Huckabee's big bounce from GOP debate

Pop quiz: What's wrong with this lead?

"The narrative following the Republican presidential debate in St. Petersburg, Fla. has been that the greatest beneficiary of the debate was former Arkansas Gov. Mitt Romney. "

What a ticket this will be: Romney for president with 47 million Mormons out campaigning and Huckabee for vice president with a gazillion Baptists carrying the banner. And the Democrats? They'll be left with Hillary with her 50+ percent "can't stand her" polls or Obama who still can't figure out what he'd do about driver's licenses for illegal aliens.

If they Julian, what type of religious laws are y'all gonna make us live under? Will it be tough on women like the islamic law? Will we be able to name a teddy bear Christ?

I would like to have heard Romney answer if he believes as the LDS Church does that black people are cursed and bear the mark of Cane. The closest he came was when he said "This is not the time" in response to the Confederate flag. That could simply mean "This is not the time. The time to talk about this is later when we (republicans) are lighting a cross and puttin on our white hoods, right now cameras are on and the tape is rolling." The Republican party appeals to racists and other low lifes.

You're right, bill. Your Baptist and LDS neighbors = the Sunnis and the Shia. They'll force everyone to go to church, read the Bible in school (after burning all the textbooks, of course) and compel all women to walk behind their husband in coveralls and hoods, when they are allowed out at all. And let's not even mention what will happen to Jews, gays and minorities who refuse to convert. Oh, and make sure to remind people that if a Romney/Huckabee ticket wins, the churches will eventually go to war over the right of people to play football on Sunday and drink beer.

Julian, you make it sound like a religious crusade, not a Presidential election.

Discussing his crime-fighting success as mayor, Mr. Giuliani told a television interviewer that New York was “the only city in America that has reduced crime every single year since 1994.”

All of these statements are incomplete, exaggerated or just plain wrong.

For instance, another major American city claims to have reduced crime every year since 1994: Chicago.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/30/us/politics/30truth.html?hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1196449578-KWe9I7p8dByEP8/AoRoxiA

I wonder if Chicago was able to reduce crime every year because we allowed conceal and carry handgun permits?

It's a race against time to save the people from being fleeced again:

http://www.taxhikemike.com/

Let's see if we can spread the knowledge quickly enough.

"bill r", our right to name a teddy bear whatever we want is precisely what the American soldiers are fighting for, and what Al Qaeda is fighting against.

Mike Huckabee as a former Baptist minister doesn't even believe what the Baptist church believes that the Bible is the infallable word of God. He believes it's made up stories. Look up the definition of Allegorical or Allegory as Mike Huckabee describes the Word of God.

If they Julian, what type of religious laws are y'all gonna make us live under? Will it be tough on women like the islamic law? Will we be able to name a teddy bear Christ?

Posted by: bill r. | November 30, 2007 12:24 PM

bill r:

Why did you stop? You were on a roll with your dopey questions!

It is the job of Congress, and not the President, to write our federal laws. And I know that you known that. I also know that you know that Congress is prohibited by the First Amendment from passing any law "respecting an establishment of religion . . ." In which case, the Democrat dominated Congress will pass no religious laws despite the religious leanings of whoever makes it into the White House. So please stop making up these phony allegations about religious laws; there won’t be any.

Also, this country has had a number of fundamentalists serve as President before. We've even had a former preacher serve as President before. None of those Presidents ever tried to lead a religious crusade, turn the U.S. into a theocracy, or do anything of a similar nature.

In general, religious groups in this country used to exert a stronger influence over our governments, and they had a much stronger grip on society. They didn’t turn this country into a theocracy back then. They were more than happy to simply go about their business, knowing that government was going to stay out of their way. Why do you think they would change all that now? After all, they have more to lose in such an entanglement than anyone else.

Thus, your suggestion that a President with religious scruples would start a crusade or turn this place into a theocracy is nothing more than hysteria.

Finally, you’ve been reading DailyKos too long if you think that Christians abuse their women in a manner permitted by Islamic law and custom. Show me one Christian fundamentalist group in this country which: (1) condones the beating of women for clothing and accessory malfunctions; (2) forbids the education of women; (3) forbids listening to music or watching movies or television; (4) condones the killing of women for the “honor” of a family based on the mere suspicion of adultery or fornication; (5) denies to women the ability to accuse others of wrongdoing; or (6) inflicts the death penalty on anyone who changes religion, marries outside their religion, or tries to convert one of their adherents to another religion.

Give up now. You will fail if you try to find one because none exist. To the contrary, it has long been the tradition of Christian fundamentalists to condemn such abusive practices, and shun and punish those who do such things. For example, in 1655, under the laws of the “Puritan” Massachusetts Bay Colony, a man who abused his wife could be punished with a flogging. That being the case, there is simply no comparison between the belief system of any Christian fundamentalist group and the practices permitted under Islamic law – the latter actually embracing all of (1) to (6), above. The folks at DailyKos were over the top when they suggested such a negative comparison the first time, and it didn’t get any better, less hysterical, or more reasonable when you repeated it.

I don't know John W. These are verses from the bible and the other night the candidates for the republicans said they believe every word in the bible.

"Women should be silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak, but should be submissive, as the law also says." (1 Corinthians 14:34)

"Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her as a covering." (1 Corinthians 11:13-15)

"If any man takes a wife, and goes in on her, and detests her, and charges her with shameful conduct, and brings a bad name on her, and says, 'I took this woman, and when I came to her I found she was not a virgin..." (Deuteronomy 22:13,14)

"But if ... evidences of virginity are not found for the young woman, then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones..." (Deuteronomy 22:20,21)

(2) forbids the education of women

Here's how Huckabee's own Alma Mater thinks women should be educated:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2007-08-11-homemaking_N.htm

I met with my pastor on Wednesday morning for Bible study. Before we started I prayed that Mike Huckabee would win the debate that night and would also win the Iowa vote on Jan 3. Please consider that there are many Christians, like myself, who are praying for victory for Mike Huckabee and are seeing the Lord answer our prayers in an amazing way.

For instance, another major American city claims to have reduced crime every year since 1994: Chicago.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/30/us/politics/30truth.html?hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1196449578-KWe9I7p8dByEP8/AoRoxiA
I wonder if Chicago was able to reduce crime every year because we allowed conceal and carry handgun permits?

Posted by: jethro | November 30, 2007 2:14 PM
__________________________

Ummmm.... No. Handguns are illegal in Chicago. Concealed? Not even close. But I love all these idiots that say concealed carry reduces crime. Because the bad guy doesn't know if the potential victim is armed. THE BAD GUYS SHOOT AT POLICEMEN! And the KNOW the policeman is armed. Stupidest."logic".ever.

Mike Huckabee possesses a mature self-knowledge and humility that may stem, in large measure, from his epiphany concerning his diagnosis of diabetes. He went to work. He despaired of the consequences of his ways to that point, and he pulled a 180 (believers might call it "repentence").

One can imagine that he now reveres each day, and is a grateful person. It seems to bubble over, just in the way he views life, and the possibility of being elected to lead the country - should his God will it.

His success will confound the others who have not experienced what he has. Huckabee has reached almost a taoist place where he's not "making it happen," but rather is being carried along by it.

We're watching our next President happen before your our eyes. We can learn from it.

bill r.

1 Corinthians, Chapters 11 and 14 refer to the personal conduct of individuals within an assembly of believers while worshiping God. It, therefore, refers only to spiritual practices in a public assembly, and not to the general, daily conduct of a believer outside of a church setting in the home or in public.

I might add that these rules are rather steeped in the culture of their day, and do not reflect current practice within many churches. You see, pagan priestesses and prostitutes wore their hair short and uncovered. Thus, in order not to appear heathen, or distract others during a church service, it was ordained that women should be covered at that time.

In contrast, Google “Janet Huckabee” (Mike’s wife), and you will find a picture of a woman who wears her hair relatively short, and appears in public with her head uncovered. She has been quite outspoken as well. I hardly think her appearance and behavior fit the stereotype of a Christian woman of the first century if we were to go solely by the parts of 1 Corinthians that you forked up. Attend a church service of the Southern Baptists, First Baptist Church, the Church of Christ, or any number of other non-denominational fundamentalist Christian churches and you will find women similar in appearance and behavior.

This is a far cry from the Islamic requirement that a woman be covered from head to toe except for her face and, in many places, to be entirely covered except for her eyes – any time she is in public, or in her own home while men who are not from her immediate family are present.

Furthermore, in the few cases in which Christian sects insist upon a head covering in church (e.g. the Mennonites, Amish, and some Pentecostals), women are not beaten for failure to abide by these rules. More likely than not, a woman would simply be asked to apply a covering, and another woman might offer her one.

Contrast this with the beatings women suffer at the hands of the religious police in a number of Islamic countries if they venture into public inappropriately dressed, or even, in some places, where they go in public without a male member of the family to accompany them. There is simply no comparison.

As for the passage of Deuteronomy, it is perfectly acceptable to believe that it reflected the penal and civil law in existence 3000+ years ago in that theocracy known as Israel. But Christians neither live by the Mosaic Law, nor are they bound to follow it. To them, it is obsolete. (See Hebrews 8 and 9.) They are, instead, bound to obey the domestic laws of the country in which they live. This much is made clear from the passage in the letter to the Romans (13:1 et seq.) which says that believers must submit to the authority of Civil Magistrates. The Mosaic Law, to a Christian, is relevant only in a spiritual sense, to the degree that it expresses God’s attitude toward a given subject. Domestic law, spiritual enlightenment and conscience must dictate the remedy, if any, a Christian might apply in a given situation. Under these circumstances, it’s a good bet that following the literal dictates of Deuteronomy 22:13-20 would be considered ungodly and sinful, rather than praiseworthy or godly, by any Christian sect.

So now, consider again the different situations women in Muslim and “Christian” or non-Muslim countries find themselves regarding sexual indiscretions. In Islamic countries, fornication or adultery have all too often resulted in so-called “honor killings” by family members. It is too often the case that such killings are not prosecuted. Similarly, women have been barred from accusing men of rape on the ground that they are not deemed competent or credible to complain against a man. In one of the most perverse twists of logic ever, one woman was condemned to death for having complained about being raped. Why? Because, although she was not competent to complain against a man for rape, she was competent to admit having sexual relations. Since her testimony was not competent to prove force, her allegation of rape was twisted into a confession of adultery.

In stark contrast, Christian men do not murder their women-folk for sexual indiscretions. Killing for that reason is a crime. Christ, himself, allowed for divorce as a remedy in the case of adultery. Even the past (and no longer practiced) remedy of the early Puritans (e.g. branding) pales in comparison to executions for fornication or adultery (especially in those Muslim countries where execution for adultery is carried out by burying the woman up to her waist and then stoning her to death).

So, again, I must protest that you cannot defend your unfavorable comparison between Christian practices and attitudes toward woman and that which is practiced in Muslim countries.

AJF:

Read further within the same article and you will discover that other Baptists objected to the practice of training women only for duty in the home and with regard to children. There are many Christian fundamentalist sects that have colleges and universities where women are educated and even awarded advanced degrees. Indeed, in many of them, women make up nearly 50% of the students. Furthermore, the article points out that the “Home Econ” major was only open to women, but it didn’t say that it was the only course of study open to women at that school. Thus, it was false to suggest that it represented the only way in which women were expected to be educated.

In any event, this is still a far cry from item (2), as I pointed out, where some Muslims actually prohibit women to be educated at all. Even those in the strictest of Christian fundamentalist sects want their women to be educated because they expect them to read the Bible and instruct children, neither of which are possible without an education of some sort.

In any event, this is still a far cry from item (2),
Posted by: John W. | December 1, 2007 5:35 AM

How far a cry John W.? Your interpetation of the bible...is that different than someone elses? There is a reason we do not wish Iraq to become a religious state.....why would we consider this at home?

John W-

I'm well aware that there are many Christian sects that feel differently. However, the sect I refered to has direct bearing on the topic at hand, Gov. Huckabee, who was educated at the very same institution. Is that the version of Christianity Gov. Huckabee adheres to? Is that what HE thinks the role of women in American society should be?

The constitution is what we follow...not the bible.

The dramatic "reaction" to Huckabee after seeing him speak in the latest debate is typical of how people are reacting to him everywhere he goes, everywhere he speaks. Most voters have not known Huckabee up until now but the nearly universal response to him when they hear him is positive. As more and more people get to know Huckabee his poll numbers will continue to rise nationally as they have continued to rise in Iowa. I for one was thrilled to find that for the first time in a long time I finally had a candidate who I could wholeheartedly support and be proud of as a republican! He's a great man a great communicator and a great candidate. Please give him a listen and see what you think.

Attn mcbs!
People who are allowed to own and carry guns do have a good effect on reducing crimes! Most areas where this is allowed show vast improvements in the reduction of crime. Take Kennesaw Ga. visit their web-site and you will see. They have an ordinance that requires every home owner to own a firearm and have ammunition for that weapon on hand.People like Guiliani, Bloomberg, and Daley are just flatout wrong. I truly believe when guns are outlawed, then only the "bad guys" will have guns. The recent home invasion that cost the life of that NFL football player might have been saved if he had a gun instead of a knife.

The best part about Huckabee is his honesty, integrity and true conservative roots. He lays out his beliefs and stands on the issues and refuses to waver when speaking to different groups. He is the only true conservative in the field, both socially and fiscally, and is a person who can truly galvanize the Republican base. He is someone we conservatives have been missing for quite some time now.
https://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contribute.Home&r=321

AJF:

I wasn't referring to a different sect. The USA Today article for which you gave the URL states:

"Yet the program is raising eyebrows among some Southern Baptists, who say a degree concentration in how to be a Christian housewife is not useful, and a waste of seminary resources."

The same article continues:

"The Rev. Benjamin Cole, pastor of Parkview Baptist Church in Arlington, Texas, and a frequent Southern Baptist critic, wrote about the homemaking program on his blog.

"At first it was almost incredible to me," Cole said. "I thought this is not happening. It's quite superfluous to the mission of theological education in Southern Baptist life. It's insulting I would say to many young women training in vital ministry roles.

"It's yet another example of the ridiculous and silly degree to which some Southern Baptists, Southwestern in particular, are trying to return to what they perceive to be biblical gender roles."

So people in Huckabee's denomination, some of whom are also participants in the Seminary, also object to the program.

Furthermore, you still haven’t answered my objection that you have portrayed this program as “how . . . women should be educated,” thereby falsely suggesting they don’t believe women should be educated in any other way. The program is open to women only, but it is not the only field of study open to women at the seminary. Nor is it the only field of study open to women attending other Southern Baptist educational institutions.

As for Huckabee’s personal views on this issue – I don’t know the answer. I’ll ask him the next time I see him.

bill r:

You ask:

“How far a cry John W.?”

Can’t you read? The difference is like night and day. Item (2) above referred to the education of women. The strictest Christian fundamentalists insist that their women-folk, at a minimum, have enough of an education to read the Bible and train their children. The strictest Muslim sects entirely deny their women any educational opportunities. How much more different could it get?

Then you ask:

“Your interpetation of the bible...is that different than someone elses? There is a reason we do not wish Iraq to become a religious state.....why would we consider this at home?”

In answer to the first part:

I have related the practices of those whose views of the Bible are substantially stricter than either my own or even the average fundamentalist. If they do not believe in abusing women, then you will find that phenomenon of abuse in only fringe, cult groups. There are, after all, those who will pervert anything.

With regard to the second part:

Who said Christian fundamentalists were interested in creating a religious state? Most fundamentalists sects, including Southern Baptists, favor a complete separation of church and state. This is because they believe any church-state union would lead to government control over the formation and revision of religious doctrine. They understand that they have more to loose than most from such an arrangement.

What they want is religious freedom - which is also protected by the First Amendment. They want to be able to express their religion wherever they are without some nut-job organization objecting on the ground that their activities are “offensive” or constitute “shoving religion” down others throats – neither of which are true. For those who don’t wish to observe or listen, they suggest the same remedy available in every other case of unwanted speech: cover your ears and/or walk away.

They also wish to be have the same right as everyone else to influence the laws of their community to reflect a suitable environment in which to live and raise a family. But seeking wholesome laws to provide and acceptable living environment isn’t the same as seeking to create a religious state.

“The constitution is what we follow...not the bible.”

Posted by: bill r. | December 1, 2007 9:20 AM

In stating you don't follow the bible, you only confirm what you have already stated in so many other words. But, that's okay. I wish it wasn't the case, but religious convictions must come from within or they aren't convictions. And, even if Christians would like you to believe in a different manner, no one wants to force their beliefs down your throat.

I disagree that our leaders follow the Constitution. The federal government hasn't followed the Constitution properly for at least 80 years. The expansion of federal jurisdiction based on the Commerce clause and the so-called (but non-existent) "General Welfare" clause – along with the creation of a welfare state (which should have been done by the individual states, if at all) – does not at all square with the intentions or understanding of the framers of the Constitution. That much is demonstrable by what the framers wrote and said, as reflected in the records of the Constitutional and Ratification Conventions of 1788 and 1789. If you don’t believe me, go read J. Elliot’s five volume tome entitled, “The Debates in the Several State Conventions, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, etc.” It contains the entire record of the writing and ratification of the Constitution. Not a word of it squares with the expanded role of the federal government as I described immediately above.

John W-

All I'm saying is that since Huckabee was educated at that very same institution, it's reasonable to ask if he has the same non-mainstream views on a woman's role in society as the institution does.

But as in all questions where the answer might reflect negatively on Republicans you do your best to deflect, obscure, and delegitimize.