Cathy McMorris Rodgers

Understanding the faith of Cathy McMorris Rodgers

Share this story!
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

McMorrisRodgers_CathyThe Republican response to President Obama’s SOTU speech introduced many Americans to Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers. While those of us who reside in Spokane are already familiar with our congresswoman, little is known about her alma mater, Pensacola Christian College. A brief introduction to PCC might help illuminate some of the formative ideas that have shaped the faith and religious views of Rep. McMorris Rodgers.

Study of the Bible is a major concern at PCC, and every student there is required to take Bible courses. The treatment of the Bible at PCC is somewhat extreme. The school has a particular (and peculiar) attachment to the King James Version (published in 1611), noting on its website, “it is our practice to use only the Authorized Version (KJV) in the pulpit and in classroom instruction.” Their obsession with the KJV is at odds with scholars who consider dozens of alternative English versions (e.g. the NRSV) to be more faithful translations since they, unlike the KJV, are based on more ancient (and reliable) biblical manuscripts.

Academic or scholarly approaches to the Bible seem to be shunned at PCC. The seminary associated with the college seems to relish this lack of an academic approach:

“Pensacola Theological Seminary has a biblicist approach in its graduate Bible program in contrast to the pseudointellectual approaches of our day. In an attempt to be academic, many focus on teaching erroneous views of liberal theologians. The goal of our Bible program is not to fill our students’ minds with doubts and questions raised by liberals, but rather to fill our students’ souls with the Word of God itself.”

It is thus not surprising that not one of the faculty who teaches Bible at PCC is a trained scholar in biblical studies. None of the “Bible” faculty are members of the world’s largest and most established academic guild of biblical scholars, the Society of Biblical Literature. Dan Rushing, Dean of the Division of Biblical Studies at PCC, does not have a Ph.D. in biblical studies, and he received all four of his degrees from PCC and Pensacola Theological Seminary.

Throughout the college there seems to be a lack of academic rigor. Of the 117 full time faculty at PCC, only 13 (11.1 percent) have Ph.D.’s. Perhaps even more noteworthy is that 89 of their faculty received at least one of their degrees from PCC. Far from welcoming or valuing external perspectives, PCC embraces its exclusionary mindset:

“Without meaning to be unfriendly or unkind, we feel it only fair to say that Pensacola Christian is not a part of the ‘tongues movement’ and does not allow students to participate in or promote any charismatic activities, nor do we permit students to promote hyper-Calvinism.”

Although McMorris Rodgers graduated with a B.A. from PCC in 1990, the school itself was not accredited until Oct 29, 2013. Its accrediting body, the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools (TRACS), itself had difficulty receiving federal recognition. Its first such attempt (in 1987) was denied, and its successful effort in 1991 followed a federal advisory panel’s repeated recommendations to the contrary. In the mid-1990’s TRACS was placed on probation for eighteen months.

TRACS currently accredits 55 schools including Bob Jones University, Epic Bible College, Hillsdale Free Will Baptist College, Shorter College, Visible Music College, and the Seattle School of Theology and Psychology (formerly Mars Hill Graduate School). Schools seeking to be accredited must supply “a biblical foundation statement,” “a mission statement,” and a “Christian Philosophy of Education.” In its Accreditation manual, TRACS offers schools a series of suggestions to include in their biblical statements:

“The unique divine, plenary, verbal inspiration and absolute authority of all sixty-six canonical books of the Old and New Testaments as originally given. The Bible is the only infallible, authoritative Word of God and is free from error of any sort, in all matters with which it deals, scientific, historical, moral, and theological.”

“The full historicity and perspicuity of the biblical record of primeval history, including the literal existence of Adam and Eve as the progenitors of all people, the literal fall and resultant divine curse on the creation, the worldwide cataclysmic deluge, and the origin of nations and languages at the tower of Babel.”

“Special creation of the existing space-time universe and all its basic systems and kinds of organisms in the six literal days of the creation week.”

“The existence of a personal, malevolent being called Satan who acts as tempter and accuser, for whom the place of eternal punishment was prepared, where all who die outside of Christ shall be confined in conscious torment for eternity.”

In its Fourteen articles of Faith, Pensacola Christian College echoes many of these same sentiments. It states, for example, “Eternal hell was created for Satan, his demons, and people who do not believe in God.”

Religion is the only subject in which some people are proud of believing the same thing at age 40 that they believed when they were six. It is the only field in which development in critical thinking is seen by some as regression. With religion, people think their opinion is as legitimate as a trained professional. And the consequences are not merely academic. For people unwilling to engage in a critical study of religion or the Bible are destined to worship a God and Jesus of their own making.

This peculiar brand of non-thinking religion might help explain how a person of “faith” might vote against giving women equal pay to men (Lily Ledbetter Act), or vote against including gays, lesbians, Native Americans, and immigrants as people that should be protected against domestic violence (Violence Against Women Act), or vote to cut food to hungry children and the elderly (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program).

It might also help explain how a person of “faith” might embrace idolatry in viewing Christianity and the American Dream as one and the same:

“ . . . with the guidance of God, we may prove — proves ourselves worthy of His blessings of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

Matthew S. Rindge is Assistant Professor of Religious Studies at Gonzaga University. He is currently writing “Cinematic Parables: Subverting the Religion of the American Dream.” Follow him on Twitter at @mattrindge.

About Matthew Rindge, Ph.D.

Matthew S. Rindge is professor of Religious Studies at Gonzaga University. His latest book is "Profane Parables: Film and the American Dream." He has published dozens of articles and chapters on the Bible, religion, and popular culture, and he has received multiple awards for teaching and scholarship.

View All Posts

Check Also

Unpacking the word “Queer”

Why are many young people using this word to describe their sexuality rather than “gay” when it used to mean “weird”?

35 comments

  1. Wow! It is soooo refreshing when a serious Christian Scholar and professor stands up to be counted and take a stand against the nonsense that has gripped our country for far too long!

    Closed minds = closed hearts. When false religion wears the mask of True – persecution, programs, and death soon follow. (history teaches us this.)There is a difference between True Believers and puppets of the false teachers and prophets.

    Often the false teachers claim the only right to say who and what is “Christian” or who are the sons and daughters of God. They lessen the humanity of others to raise themselves up as privileged and blessed above others.

    Jesus never taught “blind faith”. Nor has any true teacher I have ever encountered. And believe me – I have traveled and encountered – wisdom is gained by experience, and by living enough years to wise up. Wisdom is also gained by making mistakes, by being fooled, by being taken advantage of, and by encountering real evil – not imaginary evil.

    This can’t happen – this cannot be learned in an environment that is closed off – isolated from anything “other”. A faith that can not stand against contradiction is not real faith. The Bible is full of contradiction – to deny that -is part of the problem.

    To be unlearned is also a problem when it comes to understanding the honest teachings of our saints and sages. To cite the “old Testament” or more properly, the Tanakh as proof text without understanding that it was all passed down along with an Oral Tradition – that explains metaphors and deep teachings passed through a lineage of mystics and wisdom teachers, light bearers and lineage holders – passed from one generation to the next in sacred succession with all the “questioning” in tact – is a grave mistake.

    To be taught that you don’t have to know History, true History which is always being newly uncovered in ancient writings and recent archeological finds that illuminate our understanding of actual peoples and place events – is a travesty leading only to gullible minds.

    To claim to be a Biblical scholar of authority and have no real knowledge of the ethnic, cultural mores, and languages of the actual time that Christ walked the streets of Jerusalem – is a dangerous path that leads to depravity – the very kind of depravity that say’s it is ok to kill your neighbors, per-emptively, in the name of God.

    Enough is enough – The Christ was no wimp! He told it like it was – this may be hard for some of you to hear – but it is time for all sane and truly compassionate Christians to take a stand against the false preachers, prophets, and teachers – who lead our children and our neighbors astray.

    God Bless You Mathew Rindge! Bravo you brave Soul! And thank you from all of us who’s eyes are wide open.

  2. Does her Religion allow blatant lying, because she lied about Bette who lost healthcare. Also her constituents are quickly signing up for health care whether she likes it or not, per LA Times, a very high enrollment rate! Heh

  3. I have heard of these “colleges.” They are fed by students who were either home-schooled in “Bible-believing Christian” homes or in private schools which do not pass muster academically except perhaps for math and spelling. They are affiliated with the Independent Baptists, who sanction child abuse (I have read books by survivors of these churches which document physical and sexual abuse of children by members of these “churches”) and “wifely submission” (nothing about loving your wife as Christ loved the church, of course). Interesting that Cathy’s college is one of that sort. Explains a lot.

  4. As I read through these faith statements espoused by PCC I couldn’t find a single one that I disagreed with. These doctrines are not some crazy uninformed teachings, but those held by most conservative seminaries and bible colleges. Way to put up a false scapegoat. The bible has no contradictions, only failures by many to put in the time and study to find the harmony that God put there. The Pharisees were the so-called scholars of their day and Jesus ripped them to shreds in all their pomposity. God definitely uses His omnipotence to abase the proud, as in announcing the birth of the Savior and King to lowly shepherds instead of the religious elite. He hasn’t changed.

    • Denis your comment is on a “slippery slope”, have you studied what slippery slope logic is? – No, they are not held by “most” conservative seminaries. In fact the word “conservative” has been co-opted like so many other words in today’s religio-political jargon.

      Fundamental used to mean foundational – today “fundamental” means radical actually. (And not in the good sense – in a facist or terrorist sense) Your right, Jesus came to shake up the status quo – to emphasize what is really important – he brought change.

      “Wolves in sheep’s clothing” – now why would Jesus use such a term? Because precisely, a wolf that comes in sheep’s clothing – would not be recognized as a wolf by the sheep – Hello!

      Why use “sheep” – wolves are cleaver, sheep are kinda dimwitted – sheep will follow any dominant leader and are easily herded. They are often getting lost if they aren’t paying attention – and have to be rescued.

      You know the parables are interesting on focused examination. And can yield a wealth of information about the “true shephard”.

      Why is it – do you suppose that Jesus taught in parables to the masses, but took his disciples aside in private and “explained everything” so that there would be no misunderstanding among them? – Curious isn’t it.

      If you are afraid that Truth might be something other than you have been taught – then you are walking in Fear and not in Love. It takes courage to look deeper and also to look in the mirror- even more to examine the state of one’s own heart.

      Jesus never once preached hate. Never once preached fear. He never preached for “everyone” to follow him either. In fact he sent some away (after healing them) – why do you suppose he did that? Wow – now that is a great topic for discussion.

      Ok, Dennis – I get it your mind is made up -closed off – you want to see only what you want to see – no one here is going to teach you anything – because you already have all the answers – right?

      I am done with this discussion – lets move on to more productive endeavors, shall we? May the plugs fall from our ears and the scales from our eyes – may we all admit that we don’t know it all. May we seek to feed the hungry, shelter the shelter-less, and heal the afflicted ones so damaged by our wars of opportunity. God Help us All. – Amen & Amen.

      • “Feed the hungry?” Is that why the House of Representatives took away the food stamps from the farm bill? Is this what “the Stepford Wife” believes? How did SHE vote on that issue?

  5. Yisreal, you have twisted this one eighty from the truth. These are truths taught in scripture that have nothing to do with your wild unfounded accusations against Cathy Rodgers. This is nothing but a hit piece. True wisdom comes from believing God’s revelation of Himself to us in scripture. We were already born with the depravity and humans prove it continually. Christ offers us a new heart and freedom from our own wicked hearts through faith in Him, His death for our sins, and resurrection for our justification. Insinuating that she would be one to sanction the killing of her neighbors preemptively? That’s wrong.

    • By the way – I didn’t say anything about Cathy McMorris Rodgers – I was speaking in general about the type of education referenced by Mathew Rindge in this article in an attempt to understand what her faith is based on.

      I am addressing that form of so called “education” and “scholarship” in my comments and trying to share a little of my own personal experience – that is all.

      And I stand by what I have written. I can do that – because they are my words and not a rehearsed set of banter or misquotations out of context.

  6. Yisrael, I didn’t say you said it, just that you insinuated it, that way you don’t have to take responsibility. My mind isn’t closed, just being trained by the Holy Spirit to discern truth from deception. When Jesus said, “go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature”, pretty sure that meant everyone! The ones sent away after healing were converted, believers. He sent them out to tell others the good news. Matt. 10:28, Jesus says,”do not fear those who kill the body are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell”. The Him there would be referring to God. He also said, “I am the way, the Truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but through. He is the truth I believe in and I’m willing to stake my eternity on Him. How about you Yisrael, what are you staking your eternity on?

  7. What’s the point of this article? To attribute the values of a college onto the Congresswoman? That’s a strawman argument and frankly dispicable type of journalism. I can tell you I reject all the Liberal values my college tried to indoctrinate me with. If you were to try to reach some conclusion about me based on the several colleges I attended, you would be dead wrong. If you wanted to write an article on the theology of Pensacola Christian College, next time leave the Congresswoman out of it.

  8. Truthfully, I don’t really care about some representative’s alma mater. I have no objection to your statements about this particular one – they are most likely true. At any rate, I don ‘t particularly go for the biblical inerrancy thing, or the KJV – what I read of the KJV was for a literature class. My objection to the article is in the final paragraph connecting her alma mater to simplistic descriptions of legislation.

    For example, “Lily Ledbetter” doesn’t simply say equal pay – it also includes requirements for proof, and statistical understanding of the terms. The typical number quoted for support of the act is women making $0.70 compared to a man’s $1.00. This has been shown to be incorrect in any number of academic papers, as well as being in complete disagreement with the Department of Labor, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics ($0.83 and $0.95). We are pretty confident that women get paid less than men for similar work. We also know that the statistics and methodology behinid Lily Ledbetter are wrong, we just don’t know exactly how wrong.

    We know that regardless of what good things there are in the Violence against Women Act, it also defines some crimes as ones where the defendent must be considered guilty until proven innocent. I don’t think that we want to go there.

    These pieces of legislation are complicated, and this description of opposition to them is naive.

    The majority of the column is just genetic fallacy. The ending turns it into a combination of straw man and ad hominim.

  9. Just wow. I’m an atheist and I find that you even bothered to write this to be just offensive. I’m not sure how much more of the “left” I can tolerate. You guys have become worse than the former “moral majority” in the assumption that you and you alone are the moral authority for ALL citizens of the US. I’m so looking forward to retirement in a country more respectful of the individual than the US is at present.

  10. The postings above prove to me, yet again, that what many people believe, they believe blindly, and little will ever change their minds. But, to me, the teachings of any religion or religious institution that the Bible is literally correct do not stand up to the scrutiny of science. [And, yes, I know that the response to that is that ‘science’ is an irreligious lie.] I do not seen an inherent contradiction in my belief that the God created the world via the process of evolution. But, what upsets me the most about the education discussed in this piece is its egotistical view that there is only one “true” way of considering things. My favorite passages in the Bible relate to feeding the poor and ministering to the weak — treating every need stranger in the same way that we would treat Jesus if he were among us. I can’t help buy wonder where that concept got lost among the fringe far right religions that continue to advocate unequal pay, seek to impose their moral beliefs on everyone, support continuing labor at less than a working wage; want to cut SNAP, Medicaid and the other safety net programs for the poor; etc.; etc.

    • Jane, I’m assuming you were speaking to me in your post, glad to answer a couple of your broad-brush strokes about biblical truth. I’m not for forcing anyone to believe what I do, that’s impossible anyway, but I believe that true biblical faith can stand up to any scrutiny and I love true science. I am overwhelmed by the things I’ve learned about particle physics, and DNA replication, among other things this last year. True science and biblical faith are totally in agreement, especially as more is learned about the two subjects I mentioned. It’s the outdated theory of macro-evolution that can’t stand the scrutiny of true science these days. That the information code present in cellular replication, and the actual mechanical working parts in the nucleus of the most simple cell, could have been generated randomly and by chance exceeds the statistical number of impossibility by many zeroes! Informed scientists know this but are too intimidated by entrenched elite academia to stand up for the truth.

      I’d also like to respectfully submit to you that it’s not up to us to decide which “favorite” passages we think should represent everyone else’s view on who Jesus is and what He is like. You are calling The Lord himself the egotist because He was the one who made the statement and there are many places in the bible that insist that God will not share His glory with anyone. He just hasn’t given us the option and rightfully so. Thanks for the chance to answer.

    • Jane,
      you use a rhetorical technique at the end of your paragraph that is purposefully slanders people who disagree with you. First, you refer to a “fringe” of the religious right. Would you please point out what you believe to be the acceptable “center” of the religious right? You are talking about 10’s of millions of Americans who just happen to disagree with you. No one advocates unequal pay. That’s called a Straw Man. People who want to help people stand on their own without need of government assistance are not out to simply “cut Medicaid and the safety net”. Another Straw Man. People who remember a time when working at McDonalds was a job for a teenager going to school, not a mother of three–they aren’t against a “working wage”. They are against this new economy where grown adults with college educations and families have been forced to work minimum wage jobs. Your argument does not come across as reasoned and critical–it is shrill.

    • And yet, it is ironic that science continues to prove the Bible.
      As for imposing moral beliefs, are you not imposing yours? Your morality is that the “fringe right” can’t tell you what to do. I attended the college; do not support much of what they teach and practice now; but still consider myself to be “on the right.” However, I’ve seen the college promote many good things that you claim they don’t, and so do I.
      I can say that I promote equal pay for equal work. I support a working wage. I support removing restrictions from individuals to make a LOT of money. I support people using their money how they’d like. I support the poor – personally.
      I wish I could do more, and I do believe I could do a better job than Uncle Sam. I also believe I could do more if Uncle Sam would get out of my wallet.

      • Oh yeah, I’m not trying to tell you what to do. I am sharing with you what I believe is the best…not because I do it, but because I believe we were designed to love one another…individually, not thru our government.
        Think of it. Would you feel more loved that I pay my taxes, or that I bring you a sack of groceries.

  11. This is not a new subject. St. Thomas Aquinas addressed it in the 14th century when he said, “The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false.”

    I agree with the general criticism of “unthinking” religion in Dr. Rindge’s article, but he does several things wrong:

    1. He never advocates or describes a “thinking” religion or Christianity – of which I think the Catholicism of his University reflects (I am Catholic myself and certainly consider myself to be one of the “thinking-faithful”). In doing so, his generalities at the end (more on that in moment) could be directed at any religious belief.

    2. He makes some stunning non sequiturs at the close of the article – generalizing that a Biblically-based Christianity advocates starving children and old people, supporting violence against women and unequal pay. The link between PCC’s philosophy and these rather caricatured political positions is never made (probably because it cannot be made).

    3. In caricaturing the political positions of Republicans in general and ascribing them to Ms. McMorris Rodgers, he cheapens his own argument. Mnemos does an adequate job of addressing this above, so I won’t repeat it.

    4. He makes spurious attacks upon religion in general (“Religion is the only subject in which some people are proud of believing the same thing at age 40 that they believed when they were six.”). If he believes in a thinking faith, would he not believe in the natural law concepts developed by folks like St. Thomas? Do these truths change from the time one is six to adulthood?

    5. He takes what could be a legitimate scholarly debate about the nature of truth in and out of revelation, etc. and turns it into an association fallacy and an attack upon a person with whom he quite probably has political disagreement.

    This is the problem with many faculty today. They use academic position and credentials to create a scholarly disguise for political partisanship. Sad, really.

  12. I always find it quite ironic when one religious institution attacks another while maintaining they themselves are Christian. I could write volumes on the abuses and crimes of the very religion Gonzaga ascribes to but feel the more important message is that both institutions believe.

  13. Nice hatchet piece. What does any of this have to do with anything the Congresswoman has said or done?

  14. Well, perhaps you might still believe the exact same things that you did when you were 18 years old, but that doesn’t mean that everyone else does.

    Have you tried contacting the congresswoman and asking her current thoughts on these topics?

    Is this silliness typical of the faculty publications at Gonzaga University? I’d always assumed that it was a good school, but maybe I was wrong.

    • Oh get real already the cogress woman has made plain her positions, and thoughts many many times – its public record and there is plenty of sound and video.

      Oh wait – I get it – can’t the denizens of hyperbole, the re-writers of history, the spouters of slogans, and all that is crass and callous – the “believe anything because so and so said it” crowd, can’t take a dose of their own medicine?

      Well, those of us who can still think for ourselves aren’t gonna sit back anymore and let you “pretend” to speak for us – that’s really what this conversation is all about. and I think we’ve covered it.

      • Look to the left if you want to see the history re-write. Our country was founded on Christian values and principles but our records have been “redacted” to suit the new political preference. The documents and quotes are plentiful, but not allowed in mainstream discourse. I think for myself and I’m not standing for the new left speaking for me either.

      • yeah….you’re a jerk and a loudmouth who learned a few 10 dollar words. Put on some pants, get away from the computer in your bedroom and go make something of yourself.

  15. Also, you left out that has a master’s degree from the University of Washington, a hotbed of marxist-leninism. Perhaps that is why she is a raging left-wing Progressive.

    I mean, really, Mr. Rindge. You are going to need to pick up your game a bit if you ever want tenure, even at Gonzaga.

  16. How in the world can you characterize the faith of a person by where they went to school. I know folks who do that — but you are faculty member in the city I grew up in. I would expect better. Do you know her? Have you had lunch with her? Have you prayer together? The students you teach deserve better that this shallow approach to judging folks.

  17. Yah, the doobie brother college photos of President Obsma are all over the net but we got to go after the Christian college lady. Puh—leeeeze, give me a break.

  18. Ms. Rodgers also obtained an MBA from the University of Washington in 2002. That is not at all mentioned in this article. This article says nothing of the academic program she pursued: Pre-Law. She did not attend the Theological Seminary. I attended and graduated from PCC 1994-2000 with a degree in Advertising. I married a 1998 Marketing graduate of PCC. I am an agnostic that attends a Southern Baptist church. Would it be fair for someone to write the same thing about me? This author states as fact (unfounded) that one’s religious beliefs are so ingrained and irrational they never change over the decades. What is missed here is that PCC and similar schools are part of a distinct sect of the Baptist faith. Parents who raise their children in this sect very often make the college choice for their children and their children attend out of respect for the tradition they come from and because it is a comfortable environment. We are currently homeschooling our child on PCC’s curriculum–not because we share their religious views, but because it its simply the best early childhood program in the country. The same experience is repeated in orthodox Judaism and Catholicism and Mormonism. Would an author feel comfortable denigrating the religious education of Catholic members of Congress?

    This author is a religious scholar –I mean “assistant” professor– who does not like the approach to Christian thought at PCC. Reminds me of bigots who hate gay people because they can’t stand the thought that someone somewhere is having gay sex. It doesn’t affect them, but they lose a lot of sleep over it. This was a smarmy hit piece that doesn’t just smear the Congresswoman but every other graduate of this perfectly adequate liberal arts school. Engineers, doctors, surgeons, lawyers, nurses…Oh did I mention PCC has been listed many times as one of the top 10 nursing programs in the US? Sheesh.

  19. Wow! I can’t help but be TOTALLY unimpressed by this author’s inaccurate, biased, and liberal-bent research and article focus. I somehow thought Gonzaga could do better (at least they have basketball, right?). I wonder how Gonzaga’s GRE scores match up to PCC’s??? PCC has top-notch academics, but chooses conviction over appeasement.
    And BTW, why does an “assistant professor of religious studies” have no clue about Bible doctrine???
    Sheesh!

  20. Some pretty heated comments here. I guess that is what happens when you mix religion and politics. As a person who is active in both worlds….let me say a few things. The story of a politicians life that they tell in shaping who they are in the public sphere is important to their credibility. They are trying to put in our minds a certain image of themselves. This is a good thing when it is true and rings true. In the case of Cathy McMorris Rodgers she has woven a story that is a little thin on the meaning of the facts. For example, she spent very little time in the orchards…not even a year. She includes in her story that her college degree is from this Pensacola College. It is true that this school was not accredited at the time she attended so she does not have a degree that would be recognized in by other schools. It is my understanding that she has what is called an executive MBA from UW which is a short version that is more like a certificate program.

    Does it matter the values of this college? In her case it does. She belongs to a large evangelical church in Colville. It is an appropriate question whether her strong beliefs include that all those who do not believe in Jesus are going to Hell which is what the PCC statements say since she represents all kind of people in Congress, not just Christians. Do her particular type of Christian values trump the American values of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness for all (even those going to Hell). This article is only one article but it raises some questions about who this person is who represents us in Congress. It raises questions about the influence of her faith on how she represents us. And, if her narrative does not add up and she did not tell the true story about “Bette from Spokane” then maybe we should take a closer look before voting for her again..

    • Couldn’t quite give it up without one last attempt to discredit, eh Jim. Your comments in the second paragraph don’t even make sense. The bible teaches that believers love one another and do good to all, putting others ahead of ourselves. It’s God who sends arrogant, unrepentant rebels to hell, not Cathy Rodgers. What about the atheist politician who believes we are just sophisticated animals? How does that affect their politics? Should they be rejected as dangerous? That “raises questions” rhetoric comes straight from the MSNBC play book. No real evidence? Just cause some doubt by raising some unsupported “questions”.

  21. I tire of personal attacks, I’d like to dismantle or defend her policies. When will people realize that emerging generations are tired of this type of politicking no matter what part of the political spectrum is doing the reporting or editorializing.

    Show the connection between a person’s personal piety and their public polices, connect the dots, substantiate the charges. Pointing to a persons education, a school, their church’s pastor or pontiff is relevant in some ways but far from good evidence for an conviction.

    Didn’t we go through all this type of rhetoric with President Obama and his former church and pastor? Didn’t that horse get slain? Don’t we remember the left/progressive defense against that conservative/republican attack?

    Yet, here we are again. :/

  22. Thank you for writing this. I’d wondered who the seemingly “token woman” was who stood in the background, silent, smiling, and submissive, in every GOP House press announcement. A good Republican woman. Now I understand the frozen “Moonie” smile.

    • I’d say it looks like a warm heart-felt smile, preferable any day to the primal look of Hillary Clinton screaming, “What difference does it make now!”, when referring to the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi. Michael, I’d say you need to expand your view a bit.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *