Skip to comments.Bachmann asked whether wives should be submissive
Posted on 08/11/2011 8:19:39 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
AMES, Iowa (AP) -- The Bible tells wives to be submissive to their husbands. If she were president, would that apply to Michele Bachmann?
In Thursday's Republican debate in Iowa, the Minnesota congresswoman was asked if she would be submissive to her husband.
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
I think she should have responded with:
“Sounds like a question more suitable to Hillary Clinton.”
lol. Who the hell asked that?
Sounds more like a Soviet show-trial.
She said she loves and respects her husband and that the meaning (to her) of being submissive means being respectful to her husband. I liked her answer.
She knocked it out of the park.
in the original language its “Wives be supportive of their husbands” That’s why God made Eve from Adam’s Rib, not from his head to be above him, not from his foot to be beneath him but a companion to walk beside him.
A man is the head of his household, but its a stupid man who chooses a companion who won’t put her back to the wall with him and take on the world. Its also a stupid man who chooses a companion from which he will not take counsel from in all things.
Then they follow up with an attack on Bachmann implying that Christianity is a sexist religion which keeps women subservient. And she handled that one well.
But Fox was disgusting.
Who the hell asked that?
That punk, Byron York.
The reason AP didn't make the headline "Bachmann says husbands should be treated with respect" (her actual answer), is because screaming liberal bitches would have ripped down their buildings and slaughtered them for advertising such an offensive, repulsive heresy.
Wow. That is an absurd question. What a putz.
They tried to make Bachmann look foolish from the time that idiot Chris Wallace set Pawlenty on her, but she managed to handle herself very well.
She hsa my support, my vote, my contribution and my admiration. She is a class act.
Incidentally, I REALLY liked the way Gingrich put that ass Chris Wallace in his place and Herman Caine followed up with a second shot at that bastard.
Wallace looked discomfited and ticked off throughout the rest of the show.
I hope his heartburn keeps him awake all night.
Might as well have been asked by the mouth of the snake, ‘hath God said’..... Unbelievers are blinded by their own foolish arrogance. This world would be a far greater place if we heeded the Almighty’s wisdom instead of rebellion against Him.
Another turdbrain trying to be the “smartest” guy in the room!
New International Version (NIV)
22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing[a] her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church 30 for we are members of his body. 31 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.[b] 32 This is a profound mysterybut I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+5%3A22-33&version=NIV
Posting the entire passage since it seems the press and left in general always remove this from its context as though it is a one way street to hold women to be inferior, which it is not - the husband also has his own great responsibility that he must give to the wife as well.
Fox News owes Congresswoman Bachman a Major League Appology on all of their shows tomorrow (if not tonight) for that punk York’s question. I turned off the debate when I saw his next question was about gay marriage. Democraps never get these questions in a debate. I’ve had it with Fox News. What a bunch of low-life establishment clowns they are.
The panel was an embarrassment. I never understand why Fox News has a reputation as a conservative outlet. It’s not. I consider it anti-conservative and pro-Left.
I couldn’t agree more.
I guess my mistake is judging from FOX from Fox and Friends in the morning and Sean Hannity.
The rest of them are as liberal as they come.
Even Kraphammer gets on my nerves at times. But at least they dumped that idiot Bushbot Fred Barnes, another of their nebbishes.
A biblical answer would be in the vein of “in things marital, yes, short of the point of disobeying an explicit command of God.” Sarah Palin as a faithful Christian would likely say something similar. It would have zilch to do with how either one would carry out a presidency.
York is not real bright.
Your comment, suggesting that the press removes the context, assumes that the press knows the context. The press does not know the context. The press has absorbed the aroma of the recollection of the context as fed to them by their religiously ignorant parents, who were too embarrassed to give their children an actual religious education.
That was a snarky sexist question. She handled it well and the audience did not like it..Part of me wished she would have smacked York down like Newt did to Chris Wallace.
“it seems the press and left in general always remove this from its context”
That’s because they’re either atheist or New Age wackadoodles and lack the conceptual framework to comprehend, much less explain, 23-33.
“Ive had it with Fox News. What a bunch of low-life establishment clowns they are.”
I agree with you, but it’s amazing how many lefties think “Faux News” is a den of the extreme right;)
I would have liked to have seen her take apart the moderator’s question... she should have seen that question coming, and she should have been better prepared for it.
I would have advised something like....
“Submitting to my husband means that if he didn’t want me to run, then I wouldn’t be here...
But Submitting to my husband does NOT mean subjecting my responsibility to him if I win.
I would represent the American people if elected president.
My husband understands that responsibility and would respect it. The premise of your question suggests otherwise, and is offensive.”
From now on I get my news from the internet where I can filter out the minor issues like whether Congresswoman will submit to her husband. I have found myself watching CNBC Squawk Box in the morning for no other reason than it has Rick Santelli on. He took apart the muni bond queen Meredith Whitney yesterday when she said the Tea Party was a bunch of angry out-of-work white males.
And that is who I am in those situations. My husband knows me as submissive to his final word.
This is the thing about husbands and wives. My husband makes and is responsible for, those hard emotional decisions that I, as a woman do not want make.
Yes, I know they are right, but my heart leads me elsewhere. In saying this, perhaps, I should submit, that, we should scrutinize the husband of women candidates.
Presidents listen to their wives, and their husbands, after all.
Being a tax attorney she is savvy enough to know that when uncertain, to say less rather than more.
Of course you’re right, but, no one has any interest in representing the truth in context. People are willfully ignorant.
They blew this one, big time. They concentrated on gotcha questions, as Newt pointed out early on, and starting fights between candidates. I would liked to have seen the candidates refuse to answer them, especially the one Byron York Asked of Bachman. That is the same stuff they did about Kennedy and the Pope.
Then they tried to get Herman Cain and Mitt Romney to fight over religion. Bachman and Pawlenty didn't seem to need encouragement. To be fair though, Pawlenty started that rumble but I wish Bachman had ignored him.
Her answer about submission = respect was wrong.
Sounded good... but it was wrong.
You just KNOW that hubby Bachmann's efforts (whether well guided or not, and I know too little about his method to say) to usher willing people out of the homosexual life style will get the lime light. It may well be worth it to force this issue out in the open.
It answered one undefined term with another one. I wouldn’t say it was so much wrong as unilluminating.
Would it not be for accurate to say that the Bible tells CHRISTIAN wives to be submissive to their husbands. Since that Pauline letter was written to the church and not to the general public. One could argue that the NT does not address marriage between two non-believers. They’re issue is their sin and having not yet truly dealing with who Christ was.
You should try FBN.
I would like to know more about Mr Bachmann. He will be scrutinized just as Todd Palin was.
I agree. Sad, though, that we must look at the spouse of the president. We don't elect the spouse.
“..But at least they dumped that idiot Bushbot Fred Barnes, another of their nebbishes.”
Hadn’t heard that although I haven’t seen him on there lately. I really believe the guy may be suffering from the early stages of Alzheimers. He always stumbles and fumbles around with his words. Sad, if true. But all of the Weekly Standard clowns are cut from the same NWO/CFR cloth (Kristol and the guy with the beard). There is NO true conservative on that daily panel.
You should try FBN.”
Wholeheartedly agree. Cavuto is at the top of my list of wonderful. FBN is the only FOX channel I ever watch.
I loved the answer but would have loved it more if she would have asked: are you subserviet to your wife or do you still beat her?
I am glad there were no gotcha questions for the panal.
Newt pretty much came down on the gotcha questions with Chris Wallace. Chris is definately showing his liberal leanings. I’m glad Newt ripped into him.
There is a poll on http://nation.foxnews.com/ where you can vote on who you think did the best on the debate tonight.
I would suggest some of you go over there and vote. I did, and when I got the results, it was showing Ron Paul winning with 59.36% of the vote. There is no way..........
“The panel was an embarrassment. I never understand why Fox News has a reputation as a conservative outlet. Its not. I consider it anti-conservative and pro-Left.”
Certainly they are drifting that way. I notice that since Fox made that decision, the claims about rapid growth of their audience has sort of tapered off.