Huck's even worse Catholic problem

Huckabee is a huge problem for this Catholic; "consistent ethic of life" appears a foreign concept to this Baptist minister, who has proudly presided over how many executions? Who believes in the myth of the Islamic bogeyman? Bombs kill babies, too, you know.
And Huckabee has appeared on anti-Catholic and heretical Pentecostal TV shows over and over.
Dr. Paul, in spite of the incredibaly discouraging revelations about his race-bating newsletters, remains the only viable candidate when it comes to a consistent moral ethos on life issues.

life and peace

As to his appearing with ministers that not exactly singing the praises of the Papacy, I can produce people and blogs that are horrifed he is friendly with Catholics. We are not electing the Commander and Chief of Pleasant Theology here.

It seems if we wish to decide who is PC theolgy wise to appear with we forever shall be divided and the culture of death shall prevail more and more. THe Pro-life movement and largely better relations between Catholics and Evangelicals occured because we came together in numerous causses. It was not always easy.

I guess my viewpoint is a cultural one as a Catholic living in the south. My neighbor might think the Pope is damning me to hell but we all work together, have kids sleep over at our house, etc. The politial realm of these folks are open to people of all faiths.

THere is a opening here in at least the Evangelical and Catholic world to perhaps have a broader Social Gospel outlook. If we decide not to associate with each other who suffers?

I once thought the evangelical political movement was a hopeful thing, a sign of a broadly based resistance to the decadence of modernity. No more; besides their indifference to innocent human life when it is destroyed by warfare, there is the huge problem of their blind allegiance to Israel, even when that incurs huge human rights violations against the (often Christian) Palestinians.

It is a bit of a stretch to see the Catechism as soft on capital punishment; clearly John Paul II thought it obsolete in the modern world, and the Catechism reflects this.

And Iraneaus: I am a longtime prolifer, have been arrested at rescues, have marched on January 22 for many years. I grant the primacy of the right to life: it is not one issue among many.
That said, if you consider the Republican political dominance of the last what? Quarter century? And what that has wrought? Most of the pivotal "prochoice" Supreme Court Justices at this point have been appointed by "prolife" Republicans.
In truth, "prolife" politicians are not going to risk any votes for their so-called principles, with few exceptions. Nor are "prochoice" politicians, for that matter.

And have you noticed that every wife of a "prolife" Republican president makes known her prochoice opinions? Coincidence?

For the most part, the status quo likes to keep us fighting over such things, which neither "side" of the battle is going to stick its neck out for, so we don't begin to question the greater left/right paradigm, which is mostly an illusion.

May I suggest, after decades of disillusionment, that the "prolife" issue is a smokescreen, that hardly any politician cares one bit about unborn human life?

I really don't care what congregations Huckabee's addressing - Hagee's or whomever. My issues with him run in other directions.

For example:

Hasn't Huckabee sought the endorsement of the NEA and been on record opposing school choice vouchers? Those are both BIG strikes against him for me, and also for many Catholics I know.

That, along with Huckabee's position on Iraq, keep me in Ron Paul's corner. Remember: he, too is a steadfast defender of life (in more ways than Huckabee, I'd say).

And yes, the race baiting is wrong and Paul should have kept a tighter leash on those supporters.

But for me, Huck as too many negatives. Can't go there.

Regardless of the stupid glares and condescending smirks the other Republican candidates (including Huckabee) give him, I still say "Ron Paul for President!"

Baton Rouge Reader

Huckabee does not oppose vouchers. He is allowing the states to decide if they want him. Huckabee opposed a specific Voucher Bill because as he got through the process it very well could bankrupt Private Schools in Arkansas.

He has got a few endorsements but again like I am telling people as to Union endorsement Reagan got some too. THough I am not sure if he ever got any individual State endorsements.

In some states I suppose they make both a Republican and a Democrat choice. It would not be surpeise me that Republicans we have voted for got those endorsements.

I owuld look more at hi srecord in Arkansas as to schools and see if there is anything that creeps you out.

I am tad suprised he is getting this endorsements because his controversal closing down of so many schools in order to better education in the long run by nbetter allocations of resources was not popular with the teachers If I remember right

As someone who was a Protestant Evangelical (and a former president of the Evangelical Theological Society) who came out of Catholicism as a young teen and recently returned to the Church (May 2007), I think too much is made of anti-Catholicism that is borne of theological beliefs. It one thing to think that the Pope will take over America and bring his "medievel ideas" with him (as mid-20th century nativists believed), but is quite another to think that Catholicism is a mistaken theological point of view bested by the Protestant Reformation. That is where people like Hagee are coming from. I think they are wrong, of course. But they are not bad people. They are people who take theology seriously. They actually believe that theological claims could be true and are worth disputing about. I think this is healthy and refreshing. It is much better than the namby-pamby "religion is private" mantra, the patronizing pablum offered to those to which elites love to condescend.

Because religion is thought by many to be no different than matters of taste and personal hobbies, it seems downright rude for anyone to suggest that another's religious beliefs are mistaken. For such people, "intolerance" is equivalent to merely believing that one is correct on a theological topic. But, ironically, this is a form of intolerance, for it is saying that there is only one way to think of theology, namely, that it cannot in principle be true and it is on the same level of personal preferences such as tastes in food, sports, etc. This, it seems to me, is far worse than theologically-shaped anti-Catholicism and anti-Mormonism, since, in both cases, they implicitly respect their opposition by taking their theologies and their beliefs seriously. In many ways, the typical Evangelical Protestant and conservative Catholic exhibits the virtue of tolerance in a much grander sense than the liberal religionist who thinks that no religions are true. For it is only when you believe that you are right and others wrong that the virtues of graciousness and respect become real, manly, virtues. The liberal religionist is like a man without genitals bragging of his chastity.

"It trashes Huckabee for 'play[ing] up anti-Mormon sentiment' in posing a question to a NYT reporter about Mormon doctrine saying Lucifer and Jesus were brothers, even though that doctrine happens to be true." Rod

So you didn't believe Mitt's explanation that it's really not to be understood literally? Which is it--Mitt lied, or he doesn't know his own faith? You can't have it both ways.

When the Huckster apologized to Mitt, was he being a hypocrite?

Do you literally "hate" your mother and father? Christ said you must.

Francis,
Thank you for your comment. That articluated something I have long felt intuitively, but I've never heard it put in those words before. I am the sole evangelical among a secular liberal family, and find myself on the defensive about these matters all the time. They are very intolerant of any form of intolerance, except their own.
Your words are excellent.

"For it is only when you believe that you are right and others wrong that the virtues of graciousness and respect become real, manly, virtues. The liberal religionist is like a man without genitals bragging of his chastity."

Oh, what pompous nonsense. Liberal religionists are just as certain that their position is right and others wrong. Their position does not come from a belief that all religions are equally right (or wrong), but from a belief that one should maintain a certain humility and sense of proportion regarding claims about the rightness or wrongness of one's religious views, because these things generally come down to faith and cannot be conclusively proven right or wrong in this life. Liberal tolerance and skepticism doesn't come from nihilism, but from the senses of humility, doubt and prudence that a thinking person should try to maintain when thinking about religious matters.

By the way, I'm sure you've just been itching to find the opportunity to use that last sentence in a blog comment or some sort of writing for some time now. I'm kind of surprised you'd use that imagery, however, given how people like Brian Leiter and the Panda's Thumb crowd have snipped you up and down on the internet and elsewhere.

Rod's argument also applies to the racist comments that went out in Ron Paul's newsletters. If Ron Paul is going to have to shoulder the moral responsibility for having a staffer who wrote that L.A. rioters were "animals," then why not hold the other Republican candidates responsible for racist sentiments that actually CAME FROM THEIR OWN MOUTHS? Why, just the other nights in the Fox debates in SC, McCain said in response to Paul's desire to trade with Arab nations: "I don't want to trade with them, all they want to trade is burkas. I don't want to travel with them; they like one way tickets." How's that for a racist stereotype coming from the lips of a candidate? And, no better was Fred Thompson's quip about the Muslim power boats that taunted a U.S. destroyer of the coast of Iran: "One more step and they would have been introduced to those virgins they're looking forward to seeing." These are demeaning smears against 1/4 of the world's population. What's worse is that these candidates are actually caught on tape saying these things publicly, indeed smiling while they make these tasteless jokes.

Furthermore, folks are trying to slander Ron Paul and Huckabee based on the company they've kept. If it's unfair to paint Huckabee as anti-Catholic because he preached in Hagee's church, then it's unfair to paint Ron Paul a racist because he attended a meeting also attended by known racists. Calling Ron Paul down for failing to oversee the newsletters that bore his name is no different than calling Huckabee down for having a dog-torturing son. In both cases, the men were entrusted with oversight and authority and didn't follow through. But no one suggests that Huckabee is for torturing dogs, despite his son's actions while on Huckabee's watch. I don't see PETA trying to smear Huckabee.

Meanwhile, Ron Paul is having tons of people who know him rise up to his defense and say he hasn't a single racist bone in his body -- whether it's Texas' NAACP President Nelson Linder or any number of Ron Paul's peers, colleagues, and friends. Indeed, many, including Paul, point out that Ron Paul has adopted as policy a promise to END one of the most racist policies our federal government has sanctioned -- the federal War on Drugs which condemns a shockingly disproportionate number of blacks to extended prison stays for non-violent offenses.

It would seem that politics are unfair. If it's popular to be racist against Muslims, that's okay. If it's popular to be anti-Catholic, that too, is apparently okay. Despite all their talk to the contrary, folks use their emotions to make decisions and only justify themselves with argumentation after the point. We like to think we're reasonable people, but we really aren't.

"Catholic mooment"?

Dear Lord.

So long as he doesn't have a cow on stage...

life and peace
May I suggest, after decades of disillusionment, that the "prolife" issue is a smokescreen, that hardly any politician cares one bit about unborn human life?
*clap*
*clap*
*clap*
*looks around, realizes no one is clapping, stops abruptly*

Not following you David. The bible is an acceptable moral code for over a billion people worldwide. And no less than Mr.Obama himself says there's a need to incorporate MORE Biblical language and premises into the Democrats political arguments.

I do agree that some people need to have moral principles presented more generally (Peace, Justice, Truth) without a call to the moral authority of the teachings of Jesus since He's not a moral authority to them. But I tend to see it as Spiritual Milk v. Spiritual Food.

And I do agree that the politics of both the Republican and Democratic platforms is morally inconsistent and trying to wrap a cloak of morality around an act that is inherently immoral won't work. Torture/Abortion, But if your saying that people are generalizing from one instance or one series of arguments to the rejection of all moral arguments? After you just made a call to the moral argument against torture. Doesn't hold.

Maybe you're saying a series of incorrect/false faith-based/Christian arguments is causing the rejection of all Christian arguments?

In that case I'd say People ought not confuse Christianity with Republican politics. They aren't moral equivalents. Not even close to close in some instances.

I don't think too much of Huck hanging out with that gawdawful John Hagee. But all Republicans usually end up kissing up to fundy nutjobs like Hagee and Bob Jones. Except Ron Paul of course, who kisses up to no one and that's why he's like the kid who came to the party and peed in the lemonade.

Which brings me to my real Huck problem. Whether or not you support him, Ron Paul is a candidate for the Republican nomination and says nothing that wasn't said in the past by Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, Robert Taft, or a number of other libertarian-leaning conservative luminaries. And for this, whenever he talks, the other candidates laugh, cackle, and smirk like a bunch of ill-mannered frat boys. Including Rod's boy Huck.

If they can't respect the opinions of someone who differs from them and treat him with some dignity and respect, how can we expect them to treat the American people with dignity and respect? Foreign leaders? Opposition leaders in Congress?

I just can't respect people who behave in this fashion. If they are laughing at Ron Paul, they are laughing at me, because I agree with many of his ideas. And they would expect me to support them in the general election? To hell with that!!! I will either write in Ron Paul, vote 3rd party or stay home.

You know, you can watch the Democratic debates and they are not behaving like a bunch of middle schoolers towards each other. Nor does Paul ever laugh at the other Republicans.

It is too much to expect presidential candidates to comport themselves as ladies (well, lady) and gentlemen? They need to grow up!