Huckabee: The Religious Right is Alive

Have you seen Jim Wallis' latest post at Belief Net, basically endorsing Mike Huckabee as the new leader of a new generation of Evangelicals? He goes even further than what he said in this interview. I'm going to assume he's just guilty of wishful thinking where Huckabee (and Evangelical Christianity, generally) is concerned...and that he doesn't actually AGREE with Huckabee. Huckabee is a danger, a right wing populist, and unashamed about scapegoating whole groups of people (i.e., gays, mormons, etc.) in order to get his folks frothing at the mouth. It all makes me wonder: What is Jim Wallis THINKING?! For more on this visit http://reclaimingthefword.typepad.com/reclaiming_the_f_word/2008/03/what-is-jim-wal.html

I think we can do better than this.

Jai Khosla,

If you have been watching the most recent primary/caucus returns, Obama is winning by huge margins with whites, and indeed with all demographic groups, in states where one would not think a black man would have a chance (Idaho, Virginia, etc.).

After all these years with Bush (damn it seems sooo long), I'm convinced that "experience" has little to do with how good a president is. The bottom line is: what kind of a man is he? Bush is incompetent and ignorant as a president, and he is that way as a man.

Obama exudes competence and intelligence, and I predict that his soaring oratory skills will leave all candidates from both parties in the dust. After listening to Obama's victory speech last night, I couldn't even stomach listening to McCain's plodding, pedantic, monotone. In a debate between those two, McCain won't stand a chance.

Robert B:

Fascinating! Who knew? Thanks for the post, and the support.

B-man

To B-Man:

You asked Spiderman2, "Why did your God give you an appendix, hmm?"

As a Roman Catholic, I have absolutely no problem with reconciling the theory of evolution with my faith. As such, I approve and endorse your combat with Spiderman2, who anti-Catholicism is also quite obvious.

However, recent research has shown that the appendix may actually have a function in current human biology:

http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=84534

Ain't Google great... :)

The ironic thing about folks like Spiderman2 is that if they were to actually read about science, biology, archeology, anthropology, string theory, etc. they would find that the universe is infinitely more amazing and wonderful than anything talked about in the Bible.

The Bible sells this beautiful, wonderful universe way, way short.

"Religion prevents our children from having a rational education; religion
prevents us from teaching the ethic of scientific co-operation in place of
the old fierce doctrines of sin and punishment.It is possible that mankind
is on the threshold of a golden age;but if so,it will be necessary first to
slay the dragon that guards the door,and this dragon is religion".

Bertrand Russell. "Why I Am Not A Christian".pp47

Spiderman2

My guess is you are about 14 years old,and you probably dropped out of school.

If you are really interested in evolution there are hundreds of books you can read on the subject.
But I don't see a genuine curiosity in your arguments. You seem to have already made your mind up that god did it all; so you are lost to logical discussion.

Put your bible aside for a while. Read some Darwin. Read some Matt Ridley. Read some Franz de Waal. Read Steven Pinker.

It really is a wonderful world out there, and attempting to understand the truth of things makes it even more wonderful and interesting. We do not need the infantile notion of a skygod and a supernatural world. That doesn't help at all. In fact it's a great hindrance to figuring it all out.
Good luck.

Funny that this is the lady who writes much of the political propaganda for Obama's leftist church. I'm a bit suspect of her objective here; labelling Huckabee "anti" everything, and then acting as if he were "anti" environment and AIDS relief as well. Just because she sits at the head of a Seminary gives her little credibility in analysing the "religious right." She's the antithesis of what we, Christian conservatives stand for. Personal responsibility, justice, and mercy to those who are denied mercy (most especially the unborn). Not sexual libertarianism or any of her Marxist "liberation" theology. While we see Rick Warren as a helpful, moderating voice, Wallis has very little to offer us other than hippie rhetoric and idealistic naivete. Until the horror of abortion is ended we will be a pro-life block vote, so its time the Dems wake up to the silent scream of compassion.

"They are faced with a blank wall and it's called DNA. Nobody still don't know what's behind that wall. Just as they don't know what caused the Big Bang. Two blank walls that will have no answers until it's JUDGMENT DAY."

And at one point mankind did not know what caused thunder and lighting, what made the sun rise and set every day, and what made apples fall to the earth when they broke loose from their branches. At one point "Nobody still don't know what's behind that" (sic) also, and they were attributed to acts of divine influence. It's a logical flaw to play the "God card" every time you are presented with a concept in science that is incompletely understood at the present time. Science will continue to progress and solve many of the mysteries of the universe, further diminishing the need for divine powers in explanations of the origins of life and the universe. And it will occur with or without you.

Whatever happens to Huckababy the result is inevitable.

McCain will win the presidency.

The right wingers(egged on by Limbaugh et al) and even the true Republicans have charted a brilliant ploy. Cross party lines and vote for Obama. He cannot win the presidency, at least not this time around. The US is still a tribal country, the white tribe will mostly vote for a white person and the black tribe will largely vote for a black person. If Hillary wins the nomination she has a shot at defeating McCain and that is what worries the right wing and the Republicans: a Democratic White House and a Democratic majority Congress.

Even if Obama wins he will have a hard time gaining the confidence of the people at large, the whites in the hinterland. The better alternative is to have Hillary as president say for 4 years with Obama as VP. Obama gets the exposure and the experience and will be more acceptable.

Right now Obama indulges in flourishes and sweeping statements of little substance and that shows his lack of experience. No one doubts his ability and potential. I watched both McCain and Obama yesterday giving their victory speeches and McCain was clearly the one with greater depth.

Obama has a lot to learn. If elected to the presidency he could fail and set back the aspirations of African Americans to become president for a long time.

wut success

The science or the math behind building skycrapers are similar so it's not a wonder if blueprints of skycrapers look identical. The same columns, beams, floor thickness and so forth.The same is true with almost any thing man has created. If you look at the appearance of Windows program to that of Linux in its binary form, you would not know which is which.

It's also not a wonder if a big percentage of DNAs of bananas are similar to humans because they use the same science. Bananas share similar DNAs with humans. Monkeys sharing similar DNAs with humans does not prove that they are relatives.

Nothing in any organisms' DNA says that they can shift from one organism to another or from one creature to another. They may share similar DNAs but it doesn't mean they are relatives.

Science is reversible or repeatable. It's a process that can be done or undone again and again. If water will boil at 100 degreess Celcius, it means that the process can be repeated again and again. If it is true that humans and monkeys came from one ancestor, then reverse the process and prove it. Show us the science behind it and not just play of words. In other words, show us our common ancestor. Recreate it.

It can't be recreated because it's not science and it's JUST A DREAM WHICH TURNED INTO A NIGHTMARE COZ IT'S BUSTED.

They are faced with a blank wall and it's called DNA. Nobody still don't know what's behind that wall. Just as they don't know what caused the Big Bang. Two blank walls that will have no answers until it's JUDGMENT DAY.

They will know the answer when they start to fry.

Let that primordial soup and amino acid create life without copying from existing DNAs. Pour all your science in it and we'll see how far you can go.

I'll tell you how far. A CD which I explained from the beginning of this debate.

You are now blathering incoherently so I will not waste any more time trying to speak English to you. Pleasant dreams.

The science behind building skycrapers are similar so it's not a wonder if blueprints of skycrapers look identical. The same is true with almost any thing man has created.

It's also not a wonder if a big percentage of DNAs of bananas are similar to humans because they use the same science.

Nothing in any organisms DNA that says they can shift from one organism to another.

Science is reversible or repeatable. If it is true that humans and monkeys came from one ancestor, then reverse the process and prove it. Show us the science behind it and not just play of words.

All of the elements in the periodic table come from the fusion activity of stars in space. We are all literally made of star dust.

Experiments have been run in labs where the conditions of primordial earth were recreated, in terms of the elements present. When UV radiation was introduced into this primordial soup, scientists saw the spontaneous formation of amino acids, the basis of all life. In a very real sense, the beginnings of life were recreated.

Look here: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/03/28/MN206364.DTL

If the natural selection is as simple environmental pressure, then why can't evolutionist find the answer behind the mystery of DNAs? Why can't they recreate life from those parameters?

The answer is that your conclusions are so incomplete to warrant a true working model to recreate life.

If I have to grade you (and all evolutionists with you) whether you have a chance to recreate life (copying DNAs not included) the answer is No Chance.

Humans are primates, as are chimpanzees--you need to deal with that fact. A comparison of human DNA with chimpanzee DNA shows that they are 95% identical. (My theory is that the 5% that is different in humans is what makes us kill each other.)

Technically (and creationists get this wrong all the time), Evolution does not say that humans came from monkeys, but that humans and monkeys share a common ancestor. Recent studies have shown that in fact chimpanzee DNA has evolved more than human DNA since that break with a common ancestor. (I believe this is because human beings are no longer subjected to the same kinds of environmental pressures that chimpanzees are.)

And yes, the discovery of DNA by Watson and Crick did explain the method of evolution, thereby confirming the theory first put forth by Darwin.

Spiderman2,

Boy. So many errors, so little time.

You said, "Natural Selection means there is a "Natural Selector"."

Yes, the natural selector is called "environmental pressure", not some fictional deity in the sky.

A gene that is favorable in a certain environment, may well become unfavorable if that environment changes, which environments have a habit of doing. This is what fuels the evolution of new species, and is also what causes existing species to go extinct. (Think about the VCR, it began to go extinct when the technological environment introduced DVDs.)

There are as many sights, sounds, smells, and taste that we consider "pleasant" as those we consider "unpleasant", and everyone has a different preference in these categories, so I 'm not sure what the rest of your blather was about.

Don't you have anything better as an argument than "scientists are so stoopid!" That argument in itself sounds like it comes from a stoopid person.

It's not name calling. It's called "classifying". It's like selecting which group one should belong. If you want to call it "natural selection", no problem. It's really like selecting the dumb out from the normal.

Did James Watson and Francis Crick found out the secrets behind DNAs to conclude that Darwin was right? Heredity does not confirm any of Darwin's theory that man came from monkeys. DNAs only confirm that man came from man and monkeys from monkeys.

Evolutionists are fond "body twistings" just to fit anything for their cause.

just.. wow.

He can't defend his policies so he resorts to name calling.

Typical.

Natural selection is the process by which favorable heritable traits become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable heritable traits become less common.

True or not, if that is where evolutionists base their doctrine that there is no God, I don't know what could be dumber than that.

Natural Selection means there is a "Natural Selector". It's impossible to have a selection if there is no selector. If that selector is not intelligent or there's no logic behind it, the word selection won't exist.

Now these are the same people that populate a big portion of our world - the secularists, the liberal democrats, etc. who all believe in evolution.

The Bible prophecy that this world would collapse. Exactly ! What do you expect if the world is being run by fools.

Imagine, there's no God because life is governed by natural selection. How stupid. No God, because man has appendix. How idiotic. No God, because they came from monkeys. How dumb.

No God, because Natural Selection didn't gave them eyes at the back so they wont have to turn around which is not energy efficient.

No God, because Natural Selection knows my taste buds and natural selection knows how every fruit tree should fit to that taste.

No God, because Natural Selection knows my nostrils and it also knows how the flowers should smell to be fragrant.

Based on all those facts, define what you call as Natural Selection and give the parameters or logic why it seems to know everything.

The only reason why evolutionists think as if they know everything and has answers for anything is because they are STUPID.

When people start defining "Natural Selection" and then jumps to conclusion that there is no God, when their definition constitute just a minute fraction of the word (and it's not even that accurate), there is no word to define the kind of brains these people have. Simply, the FOOL OF ALL FOOLS.

Spiderman2,

You will not find a scientist on this planet who will not readily admit the limits of his knowledge. That seems to be reserved for religious fanatics who indeed "know" nothing. That's why it's called "faith", not "knowing".

The fact that Darwin theorized evolution without knowing about DNA, and that when DNA was first theorized and then later confirmed to exist by Watson and Crick, it fit perfectly with the theory, and in fact explained the exact method of Evolution--well, that only strengthens the theory to the point of being a knowable truth.

A person who claims to know everything when there are still mountains of unanswered questions are like idiots on the loose.

It all started when Charles Darwin theorized evolution when he has no idea that every living organism has DNAs. The stupidity just continues to hide what has been stupid from the beginning.

Evolution, still continuing today is just a face-saving exercise. They would end up as a bunch of fools and going into the hall of shame if they raise the white flag. Also, they would all loose their jobs and that I believe is the bottom line.

They will all be assigned to the zoo, feeding monkeys.

Concern for the poor, the AIDS afflicted, the environment will never replace the concern for the
killing of million of human fetuses every year.
More has to be done to prevent unwanted pregnancy specially by the Catholic Church. What's wrong with artificial birth control? Istructions on prevention of pregnancy should start at home, in school, in public libraries and at medical clinics.Free condoms should me made more easily available. But once pregnancy start, Religions do a great job in guiding us, and are a necessity; this why the demise of political influence by Religions - including but not limited to Evangelical Right- is not in the horizon.

Spiderman2,

I like your phrase "idiots on the loose". But to whom does it really apply? Uneducated religious fanatics spouting hail and brimstone, or educated scientists grounded in the scientific method and subject to world-wide peer review.

You are clearly out of your depth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeZB2EsPqGE&feature=related

Every person can copy a Windows program by just simply copying its binary composition. That is how CDs are copied. An ordinary person can copy it but it doesn't mean he knows how it was made.

The same is true with evolutionists scientists. The best they can do is just copy bit by bit the composition of DNA but they don't know what's really behind it.

The stupidity begins when these same scientists seems to know it all when they really don't know anything. They know how humans evolve when they don't even have a clue why DNAs exist and what's behind the intelligence governing it.

They are like little kids who just learned how to copy a Windows program and start acting like they have doctorate in computer science. They are like idiots on the loose.

Uh, Spiderman2, I wasn't saying that we would evolve out our appendix. I'm saying that there is no reason for it to be there in the first place--that for a deity to put it there would be pretty darned unintelligent, stupid even.

Again, I can see that you're passionate in your beliefs but you're not saying anything. You're just foaming at the mouth and demanding that everyone believe in your superstitions.

Evolution is science's strongest theory and is supported by mountains of evidence that has been gained by scientists all over the world for the last 150 years. The more that time goes on the stronger the theory gets.

But let me put it to you this way. Evolution is the easiest theory in the world to prove wrong--it could be done in a heartbeat, and every scientist in the world would have to admit they had been mistaken. Here is an example:

A creationist once asked a prominent scientist what it would take to be convinced that the theory of evolution was false. The scientist growled back: "show me a rabbit fossil from the pre-cambrian!"

I'll leave it to you to figure that one out.

We have a problem in Afghanistan and the people who wants to solve it are the real problems - Islamists and Secularists.

The Bible prophesied that the only way this would be settled is for the 2 camps to be extinguished or be "vaporized" - WW3.

Secularists are "unbelievers" and they are a disgrace to God. On the other hand false religions are commonly those who won't let people rationally criticize their faith like Islam and Catholicism which ruled Europe for centuries and no criticism was allowed. Those who can see fault in their religions are summarily executed like Jesus Christ for telling the Jews that they have a faulty interpretation of the word of God.

It was primarily the Baptists,who composed much of Rhode Island at that time, who pushed to end all of these by fighting for the "Establishment Clause" in the bill of rights. (Salvation is personal and being a Baptist does not save you. I just want to make that clear.)

Unless this Bill of Rights is added to Afghanistan's Constitution and Afghans learn to accept it, all else will just be waste of time, money and lots of lives.

And if America and the Bush administration don't know it, they are as blind as the 3 mice.

Judging from who the frontrunners are in the Presidential nomination, America seems like a big bunch of blind mice.

WW3 is inevitable as the Bible prophesied coz the world is blind.

B-MAN,

You can wait a milion or billion years more (theoretically only coz it won't happen) and man will still have appendix. It won't vanish as what evolutionists would like to think because the theory is just a dream and is turning into a nightmare.

As usual, your statements, like all evolutionists, are just playing with words but no real science in it.

It isn't Right to Life OR the Environment.
It isn't Pro Family OR AIDS.
It isn't Marriage OR Equal Rights.

Most Christians consider ALL of these things important. What Mike Huckabee demonstrates is that you can be a social conservative and still care about social justice.

Those of us who believe in the bible must also believe that every human being was created in the image of God and should act accordingly.

Incidentally, Huckabee isn't anti-evolution, but he is pro-God-the-Creator. Again, you really don't have to be one OR the other.

Spiderman2:

Really, for all the passion in your arguments, you offer no proof of anything at all, just your self-righteous claim that all of your superstitious beliefs are true.

BTW, there is nothing "random" about natural selection. This is a straw-man consistently put forward by creationists. If Evolution were random, you would have zebras in the antarctic and penguins in Africa.

One thing people of your opinion conveniently leave out is the massive number of idiotic mistakes made all over nature. Over 99% of all species that ever existed were so poorly suited to their environments, that they went extinct. Not very intelligent, that! Why did your God give you an appendix, hmm?

Also, with your CD metaphor above, it's clear you lack even a basic understanding of biology and science. Stick to proselytizing your Christianity and leave scientific explanations to educated people.

Before believing in evolution, crunch this:

DNAs are like computer programs on a CD but they act very differently. It's like plugging a CD on an electrical outlet and then that CD morphs into a CD player and plays its tune. That is how intelligent the maker of DNA is and I call that maker God. Science won't be able to reach that level of intelligence. They can only mimic or copy a DNA function but they can never understand it's secrets like how and why DNAs exist.

Anybody who claims that it is "incidental" or random is mad. The word random simply means "no solution" or "I don't know". It's actually an admission that they know nothing and they only cover their ignorance thru clever use of words.

You evolutionists should start explaining how DNAs evolve by your evolution theory and please stop using the word random coz it simply means "I don't know". You guys are also fund of using the word "reason" but I still have to hear some reason from you guys. This is your moment. Explain it.

Even the word "natural selection", has intelligence in it. How did a plant, animal or person become an intelligent working biological system? Who made the intelligent selection? You can't even build a descent skycraper if there is no "intellgient selector" who "selects" the material to use and "select" the dimensions of beams and columns. A skycraper is way too primitive compared to the intelligence that governs the system found in any living organism.

God calls atheist as FOOLS or idiots and rightly so coz even based on simple reasonings, they are so dumb and idiotic.

One reason why Heaven would be a nice place is because idiots are banned there. And that I believe, is literal.

A phoenix is a mythical bird with beautiful gold and red plumage. At the end of its life-cycle the phoenix builds itself a nest of cinamon twigs that it then ignites; both nest and bird burn fiercely and are reduced to ashes, from which a new, young phoenix arises. The bird was also said to regenerate when hurt or wounded by a foe, thus being almost immortal and invincible — a symbol of fire and divinity. "Then I said, I shall die in my nest, and I shall multiply my days as the sand", Job 29:18. Seldom that a prophecy and mythology intertwine but the proof of the pudding is always in the eating. Let the unbelievers test the pudding. Let them taste the truthfulness of the prophecy.

"Death to America" is a staple in Arab mouths. The mythology states that "the bird burn fiercely and are reduced to ashes". The prophecy will happen and parts of America will burn. God will allow it because of America's growing secularism and liberalism. But those responsible are equally hypocrites. They too will all burn and Im not sure if they will be able to recover unlike the phoenix which is described as almost "immortal and invincible". People should be careful in picking America as their enemy coz as the prophecy foretells, that may spell the end of their civilization or their history. Believe it.

The reason why the U.S is the greatest country is because it is the country that fit to the description of Apostle Paul which says that the children of faith and NOT the children of works (this includes the four major religions [ Islam, Budhism, Hinduism, Judaism ] and some major false christian religions like catholicism) will inherit and rule the earth. A big portion of the people in the U.S and even the first settlers in Plymouth, Massachusetts believe that scripture. They inherit the prophecy by believing it. This country will ultimately rule the earth coz that is the prophecy.

The U.S. did not start WW2 but that was the beginning of the fulfillment of that prophecy and WW3 would establish it fully even though the U.S. won't start it.

That is the prophecy and those who would challenge it (there would be many) may temporarily win but in the final showdown, the prophecy would still prevail.

A lot of people will be "vaporized".

America has been protected by God from two World Wars but not this time because of the increasing liberalism and secularism among its people.

Salvation is personal and being a member of a religion would not save a person. But Eph. 2:8-10 and Jn 3:16 sums it all and those who live these verses in their hearts are the holders of true religion.

The history of this world is pretty much laid out already. Parts of America is liberal and secular and that will be destroyed by its enemies. But the bigger story is, America's enemies will be wiped off the surface of the earth.

America is not invincible and it could be defeated. But the irony of it is that it's a lot more stronger the second time around. Remember the famous phrase "I shall return"? In WW2, it did returned and pulverized it's enemy like powder.

The same will happen in WW3. The point is, it's not a good thing that America gets defeated coz the next episode will be the annihilation of its enemies. Believe it.

Contrary to this article's views, it's really the liberals who are leaving and the evangelical Christians which from the time of the early settlers upto "kingdom come" will stay and inherit this earth, if not the universe.

We cannot infer much about the state or strength of the Religious Right or of new Evangelicals from the strength of one candidate, Mike Huckabee. You need to consider what other alternatives are available--and in this case, there are none for religious voters. Someone on the religious right might support Huckabee because of his anti-gay etc positions. Someone who is Christian or evangelical but more apolitical might disagree with some of his positions but still support him because they see him as the most Christian candidate. Only when there is another candidate whom voters clearly identify as an evangelical but who has a different agenda can you say anything about the strength of new evangelicals vs the old religious right.