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

[Gary_Sheldrake]

From Ishii:

Did Jesus confiscate the guy’s money? No

Good Morning Ishii: No, He didn’t, but He was clear on what you had to do if you were going to follow Him.

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?

You’re right. Jesus didn’t force anyone to follow Him. But I thought that this discussion was among people who had professed that they were followers of Christ. And if we are going to resolve to be followers of Christ, He was unambiguous on what you have to do.

He encouraged people to give to the poor, and made it a condition of entering heaven.

I thought entering heaven was a primary objective of Christians.

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?

Liberals came up with programs like Medicare and Social Security, and while these aren’t perfect systems, I bet there are a lot of people on this forum who eagerly receive both, but rail about the fact that there is Medicaid for the poor, many of whom are the working poor who pay into the system like you and I pay into the system. Are there freeloaders and is there fraud? Of course. There have always been such people, and the world will never be perfect. We can only resolve to do our very best.

All the best,
Gary

 

[Murmurs]

I fail to see how being under penalty of law to treat all customers equally represents “criminalization of Christianity”. Our faith doesn’t exist by being free to choose for whom to make wedding cakes. While I think the market should be free to settle the matter, but I think the stance taken by those who don’t want to bake that cake is verging on the absurd and I don’t think a decision to the contrary represents an attack on Christian beliefs. I don’t believe that anywhere in the Creed does it say anything about cakes or anything that might be used as a general principle from which to derive how we respond when a gay couple asks us to bake one.

By all means refuse to bake it but I think whether or not if a business agrees to organize catering it is not “engaging in gay marriage practices”. Refusing to carry out a core business activity isn’t standing up for one’s view of marriage, it’s just bad business practice.

The reality is that Christians here are as free today as we were 100 years ago to live out a Christian life (same can’t be said everywhere). Evangelism and sharing the Gospel is a very different thing from blasting our views like buckshot all over the country indiscriminately. Maybe I’m in a minority but I think we do the former more effectively by living an example rather than yelling at other people, first and foremost.

…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.

A judicial decision isn’t about what the majority of the population thinks or wants. For that matter a legislative decision isn’t either (I’m splitting hairs, but it’s a majority of the legislators, whom the wider population have elected/had pushed upon them by gerrymandering, and it’s the legislators who make decisions on the people’s behalf) - but a court’s job is to ensure that the laws are upheld equally and fairly.

This is why it would seem to be valid to challenge bans on same sex marriage under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Denying same-sex couples the right to marry is unconstitutional because it treats same-sex couples differently from opposite sex ones; ie it violates the principle of equality.

Courts don’t work on what a majority of the country wants, but on applying laws/constitutional principles to cases. As it happens, if they did work in this way, then same sex marriage would be legal everywhere in the country, based on what a majority of the population appears to want.

I’m not sure what the point of the rape/race relations comments were ? Did you mean that a man can’t claim he was raped? Or that a legitimate defence to an accusation of rape ought to be that “oh, we were drunk, so it’s ok”? I’m not sure what you mean exactly…(A man absolutely can claim he was raped; and way more men suffer sexual assault than are willing to report).

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…We are not equal to homosexuals before the law or anyone else that is nonChristian.

I agree that according to our understanding of marriage SSM is a perversion. But we all recognize that some people don’t have that same view. Eg some Christian denominations are happy to marry divorcees.

But should a bakery run by a catholic baker be allowed to not bake a cake for a wedding where one of the betrothed is divorced?

On what basis should the traditional Christian view of marriage be allowed to “trump” the SSM-proponents’ view? “I don’t like gay marriage” isn’t exactly a valid argument (as the courts have shown). No particular group’s beliefs should be allowed to trump broader principles. (Equally many principles of Sharia law would be invalid in the US because they also violate the more important principles of the constitution).

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

Too right

America loses.

Wuh???

Last time I looked a majority of Americans were practicing Christians but it’s a country based on the rule of law rather than just the Christian tradition. It can certainly influence the laws passed, but judges have to be impartial and make a decision according to the laws and the Constitution. That’s kind of the whole point of the judiciary. I think it means America wins! (Even if plenty of Christians, including you and me, aren’t very happy)

One criminalizes a belief by criminalizing the practice of that belief…

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.

Ok yes that last part of what I wrote before was definitely built on sand…

But you hit the nail on the head in the last sentence though - from the point of view of the law, it IS unjust for someone to be allowed to discriminate against someone else because they happen to be gay (by not baking a cake, or not allowing them to mark their commitment as other couples do in civil ceremonies). I don’t see how being allowed to discriminate against a same-sex couple, when deciding who gets to patronize one’s business is any different from being allowed to discriminate against a couple of a particular skin color - and I’m sure we can all agree the latter isn’t something we’d like to see.

I’m not in favor of legalizing SSM but I think the general principles of liberty and equality trump whatever I may personally think on the matter, that’s all.

PS. I second everything Gary said in the post above mine

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

I think he is basing his approach on the continuing trend toward forcing same sex marriage on the nation

Good Morning Jim: Is someone forcing you to marry another guy? Let me know and I’ll straighten them out for you.

All the best
Gary

 

[Tigg]

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

Which in no way implies coercion, but an invitation to enter a new life.

 

[Tigg]

To fight as one individual or one family against a Leviathan is suicide. A better stratagem is to hide and await the awakening of our clergy, our shepherds to protect us as is their God given duty and role, and pray that it isn’t too long a wait.

When, in our hearts, we are called to defend faith and family, it would be an egregious omission to do anything but. Who is to awaken our clergy? The commitment for some seems to bolster the political realm, not the spiritual.

How we respond to the persecution is what I am discussing. If we do it on an individual basis, we lead our own selves to the slaughter. This is the bane of all who oppose evil change. We simply need to survive it by going underground, back to the catacombs, if you will.

This would belie the very understanding of martyrdom – whether white or red. We’d best prepare our hearts to give strong witness, no matter the consequences, not be cowards.

 

[ishii]

Good Morning Jim: Is someone forcing you to marry another guy? Let me know and I’ll straighten them out for you.

All the best
Gary

By forcing same sex marriage perhaps he means the courts overturning the decision of voters in states in numerous elections to defend real marriage against the legalization of faux “gay” marriages.

Ishii

 

[qui_est_ce]

I fail to see how being under penalty of law to treat all customers equally represents “criminalization of Christianity”. Our faith doesn’t exist by being free to choose for whom to make wedding cakes. While I think the market should be free to settle the matter, but I think the stance taken by those who don’t want to bake that cake is verging on the absurd and I don’t think a decision to the contrary represents an attack on Christian beliefs. I don’t believe that anywhere in the Creed does it say anything about cakes or anything that might be used as a general principle from which to derive how we respond when a gay couple asks us to bake one.

By all means refuse to bake it but I think whether or not if a business agrees to organize catering it is not “engaging in gay marriage practices”. Refusing to carry out a core business activity isn’t standing up for one’s view of marriage, it’s just bad business practice.

On what basis should the traditional Christian view of marriage be allowed to “trump” the SSM-proponents’ view? “I don’t like gay marriage” isn’t exactly a valid argument (as the courts have shown). No particular group’s beliefs should be allowed to trump broader principles. (Equally many principles of Sharia law would be invalid in the US because they also violate the more important principles of the constitution).

How would you feel about baking a cake celebrating the cause of the Westboro Baptist Church or the KKK? Would you put icing on that cake with the words, “God’s will being done through WBC?”

PS. I second everything Gary said in the post above mine

Yes, all conservatives care about is guns, gay marriage, and wars. They don’t care about the poor and marginalized simply because they believe government intervention does not help the poor.

 

[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 - if you go back and read your posts - specifically 136 & 144, you will see that you basically imply that Republicans “think they are pro-life” but are not, and that even they “do not care about the poor.” “Jesus would be baffled as to why Republicans mention him at all” , etc. The implication is also that they don’t care about people killed in war.

Gary - its okay to disagree on policies, but when you imply that Republicans don’t care abou the poor, etc. you are engaging in ad hominem attacks.

Ishii

No ones

 

[Murmurs]

How would you feel about baking a cake celebrating the cause of the Westboro Baptist Church or the KKK? Would you put icing on that cake with the words, “God’s will being done through WBC?”

Interesting thought experiment, yes (and I’d imagine you’d need a mighty big cake to fit all that on!). Maybe that one’s hard for me to answer given I don’t work in a bakery, but if I did I believe my desire to provide for myself and my family (and others I might support through personal charity for that matter) by earning money through my business (ie, baking cakes) would outweigh any disgust I might feel about the intention behind the cake.

An alternative example; I used to work for a publishing company. If the WBC wanted to publish something through us (though I never got high enough to make final commissioning decisions like that), while I do appreciate it would be a little controversial, if it made financial sense to publish it (ie enough people would buy it, and it wasn’t so hate-filled that we’d be bankrupted through being sued by someone), then I would. It wouldn’t mean that I remotely agreed with anything in the book but as long as it didn’t actually hurt anyone else I see no reason not to publish it. The cake doesn’t hurt anyone either, as far as I can see. You might not like what it represents but it doesn’t cause harm to anyone.

Providing baked goods in exchange for a fee doesn’t mean you have to support the views of the person who ordered them. It’s just a cake.

 

[zz912]

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

You completely missed his point.

 

[zz912]

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.

You were responding to me, not DoGodsBidding. And your belief of "all killing is evil’ is contrary to Church teaching. I can think of three categories at least where killing is not evil, self-defense, just war, and capital punishment in certain circumstances.

And I wasn’t lumping you in, but pointing out your lack of prioritization. One is a far greater, intrinsic evil, while the other is a far less frequent event that is not intrinsically evil.

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.

thefiscaltimes.com/2014/10/17/Who-s-More-Generous-Liberals-or-Conservatives
huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/19/giving-back-_n_3781505.html

There are many more sources. This is even admitted to by honest liberals.

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.

So a Christian cannot hold the opinion that govt social programs are failures and private charity and private markets are far better at meeting this need? And is it charity on your behalf to vote for someone to take my money to give to another person? Do you get credit in heaven for such a vote?

The interesting thing about Jesus is that you can find something that He said that supports almost any agenda you want to push.

Yep. Some even try to use it to support socialism, which is contrary to the Christian faith.

This is partly because His teachings are presented in prosaic form or in parables, which can make things ambiguous at times.

That is why we need to listen to the Magistereum and not go with our own opinion all the time.

This is also because the Gospels are often in conflict with one another,

I find this opinion of yours to be unfounded.

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?

Jesus didn’t tell him to get rid of the sword, but to put it back in its sheaf. Living by the sword, and having one for self defense are two completely different things.

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.

Jesus explicitly defined marriage. No amount of mental gymnastics will change that.

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

I have seen the failures of govt programs again and again. I prefer to pay for it privately, and do.

 

[JimG]

By forcing same sex marriage perhaps he means the courts overturning the decision of voters in states in numerous elections to defend real marriage against the legalization of faux “gay” marriages.

Ishii

Quite true. Courts have overturned the will of the electorate in order to impose same sex ‘marriage’ on society, and they have arrogated to themselves a power they do not have. Those who authored and ratified the 14th amendment would have been astonished to have been told that they were approving of gender neutral marriage—a contradictory idea in itself.

No, the Court will not force me to marry a person of the same sex—a natural impossibility in any case—but if I am a photographer, it will force me to become intimately involved in an event in which I cannot participate without violating my conscience, any more than I could be willing to photograph an abortion celebration.

If the gay lobby wishes to put same sex marriage into the Constitution as an right, then do it the proper way, by proposing an amendment and seeking ratification.

 

[qui_est_ce]

thefiscaltimes.com/2014/10/17/Who-s-More-Generous-Liberals-or-Conservatives
huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/19/giving-back-_n_3781505.html

There are many more sources. This is even admitted to by honest liberals.

Thanks for answering that for me.

So a Christian cannot hold the opinion that govt social programs are failures and private charity and private markets are far better at meeting this need? And is it charity on your behalf to vote for someone to take my money to give to another person? Do you get credit in heaven for such a vote?

I have seen the failures of govt programs again and again. I prefer to pay for it privately, and do.

Agree. There is a false dichotomy going around FB, “I’d rather the government feed the poor than use my taxes to fund endless wars.” It is not the governments job to feed the poor, it is OUR job to feed the poor. Time and again, in the Gospels as well as in the OT and NT, we are told to feed the poor, the orphaned, the widow. Jesus did not say it was Rome’s responsibility. In Acts, Barnabas and then other Christians laid the proceeds of the sales of their properties at the feet of Peter, not at the feet of Herod. They held in common with their fellow Christians, not with Rome.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Interesting thought experiment, yes (and I’d imagine you’d need a mighty big cake to fit all that on!). Maybe that one’s hard for me to answer given I don’t work in a bakery, but if I did I believe my desire to provide for myself and my family (and others I might support through personal charity for that matter) by earning money through my business (ie, baking cakes) would outweigh any disgust I might feel about the intention behind the cake.

An alternative example; I used to work for a publishing company. If the WBC wanted to publish something through us (though I never got high enough to make final commissioning decisions like that), while I do appreciate it would be a little controversial, if it made financial sense to publish it (ie enough people would buy it, and it wasn’t so hate-filled that we’d be bankrupted through being sued by someone), then I would. It wouldn’t mean that I remotely agreed with anything in the book but as long as it didn’t actually hurt anyone else I see no reason not to publish it. The cake doesn’t hurt anyone either, as far as I can see. You might not like what it represents but it doesn’t cause harm to anyone.

Providing baked goods in exchange for a fee doesn’t mean you have to support the views of the person who ordered them. It’s just a cake.

There is direct complicity and there is indirect complicity. What you are describing would fall under indirect, which is in line with Church Teaching.

Direct complicity is another thing. Would you be okay with working in an abortion facility?

I would not prepare taxes for an abortionist, nor would I do accounting for an abortion facility.

 

[JimG]

“We have won the argument over marriage. We have won 34 statewide elections where traditional marriage was on the ballot. We did this even though the polls showed us losing most of them, perhaps all of them, prior to the vote. We won even in liberal states like California. We won even during Democratic primaries like Missouri. Our opponents persuaded the people in a measly three states to vote with them on faux marriage.”
Source

 

[Murmurs]

There is direct complicity and there is indirect complicity. What you are describing would fall under indirect, which is in line with Church Teaching.

Direct complicity is another thing. Would you be okay with working in an abortion facility?

I would not prepare taxes for an abortionist, nor would I do accounting for an abortion facility.

Well that’s true enough. I’m not sure that doing accounting for an abortion “clinic” would count in my view as direct complicity. (I think this is just a matter of opinion and in this kind of situation I fully support someone’s right to turn that work down, given it involves complicity, of some kind, with the work of a facility involved with murdering people). In that instance one is providing a service (ie accounting). That’s not the same as working in the facility, as far as I can see…

But without question, baking a cake as far as I can see is merely providing a service. What it certainly isn’t, is being asked to be involved with killing babies; cakes generally don’t kill people. I don’t see how making a cake is equivalent to preparing taxes for an abortionist in any case.

I do understand that someone called to officiate over a civil wedding might be in a much stickier situation, because unlike a baker, they are actually involved in that “wedding”. (In that case, my personal view is that they should duly execute the law they are employed to do, because fulfilling the terms of their employment, if as before it doesn’t constitute being asked to cause someone harm, doesn’t violate their own liberty as far as I can make out - and conduct the ceremony, although it would seem to be perfectly fine to do everything possible to make alternative arrangements and find someone else first, if they so wished).

 

[SavannahGal]

How would you feel about baking a cake celebrating the cause of the Westboro Baptist Church or the KKK? Would you put icing on that cake with the words, “God’s will being done through WBC?”

Yes, all conservatives care about is guns, gay marriage, and wars. They don’t care about the poor and marginalized simply because they believe government intervention does not help the poor.

The problem here is that you’re comparing legal apples and oranges. There is an important distinction to be made here.

As a business owner, you have almost complete discretion as to what products and services you are going to provide. This is especially true for a bakery.

No one has the right to walk into your bakery and demand that you provide them with a product or service you don’t provide. They cannot force you to bake a vegan cake if that’s not a product you offer, for example. And in the same way, they cannot coerce you into writing an expletive on a cake, decorating it in an obscene manner, or as in your example writing an anti-gay message you find offensive. They cannot force you to write a pro-gay message either, for that matter. You have every right to use your discretion in this manner.

What you do not have the right to do, however, is refuse to sell a cake to someone based upon their race, color, religion, national origin and possibly other categories such as sexual orientation, depending upon your state and local anti-discrimination laws.

These are two very distinct scenarios. In the first, you are refusing to provide a certain product. In the second, you are refusing to sell a product to a certain category of people that you provide to everyone else.

 

[qui_est_ce]

There is direct complicity and there is indirect complicity. What you are describing would fall under indirect, which is in line with Church Teaching.

Direct complicity is another thing. Would you be okay with working in an abortion facility?

I would not prepare taxes for an abortionist, nor would I do accounting for an abortion facility.

I should have used the word “cooperation.”

 

[qui_est_ce]

The problem here is that you’re comparing legal apples and oranges. There is an important distinction to be made here.

As a business owner, you have almost complete discretion as to what products and services you are going to provide. This is especially true for a bakery.

No one has the right to walk into your bakery and demand that you provide them with a product or service you don’t provide. They cannot force you to bake a vegan cake if that’s not a product you offer, for example. And in the same way, they cannot coerce you into writing an expletive on a cake, decorating it in an obscene manner, or as in your example writing an anti-gay message you find offensive. They cannot force you to write a pro-gay message either, for that matter. You have every right to use your discretion in this manner.

What you do not have the right to do, however, is refuse to sell a cake to someone based upon their race, color, religion, national origin and possibly other categories such as sexual orientation, depending upon your state and local anti-discrimination laws.

These are two very distinct scenarios. In the first, you are refusing to provide a certain product. In the second, you are refusing to sell a product to a certain category of people that you provide to everyone else.

Well, I agree with you, but I was responding to Murmurs’ comparing his working for a publishing house that prints an offensive book to people refusing to bake a cake celebrating SSM.

 

[Murmurs]

Well, I agree with you, but I was responding to Murmurs’ comparing his working for a publishing house that prints an offensive book to people refusing to bake a cake celebrating SSM.

(I’m a her, although it couldn’t possibly matter )

I think SavannahGal expresses some of the distinctions I was meaning to make, an awful lot better than I did