O'Reilly falsely claimed Cynthia Tucker wrote "Mike Huckabee is unfit to be even vice president because of his faith in God"
SUMMARY: Bill O'Reilly falsely asserted on his Fox News show that Atlanta Journal-Constitution editorial page editor Cynthia Tucker -- whom he called "an antireligionist and a far-left zealot" -- wrote that former Gov. Mike Huckabee "is unfit to hold any national office because of his belief in God." In fact, Tucker did not cite "his faith in God" as the reason Huckabee "shouldn't be on any ticket"; she specifically noted his support for constitutional amendments banning abortion and same-sex marriage and quoted Huckabee on what he said was the need "to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards."
During the February 18 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly attacked Atlanta Journal-Constitution editorial page editor Cynthia Tucker as an "antireligionist" and a "far-left zealot" over her February 17 column headlined "VP Huckabee is a sincerely scary prospect." O'Reilly stated: "In The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, far-left zealot Cynthia Tucker, the editorial director there, says Mike Huckabee is unfit to be even vice president because of his faith in God." Later in the broadcast, while interviewing Nancy Pfotenhauer, senior advisor for Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain, O'Reilly claimed: "Cynthia Tucker, our old pal in Atlanta, who is an antireligionist and a far-left zealot, says that Huckabee, who interestingly enough governed Arkansas for two terms in a secular manner, is unfit to hold any national office because of his belief in God." In fact, at no point did Tucker claim that Huckabee is unfit for the vice presidential office "because of his faith in God," as O'Reilly falsely asserted.
Rather, Tucker specifically noted Huckabee's support for constitutional amendments banning abortion and same-sex marriage, criticizing Huckabee's stated desire, in Huckabee's words, "to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards, rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other and how we treat the family." She stated that Huckabee "shouldn't be on any ticket" and later wrote, "The last thing we need is another president or vice president who believes he can intrepret [sic] God's standards." She concluded: "As for Huckabee, he'd make a fine addition to the roster of high-profile theocrats currently on the political scene -- James Dobson, Gary Bauer and Pat Robertson, to name a few."
Additionally, during the February 18 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, O'Reilly called Tucker a "far-left loon" and asserted: "Now, we have tracked Ms. Tucker for years, and she is as irresponsible and as dedicated a leftist -- and I would say I'd put her in the socialist category. She is off the chart." After reading from Tucker's column, O'Reilly stated: "So Tucker, consistently anti-religion, thinks religion is a bad thing, and this is who's in charge of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the largest paper in the southern part of the United States."
O'Reilly has repeatedly attacked Tucker and the Journal-Constitution, including in his book, Culture Warrior (Broadway Books, 2006). In a December 2, 2007, column (accessed via the Nexis database), Tucker referenced O'Reilly's controversial comments about his trip to Sylvia's, a Harlem restaurant: "A recent poll has found that 61 percent of black Americans believe that the values of poor blacks have become 'more different' from the values of middle-class blacks in recent years. With the possible exception of Bill O'Reilly -- who professed astonishment at the good manners of black patrons at a Harlem restaurant --- no one should be surprised at those findings." O'Reilly responded on the December 3, 2007, edition of The O'Reilly Factor by calling Tucker "flat-out dishonest":
O'REILLY: Last week alone, Cynthia Tucker, head of editorials for The Atlanta Journal Constitution, Maureen Dowd, a columnist for The New York Times, and Lauren Rikleen, a columnist in "The Boston Globe", all completely distorted my position on racism using almost identical language. What a coincidence.
Now, these women couldn't care less about the truth. They're flat-out dishonest; in business solely to advance an agenda. And business is good. There are few journalistic standards left these days, as we have proven on this broadcast again and again. "Talking Points" wishes the dangerous media dishonesty on display would get half the attention Mr. [Don] Imus is getting.
O'Reilly has also included Tucker in a list of liberal columnists who he said label people with whom they disagree "bigots."
From the February 18 Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: "Impact" segment tonight, as predicted, it didn't take long for the press to begin attacking John McCain. The Associated Press, which bills itself as an objective news wire service, has filed an article on McCain's terrible temper, pretty much implying the man's out of control.
In The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, far-left zealot Cynthia Tucker, the editorial director there, says Mike Huckabee is unfit to be even vice president because of his faith in God.
[...]
O'REILLY: Let's take the second one. Cynthia Tucker, our old pal in Atlanta, who is an antireligionist and a far-left zealot, says that Huckabee, who interestingly enough governed Arkansas for two terms in a secular manner, is unfit to hold any national office because of his belief in God. And you say?
PFOTENHAUER: I say that's a bizarre conclusion. Of all the things that would make someone unfit to hold office, faith and having faith isn't anywhere near the top. It's not even in the top 1,000. In fact, I would be comforted by the idea that someone, of all the things that could influence them when they go into their job, that faith would be one of them. And that would be --
O'REILLY: But Tucker says he's a theocrat. That means he wants to impose his belief on you and I and everybody else -- you and me and everybody else.
PFOTENHAUER: Well, you know, I believe that it -- that the story itself was legitimate to write because it -- because Mike Huckabee didn't just talk about his faith; he linked his faith to specific actions that he would take while, you know, while governing. And so I think a discussion of that is OK. I just -- I just believe her conclusions were bizarre and out of step with the American people.
O'REILLY: All right. Well, I believe that's true. She's pretty out of step.
From the February 18 edition of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:
O'REILLY: All right, now, when you get into the local papers, it doesn't come any worse than The Atlanta Journal-Constitution for those of you down in Atlanta. Cynthia Tucker, who runs their editorial page, is a far-left loon -- the woman is off-the-chart left. And she writes a hit piece on Huckabee saying that, "VP Huckabee is a sincerely scary prospect. He's even scarier than Dick Cheney." This is Cynthia Tucker. Now, we have tracked Ms. Tucker for years, and she is as irresponsible and as dedicated a leftist -- and I would say I'd put her in the socialist category. She is off the chart.
And she says, quote, "But Huckabee has no business being a heartbeat away from the presidency, especially if McCain is the president. If the Arizona [sic: senator] were to win the White House on November 4, he would be the oldest person to be inaugurated for a first term." There you go. We want to get that in, OK. "I'm sure Huckabee would make a fine addition to a high-profile theocratic roster -- James Dobson, Gary Bauer, Pat Robertson, to name a few." So he's a theocrat. So Tucker, consistently anti-religion, thinks religion is a bad thing, and this is who's in charge of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the largest paper in the southern part of the United States.
From the December 3, 2007, edition of The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: Last week alone, Cynthia Tucker, head of editorials for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution; Maureen Dowd, a columnist for The New York Times; and Lauren Rikleen, a columnist in The Boston Globe, all completely distorted my position on racism, using almost identical language. What a coincidence.
Now, these women couldn't care less about the truth. They're flat-out dishonest; in business solely to advance an agenda. And business is good. There are few journalistic standards left these days, as we have proven on this broadcast again and again. "Talking Points" wishes the dangerous media dishonesty on display would get half the attention Mr. [Don] Imus is getting.
I fully realize that most Americans could not care less about what the media says and does. And the public is not fazed by what is printed on evil.com or "The Daily Deceiver." But it should be. We in the media are very powerful. We can ruin lives and damage the country in ways that affect every American. We, the people, need to wise up. In the big picture, Imus is just an entertainer, a guy talking on the radio.
But the corrupt press is far, far different story. It wants to drastically alter this country and will destroy or try to destroy anyone who stands in its way. The upcoming presidential race will clearly demonstrate what I am telling you right now. Pay attention. And that's the Memo.
O'REILLY: "Now, we have tracked Ms. Tucker for years, and she is as irresponsible and as dedicated a leftist -- and I would say I'd put her in the socialist category. She is off the chart."
Wow... a leftist and a socialist! Bring her in for questioning and fingerprinting!
O'REILLY: "There are few journalistic standards left these days, as we have proven on this broadcast again and again."
I could not agree more, Bill... ;>)
O'REILLY: "There are few journalistic standards left these days, as we have proven on this broadcast again and again."
ROFLMAO! THIS IS HUGE!
Prediction: This will become the all-time favorite Bill O'Reilly quote of all his adversaries.
3....
2....
1....
cue all the o'reilly apologists who just spent the entire day saying Michelle Obama literally meant she was never proud of america before now.
Prediction: This will become the all-time favorite Bill O'Reilly quote of all his adversaries.
It will rank right up there with this classic from George W. Bush:
"Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice ... won't be fooled again".
:-)
O'Reilly is nothing more than a punk. He is what he claims to despise: someone who relentlessly spins, distorts and smears anyone who dares disagree with him or his "independent" (sarcasm) philosophy. He has yet to look out for "the folks" and becomes the story more than any of the issues of the day.
He never offers solutions only bullying and empty rhetoric.
It makes perfect sense that "The No Spin Zone" is on the "fair and balanced" news channel. And Huckabee is kind of a scary nutjob.
HUCKABEE: speaks of the need "to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards."
O'REILLY: But Tucker says he's a theocrat. That means he wants to impose his belief on you and I and everybody else -- you and me and everybody else.
WTF? If amending the Constitution “so it’s in (his) God’s standards” isn’t Huckabee imposing his beliefs “on you and I and everyone else”, and doesn’t make him a theocrat - then just what does? This will probably be a friggin’ Wikipedia example of the word “theocrat”, if it isn’t already!
I heard Huck saying this live the day he said it and just shook my head and took it with a grain of salt as another “just consider the source” wacko comment. But for anyone to support this view and ridicule a journalist who points out the lunacy in Huck’s statement is…. Uh, I’m just dumbfounded. BillO just never ceases to amaze me.
To our next president: PLEASE bring back the Fairness Doctrine – I’m ready to jump off a bridge!
OSCAR: It’s here in black and white – What O’Reilly claimed on his show and is written in this story headline is simply untrue. Cynthia Tucker never said that. If you don’t understand why Ms. Tucker (and I) feels like this – well I guess it’s just another example of the differences in our ideology. The “standards” of NO ONE’S GOD belong in the Constitution.
Even if I play along with this “God” game - First off, prove to me that ANYONE ever talked to God – or he (or her) to them - to get these “standards”? The constitution is written with the “standards” that our founding fathers decided on and has been doing fine without some theocratic Evangelist president insisting on making changes to fit HIS religion. YOU CAN’T SEE THE DANGER IN THIS – or why Ms. Tucker insists he is unfit for the office he seeks because of these comments he made?
Most every president in history had “faith in God” (I’m no history buff – so I can’t say they ALL did) – and I could even live with Huckabee being a preacher as president, UNTIL he suggested changing the constitution to match his GOD’s rules (his religion’s rules, really).
To suggest that a journalist for a major national newspaper would make a claim that “Mike Huckabee is unfit to be even vice president because of his faith in God” is simply ludicrous. Only someone as slimy as O’Lielly would even attempt to get away with twisting her words into such a statement. This is the worst kind of misinformation that will only stop once the slandered victim (Tucker) is permitted to sue the pants off such scumbags as O’Reilly. That day can’t come soon enough for me.
If you actually understood the Bill of Rights, you would grasp that Huckabee's suggestion to bring the Constitution in line with "God's standards" is as blatant an attack on the First Amendment as can be.
I can sympathize with Huckabee for this blatant example of bigotry.I was once denied a job simply because of my Irish heritage.
OK, I went to the interview loaded on whiskey and punched the HR person, but (and Oscar will back me up) it's essentially the same thing.
I've been watching The Factor more often lately. BilldO really hates these vile smear sites that document things he actually does.It's pretty entertaining when he gets close to tears.
It's too bad that BO is one of us.
I simply don't think someone who wants to do away with the separation of church and state should be president. You can call that my personal "religious test" if you want to play at words, but the First Amendment doesn't forbid me from having one.
Maybe you don't value the First Amendment and think it should be changed to allow an official state religion. You haven't spoken to that, so I can't say. But your defense of Huckabee is pointless, because neither I nor Tucker have advocated that he be legally disqualified for pushing theocracy.
"Is there anyone here that truly thinks Huckleberry could actually get this done?"
Are you serious?
If someone is that far out there, then that influences what they can do as well. I can't believe that an extreme belief like this can possibly be excused simply because they can't accomplish the most extreme aspects of it.
I can see it now;Kucinich says private ownership of businesses should be eliminated and the government should run everything. Obama selects him as his running mate. Conservatives say "no problem, there's no way he could ever accomplish that, so we don't care if he's a chicken-bone away from the presidency".
I bet.
O'REILLY: But Tucker says he's a theocrat.
And I say O'Reilly is an idiot.
Tucker's absolutely right in any event. Huckabee is a loon. A clever one, but a loon nonetheless.
Amend the constitution to fit his interpretation of God's standards -- he's nuts. What's theocracy if not that? Is that not one of the major reasons Americans routinely criticize 'sharia law?'
"Is that not one of the major reasons Americans routinely criticize 'sharia law?'"
Bingo. We use that as evidence of how a government is radical, but when it's God and Jesus it's somehow just fine. Believe whatever you want, as long as you don't cause harm to others and you don't force it on society.
I wonder if Huckabee would have any problem with making the Ten Commandments federal law. If "God's standards" are a basis for legislation, why not? If he would be in favor of that, obviously he would be outlawing other religions (thou shalt not worship other gods before me). If he isn't in favor of that, I wonder why not? What line is crossed there that hasn't already been crossed by instituting that standard in the first place?
Dear Bill-O.
Tucker wrote: "Huckabee's theocratic tendencies are dangerous, and he shouldn't be on any ticket, even as vice president."
Not all god believers are theocrats.
This whole 'theocrat' thing is a smear, plain and simple. Huckabee is not a theocrat. (There are some theocrats among Christian Evangelicals - very,very few, and even less influential.)
Anyone who fears Huckabee's 'theocratic' tendencies has Jimmy Carter disease (remember the 'killer rabbit?). Huckabee would have every right to try to effect changes to the Constitution by any legal means. I haven't heard that he (or Dobson, Bauer, et al) have ever proposed trying to change the Constitution illegally. (Robertson - I wouldn't try to predict what he might have said.)
Reagan was in favor of a Constitutional amendment to overturn Roe vs. Wade, and I'm fairly confident he would have opposed redefining marriage to include homosexual relationships. (Though Reagan probably scared Ms. Tucker far more than Huckabee does).
The Left continually tries to read the Constitution as saying freedom from religion while it actually guarantees freedom of religion. Huckabee is a Baptist, the group that 'discovered' separation of church and state. To try to see that the state reflects the values of one's religion is an exercise in both freedom of speech and freedom of religion. It is certainly not theocracy. The left would find almost all the founding fathers to be 'Fundamentalists' by the left's standards. But these people established a secular state that was not in conflict with their deeply held religious beliefs.
And they did not for a minute think that the expression of their religious beliefs would be in conflict with the concept of a secular state. And they understood the idea of a state religion - England still has one (or at least the shell of one).
This whole 'theocracy' smear is just another example of the intolerance of the left for any concepts that contradict their own.
You conveniently overlook that it's more than Huckabee talking about a Constitutional amendment regarding abortion. He said that we should conform the Constitution to fit God's law, because we can't conform God to fit the Constitution.
Basing law on interpretations of God or scripture is absolutely theocracy.
"But these people established a secular state that was not in conflict with their deeply held religious beliefs."
What the hell does this have to do with anything? They didn't base the laws on religious beliefs. Huckabee wants to, by his own words. Hence the concern.
Have you ever read the 'Northwest Ordinance (1787?)?
here's a link: http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/ordinance/text.html
Try Article I and Article III. The "religion... necessary" was Christianity, The schools referenced were parochial schools, primarily, and the text was the Bible, whatever the school. To say that they didn't base their laws on religious belief is just ignorance of fact.
The founders of this nation created a secular state that was not hostile to religion but rather encouraged it. Their goal was to allow freedom of religious expression, not hinder it.
About the folks in Florida who were evicted b/c they didn't speak Spanish - is it any business of yours, or by extension - the state - who your neighbor rents his property to, or why?
The original 'slogan' of Samuel Adams was "Life, Liberty, Property." Jefferson 'dressed that up' a bit in the Declaration of Independence, to 'pursuit of happiness,' but the idea remained.
It seems to me that the left doesn't believe in much of anything that this country was founded upon. They don't want freedom of religion for others, they don't want freedom of speech for others, they don't want personal property rights for others.
The sad part of this is easily seen in Europe, where Muslims are in the process of establishing a Muslim society (with the goal of establishing Muslim states). The atheistic, hedonistic cultures that rule now in the shadow of their Christian forbears, have neither the philosophical basis nor the courage to withstand the slavery that approaches.
For one thing, hedonists and atheists have only this life to live. They are not capable (generally) of withstanding the fanaticism of a religion like Islam. (They can flourish in societies that have a Christian base or memory, because Christianity recognizes the value of the individual in God's sight and they thus are protected by the very system they reject.) But Muslims will just kill them, or outbreed them, and eventually will enslave the survivors.
And the chances of atheism and hedonism ever successfully maintaining a society without the protection of religion is just as slim as their survival in the face of a Muslim invasion. If this life is all there is, what is the philosophical and long-term incentive to sacrifice oneself for the good of others? It didn't work under Communism. It is contrary to human nature.
The 'centerpiece' of the achievements of the atheistic hedonism of the left in this country is abortion. They call it "reproductive freedom." If it were an eagle's egg they were referring to, it would be a felony. But since it is something that inhibits the pleasure of the individual, a human fetus is dispensable. Mother Teresa put it quite well when she was asked what she thought the future of Western Civilization was. She replied that a society that kills its young has no future.
That's the future that you folks on the left are arguing for. Either slavery under Sharia law, or death.
"Try Article I and Article III. The "religion... necessary" was Christianity, The schools referenced were parochial schools, primarily, and the text was the Bible, whatever the school. To say that they didn't base their laws on religious belief is just ignorance of fact."
How is this "law based on religious belief"? If the schools were parochial at that time then a reference to them is naturally a reference to religion. Besides that, this was under the Articles of Confederation. Freedom of religion as stated in the Constitution invalidates it, if it ever had any effect to begin with.
"The founders of this nation created a secular state that was not hostile to religion but rather encouraged it. Their goal was to allow freedom of religious expression, not hinder it."
Who said otherwise? A secular state is not founded on "God's law".
"About the folks in Florida who were evicted b/c they didn't speak Spanish - is it any business of yours, or by extension - the state - who your neighbor rents his property to, or why?"
Of course it is. Is it any business of yours who I hire, if I discriminate against Christians? I notice you didn't care to address that scenario.
"It seems to me that the left doesn't believe in much of anything that this country was founded upon. They don't want freedom of religion for others, they don't want freedom of speech for others, they don't want personal property rights for others."
You're talking out of your sphincter. I want all of those rights for everyone, and I've never met anyone who doesn't. That doesn't mean you can discriminate against people on religious grounds.
"The sad part of this is easily seen in Europe, where Muslims are in the process of establishing a Muslim society (with the goal of establishing Muslim states). The atheistic, hedonistic cultures that rule now in the shadow of their Christian forbears, have neither the philosophical basis nor the courage to withstand the slavery that approaches...For one thing, hedonists and atheists have only this life to live. They are not capable (generally) of withstanding the fanaticism of a religion like Islam. (They can flourish in societies that have a Christian base or memory, because Christianity recognizes the value of the individual in God's sight and they thus are protected by the very system they reject.) But Muslims will just kill them, or outbreed them, and eventually will enslave the survivors."
Except when Christians mounted the Crusades against the Muslims, right. I'm sure it's the goal of the Muslim people to violently overtake Europe. Sure.
"And the chances of atheism and hedonism ever successfully maintaining a society without the protection of religion is just as slim as their survival in the face of a Muslim invasion. If this life is all there is, what is the philosophical and long-term incentive to sacrifice oneself for the good of others? It didn't work under Communism. It is contrary to human nature."
Utter nonsense. Where did "hedonism" come into this? I have a commitment to societal values. To suggest that one needs to be religious to be moral is absolute garbage. Communism is contrary to human nature because people are greedy and want exceptional talent and hard work to be rewarded as it theoretically is under a capitalist system. It's also contrary to human nature to accept a ban of religion, which I would oppose as well.
"The 'centerpiece' of the achievements of the atheistic hedonism of the left in this country is abortion. They call it "reproductive freedom." If it were an eagle's egg they were referring to, it would be a felony. But since it is something that inhibits the pleasure of the individual, a human fetus is dispensable. Mother Teresa put it quite well when she was asked what she thought the future of Western Civilization was. She replied that a society that kills its young has no future."
Mother Teresa also said that pain was "Jesus kissing" people, and made no efforts to ease people's suffering for that reason. I don't take a lot of stock in her opinion. A society that becomes overpopulated and burdened by excessive poverty also has its risks, obviously.
"That's the future that you folks on the left are arguing for. Either slavery under Sharia law, or death."
Way to keep up with the conversation. I'm opposed to Sharia law, because religion has no business in government. If you're opposed to it, then you should use the same principle for Christianity and oppose "God's law" as any part of our Constitution.
Solon;
I would also say that claiming the constitution should be amended to reflect Gods law is a reasonable DEFINITION of a theocrat.
That' a nice definition, although it's wrong. Israel in the time of the Judges was a theocracy. When they anointed a king, they ceased being a theocracy and became a monarchy. The idea of a theocracy is not as much about values as it is who is the executive. Huckabee, Dobson, et al, are not theocrats. It is just a smear term from the left.
You really ought to read some history.
Col. HS; The liberal left wants to suppress the expression of religion in the public square - that is reflected in the dismissal of the pro-life position as wrong (or at least inappropriate in political discourse) because it comes from a religious point of view. That is what I mean by 'freedom from religion.'
Here's a good example of the conflict- suppose you are a religious landlord who feels that fornication violates your religious standards, and thus you are not willing to rent your property to non-married couples or homosexuals. That's a violation of the law in most states. (It can be done, if one agrees to not exercise one's freedom of speech by advertising). The landlord has to either sacrifice his right to free speech, right to freedom of religious expression, or right of property, if not all of the above.
The left's position seems to be very close to the practical stance of the Russian Communists - you could have freedom of religion as long as you didn't practice it.
As long as there is no demonstrable, immediate harm or danger to oneself or others, the state has no business interfering with the individual's religious expression.
Not long ago someone got kicked out of their rented business space in Florida because they didn't speak spanish. Would you support that landlord there? They have free speech and property rights.
Your faith doesn't give you the right to discriminate against people. I could interview you for a job and dismiss you because you believe in God. Hey, I'm just exercising my religious rights as an atheist (according to wingnuts who believe atheism is a faith). A muslim could do the same thing to you, even if you are supremely qualified for the position. No demonstrable and immediate harm, no foul, right?
That's the problem, you don't realize these things cut both ways. You don't have special rights because you're a Christian here.
That' a nice definition, although it's wrong. Israel in the time of the Judges was a theocracy. When they anointed a king, they ceased being a theocracy and became a monarchy.
What do you consider an accurate definition of a theocracy? My idea of this 'system' of gov't is one in which the gov't representatives and the people are subjected to the word of God (or whatever other divinity). In other words, no laws may contradict that divine 'word.' The asinine subjectivity of determining what exactly is the "word of God" is one of the things so troublesome about it. It's faith
Similarly, as christopher hitchens says, north korea is akin to a theocracy as well, for their supreme leader is considered a divinity, and hence infallible.
Also, I'm not sure that the conviction of all pro-lifers is based on a religious point of view. Being religious is not a prerequisite for caring for unborn babies. I'm not at all religious, and when asked I say I'm pro-choice, but still I (like everyone) am uneasy about abortion and my uneasiness has nothing to do with religion. Friends I know are avid pro-lifers, marching in DC and all . . . but I also know that they'd never practice any sort of religion . . . Anyway, if you have time, I'd like to hear your def. of theocracy.
"In other words, no laws may contradict that divine 'word.' The asinine subjectivity of determining what exactly is the "word of God" is one of the things so troublesome about it. It's faith"
That's exactly right. There can be quibbling about what exactly defines a "theocracy", but the bottom line is it's completely inappropriate to base the laws of a changing society on words written by men two thousand years ago.
"Also, I'm not sure that the conviction of all pro-lifers is based on a religious point of view. Being religious is not a prerequisite for caring for unborn babies."
That's also true. My wife is very uneasy about abortion to say the least (she cites the "heartbeat at two weeks old" argument often) but she is against organized religion. This issue is actually an excellent example of why the standards of biblical times can't be applied today. This wasn't a real need before the industrial revolution, I don't think. Remember in "Romeo and Juliet" it was said that younger girls than Juliet had made for a happy bride. Juliet was fourteen, if I remember rightly. A girl gets pregnant, and they start a family and the boy learns a trade. Not a big difference between doing that at fifteen or sixteen and doing that at twenty-three, for their situation. But now, we have to go to school, we have to go to college. We need two incomes in a household, very often. It's not the agrarian age anymore. So teenagers and even twenty-something adults have an entirely different circumstances that the Bible doesn't accommodate.
There can be quibbling about what exactly defines a "theocracy", but the bottom line is it's completely inappropriate to base the laws of a changing society on words written by men two thousand years ago.
Along the same vein, all the so-called "divine words" written 2000 years ago have been continually vetted by us mortals, keeping what we want and discarding the rest. And the 'divine word" that has persevered through this self-serving vetting process then has been given numerous conflicting interpretations. Even if there's such thing as some divine truth uttered by some divine being, it's obvious that we have no idea what that message is.
An excellent point, absolutely. Even if you believe in it there's not a clear enough message to govern by.
Just curious, are you using Firefox? I notice you're posting new comments instead of replying, and I had that issue about a week ago. Every time I wanted to reply it told me I had to log in, which was extremely aggravating. If that's the case, try re-downloading and reinstalling, that solved the issue for me.
I notice you're posting new comments instead of replying, and I had that issue about a week ago. Every time I wanted to reply it told me I had to log in, which was extremely aggravating. If that's the case, try re-downloading and reinstalling, that solved the issue for me.
Thanks, I'm actually using another person's computer and keep havign to log-in over and over. I'm getting "profanity" tags as well, and don't know why.