FLASHBACK: Huckabee Claimed Jesus ‘On The Cross’ Supported The Death Penalty
FLASHBACK: Huckabee Claimed Jesus ‘On The Cross’ Supported The Death Penalty
At Wednesday’s CNN/YouTube debate, a questioner asked former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee “what would Jesus do” on the death penalty. He replied:
You know, one of the toughest challenges that I ever faced as a governor was carrying out the death penalty. I did it more than any other governor ever had to do it in my state. As I look on this stage, I’m pretty sure that I’m the only person on this stage that’s ever had to actually do it. […]
Jesus was too smart to ever run for public office, Anderson. That’s what Jesus would do.
Huckabee dodged the question that time. But in 1997, Huckabee claimed that Jesus would have agreed with him on supporting the death penalty. Shortly before a triple execution in Arkansas in Jan. 1997, a caller called into Huckabee’s show on Arkansas Educational Television Network and asked how he squared his Christian teachings with his support for the death penalty. As the Arkansas Times reported on Jan. 22, 1997:
“Interestingly enough,” Huckabee allowed, “if there was ever an occasion for someone to have argued against the death penalty, I think Jesus could have done so on the cross and said, ‘This is an unjust punishment and I deserve clemency’.”
Jesus, though, did not ask for clemency. Therefore, according to Huckabee’s logic, Jesus must have been in favor of capital punishment.
Huckabee also believes God supports Republicans. As ThinkProgress reported yesterday, Huckabee interrupted his speech to the Republican Governors Association in 2004 to answer his cell phone. He proceeded to have a three-minute conversation with God about President Bush’s re-election:
We’re behind [Bush], yes, sir, we sure are. Yes, sir, we know you don’t take sides in the election. But, if you did, we kind of think you’d hang in there with us, Lord, we really do.
Matt Taibbi has more on Huckabee’s religious zealotry.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
106 Responses to “FLASHBACK: Huckabee Claimed Jesus ‘On The Cross’ Supported The Death Penalty”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
It may be less zealotry than simple dishonesty. Jesus was up on the cross because he chose to be, according to the Bible.
December 1st, 2007 at 11:03 amArticle VI, Clause 3: “…but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
If no religious test is required, then candidates should stop trying to pass one. No candidate should ever be asked about how often he attends church. No candidate should ever have to defend his faith to non-believers. Since your religion is not supposed to matter if you’re president, no candidate should make his faith an issue.
December 1st, 2007 at 11:11 amHuckabee will fit to run for a preacher’s job,good for him …but this is the presidency..and he looks like the guy who will be trying to force his beliefs on others.
December 1st, 2007 at 11:14 amWe are voting for head of the Executive Branch..the President, and not a church pastor.
is huck using the american flag as a guitar strap?
December 1st, 2007 at 11:19 amYou have to work for your pay, you know!
Comment by Fred Thompson — December 1, 2007 @ 11:20 am
And what do you know about working for your pay? Besides how to avoid doing it?
December 1st, 2007 at 11:23 amWe are voting for head of the Executive Branch..the President, and not a church pastor.
Comment by tarazan — December 1, 2007 @ 11:14 am
AMEN!
Further, if a governmental policy cannot be justified with secular morality and religious beliefs are needed to convince people to support the policy, then that policy should never be enacted.
December 1st, 2007 at 11:26 amChrist on a cross is magically turned into Christ as a crutch. That’s quite a trick there, Mr. Huckleberry.
December 1st, 2007 at 11:27 amFred Thompson/Mike Huckabee = a lazy Christian Taliban?
December 1st, 2007 at 11:27 amis huck using the american flag as a guitar strap?
Comment by joe cantwell — December 1, 2007 @ 11:19 am
Probably not the only strap, either.
December 1st, 2007 at 11:29 am“Get over it people. We need our values from the 50s again, faith injected back into managerial lives. ”
Values from the fifties - frontal lobotomies, the Mann act, and cartoon characters doing cigarette commercials.
December 1st, 2007 at 11:32 amWho let the 12 year old in?
December 1st, 2007 at 11:34 amAnd that post-WWII economic expansion with Low, Low taxes!
Comment by Fred Thompson
On the middle class. What was the tax rate for the wealthy at that time Fred?
December 1st, 2007 at 11:36 amMy campaign peeps call themselves “Fred Wetters.â€
Comment by Fred Thompson
And we know why. Do you write your Depends expenditures off as campaign-related?
Your possible constituents want to know.
December 1st, 2007 at 11:40 amHey Foghorn,
umm….I think it’s safe to assume none of us here are voting for Fred—so you can relax, everything’s cool.
December 1st, 2007 at 11:40 amwhat’s so striking is the way in which biblical events are interpreted by our politicians as FACTS. There is no first hand account of the crucifixion anywhere in the bible. The earliest gospel was Mark and it was written around 70 AD so even that was a good 30 or 40 years after anyone named Jesus was crucified. The bible is metaphor, it is not a history of anything. What is well represented in history however is how often it’s been used to justify outrageous cruelties upon those who are to be excluded from, or who will not accept, the Good News.
December 1st, 2007 at 11:40 am“The tax rates were low, low - about 90%. Today it’s like 130%!”
And ask the nurse to adjust those med levels. You’re roller-coasting.
December 1st, 2007 at 11:41 amWhat do you mean? Fred’s as consistent as a continent.
Comment by Fred Thompson — December 1, 2007 @ 11:43 am
Recommend (0) | Report Abuse
And as incontinent as most of his constituents.
December 1st, 2007 at 11:44 amNot only does it look like the religious wacko Huckabee was using the flag as a guitar strap-
December 1st, 2007 at 11:45 amBUT IT ALSO LOOKS LIKE HE PISSED HIS PANTS!
I guess Jesus didn’t believe that Moses guy really brought down God’s word written in stone. Perhaps those were the Ten Suggestions, or maybe the Ten Guidelines…
December 1st, 2007 at 11:47 amI beg to disagree with the Honorable Gov. Huckabee. If anything, Jesus on the cross supported assisted suicide. He had the power to prevent his own death and did nothing.
On the other hand, when presented with a woman whose crime subjected her to the death penalty, he let her off with a mere warning.
December 1st, 2007 at 11:49 amHuckabee appears to be a very pleasant, friendly guy. The problem to me is he is nothing more than Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell in a Mr. Rogers mask.
December 1st, 2007 at 11:49 amNot only does it look like the religious wacko Huckabee was using the flag as a guitar strap-
BUT IT ALSO LOOKS LIKE HE PISSED HIS PANTS!
Comment by chasemonster — December 1, 2007 @ 11:45 am
Recommend (0) | Report Abuse
I’m pretty sure that’s just sweat. Your ba!!s would be pretty sweaty too if you had to play “Smoke on the Water” in the 103-degree Arkansas heat.
December 1st, 2007 at 11:52 amEarn an extra $100,000 a year in the 21st Cen economy…quote scripture!
Comment by Fred Thompson
I dont recall Jesus being paid for his sermons and he was against usury. I find it odd, that today, Jesus has been turned into a political hack, a free market capitalist, pro-war messiah when he was no such thing.
He was the prince of peace, despised empire, usury and war.
December 1st, 2007 at 11:52 amThe larger questions for huckabee and the rest of religious right are , was jesus guilty or innocent, and , regardles of the answer, since jesus was convicted by the established powers of his time, should he have been executed?
December 1st, 2007 at 11:53 amHuckabee’s interpretation of the crucifixion is absurd.
His conversation with god is downright bizarre, bordering on the insane.
But then, this is exactly the kind of president/priest/father figure combo that the Republican party has embraced as of late.
December 1st, 2007 at 12:01 pmThe currently popular version of the Bible is a bunch of liberal revisionist history. The truth is that Jesus did NOT die on the cross. He actually started his own megachurch in opposition to the cowardly Pharisees, who were aiding and abetting the Romans. With this established base, he led a Global War On Roman Terror, beginning with the mother of all shock and awe campaigns and ending with the establishment of his puppet government right in the center of Rome itself. Having firmly established himself politically and militarily, he went on to make a fortune in retail sales heavily promoted every December.
December 1st, 2007 at 12:01 pmFor post 41, I forgot to add:
Amen. /snark off (can’t be too careful with sarcasm)
December 1st, 2007 at 12:04 pmOh, and the American flag as a guitar strap?
Everything is a prop for these prevaricators and religious hypocrites. Even their own religion.
December 1st, 2007 at 12:04 pmYeah… Jesus also supported bombing Iraq! “Facism will come to America draped in its flag and carrying a bible!”.
December 1st, 2007 at 12:08 pmYou have a WAR CRIMINAL as president who also claims that “God” talks to him…
December 1st, 2007 at 12:10 pmHave you seen me before in a bikini?
Comment by Fred Thompson — December 1, 2007 @ 11:33 am
I just threw up in my mouth a little.
December 1st, 2007 at 12:16 pmYou have a WAR CRIMINAL as president who also claims that “God†talks to him…
Comment by sacopenapa — December 1, 2007 @ 12:10 pm
Huckabee IS a true funda[mental]ist, bush just plays one on teevee.
December 1st, 2007 at 12:19 pmRe 45
Yes, yes i have, and i must say the amount of cleavage showing from your top was both immoral and arousing. can we meet in the minnieapolis airport mensroom?
December 1st, 2007 at 12:20 pmoops. i meant 46…
December 1st, 2007 at 12:20 pmHuckabee = Huckster
December 1st, 2007 at 12:24 pmanyone (such as Huckabee, bush and most republicans) who thinks God speaks to them and tells them what to do, and is willing to interpret what Jesus would do completely contrary to everything Jesus ever taught is an exceptionally dangerous persons. They should be kept far, far away the means to materially/physically influence the lives ot others.
December 1st, 2007 at 12:26 pm.
Actually what Jesus did say was “Father forgive them. For they know not what they do”
Now why would Jesus ask forgiveness for them if what they were doing was not a sin?
December 1st, 2007 at 12:26 pmWow, TP is attacking Huckabee! He must really be gaining ground. I have one question for Amanda. Why are you attacking his religious beliefs? Is he not entitled to believe what he wants?
December 1st, 2007 at 12:27 pmthere is no way in hell that anyone who ever seriously said ‘turn the other cheek’ and ‘love thyne enemy’ could ever support the death penality. Such cognitive dissonance is mind exploding. So either Jesus never said those things or like most republicans Huckabee is a seriously disturbed individual that manipulates Jesus for his own purposes. I’m going with the latter.
December 1st, 2007 at 12:30 pm.
Religious politicians are scary people. I personally don’t want anyone in charge of the country that believes in the Magical Invisible Faerie in the Sky, it shows that they cannot use logical thought or they are just pandering to the superstitious part of the country.
December 1st, 2007 at 12:34 pmMike “Cuz The Bible Tells Him So” Huckabee.
December 1st, 2007 at 12:45 pmMr. Huckabee’s view that Jesus’ crucifixion is somehow His approval for the death penalty is in my humble opinion, blasphemous at best. I fed up to the gills with these biblical literalists telling the rest of us what God thinks about this and that. They are nothing but dilusional. That they claim to have direct line to God and God speaks to them, and only to them is a sign that they are not mentally blanced and should not be running for anything but the nearest mental health facility for treatment. They are more to be pityed than picked on.
December 1st, 2007 at 12:49 pmBy Stephen Colbert’s impeccably snarky logic, Christians wouldn’t even have a religion if it weren’t for capital punishment.
December 1st, 2007 at 12:53 pmHuck must have gone to a different Sunday School than I did — or Attila the Hun was his teacher.
December 1st, 2007 at 1:07 pmYes, but Huckabee is a very personable, witty, and charming psychopath.
December 1st, 2007 at 1:13 pmCall Mike by his real name - - Huckabible.
December 1st, 2007 at 1:25 pmSo, then Christ being dead is a GOOD thing in Huskter’s eyes.
#43
Oh, and the American flag as a guitar strap?
Everything is a prop for these prevaricators and religious hypocrites. Even their own religion.
Comment by Gregor Samsa
Correct GS. EVERYTHING, the planet, the universe, the very nature of the thoughts in our heads is nothing but fodder for the elite materialist capitalists to use in their undying quest for PROFIT.
December 1st, 2007 at 1:28 pmPROFIT trumps all other issues. Just look at business and corporations.
Born on a lie (”The Constitution should extend to them all the rights of personhood”) by bot even a court finding, they manipulate their power (personhood rights) to subvert the intentions of the country, because THEY HOLD NO CITIZENSHIP. How can they enjoy personhood status and the rights of those, but have NO responsibility to the Constitution?
This has intrigued me for years.
Just present this argument to one of your Conservo buddies and watch them wriggle. It should be a TEEVEE show…
Oh SH|T I just let the cat out of the bag.
Next season (I hear ABC is in REAL TROUBLE) they will come out with a reality show of “debate.” And we get to vote, just like American Idle on who is the more popular debater.
Now the question, is this snark for the 08 elections, or could it NOT actually be a REAL TeeVee show?
Is he not entitled to believe what he wants?
Comment by mandolin — December 1, 2007 @ 12:27 pm
What’s that great quote?
“The right to be heard doesn’t necessarily include the right to be taken seriously.” Perhaps Amanda is simply displaying dissatisfaction w/ Huckabee’s nonsense. Huck is the one who made the comment about “a concentration camp run by Democrats”??? Sheeez…
December 1st, 2007 at 1:29 pmMaybe it’s me but “forgive them father for they know not what they do” doesn’t sound to me like much of an endorsement of any kind.
December 1st, 2007 at 1:43 pmActually Jesus would have supported the death penalty because he taught that man must follow the laws of the land. Many criminals were executed in the day that Jesus walked the earth and He never mentioned anything about executions being wrong. Executions are the law in Arkansas, Mike Huckabee was just doing his job..
December 1st, 2007 at 2:01 pmComment by zeb — December 1, 2007 @ 2:01 pm
And legal abortion is the law as well.
December 1st, 2007 at 2:05 pmWhy are you attacking his religious beliefs? Is he not entitled to believe what he wants?
Comment by mandolin — December 1, 2007 @ 12:27 pm
what’s the matter, mandolin, have you run out of pieces of the Constitution with which to wipe yourself after you haul these moronic questions out of your ass? Huckabee, besides being a lying hypocrite, thinks that god will tell him what to do in office. This, besides being crazy, is against the law.
How stupid are you, really?
December 1st, 2007 at 2:14 pmActually Jesus would have supported the death penalty because he taught that man must follow the laws of the land. Many criminals were executed in the day that Jesus walked the earth and He never mentioned anything about executions being wrong. Executions are the law in Arkansas, Mike Huckabee was just doing his job..
Comment by zeb — December 1, 2007 @ 2:01 pm
wow, you’re trying to catch mandolin in the stupid derby, are you? well, you’re damn close.
December 1st, 2007 at 2:16 pmRELIGION = MIND CONTROL
December 1st, 2007 at 2:16 pmReligion is the only formal education the Huckster has.
He has absolutely no idea how to run this country but, by his record, he doesn’t have a problem with dictating to us what he wants to do regardless of what our Bill of Rights demands. He has proven this in numerous ways already;
He’ll trash our current tax system to create his own high tax to support his own pet projects so, he’s for bigger government than Bush could ever be.
He was FOR illegal alien amnesty while in Arkansas and he falsely offered what his position was on scholarships for illegal aliens at the CNN debate.
The Huckster will say whatever you want to hear and cover-up his past record with spin…Don’t take my word for it, many highly credible sources form Arkansas would prefer him in jail than running for President.
This one covers a lot of ground but, it’s certainly not all of the Hucksters con job;
The Dark Side of Mike Huckabee
December 1st, 2007 at 2:29 pmhttp://www.salon.com/ opinion/ feature/ 2007/ 11/ 13/ huckabee/ index.html
How stupid are you, really?
Comment by Lefty Patriot — December 1, 2007 @ 2:14 pm
How’s he gonna know that? :D
December 1st, 2007 at 2:31 pmIf you talk about the law of the land in the days of Jesus that meant law of nature.And my friend, you won’t see executions in nature’s laws.
Nature’s measure against degenerates is exile.
December 1st, 2007 at 2:32 pmI hate to tell you this, but Jesus never walked the Earth. His story is a teaching myth, very similar to the stories of Osiris, Dionysis, Innana, and several other myths of death and rebirth. These myths were common in the Mediterranean basin during the period before, and also coexisting with the Jesus story. “Jesus” is the Greek version of Joshua and Yeshua. He was probably based on Yeshua ben Nun of the Old Testament. Jesus was NEVER a real person, yet millions have been killed in his name. The crux of his story (and the others) was that one must die and be reborn spiritually, not literally, in order to know God. That this came to be a reason to slaughter those who are on a different path is the greatest tragedy of humanity.
December 1st, 2007 at 2:52 pmHuckabee has TOTALLY missed the point (big surprise — NOT!!!!!!). His answers are surprising, considering that they contradict commonly-held Christian thought concerning the reasons why Jesus was put on the cross. The whole point of Jesus being on the cross is the belief that he himself was guilty of no crime — and since the word punishment as strictly defined refers to a penalty inflicted in retribution for an offense, that word cannot be properly applied to the Crucifixion. According to Christian thought, Jesus (as The Christ) knowingly consented to be crucified as a way of saving mankind from having to suffer punishment for their transgressions — so of course he didn’t oppose it, since that would have defeated the whole purpose. There’s no question whatsoever in my mind that Huckabee knows this — so his implication that Jesus supported the death penalty in his own case (despite the belief that Jesus supposedly pleaded with God to be spared in the Garden of Gethsemane) suggests that he is deliberately warping the traditions of his own faith for no other purpose than to gain votes since Republicans tend to be in favor of the death penalty. Secondly, punishment usually refers to something which is inflicted by force upon the offender by an outside authority — but I contend that if you truly believe that Jesus was The Christ, then you have to accept the possibility that the Crucifixion could not and would not have served its full purpose if Jesus had not voluntarily consented to it (however unwilling that consent may have been). The tale of Jesus’s temptation in the desert suggests that it was potentially within his power as The Christ to prevent the Crucifixion and to refuse martyrdom for the sake of mankind — but he chose not to refuse or prevent it, since this would have defeated the purpose (as would have pleading for clemency from the Romans).
The thought that Jesus was in favor of capital punishment also directly contradicts the story of the woman accused of adultery. According to the Old Testament laws, adultery was a capital offense — if you were guilty of committing adultery, they took you outside the city and they threw stones at you until you were dead. According to the story, this is exactly what they were about to do to this woman — but Jesus stopped them by saying “let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” Actually, according to Christian belief, Jesus would have been the only member of the crowd who would have been justified in throwing that first stone because it is commonly believed that he was without sin — but he did not. Old Testament law also upheld the principle of “an eye for an eye” and a life for a life — but Jesus stressed the importance of forgiveness instead of claiming equivalent retribution. Does that sound like someone who’s in favor of capital punishment? Hardly…and if Huckabee was really the devout Christian that he claims to be, he’d admit it.
December 1st, 2007 at 4:52 pmWhy are you attacking his religious beliefs? Is he not entitled to believe what he wants? — Mandolin
***************************************
Of course Huckabee is entitled to believe what he wants — but that’s not the real issue here and you know it, so stop blowing smoke. Given that Huckabee is not an ordained minister and does not as far as I know have a degree in theology, there appears to be plenty of room for debate over whether Huckabee is entitled or qualified to tell other people what Jesus thought or believed — and particularly when that directly contradicts commonly-held Christian doctrine! However, even that’s not the primary point. The primary point is the fact that we have a little thing in this country known as the Bill of Rights, the First Amendment of which stipulates that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” and attempts to prohibit or at least prevent the intermingling of religion with politics (something which our Founding Fathers fought against) — but when someone who’s running for the Presidency tries to use his/her religious beliefs as the primary basis for his/her political views (and inaccurately at that), it raises the speculation that this person if elected President will not sufficiently respect the First Amendment and will attempt insofar as he/she is able to enforce his own form of morality on the entire nation as a whole regardless of whether the entire nation shares those beliefs (which they do not).
And no — before you even go there, let me contradict what it seems quite likely you’ll try to claim in rebuttal, that this is no different from what Hillary Clinton is doing. There’s no provision in the Constitution which prevents or prohibits the President from attempting to enforce his/her own socio-political views on the nation at large — on the contrary, it’s generally expected that the President will do this — but there is a provision in the Constitution preventing and prohibiting the President from doing this primarily on religious grounds.
December 1st, 2007 at 5:25 pmComment by Bluestocking — December 1, 2007 @ 5:25 pm
From Wikipedia:
At 23, Huckabee was a staffer for James Robison, a television evangelist.[5] Robison commented, “His convictions shape his character and his character will shape his policies. His whole life has been shaped by moral absolutes.”[5] Huckabee believes in Biblical inerrancy.[5] Prior to his political career, Huckabee was pastor of several Southern Baptist churches in Arkadelphia, Texarkana, and Pine Bluff, Arkansas.
So, there is some doubt whether he’s an “ordaned minister” in the strictest terms. However, I think it’s clear that he considers himself some kind of expert on the Bible.
From the Huckster’s own website:
My faith is my life - it defines me. My faith doesn’t influence my decisions, it drives them. For example, when it comes to the environment, I believe in being a good steward of the earth. I don’t separate my faith from my personal and professional lives.
I think this statement makes it clear he is unwilling, and unable, to separate his religious beliefs from his political life and, therefore, he should be considered unfit for public office. He may be the worst of all candidates for President and I shudder to think what moves towards theocracy he, and his ilk, are capable of. I find it hard to believe that even neocons could consider him fit to serve as he plainly states he will govern according to his Faith, possibly without regard for any other consideration. If he isn’t stopped I fear America will cease all pretense of secularism. He’s a dangerous man indeed.
December 1st, 2007 at 6:08 pmMethinks ya’all need to view the IRL in post #70:
December 1st, 2007 at 6:42 pmhttp://www.salon.com/ opinion/ feature/ 2007/ 11/ 13/ huckabee/ index.html
Huckabee is a fraudulent, dishonest, corrupt clown.
He may be charismatic, a fresh face, talk a good story, but so was Hitler!
Don’t be fooled.
From the Huckster’s own website:
My faith is my life - it defines me. My faith doesn’t influence my decisions, it drives them. For example, when it comes to the environment, I believe in being a good steward of the earth. I don’t separate my faith from my personal and professional lives.
I think this statement makes it clear he is unwilling, and unable, to separate his religious beliefs from his political life and, therefore, he should be considered unfit for public office. He may be the worst of all candidates for President and I shudder to think what moves towards theocracy he, and his ilk, are capable of. I find it hard to believe that even neocons could consider him fit to serve as he plainly states he will govern according to his Faith, possibly without regard for any other consideration. If he isn’t stopped I fear America will cease all pretense of secularism. He’s a dangerous man indeed. — Pete
*************************************
Actually, if you will allow me to play “devil’s advocate” for a moment (something which I often find hard to resist), I don’t entirely agree with the premise that the fact Huckabee’s faith drives his decisions necessarily makes him a bad prospect as President. I will agree with you that this quote is deeply disquieting — but the primary source of the disquiet rests on the fourth sentence of his statement more than on the second. Personally, I don’t see anything inherently wrong with the idea of someone’s faith being the primary motivating factor behind his/her decisions and actions provided that consideration for other people and an understanding that other people are fully entitled to have different beliefs and make different decisions and to have those respected is an integral part of that faith system. I think there are at least a few examples of people for whom religion is or was at least one of the driving forces in their daily lives — and not just within the context of decisions and actions which only affected themselves, but also those which affected other people as well. I would consider Mahatma Gandhi falling under that category — the Dalai Lama another. However, I also concede that such individuals seem to be the exception rather than the rule — most people seem incapable of resisting the temptation to twist their religious beliefs into an ego trip and using them as a means of claiming superiority over others in the name of doing good.
If you read the Bible with a perceptive-enough eye, you realize that respect for others and for their right to lead their own lives indeed is (or at least should be) an integral part of Christianity in its pure form as Jesus taught and practiced it — unfortunately, however, this ideal form is to all appearances actually practiced very rarely in the United States and even less often among the soi-disant Christian Right. Certainly, the fourth sentence of Huckabee’s statement is somewhat ambiguous to say the least and and further elaboration would seem to be in order since it could potentially be interpreted one of two ways — however, since previous behavior seems to be a fairly accurate predictor of future behavior, it seems more likely that Huckabee is indeed the kind of Christian whose understanding of pure Christian principle is not what it should be (especially since he apparently hasn’t even managed to grasp the basic doctrine accurately) and would not see anything wrong or even objectionable with attempting to enforce his beliefs on the nation at large even if this would represent a violation of the spirit if not the letter of the First Amendment.
December 1st, 2007 at 7:12 pmwhat would jesus do about wayne dumond?
December 1st, 2007 at 7:14 pmgreat comments… excellent insight and information…
it should be added though, from that wiki entry:
He graduated magna cum laude from Ouachita Baptist University, completing his bachelors degree in 2½ years before attending Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas.[6]
no mention of WHAT that degree is, but he had to be a serious student to get any bachelors degree in 2 1/2 yrs… nor what he accomplished while
at texas…
sounds like a perfect church leader… that’s probably more lucrative also…
December 1st, 2007 at 7:26 pmwhy would he want to be president?
savior complex? (is that the right word?)
.
Actually Jesus would have supported the death penalty because he taught that man must follow the laws of the land. — Zeb
******************************************
Are you sure that you want to stand by that statement?
Positive? I’m actually being rather magnanimous by giving you an opportunity to consider that statement more carefully and potentially retract it instead of simply punching a hole in your argument as I would ordinarily do — because right off the top of my head, I can think of at least one (and possibly two) very plausible counterarguments.
December 1st, 2007 at 7:30 pmno mention of WHAT that degree is, but he had to be a serious student to get any bachelors degree in 2 1/2 yrs…
I’m not so sure how great an accomplishment it is. As Bill Maher said of Liberty University “Law School”: “It’s a three year course and you only have to read one book”. LOL.
December 1st, 2007 at 7:37 pmI don’t care how much Bible talk and religious walk Huckabee has. I care for someone who is honest in what he says to Americans of all faith,knows how balance the budget, does not egt us in wars,and have justice to all hear and abroad.. have something to say and do about huigh rise cost of health,protect the little guy.
December 1st, 2007 at 7:39 pmComment by tarazan — December 1, 2007 @ 7:39 pm
You may want to check out his Wiki entry. It’s a matter of record that he has some problems governing aside from how much he will allow his faith to dictate policy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_huckabee
December 1st, 2007 at 7:50 pmThe crucifiction proves that Jesus wasn’t against:
the death penalty
cruel punishment
false imprisonment
false persecution/prosecution based on politics
gratuitous torture
foreign occupation
etc
etc
etc
Its all so clear now. How could I have missed it.
December 1st, 2007 at 8:10 pmNot every body is a die-hard christian. There are millions of people out here that don’t believe in the bible, and there are millions that have a different religion, what you believe you should keep to yourself. It is common knowledge the bible has been rearranged so much in the past hundreds of years that it does not even resemble a remote closeness to any of the original scrolls. It is also becoming common knowledge that Jesus did not die on the cross, he was a twin, he was a Roman citizen, he was of royal blood. I highly suggest anyone running for office should be quiet about his personal beliefs, and simply state what he could do to help this country. I am sick of the childish games these so-called candidates play. duriing the Republican debate Ron Paul was the only one that was Honest and straight forward and he has my vote. The other candidates acted desperate or something, or just plain fake. I am just tired of the lies.
December 1st, 2007 at 8:21 pmFrom these statements I (as a fellow christian) would say that Huckabee neither knows scripture or Jesus.
December 1st, 2007 at 9:02 pmIf this religious whackjob gets elected president, we’re fu(ked.
December 1st, 2007 at 9:10 pmWould Huckster waterboard Jesus?
December 1st, 2007 at 9:10 pmWould Huckster waterboard Jesus?
Comment by RUCerious — December 1, 2007 @ 9:10 pm
The Huckster? It’s hard to say. But, the majority of neocons would. After all, in light of the fact that genetic comparisons indicate that Palestinians and Israeli Jews are from the same stock, Jesus was a Palestinian. And, since he spoke out against authority, and provided aid and comfort to criminals, he was an insurgent.
Palestinian insurgents are fair game.
December 1st, 2007 at 9:19 pmwhat would jesus do about wayne dumond? — Cha Cha Cha
*************************************
Wayne Dumond, of course, being the convicted rapist who later attacked and murdered a woman in Missouri after he was paroled from prison due to the efforts of Huckabee — who, it should be noted, has since tried to pass the buck with regard to taking responsibility for releasing a man who was clearly still a menace to the public (proving yet again that although Republicans often jaw on at length about taking responsibility for one’s own actions, it’s all too often a case of “do as I say and not as I do”). At least one thing is fairly certain — given that there are suggestions in the Bible to the effect that Jesus had some sort of precognitive ability to see into other people’s hearts (his awareness before the fact that Judas would betray him and that Peter would deny him three times, for example), Jesus would probably not have chosen to release him as long as he knew that Dumond continued to be dangerous. Since it is also believed that Jesus had the power to heal people and even bring them back from the dead, one thing which Jesus would probably have done is heal Dumond of whatever mental or emotional disturbance which predisposed him towards violence — however, Dumond would probably have needed to specifically request this since there are no stories which indicate that Jesus ever healed anyone in direct defiance or disregard of their will. There’s no doubt that Jesus would have forgiven Dumond but again, this is something which Dumond would probably have had to request himself — it’s commonly thought that genuine repentance is a necessary prerequisite for the divine forgiveness of sins, and the fact that Dumond not only raped another woman but killed her suggests that he experienced no sense of remorse over his previous offense. It’s also commonly believed that divine forgiveness only spares the sinner from damnation in the afterlife, and does not necessarily exonerate the sinner from being required to take the consequences of his or her offenses in this life — the law of the land is secular and based heavily on British common law rather than Christian law, so people are expected to pay the penalty for whatever crimes they commit regardless of whether they are genuinely remorseful or not.
December 1st, 2007 at 10:54 pmWow….is this guy serious….is he trying to get in the White House or the Nut House?
December 2nd, 2007 at 12:35 amMy god, my god, why have you forsaken me? Yeah, Jesus was all for the death penalty. Shut up Huckabee, you weekend Christian.
December 2nd, 2007 at 1:10 amBy the way, since when does a kid call his dad…my god?
December 2nd, 2007 at 1:11 amJesus interfered with the execution of an adulteress who was about to be stoned to death by saying “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”. He didn’t directly say that the death penalty was wrong…but he clearly wanted to stop her execution and so he put an impossible qualifier on the act…Add to this his statements that we should love our enemies and that we should “turn the other cheek” instead of practicing “an eye for an eye” and it’s pretty clear that Jesus was against capital punishment. That’s why the Catholic church and just about every Christian country has denounced the practice.
December 2nd, 2007 at 2:10 amsavas, you make excellent points but America is THE Christian nation and we like killing people. So…eye for an eye.
December 2nd, 2007 at 2:15 amIn reference to the comment by savas. Yes Jesus did step in on preventing the stoning of an adulterress. But this was a mob situation, not a judgment handed down from an official court of law. Jesus never stated capital punishment was wrong nor should it be done away with. There is nothing in the Bible to indicate he was against it.
December 2nd, 2007 at 5:46 amHuckabee must have seen Serial Mom!
December 2nd, 2007 at 6:55 amComment by yank22257 — December 2, 2007 @ 5:46 am
December 2nd, 2007 at 9:57 amyou probably should read the bible before you make such an idiotic statement.
“Get over it people. We need our values from the 50s again, faith injected back into managerial lives. â€
You mean back when people wearing white sheets were blowing up black churches, burning crosses on black people’s lawns and persecuting other people for being nice, those fifties?
December 2nd, 2007 at 10:26 amyank,
You said - “There is nothing in the Bible to indicate he was against it.”
There is also nothing in the Bible which states Jesus is opposed to slavery, do you support slavery even though he doesn’t denounce it?
The bible is also quite clear in Leviticus that those who work on Sunday should be stoned, as well as though children that don’t mind their parents ought to be stoned as well. Do you follow those practices?
December 2nd, 2007 at 10:31 amBluestocking
Actually, if I was to pick someone for my president I would go with someone whose decisions are based on a proponderance of the evidence, coupled with logic and compassion, rather then what their imaginary friend has to say.
Particularly when that imaginary friend isn’t particularly opposed to slavery.
The theme that would disturb me with Huckabee, is that he is, in essence, advocating decision making based on his faith as opposed to based on his reasoning.
December 2nd, 2007 at 10:38 amWhile I hate to give more ammunition to the death penalty crowd, I felt like I should bring this up since the adultress story was mentioned so often in the comments here.
It’s worth looking into the field of textual criticism, which is a form of biblical scholarship. Many of those people may believe that the original words that got incorporated into the bible were inspired, but that errors in transcription and translation (and occasionally purposeful changes) over the years have muddled things. So, the effort is to study all the various manuscripts and come up with the most accurate picture of the original words as possible.
One book I read related to this was Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman, who seems to be a pretty respected scholar in the field. One thing that he brought up was that adultress story is questionable.
Aparantly it was not in the oldest greek manuscripts. It later appeared, but in slightly different locations, before settling in the current area. It also has a different writing style from the text surrounding it. I guess the main theory is that it was a popular story of the time and was written in the margins of the text as an aside, but eventually got incorporated in.
This isn’t to say that the story is necessarily untrue, but it wouldn’t hurt to be a bit more skeptical of it. Something like the King James Edition is known to be pretty inaccurate at this point (based on the history of translations used for it) and aparantly there are a lot of newere editions out there that based on the latest translations and research. I haven’t had a chance to look much further as of yet, but I think anyone serious about these issues should at least get familiar with these issues.
December 2nd, 2007 at 10:49 amIn reference to the comment by savas. Yes Jesus did step in on preventing the stoning of an adulterress. But this was a mob situation, not a judgment handed down from an official court of law. — Yank22257
**************************************
Read my previous comment with reference to the woman taken in adultery — with all due respect, what part of “adultery was a capital offense” do you not understand?!?! For someone who seems to be defending the conservative Christian perspective, you don’t seem to know your Bible all that well! Good grief…I’m an agnostic but as far as I can tell, I remember more about it than you do! Not exactly a point in favor of your argument, my friend.
The circumstances which you dismiss as a “mob situation” was exactly the way in which capital punishment was meted out in that society. There was very little in the way of an “official court of law” in that society comparable to what we have today — since this was a civilization in which religion and politics were virtually one and the same, a lot of what might be considered legal decisions were handed down from the priests especially since it was believed that the Levitican laws were the laws of God and not of man. If there was any code of justice in that society at that time which could be described as secular, it was probably Roman justice rather than Hebrew justice. When people in that society wanted to put you to death, they gathered a crowd together who escorted you outside the city and threw stones at you until you died from the injuries they inflicted — exactly what did you think “stoning” referred to?!?
December 2nd, 2007 at 11:37 amSupporting the death penalty does not clash with Christian values. When someone commits first-degree murder, the have forfeited their right to live in society among us.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — December 2, 2007 @ 11:39 am
What if that individual was falsely convicted. Would their death clash with Christian values?
December 2nd, 2007 at 11:59 amOne book I read related to this was Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman, who seems to be a pretty respected scholar in the field. One thing that he brought up was that adultress story is questionable.
Aparantly it was not in the oldest greek manuscripts. It later appeared, but in slightly different locations, before settling in the current area. It also has a different writing style from the text surrounding it. I guess the main theory is that it was a popular story of the time and was written in the margins of the text as an aside, but eventually got incorporated in.
This isn’t to say that the story is necessarily untrue, but it wouldn’t hurt to be a bit more skeptical of it. Something like the King James Edition is known to be pretty inaccurate at this point (based on the history of translations used for it) and aparantly there are a lot of newere editions out there that based on the latest translations and research. I haven’t had a chance to look much further as of yet, but I think anyone serious about these issues should at least get familiar with these issues. — Silverthorn
*****************************************
With all due respect, Silverthorn, I think you’re somewhat missing the point. The point is that conservative Christians like Huckabee (and some of the people on this thread who’ve tried to defend his position) believe that the Bible — and even more specifically, the King James Edition — was not intended to be allegorical and not only can but must be taken literally because it is not subject to interpretation. People like you and I, who are aware that there is actually a great deal of room for doubt on the question of whether various segments of the Bible are even remotely accurate, know better. However, coming from that perspective isn’t likely to be terribly effective when contesting a point of New Testament theology with someone who is a Biblical literalist such as Huckabee. You might as well attempt to have a debate on lunar geology with someone who still thinks that the moon is made of green cheese — they won’t even be able to comprehend what you’re talking about. In order to have any hope whatsoever of getting them to perceive the contradiction in their own argument (and even then it’s often like arguing with a brick wall), you have to be able to debate it from their perspective. Regardless of whether the story of the woman taken in adultery actually happened or not, the Biblical literalist like Huckabee accepts that it did — yet even under this assumption, this incident as depicted in the gospel conflicts with the premise that Jesus was in favor of capital punishment. If Jesus had been in favor of capital punishment, one suspects that he would have no objection to the crowd stoning the woman especially since that was the punishment which the law of that society demanded as the proper penalty for adultery.
December 2nd, 2007 at 12:09 pmSupporting the death penalty does not clash with Christian values. When someone commits first-degree murder, the have forfeited their right to live in society among us.
it is completely true that the death penalty does not conflict with so-called Christian values because Christian values are any old effing thing the any self-proclaimed Christian wants them to be: state sponsored murder, war, oppression of the poor, oppression of women, …all A-OK in Christiandom because its what the plutocrats and theocrats want. The only problem with it all is the proclaimed Christian hero, idol, and leader Jesus would never under any circumstances support the death penalty (or war, or oppression of anyone, or not redistributing wealth to help the needy, or anything other than universal human rights), at least if we are to believe the testimonies of his teachings. In short, Jesus today would have nothing to do with what passes today for “Christian values” or the pompous asses that proclaim to know what Christian values are.
December 2nd, 2007 at 1:18 pm.
.
Must we be Christians to vote or discuss our candidates? This seems to be leaning into a Theocracy instread of a Republic. Our Constitution mentions no social issues so why do we have to go through the abortion, same sex issues everytime we head to the polls?
I realize that Bush 43 watered down the Separation of Church and State and turned all political discussions around the bible. May I assume we Atheists are no longer wanted as voters and residents of America?
To me, the GOP turned away many fiscal conservatives in 2000 allowing the religious right to divide the party in half. We cannot win any election without a party that includes all Americans who want liberty and freedom. Must we pledge to a God that does not exist?
December 2nd, 2007 at 1:40 pmComment by Tracy2 — December 2, 2007 @ 5:17 pm
I respect your opinion.
December 2nd, 2007 at 6:35 pmwhat a f**king no brain question to pose to presidential hopefuls - what would jesus do? - so much for the separation of church and state
December 2nd, 2007 at 9:08 pmOk. If someone commits murder, it’s ok for Society to commit murder in revenge. Sounds kind of Old Testament to me. I guess Christ came here to enforce that old eye for an eye thing after all.
Something to think about: every time a woman has a spontaneous miscarriage, God just murdered her baby.
December 2nd, 2007 at 9:47 pmI hope huckabee takes the nomination. he will be easier to defeat than Guliani, although there isn’t a single one of them that will be difficult to destroy in a general campaign. that is a bunch of weak weirdos, cross-dressers, cultists, lazy-ass grade B actors, religious nutcases, and senile old fools. It looks like an HBO comedy show about a banana republic. there isn;t a Dem running, including Kucinich, that couldnt destroy any one of them in a real debate. Too bad the repigs are afraid to actually have one.
December 2nd, 2007 at 10:00 pmSandy Price
Pretty much answers that question now doesn’t it?
December 3rd, 2007 at 3:08 amimagine no religion…
the world would be a far better place!
December 3rd, 2007 at 10:02 amI’m no bi-bull scholar, or anything, but doesn’t Jeebus, in fact, ask for clemency from Dog?
If memory serves he asks Dog to take this test from in front of him, or some such.
Prof.
December 3rd, 2007 at 1:09 pmWant to see a very comprehensive archive of debate footage that includes all the candidates?
I’ve been creating this new page, check it out:
http://debates.redlasso.com/dbt/
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:19 pmI believe the idea of justice is strongly tied to Christianity. God is described as just, as being able to render perfect justice. The Old Testament makes a huge deal of judges – the ones responsible for rendering judgments - being corrupt.
All people desire justice but are happy to accept God’s mercy – expressed through Christ, who, the Apostles Paul says, was the perfect sacrifice. Christ was the perfect sacrifice for the sins of the world. This is why Christ is worthy of glory – he submitted to the Father’s will that an innocent die for sins, and this is why Christians don’t do animal sacrifice.
There’s another twist on the story of the woman caught in the act of adultery. This is speculation but the idea is that justice was not being applied. That is, where is the man with whom the woman committed adultery? Was he one of the men getting ready to hurl the stones? Was he one of her accusers?
As I said it’s speculation, but there’s a possibility that Christ stopped the execution because of the injustice of the unequal treatment under the law.
From Leviticus 20:10:
10 ” ‘If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.
Christ didn’t give the woman a pass on sin. He told her to not do it again, and this is from the teacher who said adultery was not just in the act but in the thought, and from the teacher who said the Creator intended that a man and a woman be one flesh.
December 3rd, 2007 at 5:44 pmI thought Jesus died for our sins, so we wouldn’t have to? Or did he die for nothing.
Isn’t one of the principal foundations of Christianity that Jesus died that our Sins, so that our sins would be Forgiven?
Jesus said to the Pharisees, “Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone”. And yes, the woman the pagans called a sinner, walked away, ALIVE.
http://www.bartleby.com/59/1/lethimwhoisw.html
Anyone who believes in the death penalty is not a real Christian.
They are a heretic, and should be ashamed.
Read the bible yourself. That’s why God’s law was written down.
December 3rd, 2007 at 6:54 pmAnd BTW- I don’t mean one quote.
I mean the WHOLE BIBLE.
The message of Christianity is “love one another, as you love God”.
Not “stone the sinner”, and “I’m better than you.”
Thanks again.
December 3rd, 2007 at 6:58 pmHuckabee is a looloo. We’ve already had one of those in the highest office in the land for the last 7 years. We don’t need another one. Voter beware.
December 3rd, 2007 at 8:09 pmIt’s not clear to me what you mean by your first sentence.
In the main I have no disagreement with this post.
I’ve quoted the scripture to which you alluded in your post. I wanted you to seem them because I believe there are implications in Christ’s words that are not obvious, and I want to draw them out.
The first implication is in the order of the commands. “….Love your God ….†is quoted first then followed by “…Love your neighbor…â€
This says to me that you can’t do the second without doing the first. In other words, to really “Love your neighbors†you have to “Love your God.†This is not usually a problem with Christians.
The second implications is what Christ says about the “All the Law and the Prophets.†“All the Law and the Prophets…†are based on the first greatest command and the second greatest command. I believe this is difficult for many Christians because these laws include death for certain violations of the law. Christ says that “All the Law and the Prophets†are based on these two commands.
Some teachings in the Old Testament are difficult to a modern mind - especially the harshness of some punishments. Apparently the harshness is to insure that sin is removed from the presents of God’s people as quickly and surely as possible and to establish certain deterrence.
Does this mean that the harshness of punishment in the Old Testament is based on first and second greatest command? I take this to be the case.
December 4th, 2007 at 3:19 pm