Drudge fronts totally unsurprising story about Huckabee; Updated
posted at 10:40 am on December 10, 2007 by Bryan
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
I’ve read this story three or four times this morning and I still don’t see why Drudge is fronting it with a banner headline. It’s about a speech/sermon that Mike Huckabee delivered in 1998. He delivered the speech/sermon in Salt Lake City, but if that’s a reason to give it the banner treatment at Drudge, then that’s a suggestion that Baptist ministers should stay out of Mormon country. That would be absurd. If this next line is the problem, then so are most sermons delivered in most evangelical churches.
“The reason we have so much government is because we have so much broken humanity,” he said. “And the reason we have so much broken humanity is because sin reigns in the hearts and lives of human beings instead of the Savior.”
There’s a lot of spiritual common sense in that paragraph — sin leads for example to broken families, which leads to fatherless kids, which leads to out of control kids, which leads to crime and drugs and whatnot. This, by the way, is a powerful small-government argument against libertinism, though not necessarily against responsible libertarianism.
Drudge’s banner headline screams that Huck wants to “take America back for Christ.” Well, Huckabee was a pastor at the time, and that line is just an expression of the Great Commission. This is not a call to “take America” by the sword or by force or by any means necessary, it’s a statement that the church needs to get off the pews and out into the world to do some good. Huck reinforces that by saying that if the church was doing a better job, government wouldn’t have to be so big. I hate to break it to Drudge, but that’s true, and it’s not an indictment of America, it’s an indictment of the church for not doing its job. If that’s controversial now, then we’re headed for even more problems and acrimony then we currently have.
I’m no fan of home run hittin’ Huckabee, but Drudge seems to be screaming religious intolerance with that headline.
Update (AP): I agree with Bryan that Drudge is making a big deal out of what amounts to boilerplate, but I can’t resist noting this detail tucked away at the end of that old story:
Other books given to reporters at the convention Sunday included a how-to boycott book aimed at the Walt Disney Co. by Richard D. Land titled Sending a Message to Mickey: The ABC’s of Making Your Voice Heard at Disney. The back cover features an outline of the famous mouse’s round ears and the words: “He who has ears, let him hear.”
The other book was Mormonism Unmasked by R. Philip Roberts, who examines the beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Looks like an interesting read.
Update (AP): Like MK says, if Drudge is looking for religio-speak in politics, he doesn’t need to go back 10 years — or to the Republican Party — to find it.
Update: Huckabee was still governor when he made the comment that Drudge fronted. Nevertheless, as a minister what he said isn’t out of line. People have become way too sensitive about this sort of thing imho.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3
I vote for an implied predicate.
The fact that God can manifest itself as a man or a holy ghost would be out of the whelm for someone who does not believe or have the faith that God can transcend all. If you place limitations on God, then you are defining God, I like to think that God defines man, not the other way around. The fact that Water can be frozen, or a liquid or steam (or time as being past, present, or future, but there is only one time, should not even be a real argument, since God created the “rules of nature”.
God entered this world, in the only way that he saw fit, as the birth of a child. He, for whatever reason (see, we end up using human terms like reason because we have no other to define God…maybe the ancients were correct in never saying his name), he wanted to present himself to us, to show that our God is also a servant. That he was willing to sacrifice for us. Listen, I don’t need to talk to you about his role, but the first verses from the book of John (John 1:14 to be accurate) is quite clear.
For you, the academic, I think something like this is a good starting point. Trinity from a Christian Apologetics site.
But then you would know these things and sites. Whether your a thomistic, evidentialist, or a presuppostional traditionalist, you would have researched any one of these sites.
Listen carefully, I really don’t care if you or any one individual believes in what I believe. There are others that have that gift of education that can educate you. What I am doing is defending traditional Christian doctrines against someone who is trying to subvert them. I am against a movement that is taking our most precious gift, and staining it with their own misinterpretation. If you do read the ancient languages , like you say you do, you know that for a fact.
There is no doubt, you understand the difference between Mormons polytheism, and the Christian monotheism with the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. To pretend any other would be dishonest, and I do not think you are being dishonest.
I think you are being more coy, than dishonest. Others that post are truly ignorant about Christians. With such statements as, the bible is inaccurate because of all of the changes, or so many compilations or scribes made it “wrong”. You would know the accuracy, certainly the Old Testament (the dead sea crolls proved that) and with the 1,000’s of original pieces of documents being discovered that proved the exactness of the New Testament.
You may find this interesting. Much more interesting than posting with us poor slobs.
Thanks for your very thorough discussion on ego eimi. One of the most interesting “two” words in the bible.
I ran across this http://www.ichthys.com/mail-I%20am.htm, an interesting discussion (although no mention of a predicate so I am disappointed), but he seems to nail it down.
right2bright on December 11, 2007 at 1:23 AM
She must have been a very special lady, to have produced a gem like you. I am sure that she is smiling down on you now, and very proud. I am so sorry that you lost her at such a young age.
Cancer is a spiteful, hateful thing. Our family has had more than a little bit of experience with it’s indiscriminate destruction. (I was 28 when my Mom lost her fight to colon cancer.) And so many more.
I find that volunteering for various causes related to stopping this scourge can be a balm for the soul.
Well, E., I have been a bucket-mouth for too long, and appreciate your kindness; also appreciate MM and HotAir’s patience with my nuclear-powered mouth.
Always the best to you, my friend,
hbj (Jim)
hillbillyjim on December 11, 2007 at 1:25 AM
You already know the answer to that.
SouthernGent on December 11, 2007 at 1:50 AM
Here Rose this is a good link
Bible Accuracy
right2bright on December 11, 2007 at 1:53 AM
I find it laughable that any member of a Protestant denomination is whining and complaining about other “non-Christians” perverting the faith.
You guys and your endless split-offs have drifted further from The universal Church and Martin Luther than could possibly be imagined, and yet you’re the biggest loudmoths in the room when it comes to who is and isn’t an “authentic” Christian.
Who gave you your authority, the pope? Oh right, my bad, it was Minister Huckabee of Hope, Arkansas, who can be readily substituted for any protestant minister anywhere, including but most especially your own local minister who arbits the faith for you.
Huck needs to can the “Christian Leader” shtick and the anti-Mormon contingent need to realize they aren’t the sole arbiters of heresy, especially when Protestantism continues to splinter off and be changed by the cullture rather than changing it.
BKennedy on December 11, 2007 at 2:11 AM
Go ahead and declare for your candidate and get it over with. This is getting really boring.
hillbillyjim on December 11, 2007 at 3:04 AM
All of you (you know who you are):
*I’ve got to have my religion’s ass kissed publicly* people are one of the reasons that the Dem’s have regained as much power as they have already.
Put away your own ego and start rooting for what is best for our nation’s people and our nation.
You bunch of self-centered pricks.
If you don’t understand this, then go join a DUmbass committee and do us all a favor.
hillbillyjim on December 11, 2007 at 3:15 AM
Sorry for the rant, but damn, that felt good.
hillbillyjim on December 11, 2007 at 3:17 AM
*blinks* right2bright, do you have ANY conception of LDS beliefs at all? I am seriously starting to wonder about your comprehension.
You said:
Do you have any clue about LDS beliefs at all, or just what some anti-mormon has preached to you? How on earth did you get the idea that we don’t believe in Christ’s death and resurrection? You are simply out of your mind, man. We preach that Christ came to earth as God, lived a sinless life, suffered for our sins, died by crucifixion, and was resurrected with his physical body three days later–he came back to life. That is the core of our faith.
So when you say we don’t believe that, you MUST be lying, because you clearly know enough about the church to know that we believe in the death and resurrection of Christ. I cannot conceive how you do not know. This is the most blatant falsehood you’ve said yet.
But then, I believe you are actually incapable of believing that the LDS church could conceivably have some good in it.
Vanceone on December 11, 2007 at 4:17 AM
this joke of an interview on NBC is pure shi!. Matt Lauer is a wonderful American. Dumbass. He is starting with a premise and working backwards with a traitor agreeing with all of his s**t.
Matt, the great American. (traiterous bastage)
And here we go again. AAaaarrrgggghhh!!!!
nbc strikes again. F**ing traitorous pigs.
hillbillyjim on December 11, 2007 at 7:21 AM
I would pay good money to refute these liars. Goddammit, this makes me furious.
National Bastage Co
cksuckerorperationhillbillyjim on December 11, 2007 at 7:25 AM
oh well, time will tell.
hillbillyjim on December 11, 2007 at 7:26 AM
Matt Lauer, I dare you to do a REAL interview, just once. Democrat or Republican, it doesn’t matter. I dare you.
hillbillyjim on December 11, 2007 at 7:29 AM
I truly believe you don’t have the stones.
hillbillyjim on December 11, 2007 at 7:30 AM
You’re the one dissing the Nicene Creed. So what part do you now denounce?
Now what part of that is wrong?
You are continuously trying to catch me in a “I gotcha”.
And you are now saying Mormon’s now accept these (creeds) as the “truth”? You have now replaced these beliefs with Smith’s?
Please, be honest, you have your “Jesus”, Christians have theirs. They are (pun intended) worlds apart. You want so bad to be a Christian, that you will try to deceive people into believing that your “Christ” is the same as the Christians.
That is what I am talking about. Now if you accept Christ, as the Christians accept him, no argument…throw away your Book of Mormon and join the club….what you don’t quite believe the creed? I am correct in pointing out some of the differences? Well surely you don’t believe God came down and did the “dirty” with Mary do you?
Oh look what I found from Brigham Young, the other Prophet who married 14 yr. olds. (one of several Prophets teaching this)
Now it is my turn, your ignorance, or deception is mind-boggling.
right2bright on December 11, 2007 at 9:38 AM
Well loudmouth, you don’t read very well.
I have stated countless times that being a religious leader and a politician is just plain wrong…especially from the biblical stand point. “You can’t serve two masters”.
And you obviously do not comprehend the difference between faith and doctrine. You spew out words of hate, without any reference. You are the type of person who sits on the sidelines of an argument and tries to stir the crowd with anger, or you are the one yelling for the person to jump from a building because you get a rush…but you are always on the sidelines sniping.
So go ahead and bitch, that is what you are a little bitch.
right2bright on December 11, 2007 at 9:46 AM
And BK do you go along with the misplaced predicate or do you choose the the Septuagint Greek explanation? Regarding ego eimi. Easier to take the LXX route, but I don’t totally agree with their premise. It’s one of the more controversial words in the bible. Care to comment?
right2bright on December 11, 2007 at 10:24 AM
Wow. No language filter on Hot Air? It’s one thing to disagree, but quite another to not be able to do it without using vulgarity.
Connie on December 11, 2007 at 10:53 AM
Thank you R2B for the link. I hope you didn’t misunderstand me. I do not believe that the KJV is the best translation because of the style of language used, however I do believe that the original texts and the cannon are the Word of God and therefor are infallible. I do not believe that it is a religion made by men but it is the truth given to us by God. I believe that authority comes from the Word of God and only the word of God. I do not believe that it comes from Popes or pastors or people who claim to be prophets with “new” revelations. We must study the Word ourselves and our relationship with God comes through Jesus, and only through Jesus.
Rose on December 11, 2007 at 11:10 AM
I agree, however certain gifts are given to people. a couple are to lead and educate.
Faith and the Church is built upon God’s words, but the doctrine of the Church is mans doing. And, by biblical mandate, it has to be in error…just where are the errors? That is where we will turn to the bible, and the bible (even the KJV) was 98% correct. Now, the new bibles are so accurate that we argue about mis-placed predicates. Some of the new study bibles are phenomenal in their accuracy.
But always keep an open mind about prophets, if they fit the standard of the bible, then they are the messengers of God. It is just that the standards are so high, none have reached (or even come close)to that in the past 2,000 years.
right2bright on December 11, 2007 at 11:40 AM
I agree, after I said that about the KJV I realized I had given the wrong impression. It’s the language, not the text that I had trouble with. I prefer the newer translations. I believe the gifts of the Holy Spirit are as real today as they were in the early church, however even as the early church had abuses, these abuses seem to be even in more evidence today. I also believe that God gives ministry gifts, pastor, teacher, giver, prophet, etc. Most of the people who have these gifts rise to their offices within the church, prophet being the one that is the most difficult to judge. However, I do not believe that there is any true prophet who would give a revelation that would change the basic doctrine of the church.
Rose on December 11, 2007 at 12:06 PM
Right2bright–if you cannot be rational, I would urge you to back away from the keyboard.
Who said we don’t believe that Christ shed his blood on the Cross for our sins? That’s just your fevered imagination. Of course He did. He also suffered in the Garden for them, where He sweat great drops of blood. Or was that just His idea of a vacation, in your opinion? As for your imagery of an empty cross, okay, but we prefer the empty tomb. Oh NOES! Those evil Mormons actually believe in the resurrection after all–what WILL you do, right2bright? Your whole world is now exploding, I assume, since your entire existence seems to be “How can I demonize LDS beliefs today?”
Seriously–you’ve never answered: Do you or do you not write books on the LDS church and get paid for them?
Vanceone on December 11, 2007 at 1:07 PM
And what part of the Nicene creed do you not believe in? So now you are backing away from your prophets and founders who said this:
But we are making headway.
You have denounced the practice of marrying 14 yr. olds (although you still defend their relationship…have you seen how he obtained that girl for marriage, a promise of salvation to the parents, how sweet of him)
You agree that Christ died for our sins, you have a difficult time with the Nicene Creed, but read it a few times. Set it aside, then read it again, and it will make sense.
Now we can work on getting rid of those stories about ancient civilizations that have never been found, and we can begin removing the Book of Mormon out of your faith. Now that they have all but proved that the Indians do not have any Jewish DNA, that you can’t baptize any Jews who have passed. Things are moving in the right direction. When you open your eyes and see that the prophesies of Smith are rift with mistakes.
Just two important questions:
Did Brigham Young state this?:
What is the punishment in the Mormon church for preaching false doctrine?
Just these two questions, if nothing else.
*
And no, I don’t write for money. And I have never received payment for anything I wrote religiously. I have written hundreds of devotions and study’s, all (the few) that have been published the money went to the church…100% including publishing costs.
And I have never written anything that could be even close to what you are getting at.
None of my writings have even mentioned the LDS or Mormon’s, I post here to keep you “honest”, and it has been tough.
right2bright on December 11, 2007 at 1:51 PM
Oh, please: Right2bright, you are not being honest at all. I’ve been totally honest.
You want to know about the Nicene creed? Read it yourself–it’s incomprehensible. It’s rife with contradictions, impossibilities, and does not make sense. That’s why it is such a “mystery” to Christians–precisely because it doesn’t make sense.
But specifics: In the Nicean trinity, it lables God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost as “co-equal.” Great, except Christ himself said that “my father is greater than I.” John 14:28 The Nicean creed does away with the doctrine of Subordination. Which was held practically universally by the early Christians. “There is no theologian in the Eastern or the Western Church before the outbreak of the Arian Controversy, who does not in some sense regard the Son as subordinate to the Father.” (The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God, R. P. C. Hanson).
What authority did the Nicene creed have to destroy that doctrine? If every Christian before that creed held the doctrine of Subordination, then wouldn’t logically it have been the truth? Or did the early Christian fathers just happen to be wrong on that matter–you know, the ones that were closest to the apostles?
These are simple things. Another question–what happens to Christ’s body (I presume He still has it, right?) when He, the Triune God, is acting as the Holy Ghost? Or does the Holy Ghost have Christ’s resurrected body? When Christ says that the Father sent him–is what He really saying, “I sent myself, but couldn’t be bothered to mention that distinction?”
And what is wrong with believing that Christ was born just like any other mortal? He was born of a virgin, but he was born as a baby, just as any other baby, and in the same way. That doesn’t mean He was conceived in the same way, though. His body was the uniting of both human and divine characteristics. Yes, His father was physically God the Father.
What you freak out about is “That means Mormons believe that Mary had sex!!!!!” Nonsense–The Holy Ghost was involved. Surely you’ve heard of artificial insemination? I have no idea what process Heavenly Father used to give His son a physical body, but to jump to the conclusion that we believe Mary had sex is simply irresponsible, though valuable for demonizing us, of course.
And no, I will never remove the Book of Mormon from my faith. Unlike you, I am not scared of the idea that God loves all His children and preached the gospel to many of them. Why are you afraid of receiving more of God’s word?
I will answer your two questions this way: Was Jonah a false prophet? He preached the destruction of Ninevah, but it never happened. If Jonah could still be a prophet, yet be wrong, or the Lord change His mind…. and if Paul could discourse about how women shouldn’t ever speak in church and should stick to certain styles of grooming (or do you believe all that as well?), yet it not be in force for today…. why should we have to follow every single thing that Brigham Young said? It may well have been important for the people back then what he said. But just as we don’t sacrifice goats anymore, despite THAT being scripture, we are not held to everything Brigham Young, or Joseph Smith, or Peter, or Moses, wrote either.
The doctrines binding on the church are those accepted as such, by a sustaining vote of the church members. Not whatever quote you can dig up that usually was a secondhand report.
Question two: false doctrine? Usually, you are corrected. If not, you tend to be excommunicated.
Vanceone on December 11, 2007 at 3:01 PM
Thanks for your answers. I don’t put limitations on God as you do, I do not define his role, he defines mine. So when you say what does he do with his body, you are assuming he is like you.
You can’t conceive that a God can be what he wants, but that is the mind of a mortal man.
Now here is a problem, your Prophet (perfect in his predictions) has spoken as a prophet, but look what he said. Should he have been excommunicated (he never renounced it). See the problem with following living prophets…they turn out to be, well, a little wrong.
But you can’t deny that,because that breaks the string of “prophets”, but you can’t accept it because that embraces wrong theology. Oh my, your elders have tried to bury this for years.
Thank you for being so honest. Now you have to be honest one more time…look at the dilemma, and answer yourself, do you want to follow false Prophets?
And as for your grade school, Mormon response about Jonah…here is the explanation that you need to remember, the prophesy was carried out, Jonah changed their hearts and God did not have to carry out his “promise”, his promise was fulfilled. Here
Oh, here is your answer to the trinity: Trinity
right2bright on December 11, 2007 at 4:22 PM
Right2bright, you are once again caught in your own trap. See, here is the deal: you printed that statement from Brigham Young, then you print something from President Joseph Fielding Smith that contradicts it. Thus, you claim, one or the other must be false.
Now, if you had been honest, and printed the FULL Brigham Young quote, you would see that you are (as usual) incorrect. It’s here. So, we see that unlike your contention, Brigham Young gave two prerequisites: 1) He had to have a chance to correct the sermon after review, and two, it had to be announced as scripture. Nowhere was anything about “adam-god” ever presented, announced, or submitted as scripture.
However, since you say that living prophets are bad…. does that mean you cannot accept the Bible? After all, they were living once. And you yourself say that you cannot follow a living prophet…. so you wouldn’t have followed them, then. So please, renounce all faith. Your own logic compels you to. I doubt you will, you will continue in your hypocrisy, but maybe you can explain to me how all the Biblical prophets were perfect, since apparently they could never be wrong. And if they were perfect, then the Bible is wrong, since it says only one person was perfect: Christ.
Your argument dooms the Bible, right2bright. By requiring Spokesmen for the Lord to never, ever be wrong, you automatically destroy the prophets (how many times was Peter wrong?) I’ll gladly put myself alongside them.
Vanceone on December 11, 2007 at 6:36 PM
I think even you know what I mean when I say “living prophets” (or are you that…naw your just being funny). This is the kind of double talk Mormons are famous for. Thanks for the illustration.
Exactly, now you are catching on, one or the other is false…very good.
Hello, are you listening, Duet. explains the test of a prophet, they don’t have to be perfect, just when speaking for the Lord. You know that is the standard and you know that I have quoted that several times in past posts with you. It is quite clear and you know it (or you should, or if you do you may not want to).
Your sinking…sinking
Now look at this:
Looks like his sermon was for real after all…even he admitted it, although now you are calling him a liar. (Even I think he was telling the truth when he thought he was speaking for God, apparently you think he is lying)
And look at this:
Okay, I think I am done for tonight…sleep tight with those quotes.
Take your pick, is it Smith or Young who is the false prophet.
Quit while you still have your faith…but then facts obviously will not stop your faith. I know, I know, nothing will shake your faith, not even the truth.
How many of the ancient civilizations in the Book of Mormon have been identified? Does the National Geographic know of any, how about the Smithsonian? Here is the answer
nite nite, sleep tite
right2bright on December 11, 2007 at 8:40 PM
Whoa, whoa whoa! V1 & R2B, be friends!
I only just now came back to this thread. In fact, someone else wrote about the water, which I respond to here. I still don’t think our Mahometan friend has a good answer. (Seriously: I’m a Christian, but there’s a lot I don’t understand and I’m wary of dogmatism.) But if you, Right2Bright or, for that matter, you Vanceone, can add anything, I’d love to hear it. (Assuming either of you comes back here.)
Tzetzes on December 13, 2007 at 1:15 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3