Republican Presidential candidate Michele Bachmann and her husband are accused! Of what? Child abuse? No. Theft? No. Murder? No. Adultery, abusing a subordinate, lying under oath? No; though if she were, that would make her a good presidential candidate for the other party. But, regardless, no.
No, it is much much worse. Michele Bachmann and her husband are accused of being genuine, practicing, Bible-believing Christians! In public! (Audience: gasp!)Okay, that isn't the exact wording of the headline. As the political commentary item in the Los Angeles Times actually has it — and I am not making this up — here it is: Michele Bachmann's clinic accused of trying to straighten out gays. Breathlessly relating that there are accusations and proof, proof!, that Christian counselors in a Christian clinic gave counsel aimed at helping people find freedom from homosexual obsessions.
The author snidely observes, "It will be curious to see whether the allegations damage the momentum Bachmann has enjoyed over the last few weeks." Right. Because...?
In their reporting, ABC and NBC evidently made use of material deceptively obtained by a homosexuality advocacy group. As usual, they presented only one side in a positive light and, as usual, it was the anti-God side.
The UK's Daily Mail is no less breathless: 'Pray away the gay': Michele Bachmann and her husband accused of using fake treatments to 'cure' gay people. One wonders many things. First, did they really say this? Second, what makes them "fake treatments"? Third, of course, what would be the "genuine treatments" that would help people find freedom from perverted passions? The Mail is, evidently, the authority on such issues.
However, one reads the extraordinarily biased article for answers in vain. All one receives is shocked, shocked reports of Christians practicing Christianity, unsourced quotations, and howlers like this: the idea that God created us to be heterosexual or that prayer can bring freedom "has been rubbished by psychiatrists who say that it can be incredibly damaging for a gay person to hear." Right! Because psychiatry is monolithic, all psychiatrists have reached final agreement on everything, and psychiatrists purvey sheerly objective truth that is only resisted by knuckle-dragging troglodytes.
Or, in other words, Christians.
So here it is again: sincere Christianity disqualifies from holding public office. Only hypocritical professors such as Bill Clinton or Barack Obama, whose ideology is contrary to Biblical truth, are permitted.
I have no opinion about the Bachmann candidacy. I like who hates her; that's a "plus" for me. In this media-manufactured crisis, she is being depicted as running away from the issue, refusing to answer questions.
I do not know where Bachmann stands on many spiritual issues; however, if the reports are accurate, I think Bachmann is making a mistake. She should not allow herself to be put on the defensive. I have offered similar thoughts in the past here and here and here.
In fact, I'll just close with an edited form of what I wrote more than three years ago.
Were I a Presidential candidate, I think I simply wouldn't allow myself to be manipulated into doing one thing or another about [the MSM Thing of the Day]. When the MSM asked their stupid "gotcha" questions, I'd just reject the questions and replace them with germane, relevant, worthwhile questions.
First, I'd say something like, "I'm not really running as theologian-in-chief."
Then when they'd pester me — as they surely would — I'd say
So what are you asking? Am I a Christian? Yes. Do I believe the Bible? Yes. Do I support full Constitutional rights for people who are neither Christian nor Bible-believing? Yes. Now, here is my question for you in the mainstream media: is the American public at large really pressing you to pursue this issue? Or are they more concerned about the ruin that President Obama has done to our economy, morale, and international standing? Have you figured out yet why the mainstream media is held in such universal contempt, and do you think maybe this is a classic example? Is it your agenda to make it hard only for Bible-believing Christians allowed to run for public office? Are only hypocritical Christians allowed to hold office? Will you be grilling all the candidates and office-holders of both parties and on all tiers on this issue? On what other similar issues will you be demanding specifics — abortion, adultery, lying, theft, rape? What experts will you rely on? How will you choose them? Or could we perhaps get back to discussing political philosophy and political proposals?I simply would not allow the MSM to control the conversation.
And the MSM would hate me.
But I'd be able to look in the mirror every morning and say, "Look! It's still me!"
Posts
16 comments:
Or you could just ask the MSM: "so are you suggestion that there should be a test of a persons religious beliefs to see if they are qualified to hold office?"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Six_of_the_United_States_Constitution
Just saying.
Good question, Tim, except (as I argue in the first of the three articles to which I link) that shouldn't apply to private citizens asking questions.
HSAT, it might be good to ask the MSM whether they agree with that article!
Doh! Those intolerant Christians, at it again! When will this madness end?!
The MSM's doing what it can, Jules.
I am beginning to think that one of the qualifications for running for any high-ranking office must be fear of man when it comes to issues like these. I say that because a person with more fear of God than man would be happy to deliver the type of response that you have written...I just don't hear anything like that from the candidates, though. It is really quite sad.
The Daily Mail is the Fox News of Britain - winds lots of people up as it's very obviously culturally and socially conservative, but is still popular. It's not part of our equivalent of the MSM (though that category doesn't really translate here).
Most other British papers would consider this a surprise not to see Bachmann calling for the execution of gays as the British media have made a caricature of her (makes Palin look good, and that's saying something).
Apparently, according to the British papers, the Republican party dislikes poor people and the Tea Party is basically the Klan without the hoods - nothing to do with government spending and debt and everything to do with bringing back segregation and hating gays.
In the first article you linked to, I think the quote from her husband (talking about barbarians) was spot-on, though it could be applied to any number of sins, not just sexual perversion. I almost wonder if it was in fact taken out of context or exaggerated, given how he was quoted.
As a general rule, I don't expect my politicians to be theologians, and neither do I expect theologians to be politicians. However, a pastor who misquotes the constitution and a politician who misquotes the Bible look equally silly, in my view. I'm not a student of the constituion, so I might be less inclined to notice that error.
I like your imaginary response to the media, Dan. Maybe you could find out who Bachmann's speech writers and inner circle are, and humbly submit your words for consideration.
I'd make a little medal "MSM hates me" and wear it to all my rallies.
Really liked your, "Onoes." LOL. Good post. I particularly liked how politicians should respond on the I'm not theologian in chief.
I saw part of that NBC story at the gym and my honest thought was "Huh. Why didn't they wait on this until they knew she was the nominee?" Then I just changed the channel. This is so tiresomely expected. But usually they time it better. Bachmann now has months and months to craft a response (yes, just like the one you suggest).
I saw a headline yesterday with a short blurb about the fact that the Bachmans have left their church.
The only thing that bugs me (and it does bug me) about the whole issue really isn't the fact that the MSM is all over their ideas - it's silly to get all worked up over that because Jesus Himself told us to expect that and how to handle it. What bugs me is that the gospel isn't even hinted at - just moralism. I don't know what they teach at their counseling center, but all I'm hearing in the quotes given is just moralism. No, God did not create us for "heterosexuality". He created us for His glory and in that we are to reflect His image and because of the fruit borne by a new heart and new Spirit through faith in Jesus who saves His people from their sin, we can! But I'm not hearing that anywhere in this, not even from the Bachmans themselves. And that just bugs me.
Barbara, you're absolutely right about the Gospel and about moralism. But I wouldn't conclude one thing from reports (A) given by the MSM and (B) drawn from unrepentant, unsaved complainers.
I recall clearly explaining the Gospel to a very intelligent unbeliever. We'd seemed already to "pass the same tree" a few times, if you know what I mean. So I asked him to summarize back to me what I'd been saying.
What I got back was sheer moralism. It wasn't what I'd been telling him at all.
So I put all that in the MSM in the "dubious" category.
As to how the Bachmanns handle it, as I say, I'm not too impressed so far. But the purpose of a political campaign is no more evangelism per se than is the purpose of a job interview.
Yeah, I agree with you there - I just would lovelovelove to see some salt and light - it's not what we expect, but it would - *ahem!* - tilt the world.
Hmm. Catchy.
(c;
...or so one hopes.
Post a Comment