Bachmann and the Pope
By R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. | July 21, 2011 | 17:54
It seems Rep. Michele Bachmann is under increased scrutiny for her religious views, even as she climbs ever higher in the presidential polls. With tea party support, she is now No. 2 in the Republican polls even though she has been in the race for only a short time. The numero uno, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, is himself the victim of gentler bigotry for his religious views. He is a Mormon. No, I did not say moron. I said Mormon.
What is Bachmann's transgression? She was, until recently, a member of a church that opposes homosexuality and gay marriage. It also takes issue with the Roman Catholic papacy. It is the Salem Lutheran Church of Stillwater, Minn. And by the way, it is no longer Bachmann's church. She now attends the evangelical church Eagle Brook, in another part of Stillwater, where she now lives. A close friend, JoAnne Hood, tells The New York Times that the Bachmanns "are absolutely not against the gays. They are just not for marriage" — presumably not for gay marriage. As for their position on the Catholic papacy, Hood is mum.
Well, I speak as a Roman Catholic. I do not know what the Salem Lutheran Church's complaint is, but if it is the Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility, I think I understand. The debate began in 1517 and got rather bloody. Yet over the past century or so, it has become quite civilized. Actually, I would be rather surprised if any Protestant or, for that matter, Jew accepted papal infallibility. But that does not mean I would not vote for a Protestant or Jew for president.
This sniping at Bachmann for the religious values of her former church is a bit hypocritical. In 2008, we elected as president a man who attended the church of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright for 20 years. He remained a member until May 2008, when he resigned under fire. The Rev. Wright regularly spouted racist bilge and assessments of this country that were frankly anti-American. Some of those views were very close to those expressed here and abroad by President Barack Obama. I do not know what President Obama thinks about papal infallibility, but I have my suspicions. My guess is that he is against papal infallibility. He will stick with Jeremiah Wright's infallibility.
To those who would raise religious issues against Bachmann or, for that matter, Romney, I shall take my stand with my colleague Seth Lipsky, who, I suspect, is another skeptic of papal infallibility. He cites the Founding Fathers. Lipsky avers that "the most emphatic sentence in the entire Constitution is the one that says 'no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.'" The author of an indispensable book for navigating the turbulent times in which we live, "The Citizen's Constitution: An Annotated Guide," Lipsky is an irrefragable judge in such matters. We should pay more attention to that generous and enlightened document, the Constitution.
Bachmann has, and that is why she is a growing force in the presidential race. She and the tea party movement recognize that the Constitution posits a blueprint for liberty. Obama makes light of the Constitution. He is a progressive and views the Constitution as dated. He would look to "experts" to govern us. He favors boards of regulators. They will rescue us from bankers and other Wall Street types, though it appears that earlier regulators and Wall Street types got the economy into its present fix. His regulators also will regulate the health care systems if he has his way, though regulators have a way of being bought off by those with the most intense interest in what they regulate — for instance, health care. When the dust has settled and Obama gets his health care panels in place, you can be sure that the pharmaceutical industry and other health care professions will be there with all kinds of friendly and esoteric advice.
Regulators rarely are effective. They often slow down progress and always impede freedom. Think of friendly fascism. Bachmann and her tea partyers put their faith in the checks and balances of the Constitution, its separation of powers, its federalism. That is why she is forging ahead and she and the tea partyers are going to be a force to reckon with in this oncoming election.
R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. is the founder and editor-in-chief of The American Spectator and an adjunct scholar at the Hudson Institute. His new book is "After the Hangover: The Conservatives' Road to Recovery." To find out more about R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
- R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr.'s blog
- Login to post comments




















Comments
there will be no Gay marriage law
Submitted by MidAmerica on Thu, 07/21/2011 - 6:21pm.
There will only be same-sex marriage because there is no way to determine the true sexual orientation of the people applying for a marriage license. Marriage will become a legal contract between two people, any two for any reason.
....until the Lefties start pushing for the 'rights' of the discriminated against polygamists and then we will see any number of people getting married. Of course that will mean the end of marriage meaning anything because the legal contract will be so complicated as to be dysfunctional. For instance, how does a polygamist divorce one of his ladies and make a financial settlement when the remaining 'wives' are going to fight for that property as theirs. It will be a lawyers dream come true.
So there are more than 'religious' reasons for keeping the current marriage contract.
I have concerns about her signing that pledge
Submitted by shawn. on Thu, 07/21/2011 - 9:18pm.
She is backing away from it, but it still concerns me she signed it. I don't mind the gay marriage part, but condeming cohabitation and divorce is kind of judgemental.
So whats your point, we all
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Fri, 07/22/2011 - 1:28am.
So whats your point, we all make judgements in our lives. Some have judged you to be a ...
Lol Dan
Submitted by shawn. on Fri, 07/22/2011 - 1:49am.
That was actually pretty good. I just do not believe it is a Presidents place to tell the citizens how wrong cohabitation and divorce is
On a more important subject. Can I learn from your 19 year old son? I want to make 500 thousand a year too. I want in :-)
So a President cant have
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Fri, 07/22/2011 - 12:59pm.
So a President cant have strongly held beliefs and let the people know what they are?
Sure
Submitted by shawn. on Fri, 07/22/2011 - 1:36pm.
Tell folks that cheating and stealing is wrong. To not support your country is wrong.
I don't want a President to tell people divorce is wrong and living with somebody without a marriage license is wrong. It's none of their business.
Shawn, There's a
Submitted by JoeBob on Fri, 07/22/2011 - 5:00pm.
Shawn,
There's a difference between passing judgment voluntarily and being honest when asked for your opinion. A candidate that answers questions about their morals and beliefs allows me to pass judgment on them wrt their candidacy, not feel that I've been judged by them. It's not all about you, bro!
And if it's nobody's business, why does the media ask the questions, and why do they analyze Gingrich's past marriages, and Giuliani's? Double standard, much?
Well joebob
Submitted by shawn. on Fri, 07/22/2011 - 8:07pm.
She was not asked her opinion, she signed a pledge. A candidate is asking for people's votes so they have to answer character questions
She signed a pledge that
Submitted by JoeBob on Sat, 07/23/2011 - 3:48pm.
She signed a pledge that called for standing behind a "federal Marriage Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which protects the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman." What is a pledge except a statement that this is what you believe and that you're not going to change your mind? So you just don't want anybody writing their opinion down and signing their name to it? Yes, signing the pledge dictates a future course of action (if one actually feels strongly about not breaking a promise based on one's principles and beliefs). So you want a candidate that either lies about their true beliefs or is willing to compromise them at the drop of a hat?
And to my mind, she is asking these people for their votes. She was willing to put in writing what she believed to get it. If you think she means what she says and don't agree, don't vote for her.
The original pledge she signed
Submitted by shawn. on Sat, 07/23/2011 - 4:03pm.
........also condemned the act of homsexuality, divorce, cohabitation and pornography.
She has since went into full damage control and distanced herself from the remarks and the author of the pledge apologized and wrote a new one.
Sorry Joebob, I have no problem with her being anti gay marriage, but I don't support her being anti gay.
Wow, shawn! She wants 'em
Submitted by JoeBob on Mon, 07/25/2011 - 7:11pm.
Wow, shawn! She wants 'em rounded up and executed? Concentration or re-education camp? How about instead of calling her anti-gay, you call her anti-gay-lifestyle? Or if we're talking about divorce or cohabitation or pornography, how about anti-adultery, or anti-promiscuity, or anti-sleazy?
I have not read the wording of the pledge, but if your description is accurate, I have more a problem with her back-pedalling than signing in the first place. That's because her beliefs mirror my own. But don't worry, Shawn. Just because I don't approve of their lifestyle and am not afraid to say so if asked, I won't touch a hair on their perfectly coiffed heads (and I don't think she will either).
I will not support he she is
Submitted by countryfirst on Thu, 07/21/2011 - 9:08pm.
I will not support he she is trashing the pope, and catholics I am a catholic, we already have a catholic hater in the WH, she is trying to be like sarah, she is no sarah, I still hope and pray sarah decides to run
You do understand most born
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Fri, 07/22/2011 - 1:30am.
You do understand most born again protestants believe the Pope and worship of saints to be against what the Bible and God teaches.
Dan
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 07/22/2011 - 7:37am.
I'd gamble most Catholocs understand the position of Protestants. Otherwise there would only be Catholisicm. However, I also believe Bachman understands the principle of the state staying out of religion.
delete
Submitted by GregE on Thu, 07/21/2011 - 10:53pm.
deleted
→ Who cares?
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 07/21/2011 - 11:30pm.
The followers of Jesus Christ will not be fooled by the Antichrist, whoever he turns out to be.
So, whoever it is that directs you to receive a mark in your hand or forehead, that guy's the Antichrist . . . Be he Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Mormon, or Secular. But if it's religious significance you seek to associate with end times, I think we may be talking about the "False Prophet" rather than the Antichrist.
Cool its not the mark itself
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Fri, 07/22/2011 - 1:35am.
Cool its not the mark itself but the fact you accept the lordship and fealty that mark represents. There will be a large part of the world who take the mark willingly understanding fully what it means; and they will not be concerned about it until its too late. The mark may be literal or it may be metaphorical, I have heard arguments for and against both until my head explodes. It may be some kind of chip implant or something similar.
A fine point, but a little clarification
Submitted by GW on Fri, 07/22/2011 - 11:31am.
It is my understanding that the dogma of Papal Infallibility did not become official until the first Vatican Council in the 1800's. The issue that Mr. Tyrrell seems to be addressing when invoking the 1517 date is the papal authority,the idea that the Pope is first amongst bishops and has authority over all Christendom.
The dogma of Papal Infallibility is much more limited in scope than is commonly understood. IIRC, the Pope is said to be Infallible when he speaks on issues of faith and morals and only when he officially invokes the dogma. For example, when the Pope says that he likes cats (which he does, one of my criticisms of the current Pope is that he's a cat person), he is not speaking infallibly for all Christendom.