Dr. Jillian T. Weiss

Michele Bachmann's 'Glittering' First Amendment Problem

Filed By Dr. Jillian T. Weiss | June 21, 2011 9:00 AM | comments

Filed in: Politics
Tags: glitter, glittering, Michele Bachmann

glitter.jpgThis past weekend, Presidential hopeful Michele Bachmann was the third Republican to be "glittered" (or "almost" glittered according to some news accounts, who cited poor aim) by LGBT activists seeking to highlight the endorsement of anti-gay extremism by Newt Gingrich, Tim Pawlenty and, most recently, Michele Bachmann.

But does Michele Bachmann deserve glitter? What is this alleged anti-gay "extremism" that she is supposed to have supported? And what does it have to do with the First Amendment?

According to a press release by GetEqual, the direct action pro-LGBT group, Rachel Lang, who threw glitter at Bachmann, shouted "you can run but you can't hide" as she was scooped away by security. This is a reference to the "You Can Run But You Cannot Hide" public school ministry of evangelist Bradlee Dean, for which Bachmann has helped raise money. From whom or what can you not hide? Apparently the Christian God of Dean and Bachmann, who will get you if you don't do what they say. That's a good message for public school children, isn't it? Do what we say, or burn in the everlasting lake of fire in Hell reserved for bad children?

The ministry, a brainchild of rabidly anti-gay Bradlee Dean, charges thousands of dollars to speak at public school assemblies and evangelize young people based on a "shocking and offensive anti-gay program," says GetEqual.

Oh really? How shocking and offensive could it be?

Pretty darn shocking, actually. Why does Michele Bachmann, an attorney, support Christian evangelizing in the public schools? It's her position on this question that deserves some "glitter" in the public media.

According to the Minnesota Independent, which references an article in the Dubuque Telegraph Herald, Dean "condemned homosexuality and the teaching of evolution in schools" in the process of speaking about abstinence and drug use.

In another Minnesota Independent article, the group advertised itself to public schools as doing "anti-drug" messages, but was really there to advertise its Christian ministry and tell students how to be good Christians. "At Pequot Lakes High School in central Minnesota in 2007, the group stirred controversy when students reportedly ran out of the assembly crying after the group showed graphic images of abortion and told the students that God wanted women to be subservient to men."

Bachmann's "Christine O'Donnell Moment"

While some naysayers might cry foul at the introduction of religious doctrine into public schools as a violation of the First Amendment "no establishment of religion" clause, "both Bachmann and YCRBYCH [You Can Run But You Can't Hide] deny that the constitutional prohibition exists. In fact, Bachmann urges people to give money to the organization for the stated purpose of bringing Christ into public schools."

According to the Minnesota Independent: "[Public schools] are teaching children that there is separation of church and state, and I am here to tell you that is a myth. That's not true," Bachmann said at the group's 2006 fundraiser in Minneapolis. "And they explain to children in the public school system what a myth that is. And that's what I love about this ministry ... We want kids to come to the truth and that's why this ministry is so absolutely vital. We need them in every public school classroom across the state to tell young people, 'You Can Run But You Cannot Hide.'"

Dean has similarly claimed that the Constitution does not call for church-state separation.

Did you know that the phrase 'separation between church and state' is nowhere in the Constitution, nor in the Declaration of Independence, and nowhere in the Bill of Rights?" he asked listeners of his radio program, called 'School of Hard Knocks,' which is broadcast on KKMS."

Do you remember what happened to Senate Candidate Christine O'Donnell when she said the same thing?

If "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" doesn't mean separation of church and state, then what does it mean?

If there were some credible way to interpret the First Amendment without separation of church and state, I'd like to hear it.

Bachmann's Extremist Anti-First Amendment, Anti-Gay Stances

The New Civil Rights Movement website recently published a list of Bachmann's "Top Ten Anti-Gay Quotes," in which she says that calling something gay is "part of Satan," that being gay is "personal bondage, personal despair and personal enslavement," that talking to children about gay people is "child abuse," that the gay community is "targeting our children."

As also reported recently in the Daily Beast's "Bachmann's Unrivaled Extremism," she uses Biblical quotes, without attribution, to signal extreme Christian Dominion views, such as references to Deuteronomy 28:13: 'The Lord will make you the head and not the tail.' As Rachel Tabachnick has reported, it's often used in theocratic circles to explain why Christians have an obligation to rule.

The Daily Beast also reported that, during her studies at Coburn Law School at Oral Roberts University, an "interdenominational, Bible-based, and Holy Spirit-led" school, Bachmann studied with John Eidsmoe. She described Eidsmoe as "one of the professors who had a great influence on me." Bachmann served as his research assistant on the 1987 book Christianity and the Constitution, which argued that the United States was founded as a Christian theocracy, and that it should become one again. "The church and the state have separate spheres of authority, but both derive authority from God," Eidsmoe wrote. "In that sense America, like [Old Testament] Israel, is a theocracy."

The Daily Beast also noted that Eidsmoe withdrew from speaking at a Wisconsin Tea Party rally last year after the Associated Press raised questions about his history of addresses to white supremacist groups. He also reportedly spoke at a rally last year celebrating Alabama's secession from the Union, where he claimed that Jefferson Davis and John C. Calhoun understood the Constitution better than Abraham Lincoln.

Bachmann's belief that the Constitution does not call for a separation between Church and State is extreme. Her belief that public schools should feature the Christian message that being gay is part of Satan, and that gay children "can run but can't hide" from her vengeful Christian God is also extreme. It's also damaging to children, and may play a role in the high suicide rate seen among teens who are gay or questioning their sexuality.

Doesn't this deserve a bit of "glitter" in the media?

Here's MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell explaining why Bachmann's view of the First Amendment is incorrect, as found on the website RightScoop:

Jillian Weiss is a member of the Board of Directors of GetEqual.

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.

It deserves a protest outside her office more than it deserves glitter -- but I must admit, my views re glitter are "evolving" -- especially if the glitter is dropped from a balcony or overpass or something like that -- throwing it right in someone's face is just too gauche.

Once the Christianists get into power, I wonder what they are going to do with that First Amendment clause "or restricting the free exercise thereof" -- will they add the phrase "as long as it's about Jesus and the way he wanted to put the sinners he particularly despised in concentration camps"?

I'll say it again: Christianists are subversives, and deserve to be labeled as such. Another problem with glitter is it makes light of something (and someone) who is truly quite dangerous.

I think she'll be much more dangerous than she ever has been if she gets nominated for President, and the best way to ensure that doesn't happen is to make sure the media has plenty of opportunities to report on her extremist views, not only about LGBT people, but also about topics like the First Amendment.

Bill Perdue Bill Perdue | June 21, 2011 12:46 PM

of interest: "The gay rights activist who "glittered" Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) at the conservative RightOnline conference over the weekend says if she had the opportunity she'd do the same to President Barack Obama.

Rachel Lang set her sights on Bachmann -- who recently announced plans to run for president in the next election cycle -- because of the congresswoman's posture toward gay rights issues and specifically her support for a proposed ban on same-sex marriage in her home state of Minnesota. Lang told a reporter at the RightOnline gathering in Minneapolis that she would pull the same move on "any politician who doesn’t want gays to be able to get married," including the president.

"I disagree with Barack Obama on a lot of things," said Lang when asked if she would go after Obama. "If he were here I would glitter him too. I think it would be harder to get that close to the president though."

Bill Perdue Bill Perdue | June 21, 2011 12:47 PM

Oops - that was from HuffPo

P Michael | June 21, 2011 2:02 PM

You probably do not have enough space to document all of Bachmann's anti-gay antics, but there is one thing that you do not mention: While in the MN state legislature, Bachmann spearheaded the effort to amend the state constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage. This was her defining issue, the issue that initially gave her statewide notoriety, and she unsuccessfully brought it up year after year. I recall live video coverage of congressional proceedings in which she was screaming uncontrollably from the floor (protesting the Democratic-controlled House's refusal to bring the issue to a vote), and the chairman of the proceedings having to pound his gavel in an attempt to reign her in. She was always viewed as a wide-eyed lunatic in MN, despised and distrusted by people of her own political party. I wonder how long her current makeover as a reasoned lawmaker will last before the crazy spills over again.

P. Michael, can you find a video of that event and post it o YouTube please? Let everyone see how she really is.

You don't have to dig very deep to find a lot of video of Michele Bachmann being Michele Bachmann. Bloggers in MN have been chronicling her greatest hits for quite some time. You can start here.

Michael, you're right that there's not enough space to detail all her anti-gay antics. But everyone knows she's anti-gay, so I was trying to point up an issue of wider application related to her anti-gay stance. That's the idea that, in pursuit of her anti-gay agenda, religious zealotry should be exported to the schools in violation of the First Amendment, justified in her mind by the crazy idea that there should be no separation between Church and State.

Ok, as a person who's had to deal with things being thrown at me I DO NOT AGREE WITH THE ACTION. Throwing glitter at someone is hazardous. The person could be allergic to the materials or it could trigger a asthma attack...that list goes on. It is gauche as has been mentioned.
There are better actions to bring the issues to light. Showing videos on YouTube of her ranting with an explaination of what her ideas would mean for our community might be a better way to adress the issues.
Those who are advocating the use of unreasonable force in addressing a glittering is sadly real and will probably happen.
Remember this, once Secret Service personnel are assigned to Presidential candidates, someone charging with a closed fist may find out what they keep under their coats the hard way.

ahh It couldn't have happend to a more deserving person then it is rather childish and all.Then again may be the last time any one gets that close to her as look for private security at her next event and hand picked crowds from dear Michele.

Politics is a contact sport with no rules.

Tina (IL) | June 21, 2011 8:44 PM

I've been giving thought to this. How does it differ from chaining oneself to the White House? I'm rather simplistic (as many of the contributors point out!), I only have a couple graduate degrees, but when you involve someone else in your escapade, that is when it goes further than I'm comfortable with. If the WH protestors had chained themselves to the President or someone else...that would have been over the top. In saying that, I believe we often do more harm than good when events like this take place...I add the occupation of Rep. Pelosi's office to that. I'm not a big "Nancy" fan, but I believe that did more harm than good...just my view...simplistic though it may be!