Mitt on Huckabee’s latest: “[A]ttacking someone’s religion is really going too far”
posted at 10:35 am on December 12, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Mitt’s strategy now is Huck’s strategy in the general, if he gets that far: Deflect questions about any and all idiosyncratic beliefs by declaring them beyond the pale. To wit:
In an article to be published Sunday in The New York Times, Huckabee, an ordained Southern Baptist minister, asks, “Don’t Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?”
Romney, vying to become the first Mormon elected president, declined to answer that question during an interview Wednesday, saying church leaders in Salt Lake City had already addressed the topic.
“But I think attacking someone’s religion is really going too far. It’s just not the American way, and I think people will reject that,” Romney told NBC’s “Today” show.
Asked if he believed Huckabee was speaking in a coded language to evangelicals, Romney praised his rival as a “good man trying to do the best he can,” but he added, “I don’t believe that the people of this country are going to choose a person based on their faith and what church they go to.”
Click the image at the end of the post to watch. The Times piece is out this morning and here’s how the exchange went down. Innocent curiosity or calculated insinuation? You make the call:
Chapter 3 also contains the admonition to ‘‘keep sound wisdom and discretion.’’ Huckabee is, indeed, a discreet fellow, but he has no trouble making his feelings known. He mentioned how much he respected his fellow candidates John McCain and Rudolph W. Giuliani. The name of his principal rival in Iowa, Mitt Romney, went unmentioned. Romney, a Mormon, had promised that he would be addressing the subject of his religion a few days later. I asked Huckabee, who describes himself as the only Republican candidate with a degree in theology, if he considered Mormonism a cult or a religion. ‘‘I think it’s a religion,’’ he said. ‘‘I really don’t know much about it.’’
I was about to jot down this piece of boilerplate when Huckabee surprised me with a question of his own: ‘‘Don’t Mormons,’’ he asked in an innocent voice, ‘‘believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?’’
Laura Ingraham’s reportedly hammering him over it. I wonder if all this scrutiny of his religious pronouncements — the “Christian leader” ad, the ‘98 statement about wives serving their husbands, now this — won’t spark some backlash among evangelicals who feel their basic beliefs are being treated as a disqualifying factor for the presidency. That would be another ironic parallel with Mormons vis-a-vis Romney. Huck’s sure to try to leverage the sentiment against the Democrats when they come after him over this but it’s harder to sell a “my opponent hates God” message in a Republican primary.
The debate this afternoon? Gonna be sweet.
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: 1 2 Next »
There’s a debate this afternoon??
Anyone know when and what channel? Guess I haven’t been paying enough attention lately!
freakagriep on December 12, 2007 at 10:40 AM
Some context for the Huckabee quote would be nice.
I’m so sick of soundbite politics.
EduardoOTI on December 12, 2007 at 10:43 AM
Ha, nice screen cap of Romney. He looks jolly.
Vizzini on December 12, 2007 at 10:43 AM
It’s being hosted by The Des Moines Register in Johnston, Iowa at 1pm. I have no idea about the channel, though.
amerpundit on December 12, 2007 at 10:45 AM
How do you contextualize a comment like that? It seems like a stand-alone question to me. The question is inappropriate coming out of the mouth of a presidential candidate no matter the context in which it was asked.
Slublog on December 12, 2007 at 10:45 AM
The Des Moines Register will broadcast the debate live on their site at 1pm.
amerpundit on December 12, 2007 at 10:46 AM
EduardoOTI on December 12, 2007 at 10:43 AM
If you read the Ingram link you will see that the context is not too innocent. It also appears that Huck has little to no knowledge of Mormonism, or Cuba, or little else as far as I can tell anymore.
bbz123 on December 12, 2007 at 10:47 AM
Mitt is playing the victom card? This should get interesting….
bnelson44 on December 12, 2007 at 10:48 AM
I quoted the passage from the Times article right in this post, guys.
Allahpundit on December 12, 2007 at 10:49 AM
Thanks!
freakagriep on December 12, 2007 at 10:49 AM
Don’t Mormons eat babies? Just asking….
Innocent question, my hiney! I’m not a Mitt supporter, but Huck deserves a strong kick in the behind for that one.
aero on December 12, 2007 at 10:49 AM
The Times article is linked in the story above. Here is the quote in context from the NY Times:
bnelson44 on December 12, 2007 at 10:52 AM
I thought Mitt looked very Presidential here and refused to lower himself even though NBC engineered this as a bash the religious GOP candidates segment.
I don’t think the former governor of Arkansas is fooling Laura Ingraham in the least, she sees him for the backhanded pastor politics player he really is.
Speakup on December 12, 2007 at 10:52 AM
(h/t The Corner)
CP on December 12, 2007 at 10:52 AM
No, but they do believe Jesus, Lucifer, you and I are all brothers.
bnelson44 on December 12, 2007 at 10:53 AM
There are some interesting things in the Times article:
Huck on the Christian Right:
‘Richard Land swoons for Fred Thompson,’’ he said. ‘‘I don’t know what that’s about. For reasons I don’t fully understand, some of these Washington-based people forget why they are there. They make ‘electability’ their criterion. But I am a true soldier for the cause. If my own abandon me on the battlefield, it will have a chilling effect.’’
amish on December 12, 2007 at 10:55 AM
Some pre-debate Christian metal to get you in the mood to rumble…
Big S on December 12, 2007 at 10:55 AM
RE: the Debate
That’s 1pm Central time
CP on December 12, 2007 at 10:55 AM
Lots of stuff in that story.
About the many gifts Huck received while in office:
As lieutenant governor, Huckabee established a corporation, Action America, to which people donated more than $60,000. He used that money to pay himself for delivering inspirational speeches. Asked by the Arkansas news media to disclose the names of donors, Huckabee declined. In all, Huckabee accepted and reported upward of 300 gifts during his years in office, worth at least $150,000 and probably much more.
amish on December 12, 2007 at 10:57 AM
You know, none of this doctrinal crap would matter if we didn’t insist that a candidate’s primary qualification for the highest elected office in the land is undying love of the baby Jesus. Although I’ll take Mitt’s side against Huckabee – it’s not as if Mitt has ever sought to cram his religion is everyone’s face.
Huckabee is such a sleazy jerk.
Enrique on December 12, 2007 at 10:57 AM
Geez…so if we don’t support Huckabee, Christians have a reason to sit out/not become involved?
Slublog on December 12, 2007 at 10:58 AM
I think he was quoting a Fred Thompson supporter.
bnelson44 on December 12, 2007 at 10:59 AM
I am so tired of this.
Let’s get the primaries over with already. Can’t some state move their date up to tomorrow or something, and we can get it over with.
But, then again…politics never ends…
nailinmyeye on December 12, 2007 at 10:59 AM
It looked to me like he was quoting Huckabee, talking about Richard Land’s support for Thompson.
Slublog on December 12, 2007 at 11:00 AM
The debate ’sweet’???????
The debate will be circus of ‘we told you Republicans are nuts’. They won’t even get to the Iraq, Iran, fence, taxes questions. It is going to be god god god and the independents in the general election will remember it.
Limerick on December 12, 2007 at 11:01 AM
It’s like when Pat Buchanan insists he’s not anti-semetic, he just thinks the Israel Lobby (amen corner?) has too much influence.
Uh-huh.
thirteen28 on December 12, 2007 at 11:01 AM
Yea know if they don’t mention religion, it will be a great let down.
bnelson44 on December 12, 2007 at 11:01 AM
If I were Romney I would straight up call him and many of his supporters bigots. That is what they are. Maybe that wouldn’t be the best tactical strategy. I really want to know who these paople are still supporting Huckabe. They might want to actually start doing their homework before they throw away the Republican nomination and general election, by supporting this guy.
davenp35 on December 12, 2007 at 11:04 AM
So? Don’t care. At least they’re worshiping the right brother. Huck’s asking us to worship HIM. He is God’s Chosen One after all–he has proof because his poll numbers are up.
aero on December 12, 2007 at 11:05 AM
If Romney did that, it would be over for him.
bnelson44 on December 12, 2007 at 11:05 AM
Yeah, I mean I just don’t think that issue has been discussed enough. I mean, I heard that Mitt guy’s a Mormon or something.
amerpundit on December 12, 2007 at 11:06 AM
Huckabee should never have asked any question of Mormon doctrine. But if he had to, He could have asked so many questions about Mormon beliefs, like “Don’t they believe Jesus visited the Indians?” That’s pretty well known.
Instead he goes for one equating Jesus and Satan. You can damn well bet that was a premeditated ploy to get that idea out there to his “real Christian” base.
brak on December 12, 2007 at 11:07 AM
Huckabee would never have gained such support had it not been for people’s honest reservations about all the surrounding consequences of support for Romney.
Two topics, Mitt’s “honor” and also Huck’s Mormon question, seemingly relevant to current events, from a comment this morning at Ace of Spades HQ below.
maverick muse on December 12, 2007 at 11:11 AM
I have a new term I want to try out. Unfortunately it applies to some people on here as well. Tell me what you think.
Huckabigots-Those who support the candidacy of Mike Huckabee and oppose the candidacy of Mitt Romney entirely based upon the candidates religion.
davenp35 on December 12, 2007 at 11:16 AM
Hot AirHuck Airjediwebdude on December 12, 2007 at 11:18 AM
Why should his religion not count? In Mitt’s case it is very much a part of what he is. If he were a Wahabist would you say the same? If not, does that make you a bigot as well? What about if he were a Scientologist?
bnelson44 on December 12, 2007 at 11:19 AM
The chickens are coming home to roost. Everyone here attacks Islamic theology and the regard that Muslims give to Mohammad, in fact, its refreshing when a politician like Ayan Hirsi Ali criticizes Mohammad, the Koran, and the traditions of Islam.
I guess Mormonism is off limits? I know they are nice people and there doesn’t seem to be any threat of violence from their scriptures, but is that enough of a reason to call someone “a bigot” if they condemn Mormonism, or demand their representatives call into account what, if any, stock they put into arcane beliefs and traditions?
Jimmy the Dhimmi on December 12, 2007 at 11:19 AM
I think it is lame.
nailinmyeye on December 12, 2007 at 11:21 AM
I wonder if Huck’s minders/tacticians have considered the negative backlash that is going to come from independents who are wavering between Mitt and Huck. I suppose they hope to gain more than they lose, but I’ll bet it cleaves off a sizable chunk.
a capella on December 12, 2007 at 11:21 AM
There are such animals?
bnelson44 on December 12, 2007 at 11:22 AM
I don’t see what all the hoopla is about vis a vis Mitt and Mormons.
My in-laws,and best girlfriend-devout Christians-would vote for Mitt.
Their “problem child” is Rudy.
Mormon Schmormon.
Would he be a good CIC?
If the answer’s yes, then Mitts’ got our votes.
next.
annoyinglittletwerp on December 12, 2007 at 11:22 AM
How do you do it Allah? Take all this shinola. I live in the dead center of the Bible belt and I can’t take it. We have a war to win and a country to secure and what does our Army do?…..burn crosses. All this is doing is driving me to covert.
Limerick on December 12, 2007 at 11:24 AM
lol…convert
Limerick on December 12, 2007 at 11:24 AM
Personally, I don’t think either would be. That is why I favor McCain and Rudy.
bnelson44 on December 12, 2007 at 11:25 AM
Ridiculing isn’t the same as “attacking,” is it? ‘Cause we need to protect our right to ridicule Tom Cruise’s beliefs.
saint kansas on December 12, 2007 at 11:34 AM
I really am sick of the bigot talk, too! Mormonism is an organized religion with a specific set of beliefs. I don’t understand why nobody can question that and hold it up to facts and proof? When something like DNA can prove certain Mormon doctrines wrong, I want to know why someone who is going to run for my President is going to ignore that. What else is he going to ignore?
If Huckabee, Romney, Thompson, or Julianni believed for example, that Aliens walk among us and kidnap us on a regular basis, would I be a bigot to question that, and ask for proof? I want a President who doesn’t ignore facts, for any reason, why is that bigoted?
jjjen on December 12, 2007 at 11:36 AM
Actually, I was thinking of national defense. A Scientologist believes we will soon be at war with another planet. I devout Scientologist could very well divert resources into a defense against such an attack.
bnelson44 on December 12, 2007 at 11:38 AM
I don’t understand why nobody can question that and hold it up to facts and proof?
You can, but the point is that it is entirely irrelevant to a Presidential election, and it shows an irrational focus on an issue that has nothing to do with running the country, foreign policy, economics, or other current issues affecting America.
I said in the earlier thread on Huckabee’s comment that it doesn’t matter if the candidate thinks the Sun is a Fire God. I DO NOT CARE. Religion can inform a candidate’s judgment and character, and I certainly won’t be voting for a pro-choice candidate ever, but that doesn’t mean that I’m going to get into a public shouting match over something entirely irrelevant to the office of the Presidency. We are not electing a Pope, we’re electing a President.
And any candidate who tries to get into this kind of divisive theological bickering is just showing that they’re not Presidential.
Sydney Carton on December 12, 2007 at 11:46 AM
Foxhole space reserved for ya here.
I voted for every Republican candidate since Nixon. If the flavor of a candidate’s religion is going to be the standing criteria for the Republican nomination…then I’m tearing up the party card. Many have already….now I’m beginning to understand why.
Limerick on December 12, 2007 at 11:52 AM
Let’s see, there are Christians out there who don’t want to dilute the concept of what Christianity is, and there is a religious group out there whose beliefs are so far afield from what Christians believe that any endorsement of their beliefs would be dangerous to Christianity (which is under attack from all sides anyway). If someone from that religion is elected to the highest office in the land, that religion, which loves to evangelize will use that as proof they are a main line religion and people accept them as Christian. And you are saying that the Christians can’t defend themselves and must accept that faite and if they don’t they are “bigots”?
bnelson44 on December 12, 2007 at 11:53 AM
RIGHT, because NO ONE has ever attacked a person’s religious beliefs in politics. Ever. Oh, except when people called FDR’s “new deal” the “Jew deal” because they figured he was secretly Jewish. And JFK and his Catholicism. And George W. Bush and his Christianity.
Or in non-politics life, like in a university or a blog or in a debate or in real life. No one has ever called another one a religious nut or a fundy or whatever.
Romney needs to grow up. If he’s not used to childish and ridiculous attacks on his life, perhaps he needs to go live in a bubble.
mjk on December 12, 2007 at 11:53 AM
Huckabee is not out of bounds to attempt to make people aware that there are aspects of the Mormon religion that will strike fundamentalist Christians as heresy and secular people as crazy. Romney’s Mormon faith is part of who he is, (or at least I think so, I don’t know what is in Romney’s heart or anyone else’s heart, for that matter). If a religious faith is much more important than preference in ice cream flavor as most religious folk would have us believe, then it will have some impact on the types of decisions that Romney will make. Thus, issues about religious faith are a valid part of the political conversation. And Huckabee has brought them up in a subtle, smart way.
I’m just trying to be fair to Huckabee, as I’m voting for Romney if he’s the Republican candidate, but voting Democratic if Huckabee is the Republican candidate.
Question: would all these people who say Romney’s Mormonism doesn’t matter be prepared to vote for a devout muslim for President of the United States?
thuja on December 12, 2007 at 12:00 PM
The debate is being broadcast on Fox News at 2PM…
Oh please. You could not provide “proof” for most Christian doctrine. That’s why it’s called “faith”.
Clearly Mitt Romney is an enormously capable man of great character, who has led an exemplary life. If he were talking about a threat of an alien invasion (not illegal aliens) then you might have a leg to stand on with your ridiculous argument.
You can try to paint Romney as a kook all you want, but in my view the people who come across sounding bizarre are people like yourself who view the LDS Church and its adherents as a threat, kinda like some people see black helicopters.
Buy Danish on December 12, 2007 at 12:01 PM
If someone from that religion is elected to the highest office in the land, that religion, which loves to evangelize will use that as proof they are a main line religion and people accept them as Christian. And you are saying that the Christians can’t defend themselves and must accept that faite and if they don’t they are “bigots”?
What you’re really saying is that you DO want a pastor-in-chief. I don’t. I have the Pope, my bishops, etc. I want a President who has a commitment to my VALUES, of course, such as being pro-life, but I don’t care if that guy worships the Sun as a Fire God.
You’re not concerned with what actions the President would take, apparently. Your concern seems to be that Mormons would get more converts or something, because the President was a mornon. Like I said, that is an irrational focus on something that has nothing to do with running the country.
Sydney Carton on December 12, 2007 at 12:02 PM
Question answer: That is like comparing a croc to hamster.
Limerick on December 12, 2007 at 12:04 PM
That’s me! Cross burnings in my yard welcome.
Limerick on December 12, 2007 at 12:07 PM
Which candidate is running on the Muslim ticket against Romney?
right2bright on December 12, 2007 at 12:09 PM
Mormon president: Editorial writer, you have insulted me and my religion. Have a strudel!
Muslim president: Editorial writer, you have insulted me and my religion. Now stop bleeding all over the Oval Office carpet. And take your head with you when you leave.
aero on December 12, 2007 at 12:09 PM
So because conspiracy theorist wackjobs imagined that FDR was a Jew, or because people attack W for his Christian faith, that justifies people using the same sort of tactics against Mitt Romney?
That’s like saying that it’s okay for Rosie to spread her delusional theories about 9/11 and if you don’t like it then you’re weak and need to live in a bubble.
That is a false analogy. There is no comparison between the battles that have been waged against this country in the name of Islam since the time of Jefferson and Adams to how Romney conducts himself as a candidate who was raised in the Mormon faith.
Buy Danish on December 12, 2007 at 12:16 PM
Maybe, just maybe it is the concern that the president would hold such views.
A person who thinks he is a “savior” (of the dead no less), and believes he is going to be a “Father” to millions of spirit-children on another planet some day, as he sires them with his harem of polygamously married wives may make some people uneasy…just saying.
*
Now when you state these things, they are so obviously strange that the person stating becomes the subject. But that is his belief, and some find it odd…others embrace it, and still others don’t care what he believes.
Which leads us back to what he really believes…taxes, abortion, gun-control, immigration…all things he has changed his course on in the past several months of campaigning.
The religion is his only constant in his life.
right2bright on December 12, 2007 at 12:20 PM
Seriously? You don’t think that’s a little weird?
I don’t think I would vote for that guy.
nailinmyeye on December 12, 2007 at 12:21 PM
Maybe, just maybe it is the concern that the president would hold such views….just saying.
??? Just saying WHAT? What are you saying? I have no problem with a President who worships a Fire God, so long as he has my values and my policies. You, on the other hand, apparently don’t like a guy with a different religion than you. What does that make you?
Would you vote for a Jewish president, if he was as conservative as you are and held your policies?
Who else fails your test?
Sydney Carton on December 12, 2007 at 12:23 PM
Seriously? You don’t think that’s a little weird?
I don’t think I would vote for that guy.
In the scheme of things, if the guy’s values were the same as mine and his policies were the same as mine, I’d vote for him. I’m secure enough in my own religion to know that his wacko beliefs won’t affect me. The Truth always wins in the end, so what do I care if President X thanks the Fire God every say instead of Jesus? If his religion was dictating him to eat the flesh of the innocent, it’d be another thing (because it would extend from the realm of belief to an actual policy). But you should realize that it doesn’t matter.
The irrelevancy of theology to the Presidency is a large factor in a philosophy of limited government. If you think the President should share your faith, or have a faith very close to yours, then you implictitly believe that government should be powerful enough such that the theology of the people running it matters. That’s very incompatible with traditional conservative limited government philosophy. Of course, it could just be naked bigotry as well.
Sydney Carton on December 12, 2007 at 12:29 PM
I’m a uniter, not a divider.- George W.Bush
The government of the United States is to give
to bigotry no sanction … and to persecution no assistance.
- George Washington
The religion of every man must be left to the
conviction and conscience of every man.
- James Madison
I’m a divider, not a uniter.
- Mike Huckabee
The government of the United States is to give
to bigotry every sanction … and to persecution much assistance.
- Mike Huckabee
The religion of every man must be judged by my
my conviction and my conscience.
- Mike Huckabee
MB4 on December 12, 2007 at 12:31 PM
Mike Huckabee, have you no decency, sir? Have you no shame?
MB4 on December 12, 2007 at 12:37 PM
Bullseye, great post.
That’s another reason why Huck and those defending the attacks on Romney’s religion are so out of bounds.
They’ll insist they’re just asking questions, but can you imagine how badly they’d blow a gasket if the tables were turned and Romney was asking questions like this about their faith?
thirteen28 on December 12, 2007 at 12:41 PM
Given your comment that precedes this statement, this one makes absolute sense. I’m curious if you know why.
In some ways, it is amusing watching all of the Huck Haters getting their panties all twisted up over his supposed bad tactics.
Defense Guy on December 12, 2007 at 12:45 PM
I’m LDS. And judging from what I’ve seen from Huck–and more precisely, his enabling of some of the more virulent anti-Mormon types; I have to wonder if Huck is elected, will he do something to try to please what got him there–anti-Mormonism?
Just in the last day here on Hotair, one of the usual commentators that attacks LDS beliefs said that the LDS church was driven out of the US for good reason in the 1800’s. He approved of that action–people being driven out by gunpoint because of their faith. Now, that’s an outlier, I hope. But there’s a lot of that out there, and why wouldn’t Huckabee start to set things in motion to return to that?
For the first time in a very long time, with Huck (and judging by the context of his quote in this thread, he brought it up himself, so no weaseling about it was an interview question), I’m actually worried for my religious freedom.
Huck hates the LDS church, and he has a history of granting clemency to people who are “saved.” Why wouldn’t he start pardoning people who attack Mormons? Wouldn’t that fit his beliefs?
Vanceone on December 12, 2007 at 12:49 PM
All of you who keep harping on the word “bigot” and its many variations, might want to take a couple of steps down. It is seriously overdone.
I’m accused of “naked bigotry” because I think hypothetical guy who believes the Sun is a Fire God is a nut? What are you talking about? I’m a “bigot” because I think that there are differences between Mormon and traditional Christian doctrine? – there are, so what? Let me ask you, my moral superiors, am I allowed to disagree with the basic tenets of Mormonism? Evangelical Christianity? Mennonite Faith? Judaism? Am I allowed to ask questions of said faiths’ respective beliefs? Even their kookier beliefs? Am I allowed, in your categories of bigotry, to make judgments of a person’s values based on some of the answers to those questions? Am I allowed to disagree with those values? Or, does doing these things make me a bigot?
I’m a bigot because I have more than a naive sense that you can separate a person’s faith and his or her values? Because I believe that a person’s faith, whatever faith that might be, is part and parcel of their values, and can hardly be separated from the person?
Damn. I would vote for Mitt for a number of reasons, and Hucakbee is certainly not my guy. But I don’t understand how having a divergent opinion on the nature of Romney’s religion makes me a bigot.
nailinmyeye on December 12, 2007 at 12:54 PM
I’m Christian. I’m Baptist. And and I’m voting for Romney because I believe he’s the best in the field of candidates.
Huckabee should be ashamed of himself for using religious differences to attempt to defeat a political rival.
Invert the proposition-would he be comfortable using political affiliation to determine whether a person is properly religious?
Doug on December 12, 2007 at 12:59 PM
Come on! Do you have some proof that Mike Huckabee hates the LDS church? I am not a Huckabee supporter, but that is just unfair, and dishonest. I am sure that he, as a Southern Baptist minister disagrees with the tenets of LDS doctrine, but to say that he hates the LDS church is to hyperbolize your argument into irrelevance.
nailinmyeye on December 12, 2007 at 1:00 PM
Jim Geraghty is right, having Alan Keyes in this debate is ridiculous. The only reason he’s there is to cause trouble for the real candidates. Why not throw in the Pats (Robertson and Buchanan) as well, they’ve run for president in the last 20 years too.
Dudley Smith on December 12, 2007 at 1:00 PM
Ugh. I messed up my tags. Apologies.
nailinmyeye on December 12, 2007 at 1:01 PM
But I’m sure if Mitt were asking similar questions about Huck’s religion, you’d have no problem with it whatsoever, right?
And if one of the Democrats asked the same question about Mitt’s religion, you’d have no problem with that either, right?
And among the “Huck Haters” here, nobody has ever defended evangelicals at all from all of the attacks they receive from the Democrats/left wing, right?
If you expect me to believe an an affirmative answer to any of those, please inquire within about the bridge I have for sale.
thirteen28 on December 12, 2007 at 1:03 PM
Exposing The High Reverend Huckster for what he is, does not mean that one is a hater.
I think that you may be projecting here and had best check your own panties.
MB4 on December 12, 2007 at 1:05 PM
Nailinmyeye: It’s not having disagreements over the doctrines. It’s whether you judge Romney, or any other person solely on the basis of those theological doctrines.
Sure, you can examine doctrines if they are going to influence the mans political decisions. That’s why, for instance, it’s okay to examine a Muslim–you have to judge whether they will follow the wahbists, etc. But history has shown that LDS politicians are, for the most part, clean, upstanding, and pretty much the vanilla conservatives. There’s no real reason to think that an LDS president would do anything that is detrimental to the US or it’s citizens solely because of his faith.
So the Huckabee “Mormons do this!” is an attempt at bigotry because bigotry, in my view, is an irrational fear based on religion.
Do I think people should think for themselves? Absolutely. But the universal consensus seems to be that Romney as President would have exactly two policy concerns: One, he might not drink in the White House, and two, there’s a fear that he would take orders from Salt Lake. Now, evidence does not exist that the LDS church has ever issued orders to any politician (if they DID, what do you think Harry Reid, the guy in charge of the Senate, would he be advocating for his current positions?)
So the only other thing is the “Mormons would be respectable!!!!” fear–which is irrelevant to how well Romney would govern. That’s not a legitimate reason to attempt to persuade others to not vote for the guy. Basically, it’s down to “I can’t let this religion get any more influence!!!” and the LDS church is not running for office. See, this last view is tantamount to “No one LDS should ever run for office, or should be allowed to run, because it makes their faith more respectable.” Heck, I wonder if these people even think LDS church members should be allowed to vote–after all, they might help elect someone who would look favorably on the LDS church–making it respectable!
That’s a slippery slope argument–you can use the same arguments to explain why the LDS church and it’s members should be stripped of all their rights.
Vanceone on December 12, 2007 at 1:05 PM
. . .umm a candidate who worships a Fire God, for one.
A religious test to qualify for any government office is unconstitutional as a matter of law. I believe that for the public to “test” a candidate’s religion (or non-practice) is legitimate; however should be done privately. How one practices his personel life and according to what doctrine he believes in (according to his religion) is important in so much that his basis for belief sometimes is a foundation in how they would govern.
I’m not saying that a candidate would govern solely based on his religion, but if a candidate chose to worship a Fire God, and I (based on history, tradition consensus and common sense) know that worshiping a Fire God is ridiculous, would also question his judgment on other matters not pertaining to his religion. Follow?
Now, as for Huck’s questioning of Mitt, it is going to far, yet not so much foreign to what we all do privately.
My main gripe about all of this is that we are so focused on our own parties line of questioning that we
might beare taking the focus off discussions of the real nutroots on the left.geckomon on December 12, 2007 at 1:05 PM
This is the primary, I have no problem with any of the questions being asked. I want everything ferreted out now, before we get locked in to our candidate. Don’t you?
But I suppose this makes me gullible enough to want to buy your bridge.
Defense Guy on December 12, 2007 at 1:06 PM
(emphasis added)
I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt about your alleged “I’m just asking questions” mentality. However, you continue to spew this twisted version of LDS theology and I have finally decided that you are NOT trying to promote a discussion, you really are trying to demean and deride a religion. Your little childish “I’m Christian, and your not!” rants are unproductive and not worth addressing anymore. No matter how many times you have been corrected on this topic, you continue to use the same rhetoric and that demonstrates your willingness to debate in bad faith.
Troy Rasmussen on December 12, 2007 at 1:06 PM
r2b,
Do you think you could focus on what Mitt Romney has done during his lifetime on the planet Earth instead of obsessing about what you claim he thinks will happen upon his death?
Can you provide us with direct quotes from Mitt Romney where he talks about the harem he will have in heaven?
Just askin’.
Buy Danish on December 12, 2007 at 1:07 PM
Mitt’s supporters are, in fact – look at Vanceone’s comment at 12:49.
Do I care if someone asks questions of Huck’s faith? Nope, everyone already is – look at the post yesterday about marriage.
What is stupid is that the same people asking questions about Huck’s faith are the one’s crying bigot when anyone dares approach Mitt’s.
nailinmyeye on December 12, 2007 at 1:07 PM
This is all of Mitt’s making. He gave that speech, and in that speech he claims the fundamentals of faith are important in the election, but the details are off limits. He said and I’m paraphrasing: “What is important (listen up evangelicals because I’m pandering for your vote) is that I believe in Jesus as my Savior, the details of my belief (ancient Israelites migrating to the new world, Satan and Jesus are brothers, God was a man, you can be a God too, etc.) all that is off limits or you are a bigot. So listen evangelicals, the only part of our faiths that is in bounds for discussion (or remember you are a bigot) are the same. So let’s get about the important business of fighting those evil secularists and others that don’t agree with us and our fundamental belief.”
Those of you who think Mitt’s hateful speech was good are the real bigots.
tommylotto on December 12, 2007 at 1:08 PM
Am I allowed to ask questions of said faiths’ respective beliefs? Even their kookier beliefs? Am I allowed, in your categories of bigotry, to make judgments of a person’s values based on some of the answers to those questions? Am I allowed to disagree with those values?
Yes, yes, yes, yes. But you’re misguided for thinking that they matter to the office of the Presidency.
Let’s not beat around the bush. What VALUES do you disagree with? After all, if you were to reject a person merely because they have different beliefs than you for a position in which those beliefs are wholly irrelevant, you would be a bigot. But beliefs inform values, and values are relevant. So what are the values that you disagree with? Last I checked, and speaking as a Catholic, Mormons are like the most family-valued oriented people on the freaking planet. I don’t have any value disagreements with them at all, period. Oh, I think a lot of their beliefs are nuts. But their values are solid.
So what values of theirs do you reject?
Sydney Carton on December 12, 2007 at 1:08 PM
I’m not calling you a hater. But you should know the kinds of things that were said before the “have you no shame” quote. Which is why your use of it, following the comment that preceded it, made me smile.
Defense Guy on December 12, 2007 at 1:09 PM
A lot better than the glove fit OJ.
MB4 on December 12, 2007 at 1:10 PM
But even this answer is to say Romney’s religion does matter. It’s that just we feel Romney’s religion is mostly harmless, while Islam isn’t. My point is that a candidate’s religion should be taken as a point of information and interpreted reasonably. That is, it’s ok to hold Romney’s Mormonism against him in proportion to how bad we perceive Mormonism to be. Since it is hard to make a case that Mormonism is all that bad, we should at most hold it as minor point against Romney. It’s when people make a litmus test out of a minor point that we have a problem.
As an analogy, I remember Ayaan Hirsi Ali saying that we are all racist. Perhaps it is true, perhaps not. But if it is true then the problem comes when we make race too important, not when we show some trivial preference to strangers.
thuja on December 12, 2007 at 1:11 PM
No, I honestly don’t give a flying fornication over the fact as to whether or not Mitt chooses to worship Jesus differently from the way Huck chooses to worship Jesus. It has not one fcking lick of importance with respect to how they’ll govern as president.
And yes, it does make you gullible – please write AP or BP to get my email address and I will tell you where to start sending your unmarked bills to me. You can then have the title to the bridge.
thirteen28 on December 12, 2007 at 1:12 PM
As for whether I’m being hyperbolic, it’s possible. But can you assure me that Huckabee WOULDN’T do something like that?
Both K-Lo and Rich Lowry basically state that Huck is now riding Anti-mormonism.
His sole issue is that he’s the Evangelical Pastor, out to defend the faith against all threats. That’s his campaign. He can’t do anything except religiously to appeal to his base–on crime, immigration, fiscal matters, etc. he’s to the left of Clinton. So what does he have left to keep his base happy? Well, as we’ve seen here at hotair, being anti-mormon is very popular with some people.
Why wouldn’t Huck try to placate that base? Would he? I really don’t know, and neither do you. He IS running as a religious figure, so he would do religious things (just as he went to the Southern Baptist Convention as the governor of Arkansas, not as a pastor).
Is it likely? Probably not. But I can’t rule it out, which is the scary part.
Vanceone on December 12, 2007 at 1:13 PM
I agree. But – to argue that Romney’s or anyone else’s religious faith, will not influence policy decisions, I think it a bit naive. That is what faith it – whatever faith it is – it is a life and a living process (Coleridge). But #2 – people are already doing this to Huck – asking about his foreign policy being based on the Golden Rule. Now, I think it is lame as a foreign policy strategy, but, if we’re asking about Huck and the Golden Rule…do we think that Huck is the only one whose faith is going to influence policy?
Come on. No one wants to strip anyone of their rights. Don’t be disingenuous.
nailinmyeye on December 12, 2007 at 1:13 PM
Am I a gibot because I think that Sunnis are dogs and Jews are pigs?
BTW, we have no gays in Iran.
- Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
MB4 on December 12, 2007 at 1:15 PM
I agree, for the most part. However, we are not the only two people who will be voting.
Will you take a check for your bridge? It’s from the UN, so you know it’s gotta be good.
Defense Guy on December 12, 2007 at 1:17 PM
Vanceone is a member of Mitt’s church, and he’s only asking because it’s his belief system that came under attack first.
I call bullsh!t. If Hillary, Obama, Edwards, some MSM turd like Olberman or any other liberal asked similar questions of Huck, you, me, and the rest of the conservative movement would, without irony, call them out on their bigotry without hesitation.
HUCK was the one who put his faith front and center as his chief qualification to be president, much like Kerry put his Vietnam service front and center as his cheif qualification in ‘04. And HUCK was the first one that started questioning others’ faith before anyone said anything about his. Don’t try to make Huck out as some sort of victim in this, he launched the first salvos and now he’s getting hit back. Boo freakin’ hoo.
thirteen28 on December 12, 2007 at 1:18 PM
I didn’t say that I rejected any of Mitt’s values. But, I want to preserve my right to do so if I so choose.
Besides, it doesn’t matter – even if I come to the conclusion that I don’t disagree with any of Mitt’s values, than I have had to consider those values as part of that conclusion. In which case, values have still played a relevant part in my decision of who to vote for.
nailinmyeye on December 12, 2007 at 1:19 PM
I find all sorts of claims like this on the internet, but notice how this “expert” says, “This is what I was taught as a child. It is very hard to get the church to admit this little secret. But it is discussed openly in LDS circles.” When asked by a commenter at that site to provide a theological/doctrinal basis for this claim, the question was left unanswered.
False. Mitt’s supporters are repelled by the sneaky way Huck is using his perch as a former Baptist Minister to gain votes, and to oh-so-subtly raise questions about Mormon beliefs in an “innocent voice”. Huckabee has gone so far as to complain that an examination of his record as governor is what “third grade tattle-tales” do, yet he has the gall to raise questions about Mormon theology with a New York Times’ reporter.
In contrast, I have seen not seen Mitt supporters question Huck’s theological beliefs. It’s possible that some Atheists have, but they would be questioning Christian doctrine in general, so that wouldn’t count.
Gotta run. I’ll check in later…
Buy Danish on December 12, 2007 at 1:20 PM
Look at the means which a man employs, consider his motives, observe his pleasures. A man simply cannot conceal himself.
- Confucius
MB4 on December 12, 2007 at 1:21 PM
So, if a Muslim runs for President, the candidate’s view of jihad is off-limits, right?
corona on December 12, 2007 at 1:22 PM
nailinmyeye: Maybe I am a bit sensitive, but in the LDS church, we remember a time when, in these United States, we were, as a matter of law, forbidden to vote if we belonged to the LDS church. There was a time when it was legal to kill Mormons just because. We remember a time when over a quarter of the US army was sent to attack us.
And all of these things were done at the behest of so-called “Evangelical preachers.” So I’m a little sensitive to politicians openly appealing to anti-mormonism. We’ve been down that path once before, and it cost us a lot of lives.
Vanceone on December 12, 2007 at 1:23 PM
So – you’re saying that because Vanceone is a member of Mitt’s church, he gets a complete free pass when making unqualified and unsupported claims that “Huck hates the LDS church,” and that he fears that Huck as president would enact policies that would pardon violent criminals who hate Mormons?
Seriously?
Where are the “bigot cryers” on that one?
Play that card for all its worth.
Unbelievable.
nailinmyeye on December 12, 2007 at 1:24 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »