the point.

And by the way, she is also explicit in wanting to legislate her religion. Her views on homosexuality are explicitely and openly tied to her religion. Again, I don't need to assume anything. She has been very clear on the matter.
 
The question was asked...does anyone freak out about her answer? She didnt get all pouty and whiny ala Newt Gingrich about the unfair nature of the question...she simply answered it. Has anyone seen anything evidenced in her political career where she has been unduly influenced (and any more so than say, Michelle has influenced Barrack)?
 
The question was asked...does anyone freak out about her answer? She didnt get all pouty and whiny ala Newt Gingrich about the unfair nature of the question...she simply answered it. Has anyone seen anything evidenced in her political career where she has been unduly influenced (and any more so than say, Michelle has influenced Barrack)?

All thats beside the point...she brought the question on herself by making the statement...then she waffled on the answer...
 
My views? All I've done is repeat her words. They're hers, not mine. She could not have been plainer in expressing her views on female submission.

And all you've done in response is either come up with some muddled apologetic excuse for why it's not that big a deal, or pinned people as saying things they never said. You will not address the point.

And by the way, she is also explicit in wanting to legislate her religion. Her views on homosexuality are explicitely and openly tied to her religion. Again, I don't need to assume anything. She has been very clear on the matter.

Presidents don't legislate, and there was a plan in invade Iraq on the books for at least 10 years prior to Bush. Iraq was hardly spontaneous, I believe the original plans were drafted during the Regan administration, if not earlier. It takes years to plan out a major military movement; which, incidentally, is why Obama couldn't simply order us out of Iraq, either, but I digress.

***
My point was not meant as an insult to you in any way. I wanted to point out that the question was meant to show her in a polarized light. I think the question succeeded because she didn't answer it very well.

I can't say that she hates her profession today. I haven't heard her say that, only that she initially didn't want to go into tax law.
 
Presidents don't legislate, and there was a plan in invade Iraq on the books for at least 10 years prior to Bush. Iraq was hardly spontaneous, I believe the original plans were drafted during the Regan administration, if not earlier. It takes years to plan out a major military movement; which, incidentally, is why Obama couldn't simply order us out of Iraq, either, but I digress.

***
My point was not meant as an insult to you in any way. I wanted to point out that the question was meant to show her in a polarized light. I think the question succeeded because she didn't answer it very well.

I can't say that she hates her profession today. I haven't heard her say that, only that she initially didn't want to go into tax law.

I'm not saying she could. I'm saying she wants to. She most definitely desires to make some of her religious views law.

Whether what Bush said is the truth of the matter is beside the point. The point is he received relatively little criticism for saying it. And he said it about lots of other things as well. That should be a huge alarm bell in the minds of the American public - a democratic republic that is supposedly secular. And yet, for some reason, it isn't.

Bachmann is polarizing. She says and does polarizing things. It's not plotting or nefarious for someone to point that out, or even to make it the focus of her campaign in the media. It should be the focus. Her extreme and polarizing views are absolutely the biggest thing we need to be talking about in considering Bachmann as a candidate.
 
I'm not saying she could. I'm saying she wants to. She most definitely desires to make some of her religious views law.

Whether what Bush said is the truth of the matter is beside the point. The point is he received relatively little criticism for saying it. And he said it about lots of other things as well. That should be a huge alarm bell in the minds of the American public - a democratic republic that is supposedly secular. And yet, for some reason, it isn't.

Bachmann is polarizing. She says and does polarizing things. It's not plotting or nefarious for someone to point that out, or even to make it the focus of her campaign in the media. It should be the focus. Her extreme and polarizing views are absolutely the biggest thing we need to be talking about in considering Bachmann as a candidate.

Bush isn't running, so I'm automatically going to ignore anything said about Bush.

How Bachmann is polarizing doesn't matter. That she's polarizing it what has doomed her candidacy. She could strongly support your every view, yet be polarized and fail.
 
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.

You have to take into consideration the viewers and the core GOP voters, especially the religious ones. It is a very valid question for a woman who is trying to enter the man's world of Conservative politics. It is sexist and chauvinistic but it is the reality of the situation for a conservative woman.... like it or not.

Had she been a Democrat and trying for the Democratic nomination, then yes it would have been sexist and inappropriate.. but then again chances of someone even remotely thinking of asking that of a woman on the left is remote.

Like it or not, the view and role of women in society is different depending on which side of the political scale you are and this is valid for most countries around the world.

Ask Maggie Thatcher when she started her political climb. She was asked the exact same questions and the candidates going up against her .. in her own party, used her motherhood as a negative against her.. "how can she be a mother and have a full time job?"... "does she hate her children?"... and it was not only men but women (mostly spouses of course) who came with these comments. When she was in debates, she not only had to contend with policy questions, but more than often she had to contend with "family" questions and attacks.

Or ask the Rachida Dati, former French Justice minister... unwed and pregnant!... the horror! The French and especially people abroad in conservative circles were horrified to hear that a conservative woman in a conservative government was unwed and pregnant and kept on working till she had the kid and came to work a few weeks after giving birth.

So like it or not, for the audience (even in the 21st century), this question was relevant and topical.. because she is a woman and a mother...
 
It was not an appropriate question; the "asker" was being stupid, possibly disrespectful.
 
It was not an appropriate question; the "asker" was being stupid, possibly disrespectful.

Why? Where is the line drawn as what is appropriate to ask a presidential candidate and what isn't?
 
Why? Where is the line drawn as what is appropriate to ask a presidential candidate and what isn't?

It's okay to ask if Obama hates white people or if he's paling around with terrorists. Those are legitimate and honest questions.
 
If Michelle Bachmann is a Catholic, I can see the concern; though even the Catholic church is allowing women bishops now.

If Michelle Bachmann is a Protestant, there is no conflict as we Protestants see the matter a bit differently.

Sure you do. :roll:. Literal when it benefits you. Allegorical when it doesn't.
 
It's okay to ask if Obama hates white people or if he's paling around with terrorists. Those are legitimate and honest questions.

its ok to ask if Obama is a Communist Manchurian candidate set up by Bill Ayers.

and its ok to ask if Obama killed his mother in order to hide his TRUE birthplace.
 
its ok to ask if Obama is a Communist Manchurian candidate set up by Bill Ayers.

and its ok to ask if Obama killed his mother in order to hide his TRUE birthplace.

It's also okay to ask Obama if he's going to install a Khalifate and which progressives are gonna help him.
 
Why bother asking The Obama all of those questions when we already kow he's going to lie about them?
 
To get a proper meaningful answer you would have to be more specific as to the nature of the question. Is it about sexuality or is it about the political influence the husband has over Mrs Bachmann.

When it comes to the statement that Hillary would never be asked such a question the answer to that is, it would never come up because if it's sex I don't think most people can imagine Hillary doing the Horizontal Hula and we know that Bill is on the road most of the time and when he's not she is.
 
Back
Top Bottom