Huckabee hates America

[John_Mace]

[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
And what’s more, what does it mean about all the other candidates, all of whom are Christians of one stripe or another? I hate all of this “WE are Christians, YOU are not” BS. (Although, I must admit, I have a hard time with Mormonism being billed as a Christian religion, but I’m not going to blame Mitt Romney for that.)
[/QUOTE]

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.

[AdmiralCrunch]

[QUOTE=Captain Amazing]
They’re similar. They’re both saying that the problems of violence in the society can’t be solved by government action, but instead require, in Clinton’s case, a general reaching “to the values, the spirit, the soul, and the truth of human nature”, and in Huckabee’s case, a more specific “accepting Jesus Christ into our lives”.
[/QUOTE]

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.

[Mr.Moto]

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.

[eleanorigby]

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.

[Captain_Amazing]

[QUOTE=John Mace]
Indeed. Clinton never said that the solution could be found in Jesus. He talked about spiritual values, which almost anyone can relate to. Is it really that hard to differentiate between invoking the Divine and invoking Jesus? The latter is exclusive, and the former is vague enough that even an atheist like myself is not particular put off.
[/QUOTE]

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.

[Mr.Moto]

In any case, it’s a far cry from these very specific concerns to “Huckabee hates America.”

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
In any case, it’s a far cry from these very specific concerns to “Huckabee hates America.”
[/QUOTE]

He said the American system of government is useless and that only his specific religion can solve any of the state’s problems.

[John_Mace]

[QUOTE=Captain Amazing]
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.
[/QUOTE]

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.

[Miller]

[QUOTE=Captain Amazing]
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.
[/QUOTE]

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.

[Mr.Moto]

Again, to place this all in context, I’m linking another speech to the Southern Baptist Convention:

The essential task of leadership in our modern age, as in ages past, is to inspire, to teach, to act with courage, to live with honor, and to show the way. The minister in the pulpit, the teacher in the classroom, the foreman on the dock, the executive in the boardroom, the commanders of armies and navies, the parents of children all share the burden and the satisfaction of leadership fully as much as those who served in government.

What is required of us all, if we are to lead successfully, is a strong moral foundation. We cannot stand very long on the shifting sands of situation ethics. History proves that power and prestige are slippery peaks from which the mighty have often fallen into disgrace. Jesus said, “[For] what has a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?”

We stand in danger today of losing the soul of America to the seductions of material gain and moral apathy, to a new code of conduct which reviles the basic truths and mocks the basic beliefs on which this Nation and much of religion were founded. Forgiving hearts and tolerant attitudes are among the greatest lessons of Christian teaching, but at some point we must take a stand and say, “This is right, this is wrong; there is a difference.”

…Public officials have a special responsibility to set a good example for others to follow–in both their private and public conduct. The American people, particularly our young people, cannot be expected to take pride or even to participate in a system of government that is defiled and dishonored, whether in the White House or in the halls of Congress. Jesus said, “[For] unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required.” Personal integrity’ is not too much to ask of public servants. We should accept nothing less.

The American people have seen too much abuse of the moral imperatives of honesty and of decency upon which religion and government and civilized society must rest. To remedy these abuses, we must look not only to the government but, more importantly, to the Bible, the church, the human heart. We must look to the family for the instruction in righteousness and for the stabilizing influence so important in a complex, confusing, and ever-changing world. We must look to the faith of our fathers. The laws of God were of very special importance to our Founding Fathers and to the Nation they created.

The early history of our country was written by men who valued the freedom of religion and who had in common a deep faith in God. I believe it is no accident of history, no coincidence that this Nation, which declared its dependence on God even while declaring its independence from foreign domination, has become the most richly blessed nation in the history of mankind and the world. For it is as true today as it was in the Old Testament times that “blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord.” I believe that very deeply, and so do you.

In my own life and throughout my career in public service, I have found in the pages of the Bible a steady compass and a source of great strength and peace. As each of my predecessors in the Presidency has done, I asked for God’s guidance as I undertook the duties of this office. I have asked for that guidance many times since. Just as Roger Williams and his followers found refuge in Providence, more and more Americans today are turning for refuge to the safe harbor of religious faith–a fact borne out by your own rapidly increasing membership rolls.

This rekindling of religious conviction, this new appreciation for Biblical teaching we see in America today, is an encouraging development as we move into our third century as a nation. It means that we will resolve to make our society not only prosperous but noble, not only progressive but constructive. We may come to know peace not as the mere absence of war, but as a climate in which understanding can grow and human dignity can flourish.

This address was delivered by that dangerous theocrat, Gerald Ford.

[John_Mace]

[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
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.
[/QUOTE]

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).

[Mr.Moto]

[QUOTE=John Mace]
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).
[/QUOTE]

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.

[John_Mace]

[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
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”?
[/QUOTE]

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.

[Miller]

[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
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.
[/QUOTE]

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.

[Liberal]

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.

[Mr.Moto]

Well then, perhaps we should let more recent statements by the governor clarify this:

[Quote=Huckabee, CNN/YouTube debate]
Huckabee: Sure. I believe the Bible is exactly what it is. It’s the word of revelation to us from God himself.

(Applause)

And the fact is that when people ask do we believe all of it, you either believe it or you don’t believe it. But in the greater sense, I think what the question tried to make us feel like was that, well, if you believe the part that says “Go and pluck out your eye,” well, none of us believe that we ought to go pluck out our eye. That obviously is allegorical.

But the Bible has some messages that nobody really can confuse and really not left up to interpretation. “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

And as much as you’ve done it to the least of these brethren, you’ve done it unto me. Until we get those simple, real easy things right, I’m not sure we ought to spend a whole lot of time fighting over the other parts that are a little bit complicated.

And as the only person here on the stage with a theology degree, there are parts of it I don’t fully comprehend and understand, because the Bible is a revelation of an infinite god, and no finite person is ever going to fully understand it. If they do, their god is too small.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Huckabee campaign website]
Faith and Politics
* The First Amendment requires that expressions of faith be neither prohibited nor preferred.
* My faith is my life - it defines me. I don’t separate my faith from my personal and professional lives.
* Real faith makes us more humble and mindful, not of the faults of others, but of our own. It makes us less judgmental, as we see others with the same frailties we have.
* Faith gives us strength in the face of injustice and motivates us to do our best for “the least of us.”
* Our nation was birthed in a spirit of faith - not a prescriptive faith telling us how or whether to believe, but acknowledging a providence that pervades our world.

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.

My faith is my life - it defines me. My faith doesn’t influence my decisions, it drives them. For example, when it comes to the environment, I believe in being a good steward of the earth. I don’t separate my faith from my personal and professional lives.

Real faith makes us humble and mindful, not of the faults of others, but of our own. It makes us less judgmental, as we see others with the same frailties we have. Faith gives us strength in the face of injustice and motivates us to do our best for “the least of us.”

Our nation was birthed in a spirit of faith - not a prescriptive one telling us whether to believe, but one acknowledging that a providence pervades our world.
[/QUOTE]

[John_Mace]

Why do you hate lemons?

[Richard_Parker]

[QUOTE=Liberal]
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.
[/QUOTE]

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.

[VinylTurnip]

[QUOTE=Liberal]
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.
[/QUOTE]

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.

[stolichnaya]

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.