Hot Air poll: Who would you rather have on the ticket, Huckabee — or Lieberman? Update: Poll fixed
posted at 12:59 pm on May 19, 2008 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
Inspired by this morning’s New York Sun editorial, arguing that the surest way to put Maverick over the top in battleground states is to add a Democratic apostate to the ticket. Yes, he’s excellent on the war and always delivers a tender cut of red meat when opining on his own party, but do we really want a guy who voted no on Alito one 72-year-old heartbeat away from the presidency? If we’re willing to tolerate a pro-choice VP, toss Ridge on there and pick up Pennsylvania.
Even so, I’m intrigued by this as a test of right-wing blog readers — not their admiration of Liebs, necessarily, but of their abiding antipathy to Huck. How’s about it, HA commenters? Imagine Maverick’s shortlist is down to two; either one’s going to piss off a lot of people. Let’s see, in our own highly unscientific way, who’ll piss off more.
Update: Whoops, last poll was broken. Sorry for the hassle. Please re-vote!
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 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 »
Ahhhh, a “mittens”. I see.
malan89 on May 19, 2008 at 7:37 PM
Bigot.
JiangxiDad on May 19, 2008 at 7:38 PM
I think you’re making a distinction without a difference, but it’s a moot point. The Evangelical conservative movement goes beyond merely preferring Christian candidates. It tries to codify a comprehensive, biblically correct platform that doesn’t allow for disagreement on secular grounds. Or even religious grounds, owing to it’s marriage to a narrow set of Christian beliefs. The practical effect is that Christianity is no longer defined as a personal relationship with god, but a rigid, strictly political worldview. Instead of rendering unto Caesar, Christianity becomes Caesar; and is necessarily debased.
None of this has been good, and Huckabee is seeing the backlash from it now.
RightOFLeft on May 19, 2008 at 7:39 PM
LOL. Nice pull, malan.
peski on May 19, 2008 at 7:39 PM
I stand corrected. But, she wouldn’t have been able to carry Jesus without her immaculate conception. I was thinking of “virginal conception”, which refers to the virgin birth of Jesus.
malan89 on May 19, 2008 at 7:40 PM
I’ve always thought of Christianity as being decidedly better than either liberalism or conservatism. To me, it has the best elements of both (and more). God’s love and grace are His “liberal” attributes, and God’s righteousness and holiness are His “conservative” attributes. Like two sides of the same coin. I offer the Gospel of John, Chapter 8 as a classic example that is illustrative of this idea of mine.
My collie says:
CyberCipher on May 19, 2008 at 7:40 PM
Seriously, is that some sort of insult in your world? I could imagine the playground insults:
Kid 1: I saw you reading the Book of Mormon.
Kid 2: Did not!
Kid 1: And I saw you scribble “I heart Joesph Smith” in your notebook.
Kid 1: I’m telling my mommy!
malan89 on May 19, 2008 at 7:42 PM
Red Pill-You said you’d vote for McCain and would similarly expect me to vote for Huck, which I said I would. Would you vote for a non-Christian?
JiangxiDad on May 19, 2008 at 7:42 PM
Agreed.
I do not support them. I do not enjoy their posts. I will not click their retarded link and give my IP address to disturbed, paranoid conspiracy theorists.
Gilda on May 19, 2008 at 7:43 PM
No actually it’s just evidence that the so called republicans have been brainwashed by liberal PCism and atheism.
It means the republican party is dead…as evidenced by our nominee.
Yes they hate conservatism because of spiritual motivations that they are unaware of…because at the core of conservatism is Christianity and they want to destroy it.
So the spineless brainwashed RINOS distance themselves from Christianity in order to avoid persecution and accusations of intolerance(according to morally bankrupt liberal PCism) and thus dies the republican party…when it becomes simply another lost liberal party(i.e. John Mccain nomination).
SaintOlaf on May 19, 2008 at 7:44 PM
SouthernGent on May 19, 2008 at 7:24 PM
So did I. Strangely enough.
Spirit of 1776 on May 19, 2008 at 7:44 PM
Dude, you say so many strange things I can’t keep up.
You did say “man were supposed to sin” didn’t you? If so, back to Sunday school for you.
You won’t find a theologian, or minister, on this earth that agrees with that statement. And you won’t find a bible that confirms that.
I have caught you several times falsely accusing posters, and you have never apologized to them.
Tell me, what worse sin (can you commit upon someone) is there then falsely accusing someone of faith, and then not asking for forgiveness?
With a few words, and you accuse them of being unfaithful…you judged them, and they have proven you wrong.
Fall on your knees and beg forgiveness from Professor Blather…or you are no Christian, but a man filled with Satan’s lies. Consumed by your self righteousness, greed, and ignorance…you are full of sin, and can only be baptized by forgiveness. In the name of Jesus, ask the Professor for forgiveness, and I promise that he will forgive you of your transgression.
*
Buy me a tent, I am on a roll…
right2bright on May 19, 2008 at 7:44 PM
I have to say, the antipathy to Mike Huckabee is frankly irrational. The man’s a pretty solid conservative, a decent guy, and a competent administrator. You can quibble with his position on this or that issue, question his tax record, etc., and you can even complain a little about a few campaign tactics that were a trifle sleazy, but he’s not a Democrat, and he’s not a middle-of-the-roader.
I’ve said this several times, and I’ll say it again: Evangelical Christians are the only group that anybody is allowed to be bigoted toward.
As a side note, it’s a little amusing, and a little alarming, to identify the number of areas in which the mantras of the social progressives turn out, when you get right down to how they work in practice, to be specifically anti-Christian, and anti-Evangelical-Christian in particular. It actually vindicates the notion of social progressivism being the spirit of antichrist, if you talk in Christian terms.
philwynk on May 19, 2008 at 7:45 PM
@ Red Pill and Saint Olaf: I would rather place my faith in an honest heathen than a deceitful Christian.
And yes, this evangelical will vote against any ticket with Huckabee on it, although the Bob Jones part does help McCain rather than Huck.
PS
Huckabee is a flip flopper, not to mention he seems to cozy up to those who may not like people of color.
Darnell Clayton on May 19, 2008 at 7:45 PM
Doctrinal mind games. In the minds of some deep thinkers in the church, Jesus can’t be soiled by birth from a sinner, so they solve the problem by declaring her clean at her own conception. But if that’s possible, why the need for Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross?
But I digress. I have no desire to get into a shouting argument about the internal contradictions of religious belief systems. Not much chance of convincing anyone of anything.
peski on May 19, 2008 at 7:46 PM
Not sure I understand exactly what you mean, but I think this religious discussion is in the context of choosing a political leader. It had never occurred to me not to choose somebody based on their religion or race or gender. If I said I wouldn’t vote for someone who wasn’t Jewish I’d feel like an idiot.
But I think today for the first time I am getting the feeling that some wouldn’t vote for an otherwise acceptable candidate because of that person’s religion. That’s why I just asked Red Pill that very question, and why I called the sanctimonious St. Olaf a bigot.
JiangxiDad on May 19, 2008 at 7:46 PM
Branch Rickey on May 19, 2008 at 7:46 PM
Matt 7:20
Therefore by their fruits you will know them.
NKJV
You’re still a doofus.
davidk on May 19, 2008 at 7:47 PM
That does seem to have some truth to it. Though they are also very quick to claim the mantle of the victim as well.
Spirit of 1776 on May 19, 2008 at 7:48 PM
Many (most?) of the protestants are confused about this. Indeed, the doctrine of the “immaculate conception” IS all about the birth of Mary, the Mother of Jesus, and the doctrine is decidedly Roman Catholic in origins. BTW, lots of good information can be found on-line in the Catholic encyclopedia. I read it frequently — I just skip over the parts where they tell everyone what a rotten guy Martin Luther was.
CyberCipher on May 19, 2008 at 7:48 PM
malan89
“I heart Joseph Smith”
An instant classic.
Mormon Doc on May 19, 2008 at 7:49 PM
Whoa, Saint Olaf accused Right2bright of being…. MORMON?
I’m sorry, I literally laughed out loud here. That’s priceless. I’ve got to hear that story. I can’t imagine right2bright’s reaction.
It shows the magnitude of Huckabee’s divisiveness when I see both right2bright and maverickmuse in the same thread promoting Mitt, the Mormon, over Huck. Both of them have got to be slitting their wrists practically over the fact, yet both have seen that Huck is truly dangerous.
Vanceone on May 19, 2008 at 7:51 PM
??
I already told you I was directly quoting professor blather.
You owe me an apology.
SaintOlaf on May 19, 2008 at 7:51 PM
Exactly - anyone on the receiving end of one of self-styled SAINT Olaf will naturally react harshly. They have a tendency to bring it on themselves. Ironically, as do strident and mean sounding atheists, such as Dawkins.
peski on May 19, 2008 at 7:52 PM
You didn’t answer my question. Was Paul speaking in present or past tense about being a sinner?
shick on May 19, 2008 at 7:52 PM
philwynk
I think that is exactly the point of dispute. At least from my perspective I don’t believe that any of those points are correct. That may help explain some of the antipathy towards the Huckster.
Mormon Doc on May 19, 2008 at 7:53 PM
WOW, Hot Air threads are getting longer & longer. 1st thing, Lieberman over Huck for me. Congrats to indy on the expected new baby, your 1st? LMAO at sigy @ 6:41. And to eaglesdontflock @ 5:22 as far as Im concerned, you hit it out of the park. I have registered independent for 24 years,the hard right and extreme left seem to both be out of touch. I do not care if they have an R or a D next to there name, IM LOOKING FOR A LEADER WITH IDEAS. I usually get more of what I want from conservatives but will look at all of them. As to the religion thing, Ill stick with my native american ways. Thanks to all of you, I feel smarter every time I come to this site.All of you bring happiness to this site, some when you sign on and others when they sign off.
aceinstall on May 19, 2008 at 7:56 PM
Branch Rickey,
Matthew 1:25 And (Joseph)knew her not till she had brought forth her first born son and he called his name Jesus
Yes.
SaintOlaf on May 19, 2008 at 7:56 PM
Heck, I’m Catholic and I made the slip-up.
I addressed it. Simple slip-up. No need to get condescending.
I don’t consider religion (or lack thereof) when choosing a candidate. I choose based on who best represents my political beliefs and holds a consistent record of representing them. Although I will concede that people like Mitt and Huckabee (even though I don’t agree with Huck’s politics) with a strong set of moral values will get an upper hand when I make my choice.
By the way, I would make my posts a little more organized before I hit submit if I were you. It was very hard to understand with all the text jumbled together in a quote box. Messy. Use the preview button.
malan89 on May 19, 2008 at 7:58 PM
I agree wholly. His stint as Arkansas governor more or less proves this. He didn’t govern conservatively, he made decisions that cast doubt on the “decent guy” description, and was definitely not a very competent administrator.
Will I be happy to share my home in heaven with him (or Obama, for that matter)? Of course! Do I want him in the White House before then? No sir.
vonspringer on May 19, 2008 at 7:58 PM
aceinstall
I never understand that “hard right” phrase when I hear it. Using hard right and far left as though they are equally problematic is confusing and I think divisive for Republicans. When I hear “hard right” used as a pejorative it makes me think that I and my view points are not welcome. I don’t think that is what you intended but I hear it more and more frequently and it is disheartening.
Mormon Doc on May 19, 2008 at 8:01 PM
I wish my miniature dashhound was as smart as CCs collie,alls he can do is pee on my foot and tell me I steped in a puddle
aceinstall on May 19, 2008 at 8:01 PM
McShamnesty protest vote? I understand. I was able to write in Mitt here in PA. I flipped a coin between writing in Fred or Mitt. Mitt was heads and he won. I was very tempted by TheSitRep’s repeated calls to “WRITE-IN FRED” and I had a lot of trouble telling myself that he didn’t win the coin toss and I had to let it go. My GF didn’t had the chance to write-in anybody as she won the coin toss as to who would register Dem and participate in OpChaos.
malan89 on May 19, 2008 at 8:02 PM
Well said.
shick on May 19, 2008 at 8:02 PM
Oh, I wasn’t talking about your using bigot as an insult, I was talking about the comment you responded to when somebody used “Mormon” as an insult (I could totally see one of them doing a “Yo Momma’s a Mormon” joke). Sorry for the miscommunication.
malan89 on May 19, 2008 at 8:04 PM
Oh. I was really wondering. OK!
JiangxiDad on May 19, 2008 at 8:05 PM
———–
So, only you are allowed to be condescending. Interesting.
Branch Rickey on May 19, 2008 at 8:05 PM
Red Pill wrote:
You are, of course, entitled to your vote. However, back when I thought this way, I voted for Jimmy Carter, the Evangelical Christian. It was the worst voting error I ever made. And when I bought my first house, I didn’t negotiate the price because I was buying from a Christian. It was one of the worst buying mistakes I ever made. I learned from both experiences.
I could continue, but I think I’ve made my point. I’m a Christian, I’ve been one for 35 years, but one ought not use “Christian” as a voting or a buying criterion. There are several reasons, but the main one is that as much as we’d like to think otherwise, it’s not a guarantee of any particular virtue.
Don’t get me wrong: if one allows Christ to do as He chooses, Christianity can indeed reform bad character, sometimes very quickly, and often remarkably. However, it can take a long time, and since a) human beings are largely untrustworthy and unrighteous to begin with, b) the starting point for reformation is relative (I may require 2 decades of reforming before my character is as trustworthy as someone else who was raised better than me), and c) lots of people call themselves “Christian” who aren’t, you simply can’t count on Christians you don’t know to be holier than anybody else. Sorry, but them’s the facts.
philwynk on May 19, 2008 at 8:07 PM
Oh no, not in real-life! The poll here :)
Spirit of 1776 on May 19, 2008 at 8:08 PM
I was just trying to let you know that I had a hard time understanding your points when they were jumbled like that. Sorry if you took it the wrong way.
malan89 on May 19, 2008 at 8:09 PM
To Huck Supporters with regard to antipathy for Gov Huckster.
Any attempt to portray aversion for Huckabee as resulting from bias against his evangelical roots is off base in most respects. As a rule I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt (even when they tell me I am going to hell) if I am familiar with the moral code that they live by.
That said, Huck has done enough not only to cancel out any benefits from that could have been gained from his evangelical association but has also behaved in such a despicable way that he is deserving of any and all contempt that is aimed at him.
I find him to be not just a typical politician but a loathsome, repugnant creature that has maligned people for his own gain and leveraged his associations with a cynicism not rivaled by many liberals.
Seriously. I don’t like him.
Mormon Doc on May 19, 2008 at 8:09 PM
There. Fixed that for you. No need to thank me. Just bein’ neighborly.
My collie says:
CyberCipher on May 19, 2008 at 8:10 PM
I’m not sure what you mean by “mixing religion with politics,” but I couldn’t imagine forming a political opinion about ANYTHING without my faith influencing it. It is simply not possible for a man of faith, who understands his faith, to engage in politics without bringing his religion into it with him. Faith colors everything; it affects how I treat my opponents, it affects how I feel about the poor, it affects what I think government ought to be, etc. Faith properly exercised cannot be separated from life; if religion is true, then it affects everything.
philwynk on May 19, 2008 at 8:11 PM
I was gonna say….you didn’t seem like a Huckabee voter, protest or not. The poll was pretty tough, but I still stand by the argument I made before. Liebs is stronger on the GWoT and the inevitable craptastic domestic policies of a McCain Administration would be less of a blow to the GOP’s future if it had a Liberal R and a Moderate D attached to it instead of a Liberal R and a self proclaimed “conservative” R attached to it.
malan89 on May 19, 2008 at 8:12 PM
“I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.”
SaintOlaf on May 19, 2008 at 8:12 PM
Do we have to have a war-mongering moron or a Jebus freak? Can we have somebody sane? Please?
freevillage on May 19, 2008 at 8:12 PM
RightOFLeft
I think that is more a function of the way that it has been done rather than being some kind of absolute truth. There is no reason why being a known Christian, known Buddhist, known Jew should be a bad thing. The problem comes from using the association improperly or attempting to foist beliefs onto other people.
Mormon Doc on May 19, 2008 at 8:13 PM
I think the comment was made in regard to using the language and symbols of faith to mask an otherwise purely or mostly political motive, as Huck is accused by some of having done.
JiangxiDad on May 19, 2008 at 8:15 PM
malan89
Mormon Dozens
Yo momma’s so Mormon, she has spent more time delivering babies than going to college.
Yo momma’s so Mormon, she voted for Donny Osmond for president.
Yo momma’s so Mormon, when she cut her leg she bled green jell-o.
Mormon Doc on May 19, 2008 at 8:18 PM
I’ll give you a pass this time since you and said girlfriend both voted correctly in the PA primary. ;) Op Chaos reigns.
Branch Rickey on May 19, 2008 at 8:19 PM
Mormon Doc wrote:
What did he do that you found so despicable? That one comment about Lucifer being Jesus’ brother?
That was a low shot. I was disappointed in him. In my mind, that put him into a category along with a lot of other politicians — mean, a little disingenuous, willing to play rougher than good kids oughta. However, I think that falls pretty short of “loathesome” and “repugnant.”
I suspect that the willingness to turn a single, low shot into a general assessment of “repugnant” may have a lot to do with how one feels about Evangelicals generally; the low shot triggers “just another Christian hypocrite” in an unconscious way, and he gets written off for something that’s not really all that unusual. That’s why I don’t think my observation about Huck’s Evangelicalism triggering antipathy is off base; I think a lot of what gets expressed as “I think he’s sleazy” or “I don’t trust him” ultimately comes from “I hate Evangelicals,” but I don’t think it’s necessarily done consciously.
philwynk on May 19, 2008 at 8:19 PM
Well, okay, but would the Republicans actually accept my collie as their Vice Presidential nominee?
My collie says:
You’re going to need help. I’ll start working on your acceptance speech.
CyberCipher on May 19, 2008 at 8:19 PM
John 8?
There is nothing Christian about liberalism.
Liberalism is anti-Christ spirit inspired moral relativity at it’s core.
As for charity..yes I believe the church should care for the needy.
I also do not believe charity should be paid for by the state nor do I believe in paying taxes.
SaintOlaf on May 19, 2008 at 8:21 PM
the DINO!
JeffreyLloyd on May 19, 2008 at 8:22 PM
I think a lot of what gets expressed as “I think he’s sleazy” or “I don’t trust him” ultimately comes from
“I hate Evangelicals,”“boy he reminds me of Jimmy Swaggart” but I don’t think it’s necessarily done consciously.philwynk on May 19, 2008 at 8:19 PM
peski on May 19, 2008 at 8:22 PM
Branch Rickey on May 19, 2008 at 8:22 PM
I wouldn’t disagree with any of that. When I say “mixing religion with politics” I’m not talking about merely being openly religious. I think that’s entirely appropriate. There’s a fine line between a politician acknowledging the role of faith in his/her personal life and a politician manipulating said faith to get elected.
Works for me, thanks.
RightOFLeft on May 19, 2008 at 8:25 PM
Yeah, I’m not a Huck voter. But it’s a poll and I picked him for the fun of it. Either one accents a McCain failing: Liebs with global warming, and Huck calling opponents Shite Republicans (demogoging same-party opponents I mean). Neither one is good.
Spirit of 1776 on May 19, 2008 at 8:26 PM
MORMAN DOC, I am coming from the middle. I mean no offense by what I said. I too am a believer, but in a different way. your views are not only welcome, they are accepted by me as your views. My responses are slow, due to my typing with only one finger, two when I really get warmed up. Please take heart MORMAN DOC, I may be naive but good people will prevail in the end.
aceinstall on May 19, 2008 at 8:26 PM
philwynk on May 19, 2008 at 8:11 PM
it means americans think your faith should be yours not theirs. By trying to make your faith theirs by government fiat it pisses people off and leads to major backlash. take abortion. Abortion can be fought against on a secular level without bringing religion into the debate. Relgion can serve to help troubled women save the life of the unborn. It can not be used as a hammer by government to make the choice for them. We should not make abortion illegal becaue its the christian thing to do, we should make it illegal because it is the human thing to do. Nobody argues that murder should be illegal because it’s against the chruch’s teachings, they argue its should be illegal because its against mankind and society. Same with private bedroom issues. Same with homo sexual marriage. It’s wrong not because its a sin but because a child needs a father and mother, because western civilization is based on that family unit. It is not about sin. It’s about economics/nuturing/disipline. a child needs two different adults that see things two different ways etc. Religion shouls be about you, your local government not national government. that is why the 1st amendment is there. That is why the pilgrims left. They didn’t want government telling them what was sin and what wasn’t. when you try to tell people how to live it irrates them. ESP when the leaders of the political party that they vote for are seen as bigger sinners then everyone else.
unseen on May 19, 2008 at 8:28 PM
I get it.
Of course, in practice, faith is not a binary switch that turns one on or off; it’s more like a virus that gradually infects the whole body, only a good infection rather than a bad one. Huckabee could be completely sincere about his faith, but still have a bunch of unredeemed characteristics that just happen to have worked for him along the way.
I don’t know if you could appreciate this if you’re not part of the culture, but being an Evangelical pastor of a very large church, like Huckabee was, is a HIGHLY political job — you have to mediate fights between very adamant factions that are used to getting their way, and they don’t always fight fair. It’s not supposed to work this way, but a man can be a very successful pastor of a large church without being an especially nice or holy man (though in my experience, most of them ARE pretty nice and reasonably holy), but he can’t be successful without knowing how to deal politically.
Just FYI.
philwynk on May 19, 2008 at 8:28 PM
I agree. And I don’t believe that I said that there was.
Liberalism and humanism go hand-in-hand.
But I am not talking about the Democratic party here.
I also agree that charity is the church’s business, not the government’s business.
I AM a bit surprised by your stance on taxation, though.
My collie says:
CyberCipher on May 19, 2008 at 8:28 PM
Voted to grant amnesty to nearly one million
illegal aliens from Nicaragua and Cuba in 1997
Sen. Boxer voted to grant legal status to Nicaraguans and Cubans who had lived in the United States illegally since 1995, along with their spouses and minor unmarried children. The overall ten year impact of this legislation will be the addition of some 967,000 people to U.S. population. There was no separate vote on the amnesty, as it was included in the DC Appropriations bill. The only opportunity Senators had to vote in favor of or against the amnesty was the Mack Amendment to S.1156. The Mack Amendment passed 99-1.
DfDeportation on May 19, 2008 at 8:30 PM
philwynk
I didn’t care about his bigotry toward people of my faith. What I cared about was how he used his bigotry to try to set good, honorable people like evangelicals and Mormons against each other for his own gain. His comments about Lucifer were not problematic but it was his cynical use of such a ploy to drive a wedge between people of different faiths.
Any attempt to portray me or other Mormons as having a bias against evangelicals is simply off the mark. I am not accusing you of that but it could be inferred from what you wrote. To be clear, I respect and admire evangelicals and believe that we share many of the same beliefs and values so there is no dispute there.
My problem was and is not just related to his “awe shucks” behavior that is actually part of a calculated effort to deceive. He is sleazy. The Huckster’s dismal record on taxes and weakness on crime have been well documented on this blog and many other places as well and have everything to do with his big government approach and willingness to spend tax-payers money to accomplish what he sees as Christian responsibility. It’s not his money.
Other than those points he is probably a fine man.
Mormon Doc on May 19, 2008 at 8:31 PM
You can say that again.
malan89 on May 19, 2008 at 8:31 PM
Been saying this for years, but it usually fell on deaf ears…
Branch Rickey on May 19, 2008 at 8:33 PM
aceinstall
Thank you for clearing up my misconception. Keep pecking!
Mormon Doc on May 19, 2008 at 8:33 PM
unseen wrote:
Sheer, ignorant bunk.
Murder is illegal PRECISELY because it’s against Christian teaching. And in a society governed by Judaism, murder would be illegal PRECISELY because it’s against Moses’ law. It happens that murder is against Christian and Jewish teaching BECAUSE it’s a bad thing for humanity in general. Religion is just how different cultures express common human morality. Some of it’s even true.
Your ignorant point of view pisses me off more than you can imagine. Get a clue, mook: I have EVERY GOD DAMNED BIT as much right as you to advocate what I believe to be sensible law based on MY reasoning as you do based on yours. If my reasoning comes from a religious handbook instead of a course in political philosophy, that is NONE OF YOUR GOD DAMNED BUSINESS.
You’re too ignorant of the sources of your own opinions to know how different philosophies have affected them, but the fact is, you’re more captive to your (unconscious) dogma than I am to my theology, because I’ve at least studied mine and know what it says. Yours controls you without your even being aware it exists. And you have the freakin’ nerve to lecture me about how pissed off you get if I form my opinions based on my religious education.
Freakin’ NAZI.
philwynk on May 19, 2008 at 8:36 PM
I flew to Memphis today, and while renting the car, got the impression that the election is over, and Obama won.
That aside, I thought yesterday’s thread was weird, and this one I’ve only had a chance to start from the last page.
JiangxiDad on May 19, 2008 at 7:46 PM
+1 Exactly.
I believe that Huckabee will not help McCain, but will ‘demand’ to be on the ticket so that he can throw a hissy fit if he isn’t, while asking Evangelicals to stay home. What he really wants is for McCain to lose, and for himself to get positioned for next time, which won’t come.
I voted for Mr. Lieberman because I trust him more than Huckabee. He has proven to be a loyal soul, over and over. In addition, first WoT and security, then all other.
Entelechy on May 19, 2008 at 8:37 PM
There’s a fine line between a politician acknowledging the role of faith in his/her personal life and a politician manipulating said faith to get elected.
CyberCipher on May 19, 2008 at 8:10 PM
the line is that those of faith will use that faith to search for answers, evidence, and numbers to back up and support his/her decsions and will use that faith to determine if that decsion is right/wrong. wheras an unfaithless politician will use religion as a crutch to avoid the search, the thinking and the soul searching and use the name of God to cover those shortcomings.
unseen on May 19, 2008 at 8:37 PM
Bwooosh!!!!!
/my brain exploding….
Big John on May 19, 2008 at 8:38 PM
What is more incredible is that the so-called secular left will elect a Messiah.
Entelechy on May 19, 2008 at 8:39 PM
Dude. Breath.
Unseen is making a solid point there if you read it again. Once the government absorbs the power of religion we are at the point of…oh, I don’t know, the founding of America for religious freedom!
Of course your faith and religion guide your world-view. You are absolutely welcomed and encouraged to vote on those views, but if the outcome is to get government to co-opt the power of religion, the far-thinking religious will be some of the first to stand (firmly) in your way.
Spirit of 1776 on May 19, 2008 at 8:41 PM
Actually, I would expect Mormons to be less affected by anti-Evangelical bigotry than most. Those who suffer misunderstanding are more apt to give some leeway to other who are misunderstood. I actually think it’s the unreligious who are the worst offenders.
I meant you no disrespect, MormonDoc.
philwynk on May 19, 2008 at 8:42 PM
But it was fine for the “chosen people” to invade the “promised land” and kill or rape or enslave every living thing they encountered who wasn’t one of the chosen.
Typical. Try reading the whole Bible sometime, not just the passages your pastor picks.
I guess maybe I’m a Nazi too?
peski on May 19, 2008 at 8:44 PM
Let’s follow your logic. Mary had to be sinless in order to carry Jesus? Is that because Jesus was sinless? What about Mary’s mother? Was she sinless too? If she wasn’t then that means that Mary was good enough to be stainless from another sinner while Jesus still required it.
Think about it. Your giving more credit than you are to Jesus.
shick on May 19, 2008 at 8:45 PM
Very very interesting to me. As a “non-religious” person who thinks I can do without religion, I constantly find myself asking where my values come from, and if they indeed come from having absorbed religious teachings unwittingly. I always wonder if I am being foolish.
Great comment.
JiangxiDad on May 19, 2008 at 8:48 PM
Yeah. Sorry. Hot button issue for me. You have no idea how many times I’ve been by atheist idiots told I’m not allowed to be in politics because I’m a Christian.
Look, I’ve gotten good at avoiding religious talk and making political points in purely secular terms. I understand what that’s about. The fact is, though, that it’s so easy to do this — support causes taught by religions using purely secular arguments — because so much of what religion teaches is TRUE. And while I’m experienced with social research and statistics and systematic logic, I understand that lots of people aren’t, and what they know how to do is vote their conscience as taught to them by their religion. My point is, they have as much right to do this as anybody else has to advocate any point of view publicly.
Sorry for the extra heat. Unseen, forgive me if you can. I think I was arguing with old ghosts.
philwynk on May 19, 2008 at 8:49 PM
philwynk on May 19, 2008 at 8:36 PM
Well thanks for proving my point. A society that allows murder will not long survive. If you can kill whoever you want whenever you want with no reprucussion your society will soon devole into a pit of anarchy. As far as taking the lord’s name in vain that is something you have to live with. I usally don’t do that but if it works for you fine. sodomy, oral sex, homosexual sex, unmarried sex, orgies etc throughout the ages have led to very bad things from virus to unwanted pregencies, to decrease in societal function (see rome) there are plenty of reasons for the government ot discourge these activites that has nothing to do with religion. because you fail to research and understand it is wrong and instead fall back on your religion and say it is wrong because the good books say so is one lazy thinking and two means nothing to me. so when people get up on a national scene and rant and rave about homsexual sex being a sin and abortion being a sin It does nothing to further the debate because someone that doesn’t believe as you do will not see why it is a sin. If you can’t understand that then there is no reason to discuss it further. You can not teach a fish how to swim or a religious fanatic how to think. I question my faith all the time and thru that questioning my faith grows stronger. It would be a weak faith that can not debate sin without referring to relgion.
unseen on May 19, 2008 at 8:49 PM
In the past, I was a member of a very large evangelical church. The pastor of that church started from scratch in the 1970s and built-up the church to mega-proportions in a 20 year period. Over 5000 people were attending every Sunday at 3 services. Then, 17 people came forward and reported that he had molested them over that same 20 year period. The thing that REALLY frightened me was that I had attended that church for almost 10 years, exchanged letters with the pastor, and had talked with him — and I had NO clue that there was anything wrong with him. When the Ted Haggard scandal broke, it was like Yogi-Berra’s deja-vu all over again.
Never again will I attend a mega-church. I now worship at a church that has roughly 50 people in attendance. If the attendance surpasses 200 people, I’ll find some other church to go to.
My collie says:
CyberCipher on May 19, 2008 at 8:51 PM
Why not just cut out the bigotry?
Do you need to assume some people are lesser than you for you to feel better about yourself?
What a sad life you must live.
Now, knock it off clown.
EJDolbow on May 19, 2008 at 8:56 PM
I’m not going to pretend to know WHY she couldn’t carry Jesus if she had been born with original sin (or had committed any kind of sin), but I’m pretty sure she couldn’t.
malan89 on May 19, 2008 at 8:59 PM
I couldn’t say. But you’re rude and more than a little ignorant. Just why, exactly, do you assume that I’m unfamiliar with parts of the Bible other than what “my pastor” taught me? What do you know of my education anyhow?
Maybe you can enlighten us all with an exposition on how Moses’ law applies to Christians in Paul’s epistles. Make sure you contrast the different shading he supplies in Romans, Galatians, and Colossians, and how these affronted common Jewish theology of his day. When you’re done with that, maybe you can write another exposition on how Moses’ law was transmitted and modified by Rabbinic commentary during the Talmudic period, and how modern Jews would imagine the laws apply to modern politics.
If you had a clue how to begin to answer those questions, your assessment of the Hebraic invasion of Canaan might actually be relevant. I suspect you don’t, though. In fact, I’ve got $5 in my pocket that says you can’t even name the book of the Bible where that invasion you mentioned occurs without having to look it up. But I could be wrong. Maybe you’re a professor at Union Theological. But somehow I suspect not.
philwynk on May 19, 2008 at 9:01 PM
Whoa! I don’t think anyone is “lesser than me”. I’m thinking you’re misunderstood me. I was mocking the people that feel that people that belong to another religion than their own (in this case, Mormonism) are somehow “lesser than them”. Please, let me know what I did to get you so offended.
malan89 on May 19, 2008 at 9:02 PM
Never again will I attend a mega-church. I now worship at a church that has roughly 50 people in attendance. If the attendance surpasses 200 people, I’ll find some other church to go to.
CyberCipher on May 19, 2008 at 8:51 PM
I understand how you feel, sometimes I think evil likes large numbers to hide in but then I see it in small gatherings also. so I’m not sure it matters the size of the church, company, school, it matters the quaility of the man/women running it.
unseen on May 19, 2008 at 9:04 PM
I really think you didn’t understand what I was getting at and this is bothering me. See my post at 8:04. “Mormon Doc” knew what I was getting at.
malan89 on May 19, 2008 at 9:08 PM
But have you considered this: God’s laws and directives were created by God for men. Not the other way around. Is it murder if God “kills” one His people? Didn’t God give each of us life in the first place? Whatever He gives us, He can take away. We think that we belong to ourselves. We don’t. We are God’s property, created for His pleasure. Can we be SO presumptuous to hold-up God’s law in His face and accuse Him of somehow being less righteous or less fair than humans? I cringe when I think about all of recorded human history. The record of man’s cruelty to his own kind stands alone. In that respect, the animal kingdom is better than we are.
Many people bash the God of the Old Testament as a petty, jealous, vindictive God. (Case in point, Richard Dawkins.) I don’t see Him that way, though. I see him like a parent that goes to ANY lengths in order to bless and protect his children.
CyberCipher on May 19, 2008 at 9:10 PM
Just an example of my point above:
The Supreme Court upheld criminal penalties Monday for promoting child pornography.
The court, in a 7-2 decision, brushed aside concerns that the law could apply to mainstream movies that depict adolescent sex, classic literature or innocent e-mails that describe pictures of grandchildren.
The ruling upheld part of a 2003 law that also prohibits possession of child porn. It replaced an earlier law against child pornography that the court struck down as unconstitutional.
The law sets a five-year mandatory prison term for promoting, or pandering, child porn. It does not require that someone actually possess child pornography. Opponents have said the law could apply to movies like “Traffic” or “Titanic” that depict adolescent sex.
But Justice Antonin Scalia, in his opinion for the court, said the law does not cover movie sex. there is no “possibility that virtual child pornography or sex between youthful-looking adult actors might be covered by the term ’simulated sexual intercourse.’” Scalia said.
Likewise, Scalia said, First Amendment protections do not apply to “offers to provide or requests to obtain child pornography.”
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080519/D90ORGEG2.html
Sure child porn is a sin but if the lawyers got up and said it should be outlawed only because it was a sin do you think the court would have decided the same way.
unseen on May 19, 2008 at 9:12 PM
What, did your collie go to bed?
malan89 on May 19, 2008 at 9:12 PM
Hokeybee or Barney Fife? Hmmm How about McCain just come to my house, kick me in the nuts, and be done with it?
Gatordoug on May 19, 2008 at 9:15 PM
This is annoying. I wouldn’t go into a thread, completely trash a person w/o explanation, and leave. This is going to really bother me. I’m a nice person and I think by not reading the entire thread, you’ve managed to be offended by a harmless comment. Trashing people randomly….what a sad life YOU must live.
malan89 on May 19, 2008 at 9:15 PM
Comment of the Year.
malan89 on May 19, 2008 at 9:15 PM
Passed out on the floor. He drinks too much. ColtsFan says that he doubts that he’s a really a Calvinist, since they are supposed to lay-off the sauce. Collie says that I drive him to drinking. Who am I supposed to believe?
CyberCipher on May 19, 2008 at 9:16 PM
RINO or DINO? Either choice will make me stay home and watch the next election from the sideline. I am predicting Maverick will take one of those paths and the conservative block will not support MAV and he will lose the election. The Big Tenters will then blame the conservatives for not supporting their strategic failure in “being something for everyone”.
David in ATL on May 19, 2008 at 9:18 PM
CyberCipher
I’m so glad you shared that story because it is enlightening and illustrative.
Your story is a perfect illustration of why following a cult personality is a dangerous proposition. When the person falls or comes up short, and they always do, the failure can destroy something larger and drastically more important that was founded on a belief in a man rather than something divine.
The Obama supporters are going to learn the hard way as did many of the Huck supporters. No man can be a substitute for what must fundamentally be a personal relationship with God.
Mormon Doc on May 19, 2008 at 9:18 PM
Thanks, I have my moments!
Gatordoug on May 19, 2008 at 9:19 PM
The record of man’s cruelty to his own kind stands alone. In that respect, the animal kingdom is better than we are.
CyberCipher on May 19, 2008 at 9:10 PM
I don’t know seen some pretty nasty stuff in the animal kingdom. I look at human history and see as much good as evil. I see a people trying to learn, to be better, to advance not just themselves but their societies and yes their faith. i see the steady progression as the child becomes the adult. Are we not closer to understanding God by the progress that we have made. yes there has been great wars, murder, theft, rape etc but all of that got us to this place at this time. Who are we to say it was not needed to become the people that we have become? Maybe it was God’s plan so that humans could grow into the people they have become. I don’t know. I tend not to make moral judgements on history just accept it for what it was and learn form it so the mistakes are no repeated.
unseen on May 19, 2008 at 9:22 PM
If he gets elected, it’ll be more like an 4 - 8 year tour of the Hanoi Hilton. How are you on sustained torture?
My collie says:
Looks like collie woke up.
CyberCipher on May 19, 2008 at 9:25 PM
I’m a Calminian.
I was a Nazarene for over 30 years but got the right foot of fellowship for daring to believe Paul when he wrote, “Forbid not the speaking in tongues.”
While many in the Holiness Tradition believe you can live without sin and if you do sin you have to start the process all over again, I came to recognize the grace of God and our positional perfection while working out my salvation with fear and trembling.
You got one smart collie. I enjoy his comments–even if he is a Calvanist.
I could use his help here.
WARNING: Strong Evangelical Christian content. :)
davidk on May 19, 2008 at 9:25 PM
The Obama supporters are going to learn the hard way as did many of the Huck supporters. No man can be a substitute for what must fundamentally be a personal relationship with God.
Mormon Doc on May 19, 2008 at 9:18 PM
good points in the post and i hope the above happens before we all have to learn lesson the hard way like the Russians had to learn for 90 years.
unseen on May 19, 2008 at 9:26 PM
Comment pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 »