Thursday, July 14, 2011
Considering the reluctance of the mainstream media to examine the ideology of candidate Barack Obama's church, the speed with which the "respectable media" has jumped on the strong statements of Michelle Bachmann's Lutheran synod is, well, head-turning. Apparently, the churches of conservatives are legitimate targets but those of liberals are not. Perhaps because, deep down, reporters just don't believe that a liberal politician's church affiliation reflects actual beliefs.
Of course, Republicans who argued that Obama's decades-long association with Jeremiah Wright was a legitimate topic for partisan attacks -- and I was and remain absolutely in their camp -- cannot honestly object when liberals go after the Lutherans, however irritated they might be at the outrageous inconsistency of the media.
Once again, TH, this "who struck John" approach is not esp. productive. But, if you must, the *conservative* religious right has a long history of attacking *liberal* houses of faith.
This should be the primary point-- and why the media (liberal or not) has a duty to report on what could inform Bachmann's policy-making: homophobia, fueled by a religious institution, has no place in a civil society.
Further, attending a church doesn't mean you espouse or agree with everything said church says. Obama's speech on racism (March 2008) well documents that. Now if Bachmann came out with a similar speech on homophobia, I might be persuaded by your argument. But I'm not holding my breath.
Did you really just claim that unpopular beliefs "[have] no place in a civil society"?
Is civil society so fragile that it can't function in the presence of even a smidgen of dissent? If so, how do you plan to dispose of the dissenters? I assume you'll at least be civil about it.
P.S. Bachmann's church is clearly retarded. I'm disappointed that she signed that stupid pledge, and I'm disappointed in this nonsense as well. I voted against Obama because of his unprincipled and vicious opposition to gay rights. Bachmann doesn't share Obama's opposition to individual rights in general, of course, but she ought to know she's got no business making exceptions.
If Obama can be held to the standard of attending that church for 20 years and not have a single word from Rev. Wright penetrate his skull, nor does he utter a single word of disagreement, and only stops attending when he hits the national stage, then church "investigations" are completely useless.
This is, again, an answer in search of a question, a conclusion in search of evidence. Bachmann is conservative and Christian, ergo, she is "homophobic" and all the other -phobes that are automatically attached to conservatives.
"Further, attending a church doesn't mean you espouse or agree with everything said church says." That is extremely fatuous. You must agree with a strong majority of what is "said", or why attend in the first place?
Your post is not informative. You could have listed a few of the positions of this Church/synod. Sadly, I don't think I can come to this sight for political information anymore. Maybe just for a few tips on how to make some nice photos of the Adirondacks. :(
Anon, not sure the substance of the synod's positions is relevant to the post, which goes to whether a candidate's religious affiliations are a legitimate target for political attack and the media's inconsistency with regard thereto. That said, you can drill through the link and get some sense of it if you are interested -- that's what hypertext is for!
President Obama continued at his hate-mongering church until all but forced from it after the primaries had started. Bachman repudiated her confession of faith over this particular 500 year old claim as soon as she was confronted by the fact that it is what her former church body taught, well before she entered the race at all.
As to the claim itself, when a church body (RCC) not only excommunicates you, but has the emperor put a price on your head, you tend to think 'somewhat negatively' of their hierarchy; when it appears that said hierarch has "exalted himself over God," and you know that such is the Biblical description of 'The Antichrist' (Greek word NOT meaning 'opposite of Christ' but 'in place of Christ', just as the term 'Vicar of Christ' does), it's not all that hard to see why the authentic Lutheran position has been that of the WELS, no matter how much some bearing that name try to cover it up.
Either way, Bachman has rejected the Lutheran faith, so it's not really relevant, other than to show how quickly the RCC's historical revisionists like Donohue will feign outrage over 'anti-Catholic' doctrine that is rooted in what Rome has actually done.
The extreme left, including the captive media, is normalphobic and will attack anyone who they feel is normal.
The degree of their attack on any Republican candidate represents the degree of their irrational fear of that candidate. The interesting part is that they attack/smear Republican candidates without knowing who the Democrats will nominate.
The predjudices behind the MSM invariably lead to a judgement that the little known GOP candidate is "extreme" while the little known Democrat is "fresh and new". It's just their uninformed and uncurious bias at work, obviously, and voters who (like luto) do not themselves care to examine the substance of the bias find themselves easily deluded.
Michelle Bachmann is a Holy Roller nut. She doesn't represent the Tea Party, but she opportunistically jumped onto the "Tea Party Express" bus and grabbed the steering wheel.
The Tea Party isn't a party, at least not yet. Its main concern is an out-of-control federal government, especially on spending issues. It draws from the ranks of disgruntled Republicans, a lot of Independents, and even a few Democrats. For this quite large but amorphous Big Blob of the electorate, "social issues" either don't concern or on the back burner. The Tea Party may or may not decide who the Republican nominee is, but if the Republicans don't fuck up the choice, the Tea Party will decide who wins the Presidency in November 2012. Reread that last sentence slowly -- it's Gospel Truth.
The "Tea Party Express" got organized by folks like Bachmann and Christine O'Donnell who had previously made Social Issues their primary focus for years. Following press attention of "tea party protests" back in 2009, they actually renamed PACs etc that they already had in place to channel the media attention and gather the money. Michelle self-appointed herself Queen of the Tea Partiers in Congress, but until that moment there was quite little in her background to say she was one of "us". Actually, much of her background is to the contrary.
Michelle is playing to her uber-Holy Roller roots to try and win Iowa. She might pull it off, to Romney's incredible annoyance. But if she wins Iowa that way, she'll have made herself radioactive. She'd be Mike Huckabee without the charm, the practical smarts and the experience. If I had been one of her temporary foster kids, I'd have run away -- I'd rather have lived on the streets.
I'm a fan of Sarah's and see a big difference between Sarah and Michelle on this. Sarah's a Holy Roller, but its not what drives her politics. Expect Sarah to join the race, but not for awhile. She can get in the race 0-90 inside a month.
I think Ignoramus's characterization of the differences between Bachmann and Palin in this respect is a good one. I also think he's correctly characterized the way that Bachmann has latched onto the Tea Party as a way to gain power. (That was the same thing Sharron Angle did to get the Republican nomination for the US Senate in Nevada last year.) The mainstream media loves to portray the Tea Party as being socially conservative, when in fact, most people who attend Tea Party rallies and events only have their economic conservatism in common.
ignoramus....whgen it comes to religion, you got your name right....
the "holy rollers" you speek of are members of certain penticostal churches..of which i am now a member of..
not the luthern church, of any synod, which i was raised in.
for you to paint all members of the christian religion with such a broad brush shows your ignorance and intolerance of those who do not believe as you do.
i there for suggest you move to iran or north korea where you will find others who believe as you do
. there is no god and anyone who believes there is is stupid and dangerous.
ignoramus - you can get your terms right, and understand what they mean. You may be an intelligent person, but those of us who know the lingo can tell at a glance you don't. Have at least a passing familiarity with what Lutherans believe and what Holy Roller referes to.
@pluto19 - conservative churches have indeed criticised liberal ones for a long time. But show me an example of conservative churches criticising the denomination or sect of a presidential candidate before Obama. You will have to dig into pretty obscure groups - often collections of only a handful of people - before you find that, as far back as I remember.
As to Obama making a speech after getting challenged in 2008, claiming he didn't know these things and didn't agree with them, and that's what convinced you, well - you said it, not I. Not sure I'd want to out myself that way.
As a Catholic I'm not the least bit surprised when a conservative Lutheran church continues to believe in the Lutheran confessions of faith, and don't consider that to be 'anti-catholic hate'.
At least, not compared to the real anti-Catholic hate of the MSM that created this 'scandal'.
I'm very disappointed in Bachmann and will not vote for her unless there is no other viable choice. I want a candidate who values their faith--- even if it is a different denomination than mine.