Frank Schaeffer: Bachmann’s theology a ‘liability with the general public’

Her world view of a theocracy for American is a serious threat that will infringe on the rights of others currently not on her hit list – I think that pain is necessary to wake up Americans. She’s very bight and calculated in not continuing her virulent anti-gay rhetoric that promotes persecution and worse for those citizens.

I’ve very glad to see this article. Bachmann is one of the most frightening politicians in the running. Republicans, especially those of the Tea Party persuasion, spout xenophobic and unfounded nonsense about the imminent imposition of Shari law, while ignoring the Christian Dominionists in the their own woodshed. She and others like — start with Rick Perry — need to be stopped now. Spread this message and get out the vote in 2012!

Frank Schaeffer is letting his irrational fear of religious people lead him to make wild and completely unsubstantiated claims about Bachmann’s agenda. Everything she has said completely refutes his assertion that she secretly wants to do away with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and install a theocracy. Frank Schaeffer could not be more ridiculous if he tried. I guess that’s why he fits right in on MSNBC.

” Everything she has said completely refutes his assertion that she secretly wants to do away with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and install a theocracy.”

Only if you believe her.

I’ll take her word over Frank Schaeffer’s any day of the week. I don’t even have to spend 2 milliseconds thinking about that one. If he disagrees with her on social issues, that’s fine, but to characterize her as a religious fanatic who wants to do away with our constitution and install a theocracy is ludicrous. It’s absolutely ludicrous, and only a network like MSNBC would lend credence to this nonsense.

Gary, wake up! Open the googles to “Christian reconstruction”, “dominionism” and “christian nationalism” and you will see her and her peeps, their vitriol and their plan. Good ole bobbin and aweavin Lou Engle ought to be your first clue.

She is not talking about the same America I currently live in or want to live in come the future.

Hers is not the prospect of a more equal society, hers is the prospect of a divided society where she is right and all others are wrong.

She has no moral corner on humanity.

When it comes to Bachmann, “Just say no!”

Jeff Wilfahrt, Rosemount, MN

Has she been discussing her membership in a denomination that teaches (more accurately, requires its members to believe) that the Papacy is the antichrist?

I’ve been waiting for someone to tell the truth about Bachmann and thank God they finally have! Spot on! Spot on!

http://godsownparty.com/blog/2011/06/what-is-dominionism/

” Everything she has said completely refutes his assertion that she secretly wants to do away with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and install a theocracy.”

You’re right, in that she’s not secret about it at all.

I can’t help but wonder where you folks were in 2008. Where was the scrutiny of Obama’s beliefs? Where was the scrutiny of his church affiliation and the hatred that was openly preached there by Reverend Wright? Is it different this time simply because he’s a Democrat and she’s a Republican? Does that justify a double standard? Hmmm…

People in this country have all kinds of different religious beliefs, and I don’t believe in demonizing someone just because his or her views are different than mine. I don’t share Bachmann’s religious views. The truth is that I am an atheist. But I think she may be the only one in the race who will follow through on her pledges to repeal Obamacare, cut spending, balance the budget and create a more business-friendly regulation regime. It won’t be easy, but I believe that she really intends to do these things.

I am suspicious that some of the others in the race are just saying the words because they want to get elected. I have little to no trust for any “establishment” GOP candidates. I am seriously considering voting for her, and I’m not afraid of any of your conspiracy theories about an impending theocracy. Even if she does want that, and I don’t believe she does, it would never happen in this country. Never. But in the meantime if she aggressively pursues fixing the fiscal disaster created by the weak and irresponsible “leaders” we have had in Washington DC, then I’ll know that I did cast the right vote.

GARY! She is associated with known hate groups, that think that its moral to kill Gay people, she personally has said that this is a Christian nation! She has purposefully acted on and against the constitution as it stands. Her husband is an ex gay councilor and has been quoted to say I am proud to stand behind so called hate groups! She does NOT hold the separation of church and state as a serious right to being an American.

Obama, and many many others before him, both Dem and Republican have been religious yes. But even the Bush’s are not as scary as this woman is when it comes to the extreme indoctrinating religious tactics she has!

marie what hate groups?? She’s a christian not a muslim. They are the only ones I see killing gay people. What are you talking about? Is there a christian organization that is killing gays in this country? I think you have to go to some other country to see gays being killed by government officials under sharia law. Watch it on youtube. Looks like sharia to me. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSSAfBsPzsI
5 min – Apr 17, 2011 – But if you have information on christians killing gays lets us all know. Having a god fearin christain in the white house might be a nice thing. They might even follow the constitution. Lord knows Obama hasn’t.

Marie, most certainly does not think that it is moral to kill gay people.

You know, I was searching the internet today and came across this article. I had never heard of The Minnesota Independent before and have never visited this site before today. For some reason I felt that somebody had to point out how ridiculous this Frank Schaeffer is. I had no idea that the community served by this site was made up of people who share his views. I’m sorry if my version of reality has ruffled any feathers over here. Didn’t mean to. Take care.

Loren – she supports Bradlee Dean, who has said that countries that kill gay people should be respected by the United States, because they’re living out the rules set forward in the Bible. So yes, Marie;’s statement is correct.

As for Obama – he’s been following the constitution. Only your blind hatred (and potential racism) lead you to see it otherwise, but I’m not surprised based upon your post.

@Loren -

What hate groups? Do some damn research. AFA and Bryan Fischer. Bradlee Dean. Men who claim that gay people are Nazi’s, literally Nazi’s who will terrorize and “bring down America”.

Hate group does not equal “lol killing everyone lol”, you vapid idiot.

Look, I don’t care about your invisible wizard in the sky, I don’t care if you believe in Allah, or Zeus, or Xenu or Yahweh… whichever flavor of superstition floats your boat. But I do ask that my politicians keep their particular cult doctrines out of my governance.

@Gary –

If you’re an atheist, your ignorance of Bachmanns dominionism is inexcusable. The woman explicitly states America is a Christian nation that should be run on “biblical principles”. She explicitly states that public education should be done away with, and that schools should teach Christian history and Creationism.

And the fact that you act as if you have some rational position on the issue, unlike “the irrational” fear people have concerning religious theocracy is pretty hilarious.

ahh yes, they want THEIR BRAND of Christian SHARIA Law……..what sick weirdos these people are…

Gary is an apologist for Bachmann willfully ignoring and denying her history of inserting her extreme religious beliefs into every aspect of her responsibilities and influence in the PTA, MN legislature and US Congress. She consistently announces that she is doing God’s work at his direction, that she is submissive to Marcus and that Gays are;

“It’s part of Satan I think to say that this is “gay.” It’s anything but gay.” — Senator Michele Bachmann, speaking at EdWatch National Education Conference, November 6, 2004.

“If you’re involved in the gay and lesbian lifestyle, it’s bondage. It is personal bondage, personal despair and personal enslavement.” — Senator Michele Bachmann, speaking at EdWatch National Education Conference, November 6, 2004.

On her March 2004 rally against same-sex marriage: “And I want to tell you, that was probably the most loving, warm-spirited, most beautiful rally that I have ever seen at the Capitol.” — Senator Michele Bachmann, speaking at EdWatch National Education Conference, November 6, 2004.

“They aren’t just kind of gay-friendly, they are gay advocates at Proctor and Gamble… Here’s just a few other companies that support the pro-homosexual agenda. They include Levi-Strauss, American Airlines, Sarah Lee Bakery, Jaguar and LandRover.” — Senator Michele Bachmann, speaking at EdWatch National Education Conference, November 6, 2004.

She is the new face of hate groups in America.

Oh Loren , please do some history work on how many people of christian faith have killed in the name of their God? and do you even know of the christians killing muslims in nigeria? What of the gay bashings and deaths? perhaps they don’t count?

Bachmann’s brand of theology is very dangerous and I think it will be the death of her politics in the end. One can hope so.

She not only cuddles up to the hate groups she is a hate group.

Wow, it looks like I found a hate group right here on this site! You guys spew hatred with every post, and then accuse others of being the haters.

@tkreacher

I don’t need to be excused by you or anybody else in order to decide what issues are important to me. I couldn’t care less about someone’s uber-christian orthodoxy. I am confident that our system of constitutional law will prevent any religious sect from establishing a theocracy. All of the rampant fear mongering I see posted by various people here is therefore irrational, and really quite ridiculous. Relax, nobody is going to stone you to death in this country.

@Roman

I’m not apologizing for anyone or anything. The issues of religion and gay rights are just not very important to me. I care much more about the enormity of our deficit and national debt than I do about the plight of gay people in this country. I’m not trying to offend anybody here; I’m just being honest. If we don’t fix our country’s finances ASAP, then we won’t have a country left to pass on to our children. Excuse me for seeing that there are other problems in this country that are far more critical than your narrow special interest.

Go ahead, people, spew your hatred at anyone who dares to stop by and express themselves. To me you are only making yourselves appear narrow minded and foolish.

Gary said I’m just being honest. If we don’t fix our country’s finances ASAP, then we won’t have a country left to pass on to our children. Excuse me for seeing that there are other problems in this country that are far more critical than your narrow special interest.

With people like Michelle only backing social issues and not doing her job you will never get our finances fixed.

The reason we don’t have a budget is because of the piggy backed bills the Republicans are trying to get passed that are all Socially based.

Marie, you cannot be serious. Michele Bachmann is one of the few in congress that has consistently voted against the profligate spending of both the Bush and Obama administrations. You must not have been paying attention. That’s ok, but now you know.

The reason we don’t have a budget is quite simple. Until last fall the Democratic party has had control of both houses of congress as well as the White House. They didn’t just have control, they had very large majorities in both houses, including a filibuster proof 60 votes in the Senate. During that time they chose to abdicate their constitutional responsibility of passing a budget. They could have passed any budget the wanted to, they had the votes, but they made a conscious choice to not do their jobs.

When the Republicans recently gained control of the House, one of the first things they did was pass a budget for next year. I understand that you and many others may not like what’s in it, but at least they did not abdicate the responsibilities of the positions we elected them to.

To this day, the Senate under Harry Reid has not passed a budget and has no intention of even working on one. It’s been three years now of operating without a budget. Three years in which, by the way, we have had the largest annual deficits in our nation’s history – by far.

I think it’s inexcusable for them to abdicate their responsibilities like that. You can’t blame the Republicans for the lack of a budget when it is the Democrats who have been in complete control of everything until this past election.

Oh good God…. “so now you know.” Michelle Bachmann whole-heartedly backed every neo-con pipedream and spend-now/pay-whenever agenda that Bush and Cheney came up with. Both Bush presidencies came in to office with surpluses and left with massive republican-mandated debt. The tea-talking points arent just swallowed and regurgitated over here.

You can’t deny that Obama in a league of his own when it comes to having a “spend-now/pay-whenever agenda”. The proof is in our annual deficit. He’s averaged roughly a 1.5 trillion dollar deficit every year he’s been in office. You may call that a “tea-talking point”, but I call it irresponsible leadership.

Bachmann voted against TARP, which we all know was a (horrible) Bush administration idea. So clearly, she did not just go along with Bush on everything. She has voted against raising the debt limit multiple times, bucking her own party’s leadership to do so. She voted against the auto bailouts. Don’t you think she deserves at least some credit for these votes?

The leaders of both parties have been spending our money like drunken sailors, and she has been one of the few people in congress who had the guts to stand up and say “no”. Regardless of how much you may fear her religious beliefs, you can’t say that she’s been a lapdog for the leadership of the Republican party. That just isn’t true.

Her willingness to take stands against her party’s leadership is one of the things I like about her. I think the Republican party under Bush showed themselves to be a bunch of hypocrites when it comes to fiscal policy. They talked about cutting, but when they had their chance they spent more. The Democratic party are not hypocrites, they’re just plain irresponsible. They’ll happily spend us into oblivion, until the US becomes Greece, patting themselves on the back the whole time.

The tea party folks seem to be the only ones who are saying “Stop the insanity!”, “Stop spending money we don’t have!”. I’m with them on that.

Nice Texas two-step, Gary. Bachmann and the R’s don’t agree that it’s a narrow special interest. The national and local R’s campaigned on promises to have a laser beam focus on jobs, the economy and deficit. That was a lie. They went to work quickly on social issues teeing up their anti-gay obsessions nationally and locally – at the 11th hour of the shutdown in MN they were still inserting a plate of social issues after winning the fight to vote against the civil rights of Gay Americans. This insanity makes Bachmann theology RELEVANT. She’s the one promoting her religious beliefs at every turn as the basis for all her policy positions and decisions. Her extreme religious views saturate every aspect of how she interprets our Constitution, to her decision making as a member of Congress and a Presidential candidate. The Gays are more concerned about jobs and the economy then you’ll ever be. We are STILL be fired in 31 states just for being Gay – that’s a gift that folks like you and other R’s keep giving.

Roman, you need to understand that not every issue is related to Gay rights. In fact, most of them are not at all related. You say that “Her extreme religious views saturate every aspect of how she interprets our Constitution, to her decision making as a member of Congress and a Presidential candidate.”, but you provide no evidence of that other than your bald assertion. When she talks about how immoral it is for us to be spending our children’s money and our grandchildren’s money by racking up huge debts, I have to say she is absolutely right. I don’t see how that has anything whatsoever to do with whatever she may or may not think about Gay Americans. Your insistence that they are somehow integrally related strikes me as a bit narcissistic. Please explain to me why I am wrong about that.

Frankly, I really don’t care what she thinks about Gay rights. It just isn’t very important to me. No offense, but it just isn’t. I think our national debt and out of control deficit spending pose an existential threat to this country. To me there are no other issues that are more important.

The 2012 election is in my opinion the most important election we have had since 1980. I feel that our country is at risk now more than at any point in my lifetime. Washington needs someone who is willing to stand up and challenge the establishment in both parties as to the size and scope of the federal government. I believe Michele will do that, and I challenge you to to explain to me how her pursuit of fiscal sanity in Washington is in any way related to any anti-Gay bias. You are conflating issues that seem unrelated to me. Please explain.

Look, I don’t agree with her on social issues. I’m much more libertarian than she is. I think everyone should be free to live their lives any way they see fit, and the government should just butt out. But right now I think we need someone in the White House that will stand up to everyone in Washington in both parties and say enough is enough. The insanity of deficit spending, the immorality of stealing from our children, must stop and it must stop now. I don’t see any other candidate who has the balls to do that. Herman Cain and Ron Paul are others worthy of serious consideration, but I don’t give either of them much chance of winning. The others that are more acceptable to the establishment I don’t trust to do what they say.

Finally, you say that “The Gays are more concerned about jobs and the economy then you’ll ever be.”. Nonsense. You don’t know me, and have no basis for making that assertion. I’m not saying that Gays are not concerned about jobs and the economy. Of course they are. But your statement comparing their level of concern to mine is specious. By that same token, I do not compare my level of concern to theirs. I’m just saying that this issue is far more important to me than the issue of Gay rights. I will gladly set aside social issues to get a President who will fix our debt problem. That issue trumps everything this time around.

Lets not forget who got the economy in the tank and Obama only used the bailouts to SAVE the economic mess GW created.

George GOP Bush

The Facts:

Bill Clinton gave GW a surplus

GW did his tax cuts which failed and drove 1/3 of the deficit increase
GW entered Iraq and Afghanistan driving the military budget from $300B to $700B
GW failure to regulate the bank lending led to the 2008 crash

This is why we have a problem.

Obama is trying to clean up the GOP mess.

PERIOD!

Mr. Gary,

Do you believe the trickle down theory of economics in place since the last significant election of 1980 by your standards have left the middle class with more or less buying power?

In which administrations did government grow the most?

In which administrations did public debt and deficits increase the most?

Looking forward to your answers.

Jeff Wilfahrt, Rosemount, MN

Jeff, I’ll try to answer your questions one by one.

“Do you believe the trickle down theory of economics in place since the last significant election of 1980 by your standards have left the middle class with more or less buying power?”

People define the middle class differently depending on what point they are trying to make. I do believe that tax rates should be kept as low as possible, and that low rates spur economic activity which creates jobs for middle class americans. If you want to talk about buying power, then we should be talking about how the Federal Reserve has been eroding the value of the dollar for years.

“In which administrations did government grow the most?”

I think to answer that question we would first have to define the metric we will use to measure the government’s growth. Is it the number of government employees? Is it the total dollars of government spending? Is it the percentage of that spending to GDP? Is it the negative impact both in dollars and lost jobs on the private sector by intrusive government regulations?

That last one is real, but impossible to quantify. I don’t like the percent of GDP metric that seems popular these days. Perhaps a better one might be government sending per capita. At any rate, I’ll just go with the simplest one, which is the total dollars of government spending.

I don’t have the statistics in front of me, but I think government spending actually shrank a little under Clinton, but then grew significantly under Bush, and that growth has accelerated under Obama.

“In which administrations did public debt and deficits increase the most?”

That’s an easy one. No administration in our history has ever racked up as much debt in as short a time as the Obama administration. He’s only been in office 2 1/2 years and has already racked up nearly 5 trillion dollars in debt. His annual deficits of roughly 1.5 trillion dollars are unprecedented, and we have nothing to show for all that spending. Keynesian economics has proven to be an abject failure, yet again, and the only answer he gives us is that we need to tax more, borrow more and spend more. He is wrong. We need to do precisely the opposite of what the President is telling us.

This article is about Bachmann’s theology as a liability to the general public. I’m seeing more folks in the general public agreeing that it is once they get access to her legislative record, comments and the foundations of her political platform. The Teabaggers will always support her. Credibility matters to more voting American’s than not. I seriously doubt this troubling, divisive and ambitious candidate will cross the finish line into the White House. For the sake of our country and the rest of the world, let’s hope not.

Gary:

Your understanding of the word “rational” is abject failure. Your bullheaded attitude is adorable in it’s stalwart ignorance. You “don’t need to apologize”, you “don’t care about this or that”… good for you, Rebel Without a Clue.

Creeping dominionism is a terrible, terrible threat. Your faith in the constitution is stupid. You realize the religious right are more and more, especially Bachmann, shooting out talking points about amendments to such, right? You realize that power shifts slowly till it tips, right? In every empire in history, right?

No, of course not. Your concept of “rational” is to make up your own opinions, search for confirmation bias, and stick to your guns. Experience, history, or evidence be damned. The stated goals, and actual efforts of politicians be damned. What the populace believes on face value, like yourself, and what that means in a democracy, be damned.

Your ignorance would be tolerable if it weren’t galvanized with such undeserved self-confidence.

But please, go on and continue to make bald claims about “hate groups” and “irrational paranoia” and the merits of libertarianism (Somalia, lol)… all tinged with an absurd self confidence. It’s pretty entertaining.

If she wants to become President, perhaps he should read the Constitution of the United States of America:
Article Six: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
The Second Amendment states: ““Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”.