Yes, to some extent I think that’s aimed at Romney. And as I said earlier, imagine if someone Jewish were running against him. There would be an uproar of outrage-- for good reason, too.
But there’s the rub. Clinton’s statements don’t respect the establishment of a specific religion, but Huckabee’s do. I know it’s fun to Clinton-bash and play devil’s advocate, but Huckabee’s statements don’t portray him as a good Presidential Candidate or a good Christian. He plays the “I’m a better Christian than you” card all the time, but if he takes a quick look at Matthew Chapter 6 he’ll realize he’s using Jesus to heap praise upon himself, a definite sin in the good book. If Jesus was too smart to get involved in politics, Huckabee’s either a hypocrite or stupid. Or both.
Like I said above, I’m not a Huckabee supporter right now. And remember, right now we have just a news article to deal with, not the speech itself.
But even with that, it seems like he was using the speech for the most part to try to get the pastors to do more.
But even so, why does he have to state that accepting Christ is The Way? These are pastors–they already believe this(maybe). Why does he have to tell them that, unless he wants to reinforce his stance with them? 10 years old or not–that statement is disturbing. One wonders what in hell he says to a group of rabbis or imams…
I think Huckabee is much more personable than Bush Jr, whom I’ve never liked. But “likableness” does not translate into votes, at least not from me.
I’m not really seeing the distinction you’re making here. Huckabee is a Christian minister talking to other Christian ministers in the speech, so when he invokes the divine, obviously he’s going to talk about Jesus. Obviously it’s exclusive, but so is Clinton’s talk about “spiritual values”. I just don’t entirely know why this exclusivity is a bad thing or would put you off. I mean, Huckabee is Christian, so he’s going to use Christian phrases.
In any case, it’s a far cry from these very specific concerns to “Huckabee hates America.”
He said the American system of government is useless and that only his specific religion can solve any of the state’s problems.
Well, I agree that the context of both speeches are different, but that doesn’t make them similar, which is what the claim was. The context is different and the contents are different.
But my objection to Huchabees evocation of religion is based on what I’ve seen in the current campaign, not what I read in that speech. I was just commenting that Mr Moto was trying to draw upon a similarity that I don’t see.
But Clinton’s reference to “spiritual values” isn’t exclusive. At the very least, it’s a sentiment that works within the framework of any religion, and speaking as an atheist, I can see and agree with the point he’s making. Huckabee, on the other hand, seems to be saying that it’s impossible to have a healthy, non-Christian society, which is an absurd statement at odds with one of the fundamental principles of this country. It’s not a matter of just using “Christian phrases,” it’s a dismissal of the validity of any other religion even in a purely secular context. It’s an outrageous position, and one that raises definite questions about his fitness to govern a nation as religiously heterogenous as this one.
Again, to place this all in context, I’m linking another speech to the Southern Baptist Convention:
This address was delivered by that dangerous theocrat, Gerald Ford.
Once again, he’s not saying “Christ is the answer”. He’s appealing to them, as Christians, to do what Christians should do. He’s quoting Jesus as a philosopher and not telling everyone they need to find the way thru Jesus (and only thru Jesus).
Really? You don’t think some folks would freak out over the implication that those that reject religion and its “basic truths” are what’s wrong with America? Harmful to its “soul”?
Ford comes right out and calls it wrong.
Now, let’s be clear, this speech was delivered more than thirty years ago, and also during a heated campaign. But I link to it just to show that Huckabee’s speech isn’t terribly out of the ordinary, especially considering that it is a few years old itself.
I don’t say it is a reason to support Huckabee, since I don’t. Just that it seems by itself a silly thing to go off about.
Some would, I’m sure. But he’s not saying that what’s wrong with America is that we’ve rejected Christianity and its basic truths. That’s what Huckabee seems to be saying.
Which basic truths is he refering to? “Love your neighbor as you love yourself,” is a “basic truth” in the Bible, and a good idea for society in general. “There is only one God and Jesus is his son,” is also a “basic truth” of the Bible, but has no place in our government. Clinton and Ford seem to be referring to the former. Huckabee is clearly refering to the latter.
It’s astounding that you’re still managing to squeeze anything from this thread. It’s like trying to make lemonade with 10-year-old dried lemon seeds.
Well then, perhaps we should let more recent statements by the governor clarify this:
Why do you hate lemons? 
I agree. Let’s make a blanket policy that we’ll never discuss anything a presidential candidate has said before 2006. We wouldn’t want to know what they would say when they don’t have massive incentives to distort their views, after all.
Verily I say unto thee, if thou hast faith the size of a lemon seed, thou shalt say unto this thread, “change thyself from open to closed,” and it shall be closed; and nothing shall be impossible unto thee.
What we can learn from this:
that presidential candidates can moderate and change their opinions over time, and that this is perfectly acceptable, and not, in fact, a mark against them.
that when a presidential candidate is on the record saying two things about an issue, we may assume that the less inflammatory comment represents his or her true opinion.
I shall enjoy playing on this new field.