CNN's Cooper praised Huckabee's failure to answer WWJD question as "probably one of the best answers you could possibly come up to"
SUMMARY: During post-debate discussion of the November 28 CNN/YouTube Republican debate,
CNN's Anderson Cooper praised Mike Huckabee's response to the question, "The
death penalty: What would Jesus do?" calling Huckabee's answer, "certainly,
probably one of the best answers you could possibly come up to, to that
question." However, Huckabee, who has repeatedly invoked Jesus Christ and
Christianity to explain his position on matters of public policy, did not answer
the question or Cooper's own follow-up.
During the November 28 CNN/YouTube Republican presidential debate, YouTube questioner Tyler Overman asked: "I have a quick question for those of you who would call yourselves Christian conservatives. The death penalty: What would Jesus do?" After former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee responded by defending his support for the death penalty but failing to say anything about "[w]hat ... Jesus [would] do" regarding the death penalty, debate moderator and CNN host Anderson Cooper pressed: "I do have to, though, press the question, which -- the question was ... [w]hat would Jesus do? Would Jesus support the death penalty?" Huckabee then replied: "Jesus was too smart to ever run for public office, Anderson. That's what Jesus would do." Following the debate, Cooper asserted that Huckabee's reply was "certainly, probably one of the best answers you could possibly come up to, to that question" -- despite the fact that Huckabee, who has repeatedly invoked Jesus Christ and Christianity to explain his position on matters of public policy, did not answer Overman's question and Cooper's own follow-up.
While Huckabee -- who did not object during the debate to the "what would Jesus do" question -- did not say what he thought Jesus would do with regard to the death penalty, he routinely uses his faith and Jesus to talk about public policy matters. For example:
- On the "Issues" page of his presidential campaign website, the first "issue" listed is "Faith and Politics." On that page, Huckabee states, "My faith is my life -- it defines me. I don't separate my faith from my personal and professional lives." Huckabee continues: "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."
- In a November 17 interview, Huckabee told the National Journal (subscription required) that he's finding "younger Christians and faith groups want to know that you're going to address poverty and the environment and energy independence," adding, "They want us to broaden our issues, consistent with the Gospels. Jesus talked a lot about poverty."
- In a November 27 CNN.com article, CNN chief national correspondent John King wrote that "Huckabee is anything but uncomfortable about faith-based politics, often discussing his faith, and making it a central theme of his new Iowa TV ad." In that ad, titled "Believe," Huckabee replays a portion of his October 20 speech to the Values Voter Summit, in which he said: "Let us never sacrifice our principles for anybody's politics, not now, not ever." The ad also displays text reading, "Christian Leader," and notes that Huckabee supports the "Human Life Amendment," a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution to ban abortion.
- In a November 28 article, the Associated Press noted that, as governor, Huckabee "opposed a Republican lawmaker's efforts in 2005 to require proof of legal status when applying for state services that aren't federally mandated and proof of citizenship when registering to vote." In defending his vote, the AP reported that Huckabee "derided the bill as un-American and un-Christian and said the bill's sponsor drank a different 'Jesus juice.' "
In addition, in their reports on the debate, numerous media outlets highlighted Huckabee's response to the "what would Jesus do" question without noting that Huckabee did not actually answer the question:
- The Washington Post's Michael D. Shear and Dan Balz wrote on November 29: "There were moments of levity, often provided by Huckabee, whose best line of the night was in answer to a question about what Jesus would do about the death penalty," adding that Huckabee's answer prompted "laughter on the stage and in the audience."
- In their November 29 article, The New York Times' Michael Cooper and Marc Santora listed Huckabee's answer as one of the "high points" of the debate.
- In their November 29 report on the debate, Bloomberg's Catherine Dodge and Kristin Jensen wrote that Huckabee's answer "got one of the biggest laughs of the night."
- ABC News' Jake Tapper asserted in a November 28 ABCNews.com article that Huckabee's answer was one of "several fun YouTube moments," writing that "Huckabee, a Baptist minister before he entered political life, responded with characteristic wit and deft political awareness."
- In a November 29 post on CBSNews.com blog Couric & Co., senior political editor Vaughn Ververs wrote that Huckabee gave "thoughtful and eloquent answers to questions about immigration, taxes, the death penalty and the bible, which for an ordained Baptist minister is a familiar subject." Ververs also asserted that Huckabee delivered "the best punch lines," citing, his response to the "what would Jesus do" question.
From CNN's November 28 broadcast of the CNN/YouTube Republican presidential debate:
OVERMAN: Hi, this is Tyler Overman from Memphis, Tennessee, and I have a quick question for those of you who would call yourselves Christian conservatives. The death penalty: What would Jesus do?
COOPER: Governor Huckabee?
HUCKABEE: 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.
Let me tell you, it was the toughest decision I ever made as a human being. I read every page of every document of every case that ever came before me, because it was the one decision that came to my desk that, once I made it, was irrevocable.
Every other decision, somebody else could go back and overturn, could fix if it was a mistake. That was one that was irrevocable.
I believe there is a place for a death penalty. Some crimes are so heinous, so horrible that the only response that we, as a civilized nation, have for a most uncivil action is not only to try to deter that person from ever committing that crime again, but also as a warning to others that some crimes truly are beyond any other capacity for us to fix.
Now, having said that, there are those who say, "How can you be pro-life and believe in the death penalty?"
Because there's a real difference between the process of adjudication, where a person is deemed guilty after a thorough judicial process and is put to death by all of us, as citizens, under a law, as opposed to an individual making a decision to terminate a life that has never been deemed guilty because the life never was given a chance to even exist.
COOPER: Governor?
HUCKABEE: That's the fundamental difference.
COOPER: I do have to, though, press the question, which -- the question was, from the viewer, was: What would Jesus do? Would Jesus support the death penalty?
HUCKABEE: Jesus was too smart to ever run for public office, Anderson. That's what Jesus would do.
COOPER: Congressman Tancredo: 30 seconds.
From the November 28 edition of CNN's Anderson Cooper 360:
COOPER: Jamal [Simmons, president of New Future Communications], one of the questions that we asked was, "What would Jesus do?" -- or I should say -- one of the YouTube viewers asked was what would Jesus do on capital punishment. Here's what Mike Huckabee said.
[begin video clip]
QUESTIONER: Hi, this is Tyler Overman from Memphis, Tennessee, and I have a quick question for those of you who would call yourselves Christian conservatives. The death penalty: What would Jesus do?
HUCKABEE: You know, one of the toughest things as a governor was carrying out the death penalty.
[...]
COOPER: [T]he question was, from the viewer, was: What would Jesus do? Would Jesus support the death penalty?
HUCKABEE: Jesus was too smart to ever run for public office, Anderson. That's what Jesus would do.
[end video clip]
COOPER: Jamal, certainly, probably one of the best answers you could possibly come up to, to that question. How do you think Mike Huckabee did tonight?
From the November 17 National Journal article:
NJ: Do you believe, as some who look at the turnout in Republican primaries believe, that the most important group is likely to be Christian conservative voters?
Huckabee: I kind of hope that's true. Christian conservatives aren't necessarily as predictable as maybe they were 20 years ago. Then there were one or two issues. But what I'm finding is, younger Christians and faith groups want to know that you're going to address poverty and the environment and energy independence. They want us to broaden our issues, consistent with the Gospels. Jesus talked a lot about poverty. I know that makes some Republicans incredibly uncomfortable, a lot of the people who don't like me.
NJ: Why?
Huckabee: Because they want to keep it focused on one or two things. They want me to just be an anti-abortionist rather than a pro-lifer. I'm not going to just condescend to an extremely narrow understanding of what life means, because I think I would then be untrue to my own conscience.
I must admit that Huckabee speaks well. It's easy to forget that he's a CroMaglican. I'd love to see a one on one debate between him and Joe Biden. I think it would be very....refreshing.
Perhaps Huckabee spoke well as a politician, but most certainly not as a Christian minister.
When confronted with a difficult moral choice, a good Christian minister should initiate a discussion of "what Christ would do"; he should never shun or belittle the concept. In effect he might as well say "Ha ha... Look at me, I'm doing the very thing that Christ would never do... Ha ha. Oh and by the way, I am a Christian minister and have special moral authority and that is why you should vote for me."
I think Anderson liked it because it was a non answer answer. If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullpoo.
I think it's blasphemous. How could a supposedly all-powerful and all-knowing God not have the capacity or will to become a politician?
Oh well, if Jesus did run for office, Karl Rove would probably swift-boat him and paint him as a radical liberal hippie Jew.
Actually, I think that's a pretty accurate description. No smear there.
What's more likely, to steal a joke from Jesse Jackson, Rove would see Jesus walking on the water and spin it to say "Jesus can't swim".
Not to mention his baby-daddy was not married to his mom, and time spent as a youth being indoctrinated in the Middle East.
He probably attended a madrassa. And isn't his full name Jesus Hussain Christ?
That's what the "H" in Jesus H. Christ stands for !
I thought it was Howard. You know, "Our Father, Howard be thy name..."
Actually, Jesus DID attend a madrassa, didn't he? Memorizing and studying religious texts in the temple was his only education.
Karl Rove would probably swift-boat him and paint him as a radical liberal hippie Jew. - Kyle_Broflovski
You can't fool me Kyle, I saw the episode where you killed Jesus.
Liberals should LOVE Huckabee - he is pro illegal alien, pro north american union and an overall elitist. he is bush on steroids and bush is a lib who only cares about $ and just casts antiabortion votes to toss the base a bone every now and then.
huckabee took the illegals side all the time while he was gov, you should all vote for him!
Many liberals are against NAFTA, and similarly against any expansion of its principles.
..Which is ironic as many of the same liberals do not support swift anti-illegal alien action.
Bush - a lib? Sorry charlie, he's all yours. You voted him, deal with your buyer's remorse somewhere else.
Bush has not vetoed a single spending bill during his first term in office; he is for illegal immigration; he added the Part D prescription drug bill putting our Country in greater debt; he refused to veto the McCain-Feingold bill; he nominated Harriot Myers to the Supreme Court; he created "No child left behind;" he defends affirmative action; he went on a nation-building campaign in Iraq instead of winning a war; he lied about changing the rules of engagement for our soldiers in a war zone; and today he blasted his base for being a bunch of fear mongers for not wanting amnesty.
He's a lib.
the fact that he's a "lib" must be quite a surprise to all the republicans who voted for him and still support him for his conservative values. and you have no idea how meyers would have voted. we do know how roberts and alito have voted, and it ain't liberal.
and it was bush and the republicans who opposed allowing the government to negotiate prices under the prescription drug plan.
http://www.news-medical.net/?id=20975
Who voted in all those first-term spending bills? Republicans. Part D was a give-away to drug companies. I don't remember giving away large amounts of money to corporartions being a liberal value.
But isn't it amazing that when you guys start to dislike Mr. Bush the more liberal he seems to become?
That would explain why I've heard Nixon called a liberal.
Copious seems to have bought right in to the GOP Groundhog Day trick. This is where they convince their base that the last bag of sh*t they elected was some sort of aberration, maybe even a (gasp) liberal, but the next Republican is going to be really great. Really.
Then in 20 years they convince them that the guy was a god, very smart, and defeated communism single-handedly.
Just the sort of hasty generalization I've come to expect from the smarmy sycophants at MMFA
Greatjob,
Just the sort of hasty generalization one could expect from someone who just wants to attack his own neighbors, then run away.
Just the sort of gratuitous ignorance I have come to expect from YOUR posts. You are stupid. Give up any hope that you will ever accomplish higher brain function and go play nice with the other children
Mary: I'm unsure of what you mean. Then again, I am a bigot. Just ask...Solon: I don't believe I've ever carried myself in an unintelligent manner on this website, especially when I debate you since I actually cite evidence (and I've actually read more than two lines of the evidence I cite). Then again, you are a haughty moron who truly believes that all other views are inherently wrong and renders the people who hold said views "stupid." Don't tell me it's just me, either; you treat everyone on this website who disagrees with you the same way. And you'd probably tell me you're in the party of "tolerance" and "peace" and "love." You're the 50+-something-year old (I did the math on one of your last posts) picking fights with people on the Internet. I think I'll sleep soundly in my bed tonight free from the weight of your judgments about my mental prowess.
P.S. Capitalizing words STILL doesn't make your point ANY more CORRECT.
You're the one who made the blanket criticism without any justification, now you're saying that you cite evidence for your arguments? Interesting. And anyone who has some familiarity with Solon's arguments knows you are wrong. He does, in fact, vouch for the character of conservatives who carry themselves in a respectable manner (as do I). He will still disagree, but he usually only gets combative when others attack first. And when that's not the case, he does apologize. In this case, you made the blanket comment, so it's sort of hard to see you as a victim here.
"I don't believe I've ever carried myself in an unintelligent manner on this website..."
"And you'd probably tell me you're in the party of "tolerance" and "peace" and "love." You're the 50+-something-year old (I did the math on one of your last posts) picking fights with people on the Internet."
So someone who believes in such values can't argue in favor of those values? That is supposed to be some sort of devastating observation about Solon's logical abilities?
I would say that is a bit...unintelligent...on your part.
You seem to observe his antics quite often, so it makes me wonder why you can't tell that I was making reference to a discussion we had held previously.
CD,
How does spending make one a lib? If he is a lib, who have you voted for in the past two elections? Why do you defend him most of the time? Wow, are you a lib?
Hilarious. You pawn off the spending by a conservative-controlled Congress and Bush on the liberals? I am sure you were telling that to all your peers back when it was actually happening.
You loved Bush, you know it...and now he's not your kind of cowboy. I would feel sorry for you but it's partly your damn fault we're where we are today.
He LIES all the time, ipso facto he is a CON, and you are delusional. This whole Bush is a liberal for no other reason than he is disgraces is funny as can be and dumb as the day is long. Exactly your kind of talking point
Like I said, deal with your buyer's remorse elsewhere. You were stupid enough to vote for him twice. I guess that's how you deal with that remorse, pretend you were fooled into thinking he was one of you? Nope, he's definitely all yours. He's too stupid to be a lib, and y'all are saying you were too stupid to know better, sounds like a match made in heaven.
"Bush (litany of reckless spending deleted). He's a lib."
If liberal is loosely defined as favoring reform and progress made quickly and sweepingly, then I suppose Bush could be considered liberal, since he's surely reformed the country and has certainly made progress in forging some weird corporate/state/media coalition.
But a finer definition includes such traits as: being favorable to concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties; permitting freedom of action, with respect to matters of personal belief or expression even of dissenters; favoring representational government over aristocracy and oligarchy; tolerance and freddom from bigotry.
I could go on, but the point is that Bush is only a "lib" by only the most, well, liberal definition.
Golly!
I'm not falling for Mr. Gomer Pyle.
Good article. This thorough examination of politicians and the press is what I like to find at this website.
Sure, but he doesn't believe in evolution, which to me shows that he doesn't exhibit rational thought.
AT first the whole doubt-on-evolution stance by Huckabee was disturbing to me, but in reality it has nothing to do with anything that he would encounter today. Whether or not you believe that one's stance on evolution (which, you know, evolution is what makes the world go around, powers our cities, educates our children, etc) is the key to their thinking ability is your opinion.
I agree. It is my opinion.
It says something about thinking ability, but not everything. What it really goes to is their attitude about objective reality. Does he believe that science is an accurate measure of it? If not, does he believe that scientists have some sort of anti-religious agenda, or just that they were duped by the devil? That sort of thing makes a difference, because some political issues do involve the work of scientists and their findings.
The question is a character issue. Since the President does not have much to do with such scientific questions their position must be evaluated in a broader context.
For example, would I want to vote for a candidate who publicly stated their belief in the existence of small green gnomes that often live in rural gardens. Since I don't see the President of the United States making policies that deal with small green gnomes I guess this position is just not relevant.
But I am unlikely to vote for such a person.
That darn liberal media!
Tearing apart equivocal answers from Democrats, while praising equivocal answers from Republicans.
EXACTLY! This is precisely the subtle but powerful conservative tilt of the media as presented here. It constantly takes the IOKIYAR stance as a given.
<The following is sarcasm for the humor-impared> Of course, Republicans are right and sober and serious and tough. And of course, Dems are wimpy, limp-wristed, elitist, commies who want you tax money to give to illegal aliens. Doesn't everyone know that?????
He's the biggest religious whack-job of the bunch. He offers nothing but theocratic demigoguery. I'd LIKE to say that I'd love to see him get the nom and get trounced... but then, that kind of optimism died (in me) when W. was not only elected, but re-elected. We can't afford any more guys like this in power, at any level of government.
Bush wasn't elected, he was appointed by the SCOTUS.
He got just enough votes that it was even a SC issue. The moral is: don't underestmate the power of stupid people in large numbers.
As George Carlin said, "think of how stupid the average person is, and then think that half of them are dumber than that!"
And I'd like to add "...and then think that half of them still think Bush is doing a great job!"
"think of how stupid the average person is, and then think that half of them are dumber than that!"
Never thought about it before, but that in and of itself is an ignorant statement. =)
(Half of the numbers used to produce an average aren't necessarily going to be above or below the average value. =)
I know. I'm nitpicking again. =)
And YOU are assuming that the intelligence (however it's measured) of the human population is not roughly normally distributed. I'm sure you don't have th eresearch to back that up, so it's a pretty weak rebuttal, to justify calling a statement (and not only the poster, but Mister Carlin as well) ignorant.
This is the answer I would have liked to see:
Jesus was an idealist. The idea that we can change everyone is great in theory, but it doesn't pan out in the real world. Trying to apply the teachings of Jesus to our correctional system would just be bleeding-heart liberalism.
...Oh, $#!+...
Jesus WAS a Liberal, that's why the conservatives killed him.
Huckabee's answer was just fine. He rightly separated his personal religious beliefs from tough, necessary governing decisions. He explained his position, one that I do not personally agree with as I am opposed to the death penalty, with clarity and honesty. And his WWJD follow-up response was just fine as well.
People who value the separation of church and state should be very satisfied with his response - Jesus isn't running for any office.
Huck: "Jesus talked a lot about poverty. I know that makes some Republicans incredibly uncomfortable, a lot of the people who don't like me."
I think he's wrong about this, Republicans don't mind talking about poverty, just the threat of actually doing something about it.
Fortunately, Americans are talking.
Ah those blanket statements...
Bet I couldn't get away with implying all Democrats think or do anything ;-)
Tell us Beach just what have the Dems done to eliminate poverty? Seems to me that's their mantra each & every election...but even when they run the show [Oval Office & Congress] poverty isn't wiped out. Not even close. Just more red tape & agencies that never work.
Truth time: There will always be poverty. And very little either party has done has improved things much. Because quite frankly most in D.C. don't really give a hoot.
I think of poverty like Cancer. It can be treated but not totally eradicated. Generally speaking, the Democratic approach is to treat it and try to ease the suffering, the Republican approach is to tell the victim how great it is not to have Cancer.
Hey Jeter, how's the tooth-hole? ;0)
I wasn't implying that the Dems have done a lot more towards the root causes of poverty, and I never mentioned eliminating poverty.Only making an observation (my opinion, from my experience) that conservatives seem to spend more time berating people for being poor than anybody else.
But my link was non-partisan. There's plenty of lip-service on both sides.And you can get away with as many blanket statements as you want, you devilish make-believe shortstop.
I hate going to the denist. The empty space left in my mouth still hurts as bad as the tooth did :-O
And I couldn't fire up a butt for 24 hrs. Man, my mood was dark...But thanks for asking Beach :-)
Let's face it the Dems offer bandaids, the Reps offer sweet talk about pulling yourself up out of the gutter because anyone can make it in this country. ::eye roll::
I'm not sure what the solution is :-/
Refreshingly balanced cynicism! I love it!
Beer. It makes dumb people think they're smart, ugly women beautiful, ugly guys handsome and has done more to promote consensual sex and baby making than anything Pat Buchannon could ever say.
OK - just a little "fact check" (LOL)
Beer does NOT make ugly men/women more attractive. It makes us NOT CARE that they're ugly!
And dude - never, NEVER mention Pat Buchanan and baby-making in the same sentence. *shudder*
(Besides, I thought you guys all got off on Reagan?) ;)
How long has it been since the Democrats controlled both the White House and the Congress? I believe it was for a short two years, '92 & '93, not nearly enough time to even address most of the issues.
And before that? I'm not sure, and don't have enough time to look it up, but it had to have been at least 20 years prior, if not more.
All I'm saying is when the Democrats hold a majority in Congress and hold the White House for as long as the Republicans have, maybe we'd see some progress on the poverty front.
Democrats controlled everything during the Carter administration I believe. Before that, it would have been under LBJ.
Hey Derek,
You really know nothing about American history do you? See there was a President named Franklin Roosevelt that took several actions (including Social Security) that lifted countless Americans out of poverty. Oh, he was a DEMOCRAT. Repug's like yourself that shrug your shoulders and say, "well there will always be poor" need to stand out of the way and let real Americans solve America's problems. All you did was vote for the WORST PRESIDENT EVER, nice contribution to humankind.
How pathetic Marker.
You have to go all the way back to FDR?
Here's an update kid...He's administration ended 62 years ago.
Anybody more recent? Cause poverty has continued. You did know that didn't you?
Oh and Marker, my vote didn't count. I live in Massachusetts. Massachusetts Electoral votes went to Kerry.
Guess you need to brush up on your Civics lessons.
C'mon, dude. That was totally nonresponsive. My first thought when I saw that "What have Democrats done about poverty" was also Social Security. It's the most significant step ever taken in this country to address poverty, and is extremely effective even today.
"Yeah, but what have you done for me lately?" doesn't fly. If nothing else, preventing Bush from screwing with Social Security counts as something positive.
"How pathetic Marker.
You have to go all the way back to FDR?
Here's an update kid...He's administration ended 62 years ago.
Anybody more recent?"
Johnson's war on poverty, 1964. Thanks for playing.
Ah, Jeter2, a lot of people in Washington are concerned about poverty, because if it is ever abolished, they will be out of jobs. They are concerned enough to keep it as an issue.
Kinda like Republican's with the aboertion issue?
The difference is Clinton. The poverty rate was the lowest since I've been in the job market under Bill. We need a good President like him again,
What you describe is all well and good, but what you don't point out that MMFA did is that 1. he didn't really come out a say that, and 2. He is all too quick to use Jesus and the bible as a justification for all kinds of other policies. So, why is it ok to ignore his religion in this case, but ok to shove it down our throats in virtually every other case.
If he were consistant with his "seperation" philosophy, I could buy your argument. Since he isn't, his answer stinks.
Religious views should have nothing to do with governance. Yet, we have candidates trying to prove what good Christians they are. It's part of the process.
Someone who runs on their religious merits should be able to answer such a question. Does your view conform with the teachings of your personal savior? If not, why not?
I don't think too many people here (and nobody in the media) would praise Hillary for dodging a question. She should get tough questions, and answer them. So should everyone else.
For grammatical accuracy and clarity, that should really read "(or anyone in the media)".
If you say religious views should have nothing to do with governance, which I agree with - then what does it matter what Huckabee's religious view is, and why should he have to reconcile the two? He didn't dodge the question, he stated his position on the death penalty very clearly, what exactly was his dodge on that issue?
While both of us agree that religion should have no influence on policy, some candidates may not think the same way. That should be exposed. If someone thinks that we're on the verge of the second coming, and that influences their behavior, that's a bit alarming.
As for the shallow end of that pool, questions like that expose whether someone is a "true Christian" or not. I couldn't care less if they are, obviously, but at the same time people shouldn't be invoking Jesus's name in their speech if they don't really follow their beliefs. That's phony, cherry-picking behavior.
As for the dodge, it's plain as day. He was asked about the death penalty as far as Jesus would view it. Huckabee talked about his own view.
Because Jesus' view of the death penalty is as irrelevant as it is ridiculous. That would be like me asking you what Lincoln's position on illegal immigration is? And then saying if you don't answer it, as if you even can, it's a dodge.
Just because Huckabee is very religious doesn't mean he has to reconcile every policy matter within that frame of reference.......as long as he states his faith is his own and he doesn't make public decisions based on it, then I am fine with that.
So NOW the debate questions finally become irrelevant. Big surprise.
I didn't say the issue was irrelevant or the even the broader implication of the question, but nice disingenuous way to boil it down to that......what I said was Jesus' view is irrelevant. If you want to find out what that is, or have a way of knowing, please fill us in.
Ask Huckabee. He's the one who talks to Jesus' dad on his cell phone.
He can talk to God, but can't answer a simple question about Jesus?
oh, by the way...
;-)
I do believe that they stoned people to death in Biblical times. I'm sure Jesus knew that.
If there really was no way that Jesus could have had an opinion, surely Huckabee could have said that.
I think Brab makes a good point. A candidates religious views ought not to be important UNLESS he makes it a campaign issue, which changes the dynamics of the issue itself.
DODGE = "Jesus was too smart to ever run for public office, Anderson. That's what Jesus would do."
The question did not pertain to Jesus' political aspirations, it pertained to Jesus' personal views on condemning a person to death. Everyone has their own opinion on the death penalty as I'm sure Jesus had one: "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her".
Huckabee is a man who allegedly lives his life according to the teachings of Jesus, but once you enter politics, the teachings of Jesus either no longer apply or can be twisted to suit your own agenda.
Because the question itself is ridiculous. If the questioner would have asked how Huckabee's religious views reconcile with his pro-death penalty position, that would be fine.....but to ask WWJD is just silly. He should have said, "I have no idea, I guess you would have to ask him, now won't you"
If Huckabee is a Christian, then I'm not seeing the difference between "how do you reconcile your faith with your view on the death penalty" with "what would Jesus do". Aren't his religious views supposed to be based on what Jesus would do?
I'll give up trying to correct my grammatical errors. I drove all night long.
Let me expand just a tad on that - remember I said earlier "someone who runs on their religious merits". Religion is Huckabee's "hook", as genuine as it may or may not be. Guiliani has a checkered history as far as the religious right is concerned, and Romney is a Mormon, which is a label not seen as entirely favorable (and I speak from experience).
Huckabee's faith is his strength, it's what he's running on. If he can't address it, then what else does he have?
I wouldn't vote for or against him based on his faith. If he is banking on his faith appealing to certain voters, then let him run on it if he wants. People make up their own minds - it only bothers me if it infiltrates their public policy decisions. If not, they can tell me how religious they are until the cows come home, I am not impressed nor frightened of it. Most politicians love to tell us how important their faith is, both parties - this is not exclusive to Huckabee at all.
I'm not saying that he can't run on it. But if he does, then I don't see how anyone can object to him being asked about it. It makes a difference to those he's courting, and to those who don't want someone too religious at the same time. Like you said, you only care if it influences policy, how do we get an indication of that if they aren't asked questions about it?
I never said they shouldn't be asked a question about it, of course they can be. But to ask what Jesus would do, and then be accused of dodging a questios such as that, because obviously nobody is capable of answering it, is absurd.
If asked how his religious views affect his death penalty position, that is appropriate - which I believe he gave a direct and pointed answer to.......and rightly dismissed the WWJD part as being irrelevant.
Again, how does a Christian separate their religious views from Christ himself? What is the tangible difference between those two questions?
I don't know what you're asking?
You're saying it would be fine for Huckabee to answer how his religious views are reconciled with his view on the death penalty. But WWJD is silly. The question:aren't a Christian's religious views supposed to be based on the life and actions of Jesus? How do you separate the two things?
Yes, but WWJD is asking a third party to speculate on how Jesus' would opine on a current political topic - the whole question is ridiculous and unnecessary, that is Huckabee's point.
What about his answer is unclear to you? If you keep saying he won't commit to answering what Jesus would do, then we disagree on how anyone could possibly be equipped to answer that intellignently.
Just because a politician is a Christian doesn't mean every decision he or she makes needs to be reconciled in that context, if you are demading that, then that is your right......as I said, I am satisfied with Huckabee's response and how his faith is his own.
Tommy, while I agree with what you are saying, Huckabee could take a lesson from you on this. He'd have scored a home run in my book if he just put it like you said it and said it was a stupid question. I mean, say it like you mean it so there isn't any question!
Huckabee's entire faith is based on third parties speculating about Jesus. I'm not seeing how that makes the two questions different.
Let's try it this way;what would be a possible intelligent answer to "how do you reconcile your faith with your view on the death penalty"? Now take any relevant answer you can imagine and apply it to "what would Jesus do?". Doesn't it work for both questions?
One question is asking for one's specific personal experiences and opinion, perfectly acceptable.....the other is asking for someone else's view, which is inappropriate.
I think my question was fair, I wish you would answer it as I posed it.
Isn't his opinion as a Christian directly influenced by "someone else's view", on any issue? The whole religion is based on Jesus's views. How can it possibly be inappropriate to ask about that basis then? Are Jesus's views private, except for the millions of people that need to know what they are in order to base their religion off of them?
And what about my question to you? What about his answer is unclear with regards to his faith and his view on the death penalty. After all, that is the crux of this MMFA accusation of dodging.
Please point out to me where he says a single word about his religious beliefs. He says "pro-life", but that's not "Christian".
Now, back to my question, please.
His answer was in direct response to a question of how he reconciles his support for the death penalty with calling himself a Christian conservative. I ask you again, what about his answer is unclear or vague? And as I have already said, the direct question of WWJD is not only irrelevant, but he is unable to answer that directly - Jesus could, but not Mike Huckabee and he needn't be compelled to answer it, in my opinion.
We'll refer to later in the thread. But when I ask you to cite where he said anything about faith, you talk about the nature of the question he answered. That's irrelevant. You sure as hell can't refer to the question as evidence of what was said in the answer.
Look, we will go around and around, let's get back to the point of this thread. You agree he dodged the question, I believe his answer was not a dodge with regards to the meat and potatotes of what the questioner was asking - how Huckabee's faith reconciles with his support for the death penalty. I think he answered it just fine, you don't, apparently.
You wanted him to get caught in a conflict - if he said Jesus would be for the death penalty, then you can accuse him of inserting his faith in policy, if he said Jesus was against it, you can then accuse him of being a hypocrite for saying he's a Christian but not following Jesus' teachings. That is really what this is about.
But Huckabee did not take the bait and intentionally did not answer what Jesus would do, because it is irrelevant and he is not running for office. You didn't like his answer because you, and MMFA, couldn't "gotcha" him with it.........and that is the whole ball of wax.
Sorry, it didn't work out the way many here had hoped........try again next time.
That's quite a bit of absurd assuming there. Why would I accuse him of inserting faith into policy when he was asked about faith? Have I ever made an argument of that nature?
As for the second part, if his views are admittedly inconsistent with those of Jesus, then either he should be able to explain it or stop touting his credentials as a Christian. That seems fair to me.
And you again portrayed it as the acceptable "reconciling his faith" instead of the actual (and inappropriate) "what would Jesus do?", which makes it even more clear that both questions are the same in their nature.
He didn't address the content of the question, that's why it's vage.
*vague
And to boot, you just said that he was asked to reconcile his views as a Christian with the death penalty. But he wasn't. You said that would be fine, but instead he was actually asked "what would Jesus do", which was inappropriate somehow.
So you just admitted that the two questions are the same, which contradicts your previous comments.
What? Being a Christian is the same in the instance as being a person of faith, there is no contradiction.
My suggestion is you vote for someone else than Mike Huckabee if given the chance.
No, you're portraying the question as him reconciling his faith with the death penalty. That is the question you said would be acceptable. The actual question was "what would Jesus do?".
You said there was a difference between the two questions, but you are now saying the appropriate question was actually asked instead of the clearly inappropriate one. How is such confusion possible, if the two questions are so distinct?
I have no idea what gotcha you are now attempting, but instead of sticking to the main point, you love to go off on these irrelevant arguments - why? no idea.
There is no distinction between one's Christianity and one's faith in this discussion. This is about asking someone WWJD as opposed to their own opinion. You think it's acceptable because if one is a Christian then following Jesus' teachings enables one to answer for Jesus, so the question is warranted......I think it's a dumb question as I have explained enough, if you don't accept it, fine.
We disagree.
"There is no distinction between one's Christianity and one's faith in this discussion."
I didn't say there was. You seem to be having trouble reading today.
You kept dodging the question about the difference between the two questions, but now by conflating them (twice!) you admitted that both questions are appropriate.
Admitted their appropriateness?
What about your reading? I said one was dumb, that is hardly appropriate. I conflated nothing and have been very clear, yet once again you can't handle a disagreement so you attack and distort........learn to accept other points of view and you won't have to do that so much.
The actual question was "What would Jesus do?"
You said it was about "reconciling his faith with the death penalty"
You said those were two distinct questions, but you conflated them. All I'm doing is pointing out your own comments on this very thread. Is that really supposed to be a no-no here now?
I can't believe this.
One is Jesus' opinion (WWJD), Huckabee is ill-equipped to answer intelligently.
The other is Mike Huckabee's opinion (reconciling his faith with the death penalty), he can answer for himself intelligently.
That is the distinction.
But you portrayed the question as "reconciling his faith with the death penalty". That was not the question. That's the conflation you are making.
I understand what you said before. But the point is that you distinguishing between two different questions is obviously not consistent with you substituting one for the other. If they're that distinct, it wouldn't be likely you'd do it once, much less twice.
Read through it again.
The point of the debate question was reconciling one's faith with the death penalty, do you think otherwise?
No, I don't. That's the question you said would have been acceptable. I've said all along the two questions are the same.
And I respect your opinion, I disagree but I understand your frame of reference regarding Jesus' followers, etc. I just believe the question was a little disingenuous in the way it was asked, directly asking for Huckabee to opine on what Jesus would do. The same implication could have been achieved by just asking it outright - how do the two, faith and pro-death penalty, reconcile themselves for Christian conservatives? But I still think Huckabee answered that fine.
So there's no real difference, but you don't care for one phrasing over the other? OK then.
If you really think he answered the question, then you're again invited to address my post later in the thread taking apart his answer line by line without finding the slightest hint of a discussion of personal faith.
I believe his entire answer was in the context of how this decision is very difficult for him because of his personal faith, and how he has reconciled the two. It was not a dodge as he explained how a Christian conservative and a supporter of the death penalty can co-exist with their public policy decision making, and their faith. I believe he answered it appropriately in the context of how elected officials should view their faith with regard to their public policy advocacy.
If you believe he dodged the "faith" portion of it, then we view his answer differently.
That's right, you're reading minds and I'm reading words. He says nothing that even hints of "Christian" and how it can be reconciled with supporting the death penalty. You're pulling that interpretation out of thin air.
These comments are getting prett thin. :-)
And harder to read. :-)
I'm melting, melting...
Melting.
How small will it get?
It can't possibly get any smaller than this, right?
Let me try one more way of explaining it to you, for good measure.
"I believe his answer was not a dodge with regards to the meat and potatotes of what the questioner was asking - how Huckabee's faith reconciles with his support for the death penalty."
See, that was my point. The two questions are essentially the same, when you are trying to split hairs between the two. You admit it yourself;"the meat and potatoes of what the questioner was asking". When he was asked "WWJD?", it related to how he reconciles his support for the death penalty with his faith.
One question means the other, by your own words. So one can't be appropriate and the other inappropriate. You can't say it would be alright if he was asked that question, and then say that was the question he was asked.
See what I'm saying?
Let me clarify that, since I suspect it will go over your head. It's not a "gotcha" and it's not irrelevant because it relates directly to a distinction you were trying to make, and a point you have not only been unable to support but have outright contradicted.
Tommy, you must have heard a different question than I did. I heard "What would Jesus do?. Not: 'What's your position on the death penalty.'
Anyone who knew he was Gov knows his position, but I think it's a legitamate question to ask what he believes Jesus would do. After all, the man's an ordained minister. If he doesn't have an answer, who would?
I like Hucabee personally. I think he is basically honest grading on the politician curve. He will never get my vote because I disagree with him on most issues but he reminds me of John Danforth. A good man I just disagree with who will do what he thinks best and not toe a partisan line at all costs. I sure hope he never becomes President but he isnt a bad guy
Question for CD,
If a Democratic candidate is elected and he or she subsequently reduces the size of the government in half by dismantling the Department of Homeland Security therefore greatly reducing the size of the government and then announces a tax break because the Department no longer needs to be funded, does that make the new President a conservative? If your logic is to be applied, I would guess you would say yes. The President would be reducing the size of the Federal Government and reducing taxes, right? We all know that only conservatives do this, right?
Good post, good point. I would say however that using the term logic in a post to Copiousnonsense is about like talking to your gerbil about Quantum Mechanics
Thanks, Solon. I think we should almost call him "Hit and Run" dissent because of his tendency to post a talking point or soundbite and then run away.
Yeah, CompliantConsent is more of a sprinter than a distance guy.Except he's a really slow sprinter.I think that's why he has that almost-a-blog, he can transcribe Rush Limbaugh's show, sit back and admire his brilliance without any humans pointing out how stoopid it is.
He actually brags on his blog about going to liberal web sites and schooling the leftys. He might actually believe it, as he doesn't stick around for the part where he gets his ass handed to him.
I'm putting my money on the rodent.
You've obviousely never met MY gerbel. :-)
Turn around so I can meet him, therick. Har.
HEY! Get off my back!
:-)
So, Cooper asks a question like this and we're supposed to believe CNN really tried to wade through the BS questions?
Huckabee gave a fine answer for the mature question: "Why or why not do you support the death penalty" OR the even better one: "How can you be anti-abortion but pro-death penalty?"
Like Tommy, I personally oppose the death penalty, but don't think Huckabee's answer was bad at all.
Well the answer didnt adress the question. What would Jesus do concerning the death penalty? Huccabee gave an answer that told you where HE stood on the death penalty which is good enough for me but it didnt really answer the question.
Yeah, but how can MMfA post this article and then repeat themselves on criticizing the questions the Dems were asked?
Because in both cases they are questioning the way the MEDIA handled the situation. They arent criticising Huccabee but Cooper for sloppily praising his answer when it didnt answer the question.
The question was too important. That's why Huckabee gave a glib answer and the press quickly applauded. The implication of Huckabee's answer is really revealing. He implies that Jesus could not be in politics, that his teachings are impractical in "this world." Sorry excuse. His teachings are excruciatingly practical, just hard to follow. Anyone who thinks they aren't "practical" could read about Gandhi's life and how he was inspired by the Sermon on the Mount.
Any time one's faith is not convenient, it gets tossed by most people....not to mention, politicians.
Glib answer? It appears many of you were wishing that Huckabee would have said his religious views would affect his policy, and then you would have a legitimate beef, instead he stated his position very clearly and rightly left Jesus out of it. No gotcha.
Except that leaving Jesus out of it didnt address the question which is ABOUT Jesus and the death penalty. His answer was good enough to let you know where he stood. I am glad to hear you are against the death penalty by the way, but it didnt answer the question asked. Also Huccabee has made his religion fair game by making his religion part of his campaign
Glib, yes, very cute; a perfect politician non-answer. As Solon pointed out, he dodged the obvious point of the question and since he makes a great deal about his religious convictions, should answer questions like this one.
Mary, your assertion is ridiculous, and I mean that in a non-insulting way. Clearly, Huckabee cannot speak for the man standing next to him in the debate, much less someone who physically died 2000 years ago. He could of course speculate, but it's basically off-topic at that point, and it's speculation, which the entire Christian religion cannot agree on.
Cooper could've phrased the question many different ways, which would've at least asked Huckabee something sensible along the lines of how he reconciles his personal faith with decisions he'll have to make as president, or did make as governor.
Exactly, well said. To say Huckabee dodged a question because he wouldn't speculate on what Jesus' view of the death penalty is, is flat out silly. He answered it appropriately.
I can't wait until a repub candidate saves a fallen old lady from the middle of the highway, a news person says "hey that was great!", and MMfA comes through and says "Yeah well they failed to note when that guy WASN't so great!"
IF you think REALLY that Huccabee would have dodged a question about what Jesus would have thought about homosexuality or hypocrisy or abortion you would have a point. I personally dont think he would have.
It doesn't matter. Jesus' own views persay are irrelevant, for obvious reasons. If you are asking how people make decisions in the context of their faith, then that is fair game.
It doesnt matter? Of course it matters if he would answer how Jesus thought about policy issues he that would AGREE with him then he is just DODGING this one. And it wouldnt MATTER if he didnt make his religion such a big part of his campaigning he is always talking about it and bringing up the fact he was a Baptist preacher
"What Jesus thought about policy issues........."
That is absurd. How is Huckabee in anyway equipped to answer that? To expect one is even more ridiculous.
You and the others just want to make a point that Huckabee can't separate his religious views with his public policy decisions, something the left loves to accuse the right of all the time - "Christofascist", etc. Huckabee wouldn't assume to opine on Jesus' position on a current political issue, and rightly so, and the left calls it a dodge - ludicrous.
Yet you won't even call a Democratic candidate dodging when they themselves won't opine on a current political issue such as drivers licences for illegals - how about if Hillary is asked WWJD on that issue? Your double standard is blinding.
Wasn't the criticism of Hillary that she was trying to have it both ways there? It seems to me like that's exactly what Huckabee is doing. He evokes the name of Jesus when it's comfortable for him, but when asked on a different issue then he says Jesus isn't running for office.
I don't see why it's fair to call out Hillary on that but not Huckabee.
That is not fair, his entire answer spoke of his faith - you act as though he didn't even admit his Christianity because it wasn't convenient, and that is absolutely false. His answer is very much in the context of how he reconciles his faith and his position on the death penalty - he was answering it honestly and with candor. Hillary, on the other hand, did neither.
As I just asked elsewhere, where is the mention of his faith at all in his answer? Much less the "entire" answer?
Here, let's go through it line by line;
"You know, one of the toughest challenges that I ever faced as a governor was carrying out the death penalty."
Pure personal experience, nothing to do with faith.
"I did it more than any other governor ever had to do it in my state."
Simple statistic.
"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."
Another statistic.
"Let me tell you, it was the toughest decision I ever made as a human being."
Personal experience, nothing to do with religion.
"I read every page of every document of every case that ever came before me, because it was the one decision that came to my desk that, once I made it, was irrevocable."
Ditto above.
"Every other decision, somebody else could go back and overturn, could fix if it was a mistake. That was one that was irrevocable."
Ditto above.
"I believe there is a place for a death penalty."
Opinion not citing faith.
"Some crimes are so heinous, so horrible that the only response that we, as a civilized nation, have for a most uncivil action is not only to try to deter that person from ever committing that crime again, but also as a warning to others that some crimes truly are beyond any other capacity for us to fix."
Talking on a purely societal level.
"Now, having said that, there are those who say, "How can you be pro-life and believe in the death penalty?""
Pro-life is not Christian, it is not synonymous with it or specific to it.
"Because there's a real difference between the process of adjudication, where a person is deemed guilty after a thorough judicial process and is put to death by all of us, as citizens, under a law, as opposed to an individual making a decision to terminate a life that has never been deemed guilty because the life never was given a chance to even exist."
Death penalty spoke of in legal process terms, nothing about faith.
What am I missing in the "entire" answer here?
He anwered it with candor what he didnt do was ANSWER THE QUESTION ASKED. I dont have a huge problem with that it is a typical political answer but I do have a problem with Cooper PRAISING him for his answer when he didnt ANSWER THE QUESTION. IF you think it was a bad question, fine blame CNN. Cooper praising a non answer as if it were NOT a typical political answer is disengenuous.
No YOUR position is absurd. Huccabee calls himself a CHRISTIAN, thus he self identifies as someone who lives his life according to what JESUS TAUGHT. IF that was all he did then fine I would agree his religious beliefs make no difference but it ISNT he makes his religion a big part of his campaign. NO I am not trying to say that he cant seperate his religious beliefs from policy. That is once again your simplistic thinking being foist upon someone who actually DOES undestand nuance. You are constantly telling me that since I said A and B then I am quoting the works of Shakespear. However since he makes his religion such a part of his campaign then it is a valid question whether or not he can make such a seperation. I personally have no doubt he can having heard him speak, my BELIEF doesnt mean the question itself of whether he can and will is not valid. IF a Democrat made illegal immigration a big part of his campaign THEN dodged that issue you would have a point. Cough up one who HAS made such a campaign committment AND such a dodge and you will have a point until then you dont.
Not really the same. Jesus is the basis for his RELIGION, which is a fair indication that he DOES think he follows a path Jesus set. I would criticise CNN for asking the question but Huccabee makes his religion a big part of his campaign. So its not the same thing when asking him about the FOUNDER OF HIS RELIGION, the path that partially defines his life as asking him about the man next to him.
!?.... you're saying that one can't know Jesus' policy on the death penalty? Really. After reading his words in Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and the Gospel of Thomas, it should be pretty clear.
Can someone please tell me where this silly "What would Jesus do" stuff started.
It was a dumb question for a debate [or any time IMO]
It certainly was Jeter. And it was trying to get Huckabee to admit his religious views affect his governing.....he rightly rejected the premise of the question, answered it honestly, and didn't take the bait.
I am ok with that characterization. I think, outside the context of showing hypocrisy, it is a dumb political question Jesus has been dead a loooong time and isnt running for office. That however is not the issue. CNN DID pick the question.
From my understanding WWJD is a catch phrase put on stickers, bracelets and other Christian swag to remind people to follow the teachings of Christ. It's isn't meant to be a question on literally what would Jesus himself do.
Instead of answering the silly question put forth by Cooper, Huck gave a silly non-reply. I'm sure that Huckabee knew what Cooper was getting at.
Jesus would certainly have a unique qualification to speak on the topic of Capital Punishment. Unfortunately, since his execution, he's been silent. Of course, that doesn't stop the crooks and charlatans who pretend to speak FOR him....
...as well as numerous posters on here, most of whom do not hold the faith, to tell those that do hold it what Jesus would do.
Amen. :-)
HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT MOST OF THEM "Don't hold the faith" ? There are many who admit that, but I'm not sure that would qualify as "most."
How rude, to blanket all Liberals as atheists. By these rules, I guess I can now presume that all Republicans are corrupt, drug addicted, unfaithful racists. Oh and gay (not that there's anything wrong with that) and pedophiles. And they all eat donuts and lose elections!
Oops! Put that donut thing in there while thinking about cops. Sorry.
Good point. Nobody really knows what he would do. What we do know about him and what he allegedly said was filtered through 20+ years of stories, rumors and exaggerations before it was ever written down.
It is interesting, however, that many of those who claim to be his followers politically ignore some of his most profound statements, and bloviate endlessly over things he never even mentioned...allegedly.
Nerz, I absolutely agree with you.
I try to stay away from debates on what Islam means, whether it's a "peaceful" or "violent" religion, and take actions for their face value. I do so because such questions are intrafaith to Islam, and not really a subject to be debated by those who do not practice and are not subject to the different teachings.
If someone who was not a Christian said: "Huckabee supports an amendment banning abortion, and I think he does that because of his religion, and I think banning abortion would be wrong, therefore I am not voting for him," that's legitimate. If a non-Christian said "Huckabee supports the death penalty, I know that's not what Jesus would support, and I'm pretty sure that Jesus wouldn't have supported the Iraq War, Vietnam, domesticating meat animals, rich people, and highways for gas-guzzling vehicles; therefore, Huckabee is a hypocrite, a question-dodger, and nobody should vote for him,", that person is entitled to their opinion but it shouldn't be given much validity as they are not experts on the subject matter or theology.
Nerzog,
I'd be interested to hear your examples of Jesus's teachings that you say Christians ignore.
It goes without saying, that every Christian who ever lived, at some point, ignored some of Jesus's teachings. :-)
Then your earlier question is moot
Barney, did you just win or lose that exchange with yourself? ;0)
HBL,
I was simply interested in Nerzog's view since he said, "It is interesting, however, that many of those who claim to be his followers politically ignore some of his most profound statements."
Therefore I neither won nor lost, I only tried to clarify. Sorry if I confused you.
I guess it was a tie. ;0)
AA, I have one for you:
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. That's one that many Christians don't follow - and many times actually REFUSE to follow - especially with regards to leaving people the hell alone, allowing them to live their lives as they see fit. If Christians want to be able to live their lives as they want, they should allow others to do the same without their nonsensical prosthelityzing, forcing their views down others' throats and trying to legistlate their religion.
CSL,
It is fairly easy to put one of Jesus's statements up and say Christians fall short. Yes they do.
However a major tenant of Christianity is to "spread the good news". Since Jesus, Christians have been reviled and persecuted for doing just that.
I'm sorry if you are bothered by Christians who you feel are not leaving you alone. For what it is worth, they generally are trying to follow the teachings of Jesus and believe by sharing what they know, knowledge of Jesus will provide you everyone else a way to eternal life.
It is not mentioned much here, but there are many parts of Christianity that make living on Earth much easier to bear and provide hope for reuniting with our departed loved ones and with Jesus rather than the idea that we die we simply cease to exist.
Well, you know, that whole camel and the eye of the needle thing, and his admonition to pray in seclusion. Also, that troubling statement: "From him to whom much is given, much is expected." It's hard to argue that Jesus would favor tax cuts for billionaires.
While I agree that everything Jesus said is profound, I find your selection interesting.
The eye of the camel thing was, if I remember correctly, not an admonition, but a statement of how hard it is for a rich man to get to heaven.
Praying in seclusion as a major teaching does not make my tops list, but everyone has their own. I'm not sure which teaching you are referring with that admonition, but it doesn't seem to me to be one of those typically regarded as major.
Your last admonition about "to whom much has been given, much will be expected.." raises an interesting point. If money is forcibly taken from the rich through taxes, is that following Jesus's admonition or simply some politicians? I know Jesus said something like, "render unto Caeser the things that are Caesers and God the things that are God's." It seems to me from that, that he is ambivalent about taxes.
Your thoughts?
Actually no. Jesus said he came to fulfill the law every jot and tittle. According to Levitican law a farmer is required to leave a portion of his crop for gleaning for the poor. Also since ancient Israel was basically a theocracy the tithings are pretty much the same as taxes. I would say the bible has nothing in it that would condemn what you call forcibly taking taxes and what most reasonable people would call requiring people pay THEIR share of the costs of having a society
The eye of the Camel? Wasn't that the theme song to the Rocky movie where he fights the Iron Sheik? I don't remember it from Bible studies, thats for sure.
Jimmy, that was Iraqi Balboa,the bootleg knockoff movie.
To Dex, Tommy, etc.,
I am a Christian. Jesus' teachings, whether written down 20 years after his transition or 200 are consistent with those of the Buddha or Lao Tsu, and many other world Teachers.
If you think theology has something to do with what Jesus would do, you're barking up the wrong tree. Theology interprets, but the direct statements of Jesus don't need interpretation. They are quite clear and practical. His advice to the rich young ruler? Follow the Commandments, one of which is, "Thou shalt not kill."
And those of us that DO hold that faith? I am pretty sure we still might disagree. Surely you dont think those holding this faith are all on the conservative side.
Solon, I don't (I'm not a conservative or a republican) think that only conservatives can be Christians, and I will agree with Nerzog that even professed Christians need to be careful when they talk about what Jesus "would" do.
OK, not accusing you of anything just clarifying. I dont see you as some rightwinger you seem pretty moderate and balanced to me. Just making the point.
I wish "balanced" wasn't such a slur around here ;-) Of course that's Murdoch's fault though and not my own.
Yeah its Murdochs fault and I certainly dont use it as a slur
Please explain your comment about "most on here".
Do you have access to information that I don't have about the other posters?
Are you assuming that we're all non believers because we don't believe in a literal interpretation of the bible?
Worrier, I'm a Christian, I'm not a conservative, I don't believe in a "literal" interp (I think it's an obtuse concept anyway), and I don't think anything I said had to do with an interpretation of the Bible.
It just seemed to me that you were painting with a pretty wide brush.
What many seem to forget is that there is also a religious left. They don't make as much noise as the right, but they're out there.
They don't thump the bible at every turn but they do try to live by the two most important teachings of Jesus which were to love your God and to love your neighbor.
The Religious right doesn't seem to be too concerned with the most meaningful messages that Jesus ever gave in his Sermon on the Mount.
Worrier,
I agree there is a religious left. I wonder why it is as silent as you say.
I disagree with the premise regarding the religious right although I do not know your reasons for expressing that opinion.
"I wonder why it is as silent as you say."
It's the difference between recognizing faith as a personal matter and believing that society should conform to your personal beliefs. The former has no reason to be as vocal as the latter.
Brab,
I would argue that all politics is trying to get society to conform to your personal beliefs.
Isn't great that we live in a democratic republic where we can try to influence others about our beliefs!
I didn't say politics was a private matter, I said religion is. That's exactly the understanding that the Christian left has, but the Christian right doesn't seem to grasp too well.
It would seem obvious to me that advocation for public policy should actually be in the best interest of everyone in the public, not just one's own church. It's not that they're not allowed to do it, it's just highly inappropriate.
Brab,
I understand your point. My personal religion does take a lower profile when it comes to politics.
However many issues do have moral underpinnings. Just because one is religious, one does not necessarily give up one's political views. Many Christians feel they express their faith and moral values through their elected officials.
It is murky, I'll agree. Some of the Christian religious/political figures on both the left and right seem to do more harm to Christianity than if they kept their thoughts more circumspect like you suggest.
ps. on second thought I should have said in the first sentence, my personal religious leaders take a somewhat lower profile...
However that too may be argued as I am a Roman Catholic.
That brings up a good example of what I'm talking about. Policy should be based on what works for society, but take the condom issue for instance. AIDS is rampant in Africa, but the policy is based on moral concerns and not health concerns. It simply doesn't work, and that's why I think it's inappropriate.
It's certainly possible to bring up moral issues in conjunction with societal goals, and that's fine, but using them as a sole determining factor is often disastrous.
That is interesting since my religious beliefs are front and center in my politics. The two for me are inextricably intertwined.
I don't think I've ever seen you advocate a policy that infringes on others' rights or that you haven't been able to defend as beneficial to society in general. That's in stark contrast to religious right stances on pornography, the morning-after pill, Terri Schiavo and ENDA. If your religious views are wholly consistent with the interests and rights of others, then there's no real issue to be had with that.
Of course I agree. I see tolerance as a Christian virtue. It used to be that it was
Mainly for their stance on the War in Iraq.
I cannot understand it. I can almost understand their support for invading Afghanistan. Promoting war should not be the job of someone who professes to be a follower of Christ.
One thing I do know, is that God does not choose sides when men are determined to kill each other.
Worrier wrote: "One thing I do know, is that God does not choose sides when men are determined to kill each other."
Can you tell me how you came by this conclusion?
How does your view reconcile itself with the Old Testament where God did take sides many times. take for example of the story of Exodus. What about Moses, Pharaoh, the plagues, crossing the Red Sea and drowning the Egyptians, Joshua and Jerico?
Of course maybe you don't believe in the figurative or literal interpretations of the Old Testament. Fair enough. Maybe your God is not the same one.
I came by the conclusion by being a participant.
I saw no honor, I saw no glory, I saw no God.
When you try to conflate God with war, especially for His being on your side in war, you're no longer preaching Christ's teachings as far as I'm concerned.
Does seem that there is some picking and choosing, doesn't there?
Jesus and apostles such as Paul lived in times where Christians were marginalized though, so I think it's always a stretch to apply philosophy of the marginalized and translate it to a philosophy of those who hold the power. Jesus certainly didn't address "oh and by the way if the world flips on its back and all of a sudden 70% of the most powerful country in the world claim they are a Christian, this is how they should govern".
So, I have my opinion on where I would stand on things like the death penalty, should I ever be in power, but can't say "Oh i know you're wrong" to someone else.
Also, with the exception of the death penalty, I would think Huckabee would be an attractive candidate to a "Christian Leftist."
I'm a leftist, but I wouldn't call myself a Christian leftist and I do like Huckabee. I think he's very personable.
I could never support him because of his support of the War in Iraq.
"Jesus and apostles such as Paul lived in times where Christians were marginalized" Dex
You are aware that Jesus and Paul were Jews, aren't you?
most of whom do not hold the faith, to tell those that do hold it what Jesus would do.
Okay, now you're obligated to post how you know what most of us believe and don't believe. Then prove that your beliefs are more valid or correct.
(Never mind. Was already addressed.)
Hmmm, what happened to JustUs? He was here at 100 just a minute ago. Maybe he had a prior engagement?
Bad Dog. :-)
Good question - I was looking for Truth(tm) on this topic - AND I COULD NOT FIND IT!
What the heck is going on?
You couldnt find sand in Saudi Arabia so I fail to see where YOUR stupidity is OUR problem
solon -
That is so unfair. I work pretty damn hard to come up with the best possible posts I can. I double and triple check them for truthfulness, and then - only when I'm absolutely sure that my message is as truthful as it can possibly be - I click on the POST button.
But when I return and find that all that hard work is gone - well, I ... I just don't know if it's worth all the effort.
Are you KIDDING ME? Do you REALLY work at these silly attempts at a point? Wow. That is simply amazing. It is also a lie. The majority of your posts make no attempt at a point. They are provocations and talking point insults aimed at the left. In short for the most part you are a troll which is why some of your posts dissapear. They are merely in the general vicinity of the topic as cover to deliver your jabs at us. We both know you have NO interest in discussion just trollwork and snide liberal jabs
Solon,
Let me introduce you to the latest incarnation of Colonel Roy Campbell.
I thought it was him when he started posting, then I wasn't so sure, but now he's in full Colonel mode.
worrierking
Actually, that's not even close.
I dont care WHO you were Justatroll. Your posts are worthless provocation, you are a troll and you arent fooling anyone.
I'll vouch for you, Justy.(for what my educated guess is worth)
Col. Roy usually changed to different video game characters screen names after getting banned or humiliated enough to need a new identity.
I've assumed you were BillyBob/Max/Roger and possibly BrutusMaximus. all similar in style to the Colonel, but you seem to have the strength to absorb more punishment before changing screen names.
Hard to tell, as all of you seem to get your material from the same Rush filter-down conservative media.
I've been trying to get him to admit to being and old troll with a new name and it never worked.
I think his response this time confirms that he is someone else, but maybe not the Colonel. I always go back to Roy because Roy did have a sense of humor similar to JuTru's.
I remember Roger as an angry college Republican, who never failed to bring up the fact that he was being taught by communists. And he was always running off to have sex. Couldn't he just type with the other hand?
Brutus, there's a possibility, but he must be back on his estrogen pills because if JUTru is Brutus he's been emasculated. He was the stereotypical neocon badass and JuTru seems a bit more reasonable and calmer than BM.
Billiybob, (let's not forget his peculiar spelling) is the best bet. He didn't last long enough for me to figure him out. He may have used his best material when I was in the hospital and I might have missed it.
One person who I know he isn't is Evil Lib. Evil Lib had a lot of crazy ideas but he seemed to have a good heart. That's something that's missing from some of our newer guests.
that was a sharp answer. Probably knew the question was coming.
CNN's Cooper praised Huckabee's failure to answer WWJD question...
Huckabee ducked the question because he knows Jesus was and is a Liberal Democrat. I wouldn't praise him for wimping out on the question but I like they way he avoided a big problem question for a Republican. You see Huckabee knows Jesus well so he could not give a straight answer.
Of the choices for Republican I do like Huckabee from Hope Arkansas and John Paul from Texas. McCain would be my first choice except for his desire to wage wars.
Just Kidding About Jesus...
He would most likely be Independent like myself. But just for kicks, if you assembled all of the present day issues and asked Jesus to Pro and Con the list... The results will absolutely favor the Non Conservative side.
Jesus would turn his head to the LEFT as his is in all his pictures and he would take a hard look at us and say... "My god almighty, you have this beautiful world, please take care of it and share it in PEACE.
HAPPY HOLIDAYS Y'ALL !
As I mantioned before--Jesus was a Liberal, that's why conservatives killed him.
I understand why some may think this statement is odd or hypocritical, but as a liberal brought up in a liberal church, I have found nothing wrong or strange about it. Gov. Huckabee understands the New Testament enough to know that Jesus changed society from the outside - not from within.
You guys are focusing on the wrong questions, the wrong candidate, and trying to make issues of silly style points. Huckabee won't get the nomination b/c he's considered too much of a centrist economically by the Republicans. Why dedicate a front page article to this nonsense and not focus more on the lack of coverage Giuliani's taxpayer funded adultery is getting? Or how there were no substantive questions on health care asked and nobody bothered to try to throw these idiots off their talking points?
Hi Therick...
I used to think the same thing until I realized Jesus has his own political party. The kingdom of God Party. If he were here today he would be the new THIRD PARTY that we so desparately need. Repubs and Dems are very similar but Jesus would be much more for the everyday common person.
Yes Jesus would get 90% of the Liberals but he would get 95% of the Independents. A HUGE amount of Republicans would switch sides to vote for Jesus except for the 25% who want wars.
That same 25% would cry that Jesus doesn't support the troops. :-)
First of all the answer was nonsensical , all he was asked was " would jesus support the death penalty " . Huckabee inserted " politics" into his answer , which was slick but we know what his intentions were because it's a lose , lose answer, because how could the " prince of peace " condone the planned killing of a human beings . Then he would have to oppose the death penalty , condemning the actions of all people that participate in the killing of human beings .
Oh Governor Huckabee wants credit for his " hardest decision he ever made " , we'll A. it SHOULD be a hard decision , you'er killing a somebody and all this " I read evra record, evra document for each person on death row . Hallelujah and even though i pour my sweat and tears in every record , causing my little ole eye balls to bleed deciding if they deserve to die or not . I just have to kill them all , yup . They all come down on the side of DEATH, but the supposed time he takes is IRRELEVANT , because the decision essentially has already been made . Huckabee is a cOWARD, he knows if Jesus was alive he would in now way support the killing of Thousands and thousands of people . He's a coward , because he didn't have the guts to suggest Jesus would support him and if all of a sudden " Politics" is is so distasteful for Jesus , WHY ARE YOU RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT ?
Huckleberry Hound would make a better president.