She didn’t thread the needle real well either. When I heard that question I was booing at the screen too – my gut reaction was that it was way out of line. But after reflection, I believe it was a fair question. Either way, its not the question that matters – its the answer.

As a Catholic, I would rather have never had a Catholic President than JFK, and not because of his politics. I think his explanation of how his religion would influence him if elected has done more harm to the faith than Henry VIII. As the example of the most powerful Catholic in the world – he decreed that his Catholicism didn’t really affect his duties as President and it contributed in no small part to millions of Catholics adopting his views for themselves – so that their Catholicism was some small room in the basement of their lives that had no application to most of the things they did and said on a daily basis.

Bachmann repeated that error with her non-answer of the question on the meaning of being a Christian married woman and being President at the same time. To say that submission in this biblical context means mutual respect is to say the Bible treats the Husband and Wife’s duties to each other as identical – which it simply, and very plainly does not.

I’m no Bachmann hater either, you can check my posting history to see that she was actually my top pick. Nor do I require or particular admire overt religiosity in my politicians, but I have little respect for politicians pontificating about Christianity and dumbing it down for their own political gain. A Michelle Bachmann has the ears of young conservatives around the country – who need to hold fast to their religious beliefs, and she has just provided yet another excuse to do what feels good.

There are many new testament verses describing the duties husbands and wives owe to each other, and they are remarkembly consistent. In sum, Wives are to submit to their husbands and husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved the Church. The relationship between husband and wife points us towards God in a way that can never be fully understood, but the hints are truly not subject to such gross misinterpretation as to imply a simplistic mutual respect. Christ loved the Church so much that he died for it, he did not merely respect it. Nor does he merely require respect from his followers, he is the head of the Church and he demands submission. It is a ridiculous assertion that submission and obedience mean nothing but respect, but it pales to the furter implication that what Christ did for us was merely offer us his respect. There is meaning beyond poetic beauty to the Christian belief that marriage joins two people into one. In the context of this mystery it is not one person that has two heads, two bodies, two souls offering each other nothing but redundant mutuality of respect. There is an undeniable division of responsibiliy. To undermine that for political gain is to undermine the very Christian nature of the family that Bachmann claims to champion. I dont care what most Protestants have talked themselves into believing these days. What good does it do give the bible such supremecy, ifyou caan so easily deny the plain meaning of words. Likewise, I have been to seminaries where the seminarians dont even know the correct order of the mass, and it does alter one iota what the Church herself teaches on this subject

My complaint has nothing to do with the length of her answer. She could have said “yes”, as it was a yes or no question. She choose to expound on what submission means to her. She choose to prove her Christian bona-fides by referencing submission to her husband, and then became allergic to that word in a politically unfavorable context.

I agree with your second paragraph, with the caveat that adjectives are not argument, even the really good ones like “stupid.” If you wanted to avoid insult then don’t tell me that her answer was correct or that its what most Protestants believe. Make a different argument that doesnt do exactly what I accused you of doing.

Apparently you missed my rather blatant statement that Catholics are just as susceptible to interpretations of convenience as protestants – for the record they are. I already know both what traditional protestant and Catholic teaching is on this issue. I’m not impressed by unproven nonsense like “most protestants believe” or someone who has spent 9 apparently wasted years in Catholic seminary.

To what I took to be a comparison of Jesus non answer re. pilot to bachmanns response. Herod was just another, less complex,example. The point is that not everyone deserves an honest response to a question. As in when the nazi asks are there Jews in attic. But you cant use the example of riteous deception to justify bachmanns flip flop.

poses the hypotetical that your daughter is held captive by a violent anti-Christian mob – they demand you renounce your belief in Christ or they will kill your daughter.

The correct answer is that you do not renounce your faith. The reason is that your daughter goes straight to Heaven and you have also protected your own soul.

That is merely in the context of the point that while absolute truth is not always required denying your faith in large or small ways is not one of the exceptions.

slipplery fingers – and yes I’m the father, lest anyone think my defense of the Christian marriage means I sit around all day and order my wife around.

Anyway – if you reduce the marriage roles to being exactly equivilent – doesnt it to some degree undermine your ability to make the argument agaisnt gay marriage?