Huckabee, leader of the american taliban?

[jpn of Seattle]

Here's the kind of intolerant ignorance that is bred by fundamentalist religious hocus-pocus:

In an interview with Beliefnet.com, a religion Web site, Huck has just clarified his view that the Constitution should be amended to be brought in line with God's will -- and he directly equated homosexuality with bestiality.

QUESTIONER: Is it your goal to bring the Constitution into strict conformity with the Bible? Some people would consider that a kind of dangerous undertaking, particularly given the variety of biblical interpretations.
HUCKABEE: Well, I don’t think that’s a radical view to say we’re going to affirm marriage. I think the radical view is to say that we’re going to change the definition of marriage so that it can mean two men, two women, a man and three women, a man and a child, a man and animal. Again, once we change the definition, the door is open to change it again. I think the radical position is to make a change in what’s been historic.

So changing the definition of marriage so it can mean "two men" or "two women" is equivalent to changing it to mean "a man and an animal."

Yeah, there's that famous Christian love and compassion.

I wonder when the so-called "liberal media" is going to start examining Huckabee's intolerant religious extremism?

 

[ilikeboobs]

Originally Posted by ilikeboobs
Do they kill people in the name of God? Do they force women to live as third-class citizens? Do they use terror tactics to force compliance with their beliefs? No, No, and NO..

Yes. Yes. Yes.
Fortunately most reside in countries where the secular rule of law is more important then Biblical law.

Ok, tell me where this happens - where Christians are killing people in the name of God, where they're treating women like dirt, and where they're using terrorism to gain compliance.

 

[Cookie Parker]

I wouldn't be so sure of the Christian fundamentalists and their plans for women and the poor...

http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/TheDespoilingOfAmerica.htm

In an earlier section, I discussed the principle held by both Machiavelli and Leo Strauss that religion is necessary as a tool for a leader to control the masses. If conformity—not dissent is required, then religion is the power tool of choice, for it will insure a controlled populace. We’re about to examine its uses, its ingenious gifts and its powers, in this and the following sections. Be aware that Dominionism is in fact, a brilliantly executed road that leads to total power.



In his book, which tended to be more formal and less expansive, Pat Robertson began the listing of those Americans not fit for public office:



“Obviously the drunk, the drug addict, the lustful, the slothful do not have the discipline to rule the earth and to correct its evils.” (p. 82)

“If we remain unrighteous, the Bible says, we will miss the kingdom.” (p.83)



Then he quoted Paul’s epistle to the Corinthians:



“Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”(1 Corinthians 6:9-10) (p. 83)



If “Secular Humanists are the greatest threat to Christianity the world has ever known,” as theologian Francis Schaeffer claimed, then who are the Humanists? According to Dominionists, humanists are the folks who allow or encourage licentious behavior in America. They are the undisciplined revelers.



Put all the enemies of the Dominionists together, boil them down to liquid and bake them into the one single most highly derided and contaminated individual known to man, and you will have before you an image of the quintessential “liberal”—one of those folks who wants to give liberally to the poor and needy—who desires the welfare and happiness of all Americans—who insists on safety regulations for your protection and who desires the preservation of your values—those damnable people are the folks that must be reduced to powerlessness—or worse: extinction.



Dominionists determine who is among God’s elect—not solely by a religious experience such as being born again, but by a political determination of whether one is a Republican or a Democrat, a liberal or a conservative or simply a person who questions the deeds of Dominionist political figures. The politics of exclusion, including bigotry, is in fact wide spread throughout the United States.



Take, for instance, Sean Hannity’s remarks to Time Magazine, “You can play golf with liberals, be neighbors with them, go out to dinner. I just don’t want them in power.”[51] Or take Ann Coulter’s assertions: “Liberals have a preternatural gift for striking a position on the side of treason.” Or, “Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy.” (It turns out that every single “liberal” in the country is a member of the Democratic Party and therefore is a traitor.)[52]



The Machiavellian nature of the Dominionist cult explains why Bill Clinton who is a Christian believer was attacked so viciously for his sexual folly but Newt Gingrich, Bill Livingston, Henry Hyde, Strom Thurmond and scores of other Republicans escaped the punishment of public ridicule, verbal abuse, and humiliation for the same sexual peccadilloes. (It appears only Democratic “liberals” must be held to the fire of biblical standards and biblical punishments because as we all know, they are “unregenerate from the beginning of time.”)



Robertson’s book acknowledges that his followers, the “Christian” army raised up for political purposes are the elect chosen to rule. Robertson’s transcribed television interviews and dialogs give shocking evidence to the legitimization of greed, hatred, violence and cruelty by members of the various fundamentalist branches of the American clergy and by elected officials of the Republican Party, which can be cited as evidence that Dominionism is not a Christian religion—that above everything else, Dominionism is synonymous with Machiavellianism: the ends justify the means. Under Dominionism, true Christianity is a target to destroy, not a goal to achieve.

These people are seriously demented...and they are "Christian"

 

[jpn of Seattle]

And don't forget, according to Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, 9/11 was caused by gays, lesbians, and feminists--Americans, in other words.

 

[Coyote]

Ok, tell me where this happens - where Christians are killing people in the name of God, where they're treating women like dirt, and where they're using terrorism to gain compliance.

I already did: Fortunately most reside in countries where the secular rule of law is more important then Biblical law.

Secularism, affluence, and the Enlightenment all contributed to change the public face of modern Christianity. However, the private face can be something quite different.

Just google Christian Reconstructionist/Dominionists. They aren't just some weird cult - some pretty prominant people subscribe to that view. And they don't treat their women very well either.

 

[SW85]

Let me preface all this by saying that I loathe Huckabee and sincerely hope he does not win any place on the GOP ticket.

He's intently stating that he wishes to amend the constitution in violation of itself

You don't amend the constitution unless you want to change something about it, so it follows the whole idea behind amending the constitution is to insert things into it which are considered unconstitutional. Complaining about as much is logically redundant; better to oppose it on its merits or flaws rather than its (evident) unconstitutionality.

Given that the amendment process is written into the constitution, there is no change that could be made which would be in violation of itself. Rather than deriding his statements, you should be celebrating them, since they amount to a concession on his part that the constitution, as it currently stands, does not permit the wholesale banning of abortion (which I assume were what his comments were about -- the Think Progress link is remarkably devoid of context).

 

[Libsmasher]

.

Garsh, I thought liberal's religious bigotry was limited to mormons.

 

[Andy]

*hugs!*

"Good"?

Christian fundamentalists are evil swine, in my book. I'm so glad I live in a country where they can't impose their twisted, bull**** ideology on us. Maybe you're living in the wrong country.

Oh I can tell you and I are going to be bestest friends already!

Do tell which of the Ten Commandments is oh so horrible? Do not lie? Do not cheat? Do not steal? Do not murder? Which one is so much twisted bull**** and so on?

 

[Andy]

Secular law.

Yes. Yes. Yes.

Fortunately most reside in countries where the secular rule of law is more important then Biblical law.

Um... in the Roman empire, prior to Christ, women were views as nothing more than property by the 'secularist' of the day. It was Jesus and Paul who said a man should lay down his life for his wife.

In the Anglo-Saxon years, after the Dawinian view, black-Africans were thought to be lower species, that we white people had evolved to a higher being. This is why slavery of them was accepted by the secularist. It was the Christian people in our country that said according to God, all men are created equal, and fought for freedom of our African brothers.

The first health care institutions were made by people following the Biblical law that we should help our fellow man. Not secularists.

It was Christians believing God wanted us to study and learn about him and his world, that created institutions of higher learning. Not secularists.

So many things you know, and enjoy, and take for granted today, exist not because of secular law... but because of the Laws of God.

The very fact you have the right to vote, is a testimony of our founding fathers who didn't follow the secular laws of the day that said the King of England was ruler of our land. Rather, that our God was our King, and under him we have freedom from tyranny.

 

[Andy]

Marriage Colors

So changing the definition of marriage so it can mean "two men" or "two women" is equivalent to changing it to mean "a man and an animal."

Yeah, there's that famous Christian love and compassion.

I wonder when the so-called "liberal media" is going to start examining Huckabee's intolerant religious extremism?

If you say 'BLUE'... that is a color that everyone knows. But if you say blue doesn't always have to mean that particular color, that 'BLUE' could also mean orange... what you have done is removed the meaning from the word.

Now blue can mean anything because if you can change it, why can't I? Why can't someone else? Why can't everyone? Well I want 'BLUE' to be a light purple color too. Now 'blue' can mean anything... which means that it... really means nothing.

Marriage is a specific union of one man and one womans, joined for life. That is what marriage is. Just like Blue is a specific color. If you can change it... then it means nothing. Although I'm not a Huckster fan... I agree with him on this one.

Words and Institutions are not 'changeable'. They mean what they mean. It's like the Constitution. The Constitution doesn't change meaning over time... and if it did, why have it?

 

[Andy]

Where are they?

I already did: Fortunately most reside in countries where the secular rule of law is more important then Biblical law.

Just google Christian Reconstructionist/Dominionists. They aren't just some weird cult - some pretty prominant people subscribe to that view. And they don't treat their women very well either.

No. You did not. You failed to answer the question. Allow me to restate the question.

"Where do Christians kill women for failing to ware head coverings, or other people for not being Christian?"

This... "Fortunately most reside in countries where the secular rule of law is more important then Biblical law." is not an answer.

Please locate where "Christian Reconstructionist/Dominionists" are murdering people. I want both names and locations, as well as any evidence that Christian belief supports the actions.

 

[Segep]

Words and Institutions are not 'changeable'. They mean what they mean. It's like the Constitution. The Constitution doesn't change meaning over time... and if it did, why have it?

Words are most definitely 'changeable'. You have only to look at ancient poetry to see the truth of that. When the words change, so do the institutions they are built upon. The Constitution is a living document. It has amendments added and amendments stricken, and is interpreted differently by each succeeding generation. If it was as static and black and white as you say it is, we'd have no need for judges or the Supreme Court.

 

[Bunz]

Do tell which of the Ten Commandments is oh so horrible? Do not lie? Do not cheat? Do not steal? Do not murder? Which one is so much twisted bull**** and so on?

I think the ones concerning that if you dont believe that god is the almighty, respecting the sabbath, or believing in some other form of diety.

What bugs me about organized religion is the denouncement of other forms of worship. The notion that it is necessary for someone else to take on saving my soul by accepting Jesus and only Jesus or any other prophet, icon etc and my faith in entity X will ensure I go to the eternal kingdom when I do and thusly avoiding buring for eternity.

What happens to the people who chose or had chosen for them the wrong religious faith die?

 

[heyjude]

The people who are raised in other religions still know the 'truth' in their hearts. The Bible says so.

One of the best things about being a Christian is that you get to spend eternity watching the non-believers suffer. You can smirk and flaunt yourself in front of them. Neener, neener, neener. They are bad, you are good. Daddy loves you. Whoopie. Half the fun of being a Christian is that you are on the inside and everyone else is on the outside.

 

[Coyote]

No. You did not. You failed to answer the question. Allow me to restate the question.

"Where do Christians kill women for failing to ware head coverings, or other people for not being Christian?"

This... "Fortunately most reside in countries where the secular rule of law is more important then Biblical law." is not an answer.

Please locate where "Christian Reconstructionist/Dominionists" are murdering people. I want both names and locations, as well as any evidence that Christian belief supports the actions.

While they may not literally desire to kill women for not wearing head coverings they would be quite happy to kill women and other people for equally barbaric reasons - should they have the power which is the point I'm making. Those that do act upon their beliefs - Eric Rudolph for example, are punished by law. If they lived in a country where the dominant governing forces operated under religious law, you would see little difference from say, Iran.

Fortunately our political system and constitution prevents this the same way a secular system prevents extremist muslims from doing the same in those country that have that system. If they act out their beliefs, they face a court of law.

Their views on Capital Punishment

Epitomizing the Reconstructionist idea of Biblical "warfare" is the centrality of capital punishment under Biblical Law. Doctrinal leaders (notably Rushdoony, North, and Bahnsen) call for the death penalty for a wide range of crimes in addition to such contemporary capital crimes as rape, kidnapping, and murder. Death is also the punishment for apostasy (abandonment of the faith), heresy, blasphemy, witchcraft, astrology, adultery, "sodomy or homosexuality," incest, striking a parent, incorrigible juvenile delinquency, and, in the case of women, "unchastity before marriage."

According to Gary North, women who have abortions should be publicly executed, "along with those who advised them to abort their children." Rushdoony concludes: "God's government prevails, and His alternatives are clear-cut: either men and nations obey His laws, or God invokes the death penalty against them." Reconstructionists insist that "the death penalty is the maximum, not necessarily the mandatory penalty." However, such judgments may depend less on Biblical Principles than on which faction gains power in the theocratic republic. The potential for bloodthirsty episodes on the order of the Salem witchcraft trials or the Spanish Inquisition is inadvertently revealed by Reconstructionist theologian Rev. Ray Sutton, who claims that the Reconstructed Biblical theocracies would be "happy" places, to which people would flock because "capital punishment is one of the best evangelistic tools of a society."

The Biblically approved methods of execution include burning (at the stake for example), stoning, hanging, and "the sword." Gary North, the self-described economist of Reconstructionism, prefers stoning because, among other things, stones are cheap, plentiful, and convenient. Punishments for non-capital crimes generally involve whipping, restitution in the form of indentured servitude, or slavery. Prisons would likely be only temporary holding tanks, prior to imposition of the actual sentence.


Here is a sampling of some of their spoken or written views which are essentially no different then radical Islam:

Segregation or separation is thus a basic principle of Biblical law with respect to religion and morality. Every attempt to destroy this principle is an effort to reduce society to its lowest common denominator. Toleration is the excuse under which this levelling is undertaken, but the concept of toleration conceals a radical intolerance. In the name of toleration, the believer is asked to associate on a common level of total acceptance with the atheist, the pervert, the criminal, and the adherents of other religions as though no differences existed. -- R.J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (Nutley, NJ: Craig Press, 1973), p. 294.


It occurs to me: Was Moses arrogant and unbiblical when he instructed the Israelites to kill every Canaanite in the land (Deut. 7:2; 20:16-17)? Was he an "elitist" or (horror of horrors) a racist? No; he was a God-fearing man who sought to obey God, who commanded them to kill them all. It sounds like a "superior attitude" to me. Of course, Christians have been given no comparable military command in New Testament times, but I am trying to deal with the attitude of superiority--a superiority based on our possession of the law of God. That attitude is something Christians must have when dealing with all pagans. God has given us the tools of dominion. -- Gary North, The Sinai Strategy: Economics and the Ten Commandments (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1986), p. 214n.


The significance of Jesus Christ as the "faithful and true witness" is that He not only witnesses against those who are at war against God, but He also executes them. -- R.J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (Nutley, NJ: Craig Press, 1973), p. 574.