Mike Huckabee: U.S. moving toward 'criminalization of Christianity'

[SavannahGal]

The Civil Rights movement would not have been successful if the clergy of US Christian denominations were not nearly universal in their condemnation of racism and segregation by race and that had not had a huge resonance with their membership in the pews.

The current effort to push SSM is coming from the secular elites, not the pews.

Are you quite sure you don’t want to rethink that statement or perhaps do some more research about that claim? As a proper southern lady, I would never divulge my age, but I will tell you that my grandbabies are now having babies of their own.

In other words, I’m no spring chicken. I was there. Born and raised in the segregated south to Southern Baptists who believed that segregation was ordained by God in the Bible. You are quite right to recognize that the civil rights movement was organized and fortified in the Christian Church, but to be clear, that was in black Christian Churches. The opposition to civil rights, on the other hand was based in white Christian culture and its white protestant Churches like the one I attended as a child and eventually left. To suggest that condemnation of segregation was universal among Christian denominations is a horrible misrepresentation of historical facts. During the civil rights era, those who opposed segregation were widely considered to be “Jews, Atheists, and other Godless people from the north trying to force their way of life onto we good Christian God-fearing people.” I would be more than happy to set you straight on the truth of what happened in the segregated south.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Some of the most outspoken voices against same-sex marriage are the voices of civil rights leaders, those that marched with Martin Luther King. I saw an interview on Sky News a few days ago, and I can’t remember the name of the man, but it was in Tennessee I think, and he was somebody that had marched with Martin Luther King and he basically said according to my recollection, and I paraphrase, that the civil rights movement has been hijacked, that same-sex marriage was not something that would have come into their minds.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Someone’s morality always wins out. There is no vacuum. So who’s will it be?

The aggregate of all the people represented. Which is why you’re never going to be able to turn America into a theocracy. You can try all you like, but that’s your choice.

 

[Path_Finder]

Some of the most outspoken voices against same-sex marriage are the voices of civil rights leaders, those that marched with Martin Luther King. I saw an interview on Sky News a few days ago, and I can’t remember the name of the man, but it was in Tennessee I think, and he was somebody that had marched with Martin Luther King and he basically said according to my recollection, and I paraphrase, that the civil rights movement has been hijacked, that same-sex marriage was not something that would have come into their minds.

This is so. Really, the party that was against Civil Rights, is very much the same party against the Civil Rights of the unborn today. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Oh, fabricating same-sex marriage and wanting to force it on every man, woman and child in the USA is something they have picked up. Same-Sex marriages aren’t even 1% of all relationships. One wonders why we are even dealing with it.

Now, as they say, we are seeing some of the worse race relations since that time.

 

[Path_Finder]

Are you quite sure you don’t want to rethink that statement or perhaps do some more research about that claim? As a proper southern lady, I would never divulge my age, but I will tell you that my grandbabies are now having babies of their own.

In other words, I’m no spring chicken. I was there. Born and raised in the segregated south to Southern Baptists who believed that segregation was ordained by God in the Bible. You are quite right to recognize that the civil rights movement was organized and fortified in the Christian Church, but to be clear, that was in black Christian Churches. The opposition to civil rights, on the other hand was based in white Christian culture and its white protestant Churches like the one I attended as a child and eventually left. To suggest that condemnation of segregation was universal among Christian denominations is a horrible misrepresentation of historical facts. During the civil rights era, those who opposed segregation were widely considered to be “Jews, Atheists, and other Godless people from the north trying to force their way of life onto we good Christian God-fearing people.” I would be more than happy to set you straight on the truth of what happened in the segregated south.

But who voted for Lyndon Johnson’s desegregation civil rights legislation and voting rights were largely Republicans and Northern Democrats. I’ve found it hard to track down but perhaps even JFK and LBJ in the 1950s were not all that open to civil rights legislation.

February 18, 1946: Appointed by Republican President Calvin Coolidge, federal judge Paul McCormick ends segregation of Mexican-American children in California public schools

July 11, 1952: Republican Party platform condemns “duplicity and insincerity” of Democrats in racial matters

September 30, 1953: Earl Warren, California’s three-term Republican Governor and 1948 Republican vice presidential nominee, nominated to be Chief Justice; wrote landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education

December 8, 1953: Eisenhower administration Asst. Attorney General Lee Rankin argues for plaintiffs in Brown v. Board of Education

May 17, 1954: Chief Justice Earl Warren, three-term Republican Governor (CA) and Republican vice presidential nominee in 1948, wins unanimous support of Supreme Court for school desegregation in Brown v. Board of Education

November 25, 1955: Eisenhower administration bans racial segregation of interstate bus travel

March 12, 1956: Ninety-seven Democrats in Congress condemn Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education, and pledge to continue segregation

June 5, 1956: Republican federal judge Frank Johnson rules in favor of Rosa Parks in decision striking down “blacks in the back of the bus” law

October 19, 1956: On campaign trail, Vice President Richard Nixon vows: “American boys and girls shall sit, side by side, at any school – public or private – with no regard paid to the color of their skin. Segregation, discrimination, and prejudice have no place in America”

November 6, 1956: African-American civil rights leaders Martin Luther King and Ralph Abernathy vote for Republican Dwight Eisenhower for President

1957 (September 9):* Republican President Dwight Eisenhower passes the First Civil Rights Law in 82 years…CRA 1957**

*The Democratic Party Filibuster the Bill

**Republican Party Support: 92%
Democratic Party Support: 54%

libertynewsonline.com/articles/article_301_37219.php

 

[RACJ]

The aggregate of all the people represented. Which is why you’re never going to be able to turn America into a theocracy. You can try all you like, but that’s your choice.

Sounds as if you are conceding to the lowest common denominator, Gary. That’s where we’re headed anyway. BTW, what non-Muslim do you know who wants to turn America into a “theocracy”? This is another one of these leftist canards which strikes emotions, but has zero basis in fact. Rob

 

[zz912]

I have already explained in a good deal of detail how the words of Jesus can be and have been used to make just about any point you like. I have already pointed out that my opinion on the matter is different than the Church’s, however, I am relatively certain that my disinclination to carry weapons is not in conflict with the Church. Are you suggesting that I am required to carry a weapon to be a Catholic?

You’ve now resorted to creating a strawman argument. Are you now willing to admit your earlier claim that Catholicism rejects self-defense was wrong?

It would take about 5 or 6 years of study for you to understand how it is that I do not place a numeric value on life.

Your answering a question I didn’t ask. I never asked you to place a numerical value on life. Let’s modify the question so you can fully understand it. Do you agree that two abortions is worse than one? Do you agree that two of the same sins are worse than one sin? Do you agree that two executions is worse than one execution?

Have you taken the time to read the Pope’s statement on this or have you not? Or are you going to invoke the customary “selective infallibility” clause oft times used on CAF, wherein he who is guided by the Holy Spirit through Apostolic Succession is infallible on matters relating to the Magisterium, but can’t necessarily be trusted to apply any of it to practical day to day matters, especially when his opinions differ with yours? Personally, I think the Pope is truly guided by God, and I very much take what he says seriously. Read up on what he has to say and check back with me. I’m not here to do your legwork.

I said nothing about selective infallibility. I asked you to point out where unfettered capitalism is actually in practice. You have refused to even attempt to answer this very simple question.

Name an area where my interpretations have caused me to live in a manner that is in conflict with the teachings of the Church and we’ll discuss it. Be specific. Is it valuing the lives of convicts as much as those of fetuses, my refusal to say that ten lives are more important than one, or my lack of desire to carry a weapon? Explain it and we’ll discuss it.

I asked you to specify if there was an area of Church teaching you disagree with, because your statement is similar to statements made by those who do disagree with Church teaching. They claim to be Catholic, BUT…(some reference to being “modern”, “enlightened”, “with the times”, etc). You said you were Catholic, buuuuuuuuut were also modern (etc). So my natural question is to wonder if you disagree with some particular Church teaching or not.

Is there some Church teaching you reject?

Maybe He just figured that He was clear enough on the matter.

No, He left a Church to clear up any misunderstandings that people may have over His words.

Are you feeling insulted?

More mild amusement at the attempt to belittle others who you perceive as beneath you.

 

[DCNBILL]

From zz912:

Are you suggesting that I am required to carry a weapon to be a Catholic?

Gary

Yes, a big heavy wooden thing called a cross.

 

[Path_Finder]

Yes, a big heavy wooden thing called a cross.

 

[RGCheek]

Are you quite sure you don’t want to rethink that statement or perhaps do some more research about that claim? As a proper southern lady, I would never divulge my age, but I will tell you that my grandbabies are now having babies of their own.

In other words, I’m no spring chicken. I was there. Born and raised in the segregated south to Southern Baptists who believed that segregation was ordained by God in the Bible. You are quite right to recognize that the civil rights movement was organized and fortified in the Christian Church, but to be clear, that was in black Christian Churches. The opposition to civil rights, on the other hand was based in white Christian culture and its white protestant Churches like the one I attended as a child and eventually left. To suggest that condemnation of segregation was universal among Christian denominations is a horrible misrepresentation of historical facts. During the civil rights era, those who opposed segregation were widely considered to be “Jews, Atheists, and other Godless people from the north trying to force their way of life onto we good Christian God-fearing people.” I would be more than happy to set you straight on the truth of what happened in the segregated south.

Oh, I am old enough to remember that too, which is why I said ‘nearly universal’.

The churches of Christ where I grew up in were opposed to segregation largely, except if the individuals wanted to live that way themselves, but objected to laws that imposed segregation by force. The Baptists I knew were largely divided on the topic, with some clergy opposed to ending segregation and others in favor of ending it. I remember how outraged some of them were in 1964, listening to neighbors talking about how the Johnsons had betrayed white people, but most did not object.

I think most people realized that segregation was a scam. Realtors would bust up neighborhoods by buying a house for a black family in a white neighborhood then about two thirds of the whites would sell their homes at fire sale prices to get out and move further out into the suburbs. The realtors made huge profits off of segregation. The company owners kept wages low by using blacks as scabs, and many whites in the South would go North to scab at northern union jobs during strikes as well.

Racism in all its forms have never been anything more than a way to divide the working class against each other. Period. End of Story.

By the time I graduated high school in 1976 I knew of not one preacher who still preached that interracial marriage was a sin. That was all gone by then, and I only knew one person whose family would admit to being in the Klan, and their son was so socially isolated he tried to kill himself with a gunshot to the stomach around the time we graduated high school.

While I am glad that state imposed segregation has ended, I think it is wrong for the government to prevent people from forming communities of like minded racists. That government over-reach is now going to be a thorn in the side of Christians who will have to endure a similar form of social and legal attack as we continue to oppose SSM, abortion, sexual promiscuity and the degradation of the culture.

But God’s Truth will win in the end and such things as the coming ‘bad times’ are good to remind us where our true treasures are stored.

 

[RGCheek]

But who voted for Lyndon Johnson’s desegregation civil rights legislation and voting rights were largely Republicans and Northern Democrats. I’ve found it hard to track down but perhaps even JFK and LBJ in the 1950s were not all that open to civil rights legislation.

libertynewsonline.com/articles/article_301_37219.php

I cant speak for the community you grew up in, but MOST whites I knew in 1964 were not in favor of segregation and recognized it for the class warfare that it was. About a third were openly segregationist, and another third didn’t care but didn’t want to live around blacks themselves. By 1976 it was all gone and few cared to ever bring it back.

That is the working of the Holy Ghost to CONTINUE to lead us into all God’s Truth and that racism is evil is one of those truths.

 

[RGCheek]

This is so. Really, the party that was against Civil Rights, is very much the same party against the Civil Rights of the unborn today. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Oh, fabricating same-sex marriage and wanting to force it on every man, woman and child in the USA is something they have picked up. Same-Sex marriages aren’t even 1% of all relationships. One wonders why we are even dealing with it.
.

Maybe because some us remember that Jesus Christ is Lord rules Creation, and SSM is an abomination and offense to Him and we don t need to offend Him any more than we already do by allowing for the legal murder of unborn babies.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

From zz912;You

've now resorted to creating a strawman argument. Are you now willing to admit your earlier claim that Catholicism rejects self-defense was wrong?

My statement was on carrying weapons.

Your answering a question I didn’t ask. I never asked you to place a numerical value on life. Let’s modify the question so you can fully understand it. Do you agree that two abortions is worse than one? Do you agree that two of the same sins are worse than one sin? Do you agree that two executions is worse than one execution?

Again, you still have no idea where I am coming from on that point.

I said nothing about selective infallibility. I asked you to point out where unfettered capitalism is actually in practice. You have refused to even attempt to answer this very simple question.

Because it’s another thread entirely zz.

I asked you to specify if there was an area of Church teaching you disagree with, because your statement is similar to statements made by those who do disagree with Church teaching. They claim to be Catholic, BUT…(some reference to being “modern”, “enlightened”, “with the times”, etc). You said you were Catholic, buuuuuuuuut were also modern (etc). So my natural question is to wonder if you disagree with some particular Church teaching or not

.

Question for you. Do you ever think for yourself or do you just let the Church do that for you?

Is there some Church teaching you reject?

Not that I can think of off the top of my head, but then again I don’t carry the Catechism around with me, so I allow for the possibility that there are things I would disagree with if I knew about them.

No, He left a Church to clear up any misunderstandings that people may have over His words.

Just about every church I hear from has something of different understanding and each one thinks they were the ones chosen to straighten it out. And most of them have some interesting arguments on that.

More mild amusement at the attempt to belittle others who you perceive as beneath you

Do you feel like I think you’re beneath me?

I also have quite a few comments that I owe you responses on. I will get to those as soon as I can. I work long hours so I only get some brief intervals in which I can do things like post here.

All the best,
Gary

 

[zz912]

My statement was on carrying weapons.

So you are ready to admit that your personal views on carrying weapons is not the view of the Church, correct?

Again, you still have no idea where I am coming from on that point.

It’s a very simple question that you are avoiding. It’s patently obvious why.

Because it’s another thread entirely zz.

Then don’t bring it up in this thread. Although this is another very simple question, that you are also avoiding.

Question for you. Do you ever think for yourself or do you just let the Church do that for you?

Of course I think for myself. That’s what led me to the Church. The Church never proposes that people stop thinking. The Church promotes the fullness of truth and wishes all to embrace it. Where in the world did you ever get the idea that faithful Catholics stop thinking?

Not that I can think of off the top of my head, but then again I don’t carry the Catechism around with me, so I allow for the possibility that there are things I would disagree with if I knew about them.

So you haven’t even bothered to fully learn the teachings of the Church you proclaim to be a member of, and at the same time you are questioning others if they still do their own thinking? Interesting…

Just about every church I hear from has something of different understanding and each one thinks they were the ones chosen to straighten it out. And most of them have some interesting arguments on that.

There is one Church. All other claimants have varying measures of error in them and are not the one Church built by Jesus, who IS truth. Any areas of teaching where those other ecclesial communities differ from the Catholic Church, they are in error.

Do you feel like I think you’re beneath me?

Of course not. I was talking about what I perceive to be your feelings of superiority to others, especially those who disagree with you.

I also have quite a few comments that I owe you responses on. I will get to those as soon as I can. I work long hours so I only get some brief intervals in which I can do things like post here.

Understandable. That is the beauty of these message boards. They allow for us to live our lives, and when we have available time, to respond.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

from : zz

So you are ready to admit that your personal views on carrying weapons is not the view of the Church, correct?

I don’t recall that I claimed taht every view I have is the view of the Church. In this particular case, I really don’t care, since I don’t own or carry a weapon. Without regard to what anyone says, and that includes the Church, I have no interest in carrying a weapon or keeping company with people who carry weapons. I also asked you to tell me where the Church says I have to carry one.

It’s a very simple question that you are avoiding. It’s patently obvious why.

I already told you that it would take you a good many years to understand where I am coming from on that. The reason I know this is from talking to you.

Of course I think for myself. That’s what led me to the Church. The Church never proposes that people stop thinking. The Church promotes the fullness of truth and wishes all to embrace it. Where in the world did you ever get the idea that faithful Catholics stop thinking?

Again, from talking to you. I have tried to be polite, but if pushed, I have to be outright honest.

So you haven’t even bothered to fully learn the teachings of the Church you proclaim to be a member of, and at the same time you are questioning others if they still do their own thinking? Interesting…

I think I know them pretty well. I was allowing for the possibility that there are things I don’t know or recall off hand, which is also simple a matter of being honest.

There is one Church. All other claimants have varying measures of error in them and are not the one Church built by Jesus, who IS truth. Any areas of teaching where those other ecclesial communities differ from the Catholic Church, they are in error.

Extremists from every religion make the same claim. These are the sorts of people who have contributed greatly to making the world the violent mess that it is. If you want to have a conversation with me, you’ll have to stop talking like that. People thinking and talking like that have brought hell to this earth rather than any sort of connection with the gods such people claim to follow.

Of course not. I was talking about what I perceive to be your feelings of superiority to others, especially those who disagree with you.

Not superior, just in a different stage of cognitive existence.

All the best,
Gary

 

[zz912]

Without regard to what anyone says, and that includes the Church, I have no interest in carrying a weapon or keeping company with people who carry weapons. I also asked you to tell me where the Church says I have to carry one.

I never made that claim. That is a strawman argument of your own creation, as I noted earlier.

I already told you that it would take you a good many years to understand where I am coming from on that. The reason I know this is from talking to you.

Of course it would take years to fully understand, because you refuse to answer even simple questions which would illuminate your position better.

Again, from talking to you. I have tried to be polite, but if pushed, I have to be outright honest.

Nothing in my posts gives the impression I’m an automaton who leaves all thinking to the Church. That’s a simplistic and incorrect caricature that many create of those who are faithful to the Church. The reasons for doing this vary, but for many it is used as justification of their apostasy or heretical views.

I think I know them pretty well. I was allowing for the possibility that there are things I don’t know or recall off hand, which is also simple a matter of being honest.

But you seriously don’t see the irony of you accusing others of not thinking, when you haven’t even bothered with learning all the teachings of the Church?

Quote:
There is one Church. All other claimants have varying measures of error in them and are not the one Church built by Jesus, who IS truth. Any areas of teaching where those other ecclesial communities differ from the Catholic Church, they are in error.

Extremists from every religion make the same claim.

Catholics make this claim. The Catholic Church makes this claim.

These are the sorts of people who have contributed greatly to making the world the violent mess that it is.

Faithful Catholics are the people who created the western civilization we know today.

If you want to have a conversation with me, you’ll have to stop talking like that. People thinking and talking like that have brought hell to this earth rather than any sort of connection with the gods such people claim to follow.

I have been polite, but to the point. And I will express myself as I see best, not how you dictate.

Not superior, just in a different stage of cognitive existence.

Oh, well then. Certainly doesn’t sound superior. (/sarcasm)

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

From ZZ;

I never made that claim. That is a strawman argument of your own creation, as I noted earlier.

It appeared t me that you did, however, only you know your intents, so I will gladly drop it. But for the record, I do not approve of anyone carrying a rifle, a pistol, an AK47, or a rocket launcher. I know that there are highly weaponized people out there who claim to be good Christians, good Muslims and good Jews who do, but that isn’t my issue. I told you my thoughts on natural selection, so I am very glad to let people live by the sword and die by it. Most people who are killed by guns either accidentally kill themselves, kill a relative, or kill someone they know. The best defense from becoming a victim of a firearm is to avoid association with such people and let nature take care of things.

Of course it would take years to fully understand, because you refuse to answer even simple questions which would illuminate your position better.

What exactly Is your question?

Nothing in my posts gives the impression I’m an automaton who leaves all thinking to the Church. That’s a simplistic and incorrect caricature that many create of those who are faithful to the Church. The reasons for doing this vary, but for many it is used as justification of their apostasy or heretical views.

I think we create our own caricatures.

But you seriously don’t see the irony of you accusing others of not thinking, when you haven’t even bothered with learning all the teachings of the Church?

As I said, I think I know the teachings as well as most people and am only allowing for the possibility that there are things I don’t know. Let me be clear. If you knew every word and verse of the Catechism, the Bible, The Koran, The Bhagavad Gita, The Mahabarata, and the Dhammapada, you still wouldn’t know anything. Because in truth, no one really knows anything about what all of this is. We have ideas, but these are largely shaped by cultural context wrapped in a syntax of tradition. But these are only frameworks that we apply to what we see in the world around us. We largely see what we’ve been taught and conditioned to see.

Catholics make this claim. The Catholic Church makes this claim.

Yes they do. And there is a swath of destruction behind every institution that takes that position. Unfortunate.

Faithful Catholics are the people who created the western civilization we know today.

That’s a rather interesting idea you have there. I would offer the idea that western civilization was built by Greeks, Romans, Goths, Visigoths, Vandals, Moors, Norsemen, Pagans, Jews, Protestants of all varieties and yes, Catholics. No one entity came along and stood up this civilization as some sort of static cultural edifice. It was a process, and is still a process, to which nowadays we can add Chinese, Indians, Africans, Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, Wiccans, Atheists and so on.

All the best,
Gary

:

 

[ishii]

From ZZ;
That’s a rather interesting idea you have there. I would offer the idea that western civilization was built by Greeks, Romans, Goths, Visigoths, Vandals, Moors, Norsemen, Pagans, Jews, Protestants of all varieties and yes, Catholics. No one entity came along and stood up this civilization as some sort of static cultural edifice. It was a process, and is still a process, to which nowadays we can add Chinese, Indians, Africans, Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, Wiccans, Atheists and so on.

All the best,
Gary

:

What have Wiccans contributed to civilization?

Ishii

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

What have Wiccans contributed to civilization?

Ishii

They are contributing to cultural diversity as well as raising an awareness of and appreciation for nature. I do not share their beliefs, but like any other cult, they add to the collective imagination that is unique to our species.

 

[ishii]

They are contributing to cultural diversity as well as raising an awareness of and appreciation for nature. I do not share their beliefs, but like any other cult, they add to the collective imagination that is unique to our species.

How do they contribute to cultural diversity? And how do they raise awareness of and appreciation for nature?

Ishii