Conquer Club

Now, I'm not too particularly familiar with Mike Huckabee's specific platforms myself, but one thing I do know is this: his rise to prominence was in no small part due to a massive surge of support from the Evangelical right. I haven't read any articles to the following effect, but then, I haven't looked into Huckabee once, but my fear is that since he's getting all this money and support from the far Evangelical right (notorious for seeing a desire for government policy often based on religion), wouldn't that make him owe them a couple favors when he's in office, lest his risk a loss of his support base? Just wondering... does anyone know where exactly he stands of such issues?

i dont know, but it bugs me when people vote for someone depending on their religious status. Its a free country, a country with freedom of religion, and i believe that its wrong that people are using their faith to get votes.

CA and i touched on this briefly in the debate thread. I think huckabee is legitamatly a religious conservative, and not out specifically for the vote (even though hes taking advantage of it, who wouldnt) but has socially conservative postions because he believes these things. Huckabee depending on where you fall in your interpretation of him, seemingly goes from a compassionate liberal republican to a bit of a danger to seperation of church and state.

Personally i think in some ways of huckabee became the nominee or even was the president vp it might in a lot of ways send a big wake up call to much of the christian right. I dont think a lot of the value voter issues are that changeable on a federal level (for a variety of reasons). If huckabee, who would seemingly be their guy was not able to effect some of these changes, i think it would open a lot of eyes about some of the effectiveness of moral legislation.

Huckabee is strongly and overtly Evangelically oriented. Ron Paul does not run on that type of stance...why Americans can't see through it is beyond me. Ron Paul is running on the issues not his religious affiliations. Any good American, be they Christian or otherwise, should really consider Ron Paul...but these are but silly little words.

Interesting how Ron Paul got inserted into the thread.

Anyways, every candidate has said publicly that they are not 'running on their religion', and that they 'will not be greatly influenced' by such things, but every president has tip toed along the seperation line at one time or another. Though it seems Huckabee may be more willing to do that.


--Andy

AndyDufresne wrote:Interesting how Ron Paul got inserted into the thread.

not really

OnlyAmbrose wrote: but my fear is that since he's getting all this money and support from the far Evangelical right

Money? what Money? He's the least funded candidate in the race. Romney outspent him about 12 to 1 in Iowa.


Seriously though OA he was governor of Arkansas for ten and a half years. He's gotten some pro life legislation through, but aside from ticking off Snorri1234, he hasn't really done that much on the social conservative agenda. He will tell you point blank what he believes, but whats the harm in that? He isn't taking away anyone's liberties.

What he has done as governor is inherit a $200 million budget deficit and turn it around to an $880 million surplus.

He was responsible for the first tax cuts for the middle class in over a hundred years in that state.

He funded an over haul (voted in by the people of the state) of the roads system. (That's the tax hike you keep hearing about, but he helped the state's infrastructure to the tune of 100,000 new jobs)

He also did a lot to streamline the state government's spending and make the legislature more accountable to their constituency.

Russianfire8371 wrote:i dont know, but it bugs me when people vote for someone depending on their religious status. Its a free country, a country with freedom of religion, and i believe that its wrong that people are using their faith to get votes.

I want a Christian in Office!

But, seems most of them are fake. They are cheaters, tell untruths, and use God to look good but they really are only a Christian for show. It seems the majority of "Christians" are like that. In fact they don't represent Christ at all. They will pay in the end for it!

Religion and Politics have been in Candidacy since the beginning, and it is important to know how and what our candidates believe, how they were raised and what faith they are, or if they have it, because this shows what your makeup is, and what kind of a person you are.

The Last election I voted for Kerry, who was Pro abortion, instead of Bush the "Godly" man who was anti-abortion.

You cannot possibly tell what is in a persons heart when they are running in candidacy. When the TV evangelist are Pro a candidate, people even trust the evangelist, but even they are full of themselves, money loving, cheating thieves. So you cannot even believe them.

voting has become like a lottery. you vote and hope your voting for the best, but over and over again you don't get what was expecting. At least when Bush made office we all knew already he was full of Bull.

Good god... is there a question where the answer DOESN'T involve Ron Paul?

Anyways, I don't think Huckabee (or Romney for that matter, although if he even gets the nomination I'm hightailing it north) winning would violate any sort church/state separation. If LDS want to vote for Romney because he believes what they do, that's their right. If evangelicals want to vote for somebody who they think best represents them,and their criteria involves religion, that's their right. I would say if evangelicals were told by their church leaders to vote him, or Huckabee were to tell Christians to vote him or not be real Christians, or something to that extent, that would contravene the 1st amendment. Hell, appeal to southern evangelicals has been swinging elections for 30 years (Carter being the first born-again to hold office, fun fact) Huckabee would be far from the first to win votes due to his religious convictions.

Addittionally (in sort of a rebuttal to Russian) I would argue that the right to religious expression means that politicians cannot be kept from being open about their religious beliefs. Now, you could argue that it doesn't belong in reasonable political discourse (and I would agree, given the slippery-slope issues that proceed from it, not to mention human warts like Jerry Falwell and Rick Santorum) but if politicians want to use faith to describe who they are, I'm not sure we can stop them.

Christians shouldn't be voting for someone just because they are Christians. We should be helping the poor and people who are hurting. Yes, we should do our best to find out as much about each candidate and make wise decisions. People need to be helped through tough times regardless of who is in the Oval Office.

OnlyAmbrose wrote:Now, I'm not too particularly familiar with Mike Huckabee's specific platforms myself, but one thing I do know is this: his rise to prominence was in no small part due to a massive surge of support from the Evangelical right. I haven't read any articles to the following effect, but then, I haven't looked into Huckabee once, but my fear is that since he's getting all this money and support from the far Evangelical right (notorious for seeing a desire for government policy often based on religion), wouldn't that make him owe them a couple favors when he's in office, lest his risk a loss of his support base? Just wondering... does anyone know where exactly he stands of such issues?

Our whole nation was founded on the Christian Beliefs. From the Declartion of Independence to the Constituition. It's sad when the Far outnumbered Atheists in this world start suing cause the word God is in the Pledge of Allegience, and win. It didn't bother you for the past 150 years. Why all of a sudden? If you don't want to be an American, move to canada.

luns101 wrote:Christians shouldn't be voting for someone just because they are Christians. We should be helping the poor and people who are hurting. Yes, we should do our best to find out as much about each candidate and make wise decisions. People need to be helped through tough times regardless of who is in the Oval Office.

QFT

To add to what I was saying before I got side tracked. Seperation of Church and State was originally meant to stop a president from force feeding a Religion down everyones throat. No one makes you say the Pledge of Allegience if you don't want to. No one makes you celebrate Christmas. No one makes you read the 10 Commandments.

I think theres a lot of reasons why some atheists push for these things (which i understand even if i dont agree with them). Personally, i dont have a problem with any of the things mentioned in this thread, or a deeply religious president on its own, at least as a concept. If someone can do their job thats really what matters most to me.

However back to the point. Things like the pledge of allegiance or nativity scenes etc all influence how each of us see the world in an ideal state. Though you wouldnt think it, passing by certain things each day or saying a pledge over and over again affects some of the way we percieve things. Repetition of something over and over again reinforces values be them good or bad. Some atheists take offense to this because it enforces a worldview that frequently keeps us on the outside, when for many people religion is rather immaterial.

Seemingly if these things were not there it would not have a negative affect on anyone. It would keep people away from being marginalized, or at least thats part of some peoples rhetoric.

Like i said, it doesnt bother me in the slightest. But there are some people who really do feel like it matters. In the same that it shouldnt matter to them, people who feel these things are important to them could just as easily take a higher road and keep these traditions on personal level as well.

Senfive wrote:

OnlyAmbrose wrote:Now, I'm not too particularly familiar with Mike Huckabee's specific platforms myself, but one thing I do know is this: his rise to prominence was in no small part due to a massive surge of support from the Evangelical right. I haven't read any articles to the following effect, but then, I haven't looked into Huckabee once, but my fear is that since he's getting all this money and support from the far Evangelical right (notorious for seeing a desire for government policy often based on religion), wouldn't that make him owe them a couple favors when he's in office, lest his risk a loss of his support base? Just wondering... does anyone know where exactly he stands of such issues?

Our whole nation was founded on the Christian Beliefs. From the Declartion of Independence to the Constituition. It's sad when the Far outnumbered Atheists in this world start suing cause the word God is in the Pledge of Allegience, and win. It didn't bother you for the past 150 years. Why all of a sudden? If you don't want to be an American, move to canada.

I wasn't aware that not agreeing with what the majority makes me not want to be an American. Sorry. How dare I disagree with a larger amount of people than me?!

Seriously though, the lawsuits were only for the right to not participate in the recitation of the pledge, and furthermore "Under God" wasn't added to the pledge until 1954.

Also:

The Treaty of Tripoli, 1797 wrote:As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

The bill containing this statement was endorsed by the current secretary of state, approved by the Senate, and official ratified by President John Adams. What does a treaty have to do with U.S. law you may ask? Article VI, Section 2 of the Constitution clarifies:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

This document is of course now legally outdated, but it shows that our founding fathers were quite clear on the fact that the good ol' U.S. of A. is not Christian, but secular.

If you need more than that, I'll give it to you. All that said, I couldn't care less about the Pledge of Allegiance, or even if I was forced to recite it on a daily basis, as reading a few words won't kill me. I just didn't like your attitude, or your complete lack of factual evidence.

spurgistan wrote:Good god... is there a question where the answer DOESN'T involve Ron Paul?

Yes, which candidate didn't raise over 19 million last quarter?

If the 2008 election is between Obama and Huckabee, I'm voting for Huckabee. Based on events in Iraq, and the tense relationship between Muslims, and Americans, I really don't think a Muslim should be running this country. I know he claims to not be Muslim, but he was born to Muslims, he has a Muslim name, and was raised in a Muslim country (Indonesia). I also can't see me voting for someone who's middle name is Hussein, and who's last name rhymes with Osama.

Jamie wrote:If the 2008 election is between Obama and Huckabee, I'm voting for Huckabee. Based on events in Iraq, and the tense relationship between Muslims, and Americans, I really don't think a Muslim should be running this country. I know he claims to not be Muslim, but he was born to Muslims, he has a Muslim name, and was raised in a Muslim country (Indonesia). I also can't see me voting for someone who's middle name is Hussein, and who's last name rhymes with Osama.

Huh? You're not voting for him 'cause he's Muslim? Why? Will he start donating all the US' cash to terrorists? Make 75% of the population into suicide bombers? Forcibly convert everyone to Islam?
Being of a different cultural background doesn't make people into US-hating monsters, secretly out to destroy the US for their terrorist overlords.
The people on the other side of the hill aren't out to get you.

Jaime, I don't know where you are getting your facts, but I suggest you look for a more credible place.


--Andy

Jamie wrote:If the 2008 election is between Obama and Huckabee, I'm voting for Huckabee. Based on events in Iraq, and the tense relationship between Muslims, and Americans, I really don't think a Muslim should be running this country. I know he claims to not be Muslim, but he was born to Muslims, he has a Muslim name, and was raised in a Muslim country (Indonesia). I also can't see me voting for someone who's middle name is Hussein, and who's last name rhymes with Osama.

Are you kidding? I really hope that you are, because this is so incredibly thoughtless that I can hardly believe it.

Firstly, some Muslims ARE Americans!! 2.8 million of them!!

Secondly, he was Obama has been involved with the United Church of Christ since the mid-1980's. Are you saying that the he predicted that in 22 years, there would be a "tense relationship between Muslims, and Americans" and started falsely participating in a Christian organization in anticipation of the frankly pointless charges of being a Muslim??

And lastly, (and much more shamefully): "His last name rhymes with Osama"? How does this define his character, his policies, or anything even remotely useful to determine whether he is a good presidential candidate or not?

You're only reason for thinking he shouldn't be president is that you think he's Muslim, (which is a terribly stupid reason), but he's not and there is no evidence to prove that he is! If you want to not vote for him, go ahead. But at least do it for a good reason!

Russianfire8371 wrote:i dont know, but it bugs me when people vote for someone depending on their religious status.

Agreed

... i believe that its wrong that people are using their faith to get votes.

It is just as wrong to use the faith of the candidate as a reason to vote against them.

DaGip wrote:Huckabee is strongly and overtly Evangelically oriented. Ron Paul does not run on that type of stance...why Americans can't see through it is beyond me. Ron Paul is running on the issues not his religious affiliations. Any good American, be they Christian or otherwise, should really consider Ron Paul...but these are but silly little words.

In essence I agree, all voters should focus on the issues at hand. However, I will not deny that my beliefs have an effect on who and what I will support.

Please read what my boyfriend Hendrick Hertzberg has to say about the matter:

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2 ... _hertzberg

Jamie wrote:If the 2008 election is between Obama and Huckabee, I'm voting for Huckabee. Based on events in Iraq, and the tense relationship between Muslims, and Americans, I really don't think a Muslim should be running this country. I know he claims to not be Muslim, but he was born to Muslims, he has a Muslim name, and was raised in a Muslim country (Indonesia). I also can't see me voting for someone who's middle name is Hussein, and who's last name rhymes with Osama.

I have said it before but I truly do feel sorry for any children of yours