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

[ishii]

ishii;12939569:

The latest fraud is “universal pre-school” for children 4 years old. If you look up kindergarten, you will find that it is the universal pre-school to transition the child from home to school. IOW, obama’s is a redundant program if transition is the goal. But I suspect it is also intended to brainwash the child

with Leftist anti-life programs. And when you are selling it “for the children,” opponents are easy targets for charges of being “anti-children” in a “war against children.”

It is also a jobs program for teachers unions for their support for you-know-whose party. It also means more votes.

Oh I think the left wants to be able to indoctrinate children from the earliest possible age. Traditional families sometimes teach / instill values in their children which are naturally opposed to the values and goals of the secular left - and so represent a threat to the left and its goals. So to circumvent that and undermine the family, the left proposes early childhood education / “free” daycare, etc. This is why the left tries to undermine traditional marriage and ultimately seeks to undermine / opress the Catholic Church which represents the biggest obstacle to the left reaching its goals.

Based on that, my first question of a potential candidate is, “does he/she understand the left and its goals” ? I don’t believe Jeb Bush does. I think Huckabee might, but I’m not sure.

Ishii

 

[powerofk]

Honestly, I have serious qualms with both political parties. One party claims they are for “helping the poor”, but one of their solutions to “helping the poor” is the destruction of life. The other party claims to be against abortion, yet generally cuts programs that women in desperate situations need to make the choice for life easier. It’s like how the current state of education is the fault of both parties - and the group of people most against testing (other than teachers) generally belongs to the party that pushed for all this testing in the first place. I don’t trust either party with excessive power - which is why I generally split my ticket. I had enough of 1-party rule with the first 6 years of Bush and the 2 first years of Obama. 1 party rule got us both No Child Left Behind and Obamacare.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

I think the above post is a perfect example of why the culture of death in this country continues to exist. The problem is the disconnect / complete lack of understanding among liberal Catholics of the reality of the evils of the secular left (i.e. modern Democrat party) on the one hand, and this caricature of Republicans as evil and non Christian on the other.

Truly, the unborn will continue to get slaughtered until some catholics learn to hate abortion / love the unborn, more than they hate Republicans / love Democrats.

Gary: consider the following words:

“If anyone causes one of these little ones–those who believe in me–to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.”

Now, some might think that the above quote applies to federal funding of school lunches for children. However, I would venture to guess that Christ would not like the slaughter of the unborn children. I wonder what those who basically ignore abortion in order to promote their own partisan agenda will say when they meet their maker?

Ishii

Excuse me Ishii: Exactly when did I say I support abortion? I know conservatives get upset when you speak out against guns, war, executions and an everyman for himself culture, but I will remind you that being against the death penalty, war and guns does not make someone in support of abortion. When did I say I supported abortion? Tell me that and lets get back on point for some polite and honest dialog.

All the best
Gary

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Broadbrush much? Maybe it’s because conservatives believe in the principle of subsidiarity. They devote much more of their time, treasure, and talent to help the poor than liberals.

Broadbrush much? What are the numbers on how much time conservatives spend on the poor and the sick as opposed to liberals? I’d like to see some stats on that from a reliable source.

All the best
Gary

 

[DoGodsBidding]

35 executions vs 1 million abortions. In this instance, you support the party which opposes the far greater evil, and work to change their minds on capital punishment (which is not opposed by Church teaching).

Is there something wrong with gun ownership?

Both parties start wars at about the same ratio.

Conservatives give FAAAAAR more to charity than liberals.

Are you claiming that social conservatives don’t care about the poor and sick?

He did instruct His followers to purchase a sword. And He also whipped people in the Temple. He did speak about marriage being 1 man and 1 woman, and His apostles certainly condemned homosexual acts.

Unless you happen to be God, there is no such thing as “free”. Jesus can heal for free. For the rest of us, there is no such thing as “free”. People who claim there is such a thing as free healthcare really mean that someone else pays for it.

Is there something in the Republican Party platform that is contrary to the teaching of the Church?

There is one political party that is an enemy to the culture of life.

 

[ishii]

Excuse me Ishii: Exactly when did I say I support abortion? I know conservatives get upset when you speak out against guns, war, executions and an everyman for himself culture, but I will remind you that being against the death penalty, war and guns does not make someone in support of abortion. When did I say I supported abortion? Tell me that and lets get back on point for some polite and honest dialog.

All the best
Gary

Gary - if you go back and read my post (and I hope you do), you will find that I did not single out any one person or accuse anyone specifically - least of all you. So there is no need to protest too much.

Based on my experience: those who speak out against the evil Republicans, war, guns, death penalty, etc. are really deflecting attention away from their support for pro-abortion Democrats. If that does not describe you, then great.

How do you expect to have a polite, honest dialog when you demonize those with whom you disagree? You basically implied that Republicans are un-Christian, don’t care about the sick and the poor, etc. I will always shoot for politeness, but I don’t appreciate the implication that those who believe in different policies from you on how to help the poor, sick etc. don’t care about the poor and sick, and are not good Christians.

If you do away with the ad hominem attacks and straw men I think there is a very good chance at resuming a polite, honest debate - on what policies should best help the poor, and promote life.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

Honestly, I have serious qualms with both political parties. One party claims they are for “helping the poor”, but one of their solutions to “helping the poor” is the destruction of life. The other party claims to be against abortion, yet generally cuts programs that women in desperate situations need to make the choice for life easier. It’s like how the current state of education is the fault of both parties - and the group of people most against testing (other than teachers) generally belongs to the party that pushed for all this testing in the first place. I don’t trust either party with excessive power - which is why I generally split my ticket. I had enough of 1-party rule with the first 6 years of Bush and the 2 first years of Obama. 1 party rule got us both No Child Left Behind and Obamacare.

I believe that the Democrats are aligned with the secular leftist agenda which is out to transform our country into what they think is a leftist paradise. The Republicans are split on opposing this agenda: some are cowardly and afraid to speak out lest they endanger their House or Senate seat, others speak out but are ineffective because they are not organized (like the left is) and they are not professional agitators and politicians (like the leftists are). So I agree the choice leaves a lot to be desired, but even with that in mind, I think that voting for the Republicans is the best choice to try and slow down our country’s march toward leftism.

By the way - which programs for women in crisis pregnancies have Republicans cut? Be specific.

Ishii

 

[RGCheek]

That was the Circus Maximus, not the Colosseum. The Colosseum hadn’t been constructed yet.

Just as the modern assumption that the Church was burning and torturing scientists is overblown, the same can be said about the Romans and Christians. There is very little evidence to support a pogrom of mass executions and torture of Christians.

I think Nero and Domitian would disagree. They were proud of their slaughter of Christians.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Gary - if you go back and read my post (and I hope you do), you will find that I did not single out any one person or accuse anyone specifically - least of all you. So there is no need to protest too much.

Based on my experience: those who speak out against the evil Republicans, war, guns, death penalty, etc. are really deflecting attention away from their support for pro-abortion Democrats. If that does not describe you, then great.

How do you expect to have a polite, honest dialog when you demonize those with whom you disagree? You basically implied that Republicans are un-Christian, don’t care about the sick and the poor, etc. I will always shoot for politeness, but I don’t appreciate the implication that those who believe in different policies from you on how to help the poor, sick etc. don’t care about the poor and sick, and are not good Christians.

If you do away with the ad hominem attacks and straw men I think there is a very good chance at resuming a polite, honest debate - on what policies should best help the poor, and promote life.

Ishii

Good Evening Ishii: I didn’t say that Republicans are unchristian. I said they use Jesus as though they were the Party of Jesus when often enough, their ideals are out of line with the teachings and actions of Jesus just as often as any other social block. What I was pointing out was the irony of that. Jesus is not a Republican or a Democrat or a Whig or a Tory or a Communist. Every side of every war, every side of every religious argument, every side of every dispute between religions and every side of every political battle thinks that they have God on their side. Do you remember the Holy Hand Grenade? That is my point.

All the best,
Gary

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

From: DoGodsBidding

35 executions vs 1 million abortions. In this instance, you support the party which opposes the far greater evil, and work to change their minds on capital punishment (which is not opposed by Church teaching).

Good Evening DoGodsBidding: All killing is evil in my opinion. You are not reading my posts very carefully. I am against abortion as much as I am against capital punishment or war. Do not lump all liberals into a mental template or some standardized syntax.

Is there something wrong with gun ownership?

I think so, but that is another subject.

Both parties start wars at about the same ratio.

I agree. Both parties are wrong to do that in my opinion.

Conservatives give FAAAAAR more to charity than liberals.

You would have to give me some stats from an unbiased source on that before I would entertain that idea. I’m not saying it’s true or untrue. I just have to see it.

Are you claiming that social conservatives don’t care about the poor and sick?

With regard to social programs, generally speaking, yes. Many people on this thread probably get their healthcare via a social program. I think more people should. That is my opinion, and again, the subject of another thread.

He did instruct His followers to purchase a sword.

The interesting thing about Jesus is that you can find something that He said that supports almost any agenda you want to push. This is partly because His teachings are presented in prosaic form or in parables, which can make things ambiguous at times. This is also because the Gospels are often in conflict with one another, with one having Jesus saying or doing one thing, and another having Him saying something totally at odds with that. In this case, I would reply to your scripture about purchasing a sword with Gospel of Matthew, verse 26:52 “Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.”

Do you get my point?

He did speak about marriage being 1 man and 1 woman, and His apostles certainly condemned homosexual acts.

Actually he did not, and this is where you’re going to have to pay attention , because some scholarly historical discourse follows.

-Jesus was a Jew teaching to Jews in 1st century Palestine.

-Homosexual marriage was not part of the social discourse in 1st century Palestine.

-The idea would have been as alien to Jesus as the idea of putting a screen door on a submarine.

-While there were in fact homosexuals, there was no such thing as gay marriage in that time and in that place.

-Gay people were not petitioning the Sanhedrin for the right to marry one another.

-The idea was not heard of and it would not have crossed Jesus’ mind.

-What *was *part of the social discourse of the time was how many wives a man could have. Polygamy was practiced in that culture and the idea of one wife per husband was not settled in the Jewish culture for another thousand years later. There is no direction given in Mosaic Law on the matter. He was talking about how many wives a man takes. Ask any historian who is familiar with the culture of 1st century Palestine and Judaism.

This is not to say that Jesus was for gay marriage. The point is that He never mentioned it. And having only three years to say what He was going to say, He was probably sure to touch base on anything He thought might be important.

Unless you happen to be God, there is no such thing as “free”. Jesus can heal for free. For the rest of us, there is no such thing as “free”. People who claim there is such a thing as free healthcare really mean that someone else pays for it.

The question is how we pay for it. As for being able to do what Jesus did, I believe He said you could be just like Him, did He not? But before you are just like Him, you have to give up a lot. The question is about who is willing to do that.

All the best,
Gary

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

I’ve told the story before but I’ll tell it again. I used to have a tax advice radio show on a local radio station back during the days when the left was livid about the Bush tax cuts . So I had a standing offer to prepare for free the tax return of anyone he wanted their return prepared using the tax rates in effect before the Bush cuts were implemented. Never had any takers

Maybe they didn’t take you up on it because after listening to your show, they didn’t want you doing their taxes. But without regard to that, and on a more serious note, I would probably be disinclined to let anyone file a return for me who had recommended filing my returns based on any rate other than the rates in effect for the period being filed for. It sounds rather nonsensical and irresponsible to an average person like myself who isn’t an expert on taxes. But you’re the expert, so tell me, would you let someone do your taxes who made a recommendation like that?

All the best,
Gary

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Equally as arrogant is the idea we see from so many Democrat Catholics that we can fulfill our personal responsibility to help the poor and needy by voting for someone who promises to take other peoples money and do it for us.

Yeah, like this other guy who wanted to use other people’s money to help the poor:

“One thing you lack,” he said. “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

-Jesus

All the best,
Gary

 

[Crossbones]

Why must he speak this way?
Why must he cause unfounded fear and panic when and where there is none and there is no need?
Why must he plan on the most negative and traumatic future possible for people of his religion and plant these ideas and thoughts in people’s heads?

.

Because it sells books?

 

[JimG]

Why must he speak this way?
Why must he cause unfounded fear and panic when and where there is none and there is no need?
Why must he plan on the most negative and traumatic future possible for people of his religion and plant these ideas and thoughts in people’s heads?

He is basing his doomsday approach on his own insecurities and trying to spread them.
This kind of thinking causes voilence and bloodshed and hatred.
.

I think he is basing his approach on the continuing trend toward forcing same sex marriage on the nation, and that will cause an inevitable conflict between marriage law and religious liberty. I will be surprised if the war on religion does not continue.

 

[ishii]

Yeah, like this other guy who wanted to use other people’s money to help the poor:

“One thing you lack,” he said. “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

-Jesus

All the best,
Gary

Did Jesus confiscate the guy’s money? No he didn’t. So I think you’re misunderstanding the bible here. Jesus didn’t force people to give their money to the poor, did he? Like liberals do? He encouraged people to give to the poor, and made it a condition of entering heaven, but he didn’t force people to give to the poor, like liberals do. Actually, in truth, liberals force people to pay for programs that are meant to supposedly help the poor, but really end up creating more poverty and despair. I wonder if that is what Jesus had in mind? Create more poverty and despair?

Ishii

 

[DerekTM]

I think Nero and Domitian would disagree. They were proud of their slaughter of Christians.

But not to the extent that is often claimed. Few objective historians mention it. Christian historians of the time are unreliable given their sentiments. It’s like expecting an American Colonial to accurately describe the British after the end of American War of Independence.

 

[RGCheek]

But not to the extent that is often claimed. Few objective historians mention it.

NOTHING is as true as it ‘often is claimed’. There are so many outliers statistically speaking you could make that claim about any measured and counted subject on Earth and be correct.

I am not sure what use it is to say that other than to downplay the fact that Christians in the USA no longer have equal standing before the law.

 

[RGCheek]

Why must he speak this way?

Because it is the truth.

Why must he cause unfounded fear and panic when and where there is none and there is no need?

There is nothing unfounded about any of it. Christians are no longer equal before the law when their perspective is subordinate to homosexuals on a controversial case that brings into question what marriage is and how it impacts a discrimination case.

Because the homosexuals are a minority, the decision falls under a ‘reasonable minority’ standard for evidence and the Christians definition of marriage, as one for procreation and that defines for them their only course of action, is simply ignored by the courts in favor of the homosexuals definition of marriage as a pact of extreme fondness. Why? Because of the ‘reasonable minority standard’ of defining what is offensive/harassment/demeaning. What the Christian intends to project is also irrelevant by this standard.

Various other Christians practices are being criminalized like disciplining children and a Biblical belief that homosexual activity is immoral. And the trend is only getting worse as the oligarchs insist we all adopt their shiny new redefinition of society.

Why must he plan on the most negative and traumatic future possible for people of his religion and plant these ideas and thoughts in people’s heads?

Oh, that was hardly the most negative possible future, not by a long shot. Take a look at today’s Vietnam, Syria, Sudan, Nigeria, Pakistan, or Soviet Russia.

He is basing his doomsday approach on his own insecurities and trying to spread them.
This kind of thinking causes voilence and bloodshed and hatred.

Yeah, because people might prepare and fight back? lol

 

[Murmurs]

Christians are no longer equal before the law when their perspective is subordinate to homosexuals on a controversial case that brings into question what marriage is and how it impacts a discrimination case.

I’m not sure if everyone quite understands what “equality” means. The SSM issue (which like many here I am at a very and rare best rather uncomfortable able, but can at least make peace with), doesn’t take away the liberty of any Christian (or adherent to another faith), in terms of what they are “allowed” to believe (which you can’t legislate anyway), or practice. It doesn’t harm my practice as a Catholic or more broadly as a Christian if two of my gay friends marry each other. No government (certainly in the US), whether national or local is realistically going to “force” a church, Catholic or otherwise, to conduct a same sex wedding against its will. That would contravene the important principle of religious liberty.

However a judicial recognition of the right of a same sex couple to marry, while arguably changing the state’s definition of marriage, doesn’t change the Christian definition, nor impacts on the equal treatment of Christians under the law. In fact what such a recognition (however much we might not like it) does is to bring other people up to be equal with heterosexuals in this regard. Nobody’s liberty is hurt, and equality for Christians does not (and most certainly should not) mean "Christian/Catholic views trumping the interests of everyone else). Equality doesn’t mean “whatever the most people think”, it means “treating everyone the same”.

Now you could make a good argument for the state butting out of the marriage business altogether, but that’s a different issue.

Because the homosexuals are a minority, the decision falls under a ‘reasonable minority’ standard for evidence and the Christians definition of marriage, as one for procreation and that defines for them their only course of action, is simply ignored by the courts in favor of the homosexuals definition of marriage as a pact of extreme fondness. Why? Because of the ‘reasonable minority standard’ of defining what is offensive/harassment/demeaning. What the Christian intends to project is also irrelevant by this standard.

I think a positive way to look at this issue - because for all we might hope otherwise it is abundantly clear which way the wind is blowing so for now we should pick fights we have a chance of winning, in my view - is that the Christian view of marriage isn’t being sidelined at all. The definition of marriage is being broadened rather than entirely shifted.

I’m being kind of facetious and actually I do agree with you on this, but sometimes it’s helpful to look at a bad situation in the most charitable light!

Various other Christians practices are being criminalized like disciplining children and a Biblical belief that homosexual activity is immoral. And the trend is only getting worse as the oligarchs insist we all adopt their shiny new redefinition of society.

No one can criminalise a belief, apart from anything else because it’s impossible - but it’s perhaps not unreasonable to criticise implicit hate speech. (Being offensive isn’t as far as I know illegal, and it shouldn’t be. Actually being hateful, either is or ought to be, there’s a difference.) (BTW I’m not saying there is hate of any kind on this thread )

 

[RGCheek]

I’m not sure if everyone quite understands what “equality” means. The SSM issue (which like many here I am at a very and rare best rather uncomfortable able, but can at least make peace with), doesn’t take away the liberty of any Christian (or adherent to another faith), in terms of what they are “allowed” to believe (which you can’t legislate anyway), or practice.

How absurd of you to assert such a thing when we are seeing Christians FORCED by penalty under the law to either engage in gay marriage practices or be FORCED out of business.

I guess you subscribe to the ‘if I close my eyes and recite a prayer, the crops will be magically planted’ philosophy. No, real life demands that we 1. come to terms with Reality, then 2. devise a stratagem for surviving that Reality, then 3. manipulating that Reality to our benefit.

Of course if you want to go live on a mountain top in some remote region and spin a prayer wheel you have that right.

It doesn’t harm my practice as a Catholic or more broadly as a Christian if two of my gay friends marry each other. No government (certainly in the US), whether national or local is realistically going to “force” a church, Catholic or otherwise, to conduct a same sex wedding against its will. That would contravene the important principle of religious liberty.

Since when has that stopped them? Observe the re-interpretation of the 14th Amendment in such a way that it completely voids the 10th Amendment. The letter of the law is a thin veneer for the will of those who hold power.

However a judicial recognition of the right of a same sex couple to marry, while arguably changing the state’s definition of marriage, doesn’t change the Christian definition, nor impacts on the equal treatment of Christians under the law.

Obviously it does when Christians are FORCED to participate in the conduct of a SSM.

Equality doesn’t mean “whatever the most people think”, it means “treating everyone the same”.

That is a lie in view of the SOLID FACT that the courts now follow a different standard to interpret behavior in terms of its meaning, intent and impact to be solely from the perspective of the minority and the person of the majority has ZERO (name removed by moderator)ut if in conflict with the minority. Suppose a man and woman both get drunk and have sex, it is the woman who can claim RAPE and the man cannot. The courts are SOLELY concerned with whether SHE had a choice, his choice is irrelevant if she says that she was manipulated and taken advantage of. The same rule applies in race relations, religion and sexual orientation where it has been put into law.

SSM cases are the same way. To the Christian a SSM is a perversion of marriage and they cannot participate morally, while to the perspective of the gay couple, it is just a marriage. The viewpoint of the gay couple trumps that of the Christian couple in our courts of law today, which is why the Christian bakery got shut down with a $135,000 penalty for not baking a gay wedding cake. We are not equal to homosexuals before the law or anyone else that is nonChristian.

Now you could make a good argument for the state butting out of the marriage business altogether, but that’s a different issue.

Like the state ever concedes authority on a topic once it gains it?

I think a positive way to look at this issue - because for all we might hope otherwise it is abundantly clear which way the wind is blowing so for now we should pick fights we have a chance of winning, in my view -

This is what is known as a ‘self fulfilling prophesy’. Yes, if all traditional marriage proponents follow your advice it is a done deal and the homosexuals win.

And America loses.

I’m being kind of facetious and actually I do agree with you on this, but sometimes it’s helpful to look at a bad situation in the most charitable light!

There is a charitable light to giving up a winnable fight? Are you on the RNC?

No one can criminalise a belief, apart from anything else because it’s impossible - but it’s perhaps not unreasonable to criticise implicit hate speech. (Being offensive isn’t as far as I know illegal, and it shouldn’t be. Actually being hateful, either is or ought to be, there’s a difference.) (BTW I’m not saying there is hate of any kind on this thread )

One criminalizes a belief by criminalizing the practice of that belief. If I believe one should attend mass on Saturday night the way to criminalize that belief is to make it illegal to go to mass on Saturday night, not to assert that it is illegal for me to believe that, though some have tried similar nonsense.

If one believes that SSM is a perversion that undermines real marriage, then the way to criminalize that is to pass laws saying that people cannot discriminate against SSM, and that is exactly what is happening.