Why I Don’t Care Where Michele Bachmann Spends Her Sundays.

By K.M. Zwick 

(Originally appeared in The Weekly Digest in September 2011, when Bachmann was still a front-runner in the Republican race to the bid for nomination)

Recently, I was listening to a podcast called DoubleX Gabfest, which is hosted by the women from The XX Factor blog on Slate.com’s online magazine. This blog consists primarily of commentaries on current events that involve issues of gender. The particular podcast I was listening to aired on August 11, 2011 and was hosted by Jessica Grose, Nina Shen Rastogi, and Hanna Rosin. The podcast began with a conversation about Michele Bachmann’s religious views and how those are or are not related to other American’s Christian views. This conversation seemed to be sparked in reaction to the August 7 Newsweek cover story on Bachmann titled “The Queen of Rage" and the recent New Yorker profile on Bachmann.

At first, I was interested to hear if Bachmann’s alleged views are aligned with a majority or minority population of Christians in America. The more I listened to the podcast, however, the less I cared about this and the more incensed I became with how many times the word “crazy” was used to describe Bachmann’s supposed religious beliefs. The word “crazy” was also used to describe the entire Mormon faith, when one of the hosts off-handedly mentioned Mitt Romney. Other words used to describe her religious beliefs and Mormon beliefs: "wrong," "freaky," and "nuts."

The more so-called left wingers and liberals dogmatically insult the religious dogma of another human being (usually a conservative Republican), the less inclined I am to listen to anything they have to say in the political arena.

We need to stop engaging in this conversation, fellow liberals. Insulting people of faith, because they are people of faith, and daring to assert that anyone knows what is crazy faith and what is sane faith is the exact same kind of egotistical absolutism the Glenn Becks and Rush Limbaughs of the world have been lobbing at non-Christians for decades. Democratic political platforms such as the pro-choice movement and the movement to secure national gay marriage rights center on the notion that religious beliefs – that homosexuality is a sin, for example, or that abortion is murder in the eyes of someone’s version of God - should not dictate laws that govern civil rights.

If we follow the concept of the separation of Church and State to its most logical conclusion, we find that liberals similarly have no place insulting a politician’s religious views as a valid argument to not vote for a politician.

I do not care as much WHY some politicians may be against gay marriage or believe in laws that limit or ban a woman’s right to choose abortion. I care THAT they have those political beliefs. And the information that they will use their political power to work against civil rights that are meaningful to me is the information that influences my vote against them. 

All I hear when I hear anyone – on my side of the political spectrum or not – labeling someone else’s faith as “crazy” is intolerant dogmatic mud-slinging and a lack of political focus.

The more liberals engage in this kind of egoism and intolerance about politicians of faith – condescending to certain beliefs but giving other more mainstream or “acceptable” beliefs an honorable mention – the more they fail to uphold their very desire to separate Church and State.

I will point out where the conversation about religion and politics seems relevant to me. When a politician herself brings her religious rhetoric into her discussion of political decision-making and/or makes it clear she lacks intellectual and emotional boundaries between her religion and her politics, we as voters need to inquire about her political beliefs in light of the personal and private religious beliefs she herself has interwoven with her public and political ones. It seemed the hosts of DoubleX started to discuss this matter, but kept falling back into the gutter of calling Ms. Bachmann "nutsoid."

I might ask these questions of a politician who brings a private personal religious belief such as, say, Christian Dominionism into her public political agenda: What is your approach to foreign affairs with nations that are non-Christian? What is your view on the peace process in Israel and how do you intend to engage with the Palestinians and work to ensure their safety and rights? What is your view on the civil rights of non-Christians in the United States?

I refer you now to a quotation from Ms. Bachmann from February of 2010 in front of the Republican Jewish Coalition in Los Angeles. This is excerpted from her response to a question regarding her view on the United States’ connection to Israel:

I am convinced in my heart and in my mind that if the United States fails to stand with Israel, that is the end of the United States . . . [W]e have to show that we are inextricably entwined, that as a nation we have been blessed because of our relationship with Israel, and if we reject Israel, then there is a curse that comes into play. And my husband and I are both Christians, and we believe very strongly the verse from Genesis [Genesis 12:3], we believe very strongly that nations also receive blessings as they bless Israel. It is a strong and beautiful principle. 

Pay attention to the answers to these types of questions and judge the merit of her policy; but reserve your judgment about the merit of her religion.

If a politician continues to bring her private, personal religious rhetoric into her answers to questions about matters of State, don’t waste your time judging her religious views. Recognize that she is apparently incapable of separating Church and State in her approach to government, and if you believe in such a separation, don’t vote for her. Stay on message, fellow liberals. Don’t get derailed by the patches of mud on the stump speech trail that you could sling.

We need not evaluate politicians based on the plausibility of their religious beliefs. In reaction to Ms. Bachmann’s quotation above, I do not judge her brand of Christianity; I judge her inability to separate her religious beliefs from her approach to foreign policy with Israel. And I furthermore disagree with her “bond” with Israel, to the apparent exclusion of consideration of the concerns and rights of Palestinians.

Fellow liberals, we need to be the bigger people in this conversation about politics and faith and find ways to remain ever-vigilant about the separation of Church and State. We can successfully support our causes by engaging in discussions about the causes, not by judging what kind of God someone prays to. If we are going to claim that someone’s religious beliefs should have no bearing on gay rights, we cannot in the next breath lower ourselves to label a politician’s religious beliefs crazy, as though that’s a valid political debate.

Let us not find ourselves two steps away from an argument about the existence of God; let us be tolerant of religion while we are incisive about civil and legal matters of State.

Barack Obama has claimed to be a Christian. This typically would mean he believes Jesus is the Son of God. Who is to say where the line of “crazy” stops and starts, and who gets to decide?  If it were up to an Atheist, maybe Obama’s crazy. If it were up to a Jew, maybe the Atheist and Obama are both crazy. If it were up to a Muslim, maybe all of the above are crazy. Assuming religious intolerance is doled out equally, of course.

If Obama prays to God every night and believes that those prayers help him fight for women’s rights, more power to him. But I don’t care what he does in his private life, on his knees or not. I care what decisions he makes in his public one, on his feet; because that is what actually affects me as a citizen during his administration.

Similarly, I don’t care what Bachmann does on Sundays. 

I care that in 2003, as a Minnesota State Senator, she proposed a constitutional amendment in Minnesota to bar the state from legally recognizing gay marriage. I care that she supports state and federal constitutional amendments barring gay marriage and legal equivalents. I care that as a U.S. Congresswoman, she voted yes to prohibit the use of federal funds for Planned Parenthood and National Public Radio.

I care that in 2008 she co-sponsored the Credit and Debit Card Receipt Clarification Act. I care that she voted against the federal financial sector bailout in 2008. I care that she voted no on regulating the sub-prime mortgage industry in 2007. I care that in 2011 she voted no to raising the debt ceiling.

I care that in 2008 she supported more exploration of oil and natural gas in ANWR and the Outer Continental Shelf. I care that she voted yes on barring the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gases in 2011. I care that she voted no on enforcing limits on carbon dioxide global warming pollution in 2009.  

I care that she wants to eliminate the federal minimum wage. I care that she wants to phase out Social Security and Medicare. I care that she co-sponsored the Right to Life Act, seeking to grant the “pre-born” equal protection as persons under the 14th Amendment. I care that she wanted to keep Don’t-Ask-Don’t-Tell in 2010.

I care that in 2007 she voted no on prohibiting job discrimination based on sexual orientation. I care that she voted yes to expand the Patriot Act. I care that she voted no on the 9/11 Health and Compensation Act. I care that she voted no on the Stem Cell Research Act of 2007.

And I care that she appears incapable of separating her religious beliefs from her political decision-making. The two seem so deeply intertwined when she speaks – especially when she speaks candidly. I see a great failure in the separation of Church and State in Michele Bachmann. 

That is not the fault of her religion; that is the fault of her mind.

There is plenty the American people need to know and understand about Michele Bachmann. Where she spends her Sundays is not on the list of Bachmann’s political decisions that I need to know about. Focusing on labeling what kind of God she prays to, what Church she attends, how often, and what the intricacies are of her brand of faith detracts from the major political issues that should matter to voters. Anyone could make the same political decisions she has made believing in a totally different religion or none at all.

What I care about is how she has and will represent the United States of America as a governing politician. And because I disagree with most of the choices she has made, both in her State Senate position and as a Congresswoman in the U.S. House, she will likely never have my support at any level of government. At the end of the day, all that matters to me is what she does in political office. If that seems unjust, illegal or unconstitutional to me – as, for example, her boundary management around her religious beliefs certainly seems to me - that is why she does not get my vote, why I’ll speak out against her, and why I hope you will, too.