Perry: You know, at times, I can really relate to Moses

posted at 5:00 pm on January 15, 2012 by Tina Korbe

If nothing else, Rick Perry — in all his imperfection — remains likable. In fact, he’s arguably even more likable now than when he entered the presidential race with all the apparent arrogance of a man who had famously never lost an election. Chastened by his own mistakes, he’s learned to take himself lightly but his principles seriously.

That was the message he delivered today at the South Carolina Faith and Freedom Coalition breakfast. He light-heartedly referred to his debate stumbles, but reminded listeners that he’ll stand up for conservative principles. National Journal relates a particularly memorable moment:

Rick Perry’s no stranger to gaffes, but he has tried to turn it into an asset, making self-deprecating jokes about it on the campaign trail.

On Sunday, he found an ally in a fellow speech-challenged leader that drew laughs from the audience of the South Carolina Faith and Freedom Coalition prayer breakfast: Moses.

“Moses, he tried to talk [G]od out of making him go lead the people,” Perry told the crowd of about 300. “He wasn’t a good speaker. Now, from time to time I can relate to that.”

Talk about knowing your audience! Perry was very on point to deliver that quip to this particular crowd. Maybe he’s like Moses in another way, too. While it’s true Moses didn’t think of himself as a particularly effective spokesperson (Exodus 4:10), he was known to others as “powerful in speech” (Acts 7:22). Perhaps Perry is on his way to that (if not the nomination), as well: His speech today earned him a standing ovation.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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

Akzed on January 15, 2012 at 8:41 PM

Interesting reading. Thanks for that. I’m glad that they didn’t feel so strongly as to try to put any of that in to our Constitution.

MJBrutus on January 15, 2012 at 8:49 PM

They were disease ridden, if you read the rest of the chapter you’d know that anything they touched was to have been burned. NAMBLA would have been very much at home among the Midianites.

I think the 8th Air Force in WWII killed hundreds of times more children than Moses did.

Akzed on January 15, 2012 at 8:36 PM

If disease was really the reason, they would have killed the girls, too.

And yes, I am sure the Army Air Force killed far more children, but that was during a war, and they did not slaughter them when the war was over.

fadetogray on January 15, 2012 at 8:50 PM

Now, I don’t mean this to be an insult but, I consider you an intelligent poster but you’re not really a deep thinker, are you?

Cleombrotus on January 15, 2012 at 8:48 PM

LOL! It’s obvious how meant it, but I’ve got a thick skin. The mindset of our founders was individual freedom. Freedom to enslave oneself to a religious dogma or not. It is not up to the state to decide.

MJBrutus on January 15, 2012 at 8:51 PM

I’m afraid you can’t see me rolling my eyes from here.

DrMagnolias on January 15, 2012 at 8:45 PM

Thank you for your contribution. That argument is so compelling I’ll have to rethink my opinion about Moses.

fadetogray on January 15, 2012 at 8:53 PM

He is just being funny. I like that about him. Perry has something that neither Newt nor Mitt possess. Likability. When asked who was the nicest and friendliest candidate backstage at Republican debates, Jon Huntsman’s daughters unanimously answered — “Rick Perry.” Governor Perry has General Election likability and that is what it takes to win.

nancysabet on January 15, 2012 at 8:53 PM

Those of you Romney-haters who claim Romney is just Obama-Lite couldn’t be more mistaken. Would Obama call his buddies on the NLRB “Union stooges” as Mitt has? Would Obama say that his first act in office would be “Repealing Obamacare?” Would Obama, upon re-election, open up oil drilling and domestic energy processing as soon as possible? Upon re-election, would Obama start streamlining the fed government and start cutting unnecessary programs? Unlike Obama who never worked in the private sector, Romney is a turn-around specialist. Whether you think his Bain years were a negative or not, you just can’t deny that Romney took ailing entities and turned them around. Sure, a few failures but just think of what he could do to this bloated federal bureaucracy. The man definitely understands business and knows what kind of atmosphere is needed to promote massive growth in the private sector. There are many more example like these. Throw in his complete turnaround of the failing, scandal-ridden, ripe with fraud and bribery 2002 Winter Olympics (which was turned into a case study for a course taught in Harvard Business School and ended up being the most profitable Olympics in history) and a 4 year governorship – makes Mitt Romney the absolute best candidate to serve as POTUS. And serve he will by not accepting salary as POTUS. While MA governor, he accepted a one dollar a year salary and while running the Olympics, he donated his salary plus severance payments to charity along with an add’l one million dollars back to the games itself. Sure, he’s very wealthy but many in his shoes would accept payment. Plus, if you think the media seems to be in the tank for Romney, once again you are sorely mistaken. The media is doing everything in it’s power to extend this GOP primary campaign as long as humanly possibly in order to inflict as much damage as possible to the eventual GOP nominee. Of course, this is all done because of their love and admiration for the community organizer. Newt and Perry’s attacks on Romney’s Bain years is one of the biggest political goof-ups in history. So-called conservatives attacking free enterprise? Ronaldus Magnus would be rolling over in his grave

BabysCatz on January 15, 2012 at 8:54 PM

MJBrutus on January 15, 2012 at 8:51 PM

Well, we’re gonna have to leave it, there, MJ.

Good chatting with you.

Cleombrotus on January 15, 2012 at 8:54 PM

Cleombrotus on January 15, 2012 at 8:54 PM

See you around. And keep thinking those deep thoughts :-)

MJBrutus on January 15, 2012 at 8:56 PM

fadetogray on January 15, 2012 at 8:53 PM

Let me clarify: Some things are so absurd that it is pointless in engaging. And it’s pointless trying to bait me into it.

DrMagnolias on January 15, 2012 at 9:11 PM

Shhh! You think it’s easy to get traffic on a Sunday evening?

- AP, EM, TK

Flora Duh on January 15, 2012 at 7:06 PM

Holy Moses, it practically takes an act of God LOL!

For All The Zombies trolling a Moses Thread.

Dr Evil on January 15, 2012 at 9:18 PM

Let me clarify: Some things are so absurd that it is pointless in engaging. And it’s pointless trying to bait me into it.

DrMagnolias on January 15, 2012 at 9:11 PM

Oh, I understood perfectly well what you meant, and I have no intention of trying to ‘bait’ you into anything.

Numbers 31 speaks for itself. It needs no answer from you. Your lack of moral sensibility and basic human compassion is only exceeded by your bizarre indifference to Moses’ similarity to the likes of Attila and Genghis Khan, monsters I am reasonably sure you recognize as monsters since they don’t have the Approved By God brand attached to the horror they inflicted.

fadetogray on January 15, 2012 at 9:24 PM

Then again Godwin’s Law states this one lost his argument the minute Hitler was mentioned. I don’t believe the Himmler invocation mitigates that whatsoever.

Lily on January 15, 2012 at 7:22 PM

It does? Godwin’s Law: “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.”

According to Godwin’s Law, you are wrong on both points. :)

Bizarro No. 1 on January 15, 2012 at 9:32 PM

Because he has no ideas that are realistic or useful. I haven’t gotten on his case for vaccinations or immigration, etc, most of which I’m more or less with him. I haven’t seen the kind of agenda from him that make his candidacy worth considering. Sending Social Security to the states? Making Congress somehow work half time? A 20% flat tax that isn’t? He wants to drill for oil, cool, who in the field doesn’t? Seriously, what has he put out there to vote for?

MJBrutus on January 15, 2012 at 6:44 PM

Which of Perry’s Gardasil positions are you more or less with him on: his first, which forced people to opt out of the program if they didn’t want the shots, or his second, which gave people the luxury of opting into the program if they wanted the shots?

What do you believe was the primary motivation behind Perry’s reversal: a genuine realization that the opt-out mandate was an infringement upon freedom, or the realization that his position on the mandate was probably hurting him politically?

What % of Perry supporters who rip on Mitt for being a flip-flopper do you believe hold Perry to the same kind of standard when it comes to his Gardasil reversal?

What’s your opinion of people who’ve attacked those of us who oppose Perry’s first position, but refrain from attacking Perry now even though he’s come over to our side on the issue?

Bizarro No. 1 on January 15, 2012 at 10:04 PM

Wow! This thread got way out of hand. Anyone else think Fadetogray and Random are the same person/

hopeful on January 15, 2012 at 10:15 PM

Thomas Jefferson said that homosexuality “should be punished, if a man, by castration, if a woman, by cutting through the cartilage of her nose a hole of one-half inch in diameter as least. Pines B. BACK TO BASICS. NY Morrow, 1982, p. 211.

Akzed on January 15, 2012 at 8:41 PM

What’s your point – that Jefferson, being completely consistent when it came to personal liberty, was morally right to have such a punitive sentiment about homosexuality, or was it that he talked a good game about personal liberty, but wasn’t quite man enough to practice what he preached, as he showed by wanting to punish those engaged in homosexuality, similar to how he tolerated slavery and even owned some slaves himself?

Bizarro No. 1 on January 15, 2012 at 10:17 PM

Oops. Didn’t mean the sarc tag.

hopeful on January 15, 2012 at 10:18 PM

Wow! This thread got way out of hand. Anyone else think Fadetogray and Random are the same person/

Anyone else think you have the IQ of a mildly gifted ant?

Random on January 15, 2012 at 10:18 PM

Random on January 15, 2012 at 10:18 PM

Name calling? What are you 10? Your comments are similar and you seem to cross reference the same things.
Perry made a self deprecating joke. I think you/fadetoglory are taking this way too seriously.

hopeful on January 15, 2012 at 10:23 PM

Oops. Didn’t mean the sarc tag.

hopeful on January 15, 2012 at 10:18 PM

That’s too bad. For a moment there it looked like there might be another reasoning being on the thread, not just another blind believer happy to give a monster a pass because the monster said, “God told me to do it!”

If you had bothered to think about what each of us wrote, you would have seen Random and I have very different views. Our similarity is that we both recognize the obvious fact that Moses was a monster morally indistinguishable from Genghis Khan.

fadetogray on January 15, 2012 at 10:31 PM

He’s a believer in God, for example. I’m not. That’s a big difference.

Where we agree is on the non-mass-slaughter-and-rape-rape-of-teh-little-ones.

Random on January 15, 2012 at 10:35 PM

fadetogray on January 15, 2012 at 10:31 PM

Okay. Well your first paragraph makes no sense and yes, your radical views about Moses and quoting the same books of the Bible are what I was referencing.

hopeful on January 15, 2012 at 10:38 PM

If HA doesn’t exercise more control and enforce their Terms of Use Policy, this kind of garbage that has been spewed is just going to get worse.

There are Tech sites that will not allow their threads to be hi-jacked, so I’m surprised at what is allowed here.

I don’t read the lefty sites, but I hear the comments can be very nasty.
If they are worse than what I’ve read on this thread, then I’m certainly glad I’ve never read them.

bluefox on January 15, 2012 at 10:39 PM

He’s a believer in God, for example. I’m not. That’s a big difference.

Where we agree is on the non-mass-slaughter-and-rape-rape-of-teh-little-ones.

Random on January 15, 2012 at 10:35 PM

This may have already been asked up thread but if you don’t believe in God, then presumably you don’t believe in the Bible or Moses so why are you getting so upset about this?

hopeful on January 15, 2012 at 10:41 PM

He’s a believer in God, for example. I’m not.

Right. About that, Random, you do realize you are going to go to Hell, don’t you, you atheist anti-Christ?! Fire and brimstone and all that.

Just joking. God doesn’t get his jollies that way. That is just more of the sickness Christianity hasn’t yet managed to shed.

fadetogray on January 15, 2012 at 10:44 PM

BREAKING NEWS……

Perry, you Open Borders Bumbler GO BACK TO AUSTIN.

You are splitting the Conservative vote.

But you know that already Mr. 5%.

PappyD61 on January 15, 2012 at 10:51 PM

This may have already been asked up thread but if you don’t believe in God, then presumably you don’t believe in the Bible or Moses so why are you getting so upset about this?

It’s not complicated. I believe in Rick Perry, and the man wants to be President. Whether he’s identifying with real or fictional mass murderers, I’d prefer he didn’t. I also find it hypocritical, as I said above, that ‘conservatives’ attack Muslims for esteeming Mohammed, a mass-murdering pedophile (which he was) while … esteeming a mass-murdering pedophile on an even grander scale.

I don’t know that Moses was entirely fictional, but I like to think I’d have been at least as kind as his men, where there first instinct wasn’t to start killing the women, children, and taking the daughters after killing their parents, brothers, sisters, and so on. I mean don’t you find that distasteful? Because I find it awful.

Yes, I get that it makes perfect sense from a genetics point of view. We are mammals; we’re apes; we evolved to do this sort of thing. Indeed, I cannot think of a better plan, given what they had to work with, to pass their genes on to future generations than that of Numbers 31. Kill all the non-virgin, and therefore probably pregnant, females; inseminate the ones left over after having killed all the males and taken their land. It’s behavior Jane Goodall would have easily recognized from her studies of chimps.

But in this day and age, I’d like to think we can come up with better Presidential role models.

I also emotively object to religious people taking upon themselves the mantle of worldwide moral superiority while overlooking and tacitly accepting the most heinous criminal acts as long as done in the name of their religion in times past.

Random on January 15, 2012 at 10:56 PM

I also emotively object to religious people taking upon themselves the mantle of worldwide moral superiority while overlooking and tacitly accepting the most heinous criminal acts as long as done in the name of their religion in times past.

Random on January 15, 2012 at 10:56 PM

Again, Wow! I don’t see where Perry took the “mantle of worldwide moral superiority” on himself. He made a joke. At his own expense. He referenced a well known person who had trouble similar to his in speaking in front of a group of people.

hopeful on January 15, 2012 at 11:02 PM

I get what you’re saying, hopeful. I agreed with what Perry said on the previous thread about the Marines who pissed on the dead bodies. I supported his candidacy initially, based on Ace’s recommendation, until figuring out Perry absolutely sucks as a candidate. I’ll still give him his due when he’s right.

However, unlike most people, I can read and think about what I’ve just read. Having done so, Moses comes across as a terrible man — as bad as Mohammed at least, and probably worse. Of the same ilk.

And I just don’t see the humor in associating yourself even jokingly with someone like that.

Again, I question Perry’s judgment. It’s like when he did the ‘Strong’ ad. This was a mistake. He could have gotten the same point across by attacking Obama for meddling with the military, but no, he had to use approving, open body language when talking about children (obviously) and contrast that with a stern, disapproving voice and gestures when mentioning gays in the military. Gays who are now serving in harms way legally and in most branches, with majority acceptance by their peers and the society they live in.

It was dumb — and is partly why he placed, what? 5th or 6th place in Iowa? At 0.7% in New Hampshire?

Sure, YOU may not object to that ad, and many here would agree, but the people it did piss off, it pissed off completely unnecessarily. He could have, I reiterate, made the exact same point, stronger, by shifting his sites a bit. But he didn’t.

Here, again, he could have picked a better example. At least for yours truly.

Random on January 15, 2012 at 11:09 PM

*sights

Random on January 15, 2012 at 11:12 PM

Random on January 15, 2012 at 11:09 PM

So Perry could have made his point better in the “Strong” ad by using different language and tone of voice? Much like you could have made your points better by using something other than-”Anyone else think you have the IQ of a mildly gifted ant?”

hopeful on January 15, 2012 at 11:18 PM

Hey, Random, are you an atheist?

HeckOnWheels on January 15, 2012 at 11:18 PM

”Anyone else think you have the IQ of a mildly gifted ant?”

You were accusing me and him of being sock puppets — as if two people can’t agree without being the same person.

What about everyone else here? All sock puppets?

Random on January 15, 2012 at 11:19 PM

”Hey, Random, are you an atheist?”

Yes.

Random on January 15, 2012 at 11:19 PM

Random on January 15, 2012 at 11:09 PM

So Perry could have made his point better in the “Strong” ad by using different language and tone of voice? Much like you could have made your points better by using something other than-”Anyone else think you have the IQ of a mildly gifted ant?”

hopeful on January 15, 2012 at 11:19 PM

As I said, hopeful, that was in retaliation for the asinine charge that I’m a sockpuppet with someone else here, because we happen to agree on something that should be bloody obvious (those who order their soldiers to slaughter babies, mothers, etc., with the young virgin females carted off to be wives to the warriors who killed their kin aren’t worthy of public esteem).

Further, I’m not a politician. Tit for tat wouldn’t be the best political strategy. My point is that Rick Perry isn’t very good at this, not that I am.

But I’m still right about Moses. Criminy.

Random on January 15, 2012 at 11:23 PM

Random on January 15, 2012 at 11:19 PM

No, I truly thought you sounded very similar in tone, language, ideas and references. I admit I did not trudge through all 4 pages of comments. And so, I apologize. I did not call you names, however and yet you did exactly what you are accusing Perry of doing.

hopeful on January 15, 2012 at 11:24 PM

”Hey, Random, are you an atheist?”

Yes.

Random on January 15, 2012 at 11:19 PM

If there is no God, explain how you can condemn anything as “evil.”

HeckOnWheels on January 15, 2012 at 11:29 PM

Because I make my own decisions and judgments.

Random on January 15, 2012 at 11:33 PM

He is just being funny. I like that about him. Perry has something that neither Newt nor Mitt possess. Likability. [...] Governor Perry has General Election likability and that is what it takes to win.

nancysabet on January 15, 2012 at 8:53 PM

Buffoon Perry is NOT especially likeable. Backslapping and carrying on with fake, folksy, aw-shucks “charm” may strike some as likeable, but not me. That kind of put-on, heavy charisma is something you would expect out of a car salesman. Do you really fall for it? Rick Perry is a joke, and he comes across like a teenager reading a book report whenever he attempts to give serious speeches.

I would much rather prefer competence and dignity in a president. I don’t want a president who acts like he is everyone’s buddy. Those buddy-buddy routines are fake!

I’m so sick and tired of people holding up the likes of Palin, Cain, Perry and similar people as these supposedly great heroes because they allegedly seem like “regular” people. No, those candidates seem like bozos who have no business being considered for president. These kinds of candidates shouldn’t even get beyond the first step (competence test) of consideration. Even with pretending like these idiots deserve serious attention!

bluegill on January 16, 2012 at 12:15 AM

I meant, enough with pretending like these idiots deserve serious attention!

bluegill on January 16, 2012 at 12:17 AM

So, if the Old Testament is a fiction, then it’s a fiction about a leader who serves God faithfully in war and suffering.

If the Old Testament is true, then it’s a true story about a leader who serves God faithfully in war and suffering.

Neither in the fictional nor the true account is it a story about an evil killer who pretends God tells him to wage war on innocent people. So where does the atheist with the two sockpuppets come up with this nonsense opinion about Moses being a bad guy? There’s a reason none of the other atheist trolls have come out on an anti-Moses tirade before..

joe_doufu on January 16, 2012 at 1:43 AM

Wait…is Perry admitting he’s secretly actually a Jew, rather than a Christian? Deal-breaker.

LevinFan90 on January 16, 2012 at 3:32 AM

If nothing else, Rick Perry — in all his imperfection — remains likable

Tina, I like my Governor so much, I’ve been spending months begging him to come home to Texas…

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on January 16, 2012 at 7:30 AM

You are a disgusting human being, joe_doufu.

So, if the Old Testament is a fiction, then it’s a fiction about a leader who serves God faithfully in war and suffering.
If the Old Testament is true, then it’s a true story about a leader who serves God faithfully in war and suffering.

… So where does the atheist with the two sockpuppets come up with this nonsense opinion about Moses being a bad guy?

By murdering children in the thousands, and string the ones so young their hymens are still intact to be raped by their families’ killers down the road.

Joe, you are an evil and immoral human being.

Random on January 16, 2012 at 7:52 AM

* string = setting

(iPhone autocorrect error)

Random on January 16, 2012 at 7:53 AM

I also emotively object to religious people taking upon themselves the mantle of worldwide moral superiority while overlooking and tacitly accepting the most heinous criminal acts as long as done in the name of their religion in times past.

Random on January 15, 2012 at 10:56 PM

nuff said

workingclass artist on January 16, 2012 at 8:01 AM

I’m so sick and tired of people holding up the likes of Palin, Cain, Perry and similar people as these supposedly great heroes because they allegedly seem like “regular” people. No, those candidates seem like bozos who have no business being considered for president. These kinds of candidates shouldn’t even get beyond the first step (competence test) of consideration. Even with pretending like these idiots deserve serious attention!

bluegill on January 16, 2012 at 12:15 AM

Gov. Perry has a solid conservative governing record in the mos successful state in the nation…something Romney doesn’t have.

workingclass artist on January 16, 2012 at 8:04 AM

Problem for Santorum?

“Fresh off his weekend endorsement by evangelical leaders, Rick Santorum renewed attacks on Mitt Romney, who now holds a significant lead in South Carolina. A Romney group, meanwhile, is escalating attacks on Santorum over wasteful spending. The New York Times investigated some of the earmarks in question, and found that Santorum gave out a lot of them, and that they often yielded campaign contributions. For example, Santorum helped secure a $3.5 million military contract for JLG Industries in 2005. The next year, executives from JLG gave Santorum’s campaign $6,000. According to Tax Payers for Common Sense, Santorum gave out over $1 billion in earmarks during his 11-year Senate career…”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2012/01/16/donors-rewarded-santorum-s-earmarks.html?utm_source=feedburn

Hmmmm…

workingclass artist on January 16, 2012 at 8:06 AM

Policy-Wise, Perry is the best man for the job. Perry can campaign well, but he is not good at debates and has said some stupid things.

jeffn21 on January 16, 2012 at 8:40 AM

That’s too bad. For a moment there it looked like there might be another reasoning being on the thread, not just another blind believer happy to give a monster a pass because the monster said, “God told me to do it!”

fadetogray on January 15, 2012 at 10:31 PM

Fun With Religious Bigotry!

Dunedainn on January 16, 2012 at 9:21 AM

Newt and Perry’s attacks on Romney’s Bain years is one of the biggest political goof-ups in history. So-called conservatives attacking free enterprise? Ronaldus Magnus would be rolling over in his grave

BabysCatz on January 15, 2012 at 8:54 PM

Your post is foolish, of course Obama called Pharms evil, than had them over for dinner and extracted their loyalty, that happens all the time in politics…saying something in public, but doing else in private. Mitt made a living doing that, saying he was a conservative, but never appointing a conservative in Mass.
And please, don’t be so foolish, they were attacking his tactics, not free enterprise…Something can be legal, but immoral, you don’t understand that?

right2bright on January 16, 2012 at 9:25 AM

Hmmmm…

workingclass artist on January 16, 2012 at 8:06 AM

Pal, anytime you have been in politics, you have relationships, like the old game of 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon…everyone is eventually, related to someone else.
Just take a look at Bechtel and their relationship with Romney, if you want to see what a real scandal is.

right2bright on January 16, 2012 at 9:27 AM

He is just being funny. I like that about him. Perry has something that neither Newt nor Mitt possess. Likability. When asked who was the nicest and friendliest candidate backstage at Republican debates, Jon Huntsman’s daughters unanimously answered — “Rick Perry.” Governor Perry has General Election likability and that is what it takes to win.

nancysabet on January 15, 2012

Ditto³
If Mittens were similarly self-effacing, he might be electable.
But, given Willard’s Leftist governance and his status as the flip-flopping ÜberRINO with a bad hair dye-job, who is going to vote for him except those who are strictly party-driven? ØbaMaØ will eviscerate him. RomneyCare is similar to a death knell.
For some reason, Republicans keep serving up failed retreads.
Rick Perry is a man’s man. He knows when to act and stick to his guns.

By the by, I’d love see what firearms Mittens possesses. Can he even shoot straight?

~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on January 16, 2012 at 10:13 AM

I’ve said this before I have a lot of time for Perry, I especially like the way he adapts to adversity. He needs to carry on progressing and working, and he’s a very good prospect for next time. He’s also quite young I think?

Hope on January 16, 2012 at 10:17 AM

“Moses, he tried to talk [G]od out of making him go lead the people,” Perry told the crowd of about 300. “He wasn’t a good speaker. Now, from time to time I can relate to that.”

Moses did, with God’s help, part the Red Sea so that the Hebrews could pass through. Obama told us that he would stop the seas from rising, but we’re still waiting for that. Maybe Obama is the Moses wannabe.

Steve Z on January 16, 2012 at 10:25 AM

That’s not amazing. What’s amazing is that it drew out Moses-haters. I didn’t even know there were Moses-haters. What religion is that, Jehovah’s Witnesses? Zoroastrians? what?

Fabozz on January 15, 2012 at 5:46 PM

Lol, I am very critical of a lot of old Testament stuff (one of the many reasons I’m no longer a Christian), but even I always saw Moses as a pretty nice old guy. Maybe I’ve seen too much Cecil B Demille…

Hope on January 16, 2012 at 10:26 AM

Oh Perry. You’re the guy who woulda made it big if it weren’t for the whole camera/ video/ audio/ technology thing.

Book on January 16, 2012 at 10:29 AM

Hope on January 16, 2012 at 10:26 AM

Read Numbers 31.

I am deeply disappointed. It is apparent most of the commenters on this thread are at least as morally unhinged as the leftists. That is so sad.

fadetogray on January 16, 2012 at 11:10 AM

Read Numbers 31.

I am deeply disappointed. It is apparent most of the commenters on this thread are at least as morally unhinged as the leftists. That is so sad.

fadetogray on January 16, 2012 at 11:10 AM

I’m afraid you don’t have a scintillation of a clue about what you are so markedly attacking.
But you do fit the bill for the average anti-theist with a child-like understanding of the Bible.

Congrats!

tom daschle concerned on January 16, 2012 at 11:18 AM

Read Numbers 31.

I am deeply disappointed. It is apparent most of the commenters on this thread are at least as morally unhinged as the leftists. That is so sad.

fadetogray on January 16, 2012

Huh?
We who eschew injecting The Bible into a public political debate are “unhinged”?
Someone is out of touch, to be kind of course.

~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on January 16, 2012 at 11:20 AM

fadetogray on January 16, 2012 at 11:10 AM

For goodness sake, stop it with Numbers 31 already. Moses didn’t suddenly wake up one morning and say, “hey, let’s slaughter the Madianites!” Try reading the rest of the Numbers for the reasons why. In Numbers 25, 24,000 Israelites were also slain for the crime of idolatry and fornication with the Madianites. The whole story wasn’t just about Moses going after the Madianites. The Madianites along with the Moabites wanted to totally destroy Israel, either by corruption or by the sword. Where is your precious moral outrage about that?

There are commandments all through the Old Testament for the slaying of whole cities and their inhabitants. Check out Deuteronomy where God directly commands the Hebrews to do this action to any who would draw the Isrealites away for God. Read Samuel (or the Book of Kings) where Saul lost favor with God for not slaying the leader of the Amalicites after destroying their city and all its inhabitants as God commanded. The Amalicites wanted to totally destroy Israel. Where is your precious moral outrage about that?

This same morality of totally annihilating your enemy exists even today throughout the mid-East. Just look at what many Muslims want to do to Israel today, not to mention to each other.

This isn’t about Moses, at all.

Kraken on January 16, 2012 at 11:39 AM

…The whole story wasn’t just about Moses going after the Madianites. …

Nobody has talked about Israel not having justification for going to war. So you are using a blatant straw man.

This same morality of totally annihilating your enemy exists even today throughout the mid-East. Just look at what many Muslims want to do to Israel today, not to mention to each other.

Yes. That is exactly what it is. Thank you for making my point.

This isn’t about Moses, at all.

You are right. It is not about Moses. It is about you. It is about what you do and do not consider morally objectionable.

fadetogray on January 16, 2012 at 11:52 AM

You are right. It is not about Moses. It is about you. It is about what you do and do not consider morally objectionable.

fadetogray on January 16, 2012 at 11:52 AM

No, I never said it wasn’t morally objectionable. I merely pointed out to you and Random that there were reasons why Moses did this. You both implied by ONLY referencing Numbers 31 that Moses acted on his own in attacking the Madianites. I ALWAYS tried to point out that he was acting on God’s orders.

I referenced Numbers 25 YESTERDAY as the justification, which you and Random chose to ignore. I, and others, stated YESTERDAY that Moses was acting on God’s orders, and not his own. Again, something you and Random chose to ignore. Why was that? No, you’re only answer has been “Numbers 31.” Ad nauseum; ad infinitum.

I’m sure, in your eyes, it is about me and others. THAT seems to be your whole and only intent on this thread. Not to discuss what is actually related in the Bible, but to personally attack people here as being somehow morally reprehensible just because we believe in God. NO ONE on this thread even hinted that they espouse such views today, or would in any way act as Moses was ordered. But that hasn’t stopped your snide remarks that we would.

I think the people on this site have your and Random’s “number” now.It isn’t a pretty one.

Kraken on January 16, 2012 at 12:10 PM

You are right. It is not about Moses. It is about you. It is about what you do and do not consider morally objectionable.

fadetogray on January 16, 2012 at 11:52 AM

Oh, and to head off your next question, the reason why Christians can find this morally reprehensible today is because we’re supposed to be acting under the NEW Covenant instituted by Jesus Christ at the Last Supper and Death on the Cross. This NEW Covenant commands us to love one another as ourselves for the love of God. We don’t always succeed, but most of us at least try.

Not that this was a new commandment. The Pharisee related this same commanded back to Christ when asked. But there was still operating at that time the Mosaic Laws which no longer apply to us Christians.

You should know all this. Than again…

Kraken on January 16, 2012 at 12:24 PM

Again, something you and Random chose to ignore.

We were ignoring it because it was beside the point. As I just said. And as you just ignored again because you love using your straw man.

I’m sure, in your eyes, it is about me and others.

Because it is. You either do or do not find Moses ordering his people to slaughter the women and children morally objectionable. It is about you. And it is about me. I find the behavior highly morally objectionable, the same as I would find it morally objectionable if the Muslims drove Israel into the sea, slaughtering the captured women and male children like animals and keeping the young females for themselves as booty.

Not to discuss what is actually related in the Bible, but to personally attack people here as being somehow morally reprehensible just because we believe in God.

Sigh. Kraken, I believe in God. That is why I bother with you.

NO ONE on this thread even hinted that they espouse such views today, or would in any way act as Moses was ordered.

Not a hint? If you do not find Moses’ behavior morally offensive, deserving of condemnation by decent human beings, then why wouldn’t you, when it became the convenient path?

Do you understand what hypocrisy is? It’s okay for my guy, but not for yours? The Muslims regard the Jews every bit as badly as Moses regarded the Medianites.

fadetogray on January 16, 2012 at 12:25 PM

If you get cheered up, good for you. But it is my prediction: Perry will be the brokered convention’s choice. And it will work as Rick can clearly make it a God-vs-godless campaign.

If Jugears is smart, he’ll resign or decline to be nominated. Rick will make sure Jugears is the historical footnote he deserves to be.

platypus on January 15, 2012 at 8:05 PM

I admire your apparently infinite capacity for wishful thinking. Keep the faith!

DarkCurrent on January 16, 2012 at 12:26 PM

Oh, yeah. “I’m just like Moses.” That’s effective. Real effective. Just a real fine “quip.”

(smashes head against wall)

Rational Thought on January 15, 2012 at 5:05 PM

That’s not what he said. He said he could relate to not being a great speaker.

The group-think that goes on around here is quite something to behold. If Mitt had quipped that he could relate to Moses as a speaker, no one would have even noticed.

The picking at Perry’s every word on this site is really bizarre.

capitalist piglet on January 16, 2012 at 12:28 PM

Why? I find nothing wrog at all with this statement.

Aslans Girl on January 15, 2012 at 6:20 PM

You and me both. All these people calling for him to give up and go home because he makes a Moses quip – what am I missing?

A lot of irrational reaction here, and way too much group-think.

capitalist piglet on January 16, 2012 at 12:32 PM

You should know all this. Than again…

I do know it. Do you?

All decent people from the time of Moses, including the warriors Moses was furious at for not slaughtering the women and male children, would see your convenient sense of right and wrong to be highly suspect.

You needed someone to tell you the Rules before behaving morally? What happens if you come to doubt your religion? What kind of human being are we left with?

fadetogray on January 16, 2012 at 12:35 PM

Gautama Buddha never slaughtered anyone and often spoke in confusing ways.

DarkCurrent on January 16, 2012 at 1:09 PM

Perhaps Perry should have compared himself to the Buddha.

DarkCurrent on January 16, 2012 at 1:10 PM

The difference between Moses and Rick Perry is that Moses only thought himself a poor speaker.

captn2fat on January 16, 2012 at 1:19 PM

Again, Random/fadetogray, you’re deliberately twisting the story to make it morally objectionable. Moses didn’t decide to destroy the Midianites or any of the other canaanites… God did, and his purpose in doing so was just. That is a necessary part of the story even if you regard the story as a fiction. Y

You’re passing judgment on a weird alternate version of the story in which Moses decided to lead the Israelites on a mission of his own device, for his own selfish purposes. That’s not in the Bible or in any other history.

This is why, so far, not even any of the other atheists have been dumb enough to make a big anti-Moses protest.

joe_doufu on January 16, 2012 at 1:19 PM

You’re passing judgment on a weird alternate version of the story in which Moses decided to lead the Israelites on a mission of his own device, for his own selfish purposes. That’s not in the Bible or in any other history.

I am looking at the story of Moses in the Bible in the same way I look at the story of Muhammed in the Koran. They were real people, and the story is a generally accurate history, but that doesn’t mean God was the one actually telling them to do the slaughtering.

There is nothing ‘weird’ or ‘alternate’ about looking at historical documents that way. I would be very surprised if you do not look at the Koran that way.

BTW, your attempt to paint me as a sockpuppet just makes you sound stupid to anyone who has read the thread. I am not Random, and if you were not a stupid person, you would know that.

fadetogray on January 16, 2012 at 1:32 PM

fadetogray on January 16, 2012 at 12:35 PM

You don’t know your Bible, at all. Read up on the Old Testament and the Covenant God had with Moses. It replaced the Original Covenant God had with Adam and Eve. Then read about the NEW Covenant that Jesus has with us. Moses acted within the moral codes of the Covenant HE had with GOD. We, today, operate with a New Covenant with Jesus Christ. That’s why we can accept what Moses did as being morally acceptable FOR HIS TIME. It’s also why we don’t get our panties in a bunch by it like you obviously do.

Do you find the whole Old Testament just as creepy? How about the parts that foretell the coming of Christ? Or are those the “OK” parts?

That isn’t a straw man, them’s the facts of Mosaic Law and Christianity. Maybe you’ve heard of it? It’s been all the rage for the last 2000 years or so. The thing is, YOU don’t get to pick and chose; you believe, or you don’t believe.

Kraken on January 16, 2012 at 1:56 PM

Perhaps Perry should have compared himself to the Buddha.

DarkCurrent on January 16, 2012 at 1:10 PM

Really! You could have posted that link again…;-)

Kraken on January 16, 2012 at 1:57 PM

That isn’t a straw man, them’s the facts of Mosaic Law and Christianity.

Oh, I get it, all right. You have no moral sensibilities, only religious doctrine. You possibly don’t even know what I am talking about when I refer to moral sensibilities. You think it is the same thing as religious doctrine.

I am a bit curious though: Why do you think the warriors had not done as Moses had ordered them to do and slaughtered the tens of thousands of women and male children? Why did he have to get furious at them and order them to do it again before they submitted and carried out his horrendous command?

Since it could not be that they were morally superior to Moses, then I guess they were just being obstinate children, right?

They were warriors, Kraken. They were used to killing. They had just been killing and being killed by Medianites, and yet they balked at mass murdering women and children.

How did they know mass murder was a nasty thing to do? After all, there was no New Covenant.

fadetogray on January 16, 2012 at 2:17 PM

Yes, I know Moses is depicted as acting on God’s orders. The main reason I ignored this is most Christians will defend the horror-the-SS-would-only-have-been-too-happy-to-match-in-terms-of-finality on the grounds God didn’t order it and Moses was just a man, etc.

You believe in the Divine Command theory of morality: whatever God says to do is good period including mass murder of babies, etc. This is the same morality as al Qaida’s 911 terrorists. You’re no better than them. You have no internal moral compass. The second you feel God tells you or others to behave like brutal mass-raping, mass-murdering bastards, off to the races doing and/or supporting others in doing this you will go.

There is no reason to believe God said go kill the kiddies. But if a person is an instrument of such orders, they’re as accountable as anyone we hanged after Nurenberg for following orders.

Moses was evil if the word has any meaning at all. And the God of the Old Testament? Yes, I would be willing to concede evil there too.

You are unhinged morally. fadetogray was quite right about that.

Random on January 16, 2012 at 2:17 PM

I am looking at the story of Moses in the Bible in the same way I look at the story of Muhammed in the Koran. They were real people, and the story is a generally accurate history, but that doesn’t mean God was the one actually telling them to do the slaughtering.

There is nothing ‘weird’ or ‘alternate’ about looking at historical documents that way. I would be very surprised if you do not look at the Koran that way.

BTW, your attempt to paint me as a sockpuppet just makes you sound stupid to anyone who has read the thread. I am not Random, and if you were not a stupid person, you would know that.

fadetogray on January 16, 2012 at 1:32 PM

Yeah, clearly, Moses did everything by himself. The 10 Plagues, the Red Sea parting, the manna from heaven….all just Moses.

Good Solid B-Plus on January 16, 2012 at 2:20 PM

Really! You could have posted that link again…;-)

Kraken on January 16, 2012 at 1:57 PM

This one?

DarkCurrent on January 16, 2012 at 2:22 PM

Oh, I get it, all right. You have no moral sensibilities, only religious doctrine. You possibly don’t even know what I am talking about when I refer to moral sensibilities. You think it is the same thing as religious doctrine.

Not at all. I merely pointing out what MOSES did. Remember him, The subject of all this? Why not ask him if he had any moral sensibilities? I’m guessing he would have said yes, but you probably wouldn’t like them.

I am a bit curious though: Why do you think the warriors had not done as Moses had ordered them to do and slaughtered the tens of thousands of women and male children? Why did he have to get furious at them and order them to do it again before they submitted and carried out his horrendous command?

Why did the people not wait for Moses at Sinai? Why did the people not follow the commands of God or Moses throughout the whole 0 year ordeal in the wilderness? Why did Saul not follow the commands of God to kill all the Amalacites? And why do we, today, ALSO not follow the laws of God?

Since it could not be that they were morally superior to Moses, then I guess they were just being obstinate children, right?

Bingo, we have a winner? The Bible is full of those tales.

Oh, not good enough for you? You want to make the followers morally superior? Then tell me this: why did Moses appear on Mt Tabor at the Transfiguration instead of all these morally superior people?

They were warriors, Kraken. They were used to killing. They had just been killing and being killed by Medianites, and yet they balked at mass murdering women and children.

Could have been a number of reason, from wanting to keep the woman for sex, something forbidden them by God, BTW, to wanting to keep them or sell them for slaves. The Bibles doesn’t say the “balked” at killing them, only that they brought them back. Moses had them kill those woman “that have carnally known men” for the crime of leading the Ireaelites into sin.

How did they know mass murder was a nasty thing to do? After all, there was no New Covenant.

Deuteronomy 20:14 DOES talk about prohibiting the killing of woman and children, but it’s not clear when that was written. It’s supposed to reiterate the laws of Sinai, so it’s possible that they didn’t kill the woman and children for that reason. But those woman who had “carnal knowledge” were accused by Moses of having “deceived the children of Israel by the counsel of Balaam, and made you transgress against the Lord by the sin of Phogor, for which the people [the Israelites] were punished.”

Don’t forget that your precious Numbers 31 starts out with “And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: Revenge first the children of Israel on the Madianities, and so thou shalt be gathered to thy people. SO he was acting on orders from God according to the Bible.

Deuteronomy 13:12-17 also contains the command to kill ALL the inhabitants of cities, and everything in them, with no provisions for sparing anyone or anything. So that could be why Moses was angry at the Israelites for not killing all the Madianites.

But your making an assumption that they didn’t kill them for morally superior reasons. You’re more than welcome to prove that assertion. I’m sure you have plenty of historical references outside of the Bible to back that up.

Kraken on January 16, 2012 at 2:59 PM

DarkCurrent on January 16, 2012 at 2:22 PM

Yep. I do like the music.

Kraken on January 16, 2012 at 3:03 PM

whole 0 year ordeal in the wilderness?

Opps, missed the “4″ key…

Kraken on January 16, 2012 at 3:04 PM

You believe in the Divine Command theory of morality: whatever God says to do is good period including mass murder of babies, etc.

Random on January 16, 2012 at 2:17 PM

Try to keep up, OK? We’re saying MOSES believed this, that’s all. And according to the Bible, he had plenty of reason to after the burning bush, the parting of the Red Sea, Mt Sinai, and a host of other things.

Your whining and crying that people on this web site are the same way and your false conclusion that we would partake in baby killing is truly pathetic. You and fade need to get a grip on yourselves, and read what we actually write.

Kraken on January 16, 2012 at 3:15 PM

The Bibles doesn’t say the “balked” at killing them, only that they brought them back.

He ordered them to do it before they went to battle. That was why he was furious at them when he learned they had not.

The rest of your comment just sets up new straw men or rehashes points already answered.

You and fade need to get a grip on yourselves, and read what we actually write.

You are engaging in projection.

fadetogray on January 16, 2012 at 3:29 PM

fadetogray on January 16, 2012 at 3:29 PM

Oops. I messed up the blockquotes in that last comment.

fadetogray on January 16, 2012 at 3:30 PM

The Bibles doesn’t say the “balked” at killing them, only that they brought them back.

He ordered them to do it before they went to battle. That was why he was furious at them when he learned they had not.

fadetogray on January 16, 2012 at 3:29 PM

Nice try, but no dice. It’s another of your unprovable assertions. The Bible only states that Moses ordered them to revenge themselves on the Madianites, not that Moses directly ordered them to kill everyone. Also, their bringing back the captives doesn’t mean they “balked.” As I mentioned, there are conflicting laws in Deuteronomy covering what to do with these people, which is a more logical explanation as to why they were brought back to Moses for his determination. Your hatred for everything Moses is revealing.

Kraken on January 16, 2012 at 3:55 PM

Perry is to Moses as Obama is to Jesus.

Unlike Rick Perry whose vanity and false pride precedes his every miscalculation, Moses acknowledged his speech impediment FIRST THING to God when called to action with “Why Me?” and God promised to use Aaron, to allow Moses to speak through his brother Aaron, the messenger’s messenger /– in case the adage held true, “Kill the messenger.”/ Unlike Perry, Moses asked to specifically NOT be chosen to lead. And unlike Moses, Perry has no miracles and no impressive tricks up his sleeve, either.

In his first national impression facade, Perry attempted to play Jacob’s “favorite” son Joseph, the dream analyst in Pharaoh’s employ, though Rick is preaching Statism while crowing more for me, frugality for thee; big government for job creation, and no jobs for those who don’t speak Spanish. Now Perry leaps generations ahead to the Exodus, to play Moses, because Rick has seen God in the Burning Bush, heh. As such, according to Tina, Perry “humbly” sees himself in the Oval Office as the next Giver of the Law — giving Romney a run contesting the prophet/profit pulling wool over the eyes of voters perpetually floating in their own willing suspension of disbelief. Trust Not in Man’s Strength.

I’ll give Perry and Romney this much. They pitch the big tent of whole cloth garnering camel swallowing voters. “Promise them anything; just get their votes.”

maverick muse on January 16, 2012 at 4:14 PM

Kraken on January 16, 2012 at 3:55 PM

I didn’t say that as well as I should have.

If Moses had ordered them a priori to kill ALL the Medianites, he would have been obligated after the fact to make them carry out that order. Otherwise, his leadership would have been in question.

The fact that he allowed them to keep SOME of the captives indicates that he didn’t directly post that order, and chose after the fact to allow some of the captive to be kept.

Since the Bible is vague on all this, we can only make assumptions. Deuteronomy holds conflicting laws regarding the actions to be taken against the enemies of Israel. Moses could very well have expected that the soldiers of Israel would take the more punitive approach, and that would explain his being furious when they did not. The soldiers, being soldiers, would be inclined to take the more generous (!?!) approach, though even that is relative by today’s standards. Also, being mindful of the conflict in the laws, it would be better for the soldiers if Moses made the final decisions regarding the captives. That’s a common practice among soldiers even today: if you have the chance, let the higher brass figure it out.

Now, if you want to make the case that Moses took the more punitive approach when there were other options open to him, fine. That’s a valid case to make. But based on the morals that he was required to live with as given to him by God, that doesn’t make him evil. He had the option based on the laws given to him by God at that time to take the more punitive approach. He had the option to kill ALL the captives, but didn’t.

Kraken on January 16, 2012 at 4:17 PM

“Now, if you want to make the case that Moses took the more punitive approach….”

Punitive? They were babies. You sick bastard.

Random on January 16, 2012 at 4:32 PM

Punitive? They were babies. You sick bastard.

Random on January 16, 2012 at 4:32 PM

Stop the ad hominems. It doesn’t help your case, at all. If you want to have a whiny, emotional argument, go over to HuffPo or MSNBC. You’ve been doing this for 2 days now and it’s getting tiresome.

We’re dealing with Historical facts, OK, make that Biblical facts, that happened over 3000 years ago. Not yesterday, not 20 years ago, over 3000 years ago. I think we’re all adult enough not to go this route. None of us have a personal issue involved here.

Moses DID have 2 options, whether you want to admit that or not. Those are the facts. He chose one that you obviously had problems with, but with which, just as obviously, God did not (according to the Bible). Too bad that doesn’t agree with your delicate constitution, but that’s the way it was way back then.

Other than that, do you have a point to make? If it’s another “sick bastard” charge, go pound sand. You’re not worth the time anymore. Remember, you and fade bought up the “evil” charges. If you want to really discuss that, fine. Otherwise, go to the sand.

Kraken on January 16, 2012 at 4:47 PM

Why do you think the warriors had not done as Moses had ordered them to do and slaughtered the tens of thousands of women and male children?

fadetogray on January 16, 2012 at 2:17 PM

Same reason God had to tell Moses to do it. It was not “natural” for Moses or the Israelites to wage war against the midianites or any of the canaanites. God intended that these people be destroyed both as an expression of justice, and to protect Israel from being corrupted by them. He had to order Moses and later Joshua to do these things because — contrary to your whole ridiculous premise — it was not an obvious, natural, or comfortable thing for them to do.

joe_doufu on January 16, 2012 at 5:01 PM

I am looking at the story of Moses in the Bible in the same way I look at the story of Muhammed in the Koran. They were real people, and the story is a generally accurate history, but that doesn’t mean God was the one actually telling them to do the slaughtering.

There is nothing ‘weird’ or ‘alternate’ about looking at historical documents that way. I would be very surprised if you do not look at the Koran that way.

fadetogray on January 16, 2012 at 1:32 PM

It is a story that only you are telling.

Let’s just assume as you do that God doesn’t exist and the Bible is fiction. The story of Moses is therefore a fiction about a reluctant leader of the Hebrews trusting God and leading them to obey God’s will. How can we judge his character? Same way we judge other fictional characters like Han Solo or Don Quixote… we judge them by what they do in the story! You are proposing that we judge Moses based on an alternate version of the story which neither believers nor historians with any evidence are proposing, a version which you invented precisely for the purpose of casting Moses as a bad guy.

It’s like saying Han Solo is evil because of all the Ewok children he molested on Endor… in your private version of Return of the Jedi where you assume he molested Ewok children because, as you have already decided, Han Solo is evil.

joe_doufu on January 16, 2012 at 5:11 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4