Huckabee Thinks Women Should "Graciously Submit" to Their Husbands

[Poiuyt]

"In August of 1998, Huckabee was one of 131 signatories to a full page USA Today Ad which declared: "I affirm the statement on the family issued by the 1998 Southern Baptist Convention." What was in the family statement from the SBC? "A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ."

The ad wasn't just a blanket, "we support the SBC statement," but rather highlighted details. The ad Huckabee signed specifically said of the SBC family statement: "You are right because you called wives to graciously submit to their husband's sacrificial leadership."

==

I guess people just won't fall in line with someone who wants to isolate AIDS patients, thinks abortion is on par with the Holocaust, is unaware of blockbuster intel, and believes in faith-based parole of convicted rapists.

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/70374/#more

[sakabatou]

1. Barefoot and pregnant, right Huckster?

[struggle4progress]

74. No matter how many rapists have to be pardoned!

[Deep13]

2. standard fundy point of view

[Kurovski]

72. Sounds pretty S & M to me.

What they need is the leather items and a Safe Word to know when to cut the bullshit.

[katty]

92. ha! yeah it does - lots of fetish and ritual...hmmmmm

[Kurovski]

95. Strict role-playing, dominance...the whole shebang.

They really should come out of the closet and face it.

[Le Taz Hot]

3. Then he's toast with Republican women

in California and, my guess, New York as well. California's female Republicans may be Republicans but they'll jump the shark if the Republican candidate is anti-choice/anti-woman.

[in_cog_ni_to]

And THIS woman thinks Huckabee should graciously

shove his dumb ass beliefs up his ass instead of down my throat.:grr:

[Iris]

25. well said. n/t

[DFW]

51. And this man agrees with you 100%!!

[hisownpetard]

4. And you say this was in 1898...Oh, wait - 1998?? Nine years ago?! Wow, gals -

don'cha really envy this guy's wife?

[LeftyMom]

5. LeftyMom thinks Huckabee should "graciously submit" to a pleather boot to the teeth.

Misogynist god bothering asshole. :grr: Fuck him and the idiots who think his opinion matters.

[NewJeffCT]

61. Did you get your man's permission to say that?

:hide:

just kidding, of course.

[LeftyMom]

65. No. He'd probably just tell me again how "you're really hawt when you're angry."

Needless to say, that makes arguments really frustrating.

[renate]

6. buh-bye, soccer mom vote

When I heard this the other day, I thought this would be even worse for him than his (old though not recanted) statements about people with AIDS.

:nopity:

[marylanddem]

7. What a blazing a**hole this guy is - figures that he's

leading the pack of blazing a**holes.

[donsu]

8. Huckabee is a weed

hoe him under

[Orrex]

9. Finally, a sentiment we can all get behind!

:sarcasm:

How does he expect to win, if in his worldview women wouldn't be allowed to vote?

Or do their husbands' votes for him simply count twice?

[TwilightGardener]

10. Does anyone else think it's highly inappropriate for a sitting governor

to attach his name to a nationwide public statement of religious doctrine? Does this man have ANY ability to separate his political role from his religious practices? Scary, scary man.

[Orrex]

14. Without the crazed beliefs of his fundy supporters, he's got nothing to campaign on

And, with their support, he looks like a primitive, regressive asshole.

You gotta feel sorry for Huckabee, caught between anachronistic and modern irrelevance!

[gatorboy]

11. I Graciously Submit

that my wife would have none of that. :P

[China_cat]

41. I graciously submit

that the husband I had who was like that is no longer counted among the living.

[TahitiNut]

119. My ex-wife was busy "graciously submitting" to other husbands

... also to the chagrin of their wives.

:shrug:

[blondeatlast]

12. Then maybe Ms. McCain ought to stay home and do the cooking and cleaning.

Seems as First Lady she had a pretty active volunteer life...

On May 25, 1974 Janet McCain married Mike Huckabee, her high school sweetheart. Their three children complete their family. Janet Huckabee was born in Lake Charles, Louisiana and moved to Hope, Arkansas as an infant. It was in Hope that she grew up and graduated high school. She went on to attend college at the Ouachita Baptist University.

Prior to becoming First Lady of Arkansas she was involved with the Texarkana, Arkansas Parent Teacher Association, even serving two terms as its president. She also was active in the Beech Street First Baptist Church and with the ACTS-TV station. She has worked for the Texarkana Public Schools as a substitute teacher, for the St. Michael Hospital, and as a pharmacist's assistant.

As First Lady she often honors speaking requests from all over the state. She is an active Co-Chair for the Campaign for Healthier Babies in Arkansas. She is a member of the Friends of the Zoo and the Central Arkansas Chapter of the American Red Cross. She serves as a member of many boards including the Baptist Health Foundation, the Arkansas Hospice Foundation, Arkansas State Baptist Convention Executive Board, and co-chairs the Red Ribbon Week for the Arkansans for Drug-Free Youth program.

Janet Huckabee is an alumnus of the Little Rock Citizens Police Academy. In 1996 she served as honorary chair of the Arkansas Lung Association Clean Air Race and the Committee of 100. For her involvement with the Florence Crittenden Home she was named the 1997 Florence Crittenden Woman of the Year. After the March 1, 1997 tornadoes devastated parts of the state she chaired the Arkansas Red Cross Disaster Relief Campaign.

Get thee's gluteus maximus back in the kitchen, Janet!

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=&imgrefurl=http://www.oldstatehouse.com/collections/first-ladies-gowns/gowns/huckabee/bio.asp&h=266&w=186&sz=20&hl=en&start=2&um=1&tbnid=nHF50Z4bMJ1KJM:&tbnh=113&tbnw=79&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dhuckabee%2Bwife%26svnum%3D10%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26rls%3Dcom.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox%26rlz%3D1I7GGLH

[regularguy]

13. Regularguy thinks Huckabee should "Graciously read a book"

and maybe try some thinkin'.

[Ilsa]

15. Submit what? Request for involuntary commitment to the judge? nt

[DemGa]

16. I think it's good the religious nuts are rising to the surface

at the highest levels of American discourse. Beliefs such as this should be brought out into the open where they can be dealt with; and not left semi-hidden where they continue to fester.

I say expose religious thought to the light of day!!

[cgrindley]

17. unless he recants, I don't see a problem

all of those positions are completely defensible by his particular take on faith. And he wanted to isolate AIDS patients a long time ago... I don't think he still wants to do that.

And realistically, shouldn't a religious person who literally interprets the bible want a woman to be subservient to a man and hate homosexuals? it's pretty clear in the bible--if you're someone who favors a literal interpretation that is. Same goes for abortion... a soul is a soul... and there's some pretty compelling quotations that talk about God knowing someone while they were still in the womb.

Their points make sense and are internally consistent. They're just dumb and based on made up crap.

[Orrex]

18. Well then

He'd damn well better not eat any shellfish, and he better not have any contact with women while those filthy godless creatures are menstruating.

What if their cycles overlap election day? Will he allow their unclean votes to be tallied?

[cgrindley]

20. Ahh yes... the problem with a literal interpretation

unless it's specifically addressed by Jesus... eg Christian fundies are allowed shellfish because Jesus specifically addressed Kosher foods, dismissing the restrictions entirely with a sweep of his hand... but I don't think he said anything about cotton-poly blends, so that ban should still be in effect.

[Orrex]

33. Random (off topic) question for you

Have you by any chance read Cormac McCarthy's All the Pretty Horses recently?

[cgrindley]

37. No.. sorry

but I did just send an article off for peer review on The Road as Christian eschatological fiction. In my reading, The Road is sort of a really clever and negative version of those god awful Left Behind books.

[Orrex]

38. Cool!

If it sees publication, and if you think of it, please PM me--I'd love to read it.

The phrase "dismissing... with a sweep of his hand" is strongly reminiscent of a particular passage in All the Pretty Horses. I mean, I'm sure that the phrase comes up in lots of places, but it struck a chord for me.

[TwilightGardener]

26. He DEFENDED his AIDS isolation statement--perhaps you are not aware of this?

He's a fucking Republican Neanderthal--why defend him?

[cgrindley]

32. I thought he said that his opinion reflected the time at which

he said it... and that he wasn't going to take that back because he really did think that isolation was the best policy at that time.

I'm not defending him. I think religion is retarded. I'm merely pointing out that his positions are entirely consistent and ethically agreeable if one favors a fundamental Christianity coupled with a literal interpretation of those parts of the OT that Christ didn't specifically over rule.

[TwilightGardener]

39. Many, many educated Christians in 1992 knew how AIDS was spread.

Either Fuckabee was SO ignorant and out of touch that he truly didn't know, which is frightening for a guy running for Senate (and a year later, Lt. Governor), or he knew how AIDS was spread but was evil enough to use the excuse of disease to tap into the fear, ignorance, and homophobia of his fundie Arkansas followers. He is another Falwell to me--just as awful, just as likely to burn in hell.

[cgrindley]

43. Actually, no one is very likely to burn in hell

due to the overwhelming non-existence of satan, his minions and their special little summer camp.

I think that you're over-estimating HIV/AIDS knowledge in 1992. I think that there was still an awful lot of intolerance and ignorance. It would have made more sense if Fuckabee had been talking crack somewhere around 1986-88, but I'm sure if someone does some digging they can probably find way kookier and more offensive stuff from him on HIV/AIDS.

[LeftyMom]

121. No, everybody who was paying any attention knew how AIDS was spread by '92.

At least in the first world. We could make some excuses for Huckabee if he lived in a mud hut or something, but he certainly did not.

I knew and I was ELEVEN YEARS OLD.

Please don't make excuses for Huckabee's willful ignorance.

[theredpen]

123. It didn't even take that much attention

I know that in 1992 there were feverish efforts in the Christian Nationalist camp to keep AIDS as a "boogyman" to scare the public and demonize homosexuals. Only those people dedicated to living in that particular ideological bubble didn't know better.

LeftyMom nailed it: Huckabee said these things because he was repeating the propaganda that worked on his "base," not because contrary information wasn't readily available.

Huckabee can certainly be charming. I thought his Chuck Norris commercial was really funny and cool. Nevertheless, there is plenty of evidence — direct and indirect — that paints Huckabee as a cynical showman.

[Ignis]

87. No, he's still an idiot, a bigot, and a fear-monger.

Here's a link to Huckabee's recent defense of his earlier bigotry:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071209/ap_on_el_pr/huckabee

"Huckabee acknowledged the prevailing scientific view then, and since, that the virus that causes AIDS is not spread through casual contact, but said that was not certain. He cited revelations in 1991 that a dentist had infected a patient in an extraordinary case that highlighted the risk of infection through contact with blood or bodily fluids.

"I still believe this today," he said in a broadcast interview, that "we were acting more out of political correctness" in responding to the AIDS crisis. "I don't run from it, I don't recant it," he said of his position in 1992. Yet he said he would state his view differently in retrospect.

Huckabee, as a Senate candidate that year, told The Associated Press that "we need to take steps that would isolate the carriers of this plague" if the federal government was going to deal with the spread of the disease effectively. "It is the first time in the history of civilization in which the carriers of a genuine plague have not been isolated from the general population, and in which this deadly disease for which there is no cure is being treated as a civil rights issue instead of the true health crisis it represents," he said then."

[seabeyond]

117. their point does NOT make sense, though can validate thru their faith. slavery ok too

then. and the rape and mutilation and murder of women. there are places in old testament suggesting permissible or penalty like or none. also the marry off a woman not thru her choice, but situation. loss of all female right. so if he or you validate a piece, must insist on the whole.

[CatWoman]

19. I think Huckabee

should graciously kiss my black ass.

[liberalhistorian]

21. Well, THIS newly married wife would be

happy to tell him what HE can "graciously submit" to, after sending him back to 1898, where his ignorant, neanderthal ass belongs. Hell, make that 1698!

[Acadia Blue]

22. All the rep candidates with 2 exceptions are totally crazy

[NewJeffCT]

62. ok, I give up, who are the two sane ones?

my guess: Grandpa Fred and John "Gay Sweater" McCain?

[in_cog_ni_to]

128. LOL! I was hoping someone would ask that question. I've been wracking my brain trying to figure out

which 2 repukes are sane.:rofl:

[Vinca]

23. Wow - talk about stone age thinking.

Even Republican women will be offended by that one.

[SoCalDem]

24. Ohhhhhh, Huck (swoons)

[China_cat]

42. Stone those individuals in the burqas

if they are women...no skin is allowed to show but one has a full hand showing and other doesn't have all her fingers covered.

:sarcasm: (if it's actually needed)

[truebrit71]

27. He's more than welcome to try and tell my wife that...Me? Not a chance...

...she'd kick me square in the nuts...and rightfully so...

What a fucking nutjob Huckleberry is...

[havocmom]

28. Is he fine with husbands hitting wives, so long as stick isn't bigger than their

thumbs?

bush has lowered the bar so far any half baked control freak thinks they can be king.

Bite me, Huckster.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

127. The "rule of thumb" comes from English law.

A man could not beat his wife with a stick bigger around than his thumb.

It's true.

Spanish law, like we have in Texas, is a LOT better for women! We have community property, where the woman can buy and sell property in her old name. That's been the law here since 1836. There are several other community property states and they are all in the West.

[Arkansas Granny]

29. This was apparently the statement that caused Jimmy Carter

to leave the Southern Baptist Convention.

--------------------
Some of the group's positions, including recent decisions barring women pastors and declaring that wives should "submit graciously" to their husbands, "violate the basic premises of my Christian faith," Carter wrote.

http://edition.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/10/20/carter.baptists.ap/

[Iris]

31. I love that man. n/t

[Orsino]

30. Youthful indiscretion. n/t

[madokie]

34. I don't think my wife would take too kindly to being told to 'submit'

hell we do it for the fun of it :rofl:

[Marrah_G]

35. Huckabee can go F himself

I pity his wife and daughters (if he has any)

[shain from kane]

36. Gosh, I'm betting that he doesn't reciprocate.

[Quantess]

63. And I'm betting he has to go to a prostitute to get what he needs.

;-)

[RiverStone]

40. add this to his comments back then about...

How he wanted to put folks with HIV in isolation.

Keep a list folks.

Great fodder if this wacko flat earther ever makes it as the puke nominee.

[Goblinmonger]

44. So where are all the people coming in here to say

that you all should stop bashing Christians? Where are the people talking about how this type of hatred is a bad thing?

OR, is it that those posts only count when atheists say something bad about religion.

Unbelievable.

[theredpen]

46. Where is there any "Christian bashing" here?

The OP points out a specific, published position by a specific, self-identified groups. It doesn't — as is popular here — make sweeping (negative) generalizations and apply them to "Christians" or any other undifferentiated and notably heterogeneous group.

Was this logic lost on you? I could try restating in with smaller words.

[Goblinmonger]

48. Not surprising you would come forth with this view

His views of the role of women in marriages is a direct result of his religious views and, specifically, his Christianity. I understand it is not the same "Christianity" as more progressive sects, but it is Christianity. Those views are NOT being respected as is apparently the desire of you and others on previous threads about another Christian woman who was questioned about HER view of Christianity that would allow he to think that god spared her while allowing others to be killed. Either all views are to be respected or they are not. Perhaps it would be easier for us secular progressive atheists if those of you that have self-appointed yourself the protectors of all that is really Christian would come up with a list of what can and cannot be questioned. Because apparently questioning a right-wing nutbag of a woman who belongs to the Haggard church and her twisted view of god's choices for salvation is not OK but Huckabee isn't off limits nor his (rather popular I might add) views about the role of women.

And stop with the "smaller words" bullshit. I know you have a tendancy to lean toward the ad hom as your main source of argument, but, seriously, piss off if that is your only method of attack. I haven't called you an ignorant fuck so I don't understand why you need to go down that path.

[Marrah_G]

49. Sigh

Goblin- This goes down the same line as those who think it is wrong to criticize extremists in another religion for their treatment of women. It is political correctness taken to the extreme.

Extremists in any religion need to be called to the carpet when their views are off the chart. They need to know that harming or subjugating any group in the name of their religion will not be tolerated.

People need to stop being so afraid of offending the liberals and moderates of a group. Trust me, those moderates and liberals don't like the extremists either and sure as hell don't like it when their behavior reflects on the whole religion in a very bad way.

[Goblinmonger]

50. Marrah, you have to understand my point, don't you.

Why can we go after Huckabee without reproach for his religous beliefs, but THE SAME PEOPLE that are doing that will jump down my throat when I say anything about the religious beliefs of the religious nutbag security woman. Why are HER religious beliefs off the table for discussion? Why is it OK to talk about Mormons being cult members, but god forbid if I make the same comment about other Christians? Why is it OK to say that Scientologists are deluded idiots but if I make the same comment about Christians, I am a christian basher.

This is just the latest episode in "it's OK to bash this guy but keep your damn mitts off of me." Pisses me off, is illogical, and is hypocritical.

[Marrah_G]

52. I do understand your point

But I will say that you should not judge all actions by someones faith. if their faith tells them "it's okay to rape women" then I would jump all over it. But at the same time I can't take away something good or excuse something bad just because I don't like their religion.

I have to go for now. My DSL doesn't get turned on until Friday (they are SO NOT making a good first impression) so I can only post from work.

We can continue tommorrow or send me a PM :) TTFN !

I'm going to attempt to get the old dialup going if I can re-install the regular modem on the pos old dell I borrowed from work. If so, I'll talk to you later and hopefully get my thoughts together on the topic.

Bleh.....religious strife....it's so much easier to just hate Goblins! (insert cool LOTR music here)

[Dorian Gray]

71. It's not the criticism of her

religious beliefs that's the problem, Goblinmonger. And since you are very intelligent, you should know that. It's calling her a hypocrite. Saying (disingenuously, I am sure) that we should be more fearful of her than the nutbag that started the indiscriminate killing is also offensive. Saying that what she did was wrong. She should have not defended the congregation.

All those things are infuriating. Not because her BELIEFS are above reproach, but because it shows such a complete and utter loathing for Christians. Seriously, it comes across as though people would have been happier if many died.

[Goblinmonger]

73. Where have I said that?

She was doing her job. Somewhat poorly possibly from some things I have read but that is another issue. I have no problem with Christians killing someone in self defense (though some Christian sects would, I believe). I never said we should be MORE fearful of her. The guy that did the killing was clearly dealing with a lot of problems and had to be stopped when he did what he did. But for this woman, a member of the Haggard community, saying that god stepped in to save her (and, logically, let others die without stepping in for them) is crazy shit.

I don't loathe Christians as a whole. I think many of them are seriously screwed up and need to be feared politically. Some need to be feared a little more on the physically side, though I grant they are extremists and limited in number.

People on DU are screeching about Huckabee's view of women. This guard is just as nutso about religion as Huckabee or moreso. Is that bad of me to say? I don't think so. But those that don't want me to say that about her feel free to call Huckabee a nutso. Why the double standard?

I don't have any problems with you. To me you are the portrait (as an English teacher, I've been waiting to say that to you for some time) of the theist I wish most were. I don't think I say that all Christians are nutbags when I say this woman is a nutbag; why do other Christians on here think that's what I'm saying?

[Dorian Gray]

101. You haven't said that...

I wasn't taking YOU to task for saying that. But, others have, and I think that's what many DU Christians ARE reacting to. And I realize that most people aren't saying those things, but we have negative reactions to threads started about that, and then negative reactions to our negative reactions. And it's become a whole big quagmire of negativity, blame, and anger.

I agree with everything else you are saying here , though. And I have never had a problem with you, either. I think you are very intelligent. I guess that the cumulative effect of all these threads is getting to me a little bit.

I don't agree with your assessment of what she said, but I can agree to disagree with you on that. (My take on anybody thanking God or saying He was the one to save them is usually done out of humility rather than hubris. It shows how powerless they are rather than how important they are. But, I can understand why people may interpret that differently.)

And thank you for your compliment. It's very nice of your to say, and I loved the pun, too! :)

[Goblinmonger]

114. I got you now.

And I think the different interpretations of hubris vs humility is a good way of wording the differences.

[Dorian Gray]

118. Thanks!

And a little 12 hour break from DU did a lot to make me a much happier and harmonious poster! :)

[theredpen]

67. Nice try

His views of the role of women in marriages is a direct result of his religious views and, specifically, his Christianity.

Look up the work "hermeneutic." All Christians have the same Bible, but the SBC has their own hermeneutic and they can answer for it specifically.

You're clumsy attempts to lump all believers into a tiny little box are pathetic.

[Goblinmonger]

68. The point is, in case you missed it,

that I AM NOT LUMPTING THEM ALL IN ONE BOX. But either religious views have to be answered for or they don't. You can't decide that your views, being rational and all, don't have to be answered for but Huckabee's do.

And you do realize that the evil SBC is saying the same thing about you and your poor interpretation of the bible.

My point is, and has always been, why is it OK to discuss some people's religious views but not all. If you can say something about him, why can't people question YOUR interpretations.

And nice try with "hermeneutics." Are you telling me that the progressive Christians don't have their own "hermeneutic"? Way to redefine that word.

[theredpen]

69. Answer to whom?

You can't decide that your views, being rational and all, don't have to be answered for but Huckabee's do.

I will answer for my religious view to people who understand them. You're not one of those people. Thanks for playing, though.

My point is, and has always been, why is it OK to discuss some people's religious views but not all. If you can say something about him, why can't people question YOUR interpretations.

Well, why is it OK for Chris Rock to use the n-word but Michael Richards can't?

Hmmmm.... why why why?

Are you telling me that the progressive Christians don't have their own "hermeneutic"?

Of course they do. Are you... recovering from a head injury or something? I'm trying to be understanding here, GM.

[Goblinmonger]

70. To anyone, obviously

So why does Huckabee have to answer to you or anyone on DU? Why do we even have the right to discuss it? We do not understand his views so certainly you fit into your own example as it relates to Huckabee, so I expect you will no longer discuss his views.

So only Christians can talk about Christians, is that seriously your point? And come on, you are resorting to a reclamation of a word that was used to oppress as even being close to equal to the situation for Christians in this country? Seriously? Calling someone a nigger is comprable to saying something even remotely negative about Christianity? You might want to get off that cross, Jesus needs more room than that. Unbelieveable the persecution complex you seem to have.

My point was, since it wasn't clear, is that progressive Christians, having their own hermeneutic, don't lay claim to what is and what isn't Christian any more than SBC so you just stop deriding them since you could be wrong.

And, again, stop with the ad homs. Head injury? How Christ-like of you. Why do you continue to stoop to that logical fallacy when I have done nothing similar to you?

[theredpen]

89. Mike Huckabee is my personal savior

My point was, since it wasn't clear, is that progressive Christians, having their own hermeneutic, don't lay claim to what is and what isn't Christian any more than SBC so you just stop deriding them since you could be wrong.

That's actually a good counterpoint, GM, but since you just learned the word "hermeneutic" a few hours ago it lacks depth.

Of course everyone's hermeneutic is subjective, but there are measurable standards by which the quality of one's hermeneutic may be judged. Consistency is the biggie — consistency with itself and with the teachings in the canon.

For example, fundies love to cite the anti-gay stuff in Leviticus, but they can't seem to explain why they aren't also required to follow the provisions against eating pork that are in Leviticus. It's inconsistent, even in the rather arbitrary realm of religious practices.

Does that make any more sense?

"ad homs" — is that how the kids are talking these days?

[Goblinmonger]

115. Yeah

that's right, I just learned hermeneutics a couple hours ago. That was never covered in the seminary.

So are you saying that the liberal Christians don't ignore the more awful stuff in the bible. I think the cry of most liberal Christians is that they are not Paulists (since he is the "author" of the more nasty stuff). But that is in the Bible. Which means their hermeneutics is not consitant. Unless you then say that you just want to look at the word of Jesus. But even then you come into problems because he could be a prick at times too. And there are the internal contradictions in the gospels. And if you want to be like Jesus you can apparently destroy a fig tree for not giving you good fruit out of season. You do know that this can go on forever? And you do know that the "bad" Christians are pointing out your hermeneutics inconsistancies in their services, too?

The kid who have taken my Communication class are saying "ad hom" and that's all that's really important, right.

[theredpen]

120. You're on the right track about the Paul stuff...

You didn't really go to seminary, did you? I'd ask for my money back.

I think the cry of most liberal Christians is that they are not Paulists (since he is the "author" of the more nasty stuff). But that is in the Bible. Which means their hermeneutics is not consitant.

There is no requirement to treat all Biblical writings with equal weight. Paul's writings are commentary, not Gospel. Paul contradicts Jesus and its beyond me why anyone would defer to him over Him. (OK, it's not beyond me — it's because Paul, the misogynist self-hating closeted gay man, was nice enough to reinforce their prejudices in canon.) You can have a consistent hermeneutic that puts the canonical writings of Paul on a lower tier than the non-canonical writings of Ignatius of Antioch; there are millions of Eastern and Greek Orthodox who do.

Unless you then say that you just want to look at the word of Jesus. But even then you come into problems because he could be a prick at times too.

You'll have to be more specific.

And there are the internal contradictions in the gospels.

Why is this a problem? They're oral histories. Luke even goes to far as to put a disclaimer on its biography of Jesus. Are you suggesting that this is news to anyone?

And if you want to be like Jesus you can apparently destroy a fig tree for not giving you good fruit out of season.

"Only fools and children interpret Scripture literally" -- Rabbi Hillel ~100 BCE

You do know that this can go on forever?

Yes, but mainly because you don't know what you're talking about. If you did, this "debate" would have ended long ago.

And you do know that the "bad" Christians are pointing out your hermeneutics inconsistancies in their services, too?

That's news to me. Most people who know what a hermeneutic is are too well informed to be literalists, and literalists either keep arguing in circles (like you) or, if they actually know scripture, tend to lose arguments with me (this is generally indicated by a long silence, a declaration of "I'll have to ask my pastor about that," and a hasty departure).

[Goblinmonger]

124. If I even came close to the

insulting tone you take or the attacks you hurl, I'm sure I would be in trouble for it.

What makes the gospels so damned important then if they are just oral histories. Why not place Paul over the gospels since both are just interpretations? Certainly you can line up the writings in any order you choose, but, ultimately, it is just a particular person or sect's decision as to why the order is the way it is. You could put Ignatus above Paul but you could also do the opposite.

I have no idea why I would be arguing in circles.

And, yes, I spent 4 years at a Catholic high school seminary and feel the money was well spent. Well, my parent's money, I guess, to be specific (and the diocese).

[theredpen]

129. The Gospels have different content than the epistles

If I even came close to the insulting tone you take or the attacks you hurl, I'm sure I would be in trouble for it.

Well, I have a special dispensation from the Pope.

What makes the gospels so damned important then if they are just oral histories.

True, but they are oral histories of Jesus' teachings. They are as close as anyone is ever going to get to knowing what He said. Parsing out the legitimate stuff from the obvious posthumous edits takes a lot of study. Part of the great value of the Nag Hamadi texts, which were uncovered in the 1940's, is that they demonstrate how consistent the Gospels really were. There were a lot of texts in the first few centuries and there were a lot of edits, but the texts from the Nag Hamadi proved that the central pericopes survived intact.

Why not place Paul over the gospels since both are just interpretations?

The Gospels were an attempt to record what Jesus said and did. There is some spin in there, but most of the interpretation is Jesus' interpretation if His own teachings. The Epistles of Paul were largely instructional. Paul (or more likely his students) acted like a kind of "help desk" explaining Christianity to early converts. For example, one question frequently raised by Romans interested in converting was whether or not they had to become Jews first. In Romans, Paul explains (among other things) that they do not have to become Jews in order to become Christians. Thus, the assertions you find in Romans should be interpreted with the eyes and ears of 1st-2nd century Romans. Taking them at face value in 21st century America is completely retarded. But when Jesus says, "Love others as you love yourselves," that is as valid now as it was 2000 years ago.

Paul didn't age well. Jesus did.

Certainly you can line up the writings in any order you choose, but, ultimately, it is just a particular person or sect's decision as to why the order is the way it is.

Sure, but it helps to have a good explanation of the ordering. To say, "I like Paul because he hates gay people," isn't compatible with Christ's dictates, so I can't see how anyone would be expected to take such a hermeneutic seriously.

You keep trying to establish that all interpretations are the same. My counterargument is that scholarship is a distinguishing factor — which makes sense because this is an ultimately academic subject. As St. Jerome said, "Ignorance of scripture is ignorance of Christ," and by that measure most "Christians" I've met couldn't pick Christ out of a lineup if He was the only male in it.

cgrindley knows a lot more about the scriptures than I do, and he's an atheist. You don't see me arguing with him about it though.

And, yes, I spent 4 years at a Catholic high school seminary and feel the money was well spent.

You really could have fooled me. You don't show any signs of having studied the Church fathers. Was your program "Augustine intensive" or something?

[noiretextatique]

80. here's the difference

michael richards was not joking. if he was joking, it might have been accepted either, but he wasn't.

[theredpen]

88. Have you ever heard Rock's "Niggas vs. Black People"?

Here's a quote:

Now, I see some black people looking at me: "Man, why you gotta say that? Why you gotta say that - it ain't us, it's the media. It ain't us, it's the media. The media has distorted our image to make us look bad, why must you come down on us like that, brother? It ain't us, it's the media." Please, cut the fucking shit, okay. Okay? Okay? When I go to the money machine tonight, alright, I ain't looking over my back for the media: I'm looking for niggas!

Basically, Chris Rock is saying that some black people qualify as "niggas" and that these people deserve the reputation that goes along with that epithet. This piece was tremendously controversial, and had Rock not been African-American, it would have ended his career.

I'm not defending this bit, although I do enjoy Rock's work and admire his comic insight. The point is that Chris Rock is "in group" and that allows you a lot of latitude for criticizing. Woody Allen can make jokes about Jews being tight with money and Chris Rock can't. Margaret Cho can speak pidgin English in a thick Korean accent and Woody Allen can't.

It's possible for outsiders to criticize an in-group. You certainly don't have to be a Nazi to criticize Nazis, but it's imperative that you know what you're talking about.

[noiretextatique]

102. chris rock is an idiot

and i'm african-american. i must have misunderstood your original post...you seem to be saying something different (and accurate) now.

[theredpen]

122. I still like Chris Rock...

...but he really needs to choose better film roles.

It's tough posting on issues like because they are complicated and emotionally-charged — either of which can doom a successful Internet forum discussion. Thank you for having the patience to read my clarifications.

[noiretextatique]

76. i don't respect religious views that claim men are superior to women

gender superiority all wrapped up in a pretty religious wrapper is still misogyny.

[Goblinmonger]

81. Neither do I

I don't have respect for a religious view that somehow god decides randomly that he will save some people from death while letting others die an equally or more horrible fate.

I also don't have respect for a religious view that condemns someone to an eternity of punishment just because they didn't recognize their god as god.

Nor a religious view that feels the government needs to follow that religious view.

But when I say it, I'm Christian bashing. When Christians say it, it is fine. Or the moral equivalent of blacks calling other blacks "nigger" according to theredpen. :eyes:

[noiretextatique]

85. you aren't "christian bashing"

some people are overly sensitive and forget that their faith is only their business. you shouldn't have to respect any religious view just because it's "religious." and those who do believe shouldn't fall apart when someone questions or even disrespects their beliefs.

lastly, rednecks calling each other rednecks is not the same as me, a black woman, calling a white person a redneck. it's the same with black people and the n word...it's really just that simple.

[theredpen]

90. Don't put words in my mouth, GM

I don't have any respect for the religious views you enumerate. If you want to trash talk them, be my guest.

Just stop insisting that they are necessary beliefs of "Christians." Yes, some people who adhere to Christianity espouse these beliefs, but these beliefs are not actually supported by Christian scriptures or theology. If you think that they are, then offer up your supporting argument.

If you can't support your assertions, then state them as personal opinions, not facts.

Sheesh. Why is it that self-proclaimed "rationalists" have such a hard time with this concept?

[Goblinmonger]

93. At least you were straight forward

with your no true scotsman fallacy. Those people espousing the views you dislike ARE Christian. Get used to it. And if I talk about those Christians, then don't get your panties in a wad thinking I'm talking about you.

Don't you understand that the "other side" is saying the same thing about your beliefs--that they aren't real Christian beliefs.

[theredpen]

98. Do you ever have an original thought?

I don't know if original thinking would suit you. Thinking is certainly not your strength.

Anyway, this is not an example of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. It doesn't fit the form. As endlessly entertaining as it is to see you regurgitate something that sounds like it might be an Official Logical Argument™, the light from the nearest clue has yet to reach your intellectual event horizon.

I really don't know how much simpler I could make my explanation of what a hermeneutic is, or how one would judge the quality of a hermeneutic, but I guess I need to heed Matthew 7:6.

Have a nice evening.

[Goblinmonger]

116. Wow

was there anything in that post that wasn't just a logical fallacy? Was there ANY substance? Does that form of argumentation really work on your friends? 'Cause it really doesn't prove anything.

[Lerkfish]

77. I responded further up

and, i felt, it was a balanced response. I only just now saw the thread.

if that helps you at all.

Personally, I don't agree with Paulist interpretations of law in the bible, myself, and I don't adhere to this concept he's pushing.

so, not really sure what kind of response you really wanted?

[kineneb]

45. submit? meet cast iron frying pan!

Huckybucky can go do rude things to himself with the business end of a plumber's helper.

"you have to sleep, some time..."

Now hand me the checkbook and no one gets hurt.

[taught_me_patience]

47. I hope he wins the repub nomination

We can then expose the true fundies for the nutjobs they are!

[Proud Liberal Dem]

53. Message to GOP:

PLEASE NOMINATE THIS GUY!!!!!!
:rofl:

[in_cog_ni_to]

55. That's my hope too! Wait until the people learn more about this FREAK!

:rofl::rofl:

[Proud Liberal Dem]

54. Message to GOP:

Sorry, dupe

[helderheid]

56. I don't heart Huckabee. Rec #2.

[Cha]

57. Even if he's an asshole like

huckabee?

[TCJ70]

58. OK

"The ad wasn't just a blanket, "we support the SBC statement," but rather highlighted details. The ad Huckabee signed specifically said of the SBC family statement: "You are right because you called wives to graciously submit to their husband's sacrificial leadership.""

So if the husband doesn't display sacrificial leadership (in the manner of Christ), there's no submission required. That follows what the Bible says as far as I know.

[bdamomma]

59. throwing us into the dark ages

oh, Mr. Huckabee go to hell!!

[AuntPatsy]

60. And this citizen thinks Huckabee and his ilk should "graciously ADmit"

that they are certifiably insane in an effort to ensure peace persists...

[Ezlivin]

64. Be fair: Huckabee is talking about the button you click when ordering at Amazon

You have to interpret his statement correctly. He's just saying that women should "graciously submit" their online orders to their husband.

He really is cutting edge.

[NewJeffCT]

66. any other prominent Republics on the list? David Vitter maybe?

Larry Craig

Mark Foley

[w8liftinglady]

83. lol..funny you should mention that...back in my youth,it was the Repub-types who submitted

[NewJeffCT]

125. I knew a guy whose sister did that

for a living, and a lot of her "clients" were Republican politicians and business executives. (This was local to CT, though) I think she even ended up married to one of them, but I haven't seen the guy since a few years after I got out of college, or the early 90s. So, I can't recall what became of the marriage, or even if my memory is 100% correct.

[Lerkfish]

75. not defending it, since I disagree, but this is a strict Paulist interpretation

just wanted to point out that he's cherry picking scriptures, but his reference is in the letters of Paul and reflected THAT society at THAT time.
Paulists differ from other christians in that they view writings of Paul as new "laws" for the church, instead of viewing his letters as chronistically set in a certain time and forgetting that Jesus came to wipe away pointless restrictive laws like the Pharisees practiced that distracted from the spirit by obsessing on the letter.

Since he is firmly ensconced in the southern Baptist faith, this is not all that unusual.

unfortunately.

[GOPBasher]

78. He is definitely one of the sharpest minds of the 15th century. n/t

[Stuckinthebush]

79. I'll tell my wife that I think this is a good idea

When she is finished laughing hysterically, I'm sure she'll have a few choice words.

Huckabee and the other 130 signatories are boneheads.

[readmoreoften]

82. Ah I wish he would Graciously Commit

Suicide.

[David Zephyr]

84. He's the most dangerous of all the GOP candidates. I keep saying this.

.

[HughMoran]

86. I hope this guy gets the nod

He's full of surprises! He'll be a good punching bag for the Dems.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

91. My wife? Submit? Graciously? My health insurance has limits on coverage.

Why don't these guys just marry their blow-up dolls?

[walldude]

99. Hehe.. yeah, in my house submitting means

not kicking my ass when I do something stupid...

[Swamp Rat]

94. Might as well nominate Osama Bin Dobson.

[Snarkturian Clone]

96. Here are illustrations and scripture references:

http://www.thebricktestament.com/epistles_of_paul/instructions_for_women/1co11_04.html

oy. When you put scripture into modern context it gets scary. See the rest of that site for more. The best is the "Law" section.

[theredpen]

100. Why would any educated person put scripture in any other context than when it was written? n/t

[Poiuyt]

104. Though I do agree with Leviticus 13:40

'If a man loses the hair on his head, this is baldness. The man is clean.'

(You can guess what I look like!)

:)

[The Backlash Cometh]

97. Autocratic bully.

[Scout]

103. Scout Thinks Huckabee Should "Graciously Submit" to My Foot Up His Dumb Ass n/t

[onehandle]

105. Please make this guy the GOP nominee.

Either him of the cross-dresser.

Sweet!

[bklyncowgirl]

106. That seems to be standard fundie language--heard it at a wedding once

I went to a wedding once where the minister, in the course of the ceremony used the same phrase. I laughed out loud and quickly covered it up with a coughing fit because my take on this couple was that she was pretty much leading the guy around by the hoohah.

Hey, whatever turns you on, just as long as you don't force it down anyone else's throat.

[Snarkturian Clone]

110. I heard it a wedding as well.

Everyone was looking at each other going "Did I just hear that right?"

The bride was a born-again Christian but I knew her to be pretty tough and outspoken-- I never would have guessed that she would allow such language in her vows.

[bklyncowgirl]

111. In the case of my friends she's an ex Catholic who found Jesus and brought him along.

That religious people often don't live up to the beliefs of their particular faith doesn't surprise me in the least. Saying the right thing is more important than doing the right thing.

It's always been that way--a large part of the New Testament is taken up with Jesus being snarky about the moral shortcomings of the pillars of his religious community.

[triguy46]

107. He HAS to, its part of the "Faith and Message" of the SBC. What else should we expect?

Crap, this is plain as day.

[Danger Mouse]

108. Huckabee is such an ass. It's hard to decide whether or not he's more of a dirtbag

than Ghouliani.

[Dukkha]

109. he needs to submit himself to an asylum

for extensive electroshock therapy

[sarcasmo]

112. LMFAO.

[NashVegas]

113. I Really Want Him for the Repub Nominee

:)

[windoe]

126. Then he would theoretically be leader of just the men,

women can just fall in step wherever.....what century is this? I seem to remember this philosophy: Men are above the women and animals, yeah that's the ticket. This is such a cartoon version of reality, it is simply not based in this world.
I want to go back to the 70's when I was young and so naive I actually believed all the good 'ol boys would soon die off leaving the next generation of more tolerant, peaceful and creative people to inherit the Earth (& I was sober). It was such a good dream...

[Kixel]

130. I don't have a husband...

To whom will I be submitting?

[gauguin57]

131. The Huck can graciously kiss my patootie.

Submit this, Huckster.