Xn conservative hypocrisy, women's political division

Why is Michele Bachmann in the House of Representatives? Why is she running for president?

Sarah Palin, similarly -- why did she run for governor of Alaska, then vice president? Why would she run for president?

I'm not talking in terms of motivation.

Michele Bachmann gets a smackdown from the hypothetically inerrant Word!

Rather, since multiple places in the Christian New Testament, either Paul or someone pretending to be Paul said, in various ways, he didn't permit women to have authority over men, aren't they being HUGE religious hypocrites?

The three main "proof texts" are 1 Timothy 2:12, written by a pseudo-Paul, Titus 2:5, by the same pseudo-Paul, and 1 Corinthians 14:34, possibly written by the real guy, though authorship is questioned by a fair amount of critical scholars.

Let's look at each one, in case you're not familiar. (All citations are New International Version; even though any good old-time fundamentalist knows the KJV was just as inspired as the original Greek and Hebrew, there's errors in the KJV, there is no "original" Greek and Hebrew left today and we can't always tell from textual criticism what the original was, and inspiration in that sense doesn't exist anyway.)

I Timothy 2:12:

I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.

I Corinthians 14:34:

Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says.

Titus 2:5, starting from v. 4 in parentheses:

(Older women must train younger women) to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God.

So, why do Palin and Bachmann want to violate the Word of God? (Capitalized for those types of folks.)

Well, first, many fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals will claim the first two passages (the second one explicitly saying so) apply only inside churches.

Tis true, that is.

BUT!

The Palins and Bachmanns of the world, and many of their backers, are on record as saying:
1. America is a Christian nation;
2. America needs to be more explicitly governed by Christian law.

Ergo, the easy deduction is that for these people, America is akin to a giant church. Therefore, the first two passages still apply.

And, with Titus, it's in spades. The passage presumes that older women have already learned, and practice, the art of being subject to their husbands, else how could they train younger ones? Therefore, women in general (who are presumed to be married if not widows) are supposed to be subject to their husbands.

Period.

No "in the churches" only. Everywhere.

That said, it's fun watching a conservative Xn, and even more, one of these "messianic fulfillment" types who think that knowing five words of Hebrew and writing Old Testament names in full Hebrew transliteration gives them some cachet (it doesn't) try to wriggle out of this.

The main "excuse"? Paul's claim elsewhere that there is no male or female, no Greek or Jew, etc.

Well, that's wrong, and it undercuts their beliefs about Paul, to boot.

First, in Galatians, Paul never says that different types of people have the same rights at this moment in life. Proof? He also says there's no slave or free, but then, in the book of Philemon, sends Onesimus back to his slaveowner master. Oops!

Besides that, if this WERE the correct interpretation of how to understand the Galatians passage, it would be proof that Paul didn't write I Timothy, II Timothy or Titus, and that the I Corinthians passage is an interpolation.

Beyond that, all of these admonitions apply in spades to women pastors of fundamentalist and conservative evangelical churches.

I just love the way Christians allegedly devoted to the true, inerrant word of God ...

Aren't!