It's official, Huckabee is a crackpot.

[Pudding Time]

Actually, it has everything to do with religious knowledge. You can't be critical of something you know nothing about. Let's take for instance when someone says "don't use that word", but then they really don't know what the word means. On what basis do they stand upon for making that statement?

The same goes for religion. If you don't know something about it, then learn about it and then form your opinion...or, rethink your current opinion. There's no need to convert or anything, but at least you'll understand why certain religous people feel the way that they do. You may stay on your path, and that's fine. God gave us all free will, and that is part of free will.

And to go back in time, no, I didn't say he was in a different sect of Southern Baptist. I think I'm being mis-read...or, once again, my brain is working far faster than my fingers can type.

But I do know. You must have missed this post.

Not for me. Coming form a religious family, I grew up being taught about god and the bible. But as I got older, and more social, I started to experience lies and deception. This in turn made me a much more skeptical person. I stopped believing in anything that did not come with solid proof. My faith was the last thing to go as I did search long and hard for that proof.

 

[Pudding Time]

I just don't agree with someone aligning themselves with an organization without believing in everything the organization stands for.

In Huckabee's case, it's my opinion that he aligned himself with the largest Protestant dinomination in the US for political gains. To me, that makes more sense than someone aligning with an organization and they only believe in some of what the organization stands for, while there are other organizations out there that are more inline with they believe in.

 

[All Else Failed]

AEF, the US was very much founded on Christian morals and beliefs with the understanding that the two do need to stay in their corners. That was done to protect freedom of religion as much as keeping religion out of politics. But seriously, if religion and politics are are polar opposites, then why does the liberally-biased media always raise flags when talking about a candidates religion...wait, I mean about a Republican's religion. The only Democratic candidate that I've even heard been briefly brought up when it comes to religion is Obama because of the unfounded concern that he was a closet Muslim.

If a candidate wants to bring up religion, he/she does so at his/her own risk, but I in now way want to pass judgement on someone due to their religion or religious beliefs.

Please read a book on the Renaissance and the age of enlightenment and reevaluate that statement. The founding fathers were largely deists and unitarians, which basically means they might as well have not even been religious. Some would even be considered agnostics and atheists if you apply today's standards to them. I don't doubt some of them were, either, but if you wanted to keep your position in politics at that time, you had to profess at least some vague belief system. Our nation isn't founded on god.

Please read this for further proof, STRAIGHT from the horse's mouth:

The Treaty of Tripoli

Unlike most governments of the past, the American Founding Fathers set up a government divorced from any religion. Their establishment of a secular government did not require a reflection to themselves of its origin; they knew this as a ubiquitous unspoken given. However, as the United States delved into international affairs, few foreign nations knew about the intentions of the U.S. For this reason, an insight from at a little known but legal document written in the late 1700s explicitly reveals the secular nature of the U.S. goverenment to a foreign nation. Officially called the "Treaty of peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary," most refer to it as simply the Treaty of Tripoli. In Article 11, it states:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." [bold text, mine]

Click here to see the actual article 11 of the Treaty​

The preliminary treaty began with a signing on 4 November, 1796 (the end of George Washington's last term as president). Joel Barlow, the American diplomat served as counsel to Algiers and held responsibility for the treaty negotiations. Barlow had once served under Washington as a chaplain in the revolutionary army. He became good friends with Paine, Jefferson, and read Enlightenment literature. Later he abandoned Christian orthodoxy for rationalism and became an advocate of secular government. Joel Barlow wrote the original English version of the treaty, including Amendment 11. Barlow forwarded the treaty to U.S. legislators for approval in 1797. Timothy Pickering, the secretary of state, endorsed it and John Adams concurred (now during his presidency), sending the document on to the Senate. The Senate approved the treaty on June 7, 1797, and officially ratified by the Senate with John Adams signature on 10 June, 1797. All during this multi-review process, the wording of Article 11 never raised the slightest concern. The treaty even became public through its publication in The Philadelphia Gazette on 17 June 1797.
So here we have a clear admission by the United States in 1797 that our government did not found itself upon Christianity. Unlike the Declaration of Independence, this treaty represented U.S. law as all U.S. Treaties do (see the Constitution, Article VI, Sect.2: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.") [Bold text, mine]
Although the Treaty of Tripoli under agreement only lasted a few years and no longer has legal status, it clearly represented the feelings of our Founding Fathers at the beginning of the American government.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So in closing, to state that the US was in any way founded on any religion is clear and distinct lack of knowledge of who the founding fathers were, and their intentions for this nation. Stop listening to neo-conservatives.

 

[Pudding Time]

whoa! deja vu!

 

[All Else Failed]

But really, who actually believes America was intended to be "god's country"???? Thats pure and utter nonsense. Huckabee will drown himself if he sticks by this.

 

[hubersrj]

I just don't agree with someone aligning themselves with an organization without believing in everything the organization stands for.

In Huckabee's case, it's my opinion that he aligned himself with the largest Protestant dinomination in the US for political gains. To me, that makes more sense than someone aligning with an organization and they only believe in some of what the organization stands for, while there are other organizations out there that are more inline with they believe in.

Well, I don't think that he "aligned" himself with anyone. He is an Ordained Baptist Minister, so he had that going for him, not against him. Well, maybe it'll work out to be agaisnt him. We'll find out soon enough.

And I understand about losing your faith and searching for fact/proof. I was on that path myself during my divorce. I was constantly asking "how can something that supposedly had God's blessing be falling apart like this?"

But that's were free will comes back into play. And that's also when a "leap of faith" came into the mix. I found that Catholicism and I were not seeing eye-to-eye on many subjects. How they felt one thing was the correct thing to do, and yet it contradicts so many other doctrines. I'll get into specifics later and on a different thread.

Any-who, I think that losing your faith or searching for proof of divinity and not finding any, shouldn't be held against others that still have their faith.

I'm not saying that you're going out of way, in this instance, to bad-mouth anyone just because they claim to be religious or proclaim that God will influence their decisions. I'm just saying as you're looking for fact, fact that a falible human has created, then you too are taking a leap of faith in another human, and how is that more logical than looking to a divine being for influence?

 

[GraceAbounds]

I just don't agree with someone aligning themselves with an organization without believing in everything the organization stands for.

In Huckabee's case, it's my opinion that he aligned himself with the largest Protestant dinomination in the US for political gains. To me, that makes more sense than someone aligning with an organization and they only believe in some of what the organization stands for, while there are other organizations out there that are more inline with they believe in.

That is a pretty harsh thing to say about someone without any proof imo. He is a Minister and from his track record, I believe to be a 'good man'.

This site seems to be fan of Chuck Norris. LOL! Here is what he had to say:
WorldNetDaily: My choice for president

Also, I am afraid that you may have taken on my opinion as Huckabee's/his opinion. I can't speak for anyone other than myself and this is why I suggested you find out his stance on issues from his mouth rather than 'just' researching a 'sect of religion'.

Find out where he stands on issues as you would any candidate. To get in one's head, research their upbringing if possible and their spiritual background, but know that just because someone goes to church (and I'm not talking about Huckabee now) doesn't meant they are necessarily following Christ or adhering to the tenets of their said faith.

Spirituality is about walking a path and growing until the day you die and only God knows that true growth in a person, not another man. Basically, what I'm saying is that your research will prove to be best spent looking up a candidate's stance on the issues rather than their spiritual walk.

I've probably repeated myself here. Sorry for that if I did.

 

[AtlanticBlue99]

huckabe is a mess. -1 for him

romney is a fair guy. he explains his views thoroughly, and he has answers to every question. he understands critics of his record, but he also explains himself in a cordial and professional way. he fits the profile of a non-baby-faced, tall (6'2''), and prominent leader. he will most likely be the republican nominee. however -1 for him, too.

mccain is a great guy. he is the oldest ever potential nominee (at 71). he has a strong military background - some may argue this positive in our time. i disagree. -1 for him.

giuliani is a nice guy but stands as much a chance as fred thompson (who btw is 6'6''). he was a mayor, and executive, and stands a better chance - historically - than mccain solely b/c executives such as governors, mayors, etc. win more executive slots than do senators such as mccain.

ron paul is a great guy. he is very educated on economic grounds, and has the support of mad money's jim cramer 100%. hell, even sean hannity likes paul for everything minus his foreign policy - which happens to be to withdraw all troops from all overseas stations, defend our border, withdraw from iraq, and this will leave open funding to abolish the irs and the federal income tax. he will replace that with nothing, because bringing the troops home will cut the budget to yr 2000 levels, and mathematically, we would no longer need an irs. he has many other great propositions. +1 for ron paul.

-1 for the democrats.

 

[Peter Parka]

In that test which was put up, I agree most with John Edwards and less with Huckabee apparently.

 

[dt3]

ron paul is a great guy. he is very educated on economic grounds, and has the support of mad money's jim cramer 100%. hell, even sean hannity likes paul for everything minus his foreign policy - which happens to be to withdraw all troops from all overseas stations, defend our border, withdraw from iraq, and this will leave open funding to abolish the irs and the federal income tax. he will replace that with nothing, because bringing the troops home will cut the budget to yr 2000 levels, and mathematically, we would no longer need an irs. he has many other great propositions. +1 for ron paul.

I can't possibly disagree more with that. Our troops are in Japan/Korea/Germany/Spain etc for a reason. Quick reaction and deterrence. A necessary evil imo.

 

[gLing]

In that test which was put up, I agree most with John Edwards and less with Huckabee apparently.

But Edwards is a snake.

 

[GraceAbounds]

In that test which was put up, I agree most with John Edwards and less with Huckabee apparently.

I don't agree with John Edwards stance on probably 50% or more of the issues, but he seems like a 'good man' as well.

 

[GraceAbounds]

But Edwards is a snake.

What do you know that I don't? Do share.

 

[debbie t]

In that test which was put up, I agree most with John Edwards and less with Huckabee apparently.

oh pete i got john edwards too:24:

 

[gLing]

What do you know that I don't? Do share.

He is a filthy rich chump who claims to be for the poor. It's easy to be for the poor folks while you get $500 haircuts and have a giant mansion.

 

[GraceAbounds]

He is a filthy rich chump who claims to be for the poor. It's easy to be for the poor folks while you get $500 haircuts and have a giant mansion.

So if you enjoy financial prosperity, you can't be active in helping poor people? Maybe I am misunderstanding you.

I'll agree that $500 for a haircut is excessive imo.

 

[All Else Failed]

He is a filthy rich chump who claims to be for the poor. It's easy to be for the poor folks while you get $500 haircuts and have a giant mansion.

thats all the candidates.

 

[gLing]

So if you enjoy financial prosperity, you can't be active in helping poor people? Maybe I am misunderstanding you.

I'll agree that $500 for a haircut is excessive imo.

Did I mention he is a lawyer? That makes him a snake by default.

 

[gLing]

thats all the candidates.

Good point.

 

[All Else Failed]

If you want less rich people in office, a good way of making it possible for more normal people to run would be drastically changing the way money is used in elections and campaigns.