Yeah, on MSNBC this morning, Romney “responded” but did not answer, which reporters later said meant that he denied it, which was not the case in the response I heard.
I like Romney- but I’m a bit troubled by his just recent conservative-conversion.
I like Huckabee- but I’m troubled by the rapist-parole, his state tax policies, and comments like the “JC & Satan brothers in LDS”.So I’ve got an interesting choice.
Well, you could just sit out the primary and vote for the Democrat in November.
So, your editing my comments to make it look like we agreed about something had to do with … John Mace?
The lights are on, but you’re not home.
So it turns out that New Testament has a cheap-ass Rod Serling trick ending? The old evil twin schtick? Man, talk about your deus ex machina!
Yeah. THAT’s gonna happen. 
So it turns out that New Testament has a cheap-ass Rod Serling trick ending? The old evil twin schtick? Man, talk about your deus ex machina!
Get me rewrite!
You already did.
Daniel
Then get me rerewrite!
If this is true, then Jesus was not god’s only son, correct?
Even worse, they both have beards. Old Scratch’s will simply be well-manicured, and therefore eviller than JC’s grunge whiskers. Or something.
Well, the LDS answer to that would probably be-
Jesus is God’s Eldest Son & the Express Image of the Father in a way that the latter sons and daughters are not. Also, He is the Only Begotten Son to have taken on human flesh in order to work salvation for His younger siblings.
Good Lord- I’m on the verge of being as LDS apologist!
If a candidate entered politics for the purpose of imposing a religious creed over the land, I think her or his ten year old statements are still relevant.
It also troubles me that recently I seemed to know about the NIE report on Iran a day or two before Huckabee was asked and still had no clue. Doesn’t he watch the news or read a newspaper? That was dumb.
Ask yourself why he is asking such a question about the Mormon faith.
Clinton was skewered all over the place.
But you’re right, he hasn’t been skewered here for the 93 speech.
And there’s a reason for that, IMO.
Everyone knows politicians pander and waffle. The skewering comes, I think, when it’s sensed that you’re hiding a potentially dangerous belief underneath.
Clinton wouldn’t be skewered for giving a religious speech because nobody believes he’s going to act in a religiously fundamentalist way while in power where church and state separations are violated. People just don’t believe that. There’s a lot to judge a candidate by beyond their words; nobody believes Rudy G. is a devout xian no matter what he says. So it’s lip service. And everyone gets it. Wink. But it’s not “wink” I’m secretly going to attack xianity either. It’s just “wink” this is something we shouldn’t even be discussing here but we live in a time where I have to act like I give a shit about religion.
Huckabee, on the other hand, is a MINISTER. So, when he says things that are religious in his speeches, there IS a suspicion that he really means them and might bleed church into state. There is no such suspicion when Clinton talks religion.
Insofar as the OP goes, having been a xian growing up I believe Huckabee says such things but doesn’t NECESSARILY have a malevolent agenda of overtly inserting xianity into the government (though he might, I suppose; and I’m judging beyond just the words he speaks). However, that is a reasonable reading of his speech and so an argument about the actual words he spoke there is completely valid and suspicion and skewering doesn’t seem out of place.
The real problem with Huckabee and xians of THAT sort (not the Rudy G. sort or Clinton sort) is that one gets the sense from his comments and past decisions and behavior – all taken together between the AIDS comments to the furlough to the comment about why his candidacy is doing well, to the speech in the OP itself – that he bleeds religion into politics, albeit without necessarily any “evil” (“righteous” in his opinion) agenda to consciously do so.
I think it’s a bit hyperbolic to think that he’s a phantom menace of some kind but I don’t think it’s hyperbolic to worry that the RESULT of a Huckabee presidency would END UP with a lot of religion bleeding into government, consciously, purposefully, or otherwise.
My experience with such folks is that they honestly don’t know they’re bleeding one thing into the other until someone points it out because their primary mental orientation is around their religion which is the central facet of their life.
And that’s just fine for them, but in a pluralistic society it’s troubling and just because it’s a religious central facet doesn’t make it any less so; if anything, it makes it more troubling. Every other candidate has some central facet as well that people instinctively pick up on and judge them by, as is reasonable to expect they would: one gets the sense that Edwards is too polished maybe a phoney, that Clinton is too parsing maybe a triangulating manipulator, that McCain sold out his independent streak maybe now beholden, that Romney’s central tenet is the acquisition of power maybe he flip flops on important things, that Rudy G. is a little too happy with his management abilities maybe won’t focus on the civil liberties as much as we want, etc., etc., etc.
With a guy like Huckabee one just gets the sense that he will – possibly honestly, sincerely, and unbeknownst even to himself – slip religious belief into policy.
And when – in his view – the rubber meets the road and it comes time to veto something or move things in a particular direction whether its scientific stuff like stem cells, health issues like handing out condoms to prevent disease or giving out needles to drug addicts for the same reason, or any other such thing like approving grants to other countries to fight AIDS without morality caveats (as has been done), it’s all really unsettling and those of us that are agnostics would much rather a president that we can expect will look those issues square in the face and judge them on secular merits of such things as physical (not spiritual) health, etc. and a president that is a xian but obviously not fundamentalist is fine with us because we assume that he mostly puts that to the side in his “real” life the way, for example, everyone believes Clinton does no matter what he says.
One doesn’t get that sense about Huckabee.
That’s why the skewering and hollering.
I quote that sentence because it is what I take as the thesis of your post, and I don’t disagree with it per se. I think it is fair for a person who perceives him as a threat (which would include me) to suspect that he might bring his own agenda to the office. But the problem I have isn’t with the fact that his agenda is religious, but that it is hateful. An atheist can also be hateful (as posts in this thread will attest).
To understand what I’m getting at, suppose there were a candidate we’ll call Smith. He is a Christian, an ordained minister, and is never shy about discussing his faith. Suppose further that he has been consistent throughout his life of public service, and finally that he gives this speech:
I am driven to seek the office of President by a calling that I feel from a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. He is my Lord, and I am His servant. I believe that He has called me into leadership not to help those in power, but to help those who cannot help themselves. Those who are poor. Those who are sick. Those who are in prison, and forgotten by society.
I believe that my Lord wishes me to be a servant to those who serve. Just as He set the example of washing the feet of His disciples, so do I want to give all of myself in service to the American people. And I mean all the American people. Black and white and in between. Gays and lesbians. People of all faiths and people of no faith.
Atheists do not share my faith, but they share my humanity. It is a travesty that these good people are being treated as the witches of the modern day. And it is my intention to appoint atheists along with believers to posts in my cabinet. I believe that God is calling me to be president, not Pope.
I cannot separate my faith from myself any more than a man can separate his intellect from himself. But my faith dictates that I cannot serve God without serving you. And so just because you might be gay, or black, or Jewish, or atheist, my job will be to serve as your champion, to secure the rights guaranteed to you by the US Constitution.
I will fight for the rights of gays to marry, of atheists to attend schools free from aggressive and oppressive policies, indeed of all people to peacefully pursue their own happiness in their own way. That is what America is suposed to be all about. I will express my faith, but I will fight against all who would seek to establish a government religion whether outright or through morality legislation. And I will defend the right of every American to disagree with me, and to express himself without fear of any reprisal or dread of government sanction.
The Constitution forbids religious testing for those who would serve you. And I would ask for your favor in that regard. Please do not consider my faith to be a test of whether you will vote for me, because my faith is between me and my God. I ask that your only test be what is between you and me. And if I have my way, the only thing between you and me will be a mutual understanding and respect.Wouldn’t it be the case that Smith is less of a threat to you (and to me as well) than the usual parade of promise makers-breakers who seek the office? A person who brings hateful rhetoric, no matter what his religion or lack thereof, is far scarier to me than a person who is Muslim or atheist but dedicated to securing my rights.
God apparently told George Bush to invade Iraq.
That turned out to be a very, very bad and costly decision.
We have no mechanism for impeaching god or otherwise holding him to account for such faulty decision making.
We should strongly question whether we should ever elect another candidate who tells us, or implies, that god will tell him what to do.
Then we are fortunate indeed that He has such mechanisms himself.
I’m genuinely curious, is there a cite for that?
Sure -
Thanks Hentor.