Well, that’s not a headline I ever expected to write…
This really is a ridiculous story. Over at the Economist Johnson (like me, no theologian) offers up some linguistic clarification:
This is Johnson and not a religion blog, so what’s the angle? It’s that anti- is usually understood in English as “hostile to”: anti-American, anti-woman, etc. But in Greek its meaning included “opposite, counterpart”. An antistrategos was your counterpart general on the other side. And as a free-standing preposition, the meaning of anti also included “instead of”. This is the meaning that Luther had, and WELS [Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod] has, in mind. The antichristos was someone who tried to rival Christ by taking his place, not simply his enemy, red pointy ears and all.
Even the original Atlantic article (written, doubtless, to create a spot of bother for Rep. Bachmann, who has, the article reveals, had to deal with this issue before and did not do so as well as she might have done) includes this quotation from a WELS spokesman:
Some people have this vision of a little devil running around with horns and red pointy ears. Luther was clear that by ‘Antichrist’ [he meant] anybody who puts himself up in place of Christ. Luther never bought the idea of the Pope being God’s voice in today’s world. He believed Scripture is God’s word.
Roman Catholics will not see eye to eye with Lutherans about this (and vice versa), but that should not be breaking news.
Alex Massie notes this:
At some fundamental serious adherents to any sect must believe in the righteousness of their interpretation of the scriptures and, consequently, that alternative beliefs lack substance.
Indeed they should, and as long as they can agree to differ peacefully with those who see things a different way, that’s just fine.
FWIW, I touched on this in something I wrote for NRO a decade ago (good grief…). Here’s an extract:
True religious tolerance is the acceptance of the right of others to follow a different creed. In our ersatz, contemporary version, however, it is denied that there are any different creeds. Instead, we are encouraged to think that all religions are basically the same, just different routes to the same transcendental Truth.
In the name of “diversity,” we try to erase difference. When it comes to religious belief, this is a country chary of controversy and anxious about argument. In the interest of fraudulent civility and soi-disant “respect” we have removed the right of the religious to disagree with each other.
And that’s not a good thing.
"True religious tolerance is the acceptance of the right of others to follow a different creed."
Yes, exactly - but the problem is that Bachmann clearly draws on her religious beliefs to influence her political positions. For example:
"Mrs Bachmann said in 2004 people dealing with `sexual dysfunction' and `sexual identity disorders' need `profound compassion'...'Any of you who have members of your family that are in the lifestyle - we have a member of our family that is.
`This is not funny. It's a very sad life. It's PART OF SATAN, I think, to say this is gay. It's anything but gay.'" (emphasis added - source External Link
)
If your religious beliefs are directly informing your political policy, then yes, it's absolutely correct for people to want to scrutinize those religious beliefs when making decisions about whether to vote for you or not.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd wasn't Obama treated with kid gloves with all of that? I still have no clear idea where he stands in terms of his religious beliefs or, for that matter, whether he is religious at all. The MSM nor his followers seemed to have much concern over his religious views and how they might "inform his political policy." But, then of course, if he's not conservative, it really is not material, right?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse“for [Satan] is a liar and the father of lies.”
John 8:44
That’s what she means. Pretty mainstream.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"That’s what she means. Pretty mainstream."
Sorry, but no, it's not. Outside of the evangelical community I doubt you'd find 1 in 10 who knew what that was referring to.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAre you arguing, then, that she is not supposed to know anything that is not widely known outside the evangelical community?
My meaning was that there is nothing nefarious about the part of the quotation that you typed in with all caps.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuseport, do you have any idea how large the "evangelical community" is in America? It doesn't include only those who attend church in a particular set of protestant churches every Sunday - but all those who have ever been brought up in it, 'mainstream' protestants, and a huge chunk of Catholics, as they have all been part of a society permeated by American protestantism.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBachmann clearly was objecting to the fairly recent (my 1971 OED doesn't mention, but 1986 Webster's 3rd does) use of the word "gay" to apply to homosexuals, and arguing that was wrong or perverse. Also, the article indicates Bachmann was talking about her personal interactions, not public policy.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTheologian D.A. Carson talks about the mutation of the word tolerance over the past 20 or so years. "Tolerance" used to assume disagreement. To "tolerate" someone was to respect their right to disagree. Today "tolerate" seems to mean that one lacks an opinion on the issue. Before long "tolerant" will be a synonym for agreement, and indeed it already is for some.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseImmaterial, because Bachmann apparently is no longer a Lutheran.
Perhaps reporters and pundits making attacks on the faith of politicians should make sure they know the facts, first?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAndrew, this is a pivotal moment, for all I (who often disagrees with you) can say to your post is "Amen."
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"who has, the article reveals, had to deal with this issue before and did not do so as well as she might have done"
Actually, by her standards, she did really well.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"This really is a ridiculous story. "
It is a ridiculous story, but ultimately the merits of the story aren't relevant. This is the MO employed by the left to marginalize Republican candidates. They've been doing it for years, decades really, but they perfected it with Palin.
This kind of story is all that the democrat co-conspirators in the pop culture/media world need to work their magic. Once the idea is in the cultural Zeitgeist, no matter how meritless or fallacious it is, it gives the usual suspects all the legitimacy they need to make their snide, sarcastic comments.
It doesn't matter if Sarah Palin actually said, "I can see Russia from my house", so long as she said something that can give some relevance to the joke. Then once the joke is made, its repeated ad infinitum - including on "hard news" programs - until the joke becomes the reality.
This will happen to Bachmann. She says things that are marginally strange or confusing, and when she does, she inadvertently lays the groundwork for the damage that the cultural character assassins will use to finish her off.
Nope, it's not fair. But it is the reality of all Republican candidates, and especially the reality of all conservative candidates.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd so we should nominate no one with a spine! ROMNEY 2012!!!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePerhaps the various Republican Candidates should switch to a "liberation theology" denomination, which cheers the Sunday after 9/11 and blames America (or maybe Zionists?) for creating AIDs. That would take the religion issue away from the President.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@nycplr3214b Your point holds no credibility. You disunderstand the program assigned "Liberation Theology" and the socialistic underpinnings the Chuch rejected.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat are you talking about? nycplr was referencing the controversy over Jeremiah Wright and how the media gave Obama a pass on that particular "theological dispute".
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs a Catholic who accepts all that the Catholic Church teaches, I take no real offense that Bachmann might have belonged to a denomination that preached against Catholicism. After all, isn't belief that Catholicism is somehow mis-directed, and at the least unintentionally anti-Christian or an impediment to salvation, at the root of the Protestant Reformation? This isn't news. Nor should it be news that Catholics believe that Protestants are not in possession of "the fullness of truth" that Catholicism possesses.
In matters of governance of our Republic, I fear that the religious views of the current occupant of the White House are a far greater danger to our viability as a Nation than any of the prospective Republican Presidential nominees, or than any of the "CINO's" (Catholics in name only ) such as Pelosi and Biden.
Let us not stab each other in the back. Let us work together for the goals which we conservatives all hold dear. And let Bachmann go in peace. She is one of several potentially spectacular nominees, and I would support her; and, in fact, have given money to her campaign already.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@PERSON As a practicing Catholic, thank you for posting my same views. You did well.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@PERSON, please elaborate on what you mean when you say that the "religious views" of the president are a great danger to the viability of our republic. It is a rather ambitious claim. Not having the courage of your convictions is quite cowardly and, might I add, un-Catholic.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAren't you being awfully judgemental George Blair and I believe that is un-Catholic.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse