A core 5 percent to 7 percent of Religious Righters are Republican theocrats, heart and soul. They will vote for McCain, even though they can hardly stomach him; they have no one else to vote for this year. For the McCain campaign the challenge is how to rouse them.
Republicans have been playing the race card every presidential election since Nixon made it his Southern Strategy. It worked then and it has worked ever since. Usually they pair it with fear of crime. They'll do it again.
But this election, the theocrats have a twofer. Michelle Obama. Racism and sexism. What a combination. Although fundamentalists once did a good job of using the Bible to support racism (children of Cain and all), they can't use God to support that kind of bias anymore. Too much backlash.
But they can make a case that God hates uppity women.
They're already working on it.
A professor of Christian theology from Louisville's Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, one of the Southern Baptist Convention's flagship seminaries, showed the way at a Texas Bible Church a week ago. The Southern Baptist Convention is the largest Protestant denomination in the country and a powerful voice for evangelicals.
One reason men abuse their wives is that women rebel against their husband's God-given authority, said Professor Bruce Ware. Women are sinners who want their own way instead of desiring to submit to their husbands..
"And husbands on their parts, because they're sinners, now respond to that threat to their authority either by being abusive, which is of course one of the ways men can respond when their authority is challenged--or, more commonly, to become passive, acquiescent, and simply not asserting the leadership they ought to as men in their homes and in churches," Ware said from the pulpit of Denton Bible Church in Denton, Texas," wrote Rob Allen.
Here is a summation of Professor Ware's 10 reasons that God gave men power over women from Denny R. Burk, an assistant professor of New Testament at Criswell College in Dallas.
1. The order of creation, with the man created first, indicates God's design of male headship in the male/female relationship (Gen 2; 1 Tim 2:13).
2. The means of the woman's creation as "out of" or "from" the man bears testimony also to the headship of the male in the relationship (Gen 2:23; 1 Cor 11:8).
3. While both man and woman are fully the image of God (Gen 1:26-28), yet the woman's humanity as "image of God" is established as she comes from the man. Adam names her "isha" (woman) because she was "taken out of ish (man)" (Gen 2:23; cf. 5:3).
4. The woman was created for the man's sake or to be Adam's helper (Gen 2:18, 20).
5. Man (not woman) was given God's moral commandment in the garden; and woman learned God's moral command from the man (Gen 2:16-17).
6. Man named the woman both before and after the entrance of sin (Gen 2:19-20, 23; 3:20).
7. Satan approached the woman (not the man) in the temptation, usurping God's design of male-headship (Gen 3; 1 Tim 2:14).
8. Although the woman sinned first, God comes to the man first, holding him (not her) primarily responsible for their sin (Gen 3:8-9; Rom 5:12-19; 1 Cor 15:22).
9. The curses on the man and woman indicate the fundamental purposes for which each was created, respectively (Gen 3:16-19).
10. The Trinity's equality and distinction of Persons is mirrored in male-female equality and distinction (1 Cor 11:3).
To anyone not indoctrinated into fundamentalist thinking, Ware's reasoning may seem laughable. But not to Professor Burk. He's impressed that Professor Ware used verses from Genesis and the New Testament.
Sure Jesus brought Good News, but women didn't get released from the curse. No, sir. Not them. Professor Ware showed good Biblical grounding in making that point clear.
Ware's reasoning is weak gruel, but the many quotations from the Bible floating around in it make it good, solid food to a lot of Religious Right evangelicals. Remember Ware isn't some yahoo pontificating during coffee break. He's a respected Biblical scholar, an expert in Christian theology, standing in a pulpit. He'll have plenty of yahoos ready to repeat his reasoning.
You can see how it will play out.
Michelle Obama is nobody's little woman, keeping quiet, searching her husband's face to know what she ought to say, as God intended her to be. So she can't be a godly woman..
As for Barack Obama, there are only two options for a man who doesn't control his wife.
Even the fundamentalists aren't likely to say that Obama beats her. So he must be a wimp.
Who wants a wimp for president?
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Ms. Wicker, What I find disturbing is the women who hate women and who seem to seek the approval of men who hate women. I have to mention Ann Coulter here. She seems to have a particular hatred for women and those reporter men eat her up.
I'm sorry it has taken me so long to reply. There was a glitch in the log in and I couldn't get on.
So.
I do know what you mean. We probably ought to be making that point clear more often. She certainly wouldn't get away with being as racist as she is sexist. Bob Herbert a columnist with the New York Times is one of the few columnists in the country who writes about sexism at all. Every time he does, I'm so grateful. He's black, BTW. Which to my mind, gives his support of women an added dimension.
I am even more concerned, however, with the latent sexism that I find in myself and others. It creeps in without us realizing it. Naturally it would. In most of the world, women are pretty much property. All our religions come from a time when the idea that women were property was unchallenged. Our own country has only recently moved from that. Those attitudes run deep.
In having a female leader, the U.S., supposedly so progressive with regard to women, is far behind the rest of the world.
Wonder why that is?
This is a dust-up among fundamentalist, mostly Baptist, theologians. It is not about race and it is not about Michelle Obama. You can find a problem if you look hard enough. This is just one of a zillion reasons why politics and religion should not be mixed - not even for faith-based initiatives. Somebody always gets twisted out of shape.
Exactly! The writer is making connections that don't exist. Ware is not explicitly giving a theological exposition as to why B O is a wimp and M O is a 'harridan' and ero why the Southern Baptist flock of the fundamentalist persuasion (not all SBs are fundamentalists, there used to be a healthy moderate and more left-leaning tradition within the convention) should not vote for B O.
The fundamentalist followers generally believe this stuff whether or not a theological exposition is provided for them to justify their prejudices or not. Very few of them are that theologically sophisticated. They are drawn to a theologian like Ware because he confirms what they already believe and value. These people don't need a theological reason to hate M O or B O. There are some people who simply won't vote for him on the religious right irrespective of what's going on. And Ware does not have the clout of a Dobson and even Dobson is losing his clout.
This writer is making much ado about nothing and just wants to stir the pot and fuel even more hatred between religious fundamentalists and those who oppose them. It does not faciliate a polite civil discourse on the role of religion in American culture or in the election. It panders to fear mongering on the left.
You think so?
Stay tuned. I'm about to give you more fodder for your opinion in my next two columns.
Meanwhile, I'll only say that fundamentalist preachers don't generally address political topics head on. They preach sermons that include the "Biblical" perspective -- often sandwiched into sermons that have nothing to do with the topic.
Their genius is that they lead their people over long periods of time with methods both overt and subtle. That's why, for instance, people who go to megachurches often say that those preachers never pressure them for money. But the churches haul in great amounts of money.
You vastly underestimate the sophistication of fundamentalist evangelicals.
A big mistake.
Is Dr. Ware thinking about Michelle? I don't know if he's thinking consciously of her in making these remarks.
What I do know is that he is helping cement a world view that with will demonize her.
As Randall Balmer, contributer to the The Fundamentalism Project, noted at the Ann Arbor book fest last month, the one thing that all fundamentalist movements have in common is that they all seek to control women.
The writers of the Bible recognized, controlled, and regulated slavery, so isn't it our religious obligation to possess slaves?
The Bible permitted owners to beat their slaves severely, even to the point of killing them. However, as long as the slave lingered longer than 24 hours before dying of the abuse, the owner was not regarded as having committed a crime, because -- after all -- the slave was his property.
Paul had every opportunity to write in one of his Epistles that human slavery -- the owning of one person as a piece of property by another -- is profoundly evil. His letter to Philemon would have been an ideal opportunity to vilify slavery. But he wrote not one word of criticism.
Jesus could have condemned the practice. He might have done so. But there is no record of him having said anything negative about the institution.
Now there's a topic for discussion.
But I believe you've rendered us all speechless.
Good job. Thank you.
There's just something about her that doesn't strike me as being sincere. Be wary of defending what you don't really know. I don't know Cindy or Michelle, so I am reserving judgment. I do that Cindy has watched her son go to Iraq, and that must have been extremely difficult.
Your extremely ambiguous reference to some negative you find hard to define as justifying your trepidation towards MO's sincerity says more about you than her. You might want to examine these strange feelings. I personally need actual reasons for speaking ill of someone.
So, Cindy McCain's son is in Iraq and that makes her sincere? I don't see your logic. There is plenty of information on Cindy McCain's past drug problem, if you're interested in that.
I got so disgusted by the time I finished reading this tripe that I had to go into the other room and cool off. I relly think these guys would like to go back to seeing women viewed as "property". I had a friend one time who was Catholic. Her husband would drink and then beat her senseless. When she would go and ask a priest what she should do - it was always "it's your fault. You should learn what you are doing that triggers him to beat you and not do that." She quit that church , divorced the bum and she became Baptist. Not sure what she is now, I lost touch with her - but if the idea that a woman should be beaten because she is not submitting to her husband is prevelant now in this fanatical theology - I hope she has run far away!
Articles such as this remind me why I am glad I am a Unitarian Universalist . The last time I looked, there were not any female authors in the Bible. It was written by and exclusively for MEN. There are only a few strong and well thought of women in this book - the rest were harlots, prostitutes and of course the first sinners.... "I am woman, hear me roar and I know to much to go back and pretend...."
It is disgusting, and it's surprising how few people use that word for it.
Your friend might have joined a group of traditional Baptists. A friend of mine calls them "the nice Baptists." They are some of the best people I know. In my next column, I hope to quote from writings of a Baptist pastor who is among that group. They're cut from a whole different cloth.
It's too bad the press has chosen to ignore them -- and all the other Christians in America as though they are completely irrelevant. They outnumber the fundamentalists at least five to one.
The bible was written by the cardinals of the Catholics at the Council of Trent; it was written by men for men; women had nothing to say about its passages or original meanings. The long, disgraceful history of the Catholic Church and its treatment of women is there for all to see, if one cares to look. I don't trust the bible as a means of salvation or as means to living ones life.
I doubt women who are beaten, defy their husband's authority and if they do, probably with good reason. I can speak as a daughter of a father who hit his wife, daughter and sons. . .most of his abuseiveness was fueled by alcohol and his own personal demons.
The bible and the fundamentalist have never cared for well-educated, independent women and the fundamentalist were often the first to decry shelters for abused women and children. So when I and my brothers got hit, there was no were for us to go except the streets.
I am grown now; any man who thinks he can hit me may very well find himself under the jail and not in it. Michele Obama deserves better than having to deal with bigots, woman-haters and bible-thumpers. I hope these preachers have a second thought about abusing a women who has done nothing to them, except seek to use her God given talents to further the law's cause.
They might abuse her directly. But what we (and by that I mean the public and evangelicals, fundamentalists, too) need to be alert for is this kind of indirect shaping. If they start hitting the women's submission note harder and harder, it contributes to a more rigid world view.
That morphs easily once politicians (like the Rovites John McCain just added to his staff) get hold of it.
We've seen it before.
just a reminder: God doesn't exist, man created him.
Bigots won't vote for Obama anyway, so being "uppity" isn't going to affect them. They might say that they think she is "uppity" out loud as a justification, but bigotry is still the underlying cancer.
I am sure the former Hillary now McCain supporters will fit in nicely with this group. Its kinda funny when you think about it. What this country needs is 20 more years of total republican control, only then will middle america get to the point where enough is enough.
Sad but so many people will and do belive this.
This is why I hate the Religious right. It's the 21st century, get with the program, people.
He is a Professor? Thanks for the advice but this old sinful woman will let GOD sort it out!
The religious right is nothing but a bunch of OLD, Bible thumping hypocrites that think that 'their' way is the only way.
RR go read the Bible and STOP getting involved in politics, this is NOT your place.
And you're obviously a forever young child easily identified as an Obama supporter, rude, nasty, snarky and oh-so-very-right-on -everything!
Guess what honey? This time you are wrong, very wrong. You are part of this failure. Enjoy your short claim to fame.
ROFL!!! I say let them throw it out there. All it will do is damage the Republicans' position even further. I say put it on the cable news networks 24/7 -- and just watch as every woman voter crosses the aisle to vote for Obama. Heck, if it's heavy-handed enough, we might be able to pass the ERA too! When are these folks going to realize that the times have CHANGED? The days of keeping women trapped in their boxes, subjected to their husband's authority simply because he has a penis, are OVER. Go ahead, cling to that ever-diminishing minority that says God put man in charge. 50 years ago, they were saying God doesn't want blacks & whites to intermarry. Whoops! Guess they got that wrong! And how about all the arguments that God was on the side of the slave masters during the civil war? OMG!Wrong there, too! Wake up, folks. It's a brave new world, and everyone's a person, a human being--and they always have been.
That column didn't tell the half of it. Catch my next one. It's going to give a fuller picture of what's going on.
I wonder if these are the same scriptures the men tell women at the Fundamentalist Church of Latter Day Saints? After all, don't they also have to worship their husbands in order to get into Heaven? I wonder if they are even allowed to vote? And, I wonder if the Christian Conservative women ever consider themselves to be indoctorated to the same load of crap the FDLS women. It may make them think twice. Maybe.
Loading comments…
Posted June 28, 2008 | 11:09 PM (EST)