Michele Bachmann lies in the name of Jesus Christ

Another MB item (0.00 / 0)

you may have seen.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/...

---

by: dan.burns @ Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 16:28:00 PM CST

Reply to Bill on Michelle Bachmann (0.00 / 0)

Bill, you're absolutely right. The fundamentalist churches are scary in that way. I know because I was in the Fridley Assembly of God church for a number of years. It became Emmanuel Christian Center. The church that Bachmann attends is a lot like that. At Emmanuel, the pastor told the congregation to vote for George W. Bush because he was God's choice. When Bush got elected, the pastor said that God's choice won. There are millions of people drawn to these kind of churches. I think they fill some kind of need in people's lives, although I'm not sure just what. They use music, too, to get people to believe their precepts. These churches can be very emotional. Anyone can get drawn in if you don't keep your logical wits about you. There are many who attend these churches who claim that they are prophetic. Some speak in "tongues" and some give an "interpretation." It's all just a bunch of emotion and people get caught up in it. Unfortunately, it can be very dangerous. Bachmann is a prime example of just how dangerous it can be. Thanks for posting the video.

My blog: http://www.aprilknight.blogspo...

---

by: MsTigerHawk @ Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 17:02:53 PM CST

I only know the movement from the outside... (0.00 / 0)

...I started listening to evangelical broadcasting when I first moved here in 1999. I was immediately struck by how "political" it was. Mixed in with the message about Christianity, faith, the inerrancy of the bible, etc. were all these conservative talking points about guns, gays, liberals, anti-immigrant, stuff...

So I got a very strange impression of what Christianity is "about", for this audience. As a young person, I'd been taught that Christianity is about inner change to honor Christ's sacrifice on the cross, that it was about compassion and self-discipline to honor God. The people I heard on the radio here were taking that message and taking the focus off "how can I be a better Christian" and putting the focus on "we are at war with the people who don't accept the only real truth, we are under siege, we are persecuted, and we must organize to take over the government, that is our Christian duty--we can "reform the world" before reforming ourselves--"

That's not what I was taught about Christianity. And as you say, it is an appeal to emotion...the use of fear, fear of hell, fear of contamination, seeing evil everywhere except in your besieged politically and biblically correct circle of fellow believers.

This stuff is key to Bachmann's career and rhetoric and success, it's key to the takeover of the GOP by "the crazies, the people who believe in the irrational." It's the toughest part of the political equation to explain to liberals and progressives, because they do not to believe that dedication to the irrational can be so strong, so powerful, count for so much in the modern world. But the religious right we are talking about has a veto power of a GOP presidential nomination, and it can send a GOP candidate into the White House, as it did in 2004.

Liberals and progressives who are not familiar with this aspect of American politics really don't want to learn about it, no matter how critical that understanding is to effective political activism. And that progressive unwillingness to acknowledge the power of organized paranoia and irrationality--is one of the religious right's strengths.

---

by: Bill Prendergast @ Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 19:37:57 PM CST

[ Parent ]

afraid of religious topics (0.00 / 0)

I wonder if journalists are afraid of touching religious topics in a way that could seem critical. Fundamentalists tend to have a persecution complex to begin with --- like MsTigerHawk, I was once a religious conservative and was taught the world was out to get us. Christians must be the most oppressed ruling majority in the world. I know teachers get paranoid about certain topics coming up, evolution for example, and knowing how journalists get a lot of negative reaction when conservatives dislike their reporting, I'm just taking a guess Bachmann's belief she's in direct contact with God on political matters is just to hot to touch. They probably need some other mainstream outlet to turn it into a big story, and then they can just claim it's already out there. That unfortunately requires someone going first, and no one wants to be charged with attacking someone over their religious beliefs.

---

by: ericf @ Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 17:25:11 PM CST

eric and Ms. TH; (0.00 / 0)

I apologize in advance if I'm prying, but I can't let this pass:  are you able to specify, briefly, what it was that moved you away from religious conservatism?  I've been trying for quite some time to get a handle on that.

---

by: dan.burns @ Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 17:57:37 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Religious Conservatism, Not Me (0.00 / 0)

Dan, I don't think I was ever that into it at heart. When I was little my grandmother brought me to a Lutheran church every Sunday for Sunday School and Church. I went to Bible School in the summer. Then, in 7th grade, I switched to an Evangelical Free church within walking distance of our farm for the simple reason that they had a lot of cute boys (ok, I was 13 and that's how 13 year old girls reason). After graduating from high school at age 18, I had my first experience on the West Bank. I was a hippie there for two years, after which time I got married, had a couple of kids, and decided we better start going to church. Some neighbors invited us to the Assembly of God church. There were a lot of good people there, but as I know now, they were misguided as far as their belief system. They were there for me through some bad times I was going through. The church moved across the street, which was Spring Lake Park instead of Fridley, and the new church seated 3000. They filled it up, too. Those were the years that they brought in a lot of Christian rock groups, such as Chuck Girard (former band member of The Hondells), Evie, and many more. They'd have guest speakers such as The Happy Hunters. Christian rock plays a big role in creating emotion so people will go forward and "get saved." The altar call is a big thing. Personally, I never could forego my previous belief system that I had acquired when I was a hippie. I tried, but I just couldn't do it. Finally I couldn't stand some of the things the pastor was saying (G. Mark Denyes). He said that homosexuals were an abomination to the Lord, for starters. I didn't think that was a fair or loving statement. One day he said that oral sex was a sin, and about a dozen people got up and walked out. LOL. I got totally fed up when he said that Buddha and Edgar Cayce were demonic and that the Bible was 100% accurate in all things. I'm glad I left. I couldn't take anymore of that standing up for hours at a time with my hands raised up in the air and shouting "Hallelujah!" I haven't been back there in almost 20 years.  

My blog: http://www.aprilknight.blogspo...

---

by: MsTigerHawk @ Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 22:16:31 PM CST

[ Parent ]

it's not prying (0.00 / 0)

Unfortunately it's not quick either. There wasn't one moment where I suddenly went "omigosh I've been wrong all these years!" I learned science before I learned religion, and I always knew some of what I was taught in religion classes was provably false. I always had a leftward bend in terms of social problems, and I was lucky enough to get away from the reinforce of belief before I got all the "government is the problem" nonsense mixed in with theology.

I started drifting away when, paradoxically, I read the bible straight through instead of in selected passages, and I discovered it was purely a human product and not inspired by God. Mostly I was less non-believing, and more finding religion irrelevant.

911 was the breaking point because religious people carried it out, and religious people were taking the US into the invasion of Iraq. I was forced to ask questions I'd avoided. I asked whether religion does more harm than good, and I realized the answer is yes and it was no good continuing to deny it. Fundamentalism and intolerance weren't aberrations, but were an inescapable part of religion, much as ecumenical liberals like me wanted to believe otherwise. History shows we're wrong. I discovered the "god of the gaps" fallacy that blew away the notion there had to be a god because there had to be a beginning science could never define. I was left with the realization that the only reason to believe in gods is we want them to exist.

I don't think religious people are all stupid or foolish or superstitious, because I know I wasn't. I didn't question things because I had no reason to, so there's no reason to have disdain for those still religious unless, like Bachmann, they use religion as means of legitimizing hate and prejudice. Unfortunately, I do think religion makes believers much more vulnerable to charlatans and bigots. People like Bachmann are not a fluke, but the inevitable result of believing there's some powerful figure above human understanding who has told his will to a few people, and the rest of us are supposed to believe without proof, or even despite proof.

Well, that was more than I planned on getting into.

---

by: ericf @ Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 23:54:35 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I'd sign on to practically everything you said except (0.00 / 0)

your post 9/11 conclusion that "religion does more harm than good." I think that religion has been a tremendous force for good in the human experience--even though it's also undoubtedly been a force for evil and sanctioning evil.

I know people who devoted their lives to God and never did anyone any serious harm after doing so. In particular, two of my aunts became nuns--one started hospice care to comfort dying people, the other worked with prisoners down in South America and people afflicted with AIDS in Africa. I was once on mission down in Honduras with evangelicals who were trying to get water to an orphanage--they don't do that for money or power or fame, but to honor God by helping people who need help.

That's anecdotal, but I'm sure there are hundreds of millions of people who do acts of human kindness because they believe. There are devout Muslims who do good because they believe, there are devout Jews who do good because they believe, there are devout Buddhists and Hindus who do good because they believe... And I'm not a Christian, but I respect Christian ministries that are about service--not politics or money or controlling other people via public policy and threats of damnation.

It's also true that unthinking, uncritical application of religious doctrines can do tremendous harm and be perverted into calls for murder and bigotry and dominion over other people. And it's true that too many people are willing to use religious belief to spread bigotry, terror, and fanaticism--to control other religious people via these means, to enrich and empower themselves via religious doctrine. In my opinion that's a perversion of faith.

And if someone's scripture commands them to use those means--then either they're reading their scripture wrong, or their scripture is wrong.

---

by: Bill Prendergast @ Sat Nov 28, 2009 at 00:58:17 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Only Religous People Do Good? (0.00 / 0)

Are they doing good because of their religion, or because that's the kind of people they are? I'm sure there are plenty of atheists and agnostics who also do good. I'm not so sure that religion is the cause, or ever has been the cause, of doing good things. I'm more inclined that it comes from the personality and the psyche, and on how one is raised.

The thing about fundamentalists, including Michelle Bachmann, is that they truly believe everything they say. Their belief comes before their political agenda. They really do believe that God is on their side. They use the Bible to prove everything they say or think. When asked how they know a certain things, they say it's because the Bible said so, and God wrote the Bible. It's not logical; it's using circular reasoning. They don't see that.

How do you educate these people to use logic and common sense rather than an outdated belief system?

My blog: http://www.aprilknight.blogspo...

---

by: MsTigerHawk @ Sat Nov 28, 2009 at 07:50:41 AM CST

[ Parent ]

There is no line in what I wrote (0.00 / 0)

that says "only religious people do good." You are replying to my comment, and you reading something into it that I did not say, something that I do not believe. Nor did I say that atheists and agnostic are less likely to do good than believers--but you seem to attribute that view to me too, even though it does not follow logically from what I wrote and it is not in fact my opinion. You attribute views to me that I do not hold, did not write--and then you ask:

"How do you educate these people to use logic and common sense rather than an outdated belief system?"

A good way to start would be to pay careful attention to what other people say, and not to attribute opinions to them that they do not hold.

I've noticed that many people who've been burned by their experiences with organized religion are so enraged after leaving it, that they are--well, still enraged. Some of individuals go from believing "my religion is everything" in the "being abused" stage, to "believing all religion is evil" in the "freed from religion" stage.

That tendency to see things in black or white is not logic and common sense. It's not accurate, either. And one of the things that people resent about corruption of Christianity is the tendency of evangelical apologist to attribute arguments to people that those people did not make--which is what Ms. TigerHawk just did to me, here. (See above.)

---

by: Bill Prendergast @ Sat Nov 28, 2009 at 14:11:29 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Thank you! (0.00 / 0)

both of you, for the feedback.

I recently read Crazy for God by Frank Schaeffer.  I would have preferred he wrote more about what drove him away from the hard religious right, but it was, after all, his book.  I got the impression there were two primary factors.  First, sickened disgust at the personal, and political, self-aggrandization of the likes of Robertson, Falwell, Reed, etc.  Including, like both of you, the intolerance.  Second, he just wasn't ever really cut out, by native inclination or temperament, to be a True Believer.  Too inquisitive, compassionate, and, to put it bluntly, intelligent.  

---

by: dan.burns @ Sat Nov 28, 2009 at 09:02:12 AM CST

[ Parent ]

ericf, you may be right about journalists (0.00 / 0)

concluding that "Bachmann's belief she's in direct contact with God" is too hot to touch.

The problem is that we rely on journalists to tell us about the candidates and what they believe and their qualifications for office and their agendas. That's the rationale for a free press--one of the chief rationales, anyway. If journalists don't cover this aspect of her life (which she's campaigned on) they permit her to hide an aspect of her politics that Americans need to know about. Americans need to know about it, in order to understand who it truly is who is speaking to them.

No matter what you have concluded about this politician's relationship with God after watching this video--whether you conclude that the claims of visions and advice are phony, or whether you conclude they are sincere--there is simply no excuse for leaving them out of the reporting on Bachmann. Her national base of support now numbers in the millions. And according to this politician and her closest and earliest supporters--following a divine command and agenda is the chief reason she's in politics.

The claim of direct access to divine guidance and prophetic visions is just too important to leave out of the reporting, no matter what you believe about that claim, no matter what you believe about her politics. There's no excuse for leaving it out of the reporting except cowardice or ignorance amounting to negligence.

---

by: Bill Prendergast @ Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 19:23:47 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Why It Isn't Reported (0.00 / 0)

Probably no one reports on Bachmann's religiosity because this kind of belief system has become such an accepted part of certain segments of society that no one thinks anything of it. And since it's a part of her religious beliefs, calling her to task would be tantamount to attacking someone's religious beliefs. For an analogy, let's look at another example. Say a candidate was a Mormon or Jehovah's Witness (not likely, since JWs don't get involved in politics). I can't see the media delving into either of those religions, at least not mainstream media. Or what if we're talking about Catholocism? Would it be reported that the candidate followed what the Pope said? This type of reporting might open a can of worms. I don't think the media wants to deal with it.  

My blog: http://www.aprilknight.blogspo...

---

by: MsTigerHawk @ Sat Nov 28, 2009 at 07:58:06 AM CST

[ Parent ]

That is true as far as it goes, but a (0.00 / 0)

major difference is that the religious movement that Bachmann is a member of has organized nationally in an attempt to take over the United States. (They would say "take back" the United States.)

That is not true of the Mormons or the Jehovah's Witnesses, whom these evangelical activists deplore as heretics. Nor is it true of the Catholic Church, which is viewed by many of these activists as an "enemy."

Nope. The reason that the media should be reporting on Bachmann's affiliation with this particular religious movement is that this particular religious movement has dedicated itself to taking over the government of the United States. That is its objective--to place candidates in office and make law for all Americans, not just believers. It has already made and unmade GOP presidential candidates. Unlike the other denominations mentioned, this particular religious movement has organized specifically for that political purpose.

And that's why the media has to start covering this more seriously, and why people who hope to defeat the GOP and conservatives have to start understanding it--it's a specific political organization, a specifically political movement, as well as a religious one.

---

by: Bill Prendergast @ Sat Nov 28, 2009 at 14:20:36 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Another part of this ... (0.00 / 0)

Rachel Maddow has been talking about this, though not specifically in relation to Bachmann.  She's been talking about The Family.  Check out the link to the Wikipedia entry and several of these vids from her show.  For anyone wanting an in-depth discussion, read Jeff Sharlet's book The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power.

---

by: The Big E @ Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 20:25:08 PM CST

Yeah... when I started doing the regular (0.00 / 0)

diaries about Bachmann on the Kos, people started sending me stuff on "the Family" and the family values thing. It's mentioned in Blumenthal's book.

The deal is like this: up to the 1950s, it was the FBI's official position that there was no such thing as a national organized crime syndicate in the United States. Sure, there were rackets and gangs in the cities and elsewhere, but Hoover stoutly denied the existence of a national organization directing a crime syndicate.

The situation is analogous to the situation today regarding the role of the religious right in American politics. The media regularly covers the movements of key personalities in the religious right (eg the late Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, Ralph Reed) etc. but the media does not acknowledge or report on the existence or proceedings of an actual national organization compose of these personalities and the Republican right and the conservative activists.

Such an organization does exist. It is called the Council for National Policy. It members include some of the most powerful figures in the religious right. Its members cooperate to control the Republican Party, to conflate the right wing message of conservatism with the message of Christianity.

Just as organized crime (or the "Syndicate") in America had something called "The Commission" at its head (a national meeting of powerbrokers who determined national direction and policy in secrecy), the religious right has the Council for National Policy (or "CNP", a national meeting of powerbrokers who determine national directiona and policy in secrecy.) "The Family" mentioned by the Big E, is one part of the religious right directed by members of the CNP, just as "the Mafia" is one part of the "the Syndicate/organized crime."

This isn't a conspiracy theory floated by Bill Prendergast. This is a truth acknowledged in press accounts over the past fifteen years. And it's becoming a theme in a bunch of books about the religious right that have been published just this year. (You can google the phrase "Council for National Policy" and see what comes up in news accounts, if you don't believe me. If you keep reading these news stories, you'll see the names of practically every GOP presidential candidate since the year 2000. They are that powerful, even though most liberals and progressives aren't even aware of their existence.)

Unfortunately, journalists and editors and news pundits have been astonishingly lax to acknowledge and report on the existence and power of an organization that exercises so much daily influence in American political life. In my opinion, you cannot hope to understand or report on the modern Republican party in any meaningful way unless you understand the CNP and the names of the people paying court to it. They are active wherever there are Protestant voters, they have their own media, they mentor candidates from the school board level all the way up the Presidency...and they've done that for decades, and still they are off the media radar.

That is a tribute to the effectiveness of the CNP in keeping prying eyes off the movement. Even the conservative evangelicals who attend church and listen to evangelical radio are unlikely to be aware of the CNP and its existence. I stumbled upon the CNP while tracking the rise of Michele Bachmann and listening to evangelical radio. The CNP and its members mentored her rise, and are probably continuing to do so.

---

by: Bill Prendergast @ Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 21:57:48 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Fundamentalism and the Religious Right (0.00 / 0)

I found this YouTube video that pretty much sums up how the right wing fundamentalist Republicans think. This video definitely shows how skewered their thinking actually is. Take a look:  
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

My blog: http://www.aprilknight.blogspo...

---

by: MsTigerHawk @ Sat Nov 28, 2009 at 09:06:43 AM CST

issue of legality (0.00 / 0)

As both a Christian and a progressive, I find myself taking offense both at Michele Bachmann's crazy interpretation of Christian theology and taking offense at how many of my fellow liberals play it fast and loose with the negative comments about "evangelicals."  Some people need to look up the definition of that word and stop using it as a demonized label.

More to the point:  it is illegal to allow a candidate to campaign in a church before the congregation--the church would lose their tax-exempt status (and most churches which lose this fold due to financial insolvency).  Someone ought to check into what is actually going on in the churches it is mentions Michele campaigned in.

bluecollardaughter

---

by: BlueCollar Daughter @ Sun Nov 29, 2009 at 14:52:35 PM CST

There was a legal complaint regarding (0.00 / 0)

the Bachmann appearances captured in the YouTube clip above. The complaint was filed by CREW against Mac Hammond's Living Word Center--I'm not sure anything tangible ever came of it.

The reason that this Bachmann appearance could become the basis of an legal complaint is that this appearance and Pastor Hammond's endorsement of Bachmann from the pulpit were broadcast--and could be captured on video. It's very difficult to know what exactly is being said about politics in a particular
church unless you attend and take notes or show up there with a camera or recording device. Understandably, people are loathe to do spying like that out of respect for the congregants and their faith.

None the less, the video (seen in its entirety, uncut) makes it clear that Bachmann, Hammond, and thousands of congregation and viewers are just fine with using a church as a partisan political platform for a politician's campaign, just fine with implying that God has endorsed the efforts of a particular political candidate, and just fine with urging people to sign up for voter registration in the lobby of the church following a recommendation of a particular candidate.

This, despite the applicable law.

I am sorry about the use of the word "evangelical" in the phrase "evangelical conservatives." I'm well aware that the views of the religious right are not held by all evangelicals. Unfortunately, it is the evangelical churches that form the platform of the conservative religious right.

If you look over a copy of the book I mentioned--"Republican Gomorrah" by Max Blumenthal--you read the list of names of the leaders of the conservative religious right and not that they are largely evangelical Christians who have put themselves at the head of millions of other evangelical Christians. (I.E., they are not Catholics, or Mormons, or Unitarians, or Jehovah's Witnesses--the national religious right wing movement we are talking about here is evangelical, even though it is untrue that every evangelical is sympathetic to the right wing religious movement we are talking about here.)

I would urge you to look over the index to that book, look at the names of the leaders of the movement that Bachmann belongs to, and realize how much dominance this political movement exercises over evangelical churches.
When I write about this movement, I usually use the term "evangelical conservative movement" to describe the people I am talking about. That term is much more accurate and fair than the term by which these people describe themselves: "the Christians."

I would argue that the word "evangelical" has been politically poisoned by the chicanery of a religious right in perverting that term into a political worldview. As you point out, for hundreds of years it had a very different meaning--but in America since the 1970s, the evangelical churches and believers have been re-organized and re-staffed in order to conflate a truly  evangelical worldview with a conservative and reactionary worldview. I didn't do that; the people pointing out that evangelicals are becoming coterminous with conservative politics didn't do that: the evangelical leaders did that, and their congregations let them do it.

If you want to stop liberals and progressives from "dissing evangelicals," you could best do that by doing your best to get evangelical conservatives out of party politics and elections. Good luck with that, if you decide this issue is important enough to act on.

---

by: Bill Prendergast @ Sun Nov 29, 2009 at 20:42:15 PM CST

[ Parent ]