The queasy-making Huck
Friday February 22, 2008
Categories: Republicans
I think I've come back around to voting for Huckabee in the Texas primary, instead of strategically voting for one of the Democrats. I like Huckabee, and I can vote for him in good conscience. Ain't gonna win, and it's...
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Advertisement
Advertisement
Search This Blog
Recent Posts
About Crunchy Con
Rod Dreher is an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, and author of "Crunchy Cons" (Crown Forum), a nonfiction book about conservatives, most of them religious, whose faith and political convictions sometimes put them at odds with mainstream conservatives. The views expressed in this blog are his own.
Subscribe
Archives
Blogs Worth Reading
- Front Porch Republic
- The American Conservative
- Patrick Deneen
- Conventional Folly
- The American Scene
- First Things
- Andrew Sullivan
- The Plank
- Eunomia
- Get Religion
- Postmodern Conservative
- Alex Massie
- The Corner
- Contentions
- Sharon Astyk
- Barry Ritholtz
- The Oil Drum
- Mere Comments
- First Principles (ISI)
- Brian Kaller
Hanna Rosin is of course the woman who won the newly-created "religion beat" of The Washington Post when said paper was at pains to announce that the winner need not have any particular expertise in the subject of religion, let alone have any history of religious practice his or herself.
I guess it could be unsettling hearing someone you learned about first as a politician on the Colbert Report speaking as a committed Christian. A casual observer of American politics and religion would assume that all politicians just use religious issues to get votes. A professional religious writer should know that any pastor who survived church politics will at the very least know how to sound absolutely committed and convincing. He might even really mean it.
As an aside I find it odd that you seem upset that Michelle Obama's senior thesis was not made public without comenting on Huck's tapes not being made public. Huck's tapes were made at a time when he was clearly an adult. Obama's thesis was written in college, a time when lots of people are groping with who they are and forming their views on the world. Should we judge you by your words and actions when you were a senior in college?
Steve
Oh the sanctimony, it burns. Typical of this blog, posts alternate between pious discussions of the faith and becoming "more like Christ" and then calling some woman a skank and a slut simply because she wants to show off her tattoo. Not really all that Christ-like.
Oh, tgb1000, you wacky slut. How you find time for such creative complaining between your libertine assignations, I'll never know.
K Street, I just *knew* Rosin was the reporter they hired after that infamous ad. Thanks for confirming.
Steve, I wasn't aware of the Huck tape story until I read this Slate piece. I guess if I thought Huck stood a chance of being president, I'd care more. I'm not really upset about Princeton and Michelle Obama, either (in any case, as Irenaeus posted earlier, the Politico got a copy of the thesis ... from the Obama campaign.
I do believe he said it was her graduate, as in a masters degree, thesis. I'm starting mine very soon and believe you me, ya better have have a clue of who you are and what you're doing, because this is what you're doing for most of the rest of your academic career. Even if it was senior thesis, assuming I'm wrong, she was then, what, twenty-two, twenty-three? At some point people gotta be responsible for what they are and what they do and what they say, and if they haven't got a clue, then say something else.
As for calling someone a s***k and a s**t, I believe it got pointed ou t more than once that the tattoo was just symbolic to us about the attitude that the woman in question possesed. A virgin? How passe. How boring. She WANTS to be seen that way! Tattoo or not!
On a similar note, I heard recently about a bride who had a thong sticking up the back of her dress. [May have been a bit fashionably out of date, this is Arkansas after all].
Finally, to the original thread, sometimes I want to take those coastie left type writers and just show them what Sunday-go-to-meetin' in an SBC church is all about. Yes we believe it, otherwise what's the point? Yes, we want you to come to a knowledge and understanding of it, too, because that is one of the main points. It's called the Great Commission and we take it seriously. Yes, we know our Bible and we know how to use it. It's part of being a disciple of Christ. Sheesh, if all ya gotta do to be a religion beat writer for the WaPost is to be warm blooded, I could actually do that job. A monkey could do that job for all the sense she makes.
I think there is a good chance Huck will be around for a while. I think whoever is elected will only last for 4 years given the problems we face in Afghanistan, Iraq, Medicare and Social Security. Huck is a gifted speaker and has good political skills. If he is to president of us all would you support the release of those tapes? BTW that was the first I had heard that the tapes really exist. They were just rumors until now for me.
Steve
Tapes...Schmapes. I'm not electing him pastor, I'm electing him President (probably not in '08 but maybe in '12.) Quite frankly, the finer points of Baptist Theology like Eternal Security, or Women's Position in the home are really irrelevant to the Presidency.
The problem with releasing the tapes is that on religion, to put it nicely, most Americans are ignoramuses. "Baptists teach Jesus is the only way to Heaven? I'm shocked." As long as Huckabee doesn't use religion to play favorites, it's nobody's business.
Steve,
It isn't that surprising that there are preachy-teachy tapes floating around with Huckabee on them. A lot of Baptist churches do that on a weekly basis so that there is something of a library of sermons for shut-ins, for research, and the like. It normally isn't a big deal; my church has a lot of them turned back in after use for re-taping, but not all of them. I think with further remodeling we'll be going to digital and straight to CD's and podcasting, but the idea's the same. The material exists because people want to have access to it and some of it sticks around for a while.
Huh. I'll bet of you search long enough, you might find evidence he has spoken to criminals in a jail, hookers, sinners, even Republicans.
Most ministers I know are quite equal opportunity, and will speak to ANYONE who'll listen.
I suppose none of you have ever met someone, who'll argue about facets of politics, or religions, or any other subjective topic, and drag it out to some rather lengthy degree, only to find that at least one of the participants in the discussion on religion in a startled tone says "YOu don't actually BELIEVE all that stuff you said, do you?"
Which leads me to around to why I have no surprises when it comes to the comments or reactions of someone stuck in the Beltway. Remember Al Gore's comments about conservatives being chromosomally defective. George Bush wanting to starve people, withhold medicine from old people, and the list goes on. Nobody that actually KNOWS the people these things are said about actually thinks that - or, at least didn't used to.
For instance, did Al Gore really truly believe that Bush wanted to go to where old people live, and take thier medicine away? No, he just wanted YOU to react to Bush as if you thought he did. There's a lot that is said that fits this description, mostly from the left said against the right.
And as a cynical, perhaps more perceptive than we give her credit for reporter, the discovery that Huckabee might actually believe what he claims to would be unsettling. After all, if you lived with a wink and nod toward every friendly to your side politician, and never call them on all that absurd and hyperbolic rhetoric, you might assume the other side is just as untruthful and manipulative.
The term "convictions" might make this reporter uneasy, as it tends to unsettle her tidy view of a charade she's lived, by realizing that there are some who really DO believe in something and don't lie about it.
Why not release them? Surely being able to see all of them should make it clear that he has a strong, consistent faith in Christ. Not releasing them makes it seem as though he has something to hide. Why would he be ashamed or wary of what was public speech? At worst it kind of smacks of cultism. Maybe concerns about endorsing specific political candidates from the pulpit? Maybe some stuff that might make lots of people queasy? If it makes people queasy because he is speaking out against sin then people need to hear that and too bad.
I guess I really just want some transparency in our candidates. I would rather not make judgments based on some reporters opinion but would rather have the opportunity to decide for myself.
Steve
From your Strategic Voting thread:
One thing anyone considering voting in the primary of the party you oppose should be aware of: the primary ballot in my state has a note at the bottom saying that by voting in this primary you pledge to support the party in the general election. I don't know how many other states have this sort of thing but where it exists it ought to at least trouble the conscience. Posted by: Maclin Horton
I just read the Democratic and Republican sample ballots. One of the first statements is (the quotes are there, too): "I am a [Democrat/Republican] and I understand that I am ineligible to vote or participate in another political party's primary election or convention during this voting year." I called a person who is connected with the Obama campaign and asked about this, and she said she was puzzled by that first part, too. While I said that I could easily assent to the latter part (i.e., I can't vote in both), I was going to have to think about whether I could assent to the first part, no matter which ballot I pick, since I am not a registered anything (and for that reason I have never voted in any primary before now). Part of me thinks that if I am not registered with the Party, I'm in a sense "crashing the party" by voting in the primary. Posted by: Eric W
Even though the Texas ballot statement doesn't say that one pledges to support that Party in the general election, the statement it does have seems to expect Democrats to vote with the Democratic ballot, and Republicans to vote with the Republican ballot - i.e., no "strategic voting" in the opposing party's primary. At least that seems to be how the game is supposed to be played.
didn't Huck recently state that he wants to change the Constitution to make it align with the Bible?
anyone feeling Queasy?
doesn't Huck state that he believes that the biblical Creation story is real history?
anyone feeling Queasy?
there should be no queasiness upon hearing this stuff from Pastor Huck...
but...
at this point in time he's running for the leadership of all Americans...
he can believe as many superstitious Myths as he wants to believe...
but the queasiness comes when he brings that superstition into his presidential campaign...
it seems quite reasonable to doubt the competency of a candidate who can't distinguish Myth from Reality...
faith hope love joy peace to all...
Impeach God...
godisaheretic is like the baglady who lives behind the local waffle house. Crazy yet harmless, and sometimes amusing - but incapable of rational discussion.
I believe during the 07-08 Christmas season he spammed "HAPPY CHRISTMYTH" on about every single blog here. Like I said, amusing.
"amusing"...
thanks, brother Grigory...
but you really shouldn't insult bagladies... ;-)
though it is quite revealing...
that in your post there is no content about Huck...
hmmmm...
could it be that you have no rational defense for the Myths that Huck proposes?
he's well qualified to be a Pastor...
and unqualified to be President...
wishing you a belated Merry Christmyth...
faith hope love joy peace to all...
Impeach God...
I don't debate people who speak entirely in fragmented sentences consisting of talking points and idiosyncratic atheist neologisms, punctuated only by ellipses. Mainly because they're obviously mentally ill.
If you like Huck that's good for you. I think he has several good qualities.
However I understand the discomfort and to some degree share it. Although religious ideals can have a great and noble influence on politics, I'm uncomfortable with the melding of clerical with political. It seems bad for both. What is necessary for a priest or minister is not always beneficial or proper in a politician. Mike Huckabee might be able to be the President for you, but could he be the President for all Americans? I just don't think so. His strength and emphasis is more narrow than that. He is certainly not the President for me. Even if he's very tolerant and ecumenical, most everything about him is steeped in an Evangelical Christian tradition I don't share. There is other elements to him, but not enough.
And that will be the end of me posting here. I think you're views are interesting, if occasionally peculiar, but I meant to give up posting online for Lent. Please do not take this too harsh.
So-called "religion reporters" should spend a year in the churches most frequented by American Christians.
I'm not at all surprised at the original writer's reaction. Think of the ministers you see on TV shows (the rare ones that are presented as good people, and not as molesters or other criminals). Their belief tends to be a very malleable thing that they'll gladly bend to fit the culture or situation. As she says, if they pound the pulpit, they'll laugh it off with a joke later, when it comes time to actually be "real" and help people. Their religion is something they put on like a cloak on Sunday morning, but they don't let the specifics of it bother them the rest of the week.
That's how the mainstream expects "good" Christians to be: sort of Christ-like in the way they think and act, but not in any specific ways, and certainly not beholden to specific Scripture teachings.
So-called "religion reporters" should spend a year in the churches most frequented by American Christians.
Hanna Rosin understands and reports on Evangelicals as well as any religion reporter out there who isn't currently tithing one of those churches themselves. She has the goods.
Hanna Rosin is of course the woman who won the newly-created "religion beat" of The Washington Post when said paper was at pains to announce that the winner need not have any particular expertise in the subject of religion, let alone have any history of religious practice his or herself.
TMatt will certainly jump into this, but I don't think this is true. That ad was in 1994, when Hanna Rosin was at the New Republic. She didn't join the Washington Post until around 2000.
Here is the astounding quote:
"But it's quite another to actually hear him work himself up into a lather about committing to Christ and not back it up with a joke"
So this reporter thinks that the idea of committing to Christ is unserious, and can only be spoken about in a joke-accompanied manner (signaling that it's all a big joke)? Wow.
"Hanna Rosin understands and reports on Evangelicals as well as any religion reporter out there who isn't currently tithing one of those churches themselves. She has the goods."
Yet it makes her "queasy" to hear a minister giving a sermon and meaning it. That would seem to be the point.
Note how she likes her sermons: "pleasant and innocuous." Not challenging or tough or stimulating or meaningful; just nice and harmless. And this is someone who understands religion? No wonder faith gets such bad press.
TMatt will certainly jump into this, but I don't think this is true. That ad was in 1994, when Hanna Rosin was at the New Republic. She didn't join the Washington Post until around 2000.
I beg to differ, but admit I might be wrong. The Post definitely made it clear at the time she was hired that Rosin was its first religion reporter per se. Whether that means they spent six years filling the slot, or the ad ran later, or she was hired earlier, I don't recall. But I'd bet she's the one.
I see where Mike Huckqueasee is scheduled to be on SNL tonight...
this is good...
I mean...
he doesn't have a job...
and...
he has shown that he has talent as an entertainer...
and...
he has shown that he's intellectually unqualified to be president...
so...
I suspect there's a Mike Huckabee Show in his near future...
good for him...
faith hope love joy peace to all...
Impeach God...
I can't help but wonder how many people like godisaheretic have read the article on the discovery of chariots and human bones on the sea floor at the site of the crossing of the Red Sea. It is substantial proof of the story of the Exodus. One need only do a search on Ron Wyatt/Nuweiba/1978.
I see our MythBuster friend is up to his usual blather. Not much imagination there though, "God is a myth" blah blah blah.
Whatever.
"giah" always reminds me of this by Chestert (from Orthodoxy):
"The madman's explanation of a thing is always complete, and often
in a purely rational sense satisfactory. Or, to speak more strictly,
the insane explanation, if not conclusive, is at least unanswerable;
this may be observed specially in the two or three commonest kinds
of madness. If a man says (for instance) that men have a conspiracy
against him, you cannot dispute it except by saying that all the men
deny that they are conspirators; which is exactly what conspirators
would do. His explanation covers the facts as much as yours.
Or if a man says that he is the rightful King of England, it is no
complete answer to say that the existing authorities call him mad;
for if he were King of England that might be the wisest thing for the
existing authorities to do. Or if a man says that he is Jesus Christ,
it is no answer to tell him that the world denies his divinity;
for the world denied Christ's.
[clip]
"Nevertheless he is wrong. But if we attempt to trace his error
in exact terms, we shall not find it quite so easy as we had supposed.
Perhaps the nearest we can get to expressing it is to say this:
that his mind moves in a perfect but narrow circle. A small circle
is quite as infinite as a large circle; but, though it is quite
as infinite, it is not so large. In the same way the insane explanation
is quite as complete as the sane one, but it is not so large.
A bullet is quite as round as the world, but it is not the world.
There is such a thing as a narrow universality; there is such
a thing as a small and cramped eternity; you may see it in many
modern religions. Now, speaking quite externally and empirically,
we may say that the strongest and most unmistakable MARK of madness
is this combination between a logical completeness and a spiritual
contraction. The lunatic's theory explains a large number of things,
but it does not explain them in a large way. I mean that if you
or I were dealing with a mind that was growing morbid, we should be
chiefly concerned not so much to give it arguments as to give it air,
to convince it that there was something cleaner and cooler outside
the suffocation of a single argument.
[clip]
"Such is the madman of experience; he is commonly a reasoner,
frequently a successful reasoner. Doubtless he could be vanquished
in mere reason, and the case against him put logically. But it can
be put much more precisely in more general and even aesthetic terms.
He is in the clean and well-lit prison of one idea: he is
sharpened to one painful point."
"... the discovery of chariots and human bones on the sea floor..."
wow... that proves that some ancient humans drowned there...
and some of their chariots were swamped there...
come on... you should be able to do better than that...
where's the "substantial proof" that Almighty God was leading them in pillars of cloud and fire?
that's quite the stretch from the reality of chariots and bones to the Myth of Pillars of Cloud and Fire...
and... back to the topic...
it seems likely that Huck would agree with that kind of supernatural explanation for submerged chariots and bones...
it's that kind of magical thinking that makes Huck unqualified to be president...
faith hope love joy peace to all...
Impeach God...
thanks, Max...
I'm always well pleased with responses that contain no content whatsoever about my analysis of the current topic... blah blah blah... ;-)
but hey... let's give Huck a pass, shall we?
I mean...
he makes people queasy with his mythological thinking about changing our Constitution to make it conform with the Bible...
it seems that should make many persons question his intellectual qualifications for being president...
but because this is a presidential election...
let's not bring in a discussion of the supernatural Myths of superstitious ancient men...
not even when the candidate himself brings up the topic...
yes... when Huck talks about those ancient Myths, let's just pretend that they are real...
and not discuss what it means to be a superstitious candidate...
faith hope love joy peace to all...
Impeach God...
Give Huck a pass? Who's Huck? I don't give him the time of day, let alone a pass.
"Analysis" of current topic? ROFL! Hahahahaha...
Yeah, your infinite circle of one idea is very small indeed, but then your resonse shows the applicability of the Chesterton passage, especially as regards having a rational conversation with your ilk.
"Analysis"; hahahahaha...
thanks, Max... like I said:
I thoroughly enjoy responses that contain no content whatsoever about the topic...
it's surrender...
thanks again... by the way...
here's a hint about the current topic: "queasy"...
so you don't give him the time of day... good for you...
I don't give him much because of his superstition...
that analysis doesn't work for most of the candidates...
but it fits Huck perfectly...
your view? oh right...
your posts lack any content that explains your position...
surrender faith hope love joy peace to all...
Impeach God...
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.