By in Politics

Mike Huckabee Continues With The Pandering Religious Nonsense

Mike Huckabee, who has said that he will make an announcement regarding possibly running for president in 2016, continues with his pandering to the hardcore religious right. This time, he's telling parents to discourage their kids from joining the military, so long as Barack Obama is president. Because, according to Huckabee, Obama's policies are hostile to Christians in the military. You know, because of that whole constitutional thing that aims to prevent an established religion in the military. It becomes attacking in Huckabee's mind (and a lot of religious extremists) when their religion is not allowed to dominate over everybody else's (or atheists for that matter.)

It's all part of Huckabee's crusade against the "secular theocracy" that has permeated American government. Even though that in itself is a contradiction. If a government is secular, it exists apart from an established religion, whereas a theocracy is government which incorporates religious belief as its foundation. However, Huckabee is obviously not inclined in the direction of actually thinking about what he says.

Image Credit » by VinnyCiro

You will need an account to comment - feel free to register or login.


Soonerdad3 wrote on April 18, 2015, 9:35 PM

Well, just like you, he is speaking his opinion and why is your opinion right and his opinion wrong?

SoundNFury wrote on April 18, 2015, 9:36 PM

I think I was pretty clear on why I think he is wrong. People can either agree or disagree with me.

morilla wrote on April 19, 2015, 7:10 AM

Bear in mind that I am not necessarily a 'fan' of Huckabee, but...

"Secular theocracy" is not a 'contradiction' if you think that 'secularism' is it's own 'religion;' something that one COULD (and some have in Court) make a reasonable argument for simply based on the language used in Supreme Court decisions regarding what is or is not a 'religion' or the equivalent. It also denotes the 'zealousness' that many secularists adhere to in their descriptions of non-secularists or 'attacks' they launch when it comes to their perception(s) of the 'religious.' There's also the fact that Huckabee is an ordained, Southern Baptist minister, which is, supposedly, the largest Protestant denomination and the second largest (behind the Catholic Church) in the U.S.

Remember, the 1st Amendment doesn't JUST prohibit the State from establishing a religion, it also prevents the State from interfering with the FREE PRACTICE thereof. That is the part he is speaking to; i.e., Government actions infringing upon the right to freely practice your religion short of disrupting unit cohesion, endangering lives, etc. Where the 'debate' is stems from how one defines the 'establishment' and what constitutes the 'free practice' of a religion. It's an ongoing debate surrounding many aspects of society today and not simply the 'military.'

In that sense, an ordained minister is very likely to have a much different sense of the issue than a secularist or secular-humanist. So would his congregation (by and large) as well as, in this case, many of his voters; particularly since Southern Baptist is, in some respects, a 'fundamentalist' interpretation - though there is some 'disagreement' in that regard given they have a membership of approximately 16 million. That means he and several million others tend to perceive it as an infringement on the right to practice freely and, in many respects, an effort to establish a 'religion' of secularist ideals.

Thus, it's not so much 'pandering' as simply 'making a statement' of a perception shared by MILLIONS of people in this country; even those who agree that no, single 'religion' should dominate. Remember, a 'religion' is based in a deductive premise or assumption and EVERYTHING you 'see' or 'interpret' has to agree with that assumption/premise. Therefore, if you express the concepts that he is pandering, that the Government operates entirely separate from 'religion' (not just an 'established' one), and that he's 'not thinking,' perhaps those are indications of your own premises/assumptions and not necessarily reflective of Huckabee himself.

Last Edited: April 19, 2015, 7:11 AM

JohnRoberts wrote on April 19, 2015, 11:25 AM

Oh please say Huckabee isn't going to announce another pointless run. As I have said before he seems a nice man but please contain himself to being a commentator. I don't get how Obama's policies are hostile to Christians in the military. What he has banned Christians from serving or practicing faith? The military pretty much runs itself regardless of who the president is and provides for whatever religious practice. Huckabee is a fool for discouraging those from joining the military just because Obama is president as that's offensive even to conservatives.

seren3 wrote on April 19, 2015, 12:47 PM

So now there is a choice between him and Donald Trump...I'm curious see what the rest of the line up will be.

SoundNFury wrote on April 19, 2015, 5:45 PM

Oh, lord help us! lol

SoundNFury wrote on April 19, 2015, 5:51 PM

So, a person whose mind has been freed from the delusions and constraints of religion, actually has a religion, in your mind? That makes no sense. That's like when people say that atheists have their own religion in a sense - being science and deductive reasoning. True, they might act just as annoying as religious fundamentalists, but I don't consider them "religious." It is pandering to the religious right and Obama haters. And when called on it, people like Huckabee will whine and cry that they are being "persecuted" just because people want an inclusive society, not just a Christian one.

SoundNFury wrote on April 19, 2015, 5:52 PM

I think he's just trying to milk the anti-Obama sentiment of the far right. Sounds kinda desperate for attention.

morilla wrote on April 19, 2015, 9:13 PM

Your comment is exactly my point. You aren't making a factual argument. You are spouting your beliefs; i.e., your assumptions and premises.

Religion is constraining and delusional. Religious fundamentalists are annoying. Atheism is based on science and deductive reasoning. "People" like Huckabee whine and cry about being persecuted. People want an 'inclusive' society, not a Christian one. Etc.

Each one of those assertions can be taken apart easily and historically as not necessarily, ahem, 'accurate' in their presentation. Likewise, they are proffered as invective, not 'fact' or argument. Thus, what you are presenting are indications of your own premises/assumptions and not something which is necessarily reflective or a critique of Huckabee. You even fail to notice that I noted there are Supreme Court decisions as to what constitutes a 'religion' or the equivalent thereof; asserting that, instead, the thought is in "my mind." I assure you, legal scholars have been arguing the issue from long before I gave it much thought.

You have a right to your opinion. What you don't have a right to is the citation of your perceptions/opinions as "the facts." In that sense, what you present is not only a straw man (without actually 'arguing' your case), but one which is ridiculously ignorant of the actual facts. As I said, I'm not a fan of Huckabee, especially as a Presidential candidate. What you have is a series of erroneous perceptions, prejudices, and, like it or not, ignorance in many respects. I believe that is what Soonerdad was pointing out in a more perfunctory guise.

Undoubtedly, you will find sympathizers and even supporters for your opinion. Understand, however, that some pretty bright people understand the opinions and views being presented by Huckabee as well. If you do not share their point of view, that's fine. However, it does not make them idiots, delusional, wrong, or even religious fundamentalists who do not 'think.' They simply have a different set of assumptions/premises which are, in many ways, more 'fact based' than what you have presented here or that you'd personally care to accept/believe.

Last Edited: April 19, 2015, 9:16 PM

Telynor wrote on April 20, 2015, 1:20 AM

This whole mess with the religious right just makes me ill. It's a very dangerous slope to start down, and once we get going on it, I fear that our country will completely go to the dogs. Bad enough that the ultra-rich have bought Congress, and has no intention of letting go, but this --! No. Just no.

SoundNFury wrote on April 20, 2015, 3:53 AM

What facts am I ignoring? I am stating my opinion, first of all. My point is that there is a difference between people having religious convictions, based in faith, and beliefs that are based ON FACT or the best known hypotheses around. Are scientists religious because they believe what they observe? By your "logic" they would be considered religious. Which is nonsense. And that is a fact. Huckabee is a fundamentalist panderer, and what he would have done to this country is un-American.

Last Edited: April 20, 2015, 3:56 AM

SoundNFury wrote on April 20, 2015, 3:55 AM

The Republican party of current days is far different from what they once were. It is disappointing how much the party has been taken over by fundamentalists.

morilla wrote on April 20, 2015, 1:55 PM

Again, it's not "MY" logic. You have an opinion; but, it's not based ON FACT so much as... other things. I'm not going to continue discussing it based on you simply spitting invective rather than presenting a reasoned, factual argument since, clearly, no matter how many 'facts' and how much 'reason' I put out there, you will twist it as something you will refuse to accept. By the way, so that you know, I do work in the sciences, so I have a fairly decent idea of what I'm saying. Since you have declared that one is free to disagree with you, we will have to, at this point, agree to disagree. However, as a suggestion, you might want to spend some time actually looking into the history behind what you declare is "mine," "nonsense," etc. You might also want to spend some time noting what a 'fact' is in science vs. how it is defined in the dictionary, the difference between deduction and induction, and come to grips with your own view of 'religion' and how it appears to be influencing your... 'opinion.' Good luck to ya. emoticon :smile:

morilla wrote on April 20, 2015, 2:04 PM

By the way, THAT we can agree on. Of course, it is also true that the Democrat Party is currently FAR different from what it once was as well. It is disappointing how much that party has been taken over by... Well, let's just say it's different rather than casting aspersions.

SoundNFury wrote on April 20, 2015, 2:36 PM

You have a very interesting way of saying a lot of things, without actually saying very much.

SoundNFury wrote on April 20, 2015, 2:38 PM

Yes, but I don't agree with the "both parties are bad" mentality that a lot of cynics embrace. I think that while both parties might have their issues and corruptions, the Republican party has clearly gone off the rails in recent decades.

Telynor wrote on April 22, 2015, 3:11 AM

I trust neither of the big parties. There's too much big money involved with them, and while I do have liberal leanings, and probably am technically a socialist a la Bernie Sanders, I feel that our government needs a serious overhaul. Establish term limits for both the Senate and House -- no more than three terms in Congress, especially the Senate. And get big money out of politics. Not to mention limiting the election season to no more than, say, a month before primaries. But yes, the Republicans have dragged this country down into the mire, with the religious fanatics leading the way, and it has to stop.

SoundNFury wrote on April 22, 2015, 3:30 AM

Could not agree more. Actually, we probably are on the same wavelength with a lot of issues.