An excerpt from an article in the Washington Post, most of which concerns the Bachmanns' views on homosexuality. I thought this part was even more interesting:
Dr. Bachmann’s influence on his wife is an article of faith within the family.
“He is her godly husband,” said Peter Bachmann, Dr. Bachmann’s oldest brother, who lives on the family dairy farm across the eastern border in Wisconsin. “The husband is to be the head of the wife, according to God.” It is a philosophy that Michele Bachmann echoed to congregants of the the Living Word Christian Center in 2006, when she stated that she pursued her degree in tax law only because her husband had told her to. “The Lord says: Be submissive, wives. You are to be submissive to your husbands,” she said.
And it is clear that when it comes to their social conservatism, the Bachmanns are in full agreement.
Progressive women must be gnashing their teeth in frustration over the fact that after several generations of struggle for equality, the woman who now wants to be POTUS views women as being subservient to their husbands.
Maybe I don't know my Bible well enough; I certainly am not very familiar with the New Testament, having been brought up only with the Old; but where exactly does it say there that G-d says women must be subservient to men? I was under the impression that there was a quote somewhere about women being created to be a "helpmeet" to men, but that doesn't equal subservience... does it?
ReplyDelete"Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God. 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. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband" (Ephesians 5:21-33)
ReplyDeleteSounds much less sexist in context.
ReplyDeleteThe only command for men given in the verse is to "love." Women, on the other hand, are commanded to submit, respect and obey. Seems at least somewhat sexist to me.
ReplyDeleteIts not just women who are annoyed at this!
ReplyDeleteC'mon. There's a bit of a difference between the word "submission" and the word "subservient". And a difference in roles is not the same as inequality or a difference in status. And please let's put the whole thing in context. The classical text on submission (in Ephesians 5) starts with the words "Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ."
ReplyDeleteIf Michele Bachmann believes submissive and subservient are synonymous, then who would be the de facto president if she were elected?
ReplyDelete@Latrent, that was my thought exactly when I read the quote. Also note that this comes from a letter by Paul, not Jesus, so those who claim that this is G-d speaking would seem to be saying that Paul is now also an aspect of G-d.
ReplyDeleteRob pointed out correctly that the passage says we are to "submit to one another." Taking this into account, the rest of the passage becomes more clear. If I'm supposed to submit to you and at the same time, you are supposed to submit to me, it cannot mean what the teeth-gnashers think it means. (and likewise, it cannot mean what a fundamentalist who also takes it out of context thinks it means)
ReplyDeleteOrganized religion is all about control. Controlling others' thoughts and actions is a great power, and has always been in the hands of men. Who'd want to give that up? Get 'em while they're young and you're almost assured of complete control throughout their lives. What I can't stand about people like Bachman is how they use the Bible as a moral buffet. They demand that we live according to their favorite passages but ignore others. Afterall, it's OK to have slaves and stone women to death 'cause the book says so.
ReplyDeleteContext is everything.
ReplyDeleteEvery time I hear a fundamentalist say we should live in accordance with the Bible, I feel the need to bring up the passages about how single women who are raped and caught in the act have to marry the rapist.
ReplyDeleteGranted that's in the Old Testament and, according to Jesus, those laws don't need to be followed anymore, but fundies sure ignore that fact when they rant and rave against homosexuality.
I'm SO glad that the true nature of Christian marital relationship is an egalitarian one, as interpreted by the readers here. Not the point. The point is that Bachmann ascribes to a different view, and a vote for her would be a defacto vote for her husband. Which I am sure is fine with at least a third of the electorate.
ReplyDeleteThat should lock in the far-right vote for her.
ReplyDeleteI'm so tire of the pretense of "Dr." Bachmann. She's just an attorney, she didn't write a dissertation, and most other attorneys don't try to leverage a J.D. into a pretentious title.
ReplyDeleteThe Bible promotes as normal all manner of abhorrent behavior, from incest to genocide. If you must believe in the book's messages, inflict such Biblical "wisdom" on yourself, don't cite it to subjugate others.
@BJN, 'Dr.' Bachmann is Michelle's husband. He's a psychology type who thinks gays can be 'cured,' so I'm not sure he's worth the title, but he does have it.
ReplyDeleteSo... we'd be electing HIM?
ReplyDeleteWell, if she had a shot in hell.
Biblical discussions online are particularly useless online, but I will put in my view in spite of my better judgement.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that while women are told to submit to men, men are told to offer up everything the have, and everything they are, even to death, for their wives.
That to me encapsulates in a very poetic way the deep and abiding sacrifice that all men should be willing to make for the good of the marriage.
This is ignored by too many people who want to use a tiny slice of the passage to paint Christians as a bunch of misogynists, and it's a truly cheap, dishonest tactic.
@032125: "This is ignored by too many people who want to use a tiny slice of the passage to paint Christians as a bunch of misogynists, and it's a truly cheap, dishonest tactic."
ReplyDeleteSorry, but the bible (old and new testament) doesn't consist of 'slices' - it's a veritable buffet of backward, patriarchal, superstitious thinking from the stone-age. God comes off as cruel, petty (the first 4 commandments are all about him), and tyrannical. Jesus fares little better in the second testament.
Quick, try quoting a portion of the bible that tells you slavery is wrong. Give up? Other than not to be your slave to cause death of loss of sight, there is no admonition of slavery.
For the life of me, I cannot conceive how anyone could use this book as a moral guide.
I'm gay, and I can tell you with complete seriousness and certainty that Marcus Bachmann is in my tribe. I've seen him on TV speaking and my gaydar went off. Yes, that's not always accurate, but it mostly works. He must be bi, but he wants to cure gay men? Just like George Rekers and all the other self-hating Bible thumpers. That's his business, until he calls gays "barbarians" who need to be 'disciplined." Hey, I could be wrong. You'll see.
ReplyDeleteLike all other works ever written the bible is open to interpretation. This means that some take advantage of certain passages in the bible to manipulate others or to keep others in line. Usually those others are women or someone disadvantaged in some way. I have nothing against religions of any kind but I find that all religions suppress someone in some way, shape or form. I doubt that Jesus had this in mind when he was preaching to the masses
ReplyDeleteSubmissive definitely doesn't equal being subservient. Context is key.
ReplyDeleteMen are to love their wives sacrificially, being willing to give up everything they have and hold dear (even their very life) for the wife they marry, unconditionally, regardless of the response of the wife.
Wives likewise are to submit (but note the couple submits themselves "one to another, so this isn't a dictatorship) and respect their husbands, regardless of the sacrifice (or lack thereof) of the husbands.
Where did you find the context you're referring to, Barnabas?
ReplyDelete@Jack of All Tirades
ReplyDelete"Ye shall not therefore oppress one another..." Leviticus 25:17
Bear in mind that I put no stock in the veracity of the bible; though it is a critical historical document in the development of moral philosophy.
I am only arguing that the particular passage mentioned is oft abused.
In a similar light, your quote is taken out of context, 032125. That particular sentence simply talks about the selling of lands to other Israelites. Then, later in the same chapter:
ReplyDelete“Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."
(Leviticus 25:44-46)
God gives slavery the go-ahead. How do you not interpret this as oppression? Any line can be taken out of context and "abused."
Slavery now is much different than the slavery mentioned in the Bible. Today it is a horrible thing that would never have been accepted.
ReplyDeleteBiblical slavery that was allowed for the Israelites would be more akin to an immigrant worker that is a housemaid. She essentially has no option to leave for a while because of her financial situation.
Notice Ex 21:5,6: But if the slave should insistently say, ‘I really love my master, my wife and my sons; I do not want to go out as one set free,’ then his master must bring him near to the [true] God and must bring him up against the door or the doorpost; and his master must pierce his ear through with an awl, and he must be his slave to time indefinite.
Does not sound like the kind of slavery people think of today.
And Joseph White is taking his contextual information out of context. The entire chapter is referring throughout to "slavery"...
39,40: And in case your brother grows poor alongside you and he has to sell himself to you, you must not use him as a worker in slavish service. He should prove to be with you like a hired laborer, like a settler. He should serve with you till the Jubilee year.
Notice that Hebrew slaves and any debts were released every 50th year (jubilee).
47-49: But in case the hand of the alien resident or the settler with you becomes wealthy, and your brother has become poor alongside him and must sell himself to the alien resident or the settler with you, or to a member of the family of the alien resident, after he has sold himself, the right of repurchase will continue in his case. One of his brothers may buy him back...
Or if his own hand has become wealthy, he must also buy himself back.
So even foreigners were allowed to own Israelites as slaves... in Israel. Do you think that would even be allowed if it was anything like modern slavery?
I agree with what most people have been saying. Its easy to take just a few verses and take them out of context without really understanding how it all fits together.
Let me clarify: The point I was attempting to make was that slavery (i.e. the ownership of another human being) is unacceptable, but seems to be allowed by the Bible. I was not pointing out how only Israelites can have slaves who are foreigners. I see, though, how this could be the inferred reasoning of my last quote, since that is its entire context. I was going for a broader "owning people is oppressive."
ReplyDeleteSo, I'm not completey sure I understand the point you're trying to make with Exodus 21 here. It sounds to me like a slave becomes a permanent servant if he's happy with the family. Sure, that doesn't match any modern-day definitions of slavery, but that doesn't make that freedom. I still see that as a form of oppression, which is the point I was trying to make. It's the ownership of another human being: I have a difficult time justifying that, even if it's only for 50 years at a time.
Also, I'm not so sure the comparison to an immigrant worker is accurate. A couple of verses also from Exodus 21:
"If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free."
(Exodus 21:4)
So, a slave / servant / immigrant worker is not entitled to his children upon liberation if the wife was provided.
"If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her."
(Exodus 21:7-8)
Further oppression and inequality of women from the same chapter.
As for your provided passages from Leviticus, 39-40 seems to say "don't make your brother a slave like you would someone who you owned that wasn't your brother." If that's the case, I don't see the point. If not, please clarify. And again, just because foreigners can own Israelites, does not make slavery acceptable (at least not in my eyes). The point is the ownership, not who is "allowed" to own whom.
Now, I do acknowledge that this was obviously a different age, and that some of these things were viewed as acceptable, just as slavery once was in America. But that does not make it moral or just, and if these "now-unacceptable" bits of the Bible are discounted due to "being out of date," what makes the still-acceptable bits more reliable, and thus usable as reference? How can one differentiate?
No one has mentioned amidst all the talk of interpretation that fundamentalist evangelical christians believe that the bible is the inerrant word of God and every word must be taken literally. Of course, they then proceed to interpret those words to their ownliking.
ReplyDeleteI love all this pedantic discussion over what is essentially a book of magical poetry based on largely fictional events and people. Next up: "Nancy Pelosi believes Dumbledore is right that witches and wizards must be equal to one another. Is her position supported by Harry Potter Book 4 Chapter 1 Verse 3?"
ReplyDeleteThere are far more important reasons than this story to oppose Bachmann.
So, it would really be Mr Michelle who would be in charge of the US? I mean, if she has to be subservient to him, and he says 'Hey, we should nuke Australia', what is she supposed to do?
ReplyDeleteWow. Quite a few DNFTT comments here. Reasonable debate is more elusive on the internet than anywhere.
ReplyDeleteThis is why I am completely against anything that has to do with the current republican party, it is a group that is trying to push back progress in every form.
ReplyDelete