Providence and Politics (by Diana Butler Bass)
Last week, a Liberty University student asked Gov. Mike Huckabee to account for his recent surge in the polls. "There's only one explanation for it, and it is not a human one," Huckabee claimed, "It is the same power that helped a little boy with two fishes and five loaves feed a crowd of 5,000 people. And that's the only way our campaign could be doing what it is doing." In other words, God apparently wants Mike Huckabee to be president—or, at the very least, win the Iowa caucuses. And, evidently, Mike Huckabee wants evangelical Christians to think that God has uniquely chosen him for office, as many believed God chose George W. Bush.
There is good reason for Christians to take theological offense at these claims—and that would be upon the basis the doctrine of providence. Very generally, providence is the idea that God orders human events that enacts God's will for the universe. In popular American religion, as Gov. Huckabee articulated, providence often becomes God's direct intervention in specific historical acts. I once heard George Marsden, the eminent evangelical historian with whom I studied in graduate school, refer to this version of providence as "the finger of God" directing human events.
But finger-of-God explanations are dangerous in relation to politics. If God is the power behind a candidate, then, if that candidate wins, he or she is both beyond reproach and immune to criticism—because, of course, that person is seen as divinely appointed or anointed. The politician's actions are synonymous with God's will. This opens the door for political silliness (God desires tax cuts) or hubris (God favors our political party)—as well as making God responsible for a host of reprehensible or potentially evil acts in the forms of injustice, oppression, or war.
Of course, western Christians once believed in finger-of-God politics—during the Middle Ages in the doctrinal form of the divine right of kings. This doctrine was eventually challenged from within Christian theology itself, when the Puritans argued that divine right had to be balanced with reason and responsibility within the body politic. Although the Puritans did not always practice what they preached, their tradition—as articulated by John Locke—undermined supernatural pretensions to rule. Locke's rejection of the divine right of kings was one pillar of the revolutionary republican politics upon which the U.S. was founded.
But rejecting "finger of God" theories of providence does not necessarily make one a secularist. It is possible to recognize providence in politics, while leaving room for nuance, humility, and mystery. Instead of seeing God as causing specific actions, it seems preferable to understand providence as the unfolding of God's story through time—a tale of sin, reconciliation, justice, and peace from creation to the end of history, of which God shares with us the narrative trajectories, not the specific twists of plot.
In this story, God does not control human actions as a divine puppet master. Rather, as human beings encounter the story, we change and our actions begin to conform to God's narrative of shalom. In this way, God's intentions unfold as we practice faith in humble gratitude that God has invited us into the story. Providence is not divine Mapquest or supernatural tom-tom. Rather, providence is a pilgrimage of God's people in time as they seek to live in mercy, kindness, and grace—and that is where God's will is made known. Not God's finger, providence is the breath of God, the spirit enlivening human beings to do justice.
Any number of the current candidates, Republican and Democrat, offer visions of how they understand their lives in relationship to an unfolding story of God's justice. But no one candidate should or can claim God's anointing on his or her campaign. If nothing else, American Christians might look at the last eight years as an example of the folly of finger-of-God politics.
Diana Butler Bass holds a Ph.D. in American religious history from Duke University. As an independent scholar, she is the author of six books including Christianity for the Rest of Us: How the Neighborhood Church is Transforming the Faith (Harper One, 2006).
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
Frank Rich wrote a column in last Sunday's NYT suggesting that Obama and Huckabee have surged because they have captured the zeitgeist, which is turning against bellicose fear-mongering and in favor of essentially decent people appealing to the better angels of our nature. In that sense (and that sense only) I might be willing to accept Huckabee's claim that God has prospered his campaign while those of the other Republican candidates have slumped. I just hope that, if elected, he has the good sense to learn from the experience and to practice humility.
Posted by: Another nonymous | December 12, 2007 12:24 PM
Acknowledging Spirit in all rather than accepting duality by clinging to a secular or religioius view of "reality", enhances perception.
We all have feet of clay. Certainly Huckabee with the rest of us. Is it possible his world view acknowledges what is beyond his "self"?
This is quite different than God telling someone to go to war, or refusing to appologize and repent after going astray, and wanting folk to still follow like rats after the Pied Piper.
Early on the Christians are advised to take offense, but I say even if offense is offered, we are best to pass it by, for what are we trying to multiply in the Kingdom of Heaven, that is spread out but unseen and unentered by so many?
The only thing bothering me about Huckabee is what others are saying about his wanting to make more laws, as if government's job is to enforce morals. I hope it's not true. I'm sure ready for the law of love to supercede all other laws.
I don't think Huckabee is cunning,calculating, or manipulative with the truth, which in my book is a grave danger with disastrous results.
Posted by: Barbara | December 12, 2007 12:41 PM
I'm not Jesus supports a candidate who thinks women should be subservient to their husbands given how He included women in His close circle of friends. I don't tnink Jesus wants a candidate who suggested quarantine for AIDS patients even after scientists had shown how AIDS was transmitted, considering how Jesus opened his arms to lepers and other outcasts. I would also guess that Jesus would prefer a candidate who supports stronger gun control, given the lastest 3 or 4 mass shootings, since Jesus told Peter to put away his sword. I think Jesus would like someone who didn't support the death penalty, given His own unjust treatment at the hands of government officials and His call for mercy over judgment. I bet Jesus wants a candidate who supports universal health care, since He healed for free. Also, I bet He wants a candidate to get us out of Iraq, since He talked about not repaying evil with evil. I don't see how Huckabee moves from the words of Jesus to any of his stands on issues. I don't see how Christians can support him.
Posted by: Ashpenaz | December 12, 2007 12:49 PM
My first sentence should read "I'm not sure Jesus supports. . ." Oh, for an edit function!
Posted by: Ashpenaz | December 12, 2007 12:51 PM
Again - DBB does not disappoint me...
'God apparently wants Mike Huckabee to be president—or, at the very least, win the Iowa caucuses.'
From what she quoted Mike Huckabee as saying does not, at least to me, say what she is claiming. I think Mike Huckabee using the loaves and fishes story says that this would not be happening if it were not for God's provision and sustanance. Huckabee does not have the money that others running for Pres. have in their account. I know that he has the prayers of many in the US and maybe God is honoring the faithful that are praying on Hackabee behalf.
Does this mean that he will be Pres. - no. If Huckabee wanted to let us know that God wanted him to be Pres. I believe that story of David being annointed would be the bette comparison.
I have prayed for the safety of all the canidates. (there are a lot of nuts out there) I have prayed that God would guide and direct the voters as they go to the polls next Nov. There is no one canidate that I am willing to support at this time. (there are some that I do not want...) There are some that I am not impressed with their comments or actions.
DBB - thanks for being consistant if nothing else. I look forward to reading your first article about the new person in the Oval Office - regardless of the party affiliation.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | December 12, 2007 1:00 PM
"I would also guess that Jesus would prefer a candidate who supports stronger gun control, given the lastest 3 or 4 mass shootings,"
There are some people in Colorado Springs who are thanking God for one woman exercising her right to defend herself.
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | December 12, 2007 1:05 PM
Posted by: Ashpenaz | December 12, 2007 12:49 PM
'I would also guess that Jesus would prefer a candidate who supports stronger gun control, given the lastest 3 or 4 mass shootings,...'
Maybe we should outlaw cars and trucks as there are thousands that are killed and disabled each year from drunk drivers.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | December 12, 2007 1:11 PM
It might be that God does favor Huckabee's campaign surge; it's impossible, though, to know the nuances of that favor, if so. Huckabee is free to believe it (and I believe to be thankful and attribute it to God, not himself) but he ought to know that he can't use it as a cudgel, announcing it as the reason why people ought to support him, for then it wouldn't be God doing it anymore, would it? For it to be true, it would have to be through God's own working through everyone else's conscience directly, not via political propaganda of announcement.
Insofar as Huckabee's candidacy offers alternatives to the demagoguery and duplicity of many candiadtes and holds his Party to prophetic standards - against fear-mongering, demonization of the foreign-born and acknowledging financial injustices - then it's clear that it serves some of God's purposes, regardless of what the electoral outcome might be.
God's favor, even when it exists, does not grant indulgences or confer special status. Things are not wrong when others do them, because they are "evil," but are fine when we do them, because we are "good" or "favored" by God.
Let us judge by policies, track record and character, by deeds, not simply words.
The danger is that it's easier to assert God's favor rather than actually having it.
And in a democracy, it might depend too on who's elected with God's favor, by how consistent wih God's principles a majority of the electorate are willing to be. Sometimes, fulfilling the prophetic imperative doesn't result in accolades and blessing, but in being reviled and rejected for telling the truth.
Therefore, it will be telling whether or not Huckabee will modify, or has modified, his moral stances, in order to curry favor from the most morally retrograde of the Republican base. How courageous will he be when it actually comes to carrying out God's will, while being tempted in the pursuit to power? Will he let the ends justify the means, as is the current political moral standard in America?
Many are called, but few can follow that call.
Pray that all the candidates will hear and heed that voice, not just Huckabee. Then we can see God's will be done.
Posted by: N.M. Rod | December 12, 2007 1:15 PM
Ashpenaz, the one reason why I as a Christian and a registered Republican might--and I emphasize might-- support Huckabee in the primaries is that, unlike his fellow Republican candidates, he has shown himself unwilling to kick undocumented immigrants around just to try and earn a few points in the polls. He actually has a solution to the immigration issue that's both humane and workable, unlike not only the other Republican candidates, but most if not all the Democrats as well.
This is one issue where Huckabee has moved from the words of Jesus to his stand on the issue. Whether there are others, I don't know.
If I do vote for him in the primaries, that doesn't of course, obligate me to support him in the general election, should he win the Republican nomination.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | December 12, 2007 1:22 PM
I meant to say ending the last post:
Pray that all the candidates, and the electorate who will choose, will hear God's voice, not just Huckabee. Only then can we see God's will be done.
(As H.L. Mencken observed, "In a democracy, everybody gets what the majority deserve" !)
Posted by: N.M. Rod | December 12, 2007 1:25 PM
Those quotes and his pandering to religious conservatives reveal why he is a fool. God has a habit of setting up leaders to fall and to fall hard. (look at the current president if you doubt that.) Govenor Huckabee is making a mockery of his sacred faith in God and from what I read in scripture God hates that.
p
Posted by: payshun | December 12, 2007 1:58 PM
I don't think Huckabee meant what Diana is attributing to him. I think he meant it in a humble way. Instead of answering the question by saying "I'm surging because of my good ideas, people like me, I'm working hard, etc" he was saying that the glory goes to God. Aren't we supposed to attribute all our successes to the glory of God?
It's similar to when some atheletes are asked questions by reporters after big games and their first response is to thank God for giving them the ability and skill to play. They're not saying "God wanted me or my team to win" they're saying "All my skills are gifts from God and I thank him first before lauding myself."
At least that was my interpretation of Huckabee's comments. But to the larger point, I think Diana's right. Politicians, or any of us, shouldn't attribute their actions to the will of God. We should also refrain from statements like "If Jesus were here, he would do this or that, or support this or that policy." How is that any different? We should be very careful about this.
Posted by: Eric | December 12, 2007 2:00 PM
Posted by: payshun | December 12, 2007 1:58 PM
You know - don't sugar-coat it for us. Tell us how you really feel.
pandering - fool - fall - mockery, so which canidate, Pres, party are you refering to?
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | December 12, 2007 2:18 PM
Agree with main point. Not sure of your fairness with Gov. Huckabee's words.
I as many Christians thank the Lord for 'waking me up this morning.' Interpreting life as the finger of God can be the source of arrogant pride or expression of deep humility, graciousness, and gratitude.
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | December 12, 2007 2:38 PM
I suspect that Jesus would say this to the security guard at that church: "Woman, put down your gun. People who live by the gun die by the gun."
It is hard to imagine a Christian not supporting gun control, which is why I don't get Huckabee playing to the NRA.
Posted by: Ashpenaz | December 12, 2007 2:38 PM
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | December 12, 2007 2:38 PM
Well stated - thank you.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | December 12, 2007 2:42 PM
Well said Eric (and others). I think the connection Diana is trying to make is a rather weak one.
Posted by: Josh | December 12, 2007 2:49 PM
Posted by: Ashpenaz | December 12, 2007 2:38 PM
The NRA has done more to produce safe and respectful gun owners and handlers than any other group in the nation. Your argument should not be with the NRA but with those who just give a slap on the wrist who commit a crime with a gun.
I will bet you my IRA that the day the US require all gun owners to deposit their firearms in a central warehouse so that they have to check them out to hunt, trap shoot or for target practice. The use of guns against the avg person in their homes will sky rocket because - the criminals will not surender their guns and they will know that the citizens are disarmed and an easy target.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | December 12, 2007 2:50 PM
Moderatelad -
Please don't talk like this. You are way too angry. You are so ready to take offense, yet you give offense by your extremist responses.
I have been very troubled by your comments about the poor being made up of "brood mares" impregnated by animalistic "studs" who "poke out" babies and who are eating up the resources of sociiety by propagating themselves at the expense of the productive.`
Your solutions have been forced sterilization at one end of life and euthanistic denial of care at the other end of life for those without the financial means to pay themselves.
I have known people on the right who supported abortion because they saw it as a way to eliminate a growing underclass that they saw as essentially unfit, who could grow to consume all of society's resources and undermine productive activity.
These same people also are against universal health care for the same reasons. They believe such policies undermine productive activity and result in encouraging the unfit classes to grow until they consume all available resources, without any constraint, essentially rewarding the dysfunctional and unfit.
As the Supreme Court Justice Holmes opined, "How many generations of imbeciles is enough?" in support of forced sterilization.
Where do these ideas come from? They have their root in the ideas that in their most extreme perversion are called "prosperity doctrine." This is the idea that God's approval and blessing is shown by whom he confers material blessings and wealth upon. The corollary is that thse who are poor or are not so blessed have justly merited God's curse.
This perverts the understanding of God's blessing to confer righteousness upon those who are wealthy, regardless of how they achieved that, while demonizing the poor. It perverts Jesus' words that the sun and rain of God's blessings fall on both the just and the unjust, and that therefore we also are to do the same - to love our enemies, allowing no discrimination as to who we are to love or who our neighbors are.
Moreover, ill things happen to the righteous too - chance and circumstance, the scriptures aver, happen to all, regardless of righteousness.
There is a complete failure to realize that regardless of class origin or circumstance, we are all the same, and valued equally in God's eyes. The rich are not more moral than the poor. As someone said, the rich are very different from us - they have a lot more money.
A lesson may be coming to us in the future, this land that has enjoyed unparalleled material wealth, if not for all, then for many. It will be that we are not saved by our wealth, and that when we trust in it, as a sign of our goodness or in its security, it will be gone in an instant.
Too often, we have used material blessings as a justification for imposing our will on others, demonizing them and feeling righteous in increasing our own bounty at their expense.
All this is the symptom of the alienated state mankind has found ourselves in, since the fall. From God, from each other and from our own selves. Seeing ourselves so fractured, we cannot see that we are our brother's keeper, or even that he is our brother, and heed the voice of the One who is closer than a brother.
Posted by: N.M. Rod | December 12, 2007 2:52 PM
wow...that didn't take long to get off topic...
Posted by: Eric | December 12, 2007 3:06 PM
Posted by: N.M. Rod | December 12, 2007 2:52 PM
Please don't talk like this. You are way too angry. - troubled by your comments about the poor being made - been forced sterilization at one - used material blessings as a justification...'
Where on this thread have I said these things?
I am not offended and have been I feel extreamly open for discussion.
The sterilezation - that was a talking point and at that a minor one as I feel that the 1st two were more effective. That was on a different thread and not part of this discussion.
It was never 'the poor' it was some - and then only those whose actions were troubling.
Now - I am going to not comment any further on your accessment of my character.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | December 12, 2007 3:23 PM
"You know - don't sugar-coat it for us. Tell us how you really feel."
Ok I won't. Huckabee is using his faith for votes. That's wrong and sacreligious. I don't like it when any candidate does it. It smacks of idolatry and the worship of power and if this thread were about Obama using his faith or some other candidate I would be saying the same thing too.
He wants to be president because he believes God wants him to be. Well that might be true just like I am sure God wanted Bush Jr. to be president (snickers.)I am sure God wants to teach us something. BUT as usual we are unwilling to learn. If Huckabee wins the nomination (and he won't) but if he does and by some divine help becomes president then that's exactly what this country deserves.
We will be a poorer republic for it.
p
Posted by: payshun | December 12, 2007 3:36 PM
"Frank Rich wrote a column in last Sunday's NYT suggesting that Obama and Huckabee have surged because they have captured the zeitgeist..."
Posted by: Another nonymous
My two candidates are obviously surging because of my support. I see no other Earthly reason. Huckabee and Obama should look good together as Grand Marshalls of the Rose Parade in Pasadena on January 1. That is what we are voting for isn't it????
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | December 12, 2007 3:38 PM
"My two candidates are obviously surging because of my support. I see no other Earthly reason. Huckabee and Obama should look good together as Grand Marshalls of the Rose Parade in Pasadena on January 1. That is what we are voting for isn't it????"
:-)!
I do think we could do worse than a Huckabee/Obama race. It might even help me revive my faith in our electoral system.
To put this in perspective, Franklin Roosevelt also believed God wanted him to be president, constantly looked for signs to discern his will, and saw his own success as a sign of divine favor. I think there's something about wanting to be president that encourages this kind of grandiosity - or maybe it would be better to see it as humility. Like other posters, I'm inclined for now to take the most charitable interpretation of Huckabee's words. As Don said, that doesn't mean I'm going to vote for him...
Posted by: Another nonymous | December 12, 2007 3:55 PM
Mick,
You're changing the subject.
I guess you're troubled by the points made so much that you decided not address them.
Is it a kind of progress when you now invoke moral equivalence - that no viewpoint is morally superior to any other? Something must have pricked your conscience, against any particular preconceived ideology.
Let's be open to the unvarnished facts, and the realization of truth that they lead to.
Quite the contrary to being superior, I consider myself the least of these and among the chiefest of sinners.
If you feel "put down," then it's because the truth has that kind of effect on any of us, me included. It always has that effect on me first of all.
Since you're not a liberal, consider that I've always been a conservative, until I decided recently to eschew such affiliations completely. I certainly haven't converted to liberalism. So consider that what I'm discovering isn't in service to promotion of ideology.
I honestly feel I've gained more than I've given up since I realized I didn't know what I used to think I did.
Posted by: N.M. Rod | December 12, 2007 3:56 PM
Mod,
His entire argument is bs and a lie. He is not doing better because God is supporting him. It's easy to see that he is doing better because he is appealing to a neglicted demographic that supports his views. It's not God, no angel on the rooftop, no return of Jesus...
It's dishonest to say that God deserves all the credit when he is pandering to do it. Not only is not true but it is insulting to human intelligence to equate his upsurge w/ faith when it's purely man that is making that possible.
p
Posted by: payshun | December 12, 2007 4:01 PM
"wow...that didn't take long to get off topic... "
Uhhh...What was the topic?....=)
Posted by: squeaky | December 12, 2007 4:06 PM
Posted by: payshun | December 12, 2007 4:01 PM
'His entire argument is bs and a lie.'
Sorry - I respectfully disagree. I believe that God could be influencing his standings just like he can do with others. Sometimes the Almighty bring people to the front / top so that their message can be heard by all - but not that they will get into office. I think that if all believer in the Triune God would be more willing to acknowledge that what they accomplish in life day to day is because of God provision - the world would be a better place. I do not see where Huckabee is saying that he is the 'chosen one'. To me when asked the question - he admitted that it could not have happen only because of his efforts - that whatever is going on - there has to be some blessing from the God he serves that is causing it.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | December 12, 2007 4:11 PM
Ashpenaz,
What you seem to be saying is that as Christians we surrender the right to defend ourselves or to defend others. Are you saying the security guard should not not defended her friends who were about to be murdered? If I come upon a man beating a child to death, I should not try to defend that child with physical force?
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | December 12, 2007 4:13 PM
What is the distinction between asserting to know what God is doing and asserting to know what God is not doing?
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | December 12, 2007 4:19 PM
So God is sending his Holy Spirit to raise up a bunch of already disasatisfied voters so that he can show his soveirgnty. Right? That's what your argument is right? So let's examine that rationale just a bit.
So the Holy Spirit spoke to all those people and got them to support Huckabee at Liberty university. The Holy Spirit gave him the words to speak and then the applause too. God arranged all of that because he was just exalting his beloved Huckabee. I agree God would do something like that for pure exaltation but this is not that. This is pandering and praising God for pandering for votes is just wrong. It's really that simple.
p
Posted by: payshun | December 12, 2007 4:21 PM
Diana Butler Bass,
I feel like you are completely taking what Huckabee said the wrong way. I don't think that what you imply is what he meant at all. ALL he meant was that he has very little capital behind his campaign and for him to have done so far what he has done with the very litte he has, has to be a blessing from GOD. I believe he gives GOD all the Glory in everything he does. If you think about it that remark is actually proof of his humble character. He chooses to believe what he has been able to do so far is not just of him but something greater. He never said GOD wants him to be president or win the Iowa Caucuses. He would never say such things. Shame on you~
Posted by: Monica | December 12, 2007 4:40 PM
I looked at full clip of the question/answer wondering if Huckabee was being 'tongue-in-cheek' or what. He explicitly states he was not being facetious. But on the other hand, to me, he was simply expressing a belief of God's blessing for achieving the results with so few dollars.
He can assert his belief. Payshun can assert he believes that is not the case.
I understand he could make a reasoned jump and say, "Therefore, God's desire is that I be President and that all I do carries Divine approval."
But I did not hear him make that leap. I may be agreeing with Payshun, that in a political environment, particularly in a campaign appearance, when one asserts God's involvement it will be interpreted as pandering and being vain in one's use of God's name.
I think he was just being himself, expressing gratitude for God's good blessings. On one hand I want candidates to be comfortable expressing such beliefs--and on the other hand I want him to be cognizant persons will view it as pandering and vanity, finding it an offense to the Gospel.
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | December 12, 2007 4:42 PM
Diane,
Saul and David were very clearly chosen by God to lead their nation. Each of them were flawed and made mistakes. Claiming to be God's chosen is not a claim of infallibility. It may be God's will for me to be a father, but I will never be a perfect dad.
Nonetheless if God did choose someone at this point in the election to president, you would think He would tell them to keep quiet.
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | December 12, 2007 5:13 PM
N M Rod,
your view had no regards in my post concerning your method of debate . Moral equilvency ? No , but because your view is believed to be correct , does not promote your integrity or charcter is any means superior to another . Especially to God . Of course some ideas are better then others , I was trying to help to present your ideas in a way that did not make you appear it was more important for you to be right , then your idea .
You missed my point , no problems with me , I find your views off the mark most of the times , just thought people may be more inclined to be open to yours if they did not appear so pompous . Especially now that you made it clear you are not . trying to help you out , I know I need help at times with how I say or understand .
Nevermind . it appears the person you talking to just shrugged you off ,which I believe was not your intent .
Posted by: Mick Sheldon | December 12, 2007 5:20 PM
Acknowledging Divine assistance is a fundamental part of our relationship with God. But when you use it as prop in a political campaign, as Huck did above, it causes casual observers and non-believers to over-react. They read all sorts of nefarious things into the comment and project despotic intent onto the confessor. It is better to acknowledge the help and move on. One can get into greater detail in a less conspicuous venue. It cause less confusion and doesn't hold God up to ridicule.
Posted by: JLFuller | December 12, 2007 5:22 PM
God may may use his "finger" to direct who is the next president of the United States. But God may also be "hands" off the election. Even after the election has been decided, it is not possible to know what impact, if any, God had.
To claim to *know* God is directing the outcome of your campaign is to elevate yourself to a god-like status. Hubris if not sin.
Conversely, when such a self-rightous candidate loses, why do they not also claim that God clearly disapproved of their policies and they then dutifully change their positions? Does God's "finger" only direct the winners? Why wouldn't he also cause losers?
Posted by: DR | December 12, 2007 9:45 PM
What you seem to be saying is that as Christians we surrender the right to defend ourselves or to defend others. Are you saying the security guard should not not defended her friends who were about to be murdered? If I come upon a man beating a child to death, I should not try to defend that child with physical force?"
since we surrender all our rights when following jesus. all of them, probably including the rights to own a machine that is designed purely and simply to kill and cause damage.
i have heard many, many people over the years use the "child being beaten to death" argument. if this is my main concern, sure i could buy a stun-gun or a tranquiliser gun, or a police water canon or any of the many devices that will take someone out for long enough to disarm them. but thats not really the issue is it.....
on a wider, global and historical level, here in britain people still maintain that we went to war to deefnd france, poland , the jews etc etc. rubbish. we went to war with the nazis to save our own skins-the argument of defending others rarely plays out well when used in conjunction with violence. (like the 2nd world war really sorted out historical sectarian divides in europe!!)
i love the practice of defending other peoples rights though-this is so easy and really doesnt need us to get armed to do it!! lets turn weapons into ploughshares and defend the rights of the alien.immigrant/refugee to be in each of our countries (ie US and UK), and benefit hugely from our outrageous generosity at our own expense, just as we do at christs expense, the only example of how to BE christian.
for ALL of us, myself included, jesus commandment to love each other, our neighbour and our enemies is a huge problem. to love my enemy as i love myself, as i love my partner and kids.....when i responded to the incredibly radical message of jesus as a student, it really, really, messed my life up, messed with ,my worldview and messed with most of the values i had been brought up with. believing in jesus was the easy bit-getting saved from these values i had been brought up with was an entirely different matter!
love the debate and would far rather have it over a glass of wine with you!-come back to me on this!
peace
Posted by: james sharp | December 12, 2007 10:26 PM
DR--If a running back scores a touchdown and says, "Praise God. Thank you Jesus. Wow! Look what God did!"; or beats his chest and says "Look at me. Look at what I did!"-----why would you qualify the first as elevating himself to God-status.
And I may be wrong; but I believe there are faithful persons who experience grave losses everyday and acknowledge God as sovereign Lord. On my wife's deathbed at age 44 she said, "If I live I win. If I die I win." The Pslamist inquired, "Who am I that God would be mindful of me?"
It takes a deep humility to bear a great blessing. Maybe that is what we react against when we hear persons with large blessings using God's name. Maybe we instinctively do not sense the level of humility that would be necessary to truly bear such a blessing with integrity.
But just as a leader ought weigh their words carefully, so too must we be cautious in adjudicating our words of assesment. What happens if I level my words against a leader appointed by God? Where have I then placed myself in relation to God??
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | December 12, 2007 10:58 PM
I want to believe that creative nonviolence, as modelled by Jesus, offers a solution to every situation, even a crazy person wielding a gun. I'd like to think that there would be a way to appeal to the aggressor's humanity, the way Jesus faced down those who were ready to kill Him. I think that if you carry a loaded gun, you are going to use it--which is why Jesus asked Peter to put away the sword. As long as you have a sword in your hand, you're going to cut off someone's ear before you try anything nonviolent. I think Christian missionary schools should be training their students in overcoming hatred with love. I think a Christian president should be trained in diplomacy.
Posted by: Ashpenaz | December 12, 2007 11:31 PM
I want to believe that creative nonviolence, as modelled by Jesus, offers a solution to every situation, even a crazy person wielding a gun. I'd like to think that there would be a way to appeal to the aggressor's humanity, the way Jesus faced down those who were ready to kill Him. I think that if you carry a loaded gun, you are going to use it--which is why Jesus asked Peter to put away the sword. As long as you have a sword in your hand, you're going to cut off someone's ear before you try anything nonviolent. I think Christian missionary schools should be training their students in overcoming hatred with love. I think a Christian president should be trained in diplomacy.
Posted by: Ashpenaz | December 12, 2007 11:31 PM
"One 'issue' faithful, like one issue voters make me more than nervous..."
If we are using the "Jesus said not to" argument, this doesn't particularly work, either.
I think Huckabee was trying to say that his surge in the polls, with relatively little funding, is a result of God's work. In the midst of an election season, I cannot interpret this to mean anything other than that he is suggesting God wants him to be president.
He is saying the God multiplied his campaign contributions, just as he multiplied the bread and fish. In this, he is directly comparing himself (or his campaign, as nebulously defined) to Jesus.
As such, he should not have said it. However, if he is elected, and chooses to lead as though God chose him to be president, I have no problem with that, and I don't see why it would guarantee a negative outcome.
Posted by: kevin s | December 12, 2007 11:59 PM
Kevin, you can also just let his words stand as they are and not make the inference that you do. In interpreting an analogy, the starting point is usually to focus on the main thrust of the analogy (i.e. loves/fishes = limited campaign resources), as you do, but then not try to force every element of the stories together. Even if you force the analogy, there was no special status conferred on the masses because they receieved the blessings of a miracle. They simply received a meal--a good gift. Very possibly, some were likely graciously thankful--and most, likely were not. And the only parallel to Jesus would not be Huckabee but the blesser in his account, which is God.
Receipt of provision/blessing/miracle does not confer anything on anybody. Does the rain fall on the just or the unjust???
Is it the fool or the wise person who sees the rain and says, "There is no God?"
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | December 13, 2007 7:25 AM
I think that there have been several Pres. and those who wanted to be Pres. that have felt the leading of the Almighty to aim for the office. One of the biggest user (or as some would say abuser) of this was Pres. Carter. Back in that day - there were several of my friends and their parents who for the most part were conservative that voted for Carter on the basis of 'he is a Christian'. Even the major news brokers at that time - both print and network - bought into that one. With no condemnation from anyone about 'envoking God' as immoral.
The 'loaves and fishes' idea to me has nothing to do with God 'endorsing' the canidate. I believe that God can bless all who desire the office. What else are they going to say - 'the devil made me do it'. (lol)
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | December 13, 2007 8:50 AM
As such, he should not have said it. However, if he is elected, and chooses to lead as though God chose him to be president, I have no problem with that, and I don't see why it would guarantee a negative outcome. Posted by: kevin s
That is, if you set aside the example of our current "divinely appointed" President.
Posted by: JamesMartin | December 13, 2007 9:28 AM
Posted by: JamesMartin | December 13, 2007 9:28 AM
How is Bush 'divinely appointed'?
My understanding is that election law was followed - if it had not - there would be lawsuits all over the place in every court of the land.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | December 13, 2007 9:37 AM
"In interpreting an analogy, the starting point is usually to focus on the main thrust of the analogy (i.e. loves/fishes = limited campaign resources), as you do, but then not try to force every element of the stories together."
Loaves and fishes : Limited campaign resources. Mike Huckabee :: ????
I believe that Huckabee is a sincere Christian, and he is well within his rights to make that clear to voters. But if he is sincere in his beliefs, he should, as a leader, seek to understand the theological ramifications of his words.
If he wants to dicuss how his faith is impacting the polls, he could simply say that he is making an effort to be straight with the American people, because that is what God would have him do. If anything, his sincerity and approachability are driving his poll numbers, and I am sure that has quite a bit to do with his faith.
Posted by: kevin s. | December 13, 2007 11:03 AM
Posted by: kevin s. | December 13, 2007 11:03 AM
Hey beer buddy - any chance of getting together after the holidays for a cold one?
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | December 13, 2007 12:16 PM
"Hey beer buddy - any chance of getting together after the holidays for a cold one?"
I'm in...
Posted by: kevin s. | December 13, 2007 1:35 PM
How is Bush 'divinely appointed'?
My understanding is that election law was followed - if it had not - there would be lawsuits all over the place in every court of the land. Blessings -Posted by: Moderatelad
The quotation marks connote that he really was not divinely appointed, although in his way of thinking, he may believe he is.
As for election laws being followed, you really don't want to go there do you?
Posted by: JamesMartin | December 13, 2007 4:10 PM
Mike Huckabee looks attractive because he's a religious right nationalistic evangelistic Christian, a former "patriot pastor" while the other leading candidates are not, to those Republican primary voters who have been defined by people like Focus on the Family's James Dobson as "Values Voters." If it's believed that the Values Voters embody God's Will for politics, then the argument that Huckabee's surge is attributable to His will follows.
The "Is Jesus Satan's brother?" question posited by Huckabee to someone about what Mormons believe, may not have relevance to foreign policy, but the New York Times itself quoted the official Mormon website as affirming that Mormon doctrine. That's got to make evangelical Christians uncomfortable and make them think along lines that Romney would rather they not be dwelling on. It is an uncomfortable issue that highlights how far away Mormonism is from Christianity, despite Romney's averring Jesus as Lord on the political trail, hoping to parse Mormonism's commonalities with Christianity rather than disturbing theological differences.
Giuliani is a problematic figure for those Values Voters - his values are obviously different, both personally and in policy from what they consider theirs to be - although even evangelicals may be quite similar to Giuliani in the flawed ways they live out their lives and in the inconsistency of the policies they favor to what Jesus might want.
Posted by: N.M. Rod | December 13, 2007 4:28 PM
While what I've seen of his policies doesn't greatly appeal, I don't want to rule out the possibility that God wants Mr Huckabee to win the election, or the nomination, or the Iowa ballot. Or that He just wants to encourage Mr Huckabee. I've known God do stranger things.
But remember that Solomon was apparently God's nominee. And Solomon, despite his great wisdom, became a disaster for the faith of Israel. Hubris got him, and the whole nation descended into injustice, synchretism and schism.
(And anyone who actively seeks to be president is most likely already suffering from a substantial does of hubris...)
That God gives a special blessing to X does not imply that God approves of X's policies. And even if He does, it doesn't mean that X will execute them with righteousness.
Mark
Posted by: mark | December 13, 2007 4:42 PM
i would like dr. bass to show me where any of the candidates or former presidents claimed that God wanted them to be president. me thinks that dr. bass is assuming too much. "....in other words, God wants mike huckabee to be president." hello??
in dr. bass' zeal to explain how she thinks the candidates think, her progressiveness belies her. does dr. bass think that God has no hand in the present run for president?
letjustice rolldown and moderatlad got it right. dr. bass got it wrong.
Posted by: jerry | December 13, 2007 5:15 PM
"i would like dr. bass to show me where any of the candidates or former presidents claimed that God wanted them to be president. me thinks that dr. bass is "
Bass is pretty much consistent in her liberal political better then thou positions , not much more then a preaching to the choir with her insights , or lack there of .
Huckabee is a good man , he is quite sincere and honest compared to most of the politicans from either side of the aisle . He has more political elective experience then Hillary and Barak combined , but instead of that the media hounds him on God instead of of asking questions dealing with the real issues . Like he increased taxes quite a bit in Arkansaw , those are the kinds of questions I like to see answered by people , why were you for that and such .
I don't think he has much of a chance , but it sure gets tiring the way the media contanstly gets on their God issue . The conversation he is quoted from was actually one comment out of many that if you read it the contest of the other comments was quite innocent , the person who was actually doing the interview was somewhat of a expert on different religions . I think Bass mocks her own religious views by trying to use religion in this manner . She should know better then to join in with the leftist anti religious crowd .
Posted by: Mick Sheldon | December 13, 2007 6:42 PM
Huckabee has the power to control the conversation. He can refuse to answer the questions but he doesn't want to. He likes the questions. They help him pander to his base and in that way increases his chances to be taken seriously.
Huckabee should be a better leader but he is not. He is letting the media decide his questions and as long as they help him he will use him. That's a typical politician. Is he a good man? sure, he comes across as genuine. That helps him but when he starts to merge his spiritual beliefs w/ his desire to be president then he compromises his witness. That's the sad part. Can we see at least one politician understand the spiritual ramifications of seeking political power thru God?
p
Posted by: payshun | December 13, 2007 7:05 PM
Posted by: JamesMartin | December 13, 2007 4:10 PM
'As for election laws being followed, you really don't want to go there do you?'
I had the chance to meet two of the lawyers from the law firm that was hired to assist getting FL through the process and follow FL law. The are a great firm and movers and shakers in the DFL Party here in MN. I would stack them up against anyone when it comes to how the election had to be handled according to 'law'.
But even Gore aluded to his Pres. be stolen in his speech in Norway.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | December 13, 2007 10:48 PM
I think that everyone, including politicians like Mike Huckabee, should be mindful of these words from Abraham Lincoln: "Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God's side, for God is always right."
The belief that our own actions reflect the will of God is a dangerous path to follow, and much of the strife in today's world is a direct result.
Of those who try to spin this quote from Huckabee into something innocuous, I wonder if they do so because they somehow believe that God is on their side, too.
Posted by: radiofreedenver | December 13, 2007 10:53 PM
Posted by: N.M. Rod | December 13, 2007 4:28 PM
You are correct - according to classical Mormon theology - Jesus and Satan are brothers. They - the LDS Church do not believe in the Triune God. This can change according to Mormon tradition as the current Pres. can reinturperet the Book of Mormon.
This also has nothing to do with Romney's running for Pres. I would not have a problem voting for him if he were the canidate.
Also - labeling Huckabee as the 'patirot pastor' and all is about as lame or stupid as me saying the Hillary is very playboy husbands ideal wife. They are both canidates and deserve to be judged on their merits etc.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | December 13, 2007 10:59 PM
Huckabee's niceness and moral standards may be campaign deep. Read Mike Brantly's article in salon.com called"The Dark Side of Mike Huckabee".
It is not vitriolic and does have some praise . The trouble with loaves and fishes in the form of large donations is the long term political price of of a given loaf or fish.
Posted by: Jonabark | December 13, 2007 11:02 PM
"It is not vitriolic"
Umm... Here's a quote...
"Huckabee does not take kindly to journalists who practice journalism."
It's not well written. I'll give you that. But it is certainly vitriolic. It's the sort of petty "I know the real scoop" tripe you typically see from former editors of independent rags whenever someone from their state grabs that national spotlight.
A career politician isn't nice 100 percent of the time? I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.
If Tim Pawlenty is tapped for a VP nod, I guarantee you that editors for the City Pages (the local happy hour guide masquerading as a news source) will jump at the chance to play insider for a sympathetic audience.
Incidentally, Sojo sure turned on Huck in a heartbeat, didn't they? Why is that?
Posted by: kevin s. | December 14, 2007 1:35 AM
There's nothing wrong with the label "Patriot Pastor" - it is not one that was pejoratively applied by critics. It's one that was self-referential in connection with the organizers of the Values Voters Summit, of which Mike Huckabee was a participant. It applies to those of the religious right who happen to have as a strong component of their faith American nationalism and militarism - and Mr. Huckabee is certainly well within that membership.
Surely we're not denying he is a Reverend, has been an active pastor, is a political conservative, favors religious right agenda items, is a member of the Republican Party and is also a big booster of militarism and a war supporter, all the while still claiming his faith and God's own will are initimately involved in his candidacy?
He certainly IS a Patriot Pastor in every sense of the word, and I'm sure he's not ashamed to so be called! His homespun manner is very much in the genial Southern Baptist preacher strain that makes up the majority of such.
It would trouble me as to his basic veracity if he were to claim he was not!
Posted by: N.M. Rod | December 14, 2007 1:46 AM
N M Rod, I think there is something terribly wrong with the term "patriot pastor."
The problem I have with the term has to do with who is being served. One cannot serve two masters, right?--Matt 6:24.
Don
Posted by: Don | December 14, 2007 8:05 AM
I had the chance to meet two of the lawyers from the law firm that was hired to assist getting FL through the process and follow FL law. The are a great firm and movers and shakers in the DFL Party here in MN. I would stack them up against anyone when it comes to how the election had to be handled according to 'law'. Moderatelad
Now that you say that, I am fully re-assured that all was well in 2000 in Florida. I am astounded by the utter simplicity and depth of analysis you engage in to prove that all is well in the American electoral system.
"Blessings"
Posted by: JamesMartin | December 14, 2007 9:24 AM
Posted by: JamesMartin | December 14, 2007 9:24 AM
No need to make something so simple overly complex. The Rep. Sec. of State hired a law firm with direct Dem. ties to shepherd the state through the process so that people could see that the state was being open and transparent with the process. She could have hired a law firm in FL that was connect with the Rep party there - can you just imagine the fun CNN would have had with that one. Alan Combs would have been all over that on FOX.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | December 14, 2007 10:09 AM
N.M. Rod--I am not familiar with the 'Patriot Pastor' label. My reaction is negative in applying it to Rev. Huckabee or Rev. Sharpton. The application of the term to a political candidate, seems to me, implies there is a projecting of one's religious role onto secular governance. I recall hearing Walter Fountroy (US Representative and Pastor of New Bethel Baptist in DC) preach at his church while serving in the House in the 1980's. I don't think the dual role qualified him as a Patriot Pastor. Nor was Jimmy Carter a Patriot Sunday School Teacher. etc.
I am extremely opposed and sensitive to "God is for the Minnesota Vikings, Republicans, United States, and my political power" sentiments. But we just have to be humble and discerning in our judgements (and I expect I lack that most of the time).
Everyone of us faces tempatation and the need to discern whether we humbly submit to God or are shaping God into our own image and assigning God to our own agenda. But the discernment at this point is not based on whether one reflects about God's activity in one's own life or never thinks of God.
A pure atheist faces the same temptation--which is ultimately the selfish and prideful elevation of one's own person (or agenda) to a godlike status.
Blessings.
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | December 14, 2007 10:19 AM
Radiofreedenver--I do not believe God is on my side (as if I am waging a battle against a human enemy); I belive God is for me, loves me, pursues me, watches over me, protects me, blesses me, desires my fellowship, and calls me 'friend'--not because I am the center of the universe nor becauss I am worthy of Divine attention.
We all exercise some power in life, whether President or me. There is just a vast distinction between saying, "Because I have power I am God" and saying, "I humbly and fearfully thank you God for this opportunity to apply my hands and mind to walk faithfully." But because there is a vast distinction, does not imply it is either easy or prudent to make clear judgments about other persons on this count.
So I side with multiple commenters here who I hear urging Huckabee (and,hence, all candidates) to be circumspect in the use of God-language. I always want to hear what candidates think but when one engages a topic, appeals to an argument, uses theological language, etc.--then one is responsible to consider the impact of that language on the nation. For me, though, I have a far greater problem with the mainstream media's behavior 'stoking the fire of silly theological debates' than I do with Huckabee's Liberty University comment.
Sadly, I think Sojo's work to broaden/deepen the 'faith and politics' dialogue may have had its greatest impact in adding impetus to the media's persevering pressure on Romney and Huckabee as religious issues. This is a trivialization of the whole matter and I hope is an alert to Sojo of the media's capacity to act "Oh so friendly" and then just turn on you or transform meaningful conversation into silliness.
I appreciate Huckabee and Romney smiling and answering the questions; but I wish they would jointly and aggressively put their foot down. And yes, I understand their is 'pandering' going on--but that is always present and not unique to these 'religious men.' No one has been better than the Clintons at pandering to faith communities. But that is political pandering not trying to create a theocracy (or elevating a presidency to a god status).
do justice
love mercy
walk humbly with God
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | December 14, 2007 10:26 AM
I'm just waiting for one of the candidates to use the loaves and fishes story as a pretext to show that Jesus favors small government. Cutting resources for the poor down to "five loaves and two fishes" somehow miraculously results in everyone getting what they need, and nobody else has to do anything.
Posted by: I and I | December 14, 2007 10:34 AM
Personally - I believe that all the canidates have said something in the last year that could be taken - if looked at critically - as saying that God is helping or blessing them. The Almighty may be. But with the surge in the Huckabee camp - maybe he should have chosen his words better...
Looking at scripture - what if there is a ground swell of prayer by many on behalf of Huckabee. What if there are thousands - quietly, privately, praying that God would multiply all the efforts that the Huckabee campain is dealing with currectly. Maybe the story about the widow and the judge would be the better choice. Can we change/influence the mind and direction of God through prayer?
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | December 14, 2007 11:36 AM
"I'm just waiting for one of the candidates to use the loaves and fishes story as a pretext to show that Jesus favors small government."
I've seen "honor thy mother and thy father" used as an argument against social security reform, so I'm not sure anything would surprise me at this point.
Posted by: kevin s. | December 14, 2007 2:56 PM
What if there are thousands - quietly, privately, praying that God would multiply all the efforts that the Huckabee campain is dealing with currectly. Maybe the story about the widow and the judge would be the better choice. Can we change/influence the mind and direction of God through prayer?
That would sound to me like a misuse of prayer, reminding me of people praying for their team to win a game -- wonder if it occurs to folks that there are Christians on the "other side." God uses prayer to change us, to get us in accordance with His will, and asking God to "move our way" is, basically, idolatry -- putting us on the throne. It's more important to discover the mind and heart of God rather than to entreat for simply for what you want.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | December 15, 2007 2:42 PM
Huckabee's niceness and moral standards may be campaign deep. Read Mike Brantly's article in salon.com called"The Dark Side of Mike Huckabee".
JonaBark
Thanks for pointing that article out. Notwithstanding some unscrupulous spinning of this article by others who post here, the article does point out some real issues of character that ought to be considered before voting for the good Reverend Huckabee.
Posted by: JamesMartin | December 15, 2007 8:04 PM
Thanks James . I think it is worth reading and has far more to say than Kevin S admits.
I liked what letjustice had to say that there is a difference between pandering vs. invocations of theocracy. A lot of this is about the audience. Too many like to be pandered too. Pandering requires both panderers and panderees. But I do not dismiss the powerful case for a theologically led drive toward a peculiarly American version of fascism as outlined in Chris Hedges critique. The extremity of G. Bush's assault on the constitution and his claims and use of executive power also show us how easily subverted is a society whose power resides in ever fewer hands.
Posted by: jonabark | December 16, 2007 2:14 AM
"Notwithstanding some unscrupulous spinning of this article by others who post here"
If you are referring to me, I am not a Huckabee supporter. What incentive would I have to act unscrupulously? The article is piffle.
Am I to be shocked and disturbed that Huckabee called a reporter "constipated"? He took his furniture with him after he left the governor's office. Oh my. He "crushed" hard drives (is the dead link here symbolic?).
According to the article, Arkansas residents prefer Hillary to Huckabee by a 4.5 to 1 margin. I'll leave the readers here to determine whether that figure is misleading in any way (it is).
The article is as I said it is. An opportunistic effort by a non-journalist to be relevant. If you are already opposed to Huckabee, you will remain so.
Posted by: kevin s. | December 16, 2007 3:46 AM
Jona,
You are right about the direction that this country may be heading should the likes of Huckabee be elected to the highest office. The problem, most importantly, is with the enablers. Those who would blindly and arrogantly dismiss misconduct such as the destruction of evidence (to wit, the smashing of hard drives)are the same personality types who have little respect for constitutional principles such as due process and habeas corpus in the first place. They will always be on the lagging edge of history- certainly not on the leading edge.
Posted by: JamesMartin | December 16, 2007 8:05 AM
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | December 15, 2007 2:42 PM
'...and asking God to "move our way" is, basically, idolatry --...'
So the story about the widow and the judge and likeing it to to prayer in the Bible is BS?
That our prayers asking God for his favor on any subject is worthless?
So to pray that God would protect our missionries in other countries is 'idolatry'.
So we are not allowed nor should we ever petition the Almighty on our behalf or on behalf of another person?
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | December 16, 2007 5:20 PM
I'm not impressed that Huckabee smashed hard drives, nor am I dismissing it (one more reason to support McCain!). I'm just not going to swallow whole an article written by someone who stands to gain by writing the most incendiary piece possible.
Posted by: kevin s. | December 16, 2007 10:57 PM
Kevin,
What are you skeptical about?
p
Posted by: payshun | December 17, 2007 2:59 AM
Do administrations typically leave their harddrives for the next administration? I don't know; just curious.
I did read the article. Honestly, my first unreasoned response was, "I'm tired of Arkansas politics being pushed onto the national stage."
P - I would rather expect there is some discrepancy between the presentation each candidate makes of themself and their reality. I always get a little uneasy when 'hometown journalists' enter the national fray to 'set the record straight.' Particularly when they come across as, "The Govenor vindictively singled me out for abuse."
Was this journalist 'singled out' for truth-telling or something else? To what degree am I reading a personal conflict versus light being cast on the topic?
I don't know the Arkansas Huckabee Topic--but the piece feels like one in which every wrongdoing or character defect that surfaced over two decades is listed out. I don't really have a problem with that if writer is filling the gap. But if journalist wants to truly 'enlighten' the outside world and feels the need to list out the charges--then it would be nice to learn the resolution to the questions/charges. What in the end was shown to be the case. I imagine Huckabee had 'his side' to tell. Why not say, "It was reported Huckabee.....Huckabee said.....Investigation substantiated that......."
If the writing does not go there--then I am largely in the dark as to the veracity of tone and content. Hence, skepticism.
Skepticism doesn't mean I reject the article. I just don't have sound basis (from the article)to do anything with it. Fairness and thoroughness in supporting or opposing a candidate is so much more powerful to me than just throwing everything out there and see if anything sticks.
(Huckabee and Obama are my favorites. Be fair to my guys!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :) )
Payshun--What percent of content that you get about candidates causes skepticism in you??
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | December 17, 2007 9:50 AM
"Fairness and thoroughness in supporting or opposing a candidate is so much more powerful to me than just throwing everything out there and see if anything sticks." letjusticerolldown
If only the same measuring stick had been applied by the religious right to the Clintons.
Posted by: JamesMartin | December 17, 2007 11:32 AM
"Do administrations typically leave their harddrives for the next administration? I don't know; just curious." Letjusticerolldown
Not sure about hard-drives, but I do remember an adm leaving office and glued the 'w' key down on their computer keyboards along with other fratboy pranks.
I think that when an adm leaves office they should just take the hard-drives they need to keep the info. on safe. They can purchase replacement drives for the next group.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | December 17, 2007 11:54 AM
JamesMartin--I fully support a demand for a thorough and fair standard applied to the Clintons. That is why I state I am tired of Arkansas politics/journalism being pushed onto the national stage. It feels like every political act and subsequent journalistic story has a twisted subplot.
I probably won't take a government job for a few years to find out the consequence for destroying a harddrive. I just did not know what information an outgoing President (for instance) would preserve; and what of that information would be handed to a new Executive. Just curious.
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | December 17, 2007 12:10 PM
LJRD,
I can understand your skepticism. It makes sense but I guess I believe all the actions he described were true. THat's what I am looking at. I could care less about the personal beef btwn them. There should be beef btwn journalists and politicians (from time to time) if jouralists are doing their jobs.
I am skeptical about Obama and Huckabee's use of faith in the public sphere to garner votes. Even though I see Obama as the benign of the two faith should be used to create positive change for all people. Instead I find politicians using it to get votes, that's worshipping power over God. God hates idolatry so...
I am not interested in hearing Huckabee's side. Besides will he deny that he did all of those things or admit to them? If he admits wrongdoing then I will take that and judge accordingly. I can judge his side of the discussion based off his record. I am skeptical about anyone using their faith to get ahead w/o a full disclosure. If a candidate is going to use their faith to get votes then use it. I mean go full mea culpa confess everything you have ever done. Be completely honest and then maybe I might respect them. I am kidding about that last part.
Faith should never be used to get votes under any circumstances. It's idolatry we don't need more of that. We already have too much.
p
Posted by: payshun | December 17, 2007 2:51 PM
Some of you apparently read the article with blinders. Brantly and his paper tried repeatedly to question Huckabee and get a response to these questions and was completely stonewalled. He does point out some positive Huckabee accomplishments albeit not things Mr. H. will be parading before evangelicals.
Something new to ad to the Mr. Huckabee's record; his own words:
The book (for children) was titled “Kids Who Kill: Confronting Our Culture of Violence.” Huckabee wrote: “Abortion, environmentalism, AIDS, pornography, drug abuse, and homosexual activism have fragmented and polarized our communities.” Huckabee also equated homosexuality to necrophilia. He wrote: “It is now difficult to keep track of the vast array of publicly endorsed and institutionally supported aberrations—from homosexuality and pedophilia to sadomasochism and necrophilia.”
These are very loaded sentences with clear intent to make moral and legal equations that only a handful of far right or fundamentalist thinkers would agree to. environmentalism is listed together with 5 things which are are considered sinful by the majority of evangelicals. I could understand from his view if he listed environmental degradation and lawbreaking among the other "sins" since they really are cries against the community and frequently critiqued in the scriptures.. The second sentence is even worse. Where in America have necrophilia, sadomasochism or pedophilia been "publicly endorsed and institutionally supported"? This is nonsense. The kind of lie that relies on gullibility or prejudice.
These are some pretty low rhetorical tricks to set forth in a children's book.
Posted by: jonabark | December 18, 2007 11:16 AM
sorry that should be crimes not cries against the community
Posted by: jonabark | December 18, 2007 11:20 AM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?