Read also Made in Texas, by Michael Lind, who shows that, in addition to the racist, conservative, antibiggumint, and extractive-economy thinking that we all associate with Texas, there is and always has been (like, from the Indian-Wars days) a more liberal, tolerant, and modern-minded strain in Texas politics, and that definitely influenced LBJ.
Rick Warren has no problem speaking to and working with Muslims. And practically every Evangelical except Jack Chick has no problem with Catholics or Orthodox. Dobson, Huckabee, etc. are not theocrats and if they can think logically they’ll know that you can’t convert someone by persecuting and persecution is not in the spirit of Christ.
Huckabee is the very definition of a theocrat, because he wants to amend the Constitution to incorporate god’s law.
As I’ve pointed out elsewhere, Huckabee means banning gay marriage and abortion not in persecuting everybody not believing in the One True Faith. Arguing to incorporate some religious principles into law is different from rule by clergy or having laws completely in accordance with religious doctrines which faith is-unless 1950s America was a theocracy.
And how do you know this? By “know”, I don’t mean your spin on what Huckabee is directly quoted as saying. Just how am I supposed to trust that it’s not going to go from “banning gay marriage and abortion” (which I am not in favor, for the record) to “re-education camps” so those heathens not believing in the “One True Faith” may be set back on the path of righteousness?
It may start with gay marriage. I may not end there.
If Huckabee wants these banned on religious grounds, then Huckabee endorses a theocracy.
Talk about family and etc. generally imply gay marriage. He didn’t say “how we treat heathens” or “how we treat heretics”.
Nineteenth Century American laws had “anti-sodomy” statuates largely based on biblical law which weren’t completely got rid of until Lawrence vs. Texas but that doesn’t mean America was a theocracy until 2003.
Wanting to amend your constitution so it is more in line with religious dogma is the very definition of a theocrat.
And those laws were removed because they were deemed unconstitutional. Enshrine anti-gay religious dogma into the Constitution, and those laws stay on the books, because you now have a theocracy.
Maybe yesterday, but today he is backpedaling really fast from the idea. The only situation where Warren, etc. will be friendly toward members of other faiths is when they are trying to convert them.
Full story here.
This is purely a function of the abortion issue making Catholics and Evangelicals allies. If you went back to pre-Roe days it wouldn’t be anything like that. I suspect those feelings are just below the surface these days. I personally know plenty of evangelicals who think Catholics are going to hell and the Pope is the Antichrist.
I’ve never had anyone give me a quote that so perfectly backs up the point I was making. Nice work kiddo!
You’ve reached an incorrect conclusion. The Obama campaign, and those that support it, know that running on the economy is a losing proposition. They learned that lesson from Bill “it’s the economy, stupid,” Clinton. The social issues were never in the limelight until G. Stephanopolous, a former Clinton cabinet member, asked Romney, completely out of the blue, if he supported the right of a state to ban contraception. Romney was completely taken aback by the question because it was so completely out of left field during the debate. That question, whether it was intended by Stephanopolous or not, was used by the Obama campaign as the first volley to intentionally mis-direct the focus from the economy to social issues. Watching carefully, it’s easy to see the coordinated direction of certain actions by Democrat politicians to shift that focus.
But, that was a winning proposition for Clinton. And the slogan meant, “focus attention on the economy,” not “find something else to draw attention away from the economy.” And the economy is now, in 2012, improving.
You’re saying that it’s wrong for Democrats to attempt to make the electorate aware of the Republican candidate’s stances on social issues?
Why should it be? The economy is growing, government revenues are up, the deficit is shrinking, General Motors is alive and binLaden is dead. Looks like a good hand to be playing. The Republicans’ revisiting contraception was their idea.
Don’t rule out the economy as a campaign issue yet. If Romney wins the nomination, you can be sure the phrase “15 percent” will be widely discussed.
This economy is moving in fits and starts…as few as 8 weeks ago, the economic news was much more grim, and talking about the economy was NOT a winning issue for Obama. Also, one must be very, very careful in taking everything fed by the media as gospel, but I say that not from some conspiratorial perspective, but merely from critical analysis. The news media works in sound-bites, and “UNEMPLOYMENT DOWN TO 8%!” plays better than the more detailed analysis of unemployed applying for first-time benefits vs. total unemployed. Also, that headline reads much differently than, “UNEMPLOYMENT STILL NOT BELOW 8%.” Guess which headline we’re seeing?
I also don’t think it’s wrong for the Democrats to point out the social differences, but they are disengenuous about it, and their reasons for doing so are not to point out the differences, but at least at the time, to distract from the focus the debates had taken, which was the economy.
-
You have absolutely no reason to believe any of that.
-
You’re imputing to the Dems an awful lot of power over the Pubs’ intramural debate-agendas.
The Reps don’t set the agenda or the questions in the debates…the moderators do. Were this not the case, then Stephanopolous’ question wouldn’t have surprised Romney. I agree the Dems don’t directly ask the questions…but I have a great deal of doubt about Mr. Stephanopolous’ motives, and rightly so, just as I do about Dana Perino as a news-type person on Fox (although she tends to be pretty open about them).
But, you have absolutely no reason to believe that the Dems are being disingenuous here, nor that they are trying to draw attention away from the economy for electoral-strategic purposes.
The question wasn’t out of the blue. Romney said he supported a proposed “Personhood Amendment” that would ban hormonal contraception. And Republicans have proposed anti-contraception bills in a number of states. It was a perfectly relevant question and Romney’s aloofness is his own damn fault.