November 29, 2007
He's against gays in the military. He's against gay marriage. He's even opposed to civil unions. As a Christian, he believes that homosexuality is immoral and that marriage is sacred.
He's against abortion. As a Christian, he believes that abortion means killing a child and a woman's right to her own body is superseded by the fetuses alleged right to life.
He's for the War in Iraq.
He's against stem cell research for much the same reasons that he is against abortion.
He's a creationist and an anti-evolutionist. Why? Jesus said so.
He regards environmentalism as a moral issue based on the Christian stewardship concept.
He supports national ID cards and use of RFID chips for tracking citizens.
I'm listing these things because these are all issues that Huckabee is wrong about and more than that, in most cases listed above, he is wrong because he is Christian religionist.
To make matters worse -- worse than the fact that he is running for president at all -- is the fact that he's getting a fair amount of support and that support seems to be growing.
I really, really do not want him to even win the nomination. He is a dangerous man on the political scene.
I was recently in an conversation with someone whom I believe is looking for the silver lining in this muck and he pointed out that voters have chosen largely secular issues as their main concerns: immigration, national security, the economy, and The War in Iraq. These as opposed to ridiculous things like gay marriage, family values, and whatnot.
The hope here is that this particular selection of issues represents a philosophical shift in the voting public away from the religionists.
I think that hope is misplaced. I pointed this out in that conversation.
Huckabee's popularity in polls is worrisome. Even though voters may choose seemingly secular issues as their favorites, they seem to be choosing a decidedly non-secular candidate to address those issues.
Issues themselves are largely incidental. They're effects, not causes. The causes are what worry me. When it comes to Huckabee, his causes are faith, dogma, and religion and his popularity -- whether fueled by an agreement with his ideology (I am inclined to believe that it is not because I'm a pessimist about the American public, but because I don't believe they're so stupid as to be ignorant of or to ignore it.) or by his specific answers to certain issues -- the result is the same and it's bad. Really bad.
God, it's alarming to read such things about the future of America. It's so, so sad, really. There's so much that's great about the country that its weakness are that much more frustrating, to me.
Posted by: Ergo at November 30, 2007 12:53 AM (WOr/K)
I think I should also point out that I am the same person who said that a Democrat victory in 2008 is a foregone conclusion. I am definitely not so confident about that, but the election could definitely still go either way.
But a Democratic president is a good thing for America only in the sense that it would imply that we're not completely dominated by the religionists.
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at November 30, 2007 06:46 AM (EDyeQ)
I was listening to NPR two nights ago, and most South Carolina voters going to a small convention had not heard of Huckabee. Most of them were in support of Romney, McCain, or Thompson. After a day of listening to the candidates talk about various issues, Mike Huckabee won the straw poll. One South Carolina gentleman said that Huckabee's religious background was what attracted him.
I think non-religious people can be very naive about what motivates the seriously religious voter. Seriously religious voters don't necessarily care that the candidate shares every single opinion with them on important issues. (Notice the still fairly high support for Romney amongst Christians, even though he's a Mormon that probably believes some pretty weird stuff. He probably believes in wearing chastity underwear. He probably believes that if he dies he's going to get his own planet, the size of which will be in proportion to how many kids he had on earth.) The overriding concern for religious people is the person's code of morality. That's why so many people voted for George Bush the second time around despite the fact that he's been nothing but a huge cock-up all along.
To my knowledge, I don't know any Democratic candidates (apart from religious ones) that have an explicit code of morality. That's why, even if they were to take all the right positions on various issues to make them attractive to religious people, religious voters wouldn't vote for them. They are smart enough to know that those position points are not determined by the person's morality, but rather, by political expediency. What religious voters want is someone in the Oval Office who will be guided by Jesus, on any issue they may or may not have thought about yet. That's what matters to them.
Posted by: monica at November 30, 2007 11:10 AM (drgKT)
Even that shrew Clinton has been talking about her faith here and there. Obama has discussed his spirituality/Christianity also.
The Democrats still haven't figured out how to work the religion into their campaigns in a way that will win the crazies, but they're getting to it.
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at November 30, 2007 12:03 PM (ErOeR)
Posted by: monica at November 30, 2007 04:24 PM (drgKT)
It seems like there is some debate about there because I guess some people think that Huckabee has advocated actually implanting RFID chips into people. That's not the case.
Here's one link documenting his support for the technology.
What he supports aren't implants, but National ID cards, which would have RFID chips in them.
A Christian advocating government ID cards and chips is strange to me largely because I was raised Pentecostal and they focus heavily on the prophesies from the Book of Revelations. National ID cards are seen by many as being one step along the way toward the Mark of the Beast. For a long time, my dad refused to get any credit cards because he felt it was leading us toward a cashless society and a one government new world order or something.
But anyway, in case anyone is wondering, that's what that reference is about in my post above.
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at November 30, 2007 05:45 PM (ErOeR)
Posted by: Adrianna at December 19, 2007 11:28 PM (8glJi)
Posted by: Flibbert at December 23, 2007 10:58 PM (qRGyZ)
Powered by Minx 1.1.4-pink.