Ad

Saturday, December 15, 2007

Huckabee Should Be Required To Give Speech On Religion


It seems that all candidates for President should be either under the necessity of spelling out their specific religious beliefs or that those beliefs should be taken completely off the table.

Huckabee seems to be trying to dodge the bullet with the religion card, other than representing himself as a "pastor".

If he was true to his word, wouldn't he have followed Mitt Romney's speech with one of his own?

Exclusive Brody File Video: Huckabee says Romney’s Mormonism is Fair Game
"I expect it to be an issue as people evaluate whether they want me to be President. And I’m perfectly prepared to defend my faith in front of anyone, anytime, anyplace and under any circumstance. That’s fine. I not only accept it I in fact welcome it because frankly it gives me an opportunity to give witness to my faith so to be questioned on it is not something that would make me say’ well I don’t want to talk about that’. Sure, let’s talk about it.”, said Huckabee about religion.

As far as I can tell, Huckabee does have specific beliefs that, when proclaimed, put him in an uncomfortable position. I wonder what he would do if he were in Romney's position. Would he show such leadership? Would he be willing to give an actual speech about God in front of the Nation?

Huckabee bristles at creationism query
"Huckabee - who raised his hand at a debate last May when asked which candidates disbelieved the theory of evolution - asked this time why there is such a fascination with his beliefs."

"I believe God created the heavens and the Earth," he said at a news conference with Iowa pastors who murmured, "Amen."

"Huckabee, at a dinner in Des Moines, told reporters that the theory of intelligent design, whose proponents believe an intelligent cause is the best way to explain some complex and orderly features of the universe, should be taught in schools as one of many viewpoints."


Perhaps Huckabee may wish to spend some time studying Christianity and Mormonism so that he can, with facts, answer questions. Yes, "Mormonism" (as the religion is nicknamed) is Christian. The members are devoted to being Christian. The lives of "Mormons" revolve around their religion and being as much "Christ-like" as possible.

Huckabee Won't Say Mormonism Is "Legitimate" Christianity
"You know, Mormonism is a faith that people adhere to. And I think people ought to respect anybody's faith. I am not all that familiar with the intricate details. I have enough trouble keeping up with my own faith. So, I do not spend lots of time trying to evaluate somebody else's."-Huckabee

If Huckabee has such a hard time keeping up with his own faith, is he the Evangelical leader that he is trying to make the public believe he is? If he is a devout follower and pastor of his religion, wouldn't he be studying his religion on a regular basis. Maybe the people need to see this quote and ask Huckabee to be brave enough to give a speech of his own.

Huckabee Again Ponders Mormonism
"The article, to be published in Sunday's New York Times Magazine, says Huckabee asked the question after saying he believes Mormonism is a religion but doesn't know much about it. His rival Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, is a member of the Mormon church."

Again, wouldn't you want to know about your opponent?

HUCKABEE APOLOGIZES TO ROMNEY
"...Huckabee called Romney this morning to apologize for his comments to the New York Times Magazine, asking, "Don’t Mormons believe that Jesus and the Devil are brothers?”

Huckabee question about Mormonism provokes response from church

Obviously, Huckabee needs to do some major homework here. As stated above, he has no idea about the "Mormon" faith. If he is not willing to get to know this group of American voters and what they believe, do you think that he will want to get to know any other variety of people...of which America is full, as the melting pot of the world?

Huck’s Unholy Dance
"When Mitt Romney’s father ran for the presidency 40 years ago, his Mormonism was not an issue. When Mo Udall was a major challenger for the Democratic nomination in 1976, his religion was so irrelevant that today most people don’t even remember that Udall was a Mormon.

Five members of the Senate are Mormon. Are there any intimations that the Mormonism of Harry Reid, Orrin Hatch, Gordon Smith, Michael Crapo, or Robert Bennett corrupts, distorts or in any way diminishes their ability to perform their constitutional duties?"


This particular article creates a dialog that I wish my readers to give comments on. Should a person's religion be placed on the podium? Or, should the person's credentials, values, history, moral standards, etc. be put on the podium?

Additionally, shouldn't all candidates answer for their individual religious beliefs instead of one man is being singled out among them? Otherwise, isn't the playing field a bit unequal?

Have a great Friday night!

2 comments:

groovsmyth said...

The playing field is unequal because the candidates can only talk to one another, and therefore delineate their beliefs, through legitimate debate. All the debates have been manipulated so far, and thus corrupted. Limiting free speech or the freedom to practice one's religion is not part of our free society. Huckabee is free to reveal as much or as little about himself as he likes. Each one of us is free to vote for him (or not) based on any characteristic one believes is important. If the debates were structured classically with equal time, same questions to each candidate and opportunity for rebuttal, we would all be able to compare the candidates head to head. Apparently, the MSM is so power drunk that they would rather dumb it down to some reality entertainment show instead of provide a true service for democracy. Case in point: During the Des Moines, Iowa, Republican debate, the moderator tried to force the candidates into a simple yes or no answer as to whether they believe global warming is a man-made danger. She said that the voters of Iowa wanted to know. Well, it was a debate leading up to the nomination of a REPUBLICAN. Perhaps there are Gorist Democrats who want the answer to that question, but they're not choosing the Republican candidate. Furthermore, Iowa goes through quite an effort to remain the first test in the primaries and enjoys the national stage because of it. Then, they act as though the only issues appropriate to be covered for a debate among the candidates in Iowa, should pertain exclusively to Iowa. It seems folks are so spoiled anymore, that they EXPECT to have their cake and eat it too.

groovsmyth said...

Pardon this aside from the topic, but it relates to what I said about moderators for debates in the Primaries, posing questions that would more logically be appropriate for a debate in the General Election. In general, Democrats and Republicans disagree profoundly over the existence of global warming, let alone the degree it is effected by humankind's actions. There is a rift in scientific circles which liberals are trying to ignore by strongarm suppression tactics like those employed by Margaret Washburn. http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=c9554887-802a-23ad-4303-68f67ebd151c