Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

January 15, 2008
By: Kevin Drum

ANYBODY UP FOR MATTHEW 6:1?....Mike Huckabee wants to amend the constitution to bring it in line with "God's standards." And not a moment too soon, I say. What were those Godless heathens who founded this country thinking, anyway?

Kevin Drum 2:28 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (103)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Lets see..., "judge not..", "turn the other cheek..", "the least shall be first...", "love your neighbor (and enemy) as yourself..", "when you fed the hungry man, you fed me..".

My goodness, that doesn't sound like many republicans, does it?

Posted by: Neal on January 15, 2008 at 2:35 PM | PERMALINK

I definently agree with the idea of bringing the country to God's standards. I believe that, if we are going to go this way, that we adhere STRICTLY and WITHOUT DEVIANCE to EACH AND EVERY WORD of GOD's standards.

1) Upon the death of the husband, the wife is to immediately marry the brother of the husband.

2) Multiple wives are not only to be allowed, they are to be required.

3) The game of football will be immediately eliminated, as it involves the carcasses of pigs, and thus, as in Leviticus, it is unclean.

4) Kosher food is required for all.

Posted by: POed Lib on January 15, 2008 at 2:36 PM | PERMALINK

Yup, just what the criminal justice system needs, to have a whole new class of sinners to shove into our already overcrowded jails.

Posted by: martin on January 15, 2008 at 2:37 PM | PERMALINK

Can I vote for The Beatitudes and Matthew 19:24?

Posted by: Bush Lover on January 15, 2008 at 2:39 PM | PERMALINK

Neal, those are from Jesus, not God.

Posted by: Boronx on January 15, 2008 at 2:39 PM | PERMALINK

I guess this means no more shellfish...

r

Posted by: r on January 15, 2008 at 2:43 PM | PERMALINK

God's standard? You mean like these standards laid out in the Bible?

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

d) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 learly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

e) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

f) Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

g) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?

h) I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

i) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev.24:10-16). Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

Posted by: Tripp on January 15, 2008 at 2:45 PM | PERMALINK

so, he wants to ban shellfish and pass legislation that sets standards for the burnt-offering sacrifice of animals?

it's about time! my neighbor is constantly trying to burn goats, male and female(!), in his back yard, in direct violation of Leviticus 1. when i tried to correct him on the proper way to carry out these sacrifices, he laughed and sent me away, saying he was following all NC laws regarding the disposal of dead animals.

Posted by: cleek on January 15, 2008 at 2:47 PM | PERMALINK

How long before he decides to challenge the Copernican model of the solar system? I mean, he already thinks the Earth is 6000 years old, so why stop there?


Posted by: Rob H on January 15, 2008 at 2:49 PM | PERMALINK

well, a couple points:

1. the context was a gay marriage amendment (something which I disagree with him on)...for which there is plenty of support.

2. there is nothing, I repeat nothing, wrong, illiberal or unconstitutional with having religious motivations for a political measure. unless you want to throw out half the civil rights movement. that MLK guy kind of mixed religion and politics you know.

3. to those who keep posting Levitical stuff...stop it. the evangelicals aren't going to be fazed. why? cause most of them are dispensationalists...which means that they believe the OT doesn't apply...not unless a provision is repeated in the NT.

Posted by: Nathan on January 15, 2008 at 2:49 PM | PERMALINK

I think he ought to read Matthew 7:22-23 a few times and try to understand that it just might apply to him

Posted by: gsj on January 15, 2008 at 2:50 PM | PERMALINK

"to those who keep posting Levitical stuff...stop it. the evangelicals aren't going to be fazed. why? cause most of them are dispensationalists...which means that they believe the OT doesn't apply...not unless a provision is repeated in the NT."

Yeah, so what? What matters is that we have an argument, that can make them look like total morons, which of course they are. Remember, just keep repeating repeating repeating.

Posted by: POed Lib on January 15, 2008 at 2:59 PM | PERMALINK

that MLK guy kind of mixed religion and politics you know.

I am not entirely sure MLK spent his time or energy worrying about who was fucking who, in which biblical approved orifice no less. MLK's crusade was against injustice, poverty, inequity and racism.

And what does Huck crusade against? Sex and the consequences of it.

Lame comparison, Nathan.

Posted by: Rob H on January 15, 2008 at 3:00 PM | PERMALINK

Modern Christianity is made of picking which pieces of scripture (both Old and New) one prefers. Ignore the rest.

Posted by: RobertSeattle on January 15, 2008 at 3:04 PM | PERMALINK

I used to think he was a nice man, albeit a bit crazy. Now I must conclude he is dangerous.

Posted by: Jammer on January 15, 2008 at 3:05 PM | PERMALINK

most of them are dispensationalists...which means that they believe the OT doesn't apply...not unless a provision is repeated in the NT

As others have noted, the application of the New Testament appears to be rather, ah, selective as well....

Posted by: Gregory on January 15, 2008 at 3:08 PM | PERMALINK

POed Lib, per Acts 15, at least on the draining of blood, which is Noahic and not Abrahamitic, food restrictions are still required of Christians. You Germans, stop eating that blood sausage. So, sorry, POed, there is very legitimate moral issue. (Paul, in 1 Corinthians, did tell his readers they could go "fuck it" on even this and other food laws the early Church still insisted on, but, that's because he made up a lot of bullshit and then said, "As revealed to me."

Also, POed, remember, these same dipshits WANT to turn to the OT sacrificial laws for their unblemished red heifer to be the first step in rebuilding the Temple, which WILL cause Armageddon with the Muslim world without any divine or satanic intervention.

Oh, I'm an atheist with a graduate divinity degree, too; I'm willing to kick these numbnuts in the balls as hard and often as possible. "New Atheists" like Hitchens have the right idea; unfortunately, Kevin himself doesn't post enough on this issue, or take that same stance himself.

As for "God's laws," did Huck explicitly mention which God? Let's just adopt the Quran, then.

Posted by: SocraticGadfly on January 15, 2008 at 3:09 PM | PERMALINK

Tripp, did your dad's grandfather plow with a mule? Oops, crossbred animal. Did he yoke a horse and an ox together? Ooops, can't do that, either.

Posted by: SocraticGadfly on January 15, 2008 at 3:11 PM | PERMALINK

i remeber a quote dont remember who said it but goes sumthin like this

i like you jesus but your followers are nothing like you

Posted by: mrmakymkay on January 15, 2008 at 3:12 PM | PERMALINK

the context was a gay marriage amendment (something which I disagree with him on)...for which there is plenty of support

There was plenty of support for segregation, miscegnation laws, and denying the vote to women and minorities as well.

That's why Huckabee's line is dangerous. The Courts, increasingly, can't look at the Constitution and honestly deny equal protection under law to everyone. The reactionary neo-Conservatives that are the heart (and, increasingly, the only element) of the modern conservative movement can't abide that. That's why tools like Jonah Goldberg whine about the white male being "the Jew of 'liberal facism.'"

Posted by: Gregory on January 15, 2008 at 3:13 PM | PERMALINK

RobH: um, no, I wasn't comparing them. the point was that it's bad faith to say the problem is Huckabee's mixing of religion and politics. your problem is with his religion, which is fine. but don't pretend the admixture is the issue.

POed Liberal: no, it just makes you look like an ignorant idiot....repeating the Murray O'Hair talking points and all that.

SG: um, nice try at obfuscation. but you don't get to tell evangelicals to ignore the Pauline Epistles. their hermaneutic is generally one of progressive revelation. the covenant theologians (a very small percentage of evangelicals) believe in an extant Noahide law, the dispensationalists (almost all Baptists, including Huckabee) generally do not.

Posted by: Nathan on January 15, 2008 at 3:13 PM | PERMALINK

Irony alert: Nathan complaining about bad faith, ignorance and obfuscation...

your problem is with his religion

The problem, jackass, is his stated desire to use the power of the state to impose the tenets of his religion. You'll note that even Huckabee admits that you'd have to change the Constitution to allow that.

Posted by: Gregory on January 15, 2008 at 3:16 PM | PERMALINK

Hasn't Huckabee been quoted as saying that a whole bunch of the writers of the Constitution were ordained ministers or something? Shouldn't it already be up to God's standards? Or has he cracked open a middle school history book since then?

Posted by: Ned on January 15, 2008 at 3:17 PM | PERMALINK

Noahide? I think I used to have an ottoman made of that stuff . . . .

Posted by: The Fabulous Mr. Toad on January 15, 2008 at 3:19 PM | PERMALINK

Ah, Nathan, now I see - you are a fu.c.king moron christoboob like Huckabee. I HOPE HOPE HOPE we geta christoboob like him. We will CRAM that football crap down his throat. We will have FUN making commercials talking about NO SHRIMP FOR YOU UNDER MIKE HUCKABEE.

The fact is that most Americans ARE NOMINAL CHRISTIANS, not CHRISTONAZIS like you and Huckleberry. We will have such fun making commercials. Oh, the joy.

Posted by: POed Lib on January 15, 2008 at 3:20 PM | PERMALINK

an eye for an eye is in the bible too can we do that plz plz

Posted by: mrmakymkay on January 15, 2008 at 3:20 PM | PERMALINK

your problem is with his religion, which is fine. but don't pretend the admixture is the issue.

Some of us may have a problem with his religion in the sense that we don't believe in it, but we don't have a problem with his religion in the sense that we don't care if he believes in it.
We do have a problem with him suggesting that his beliefs should be part of our political framework, so the admixture is the issue.

Posted by: AJ on January 15, 2008 at 3:23 PM | PERMALINK

I think this statement by Huckabee pretty much kills any chance he has of winning the general (even against Hillary).

Don't think too many Independents out there want to amend the Consitution for anything, let alone banning abortion and gay marriage.

Posted by: mfw13 on January 15, 2008 at 3:23 PM | PERMALINK

Nathan, no, but I do get to tell them (and you, if it applies) that Paul was a liar (Some scholars think Jamesian Xns wrote at least part of the Qumran library contra Paul.) And, that, if you're a literalist, you can't pick and choose.

Jesus: "I have come to fulfill the law, not destroy it." .... Oops.

Oh, and per him wanting God's standards for the USA, Nathan, Huck IS mixing politics and religion, very clearly. You're either an idiot, or a bigger liar, if you don't or won't admit that.

Not even a "nice" try. Go obfuscate yourself.

Or, to quote the Bible out of context twice for you: "Judas went out and hanged himself. ... Go and do likewise."

Posted by: SocraticGadfly on January 15, 2008 at 3:23 PM | PERMALINK

Not only did MLK not care who was sleeping with whom, he had known gay men as his closest advisors.

Posted by: Inaudible Nonsense on January 15, 2008 at 3:24 PM | PERMALINK

SG:

Nathan is a christonazi like Huckleberry.

Posted by: POed Lib on January 15, 2008 at 3:24 PM | PERMALINK

[Are you shooting for having your IP banned, Nathan? knock it off, you little...you get the picture.]

Posted by: Nathan on January 15, 2008 at 3:28 PM | PERMALINK

Maybe this will split the Evangelicals from the Fascists. I'd like for them each to have their own third party. Then maybe us liberals can have a party to counteract the Democrats.

Posted by: absent observer on January 15, 2008 at 3:28 PM | PERMALINK

And he says that he's not a Christian Reconstructionist?

-Etaoin Shrdlu

Posted by: etoain shrdlu on January 15, 2008 at 3:29 PM | PERMALINK

um, a little legal lesson for you

Oh, that's rich, Nathan! You've been pwnzed in every legal argument I've seen you engage in -- and every other argument I've seen you engage in -- and your admission of your own failed law career means I don't have to pity your clients anymore -- you don't have any -- and you're offering legal lessons!

Thanks for the laugh, jackass.

Posted by: Gregory on January 15, 2008 at 3:33 PM | PERMALINK

By the way, Nathan --

the legal rule is that a law may have a religious purpose so long as it also has a legitimate secular one. thus, laws against murder or bigamy are fine, as they also have legitimate secular purposes.

No duh, jackass. But in that case, we wouldn't have to change the Constitution, as Huckabee wants to do. QED.

If you had any clients, I'd pity them.

"Honest," my ass.

Posted by: Gregory on January 15, 2008 at 3:34 PM | PERMALINK

So, if the Old Testament rules don't survive, does the New Testament outlaw homosexuality? That was Huck's context, right?

I'm asking this because I haven't read the Bible in a long time and I really don't remember. Not picking on anyone.

Thanks.

Posted by: The Fabulous Mr. Toad on January 15, 2008 at 3:34 PM | PERMALINK

Nathan, MLK was not a politician, just in case you weren't aware.

Posted by: Rob H on January 15, 2008 at 3:35 PM | PERMALINK

It's funny how those of us who complained that the GOP wanted to institute a theocracy were scorned. And yet, once again, reality has a liberal bias.

Posted by: craigie on January 15, 2008 at 3:35 PM | PERMALINK

Even whack-a-doo Brownback took a moment at a debate to point out that theocracy was a bad idea in the midst of his dogmatic rhetoric.

Huckabee, on the other hand, doesn't even offer the slightest pretense that he knows what country he's living in.

Posted by: Joshua Norton on January 15, 2008 at 3:37 PM | PERMALINK

RobH: that's irrelevant. he pursued political ends.

FMT: there is an ambiguous Pauline condemnation of homosexuality.

Gregory: oh really? so that's why DOMA was declared unconstitutional? oh wait....
fyi, the gay marriage amendment push has to with the full faith and credit clause. not its erstwhile religious motivations.

Posted by: Nathan on January 15, 2008 at 3:38 PM | PERMALINK
SG: um, nice try at obfuscation. but you don't get to tell evangelicals to ignore the Pauline Epistles. their hermaneutic is generally one of progressive revelation.

Progressive revelation, meaning, Paul's making it up as he goes along, but you're supposed to interpret that as being just fine.

Posted by: phleabo on January 15, 2008 at 3:39 PM | PERMALINK

the amusing thing is that Huckabee would eat you guys alive for breakfast in a debate.

Yes, I am so sure he'll get me on the ropes when we start discussing the age of the Earth.

I might use that mumbo jumbo known as 'science' and Hucker can pull out his bible that tells him the earth is flat and 6000 years old. Who do you think might win that one?

To the idiot minions that follow Huck, they'll gladly nod their fat empty heads along in agreement once Huck starts spouting about "Gawds laws don't change, but that them science, yew just a-can't truss it"

What a way to lead us into the 21st century, Huck.

Posted by: Rob H on January 15, 2008 at 3:39 PM | PERMALINK

the amusing thing is that Huckabee would eat you guys alive for breakfast in a debate.

Sir, there isn't a hillbilly preacher alive who could best me in a debate about what it means to be a conservative and a Republican.

Thankfully, this Huckabee fellow has no national appeal. We will be rid of him soon. He will amble on back to whence he came and he will be a crude, ignorant afterthought to an otherwise splendid campaign season.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on January 15, 2008 at 3:40 PM | PERMALINK

God's standards... Does he mean the metric system?

Posted by: Aaron on January 15, 2008 at 3:42 PM | PERMALINK

As a devotee to Bacchus, God of the Vine, Wine, and Merriment, I think that Mike Huckabee is so uptight that the stick up his ass has a stick up its ass.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on January 15, 2008 at 3:42 PM | PERMALINK

"Do not oppress an alien; you yourselves know how it feels to be aliens, because you were aliens in Egypt.”
--Exodus 23:9


Posted by: Biblical Quotation Man on January 15, 2008 at 3:42 PM | PERMALINK

fyi, the gay marriage amendment push has to with the full faith and credit clause. not its erstwhile religious motivations

Nathan, those are hardly mutually contradictory, you poor fool.

Posted by: Gregory on January 15, 2008 at 3:43 PM | PERMALINK

Nathan is a christonazi like Huckleberry.

that would require giving a damn about something other than hoping his posing is coming off well for a change.

nathan is a man in his thirties who has, by his own telling, been in the workplace exactly two or three years. this includes a two-year legal career that ended abruptly.

his participation in this thread is based on an empty hope of impressively displaying an advanced theology degree apparently paid for by his 'rents, who apparently also got tired of footing an adult's educational bills that never seem to end in gainful employment or general productivity of any kind.

wait. he is highly productive on the unearned arrogance front. on everything else, he's a glop.

Posted by: as it unfolds on January 15, 2008 at 3:44 PM | PERMALINK

"Hucker can pull out his bible "

In the bible, it also has Christ saying to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. The Constitution is part of Caesar's world, not the world of God.

'Splain that one, Huck.

Posted by: Joshua Norton on January 15, 2008 at 3:44 PM | PERMALINK

...and again, Nathan: you are, amazingly enough, correct that a religious tenet can be enshrined in law if there's sufficient secular interest. So the only reason Huckabee would want the Constitution changed is the cases where there isn't. QED.

You really don't have an argument, here, Nathan. As usual.

Posted by: Gregory on January 15, 2008 at 3:47 PM | PERMALINK

3) The game of football will be immediately eliminated, as it involves the carcasses of pigs, and thus, as in Leviticus, it is unclean.

Nobody plays football with pigskin anymore. However, there is a fair amount played on Saturday and Sunday

Posted by: ao on January 15, 2008 at 3:47 PM | PERMALINK

Apocalypse alert! Norman agrees (mostly) with us!

Posted by: thersites on January 15, 2008 at 3:50 PM | PERMALINK

God's standards... Does he mean the metric system?

Nope, we're going to the Cubit System, Noah-style!

Posted by: Otto Man on January 15, 2008 at 3:59 PM | PERMALINK

POed Lib and Nathan, are you two channeling Joe Pesci in Goodfellas?

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on January 15, 2008 at 4:07 PM | PERMALINK

The only mention of homosexuality in the New testament that I know of comes from Paul's letter to the Corinthians 1 Corinthians 6:9, from the New International Version:

9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

The thing is, though, that being raised a 'good Lutheran" I read the Bible cover to cover at age 13 and found out that Church focused on only a couple areas, highly interpreted, and left a huge amount out. Some parts even directly contradicted other parts. Then I married a 'good Catholic' and found out there were extra Chapters in the Catholic Bible!

That pretty much swore me off the Bible for awhile, but sitting on the sidelines I know that Paul's Gospel seems to be the most discredited.

Now I embrace the spirit of Christ and have found a Church who's interpretation matches my own.

How so-called Christians can reconcile that with the Republican party and Christ's admonition that "Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." is beyond me.

And, yes, I know that the 'eye of the needle' may actually refer to the 'Needle's Eye' gate in Jerusalem through which camels must kneel to enter. The meaning still holds.

Posted by: Tripp on January 15, 2008 at 4:10 PM | PERMALINK

If Huckabee is God's spokesperson, then God has standards too low for America.

Posted by: Brojo on January 15, 2008 at 4:19 PM | PERMALINK

Now I embrace the spirit of Christ and have found a Church who's interpretation matches my own.Posted by: Tripp on January 15, 2008 at 4:10 PM

Not that religion changes the hearts of men, but that men changes religion to suit his heart?

That there is such latitude in interpretation makes religion suspect. Or that men take such liberties with interpretation makes their faith suspect.

Posted by: Zit on January 15, 2008 at 4:22 PM | PERMALINK

Tripp, I just checked out the King James Version f Corinthians 6:9:

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind"

Since hard-core Bible-believing Christians often claim that the King James Bible is the official one (evidently because the translators prayed when they weren't sure about something), it seems that a celibate gay man might still be damned, but he's all right if he's sufficiently butch.

Posted by: Joe Buck on January 15, 2008 at 4:22 PM | PERMALINK

Zit,

Nice name - not!

Of course 'religion' cannot be proven, fool! As for my faith, blow it out your ignorant donkey!

Posted by: Tripp on January 15, 2008 at 4:29 PM | PERMALINK

Joe Buck,

Nice name. I once tried to come up with the most masculine name I could think of and Major "Brick" Talon was the best I could do. Joe Buck is not bad, though.

Since hard-core Bible-believing Christians often claim that the King James Bible is the official one (evidently because the translators prayed when they weren't sure about something), it seems that a celibate gay man might still be damned, but he's all right if he's sufficiently butch.

Hmmmm, so that means of the Village People the, cop and the construction worker are okay?

Posted by: Tripp on January 15, 2008 at 4:32 PM | PERMALINK

I want the laws of Zeus to come back! We need to make our Constitution in line with the one true uber god: Zeus.

I can go with Mithras too as a second choice.

Posted by: Praedor Atrebates on January 15, 2008 at 4:34 PM | PERMALINK

From which part of Jesus' doctrines does your nice post reflect? Thank you for very succinctly making my point for me....and your name suits you.

Cheers.

Posted by: Zit on January 15, 2008 at 4:35 PM | PERMALINK

Awww, shit . . . drunkards don't get to heaven, either?

Posted by: The Fabulous Mr. Toad on January 15, 2008 at 4:35 PM | PERMALINK

Moderation is the key to drunkeness, Mr. Toad, and that too is subject to interpretation, so always drink with persons further along in their cups. That is what many religious church-goers are banking on, that someone else has done worse. Experts call it the But Clinton syndrome.

Posted by: Zit on January 15, 2008 at 4:40 PM | PERMALINK

Not that religion changes the hearts of men, but that men changes religion to suit his heart?

That there is such latitude in interpretation makes religion suspect. Or that men take such liberties with interpretation makes their faith suspect.

Posted by: Zit on January 15, 2008 at 4:22 PM | PERMALINK


i definitly agree with this zit
the bible is suppose to be thousands of years old u gotta wonder how much it has been ogmented thru the yrs cmon u can tell a story in a bar and by the end of the night its a whole different story ffs people

Posted by: mrmakymkay on January 15, 2008 at 4:41 PM | PERMALINK

As soon as "God's Standards" are met, there will be a great wailing and gnashing of teeth to get the real "God's Standards" imposed. [That would be God 1.2]. Then we'd have to update to God 1.3 and so on. I see not a few dead people in the purge of the Godless. Kind of like the last tree left on that island so long ago...

Can I say it? I hate the pious religious meat heads.

Posted by: bobbywally on January 15, 2008 at 4:43 PM | PERMALINK
Jesus: "I have come to fulfill the law, not destroy it." .... Oops.

Err...when I come, does it fulfill the law too? As for the "Oops"...did Jesus miss his target? "Soil" his hand or his dress? Did he shoot too soon (immediately upon penetration of Mary Magdelene)? I'd say "Oops" too if I shot too soon...how embarrassing...and poor Mary. I hope Jesus went down on her to make up for the failure to achieve, if you know what I mean.

Posted by: Praedor Atrebates on January 15, 2008 at 4:43 PM | PERMALINK

drunkards don't get to heaven, either?

Judging from the quality of his posts, that lets "Orwell" out. It's just too bad "liars" aren't given more prominent mention on the list.

Posted by: Gregory on January 15, 2008 at 4:43 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, Zit, this is too easy. Christ was no wimp in defending his faith. I'll let you find examples of this since you might actually learn something that way. Probably not, though.

I think you take the easy way out by being a contrarian.

And Orwell, I think you mean "contextomy," - taking quotes out of context, is that correct?

Posted by: Tripp on January 15, 2008 at 4:44 PM | PERMALINK

2 Kings 2:23-24 is a cautionary tale :o)

Posted by: genome on January 15, 2008 at 4:46 PM | PERMALINK

Please, oh please let Huckabee be the nominee.

Posted by: Boorring on January 15, 2008 at 4:49 PM | PERMALINK

Apocalypse alert! Norman agrees (mostly) with us!

Posted by: thersites on January 15, 2008 at 3:50 PM | PERMALINK

WHOA WHOA THERE KITTEH! Normie's just started a new batch of meds that Kevin sent over with Inkblot. He should be back to his normal garrulous self pretty soon.

Posted by: optical weenie on January 15, 2008 at 4:55 PM | PERMALINK

Tripp @ 4:10 -- FYI, there is absolutely no historical evidence of an "Eye of the Needle" gate in Jerusalem which camels could only be lead through on their knees (as if leading a camel on its knees is even feasible given the camel's anatomy). That interpretation only dates back to the Middle Ages and was apparently introduced for the reason you might expect: to assure wealthy parishioners that Christianity was not an impediment to them becoming even wealthier so long as the Church got its fair cut.

Posted by: Alan on January 15, 2008 at 4:57 PM | PERMALINK

As someone who kind of likes Huck, this is some what of a lame statement. But at least he can make this his new campaign slogan:

Huckabee '08: All of this and still not as offensive as Hillary!!

Posted by: Blue Moon on January 15, 2008 at 4:58 PM | PERMALINK

Ummm...just a bit more on the whole

Jesus: "I have come to fulfill the law, not destroy it." .... Oops.

thing. Does it only fulfill a law if a dude comes? Does a woman coming also fulfill a law? WHAT law? Is this the law of the jungle? Some obscure old ancient Palestine come law?

If Huck wants to bring the US Constitution in line with this "come" law, then I'm all for it. Doesn't that mean we will all just be coming and coming and coming again? Sounds sweaty but fun.

Posted by: Praedor Atrebates on January 15, 2008 at 5:01 PM | PERMALINK

Posted by: Tripp on January 15, 2008 at 4:44 PM

That is okay, you needn't actually quote any passages to give your diatribe credibility.

Shall I? Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, [and] to keep himself unspotted from the world. James 1:27 KJV

With 83% of this country Christian, shouldn't be any untended widows or fatherless.

Out, damned spot! out, I say!
Macbeth, Act V, Sc. I

I'll let you find examples of this since you might actually learn something that way. Posted by: Tripp on January 15, 2008 at 4:44 PM

ummm...

Posted by: Zit on January 15, 2008 at 5:08 PM | PERMALINK

i dont know bout u guys but im gonna get ready for the spanish inquesition x2 if huckleberry gets elected

Posted by: mrmakymkay on January 15, 2008 at 5:19 PM | PERMALINK

Donald from Hawaii, I have to tell you--the only reason I read the comments any more is to read what you (and shortstop and craigie) say. Always hilarious and sharp. Just couldn't keep it to myself any more. Mahalo.

Posted by: Gaia on January 15, 2008 at 5:20 PM | PERMALINK

Lighten up, Nathan.

Posted by: MeLoseBrain? on January 15, 2008 at 5:29 PM | PERMALINK

And, yes, I know that the 'eye of the needle' may actually refer to the 'Needle's Eye' gate in Jerusalem through which camels must kneel to enter. The meaning still holds.
Posted by: Tripp

I'm not sure this is the accepted interpretation any longer. Modern interpretation refers to the fact that fishing line of Christ's era were made from camel hair, thus being very thick, and therefore hard to get through "the eye of a needle".

Nathan's protestations notwithstanding, Huckleberry's a nutjob, but he is clever in one way; he knows his ticket is punched by appealing as much as he can to evangelicals. He'll never win the nomination, but he will enough delegates in southern states to become a player at the convention, especially if the nominee is brokered there.

I would be not at all surprised if the GOP nominee names Huckleberry as his nominee. The GOP has to mend fences with evangelicals, who feel they have been exploited (duh!), and Huckleberry will bring them out in droves. Of course, one of them may end up shooting the GOP nominee.

Posted by: MeLoseBrain? on January 15, 2008 at 5:49 PM | PERMALINK

That would be fishing rope, not fishing line. I'm not a fisherman, but I'm guessing camelhair rope might be a detriment to catching fish.

Posted by: MeLoseBrain? on January 15, 2008 at 5:52 PM | PERMALINK

Gaia! Where you been, girl? Good to see you!

Posted by: shortstop on January 15, 2008 at 6:00 PM | PERMALINK

LOOKING FOR A RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE? Call Nancy Pelosi @1-202-225-0100 and DEMAND IMPEACHMENT. Give George something to talk to HIS MAKER about.

Posted by: Mike Meyer on January 15, 2008 at 6:26 PM | PERMALINK

Modern Christianity is made of picking which pieces of scripture (both Old and New) one prefers. Ignore the rest.

Exactly. The Bible is written in story form. To get the moral you have to read the whole story, and there are many. Any asshole whole picks and chooses single verses from all over the Bible to prove his/her point is a fraud...

Posted by: elmo on January 15, 2008 at 6:38 PM | PERMALINK

elmo: To get the moral you have to read the whole story

Yeah, sure. Next you'll be telling us that Jesus wasn't a Republican.

Posted by: alex on January 15, 2008 at 6:46 PM | PERMALINK

Per Kevin Drum :

Matthew 6:1 (King James Version)

"Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven..."

Looks like a whole buncha book thumpers are waaaay outa luck.

Just sayin

"We have enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another." - Jonathan Swift

Posted by: daCascadian on January 15, 2008 at 6:54 PM | PERMALINK

Hey, shortstop! I've been here, quietly reading. Laughing. Crying, sometimes. Mostly laughing. We live in interesting times.

Posted by: Gaia on January 15, 2008 at 7:01 PM | PERMALINK

Gee, does this mean that Kevin agrees with the 70% of the Republican Party that wants nothing to do with Huckabee?

Posted by: DBL on January 15, 2008 at 7:46 PM | PERMALINK

This story just sucks.

Couldn't Huckabee self-destruct after he's nominated? Would that be too damn much to ask?

Yeah, I'm looking at You, God.

Posted by: frankly0 on January 15, 2008 at 7:50 PM | PERMALINK

Tripp, I just checked out the King James Version f Corinthians 6:9:

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind"
------------------------------------------------

In that case, will Huck support a Constitutional Amendment to ban the "unrighteous" from marrying?
Hope so.

Posted by: Subroutine on January 15, 2008 at 8:11 PM | PERMALINK

Then again it's quite likely that God is quite pleased with the Constitution just the way that it is (although the ERA would have been nice).

Particularly the part about not having an established religion.

After all the killing and injustice we Christians have perpetrated in the name of God (for which He/She no doubt grieves greatly) it is a step forward to finally understand that establishing one denomination or religion or doctrinal point of view over and above others is not any way to build a just society.

Justice, tolerance, mercy - all these are given an opportunity to thrive when the temptation to lord it over others is restrained.

Posted by: ds on January 15, 2008 at 8:17 PM | PERMALINK

Donald from Hawaii, I have to tell you--the only reason I read the comments any more is to read what you (and shortstop and craigie) say.

Golly, had I but known. Now the pressure is on!

Posted by: craigie on January 15, 2008 at 11:42 PM | PERMALINK

I suspect that if Jesus were walking the earth today he'd be considered a bleeding heart liberal and would think that Mike Huckabee was a Pharisee.

Religious fundamentalists are a frightening lot whether it's the Taliban or the "Christian Right".

Huckabee is one of the men that America's founding fathers were worried about in the first place.

Posted by: Pamela Lyn on January 16, 2008 at 3:13 AM | PERMALINK

Gaia: Donald from Hawaii, I have to tell you--the only reason I read the comments any more is to read what you (and shortstop and craigie) say.

craigie: Golly, had I but known. Now the pressure is on!

You feel pressure?! I'm not even in the monsieur le craigie weight class.

Posted by: shortstop on January 16, 2008 at 9:33 AM | PERMALINK

Zit,

With 83% of this country Christian, shouldn't be any untended widows or fatherless.

Again, too easy. Social Security ain't just for the elderly, and AFDC should be for fatherless children.

Now if your point is that some self-identified 'Christians' seem to identify much more strongly with the Old Testament instead of Christ I totally agree. This so-called Christian nation has gotten away from the teachings of Christ and it sucks.

But there are still other Christians out there - the ones who supported Civil Rights and the ones who are still attempting to be more like Christ - caring for the poor and the unfortunate as best they can.

Posted by: Tripp on January 16, 2008 at 10:17 AM | PERMALINK

This so-called Christian nation has gotten away from the teachings of Christ

That was right before Jamestown was settled.

Posted by: Brojo on January 16, 2008 at 10:39 AM | PERMALINK

The United States is NOT a Christian nation.

It is a country with a Christian plurality.

It was not created as a Christian nation, and that concept, which makes any non-Chrisitian a second-class resident, rather than a citizen. This includes Deists like George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson, as well as Jews, Moslems, etc. As a Jew, I consider the statement -- and anyone who said it -- anathema and TOTALLY un-American.

I'd also love to read what the other Republican candidates have to say about Huck's statement. Especially Romney, who might not be included as Christian by some of the people who would support the idea. Of course, that won't happen.

Posted by: Lew Wolkoff on January 16, 2008 at 12:00 PM | PERMALINK

I think its important to note that an unlikely nomination of Mike Huckabee to be the Republican Party's nominee would be the single BEST THING POSSIBLE for Democrats. I never take Republicans lightly, especially crypto-fascist Giuliani, John "Bomb Bomb Iran" McCain or Mitt "What Do I Belive in Again?" Romney, but Mike Huckabee would be an unmitigated electoral disaster for the Repubs, and would further the splintering of the party into the Wall Street wing and the Theocracy wing.

Whether the destruction of an effective opposition party would be a benefit to the nation is debatable, but what is not debatable is that it would be a tremendous boon to Democrats.

Posted by: Piper on January 16, 2008 at 1:53 PM | PERMALINK

Sorry. Nice to meet you all guys and hoping to learn more from this guestbook. Help me! I can not find sites on the: Buy proventil. I found only this - proventil full empty. Proventil, while making the degree did in trying ways, at every hall, the length has to panic his history helping reports. Proventil, a wrong apothekekamagra of happy gap is n't worked as a inner life of effective acai or of breaking ways for destination. With respect :mad:, Fairfax from Papua.

Posted by: Fairfax on March 13, 2010 at 11:00 AM | PERMALINK

BUY VPXL ONLINE

Posted by: KlyOni758 on November 14, 2010 at 1:37 PM | PERMALINK

elektronnaya sigareta gde kupit

Posted by: Joyty457 on November 17, 2010 at 7:59 AM | PERMALINK

Erectile dysfunction pills

Posted by: TroTior on November 18, 2010 at 1:05 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly