Michelle Bachmann's Head is a Novelty Fishbowl

[Jacob]

Michelle Bachman's (former) church states that the pope is the anti-christ.

Hopefully The Atlantic doesn't get a hold of some of the stuff stated by my Gospel Doctrine teacher on Sundays.

More Bachman getting slammed because someone she knows, or used to know holds typical protestant beliefs? I don't believe it.

For context, I spoke to theologians familiar with Lutheran church history, who generally agreed with Hochmuth's characterization of Luther's views on the Antichrist.

And add to the fact that Bachman herself has said for years that she doesn't believe the pope is the Anti-Christ.

Well that's a false statement that was made, and I spoke with my pastor earlier today about that as well, and he was absolutely appalled that someone would put that out. It's abhorrent, it's religious bigotry. I love Catholics, I'm a Christian, and my church does not believe that the Pope is the Anti-Christ, that's absolutely false.

All this was from the article. The entire piece is pointless. I'd be interested to see the articles written by the Atlantic about Obama's connections to Jeremiah Wright, which are much more substantial than anything in this piece.

I don't much care for Bachman. But I care much less for the unfair attacks on her.

[RobinFinderson]

More Bachman getting slammed because someone she knows, or used to know holds typical protestant beliefs? I don't believe it.

And add to the fact that Bachman herself has said for years that she doesn't believe the pope is the Anti-Christ.

All this was from the article. The entire piece is pointless. I'd be interested to see the articles written by the Atlantic about Obama's connections to Jeremiah Wright, which are much more substantial than anything in this piece.

If Obama's connections to Jeremiah Wright were fair game, then so are Bachmann's connections to her religious leaders.

[Donuthole]

If Obama's connections to Jeremiah Wright were fair game, then so are Bachmann's connections to her religious leaders.

You beat me to it. Very much the same way Mitt's policy flip-flops are relevant due to the alleged relevance of Kerry's waffling/flip-flopping.

[LA Ute]

If Obama's connections to Jeremiah Wright were fair game, then so are Bachmann's connections to her religious leaders.

(Caveat: I am not a Bachmann fan.)

But Obama's connections to Wright were not considered fair game. Go back and look at what the liberal punditocracy was saying at the time.

[Borderline Divine]

(Caveat: I am not a Bachmann fan.)

But Obama's connections to Wright were not considered fair game. Go back and look at what the liberal punditocracy was saying at the time.

Didn't keep his opponents from using it. IMHO everything is fair game except families.

[PaloAltoCougar]

(Caveat: I am not a Bachmann fan.)

But Obama's connections to Wright were not considered fair game. Go back and look at what the liberal punditocracy was saying at the time.

This minor issue is yet another example of the laughably contradictory stands each side takes, depending on who's in power and who is trying to unseat them.

A larger example is the current debt ceiling debate. Obama voted against raising the ceiling while in the Senate, while Bush and the Republicans raised it, what?, 15 or 20 times. Each side is essentially using the same arguments the other side used prior to 2009. A pox on both their houses.

It would be nice if someone would take charge and say (i) the debt ceiling will be raised; (ii) massive spending cuts will be instituted, including in the SS and Medicare arenas (e.g., extending the retirement age), and (iii) tax rates will be increased modestly. Every politician champions one of those steps, but very few favor all of them, which I think are essential.

I dislike politicians intensely.

[byu71]

This minor issue is yet another example of the laughably contradictory stands each side takes, depending on who's in power and who is trying to unseat them.

A larger example is the current debt ceiling debate. Obama voted against raising the ceiling while in the Senate, while Bush and the Republicans raised it, what?, 15 or 20 times. Each side is essentially using the same arguments the other side used prior to 2009. A pox on both their houses.

It would be nice if someone would take charge and say (i) the debt ceiling will be raised; (ii) massive spending cuts will be instituted, including in the SS and Medicare arenas (e.g., extending the retirement age), and (iii) tax rates will be increased modestly. Every politician champions one of those steps, but very few favor all of them, which I think are essential.

I dislike politicians intensely.

I too am thouroughly disgusted with the politicians. I am disgusted with the pundits. I really don't trust any of them to shoot straight.

4 trillion in spending cuts, sounds good as long as 90% doesn't come 9 years from now. I am tired of the so called senior citizens whining about potential social security and medicare cuts. What do people do when their salary gets cut 30%, they suck it up and find a way.

Oil breaks and corporate jets done away with. Yea, I could support that if I was sure there were the spending cuts.

Sadly though, I think the deal is to fool the other guy into thinking you are going to keep your end of the bargain, but you really don't plan to.

The whole thing stinks and we as the voting public have our part to share in the blame.

[Sullyute]

I too am thouroughly disgusted with the politicians. I am disgusted with the pundits. I really don't trust any of them to shoot straight.

4 trillion in spending cuts, sounds good as long as 90% doesn't come 9 years from now. I am tired of the so called senior citizens whining about potential social security and medicare cuts. What do people do when their salary gets cut 30%, they suck it up and find a way.

Oil breaks and corporate jets done away with. Yea, I could support that if I was sure there were the spending cuts.

Sadly though, I think the deal is to fool the other guy into thinking you are going to keep your end of the bargain, but you really don't plan to.

The whole thing stinks and we as the voting public have our part to share in the blame.

We may not have a much blame as you think. This was a message from the Utah Bar President yesterday (note the part that I bolded):

We have too few members of the Bar who sit on City councils or Planning Commissions, too few members serve as Senators or Representatives in the state legislature. While I recognize that few Bar members are able to devote the significant time commitment it takes to serve as a state legislator, there are plenty of other opportunities. As many of you know, Utah relies on a local and state caucus system for choosing candidates. With the Republican party enjoying significant political control, many elections are determined through the voting of the delegates rather than at a primary or general election. Bar members should become active in the local and state caucus process. As a delegate, you have the opportunity to have some positive influence in the shaping of the face of our State. In addition, a delegate is in a better position to communicate concerns about pending legislation to his or her respective representative. I claim no power to divine the future. I believe in the future, Bar members will likely see proposed legislation attempting to re-define the practice of law, taxing legal services, or affecting the public’s access to justice. Attorneys have always played a pivotal role in shaping our national and local politics. tah will benefit from increased participation of lawyers in this process to lend their wisdom and expertise in working for legislation that supports rather than detracts from the Rule of Law.

I know that this is Utah related and not national but that is what got Bennett kicked off the Republican ticket for Senator. Unless you have pull in a particular political party, your vote may not mean much and you are left to choose between the lesser of two evils each November.

[bluegoose]

More Bachman getting slammed because someone she knows, or used to know holds typical protestant beliefs? I don't believe it.

And add to the fact that Bachman herself has said for years that she doesn't believe the pope is the Anti-Christ.

All this was from the article. The entire piece is pointless. I'd be interested to see the articles written by the Atlantic about Obama's connections to Jeremiah Wright, which are much more substantial than anything in this piece.

I don't much care for Bachman. But I care much less for the unfair attacks on her.

If Obama's connections to Jeremiah Wright were fair game, then so are Bachmann's connections to her religious leaders.

This is why I linked the article. I think its ridiculous to associate someone's moral or philosophical values with something said by a religious affiliate of theirs. Thus, the reason why she has left the church - purely a political move. But who can blame her really?

That being said, just as Robin and Donut mentioned, the knife cuts both ways in politics. Obama was blasted for months for things Wright said. Why should Bachman receive any different treatment?

[Jacob]

The associations between Bachman's alleged pastor and those between Obama and Wright don't seem equivalent. Obama was outspoken that Wright was his spiritual guide, baptised his children, etc.

But even if the associations are comparable, the issues at stake are not. That's the point I made. Wright is a lunatic who often made racist, crazy, and truly anti-american and anti-semitic statements, including in his preaching at teh church Obama attended for more than a decade. Meanwhile, Bachmans pastor merely believes standard Lutheran doctrine, but down-plays its importance or prevalence. These cases are not equivalent. I never said her associations aren't fair game...I said that this story is not noteworthy. There is nothing to see.

[byu71]

The associations between Bachman's alleged pastor and those between Obama and Wright don't seem equivalent. Obama was outspoken that Wright was his spiritual guide, baptised his children, etc.

But even if the associations are comparable, the issues at stake are not. That's the point I made. Wright is a lunatic who often made racist, crazy, and truly anti-american and anti-semitic statements, including in his preaching at teh church Obama attended for more than a decade. Meanwhile, Bachmans pastor merely believes standard Lutheran doctrine, but down-plays its importance or prevalence. These cases are not equivalent. I never said her associations aren't fair game...I said that this story is not noteworthy. There is nothing to see.

Exactly what I was thinking.

[RobinFinderson]

The associations between Bachman's alleged pastor and those between Obama and Wright don't seem equivalent. Obama was outspoken that Wright was his spiritual guide, baptised his children, etc.

But even if the associations are comparable, the issues at stake are not. That's the point I made. Wright is a lunatic who often made racist, crazy, and truly anti-american and anti-semitic statements, including in his preaching at teh church Obama attended for more than a decade. Meanwhile, Bachmans pastor merely believes standard Lutheran doctrine, but down-plays its importance or prevalence. These cases are not equivalent. I never said her associations aren't fair game...I said that this story is not noteworthy. There is nothing to see.

Apparently you know more about standard Lutheran doctrine than you do about standard Black Theology. What folks need to understand wrt Brother Wright is that he represents a fairly typical preacher coming from the tradition of Black American Christiandom. When African slaves first found themselves in the US, the segregated Black churches were a primary institution of cultural adaptation. Because those churches developed a Christian theology separate from white churches, they developed a unique American perspective on Christianity. One specific aspect of Black churches was their focus on the literal and metaphorical meanings of liberation. Cloaked in the coded metaphorical language of 'spiritual liberation,' the black churches provided slaves the opportunity to discuss their physical bondage, and understand it in the context of the Jews' bondage under the Pharaoh and Roman Empire. In this way Black churches have hosted a critical dialogue, centered on the plight of the poor, since their very beginning. These churches continued to develop critiques of power, looking at both the government and private institutions, as they wended their way through the days of slavery, reconstruction, Jim Crow, Civil Rights, and into the present. Jeremiah Wright stands on the shoulders of giants as part of a long American tradition that is the Black church movement in the United States.

The thing with Wright is, he isn't some anomaly in tradition of Black churches. He is a fairly typical Black leader. Because of this, when Obama's political enemies decided to attack Obama by interpreting Wright's words in the most derogatory possible way, they were inadvertently (and hopefully unwittingly) attacking the Black Christian church as an American institution. Yes, the Black Christian church has a long tradition of criticizing American policy that goes back to slavery and Jim Crow, and it was this tradition that gave rise to Wright's remarks about America as a perpetrator of violence on the global stage. I think such a perspective has value in American dialogue, especially coming from the Black church, which has as one of its highest tradition the recognition of the continuity of people's historical struggles.

Anyhow, the big point here is, the attacks on Obama via J. Wright were more hurtful and meant a lot more than most white Americans realize.

[byu71]

Apparently you know more about standard Lutheran doctrine than you do about standard Black Theology. What folks need to understand wrt Brother Wright is that he represents a fairly typical preacher coming from the tradition of Black American Christiandom. When African slaves first found themselves in the US, the segregated Black churches were a primary institution of cultural adaptation. Because those churches developed a Christian theology separate from white churches, they developed a unique American perspective on Christianity. One specific aspect of Black churches was their focus on the literal and metaphorical meanings of liberation. Cloaked in the coded metaphorical language of 'spiritual liberation,' the black churches provided slaves the opportunity to discuss their physical bondage, and understand it in the context of the Jews' bondage under the Pharaoh and Roman Empire. In this way Black churches have hosted a critical dialogue, centered on the plight of the poor, since their very beginning. These churches continued to develop critiques of power, looking at both the government and private institutions, as they wended their way through the days of slavery, reconstruction, Jim Crow, Civil Rights, and into the present. Jeremiah Wright stands on the shoulders of giants as part of a long American tradition that is the Black church movement in the United States.

The thing with Wright is, he isn't some anomaly in tradition of Black churches. He is a fairly typical Black leader. Because of this, when Obama's political enemies decided to attack Obama by interpreting Wright's words in the most derogatory possible way, they were inadvertently (and hopefully unwittingly) attacking the Black Christian church as an American institution. Yes, the Black Christian church has a long tradition of criticizing American policy that goes back to slavery and Jim Crow, and it was this tradition that gave rise to Wright's remarks about America as a perpetrator of violence on the global stage. I think such a perspective has value in American dialogue, especially coming from the Black church, which has as one of its highest tradition the recognition of the continuity of people's historical struggles.

Anyhow, the big point here is, the attacks on Obama via J. Wright were more hurtful and meant a lot more than most white Americans realize.

How many years do you think it will take before talking about America in derogatory terms by Black Ministers is excused because of the horrible treatment received in the past.

Obviously electing a black President isn't good enough. You need to love him and support him regardless of how you feel about his policies.

Back to my question, 50 years, 100 years or when repatriation is made and we take billions from the white rich son of a bitches and give it to blacks.

I know, based on what I have said I am a racist.

[Borderline Divine]

How many years do you think it will take before talking about America in derogatory terms by Black Ministers is excused because of the horrible treatment received in the past.
Obviously electing a black President isn't good enough. You need to love him and support him regardless of how you feel about his policies.

Back to my question, 50 years, 100 years or when repatriation is made and we take billions from the white rich son of a bitches and give it to blacks.

I know, based on what I have said I am a racist.

I don't know how many years. I don't think a pair of white boys such as you and I have much say in the matter, nor should we.

[byu71]

I don't know how many years. I don't think a pair of white boys such as you and I have much say in the matter, nor should we.

LOL, I guess you and I should have no say on abortion, immigration, equal pay for women, underage drinking, etc. Us white boys don't know shit.