Huckabee hides his sermons

[Jackmannii]

By the way - since Mr. Moto has been bringing up Ohio Governor Ted Strickland’s background as a Methodist minister, let’s not forget just who made religion an issue in the 2006 Ohio gubernatorial race. It wasn’t Strickland - it was his opponent, Ken Blackwell. Cite:

*…an organization of conservative ministers named Clergy for Blackwell endorsed Blackwell’s bid for governor praising his strong stance against abortion and same-sex marriages. The group includes over 30 ministers who came together as individuals to support Blackwell, making it clear that they are not representing the opinions of their churches.

The endorsement brought loud criticism from parts of Ohio’s religious community including a more liberal group of ministers and rabbis called We Believe that formed in late 2005 to counter the political influence of the religious right. Clergy for Blackwell’s endorsement, according to We Believe’s head Tim Ahrens, is a mistake and crosses the line between church and state.

“I’ve found from my reading of scripture when you step with one person in power, you lose your ability to raise prophetic questions,” said Ahrens in an interview with Ohio Public Radio. “In our times, I think we need to be asking questions about homelessness and poverty.”

Ahrens said We Believe disapproves of religious leaders supporting any candidate for office and will not be endorsing Strickland in November.

Blackwell, who already enjoys strong support from Ohio’s religious right, appeared with Clergy for Blackwell in a Cincinnati news conference and said the mix of religion and politics is not unconstitutional.

“Ours is not a call today for the establishment of a theocracy. But we are fundamental believers. The public square should not be stripped of religion or faith,” said Blackwell.

“I will fight for the right of the nonbeliever to not believe. Because we all have the right to be wrong.”

Clergy for Blackwell includes the Rev. Russell Johnson of Fairfield Christian Church, who along with another reverend has been accused by some religious leaders of using his church and affiliated tax-exempt organizations to promote Blackwell."*

[El_Cid_Viscoso]

@John Mace

Thanks. I should have said that he needs to do the calculus of what he has to lose by not giving them out, too. Still, I think there is more to lose by giving them out than there is to be gained. At any rate, anyone interested in what he has to say can just read his book.

I’m not hardened enough to believe he might sell his sermons on eBay, like one of those scrolls they make for you at the county fair with your wedding vows in a fancy font. I’m close, but not quite that jaded. I can say however, if the sermons exist they’ll be the fricking Rosetta Stone for some of these extremists.

[Fear_Itself]

@The Flying Dutchman

There also has been a long tradition where deeply held religous beliefs were considered private as far as the general public was concerned.

Then Huckabee is breaking with that tradition:

“Faith doesn’t just influence me; it really defines me."

He can’t have it both ways; putting himself out there as the faith candidate, then withholding his sermons that reveal that faith, makes him look like he has something to hide.

[Sampiro]

So is there a difference between sermons and any other public speeches? To me there’s not, but I’m curious to hear from people who say there is.

[The_Flying_Dutchman]

@Fear Itself

Then Huckabee is breaking with that tradition:He can’t have it both ways; putting himself out there as the faith candidate, then withholding his sermons that reveal that faith, makes him look like he has something to hide.

[judge]Well then the evidence should be allowed in[/judge]

I’ll give you this one.

[Lord_Ashtar]

@buttonjockey308

…this is the Dems election to win…

Is it 2004 again?

[John_Mace]

@Fear Itself

He can’t have it both ways; putting himself out there as the faith candidate, then withholding his sermons that reveal that faith, makes him look like he has something to hide.

If he released his sermons, would that make you more likely to vote for him?

[Reloy3]

Maybe I didn’t read the Mother Jones article close enough, but why is everyone here assuming that the people Beech Street and the Immanuel Church are lying? Maybe they really weren’t saved. I have worked at a number of churches (granted, run by lay ministers), and a lot of records are kept - financial and the like, but I don’t think any of them kept a copy of the sermons.

Any proof they still exist? Or is Mother Jones making a fuss over (literally) nothing?

[BrightNShiny]

@John Mace

That could be, although we only have MJ’s report. Still, I don’t blame him for not releasing the sermons even though I suspect they’d be pretty benign. Why let your political adversaries quote you out of context, as you know they will? Hillary still hasn’t released her papers as First Lady, and those are probably even more relevant than Huckabee’s sermons. I don’t really blame her, either. Unfortunately, you don’t get to be president by being Mr. Nice Guy.

Do you have a cite for the part about Clinton? As far as I know, release of the records is governed by the National Archives staff, and both Clintons have asked for the process to be sped up. This LA Times article makes it seem like the delay is because of Archive staffing issues.

[Sampiro]

@Reloy3

Maybe I didn’t read the Mother Jones article close enough, but why is everyone here assuming that the people Beech Street and the Immanuel Church are lying? Maybe they really weren’t saved. I have worked at a number of churches (granted, run by lay ministers), and a lot of records are kept - financial and the like, but I don’t think any of them kept a copy of the sermons.

Any proof they still exist? Or is Mother Jones making a fuss over (literally) nothing?

Good point. Besides, most good preachers (most good speakers in general) speak as much extemporaneously as from a prepared material, so unless the transcript was from that actual service it wouldn’t necessarily reflect what was said.

[carnivorousplant]

@The Flying Dutchman

No, but any purpose to releasing his sermons are for evaluating his religous suitability for the office of the president. There also has been a long tradition where deeply held religous beliefs were considered private as far as the general public was concerned.

Do bear in mind this is the governor who refused to sign a bill for tornado relief because it contained the words “Acts of G-d”.

And I think they lost the sermons in all that space and are too embarrassed to admit it.

[Jackmannii]

@John Mace

If he released his sermons, would that make you more likely to vote for him?

By this “logic”, candidates should justify refusal to release their tax returns, medical records etc. on similar grounds.

“If you knew more about me, you wouldn’t vote for me.” :dubious:

Someone who holds himself up as a shining beacon of Christianity shouldn’t be so loath to shine a light on his performance as a minister. If Huckabee’s so proud of his record, why not share?

[An_Arky]

@Sampiro

Good point. Besides, most good preachers (most good speakers in general) speak as much extemporaneously as from a prepared material, so unless the transcript was from that actual service it wouldn’t necessarily reflect what was said.

Dang! I knew I should’ve taped Papaw’s funeral service! :smack:

[Mr.Moto]

@carnivorousplant

Do bear in mind this is the governor who refused to sign a bill for tornado relief because it contained the words “Acts of G-d”.

Do bear in mind that the legislation was signed just a few days later, after revisions were made.

Is this silly? Sure. But considering that we live in a country where a three word phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance is the focus of litigation going all the way to the Supreme Court, I don’t see how quibbling over this phrase for other reasons should be singled out for particular ridicule.

Like I have said before, I’m not a Huckabee supporter, and his faith-based politics aren’t my style. However, they aren’t terribly out of place in American politics, and certainly aren’t so far from the norm in either party to deserve special scorn.

[carnivorousplant]

@Mr. Moto

Is this silly?

Having seen the poor Black neighborhood with the roofs ripped off, I don’t find it silly, I find it arrogant and self serving.

[MEBuckner]

It may well be that they didn’t keep records of the sermons. I don’t know; I’ve never been a member of a church or a church-goer, so I don’t really know what the procedures for these things are.

That said, if copies of the sermons do exist, then certainly it would be something the voters would have an interest in seeing, and I find it baffling that anyone would suggest otherwise. (I’m not necessarily talking about some sort of legal sanction here, only a political one. A Presidential candidate who I thought was deliberately trying to hide his past would seriously skeeve me out.)

If all the sermons said was that we need to have faith in Jesus and Jesus wants us all to love our neighbors as we love ourselves and do unto others as we would have them do unto us, so be it. No big deal. If the sermons talked about how we need to govern this country according to God’s Word in the Book of Deuteronomy and stone the idolaters, I think that’s something we need to know.

As for Ted Strickland; not being from Ohio I’ve never really paid him much mind (in fact, before this thread I couldn’t have told you who “Ted Strickland” was). It appears that he his only experience as a clergyman was “a very brief associate pastoral position at Wesley United Methodist Church”. Again, not a church-goer; I don’t even know if such a person would deliver any sermons in the first place. And perhaps they didn’t bother to keep copies from that long ago. But if now-Gov. Strickland delivered sermons, and copies of them exist, by all means, whip those suckers out. If all they said was that we need to have faith in Jesus and Jesus wants us all to love our neighbors as we love ourselves and do unto others as we would have them do unto us, so be it. No big deal. If the sermons talked how Jesus wants us to rise up in violent revolution against the corrupt bourgeouis oppressors of the working class and institute a socialist economy under the righteous dictatorship of the proletariat, I think that’s something we need to know. (Especially if he ever goes from Governor of Ohio to running for President of the United States.)

[Sampiro]

@An Arky

Dang! I knew I should’ve taped Papaw’s funeral service! :smack:

Yep. Now people just have to take your word that he went off book, screamed “I hate you God!” and put the moves on your 15 year old male cousin.

[Princhester]

@Reloy3

Maybe I didn’t read the Mother Jones article close enough, but why is everyone here assuming that the people Beech Street and the Immanuel Church are lying? Maybe they really weren’t saved. I have worked at a number of churches (granted, run by lay ministers), and a lot of records are kept - financial and the like, but I don’t think any of them kept a copy of the sermons.

Any proof they still exist? Or is Mother Jones making a fuss over (literally) nothing?

I realise there are those that doubt the source but, subject to that, re-read the quote in the OP. One church said that much of Huckabee’s material had been lost but the rest wasn’t available to the press. If there were no sermons it would have been pretty damn easy to say so.

@Lemur866

Oh, come on. They say they’re fair and balanced because to their audience fair and balanced means “conservative”.

They also do it because they know it annoys people like you. They sit around at meetings and chuckle about it.

Brainglutton said they dishonestly purport to be fair and balanced. You seem to accept that firstly they are only fair and balanced to a particular end of the political spectrum, and secondly that they do this knowingly albeit you think this is done as a joke. It seems to me you agree with Brainglutton, right?

[RTFirefly]

@John Mace

What is to be gained by him if he were to give the sermons out?

Salvation, according to the guy Huckabee claims as his Savior:

“Whoever then will acknowledge me before men, I will acknowledge him before my Father in heaven; and whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven.” Matthew 10:32-33, NEB.

And a few verses earlier: “What I say to you in the dark must be repeated in broad daylight; what you hear whispered you must shout from the rooftops.”

Sounds like Huck doesn’t want to acknowledge in broad daylight the things that Jayzus told him were fine to say in a small church in West Bumfuck, but instead is essentially disowning those words.

@John Mace

If he released his sermons, would that make you more likely to vote for him?

Of course not. And I expect that he said all sorts of things in those sermons that would totally sink him in the general election, which is of course the outcome I desire.

But as others have said, he IS running, to a substantial degree, on his faith. Given that that’s so, we, the American people, deserve a chance to get a good look at his faith before we have to make a decision on whether to put him in charge of our country.

Right now, he can say lots of things about his faith to make it more palatable to the general electorate than it really is. But his sermons would give us a good idea of what he believed when the eyes of the world weren’t on him.

[dalej42]

One thing to mention is that most pastors go out of the way to make sure their sermons are available. Many churches will have copies of the sermons, if not a video or audio file, available on their web site. Even very small churches will frequently record the sermon to send out copies to homebound church members.