RSS Feed
God Talk Unplugged
The God Talk was kept to a cathedral-like whisper at Thursday’s Democratic Debate in Iowa.
Joe Biden cited one line from a Catholic hymn. Barack Obama referred to his church in passing. Hillary Clinton spoke of children reaching their “God-given potential.” And that was the sum total of religious rhetoric at an event which, in terms of set design, graphics, and color schemes, looked like it could have been staged circa 1983. Aesthetically speaking, this was the garage band of presidential debates.
Mike Huckabee knows a thing or two about garage bands. At Wednesday’s GOP debate (sponsored by the same news organization) he showed that he also knows how to collapse the distinction between the private and the public. During that segment of the broadcast where candidates aired their promotional videos he opined as follows:
If a person says, "I'm a person of faith, but I don't let it influence me and I don't talk about it," what they just told me is that their faith is so immaterial, insignificant and inconsequential that it really isn't a faith at all. If it's a faith, it will drive their judgment, it will drive their value system and, therefore, it will help define them. It's ludicrous to say that, 'I have faith, but it doesn't impact me at all.'"
I urge readers to think about the implications of this statement very carefully, implications which I will draw out momentarily. But first, let me note that it was only Huckabee, and the always entertaining Alan Keyes, who invoked religious themes. It was Huckabee alone who was guilty of Premeditated Faith and Values Chatter by submitting the aforementioned clip.
So let me do the math. Out of a combined fifteen Republican and Democratic presidential hopefuls only two felt compelled to engage in Faith and Values politicking three weeks before a pivotal campaign hurdle. How to explain this?
Was it the Des Moines Register’s fault? Did the newspaper that hosted the affair fail to provide the candidates with enough faith-based prompts? Perhaps. But they’re not the only ones. Last month, l suggested that the news divisions which have been choreographing the debates are either bored with these issues or uncomfortable scripting them into the proceedings. Interestingly, it was only during the CNN YouTube debates--where civilians (or so we thought) did the asking--that religious concerns were salient.
Rather than claim that the elite media just isn’t “getting” religion (an assertion belied by washingtonpost.com's “On Faith” site, among many other valuable fora), I want to propose that the candidates are being extraordinarily cautious about when, where and how they strike faith-based themes.
After all, a politician rarely feels compelled to answer a question in the spirit it was asked. Any of the Iowa participants could have easily turned a query about, let’s say, biofuels, into a homily on God’s redemptive grace. But few did.
Only Mike Huckabee inserted religious themes into his rhetoric. He even offered us a rationale as to why. As his comments above indicate, he will wear his religion on his sleeve. He will not privatize or compartmentalize his faith commitments. He must let these commitments drive his public actions. No true “person of faith,” Huckabee told America (and, goadingly, the Mormon Mitt Romney who is reluctant to wear his own particular religion on his sleeve) would have it any other way.
By Jacques Berlinerblau |
December 14, 2007; 1:34 AM ET
Share: Email a Friend | 
Technorati
| Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook
Previous: Fashion and Faith and Values |
Next: The Biggest (Republican) Losers
Posted by: Gerry | December 25, 2007 4:52 PM
Report Offensive Comment
In today’s WP:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/18/AR2007121801634_pf.html
Hard-liners for Jesus
As Christians across the world prepare to celebrate the birth of Jesus, it's a fitting moment to contemplate the mountain of moral, and mortal, hypocrisy that is our Christianized Republican Party.
There's nothing new, of course, about the Christianization of the GOP. Seven years ago, when debating Al Gore, then-candidate George W. Bush was asked to identify his favorite philosopher and answered "Jesus." This year, however, the Christianization of the party reached new heights with Mitt Romney's declaration that he believed in Jesus as his savior, in an effort to stanch the flow of "values voters" to Mike Huckabee.
...Rather, it's the gap between the teachings of the Gospels and the preachings of the Gospel's Own Party that has widened past the point of absurdity, even as the ostensible Christianization of the party proceeds apace...
But if Bush can conform his advocacy of preemptive war with Jesus's Sermon on the Mount admonition to turn the other cheek, he's a more creative theologian than we have given him credit for. Likewise his support of torture, which he highlighted again this month when he threatened to veto House-passed legislation that would explicitly ban waterboarding...
Posted by: Rick Jones, Fredericksburg, VA | December 19, 2007 8:56 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Bud:
I am busy laughing my a$$ off thinking about Mike Huckabee going "poof"!
I share your frustration with the whole "evolved from apes" misunderstanding that most people have about evolution. Believe it or not, that is how I was taught it in high school. It was only later that I found out about the whole "coevolved alongside apes" thing from my own reading. It is probably unrealistic (can you feel my disappointment?) to hope that the average American (let alone a presidential candidate who might believe the earth was created 6000 years ago in a "poof"-I still think that is funny) would do some studying to find out what evolutionary theory really says. I am afraid we are stuck with the misunderstanding (and you have to admit, it is a convenient misunderstanding for them, since they can work that "maybe YOUR family evolved from monkeys.." insult in there).
Posted by: Dr.R.P. | December 19, 2007 8:40 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Mr. Berlinerblau: I have no problem with a candidate inserting religious themes into his/her rhetoric. What I do have a problem with is candidates making public policy decisions based on religion- that violates the vital separation of church and state that is necessary to validate the 1st amendment and ensure that minority religious beliefs are protected in this country.
Posted by: Jeff | December 19, 2007 8:35 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Faith as a basis for decision making? What is faith anyway but a believe in something that can't be proven as true. I don't want a President acting on faith. I prefer one acting on facts and knowledge. A apropos quote from Leonard Da Vinci from about 500 years ago: "First I shall do some experiments before I proceed farther, because my intention is to cite experience first and then with reasoning show why such experience is bound to operate in such a way. And this is the true rule by which those who speculate about the effects of nature must proceed."
Posted by: Harveyh5 | December 19, 2007 8:31 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Huckabee has a piece on YouTube claiming it is Divine Providence that has him rising in the polls....
The one thing that would really, really piss off right-wing fundamentalists -- more than voting for a Democrat (because they are all Christians after all) -- would be voting for a MORMON.
You wouldn't exactly be chopping your nose off to spite your face, because Romney is a really competent CEO.
I guess I would just love to see God "willing" the fall of their chosen one....
Posted by: Grant | December 18, 2007 1:46 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The frightening thing is that Huckabee is absolutely correct.
Posted by: Michael | December 18, 2007 1:14 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Here's Charisma Magazine Publisher Stephen Strang's perception:
2008 Election Splits Evangelical Voters
Christians lack consensus on who they will support for president, but many are rallying around Mike Huckabee.
At the start of the primary season conservative Christians are united in their anxiety over the possibility of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton becoming president. But their harmony ends there. No one presidential candidate has managed to rally the support of the evangelical voting bloc, which in 2004 comprised 40 percent of the vote for President Bush. And although polls show that most Americans believe it is important for a president to have strong religious beliefs, the two front-runners—Clinton and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani—are seen as the least religious candidates from their respective parties.
Yet at press time an increasing number of evangelicals were rallying behind former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who has long been considered a dark horse for the Republican nomination. In December, Huckabee attracted heavy media attention when he overtook Gov. Mitt Romney in Iowa, placing first in a Des Moines Register poll. He hit double digits in a CNN national poll in November. Actor Chuck Norris, Life Today host James Robison and American Family Association founder Don Wildmon have all endorsed the one-time Baptist minister, while Saddleback Church pastor Rick Warren, who has known Huckabee for nearly 30 years, said he is "definitely presidential material."
However, more than 20 percent of evangelicals said they did not have a favorite presidential candidate. The Associated Press/Ipsos poll, which was released last fall, also found that 24 percent would vote for former Sen. Fred Thompson, and 20 percent for Giuliani despite his failed marriages and support of abortion and gay rights.
The lack of consensus has been most evident among ministry leaders known for their political activism. In November Christian Broadcasting Network founder Pat Robertson announced his support for Giuliani, saying he was the best candidate to defend the nation against terrorism. Meanwhile, the National Right to Life Committee, the nation's largest pro-life group, endorsed Thompson, while Moral Majority co-founder Paul Weyrich, Bob Jones University Chancellor Bob Jones III and pro-life leader John Willke threw their support behind Romney, despite his Mormon faith. And former GOP candidate Sam Brownback endorsed Sen. John McCain, who once called right-wing Christian leaders "agents of intolerance."
Among conservative Hispanic Christians, Huckabee and McCain stand out, said Samuel Rodriguez, a Pentecostal minister and president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference. The immigration debate will sway Hispanics away from the Republicans, he noted, but Huckabee's positions on immigration, social justice, life and marriage make him "not your typical white conservative" but one "in the vein of Ronald Reagan." He added that McCain also has appeal because he "has spent more political capital on immigration than any other."
On the Democratic side, Clinton has yet to attract any prominent evangelical support, but her main contender, Sen. Barack Obama, has made inroads into Christian circles. Obama garnered an endorsement from popular pastor and singer Donnie McClurkin and the Rev. Stephen Thurston, president of the National Baptist Convention of America. He also was invited to Warren's annual summit on AIDS, as were Clinton, Huckabee, Romney and Giuliani. However, despite Obama's emphasis on faith, some socially conservative black Christians perceive him as too liberal because of his support for abortion and gay rights, said Harry Jackson, an African-American pastor and the chairman of the High Impact Leadership Coalition, a group promoting faith-based leadership among blacks and Hispanics.
Last fall Christian leaders, including James Dobson of Focus on the Family and Gary Bauer, a Christian activist and 2000 presidential candidate, organized a meeting in which they agreed that if neither major party nominated a candidate "who pledges himself or herself to the sanctity of human life," as Dobson later wrote in a New York Times op-ed, they would vote for a minor party candidate. "Voting according to the possibility of winning or losing can lead directly to the compromise of one's principles," Dobson wrote. "Winning the presidential election is vitally important, but not at the expense of what we hold most dear." The group even considered creating a third party, but reached no consensus.
Bauer said differences among Christians are understandable given the unprecedented way the candidates are reaching out to evangelicals. "The one thing I'm worried about is that as Christians we will be angry with each other because we've picked different candidates and that'll make it harder for everybody to join together once there's a final nominee," he said. Jackson said despite the apathy among many conservative Christians, evangelical voters may still decide the election. "At the very least we're going to be a spoiler vote," he said. "For example, if Hillary Clinton was the person we all said 'we're not voting for Hillary no matter what,' it would be hard ... for her to win."
—AMY GREEN Editor's note: Publisher Stephen Strang endorsed Huckabee's campaign in our August 2007 and December 2007 issues. Read his comments at charismamag.com/moveup.
Posted by: a reader | December 18, 2007 1:10 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Spare us from the politicians that wear their religion on their sleeve. It is wrong, because it says that voters should elect candidates based on their religion or their piety, not on their ideas and their proposals to solve the problems of today. To be a leader requires no religious belief whatsoever, only the ability to come up with answers to problems that are rational, logical, moral, and benefit the most people. It doesn't require religion to be moral, and our Constitution has no requirement that any candidate stand up before the voters and state their belief in Jesus. Huckabee is wrong to wear his religion on his sleeve, and most voters know it. Huckabee is looking to take back America for Jesus (his actual words) and make it into a religious tolitarian state.
Posted by: Chagasman | December 18, 2007 1:02 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Why I'll never vote for the Huckster...
"Huckabee: Divine Providence Helps My Poll Numbers"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSQNSlUUoOc
Posted by: Claire | December 17, 2007 11:46 AM
Report Offensive Comment
FRIEND wrote:
Mr Mark: This article says: Huckabee said he has no problem with teaching evolution as a theory
in the public schools and he doesn't expect schools to teach creationism.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=3140255
Here is an excerpt from that news post:
"Huckabee said if given a chance to elaborate on the question from MSNBC moderator Chris Matthews, he would have responded: 'If you want to believe that you and your family came from apes, I'll accept that....I believe there was a creative process.'"
OK, for the LAST time, WE DID NOT EVOLVE FROM APES or MONKEYS!!! Yes, I'm shouting here because it infuriates me to see our candidates display an amazing ignorance of basic science and facts. Humans and apes and monkeys all evolved from a common ancestor, who was part monkey, ape and human. The respective branches diverged several million years ago and the end results are monkeys, apes and humans that we see (and are) today. Except in the case of Mike Huckabee, who seems to have followed a quite different evolutionary path (smile).
But seriously Mike Huckabee, if you want to ignore mountains of scientific evidence that would literally take a library to house, ignore the research and data of hundreds of thousands of articles, ignore the views and findings of thousands of highly trained and educated researchers and instead believe that God waved his magic wand and made you go "poof" and appear here, I suppose that is your right too. But it sure is NOT the type of thinking, reasoning and logic I would expect from a person who is applying for the position of the most powerful person on the face of this planet. In fact, the thought is downright chilling.
Posted by: Bud | December 17, 2007 9:01 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I'm all for anyone's right to believe in ANYTHING: Jesus, Yahweh, Buddha, Mohammed, Vishnu, the Spirit of Man, Zilch... What I DON'T want is his/her beliefs affecting MY life. I don't want to find out that I'm condemned to an iron lung because drops of blood in a petri dish are worth the same (or more!) to a faith-based politician than I am. I don't want to follow the lead of a politico who claims to listen to God, but ignores the collective voice of the people who put him/her in office. I don't want to discover that the Law of the Land is subservient to the Law of some Holy Book to which some president subscribes, or that through some off-kilter interpretation of history, our country is somehow CHRISTIAN - officially or not - with a wink and a smirk toward people who follow other gods/faiths/proscriptions, and a grimace and haughty dismissal of those who find no need for supernatural byplay in their everyday lives. KEEP YOUR FAITH OUT OF MY LIFE! I don't CARE what YOUR FAITH TELLS YOU TO DO, vis-a-vis proselytism or conversion - I'm a rational adult, and I want civic responsibility, secular leadership, and non-religious guidance from the political arm of this country. If I've come to an informed decision regarding global warming, or the morality of invading a country without provocation, give me FACTS, not religious tenets. I know the current administration has created its own reality, and that not a little of the pickle we're in is due to our leader's conversations with a Higher Father and his supposed ability to see into men's souls. Ergo, give me an administration that asks his/her God (if he/she has got one; I don't see any person who has faith ONLY in Man getting elected to anything in MY lifetime)for the courage to listen to what his/her country needs, and not shape our country to conform with his/her narrowly defined beliefs by demanding that we, too, share in them.
Posted by: John Soister | December 17, 2007 8:58 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The most admired man in Canadian history, acccording to a recent poll, was a Baptist minister/pastor who fought for years to bring universal health coverage and portable penions to Canadians. A product of the Weyburn Bible College in Saskatechewan he levered the entrenched system as Premier of his province then as Member of Parlaiment, to the benefit of the average Joe. This guy preached, practiced and implemented the Social Gospel. I don't understand all this religious vs political stuff going on, like how does getting ordained put you in the line of fire? Maybe he wasn't all that meek, though he felt they SHOULD inherit the earth, he was also a Golden Gloves Bantamweight Champ.
Posted by: sursum | December 17, 2007 8:56 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The most admired man in Canadian history, acccording to a recent poll, was a Baptist minister/pastor who fought for years to bring universal health coverage and portable penions to Canadians. A product of the Weyburn Bible College in Saskatechewan he levered the entrenched system as Premier of his province then as Member of Parlaiment, to the benefit of the average Joe. This guy preached, practiced and implemented the Social Gospel. I don't understand all this religious vs political stuff going on, like how does getting ordained put you in the line of fire? Maybe he wasn't all that meek, though he felt they SHOULD inherit the earth, he was also a Golden Gloves Bantamweight Champ.
Posted by: sursum | December 17, 2007 8:56 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The one thing I surely have faith in is that religion is the single greatest threat to the Constitution and our individual freedoms. This faith of "believers" that is their justification for forcing upon us their beliefs with blind, unreasoned actions is something we should all take seriously.
Huckabee is as large a threat to our freedom as any moslem imam screaming of holy wars against the infidels. Religious based laws riddle our society and waste incredible amounts of money and human resources in trying to save each of us from our own decisions. The very same freedom generations have fought and sacrificed so much to preserve.
Religion as wielded by the Huckabees of our world becomes the clubs and swords of dictators. Fire and death seeking the free thinkers, the witches, the scientists, and all those who would strive to think for themselves. Are we once again to ignore history? Should we step back to a flat, 6000 year old earth where all was created as is, and cannot change?
Posted by: Bob | December 17, 2007 8:55 AM
Report Offensive Comment
It is of consequence that Mr. Huckabee describes himself as a man of faith. It is revealing to those who would vote for him and for those who would oppose him. His declaration of faith is merely an act of detailing what would guide him in his decisions and as such an informed voter could better gauge whether to vote for him based on that extrapolation.
Is it wrong to make such statements? Not at all. Is it wrong for a voter to disagree with such statements? Not at all. Is it wrong for people to try to stifle his statements? Yes.
Charles Krauthammer wrote it best. Religion deserves a place in the public sphere. Not a preferential place, but a place none-the-less. As there are many people who would call Mr. Huckabee's beliefs "fantasy" or whatever other derogatory term, there are many people who would align themselves with Mr. Huckabee and his beliefs. And if our representative democracy works as it should their voice should not be derided. If our democracy is to remain pure, secularism will have to cede that as long as the people of this country are religious there will necessarily be religion in the public sphere. While the religious will have to cede that religion does not have a preferential position in the public sphere as Mr. Romney may have suggested.
Posted by: Matt | December 17, 2007 8:48 AM
Report Offensive Comment
How about this? A person "uses" or relies on his or her faith to define their character. They use their faith to demonstrate that they are a moral person who will run the country with honesty, integrity, compassion and caring for all citizens. But he or she does not "talk" to God when deciding whether or not to invade entire countries and destroy the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. Instead they use facts, logic, reasoning, advice from experts and previous expeience to decide all matters of office including foreign affairs and policies. This is what I fear Mike Huckabee, like GWB, will not be able to do. Look around you (look far I ask, the entire world) and see the results of 8 years of this type of leadership style before you decide that you could live with another leader of the same mold.
Posted by: Bud | December 17, 2007 8:15 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I pray every night:
"Dear God, please save me from your followers, and in particular, Mike Huckabee."
Posted by: Bud | December 17, 2007 7:43 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I might add. The last truly "faith based" president we had was Jimmy Carter. What a disgraceful disaster he was! He completely destroyed our reputation in the middle-east and, in addition, crashed our economy.
Posted by: Pubert | December 17, 2007 7:08 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I might add. The last truly "faith based" president we had was Jimmy Carter. What a disgraceful disaster he was! He completely destroyed our reputation in the middle-east and, in addition, crashed our economy.
Posted by: Pubert | December 17, 2007 7:04 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Good observation. But, I can't tell from your column whether you are a Democrat or a Repblican, or a liberal or a conservative. Based on your bio at the head of the column (Georgetown Professor) I ASSUME that you're a liberal-Democrat.
Also, I'll bet you wear your religion on your sleeve, like Huckabee. If my assumptions are correct, then I hope you do not begrudge Huckabee for doing the same.
But, its a really good observation that you make.
Posted by: Pubert | December 17, 2007 6:59 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Please, American Voters, don't be fooled again into voting for a candiate that uses his religion to get votes. Look at the mess we are in because of voting for a "born again Christian". The actions we have all watched in horror are not what Jesus taught in my Sunday schools classes, example: to say that God told the President to invade Iraq is a chilling result of arroganace and not faith.
If you think, any of these people running for President will not tell you what it will take to get your vote and then do what their parties tell them to do, you have not seen the damage done to America by our current President. Do not be fooled again, pray to have the wisdom to use the good judgment to vote for a qualified person (this includes having the intelligent and communication skills to negotiate and work for the good of all).
Do your own research on the backgrounds of these people (it was out there so clear about Bush but you did not even look for yourself, but instead you listened to the people who had something to gain by electing him, some of these people were leaders in your churches). You are responsible for your vote, you have to take the blame when you let someone else tell you who to vote for.
You did it once, please, the future of America needs a brave,intelligent person with a strong moral background that can help us fix this mess that the Bush administration has gotten us into. I am praying for you, that you will not be fooled again by people who know the Christian words and phases to get your vote.
Posted by: Carol Gibbs | December 17, 2007 6:57 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Please, American Voters, don't be fooled again into voting for a candiate that uses his religion to get votes. Look at the mess we are in because of voting for a "born again Christian". The actions we have all watched in horror are not what Jesus taught in my Sunday schools classes, example: to say that God told the President to invade Iraq is a chilling result of arroganace and not faith.
If you think, any of these people running for President will not tell you what it will take to get your vote and then do what their parties tell them to do, you have not seen the damage done to America by our current President. Do not be fooled again, pray to have the wisdom to use the good judgment to vote for a qualified person (this includes having the intelligent and communication skills to negotiate and work for the good of all).
Do your own research on the backgrounds of these people (it was out there so clear about Bush but you did not even look for yourself, but instead you listened to the people who had something to gain by electing him, some of these people were leaders in your churches). You are responsible for your vote, you have to take the blame when you let someone else tell you who to vote for.
You did it once, please, the future of America needs a brave,intelligent person with a strong moral background that can help us fix this mess that the Bush administration has gotten us into. I am praying for you, that you will not be fooled again by people who know the Christian words and phases to get your vote.
Posted by: Carol Gibbs | December 17, 2007 6:57 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Have you been asleep the last seven years? Nobody wants a faith based President because Bush ruined it. Anymore when they start in on talking with God it gives you the chills. Everybody would rather have a President who believes his policies will be tested right here on Earth, without the need for hocus pocus.
Posted by: fzdybel | December 16, 2007 10:29 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Don't trust any person "of faith" in this sense to be a political leader. Let them be preachers, but political shapers and leaders, never. The realms are mutally exclusive, since a political leader represents the people of all faiths in a populace; he/she does not/must not represent a particular religious creed or set of beliefs/rules. Therefore, anyone who declares him/herself integrally bound in this way to a creed is declaring themselves unfit as a political leader.
Posted by: frank burns | December 16, 2007 9:55 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I love to watch the religious b*stards tear away at each other. Huckabee v. Romney; a believer in the idiotic v. a believer in the foolish. In America, the home of the childish and the gullible where reportedly 70% believe in angels.
The last time I flew Swissair from Zurich to New York the in-flight screens were showing cartoons for hours, hours, and hours until I couldn't stand it anymore and complained. "Are there no programs on science, or sports, or news, or anything other than these interminable, infantile cartoons that keep coming, one after the other?" The cabin steward replied: "Mein Herr, we run these cartoons on every flight; our American passengers like them." I could have guessed.
No wonder religion is a big hit in America. The "citizens" are generally undereducated, and childishness is considered a virtue. Religion grows well in fetid soil like that. As an example of American childishness and immaturity, just look at the home page for CNN.com. There has been an entry for WEEKS: "Naked Men Shop for Skittles." That's what catches the Americans' attention: the n-word. Not the racial n-word, but the other n-word: naked, naked, naked, NAKED!! In this land of irrationality the natives get together in congregations of "the faithful" and howl to the sky in groups, baying to their air god. Primitive, ignorant, gullible, credulous, and like primitives and children, barbaric and cruel at the same time.
And to think that behind this fine state of affairs there are huge throngs of people who are even more simplistic and backward. The Muslims are now where the Christians used to be centuries ago, with their wild-eyed fanatics ready to kill and die for their religious ideas. And behind the Moslems in the chain of human irrationality comes most of Africa where they haven't even arrived at monotheism, for all the good it will do them. Theirs will be an exciting future of advancing from savage to merely barbaric ...
Posted by: Old Firehand | December 16, 2007 7:33 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Let's clear the air. America has many different religions. Does a Christian voter have anything to fear from a fervent Christian presidential candidate? Yes. Because if elected, religious minorties will be out of favor with the administration. Democracies must be all inclusive, not exclusive. The latter simply weakens the country. And that is a concern of Christians too.
Posted by: Dbow | December 16, 2007 6:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment
OOrtie dear,
"My Kind"?
Has your mommy taught you anything but invective? The invective of "your kind"?
And that calling people smelly is not nice? (Especially if your evidence is through a computer.)
You can have have last word here. If I want to interact with children there are better behaved and ones in my own house.
Posted by: Raisa | December 16, 2007 2:01 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Is he or was he Jewish? I have no clue. Apparently this is a significant detail for you.
It's beginning to appear that many of your kind believe that all atheists are or were jewish. You are transferring some of your favorite bigotry against jews to your bigotry against atheists. How convenient for you that you already have an overwhelming supply of bigotry that you can apply it to a completely unassociated group.
I can smell your fear Raisa, I can see the wet stain of it.
Posted by: Oort | December 16, 2007 12:43 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Mortifus.
I am not Republican, worked in the Clinton aadministration and in earlier Dem administrations.
And Quakers wouldn't raise, even to the nth generation, anyone as rude and ugly as you, "you putz".
(an old Quaker insult?) NOR a son who was an atheist in Iwo Jima. How young are you ?
Wouldn't it be good if you could admit who you really are? Most of us do, gladly.
Posted by: Jeffrey | December 16, 2007 12:40 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Mortifus.
I am not Republican, worked in the Clinton aadministration and in earlier Dem administrations.
And Quakers wouldn't raise, even to the nth generation, anyone as rude and ugly as you, "you putz".
(an old Quaker insult?) NOR a son who was an atheist in Iwo Jima. How young are you ?
Wouldn't it be good if you could admit who you really are? Most of us do, gladly.
Posted by: Jeffrey | December 16, 2007 12:40 PM
Report Offensive Comment
ORT:
I only know that when Berlinerblau first appeared here, he was noted as a "Georgetown Professor..." His Jewish title...the basis of his work and teaching :
WAS NOT MENTIONED. Hidden, that is.
It took letters and calls from several who know his general work, to have that rectified. THAT IS, it was changed to incorporate the truth. NOT a small matter for a venure called "On Faith".
So, we might ask, 1) why did he hide it?
The better to blast away at Christians?
2) did he think it would diminish his credibility? Etc.
3) Is he to be trusted on anything else?
As a result of that false start (and please check to see that it is true) I stand by my post above, and believe the characterization very charitable.
Posted by: Raisa | December 16, 2007 12:33 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Sorry you don't like it Jeffrey, that link I put in my post shows without doubt that Bush said just that thing.
It really doesn't matter whether you like it or not, and my grandfather was never jewish you putz, his parents were quakers.
Really, Jeffery, your response is so typical. If you don't like a fact, deny it. If you don't like somebody else mentioning an uncomfortable and undeniable fact, attack them.
You and your kind have become the heart and soul of the republican electorate, and you're too stupid to see how the leadership cynically manipulates your discomfort with reality.
I can hope your time has come and gone, and I can once again vote for a decent republican.
Posted by: Mortifus | December 16, 2007 12:28 PM
Report Offensive Comment
George Herbert Walker Bush, the elder, ABGSOLUTELY DID NOT SAY that atheists are not citizens.
That would be unbearably unpolitic, politically suicide and STUPID, and mean, the GHWB isn't any of those.
If your jewish father died in Iwo Jima as an atheist or anything else, he deserves all the honor possible.
BUT SINCE NOTHING ELSE YOU SAY IS TRUE, WHY BELIEVE THAT?
This post, and Berlinerblau's sneering, continuing campagin against what most Americans hold valuable, is as disguting as you are.
Posted by: Jeffrey | December 16, 2007 12:15 PM
Report Offensive Comment
George Herbert Walker Bush, the elder, ABGSOLUTELY DID NOT SAY that atheists are not citizens.
That would be unbearably unpolitic, politically suicide and STUPID, and mean, the GHWB isn't any of those.
If your jewish father died in Iwo Jima as an atheist or anything else, he deserves all the honor possible.
BUT SINCE NOTHING ELSE YOU SAY IS TRUE, WHY BELIEVE THAT?
This post, and Berlinerblau's sneering, continuing campagin against what most Americans hold valuable, is as disguting as you are.
Posted by: Jeffrey | December 16, 2007 12:15 PM
Report Offensive Comment
i sooooooooooo hope Huckabee gets the nomination = simply to see the final flush of the xian Reich toilet.
Posted by: William Crain | December 16, 2007 11:08 AM
Report Offensive Comment
"I find it odd that you left the Republican Party merely because Pat Robertson ran....? "
I find it more accurate to say the Republican Party had left me.
http://www.robsherman.com/advocacy/060401a.htm
Bush the First said that atheists shouldn't be considered citizens, here's the quote: "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
I guess my atheist grandfather dying on Iwo Jima was just a suicide, since he wasn't an american citizen and certainly couldn't have been a patriot.
The election of Bush the Second, the faithier-than-you nonsense coming out of Huckabee and Romney, these are symptoms of a very destructive force within the republican party.
You seemed to have missed what I said about Hillary Clinton - I'm not voting for her. I didn't leave the republicans to join the democrats, in fact I have never voted for a democrat. To assume my disgust with the republicans equates to support for the democrats supports the false choice the two parties have forced on the electorate.
In 2004 I wrote my grandfather's name in as a write-in candidate. I'll probably do that again this time.
Posted by: Mortifus | December 16, 2007 10:29 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Claire,
Huckabee handed out anti-Mormon literature in SLC at that anti-Mormon convention there...?
That's very interesting. It'm going to check into that funrther.
Posted by: Steven | December 16, 2007 12:56 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Mortifus,
I find it odd that you left the Republican Party merely because Pat Robertson ran....? What's with that? Anyone can run. Steve Colbert can run.... :-)
Now if Pat Roberson had made an exceptionally fine showing way back when, I would sympathize with your disgust, but he didn't. I think you could have felt good about that.
However, I don't know that I would advise climbing aboard Hillary's paranoia machine. Those with Narcissistic Personality Disorder, and Hillary most certainly has it, are very often paranoid in just the ways she so frequently manifests.
Narcissists can't abide criticism of the slightest degree, namely because they feel entitled to especially favorable treatment, though there is more to it that I will not go into here. But absolutely, criticism in their eyes can be perceived in no other way than hate and persecution.
Posted by: Sean | December 16, 2007 12:51 AM
Report Offensive Comment
On Osama Obama slip of the tongues
Whoopi Goldberg has made the same mistake while co-hosting The View. So have some CNN reporters. I imagine others will continue to do so in the future.
PERHAPS he should somehow use the name similarity to his advantage...
...OBAMA STOMPS OSAMA... coming to a red white and blue front lawn sign near you...
Posted by: Claire | December 16, 2007 12:17 AM
Report Offensive Comment
On Huckabee and anti-mormonism
While still serving as Gov of Arkansas, Huckabee was the keynote speaker at a Baptist Convention held in Salt Lake City where he passed out anti-mormon literature to his congregants following his address.
Posted by: Claire | December 16, 2007 12:06 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Good bye Newsweek, Washington Post, Editor & POST et al:
Good bye every body!
Att: Washington Post, Newsweek & Company; You Suck!
Warning: Do not reproduce, deseminate, plagerize, copy, for profit or gain 'ANY of my "POST" on any onf these 'Onfaith' or "onreligion" bloggs, since MARCH.19/20th of 2007 until NOW! Dec.15th.2007!
Vote: ECLATi-ON Party for GRIDARIAN DEMOCRACY & TRANSFINITE CIVILIZATION 2012 & beyond! Bye Yo ALL!
Posted by: Anonymous | December 15, 2007 11:02 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Huckabee may offend you, but he's still right!
Whether you like his positions or not, he's right about a persons faith! If it has no affect on you, or you keep it to yourself, it's useless. If you have love and don't share it, what good is it? Love isn't love until you give it away, and faith isn't faith until you share it!
Posted by: Bill Lang | December 15, 2007 8:46 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Raisa, visit the following link
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/georgetown/
You can see the entire history of this blog there, you may be able to answer your own question. Assuming you know something or assuming other people don't know something from your own lack of knowledge is not a very useful way to look at the world, don't you think?
Posted by: Oort | December 15, 2007 3:22 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Because Berlinerblau is absoutely SUFFUSED with
every utterance of the religious, almost strangled with it,it often seems
Perhaps he could TELL US HIS OWN RELIGIOUS
BELIEFS...or whether he's an athiest. His writings seem simple invective unless we know the background.
It is surely ot out of line to know from whence his fountain of wisdom flows? Every other poster has come clean about what and who he is.
Posted by: Raisa | December 15, 2007 2:56 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The american people are abandoning the GOP because of it's disastrous foreign policy and because it has fiddled while our economy is burning to the ground. All that is left in the GOP are anti-choice religious zealots and that is why you are seeing all the gawd talk. The eight GOP hopefuls are just playing to their brain dead audience. Hey zealots, have fun choosing between the lesser of eight evils. It doesn't matter the GOP will be dead by 2009.
Posted by: sam | December 15, 2007 2:23 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Sean, you're making an invalid assumption here. I don't have to be a democrat to despise what the republicans have become. In fact, I'm not.
I left the republican party in 1988 when Pat Robertson ran for your nomination.
Hillary is not my candidate, I will not be voting for her. As far as cringeworthiness, Huckabee and Romney fighting over who has the most faith per unit mass and the republican party believers consuming it like a drunk with a bottle of thunderbird ... well, I'm getting tired of the taste of bile.
Posted by: Mortifus | December 15, 2007 12:09 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I would rather have a President who is a person of "belief" rather than "faith". One can reexamine and question his or her "beliefs" but "faith" is never subject to reexamination or questioning. It is cast in stone and infatalability [sp.?].
Posted by: pete McDonald | December 15, 2007 11:41 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I would rather have a President who is a person of "belief" rather than "faith". One can reexamine and question his or her "beliefs" but "faith" is never subject to reexamination or questioning. It is cast in stone and infatalability [sp.?].
Posted by: pete McDonald | December 15, 2007 11:41 AM
Report Offensive Comment
My last comment only applies to the right wing component of the Republican Party.
PS. I think Huckabee is INFLUENCED by them, but not ONE of them.
Posted by: ThinkAboutIt | December 15, 2007 9:39 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Sean,
We don't cringe with Hillary...
We cringe with the right wing attack machine against Hillary....
We saw the same level of rabid hate filled attacks against all the recent Democratic candidates -- i.e Gore and Kerry.
I Like Obama a lot, but I predict if he becomes the Democratic candidate, he will find the right wing hate machine now going in full attack mode on him. (We saw an early taste of this when a leading Republican candidate called Obama, "Osama" with references to bin Laden. They held back afterwards.)
We are seeing Hillary AFTER the right wing attacks, and Obama BEFORE the right wing attacks.
Your side is just UGLY, period.
Posted by: ThinkAboutIt | December 15, 2007 9:35 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Sean,
We don't cringe with Hilldary...
We cringe with the right wing attack machine against Hillary....
We saw the same level of rabid hate filled attacks against all the recent Democratic candidates -- i.e Gore and Kerry.
I Like Obama a lot, but I predict if he becomes the Democratic candidate, he will find the right wing hate machine now going in full attack mode on him. (We saw an early taste of this when a leading Republican candidate called Obama, "Osama" with references to bin Laden. They held back afterwards.)
We are seeing Hilldary AFTER the right wing attacks, and Obama BEFORE the right wing attacks.
Your side is just UGLY, period.
Posted by: ThinkAboutIt | December 15, 2007 9:34 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Mortifus,
Not all Republicans work the way Huckabee does. Many of us cringe and think he gives us a bad name.... Of course, he does accurately represent a portion of the party, just the way you guys have to cringe at Hillary.
Posted by: Sean | December 15, 2007 2:05 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Let's hope we hear more about this after the evangelicals have forced the republicans to nominate Huckabee as their candidate.
I'd like to see them explain this, blame the press for dirty tricks, blame clinton. We need to see what these people are really like.
The further under their rock they climb this time, the better it is for the entire human species.
Posted by: Mortifus | December 15, 2007 1:45 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I have read of this too, but did not know that the right-wing was insisting upon the rapist's innocence. I suspect we will see more of it, and rightly so.
Posted by: Sean | December 15, 2007 12:54 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Actually, it doesn't bother me one whit that Huckabee says his faith impacts his outlooks/views.
I like and share many of Huckabee's eco-social views. Unlike the current occupant of the White House – Huckabee ACTUALLY "walked the talk" on helping the poor while governor of Arkansas. He was unpopular at times for sticking to his convictions. I give Huckabee an A in this area.
It is Huckabee’s motive for releasing a rapist and his later alibi for it, where I give Huckabee an F –
It shows the dark side of Huckabee and illustrates why he is not fit to be President.
FACTS.
(1) A (now confirmed rapist) named Wayne DuMond was convicted and sent to prison for raping the 17 year old relative of Bill Clinton.
(2) The right wing in Arkansas rushed to DuMond's defense, arguing the raped woman wasn't credible (afterall, wasn’t she a relative of Clinton’s??)
* Before his trial, DuMond was attacked and castrated by unknown assailants, (although some claimed he did it to himself to provide sympathy before the jury. Seems a little extreme to think he did it to himself...)
*DuMond was convicted at his trial, despite the castration, and given a long prison term.
* a New York Post columnist, took up the case as a cause célèbre , calling DuMond’s conviction "a travesty of justice."....
* A right wing book entitled UNEQUAL JUSTICE, WAYNE DUMOND, BILL CLINTON AND THE POLITICS OF RAPE IN ARKANSAS included many distortions and outright lies—saying for example that DNA evidence exonerated DuMond. (Fact: there wasn’t even a DNA test conducted).
http://www.amazon.com/Unequal-Justice-Clinton-Politics-Arkansas/dp/0879758414
(3) Huckabee owed his election to the right wing faction in Arkansas and a good friend of his was a fundamentalist Baptist preacher who frequently proclaimed DuMond’s innocence on his radio sermons.
(4) When Huckabee became governor in 1996, he quickly expressed doubts about DuMond's guilt and said he was considering commuting his sentence to time served. After the victim and her supporters protested, Huckabee backed down and said he decided against commutation. Still, Huckabee later wrote a letter to DuMond saying "my desire is that you be released from prison."
(5) Huckabee ignored the fact other victims surfaced who fingered Dumond as guilty of rape. When Huckabee met with DuMond's victims, they noticed Huckagee was not educated on the real facts of the case – and instead insisted the right wing propaganda was true-- including how the DNA exonerated DuMond, (He didn't believe the victims when they told him otherwise, and apparantly did not care to check it out.)
(6) Huckabee made an appearance before the Pardon Board afterwards:
-- Before Huckabee’s appearance, the parole board opposed 4:1 against freeing DuMond.
-- After Huckabee’s appearance, the parole board voted 4:1 for freeing Dumond.
-- Huckabee now says he does not remember urging the Parole Board to free Dumond.
-- Parole Board members who switched their vote say they remember Huckabee telling them in strong terms that he believed DuMmond should be released and they wanted to stay on his good side to be reappointed to a high paying position. (This was the only visit Huckabee made to the parole board so they say the governor's visit made an impression on them.)
(8)DuMond was pardoned shortly afterwards.
(9) DuMond raped and murdered a young pregnant woman and this time there was no question of guilt.
(10) Huckagee expressed genuine sorrow over the course of events... although insisting he wasn't really responsible for the rapist's release, not at all. (Can you guess who Huckabee says IS responsible? See further below for the incredible answer.)
The problems I have with this is what it reveals about Huckabee:
(1) What scares me is: Huckabee did not ever research the rape case, but relied instead on his right wing sources. (déjà vu: current occupant of the White House -- do we need a clone who doesn't like to research what the other side says?)
(2) What infuriates me: Not only does Huckabee deny he urged the Pardon Board to parole Dumond, today Huckabee insists he wasn’t responsible for the Parole Board’s decision.
**You see-- many of the Parole Board's members had been appointed by… did you guess it?…. Bill Clinton.**
See all this was Bill Clinton’s fault.
Sorry Huckabee. If you had been honest, I think I would still like you. Now I think you are a dangerous ideologue – political as well as religious (a horrific and deadly combination) –
Do we need another dangerous right wing ideolgue in the White House?
I say a resounding no!!
Posted by: ThinkAboutIt | December 14, 2007 11:22 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Actually, it doesn't bother me one whit that Huckabee says his faith impacts his outlooks/views.
I like and share many of Huckabee's economic-social views. Unlike the current occupant of the White House – Huckabee ACTUALLY "walked the talk" on helping the poor. He was unpopular at times for sticking to his convictions. I give Huckabee an A in this area.
It is Huckabee’s motive for releasing a rapist and his later alibi for it, where I give Huckabee an F –
It shows the dark side of Huckabee and illustrates why he is not fit to be President.
FACTS.
(1) A (now confirmed rapist) named Wayne DuMond was convicted and sent to prison for raping the 17 year old relative of Bill Clinton.
(2) The right wing in Arkansas rushed to DuMond's defense, arguing the raped woman wasn't credible (afterall, wasn’t she a relative of Clinton’s??)
* Before his trial, DuMond was attacked and castrated by unknown assailants, (although some claimed he did it to himself to provide sympathy before the jury. Seems a little extreme to think he did it to himself...)
*DuMond was convicted at his trial, despite the castration, and given a long prison term.
* a New York Post columnist, took up the case as a cause célèbre , calling DuMond’s conviction "a travesty of justice."....
* A right wing book entitled UNEQUAL JUSTICE, WAYNE DUMOND, BILL CLINTON AND THE POLITICS OF RAPE IN ARKANSAS included many distortions and outright lies—saying for example that DNA evidence exonerated DuMond. (Fact: there wasn’t even a DNA test conducted).
http://www.amazon.com/Unequal-Justice-Clinton-Politics-Arkansas/dp/0879758414
(3) Huckabee owed his election to the right wing faction in Arkansas and a good friend of his was a fundamentalist Baptist preacher who frequently proclaimed DuMond’s innocence on his radio sermons.
(4) When Huckabee became governor in 1996, he quickly expressed doubts about DuMond's guilt and said he was considering commuting his sentence to time served. After the victim and her supporters protested, Huckabee backed down and said he decided against commutation. Still, Huckabee later wrote a letter to DuMond saying "my desire is that you be released from prison."
(5) Huckabee ignored the fact other victims surfaced who fingered Dumond as guilty of rape. When Huckabee met with DuMond's victims, they noticed Huckagee was not educated on the real facts of the case – and instead insisted the right wing propaganda was true-- including how the DNA exonerated DuMond, (He didn't believe the victims when they told him otherwise, and apparantly did not care to check it out.)
(6) Huckabee made an appearance before the Pardon Board afterwards:
-- Before Huckabee’s appearance, the parole board opposed 4:1 against freeing DuMond.
-- After Huckabee’s appearance, the parole board voted 4:1 for freeing Dumond.
-- Huckabee now says he does not remember urging the Parole Board to free Dumond.
-- Parole Board members who switched their vote say they remember Huckabee telling them in strong terms that he believed DuMmond should be released and they wanted to stay on his good side to be reappointed to a high paying position. (This was the only visit Huckabee made to the parole board so they say the governor's visit made an impression on them.)
(8)DuMond was pardoned shortly afterwards.
(9) DuMond raped and murdered a young pregnant woman and this time there was no question of guilt.
(10) Huckagee expressed genuine sorrow over the course of events... although insisting he wasn't really responsible for the rapist's release, not at all. (Can you guess who Huckabee says IS responsible? See further below for the incredible answer.)
The problems I have with this is what it reveals about Huckabee:
(1) What scares me is: Huckabee did not ever research the rape case, but relied instead on his right wing sources. (déjà vu: current occupant of the White House -- do we need a clone who doesn't like to research what the other side says?)
(2) What infuriates me: Not only does Huckabee deny he urged the Pardon Board to parole Dumond, today Huckabee insists he wasn’t responsible for the Parole Board’s decision.
**You see-- many of the Parole Board's members had been appointed by… did you guess it?…. Bill Clinton.**
See all this was Bill Clinton’s fault.
Sorry Huckabee. If you had been honest, I think I would still like you. Now I think you are a dangerous ideologue – political as well as religious (a horrific and deadly combination) –
Do we need another dangerous right wing ideolgue in the White House?
I say a resounding no!!
Posted by: ThinkABoutIt | December 14, 2007 11:21 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Didn't Jesus remark on how it's better to pray in private, leaving ostentatious public demonstrations of piety ("faithiness") to the hypocrites and Pharisees? Doesn't "wearing your religion on your sleeve" put candidates in the latter camp and not in Jesus's?
Posted by: almaden | December 14, 2007 5:23 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"How can we seperate [sic] our beliefs from how we make judgements in life?"
It's called hypocrisy. It's the lifeblood of the politicians in our country.
Looking at it from another point of view, I make judgements in my business every day that have nothing to do with any beliefs I may or may not have. I write software in fact. A day is like ... what should I call this new variable, how should I process this data, why can't that idiot understand how poorly he has designed that interface ... ;-)
I can distinguish between where the things I believe apply and where they do not. What about the christian pharmacist who refuses to sell Plan-B to a customer because it violates his religious belief? How is his religious belief applicable to that woman's decision to buy that product?
Now personally I think pasting your religious fantasies into a child's mind is child abuse, but hey - they're your kids. I think it's wrong for anybody to tell you that you can't abuse your children in this way, I think that is even worse than the abuse.
But that is my mind, my brain, my decision to believe that. I own that belief, it wasn't handed to me from some bronze age mythology, I wasn't threatened with eternal torture if I disagreed with it.
Since I created that belief, I can dispense with it if and when I find I no longer believe it.
If a politician is pandering to your beliefs, he is not reaffirming the value of that belief, he is pandering!
Maybe you won't be willing to question the belief, but you should at least question the pandering.
Posted by: Oort | December 14, 2007 3:06 PM
Report Offensive Comment
RJC:
What candidate doesn't believe what you call, "believes there's an invisible deity who wrote a special book and created man from dust."?
Posted by: FRIEND | December 14, 2007 3:06 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Mike Huckabee "will wear his religion on his sleeve. He will not privatize or compartmentalize his faith commitments. He must let these commitments drive his public actions." He must in the name of his warped idea what Christ was all about ally with the racist Gilcrest of the Minutemen to demonize Mexicans as a Karl Rove dividing issue in this campaign. Huckabee is a fraud like the Baptist Sunday School Teacher Bernie Ebbers in Mississippi.
Posted by: Roy | December 14, 2007 3:03 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Mike Huckabee is exactly right, and that's precisely what makes him so scary. This man honestly believes there's an invisible deity who wrote a special book and created man from dust. If a presidential candidate stood on a podium and said, "I believe in Zeus," he would be laughed out of the campaign. So too would any candidate who proclaimed faith in Thor, Anubis or Quetzalcoatl. But a candidate who says "I believe in Jesus" and vows to govern by Biblical principles gets a free pass in Christian America. Thomas Jefferson, a proud skeptic who held Christianity in contempt, could never get elected today.
Posted by: RJC | December 14, 2007 2:40 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Mr Mark: Yeah, I hear you, politicians are so good at saying something and not saying something at the same time. I also thought about the word Creationism. Does he think Intelligent Design is science?
Posted by: FRIEND | December 14, 2007 2:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Friend notes:
"Huckabee said he has no problem with teaching evolution as a theory in the public schools."
Then it all comes down to what Mike Huckabee's definition is of the word "theory," doesn't it?
Does he use the word in its SCIENTIFIC CONTEXT, that definition being a "BODY OF FACT," or does he use it in the typical religionist's usage, "conjecture?"
Moreover, does he expect equal footing in our public schools to teach the FANTASY of creationism along side the FACT of evolution?
It seems that in this instance, Huckabee has given yet again an answer that *on its surface* appears to give props to science while at the same time sending the religious code to believers via a rhetorical wink and a nod that he DOESN'T believe that evolution is a fact, but "only" a theory.
What do you think, Friend?
Posted by: Mr Mark | December 14, 2007 2:26 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Friend,
Sure he apologized. But you've watched a few lawyer TV shows in your life, haven't you?
The slick lawyer makes an outrageous accusation that the jury gasps at. The other lawyer objects. The judge slams his gavel, "That was out of line!" The slick lawyer apologizes and agrees that it should absolutely be stricken from the record. He seems humble and contrite....
Posted by: Carol | December 14, 2007 2:14 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Here's a question. For the last several decades evangelical pastors have made it a practice to make differing-religion bashing a part of their services. The targets can be Seventh-Day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Scientologists, Mormons, etc, etc. Whomever they don't like....
The children that go to Sunday School in these churches are raised to believe that the members of these other churches are heretics destined to hell, and if you join them, that's where you'll go too.... Hellfire is a pretty scary stick to wield over a little child.
Now, Mike Huckabee was a Baptist minister, and Baptists are particularly notorious for their anti-Mormon rhetoric. Since Huckabee thinks that the particulars of a religion are important, I'd like to know if Mike Huckabee personally indoctrinated his own flock with anti-Mormon sentiments?
He is drawing upon that carefully planted bigotry now. Did he put it there in the first place?
Posted by: Steven | December 14, 2007 2:05 PM
Report Offensive Comment
JOET: You make a good point in your second paragraph.
CAROL: He did apologize, but I hate the way these canidate's will strike below the belt for
votes.
Mr Mark: This article says: Huckabee said he has no problem with teaching evolution as a theory
in the public schools and he doesn't expect schools to teach creationism.
Posted by: FRIEND | December 14, 2007 2:01 PM
Report Offensive Comment
As usual, the secular intellectual can only hint that it is improper to bring religion into the public square. May I ask how this is to be done? For example, a faith coalition, along with many others, is working to abolish the death penalty in New Jersey. I haven't heard one word about this being an improper mixing of church and state. This secular attack on religion is prompted by concern about abotion and gay rights, very important issues to be sure, but the attack is therefore unprincipled and incoherent.
Posted by: Bruce Ledewitz | December 14, 2007 1:55 PM
Report Offensive Comment
It doesn't take much effort to read between the lines of Huckabee's "inclusive" web statement. It's the kind of statement that can be only from the perspective of belonging to THE majority religion in the country. Offering an opinion on "when we discuss faith and politics" doesn't exactly seem inclusive when uttered by a Xian. It's akin to one's boss deciding when it's a good time to discuss, "your latest screw-up."
One must also set his statement against his actions. For instance, does Huckabee have "respect" for, say, an honest Mormon? As an atheist, I draw little comfort from his respecting "an honest atheist over a dishonest religionist," while he at the same time has no respect for honest evolutionary science while embracing a fantasy-driven respect for the creationist hokkum of the Bible.
As far as religion not being "banished from the public square," it is, indeed, banished from the public square by the First Amendment *to the extent* that its expression in the public square amounts to a governmental preference for a particular religion. Ergo, there is no prohibition on Mike Huckabee offering his personal religious views from the steps of the county court house, but the line is drawn if and when he decides to allow the erection of a 10 Commandments monument on that same government property.
Posted by: Mr Mark | December 14, 2007 1:29 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I was always wary of Huckabee, but am irretrievably disgusted with him at present. He supposedly has a masters degree in theology, but is playing the ignorant fool about his recent slur against Romney. I realize that it is dangerous to think one knows the motivations of others, but I think we all can be very confident that he fully intended to stir up long-standing evangelical prejudices against Mormons.
This is the way he will stir up prejudices against non-believers as well.
Posted by: Carol | December 14, 2007 1:02 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Friend: that's an interesting piece from the website. I could be a cynic and say it's addressed to people who read, while another message is used for those who watch TV, but I won't.
I too, think we should agree with Huckabee that asking a person of faith to leave it at the door of the Oval Office is absurd, and not what the Constitution requires or asks candidates to aspire to. Of course you will follow your beliefs. What they all fail to realize is that they are people of faith elected to a civic position, and that requires that they fulfil their civic duties as such. That, in turn, requires that they take whatever their faith compels them to believe and ask whether it is appropriate to advance that position as president under the circumstances. If it is a position that could be advanced by anyone without regard to their faith, fine, the fact that you believe it because of your faith is not relevant. But if you are advancing a position because of your faith without regard to whether your faith is shared by the public, you have crossed the line.
Posted by: JoeT | December 14, 2007 1:00 PM
Report Offensive Comment
It is bad enough when politicians talk, the level of sincerity is always low. When they talk about their religion it is necessarily even lower.
Hard to know which is worse: a liar or a true believer in nonsense.
Posted by: candide | December 14, 2007 12:40 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I copied this from Huckabee's site:
The First Amendment requires that expressions of faith be neither prohibited nor preferred. We should not banish religion from the public square, but should guarantee access to all voices and views. We should share and debate our faith, but never seek to impose it. When discussing faith and politics, we should honor the "candid" in candidate - I have much more respect for an honest atheist than a disingenuous believer.
---------------------------
http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_id=9
Posted by: FRIEND | December 14, 2007 12:28 PM
Report Offensive Comment
God save us from the Huckabee's of this world!!!!
Posted by: Gaby | December 14, 2007 12:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment
There's people "of faith," and then, there's people "of fantasy."
Huckabee looks to be the latter. He would have done better had he moderated his fantasy-based approach to life for general consumption. Such extremism may pander to the extreme religious wing of the RP, but extremism in any form isn't going to wash in this election.
I guess Huckabee felt that playing the "my faith is the only faith" card was the only way that he could gain a foothold in the primary process. The Rs will shoot themselves in the foot if they actually nominate him.
Posted by: Mr Mark | December 14, 2007 11:45 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Thank you, Jacques, I've been enjoying your contributions to this forum.
I don't think I disagree with that statement by Mike Huckabee. I don't really know the complete context of what he was saying. How can we seperate our beliefs from how we make judgements in life?
He didn't need the qualification of: If a person says, "I'm a person of faith"
Everyone has their code of ethics developed from their socialization and intellectual investigation - believer's and non-believers.
If anything, I want to know more about him. I hear honesty in his tone. As much I would disagree with him on a lot of what I have heard about his platform, things he said in the past, I miss this tone of honesty. I hear it in Ron Paul, Obama, Ralph Nader, and maybe a couple others.
I don't hear it in Clinton and Romney. They sound so manufactured and calculating. And yet, to me, Clinton and Romney seem to have the most experience and look 'Presidential'.
I don't know who I'm going to vote for. I really don't want to vote for anyone in the Democratic-Republican party. I want to vote for a third-party canidate because I think this primary system is broken and money is playing too much into how a candidate shapes their platform. Instead of canidates using their own mind and ethics, I feel they are bought off by special interests, and this is not what is best for our country and Earth.
Posted by: FRIEND | December 14, 2007 10:41 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
"Divine Providence": That is what Hitler claimed elected him.