I hope most Republicans have learned by now that the New York Times and fair journalism are polar opposites. So when the Times takes one short statement out of an 8000 word interview, ignores the context and makes it into a big issue, you’d think Republicans (at least) would know enough to pass this off as leftist bias. Unfortunately that isn’t the case.
Okay then, here’s the scoop. Huckabee was being primed by a reporter to give his judgments on Mormonism and Romney. Huckabee (as he has consistently done in the past), was loathe to comment. He doesn’t think Romney’s Mormonism disqualifies him from the presidency, or that it should be an issue at all. So the reporter, who is also an expert in comparative religion, was pressing the issue. Huckabee at one point thought the reporter knew more about Mormonism than he did, and he innocently asked a clarifying question: “Don’t Mormons believe Jesus and the Devil are brothers?” The original reporter, in the context of his story, explained the question was neutral.
Not so the New York Times. They have read into that statement all kinds of malice. And this is yet another Huckabee attack in the media.
For what it’s worth, Huckabee apologized to Romney, and explained the situation at length in this video, this one, and this one. But perhaps the best response to this uproar is an excellent post by Steven Nielson entitled “I’m no expert on Hinduism, but Don’t Hindus worship cows?” His post is well worth the read, even if you (like me), could care less about yet another New York Times hack job.
This post clarifies a lot for me personally. Considering that I listen (almost daily, and seldomly while in my work van) to Glenn Beck, a prominent conservative talk show host who is also a Mormon, I can see why at face value this interview caused such an uproar. I haven’t heard Beck in the last two days, but I am wondering if Beck had heard Huckabee’s remarks and apology to Romney, and also considered the context of the interview with the New York Times Magazine. Mormons would have been upset at Huckabee’s remarks if they weren’t quoted out of context (as it was from the initial report given a few days ago). Thanks for posting this as it settles something for me.
Huckabee wants everyone to think it was an innocent question, but he knew what he was doing, just as surely as he knew the answer to the question he asked.
When Huck states that he is unfamiliar with contriversial Mormon teachings, why do you believe him? Have you been to the Southern Baptist Convention website? There is Anti-Mormon stuff all over the place.
But here is the real clincher – Huck was the KEYNOTE speaker at the SBC conference in 1998 (while serving as governor) that was held in . . . .
SALT LAKE CITY, UT.
Everyone at the conference recieved a book – Moronism Unmasked.
It is beyond naive to suggest that Huck has not studied Mormonism, and knows exactly what points of doctrine to raise to divide traditional christians.
His question ON THE RECORD to a NEW YORK TIMES REPORTER!!!! was unpresidential, and nobody with a brain is buying his spin now.
I would be embarrassed too if my candidate did something so publically foolish, however, you should stop trying to minimize the significance and get yourself another candidate.
In answer to Larry Lawton’s post, Glenn Beck said on his radio program this morning that he actually ran into Governor Huckabee at the Iowa airport yesterday. They had a 25 minute conversation and, despite the fact that Huck DID apologize to Glenn face-to-face, there is still obvious animosity toward him on Glenn’s part. Glenn *says* he forgives Huck but you can tell he still has a huge chip on his shoulder.
It’s nice to see that Martin has such respect for those with different political opinions, and that Dirk has so much to contribute to the discussion.
Gov. Huckabee keeps on refusing to answer Mormonism questions — and he slipped. Interestingly, people who are now trying to roast him alive probably demand the pardon of Scooter Libby, who was supposedly badgered until he slipped up.
I’m sure that the Democrats are thrilled to watch the Republicans eat each other alive.
Martin,
The reporter was stating things about Mormonism and Huckabee said “don’t they believe that?” In other words, he was seeking clarification.
The same question could be an assertion like this:
Yea, but, don’t they believe that?
Or it could also be a clarification question like this:
Oh really? But I thought they believe that, don’t they?
Oh and this wasn’t a New York Times interviewer, from what I can tell. Huckabee says the interviewer was surprised that that question was lifted out of the context in the Times report.
All you have to do is listen to half a dozen interviews of Huckabee where the reporters do everything they can do get him to just simply give his position on Mormonism. Huckabee refused. This quote was no calculated jab. It was a small remark in passing in the middle of a conversation where again Huckabee did all he could to avoid belittling Romney’s Mormonism.
Thanks Wickle for your observations.
For those looking for Dirk’s post, unfortunately they won’t find it. It was just a link to an anti-huck website.
Please at the least interact with my post if you are going to comment, and especially if you want to leave a link.
You’re welcome, Larry. You might be interested in a recent article by Evangelical Outpost on why some conservatives are so anti-Huck and pro-Romney. It’s enlightening. (Note, evangelical outpost is having site issues this morning.)
Bethany, thanks for filling out the story for us.
Quote –
The reporter was stating things about Mormonism and Huckabee said “don’t they believe that?†In other words, he was seeking clarification.
– unquote
Empathize if you will.
You are a Christian fundamentalist living in Turkey. A democracy where your religion is a very small minority and poorly understood.
A politician from the majority religious group asks a reporter to the largest newspaper in the country –
“I don’t know much about Christian fundamentalists, but I think they are a religion and not a demonic cult”
Then going further . . .
“Aren’t they the ones that believe that Allah is the devil”
Would you believe this politician made an innocent inquiry? Of course not! So why do you believe Mr. Huckabee?
Martin,
Huckabee wasn’t trying to make a point with the reporter/interviewer. He was put on the spot, and was seeking clarification. Again this was 8000 words and only 10 are the issue. Huckabee could have made a much clearer stab. He would have had to be very calculating to guess that his small question would be a big enough jab at Romney to only go with the small indirect point. Remember the Times is reporting from this other interview and gleaning the sentence from it. It wasn’t a Times interview.
Believe what you want, but I choose to give Huckabee the benefit of the doubt and accept his explanation at face value.
Let’s not forget to mention that Huckabee isn’t KVJ-Only either. Therefore he MUST be a sub-par Bible doubting Christian. And we don’t want that now, do we?
Sorry, I couldn’t help but throw that one in there.
– quote –
“He was put on the spot, and was seeking clarification.”
“Believe what you want, but I choose to give Huckabee the benefit of the doubt and accept his explanation at face value.”
– unquote –
Bob, first off – the reporter stresses that he was not put on the spot, when he asked about the mormon doctrine on the family relationship of Christ and Satan. He was put on the spot as to whether or not Mormonism was a cult or a religion. He responded that he thought it was a religion, and that he did not know much about it.
The reporter accepted this answer and was writing it down when Huckabee offered WITHOUT being prompted “Don’t they believe that . . . ”
He has been very clear that this question was not pressured out of Mr. Huckabee’s mouth. And even if it was, Mike accepts responsibilities for his statements, and admits it was wrong and unpresidential.
I want you to admit that it was a dileberate question, Huck just failed to anticipate how foolish a thing it was to say.
Bob, the last thing our country needs is for more people to continue to accept whatever a politician says at face value. Especially when that politician cannot keep from saying foolish things.
Use your spirit of discernment and see past the face, to the heart, mind, and motivations of the person.
btw – have you read the entire article yet?
It was not just a quote lifted by the Times. The whole interview and article was to run in the New York Times Magazine, and Huckabee knew that when he met with him.
From Huck’s own statements he wasn’t trying to score points with the question. He knew the bigger context than the immediate question.
I don’t want to just accept Huck’s statements at face value. No I do want to think for myself. But think about this, because Huck raised that question, even if it was a slam of sorts against Mormonism, do you really think that’s a big enough deal to ditch a candidate?
He was asked if it was a cult. He responded he believes its a religion but, oh yea, there’s that thing I think they believe: that Jesus and Satan are brothers. They do believe that, right? If Mormons do believe that, and this comparative religion expert interviewer guy confirmed that, that could be more compelling to think of them as a cult.
I still think he was thinking through the issue, seeking clarification with that question.
But at the end of the day, Huckabee’s personal views on the correctness of Mormon doctrine have no bearing on the presidency. The link I shared in my post makes the point that such a question is neither threatening nor rude, when taken at face value.
It is people who read motives into it, which turn the question into some kind of religious putdown.
Look at Huckabee’s record. He is not trying to make religion his one-issue. He goes out of his way to avoid that. But because he is a minister, the media and everyone are pinning that issue on his chest, front and center.
I’ve thought things out on my own about Huckabee. And sure he makes mistakes (he did say he apologized), and he has made wrong decisions in the past, but the attacks against him are totally overblown, and conservative groups are against him largely because they fear a democrat win, more than they dislike a likable and successful Republican spokesman.
He is as good as any of the candidates, and I think better.
Martin,
I was going off of different articles and interviews about the actual article. I thought it was coming out Sunday not available already.
I read the first half of it (I’m totally swamped today adn can’t finish, plus I work nights — I’ll finish it later). Anyways, it still comes off as an innocent question to me, and is not the thrust of the article.
From the article so far, the reporter betrays ignorance of what evangelicalism really is like. He insinuates that if you believe in inerrancy that greatly damages your credibility or ability to be a fair governor/president or something. Also on the AIDS question, he selectively quotes Huckabee.
Anyways, while I can admit Huckabee might not be as qualified as some, he has 10 years experience governing and has proven very successful at accomplishing things (something Washington could use). I don’t see him in the same vein as Bush when it comes to using Religion or spiritualizing American politics. That’s not his tack.
-quote –
Look at Huckabee’s record. He is not trying to make religion his one-issue. He goes out of his way to avoid that. But because he is a minister, the media and everyone are pinning that issue on his chest, front and center.
-unquote –
This made me chuckle.
You lost your entire argument when you wrote this. Huckabee has only recently tried to soft play his religion. When he was unknown his faith was all he talked about. He said his faith DEFINDED his candidacy. I dare you to deny that.
Have you even watched his own commercials? or the video on his website of him and Chuck Norris discussing faith? Or his own commercial when he calls himself a Christian Leader? Or when in the presidential debate he tells everyone that his degree in theology qualifies him more than those with MBA and law degrees?
Do not blame the media. This was calculated by Huckabee to mobilize people like you that will support him no matter what he says or how poor a president he would make, simply because he is a good pastor.
Here is a novel thought, maybe its better for Christians if Mike remains a pastor with a national following, rather than try to lead the free world.
I’m not sure what the problem is, and why in the world Mormons would be upset.
IF they believe Jesus and Satan are brothers (which they do), then what’s the problem.
Either:
1. Their ashamed of their beliefs (for whatever reason)
or
2. They just don’t want to talk about it now (for fear losing the White House).
If he has asked a question based on a factually inaccurate concept (such as the example Martin gave above with reference to Christians believing Allah is the devil, which is not a doctrine of the faith in any Christian denomination), then I could see the uproar.
What is he had asked, “Don’t the Mormons believe an Angel talked to Joseph Smith”, would we still have this uproar?
Let’s face it, Mormons are ticked off because they realize most Americans will never convert if they know up front that they believe Jesus and Satan are brothers. Its a ludicrous belief that even hard-core pagans can’t accept.
As with any cult, they prefer lies, deceit, and vague answers.
But…you can’t have your cake and eat it to. Either they can continue to quietly play cult, or they can put one of their men in the public spotlight (key term: SPOTLIGHT), and let all the world see Mormonism for what it really is.
Go Huckabee! (whether he did it intentionally or not).
Martin,
It seems you buy into the myth of religious neutrality when it comes to politics. That is, that it is possible for any candidate to “check his faith at the door”, so to speak.
All candidates, and past politicians, have been DEFINED by their faith (or lack thereof). It shapes their thinking, guides their actions, and determines their values. That faith system might be Mormonism (Romney), Roman Catholicism (Kennedy), Baptist Protestantism (Huckabee), Jewish (Joseph Liberman), Universality-Unitarian (John Quincy Adams), or Atheist (Pete Stark). We might also include the verifiable secular-humanism of the Clintons (though there are certainly many politicians who would fall into this category).
I am more worried when a candidate does declare their system of belief/thought. Because, either,
1. They believe in the myth of neutrality, and thus are not aware of the forces that are shaping their thinking (very scary for someone in high office),
or
2. They are intentionally being deceptive. I want to KNOW how their mind works, and what their belief/thinking constructs are.
Mike Huckabee is refreshingly honest. I also Romney for FINAL
oops.
I admire Romney for FINALLY being upfront about his Mormonism.
Josh
I recomend you take a course in research methodologies, and pay close attention to the section on baised, or leading questions.
If you can’t see the inherent bias in how Mr. Huckabee phased his question, then you need the help of a formal education.
And it does nto matter if the doctrine is technically true, its flat out WRONG for a future President of the United States to say such things.
It would be like Rudy saying “Don’t Baptists believe in the Rapture, even though there is no scriptural proof of its reality?” (in an innocent voice)
Ok – both questions are appropriate to ask in a religious setting, but not for democratic politics, and you are being close-minded not to admit it.
Also while you are at it – admit that the question was dilberate, and that Huckabee in fact new the answer, prior to his inquiry. (in an innocent voice)
See my first post.
– quote –
If he has asked a question based on a factually inaccurate concept (such as the example Martin gave above with reference to Christians believing Allah is the devil, which is not a doctrine of the faith in any Christian denomination), then I could see the uproar.
– quote –
So if I show you where a Southern Baptist pastor teaches doctrine, that could be easily distored as ‘Christians believe Allah is the devil!’ – then you will finally realize how offensive it was and you will support a different candidate?
Are you willing to make that bargain?
Emir Caner
http://www.bpnews.net/BPFirstPerson.asp?ID=25477
Today, similar debate has revolved around the two largest faiths in the world, Islam and Christianity, and whether the god of the Koran is the God of the Bible. Simply put, the god of Muhammad is not the Father of Jesus. The subject in its essence is not a linguistic issue, but a theological matter with eternal ramifications. To say that since Allah is Arabic for God and YHWH is Hebrew for God, Christians and Muslims worship the same God is beyond naïve –- it is blasphemous.
Martin,
Your belittling of Josh by saying that he needs a formal education to understand the issue says much about your own personal integrity. Considering that you haven’t stated that you have read the entire article Huckabee had with the NY Times, I doubt that you understand the context of the interview. To say that there was an inherent bias given by Huckabee with his question is intellectually dishonest at best. Bob Hayton is currently reading the article in its entirety, and I won’t doubt that others will also read it, but I’d be careful not to ascribe malice toward Huckabee since you haven’t read it nor answered your detractors on this blog. He who answers a matter before he listens to it– is folly and shame.
Martin,
First and foremost, we shouldn’t reduce ourselves to name calling and slander of the other persons credentials or intellect. (1) You don’t know me, or my credentials. and (2) more importantly, it is unbecoming.
Instead, I suggest that if you belief your position is so strong and defensible, you let the power of your logic and proofs to speak for themselves. Ugly rhetoric doesn’t advance arguments.
Stop….collect your thoughts….write down your arguments, and communicate them in an irenic manner. I believe you will find this much more effective.
If you took my earlier comments as a personal attack against you, you have my deepest apologies. In re-reading my comments, I cannot see anything derogatory or demeaning, but it is not my opinion that counts. Again, my apology stands if I have someone come across harshly.
I hate to point this out, but Research Methodologies, at least in the social sciences, is a statistical analysis course (which I have taken, both at the Masters and PhD level). Since Huckabee wasn’t conducting a survey, but having a conversation, that field of science doesn’t apply.
Also, you said “…both questions are appropriate to ask in a religious setting, but not for democratic politics, and you are being close-minded not to admit it.”
I’m not even sure how to respond to that statement. You are forbidding discussion of a topic in a political forum. I say the topic should be allowed. Yet, you say I’m the closed-minded one.
You are calling for a closing-off of a subject matter in the political arena, I am calling for opening the doors to all subject matters.
The key word in your statement is “democratic” politics. If this were fascist Italy or Gestapo German or Fundamentalist Sudan, I can see the “closing of doors” on certain subjects. But DEMOCRATIC politics, by its very name and nature, implies a little concept we like to call Freedom.
Feel free to hate it when people talk about religion in the public square. That is your right. I just happen to disagree. I vote for freedom, and the ability to discuss anything, anywhere, and at anytime. I will not accept the secular-humanist mantra that religion has no place in the public square.
Further, you said: “So if I show you where a Southern Baptist pastor teaches doctrine, that could be easily distored as ‘Christians believe Allah is the devil!’ – then you will finally realize how offensive it was and you will support a different candidate? Are you willing to make that bargain?”
No, because it still wouldn’t be true of Christianity, whereas Huckabee’s comment IS true of Mormonism. I never said you couldn’t find some nut-job who said it. I CLEARLY said it wasn’t the doctrine of any Christian denomination. Whether it is the OPINION of some pastor somewhere makes no difference. The belief that Jesus and Satan are brothers is not the opinion of some nut-job Mormon pastor. It is the established doctrine of the Mormon church. I’m sure many Mormon pastors hold very strange, nutty beliefs about different things. I could care less. We are dealing here with Institutional teachings, not individual opinions.
Frankly, I don’t care whether Huckabee did it intentionally or not. I am inclined to think he did (sorry Bob, but this is just a “gut-feel”). I think it was a brilliant tactical move on Huckabee’s part, and even if it was unintentional, he ‘stumbled’ onto something brilliant.
I think we should make a BIGGER issue about Romney’s Mormonism. Is shouldn’t bar him from running for office, and I would be the first to march on Washington if they made a law making it illegal for Mormons to hold public office. I am simply asking for the right to allow religion to PERSONALLY be a factor in my discussion of politics, and decision regarding candidates. I want to see candidates talking about religion more, not less.
I apologize for calling you close minded and should never have requested you take a course in research methodologies. (though my training involved the study of how questions should phrased, so as not to influence the opinion of the one being asked the questions, so I often see biased questions more clearly than do others)
That is not some preacher somewhere – its on the official SBC website – that is institutional teaching, and could be easily distorted for political advantage in a nation where Baptists are a small minority, and a qualified Baptist candidate was running. But you obviously this that is fair play.
You want to talk more about how particualr teaching of a religion qualify, or disqualify one for public office. However any weird doctrine taught in evangelical churches can be dismissed; while
those never taught in Mormon chruches, but rather are implied by the Mormon doctrine of the nature of God; are fair game.
I respectfully disagree.
I apologize for calling you close minded and should never have requested you take a course in research methodologies. (Though my training involved the study of how questions should be phrased, so as not to influence the opinion of the one being asked the questions, so I often see biased questions more clearly than do others)
That is not some preacher (or nut job as you called him) somewhere – it’s on the official SBC website – that is institutional teaching, and could be easily distorted for political advantage in a nation where Baptists are a small minority, and a qualified Baptist candidate was running. But you obviously think that is fair play.
You want to talk more about how particular teachings of a religion qualify, or disqualify one for public office. However any weird doctrine taught in evangelical churches can be dismissed; while those never taught in Mormon churches, but rather are implied by the Mormon doctrine of the nature of God, are fair game.
I respectfully disagree.
Oh and I read the entire article – every word.
Martin,
Find somewhere in the sacred writings of Scripture such a claim against Allah.
Furthermore, it is OK for the SBC the hold the OPINION that Allah is a demon. That is their right to interpret Scripture. And, I would be in agreement with you against Huckabee if he had mouthed off his opinion about Islam or Mormonism. He was just asking (or for arguments sake let’s say he was ‘pointing out’) an established doctrine from Mormon scriptures.
Yet, we can point to references in the various scriptures of Mormonism that teach (not just imply) that Satan and Jesus (along with the rest of us) are brothers (and sisters).
Also, I never said we could dismiss from criticism nut-job evangelicals who are running for office. When you find one running for office, point out his wacko-beliefs, air them publicly, and let the discussion begin.
The fact is Romney doesn’t want this discussed (nor do Mormons) because they know it will cost them votes.
While Huckabee may be guilty of slyly exposing this issue, Romney is certainly guilty of trying to hide it.
Religion has always played a strong role in politics and always should. The government has no right to restrict on the basis of belief, but Americans have every right to so restrict when they cast their ballots for or against a particular candidate.
You are trying to be slippery. However if you woudl simple empathize with how you would feel if the tables were turned.
First you acknowledge that Huck let the question drop diliberately.
-quote-
I don’t care whether Huckabee did it intentionally or not. I am inclined to think he did (sorry Bob, but this is just a “gut-feelâ€)
-unquote-
Then you try this:
-quote-
He was just asking (or for arguments sake let’s say he was ‘pointing out’) an established doctrine from Mormon scriptures.
-quote-
You cannot have it both ways.
He did it on purpose, but for what purpose you say?
Simply stated, evangelicals belileve Mormonism is a cult. Huckabee had just stated that he did not think it a cult, but rather that Mormanism was a bona fide religion!!!
That would be big news, and might have turned off some of him ardent anti-mormon supporters.
(such as
http://pastors4huckabeeblog.com/7-questions-christians-must-ask-before-voting-for-a-mormon/
)
He did not want to give too strong an endorsment of Mormonism, less any Baptist should get curious and want to talk to the Mormon missionaries.
So then he UNPROMPTED offered his infamous little valentine to his true believers, “Don’t they believe . . . .”
It’s so perfect is had to be calculated – or a deep seated anti-mormon bias he has held for so long that he was unable to control himself.
What I do not see if how serious Republicans continue to want to put him in charge of the federal government.
It looks like blatant tribalism. i.e. “I want one of my tribe to get the glory!”
This is not the American Idol of pastors or churches. This is the guy that will have to deal with the MOST challenging foreign policy situation ever faced by and incoming president.
I listen to Huckabee and try to see beyond the disarming humor – to the man that would be king, and reason leads me to choose another.
I agree with Martin, and sadly I have lost a great deal of respect for Mike Huckabee.
I think his range of experience is to limited to be a good president. He belongs in a church preaching, not in the White House.
Sorry for my absence, but even a 3rd-shifter has to sleep sometime.
Okay, I enjoy the spirited exchange here. Martin has a firm opinion as do many others here. Firm opinions welcome, harsh interaction acceptable, but lets aim at being charitable to one another as much as we can. I applaud Josh and Martin for working through some barbs and toning down the rhetoric.
Thanks Randel for contributing. That interview is actually what really convinced me that Huckabee has a wide appeal beyond conservative Republicanism. Let me tell you that I personally feel betrayed by George Bush in 2 accounts. 1st and chiefly is his spiritualizing of America and America’s mission as being the Church’s mission too. As an evangelical who also cares about the Bible I resent that. No, its not because I prize separation of church and state, per se. Rather it is due to the spiritual nature of the warfare of Christianity — not physical warfare, mind you, but spiritual warfare. We aren’t out to take over nations, but to woo and win over hearts one at a time. Christians don’t force their way in the advance their cause through suffering and blood-shedding, as did their Leader, Christ.
Secondly, I greatly dislike his aloofness and “I’m-right-you-all-are-wrong, I-didn’t-make-any-mistake, you-all-can-go-jump-in-the-lake” attitude. He comes across that way for sure.
So I’m not looking for some Christian Hero to be President.
I’ve been following Huckabee’s campaign closely since March, blogging and endorsing him since April. His first official TV ad came out last month. From the beginning he has not been campaigning based off his claim to be the exclusive Christian right candidate. He doesn’t want to be boxed into a mold. Sure he would love support from evangelicals, and he is a Christian leader, but he is so much more.
In the debates, he kept getting more and more (and basically All of the) religion questions. He repeatedly complained that those were the only questions he got, that they even were brought up in the race for President in the first place, and he wanted to go on and address policy issues. The statement that he was more qualified to answer, comes from that context, and could betray that Huckabee just wanted a chance to talk in that instance and realized that in many circles his religion answers have helped him.
Sure he is Christian, unapologetically so. But he has tried to make clear that this doesn’t lead him to think better of himself than others, and instead should lead him to do what’s right, help the underprivileged, and love everyone fairly and equally.
I think he is right to advocate that everyone be honest about what they believe, and admit it will impact their decision thinking. But everything I have read and seen about Huckabee (which is a lot, just check out my Go Huckabee tumble blog, for instance), does not lead me to assume he will only advocate his far right, Christian principles and ignore everyone else. His latest book is all about uniting everyone around positive efforts to improve our country and about avoiding horizontal politics in favor of vertical ones.
Huckabee is the real deal. He is confident and qualified. He is going to survive (and has survived) the negative attacks, and he might just have a chance at winning it all.
Martin, I respectfully disagree. But I thank you for the discussion.
Blessings,
Bob Hayton
Clarification: the Randel I mentioned above actually commented in another Huckabee post of mine. Here is the link to his comment. He mentioned the video of Huckabee on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart as being indicative of why Randel and other Democrats might want to vote for Huckabee over and against someone like Clinton.
Bob,
It’s refreshing to read your views on Bush, particularly because they’re coming from the mind of a conservative evangelical. I heartily agree with your criticisms of him. I don’t find such criticisms often in my immediate conservative circles.
I was surprised that you didn’t include a 3rd critique- the whole “Saddam has WMD’s” lie/justification for that war. We can all argue til the cows come home about whether and who had all the “facts” to justify the invasion, but when we all finally realized that Saddam had no weapons in his back pocket, Bush conveniently started new rhetoric about how it wasn’t just about WMD’s etc. That’s perhaps the biggest lie he has told so far. No other drum for that invasion was beat so hard as the “he has WMD’s” argument. I personally feel completely duped by our president, and because of his actions and tone I have lost almost all respect for him.
Martin,
You wrote:
First you acknowledge that Huck let the question drop diliberately. -quote- “I don’t care whether Huckabee did it intentionally or not. I am inclined to think he did (sorry Bob, but this is just a “gut-feelâ€)”. Then you try this: “He was just asking (or for arguments sake let’s say he was ‘pointing out’) an established doctrine from Mormon scriptures.” You cannot have it both ways.
[My new response] Why? Where is the logical contradiction?
My logic is as follows:
1. He may have done it deliberately as part of a political smear.
2. If it was deliberate, he used standard teachings of the Mormons, not unfair criticism or inaccurate accusations.
Martin, in case you haven’t noticed, we have just finished a century in which Christianity has been attacked from all sides more than any other previous century. My faith (as an evangelical/fundamentalist Christian) has been attacked via news, movies, television, newspaper, radio programs, comedians, politicians, local school boards, ACLU-type organizations, labor unions, professional conferences, scholarly journals, and a host of other methods.
Christians who believe in Creationism and that the Bible is inerrant are ridiculed as being “uneducated”. Our high school graduates are banned from thanking Jesus at their graduation ceremonies, and are not allowed to hold student bible-studies on school grounds (though those same schools allow gay & lesbian student groups use of school facilities).
Christians in the United States are very sensitive to being mocked.
If, in the face of all these attacks of Christianity, I claim that what happened to Romney is fair, I truly mean it.
Frankly, I thought it was polite, tame, and very restrained from what usually happens to Christians.
Correction: Huckabee does not have a theology degree that he led us all to believe. He dropped out of Seminary without getting a degree.
Just admit that you want him to win, because he is a member of your religious group, and you like his affable manner. You also like that he attacked Mormons, and you are willing to overlook all his poor decisions and careless statements because you want to see a pastor in the win the race.
Winning isn’t everthing, there is the matter of actually governing.
The rest of us that take politics seriously want to see someone that a least finished school, preferably law school, hold the highest office in the Washington.
It’s good to see a few people are starting to look past his disarming personality and actually consider what will happen were he to win.
It’s not dishonorable to pick another candidate when he lies about his resume, and continues to say foolish things. It’s called taking your vote seriously.
didn’t know about the theology degree thing. He may have had a certificate already. Plus there are several levels of degrees he could have stopped an M. Div course but had an M.A. already.
Regardless, this is getting a little crazy. No matter what I say it’s just that I want a pastor of my religion to win the presidency.
Um, no. You’re not listening. So what’s the point of this exchange?
I am listening, to you and to Huckabee.
-quote-
No matter what I say it’s just that I want a pastor of my religion to win the presidency.
-unquote-
This blog is all about fundamentalist christianity is it not?
I only say you want a pastor for president because you are whitewashing Huckabee’s poor decisions. (in this case is bias against non-evangelicals)
You seem willing to overlook all his drawbacks as a President, and cheer him on like a true believer, rather than a serious politcal thinker. If his appeal was more well rounded I could understand your support. However, he is a one trick pony: the “Christian leader.”
Don’t support Ron Paul, he thinks and acts way too much like the Founding Fathers!! I am so Glad the Media ignores him and trys to cover up his growing revolution.
Support Huckabee!!! Because he can’t tell anyone if the world was created in six literal days or millions of years. I love this guy!!
Just saw your blog. I think it is great what you have come to understand regarding what the Bible says/teaches i.e., reformed theology. I am a strong, conservative, orthodox Christian.
However I couldn’t disagree with you more on Huckabee. I will not vote for him because:
1. He is fundamentally naive on foreign policy. This is a fatal flaw in todays dangerous climate.
2. He is extremely weak on law and order. Witness the >1000 commutations as governor, an unbelievably large number. Inexplicable and indefensible.
3. He is weak on immigration. I seem to remember him supporting in-state tuitiion for illegals.
4. He has repeatedly shown poor judgement. e.g., Harshly criticizing CIA destruction of tapes when the facts have not been established.
There are others. Not sure I need to continue.
He may be a Christian, but he is unqualified to be our president.
Check out the No-Billary campaign buttons, hats and T-shirts. The prices are really cheap too. Buy some of this campaign gear and share your No-Billary sentiments with others.
For buttons click on ( http://www.cafepress.com/billarystore/4279785 ) and for all other merchandise click on ( http://www.cafepress.com/billarystore/4092115 )!
Hey Bob,
I’d be interested to hear your take on my latest post about Huckabee.
http://reformingbaptist.blogspot.com/2007/12/why-i-havnt-jumped-on-huckabee-banwagon.html
Will,
I finally drafted my response on your blog. You bring up valid concerns, but I don’t follow your conclusions.
Have a great Christmas,
Bob
I don’t think the Mormon issue is going to prevent Romney from winning the election. While there is a vocal subset of evangelical voters who tend to have more bigoted views, most Americans will likely select a candadite based on character and issues.
Also, do not underestimate the LDS vote. Only 14% of Mormons live in Utah. Do not forget that Mormon pioneers settled and founded Las Vegas, Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco and hundreds of other western cities. the influence is still strong.
The only reason they are not noticed is because evangelical and LDS values are identical and Mormons vote in line with evangelicals. I personally know of many Latter-Day Saints who are deeply offended by Huckabee’s crusade (whisper and inuendo) to remind evangelicals that “Mormons are different.” I would anticipate a large exodus of LDS voters from the GOP if they feel for one second that the GOP and Huckabee snubbed Romney solely because of his faith.
LDS fathers do not like the idea of telling their sons that they can go to Harvard, become one of the most successful CEO’s in America, even be governor of Mass., but forget about ever being President son because bigoted evangelicals will cut you off at the pass.
No, I don’t think LDS parents are looking forward to that conversation with their children.
If you doubt the LDS population can influence the race if they separate from the GOP pack you should read the cover story from today’s “USA Today” newspaper where it points out that the 3 fastest growing states since 2000 were UT, AZ, and NV, all heavily LDS states. Again, only 14% of LDS are in Utah. There are millions of LDS scattered across the country, particularly in the west. They are going to flock to vote nationwide in primaries which typically only have a small turnout of GOP activists.
Here is a great post about why evangelicals should vote for Romney:
http://www.evangelicalsformitt.org/why.php
Here is the English version of an article on science and Mormonism that I published awhile ago in my blog “Interlingua multilingue”:
……………………………………….
Science and the Mormons
The Mormons are a religious sect that emerged from Christianity in the United States in the Nineteenth Century. They added to the Bible their own scripture, the Book of Mormon, translated by Joseph Smith from an original text in a language he called Reformed Egyptian. According to the mythology of the Mormons, in 1827 the angel Moroni gave Smith these texts, which were engraved on golden tables. Smith could understand them without learning their language through the divine magic of two special lenses that he used to read them while he translated them.
Smith and his followers were persecuted by traditional Christians, who forced them to travel slowly and with great sacrifices until they reached what is now Utah, where their descendants dominate the religious and social life of this American state.
According to the Mormons, the Indians of the Americas came from Egypt more than 2,000 (two thousand) years ago. They used this myth to convert many Indians to their religion. “We were taught that all the blessings of our Hebrew ancestors made us a special people,†said Jose a Loyaza, a lawyer in Salt Lake City, the capital of Utah. “And this identity gave us a sense of transcendental affiliation, a special identity with God.†But Loyaza gradually learned that there was another outrageous irony to his faith.
He rejected his religion after learning that evidence provided by comparative DNA studies between American Indians and Asians conclusively proved that the first humans that migrated to the Americas came not from the Middle East but from Asia.
For the Mormons this genetic confirmation of the origin of the Indians in the Americas is a fundamental collision of science against religion. It is in direct conflict with the Book of Mormon, which, according to their religion, is a completely error-free historical work that must be interpreted literally.
The Book of Mormon is also fundamentally racist. It narrates that a tribe of Hebrews from Jeruselem went to the Americas in 600 B.C. and split up into two groups, the Nephites and the Lamanites. The Nephites carried the “true†religion to the new world and were in constant conflict with the Lamanites, who practiced idolatry. The Nephites were white (in 1980 the Mormons changed the word to “pureâ€), and the Lamanites received from God “The curse of blackness.â€
The Book of Mormon also narrates that in 385 A.D. the Lamanites exterminated all the other Hebrews and became the principal ancestors of the American Indians. But the Mormons insist that if the Lamanites returned to the “true†religion (Mormonism, quite naturally), their skin would eventually become white like the skin of the Nephites that their ancestors had exterminated.
But despite these outrageous racist insults, many Indians and Polynesians (who also, according to the Mormons, are the descendants of the Lamanites) converted to Mormonism instead of telling the Mormons to go **** themselves. (Through some perverse mechanism in human psychology, these converts are like homosexual priests who support the Roman catholic church or other gay people who support any type of Christianity.)
“The fiction that I was a Lamanite,†said Damon Kali, a lawyer in Sunnyvale, California, whose ancestors came from Polynesian islands, “was the principal reason that I converted to Mormonism.†He had been a missionary for the Mormans before he discovered that genetic evidence proved that the Lamanites were only a religious myth, and he could not continue his efforts to convert others to Mormonism.
Officially the Mormon church insists that nothing in the Book of Mormon is incompatible with the genetic evidence. Some Mormons are now saying that the Levites were a small group of Hebrews that went to Central America and after many generations of marrying with the natives they met, their Hebrew DNA disappeared into the DNA of their neighbors.
In 2002, officers of the church started a trial to excommunicate Thomas W. Murphy, a professor of anthropology at Edmonds Community College in Washington, an American state at the extreme northwest of the continental United States.
His trial attracted a lot of attention in the American public communications media, which ridiculed the church and insisted that Murphy was the Galileo of Mormonism. The general contempt provoked by this publicity seriously embarrassed the officers of the church, and they stopped the trial.