Got feedback on the new design? We're Listening! Send us Feedback

Jesus Huckabee Christ »

Posted by: RickyDawkins 9 months ago

9.8

Scale of 1 to 10

Read: 43

Propped: 132

Comments: 317

Click Prop It to Raise Score

Prop it

In a field of nightmares, it takes a special person to elevate themselves to worst-of-the-worst. Huckabee is that person. "I got into politics because I knew government didn't have the real answers, that the REAL answers lie in accepting Jesus Christ into our lives. I hope we answer the alarm clock and take this nation back for Christ."

Read Full Story at scienceblogs.com

Join the Discussion

+ Add Comment

Comments So Far: 317

0%
RickyDawkins9 months ago

And here is Huck's special rationalization for denying gays equal rights:
"I don't think the issue's about being against gay marriage. It's about being for traditional marriage and articulating the reason that's important. You have to have a basic family structure. There's never been a civilization that has rewritten what marriage and family means and survived."
RESPONSE: Every civilization redefines its social fabric over time, and no civilization has lasted forever. I've also learned over my lifetime that the individual will always find that humanity can reach some new, lower depth. I thought Nixon was the worst president ever, until Reagan came along; I thought he was the worst, until W came along; and now I see to my dismay that yes, we could possibly have a president who is even worse than George W. Bush.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/12/the_...
Reply
16 Replies
- 0%
  Redneck9 months ago
  
  WHAT??? Worse than Clinton? You have to be kidding!
  Reply
  10 Replies
  - 0%
    Grrr9 months ago
    
    I am unaware of a Republican since Lincoln that wasn't.
    Reply
    4 Replies
    - 0%
      TemplarScribe8 months, 4 weeks ago
      
      Check out Teddy Roosevelt, for one. He came in on the backs of Big Business, and then proceeded to thwart them pretty much at every turn. He dissolved 40 huge trusts, negotiated for the Panama canal, then set aside some of the most valuable land in the country for National Parks. Also the first American to win the Nobel Peace Prize.
      A close second would be Eisenhower, although he wasn't a true Republican: he selected that party to run under, primarily because the Dems had been in office for so long. But his last speech as Pres, the one warning us to beware of the "military industrial complex," displayed his true colors, since every Republican since then has been a slave to the MICs.
      Of course, I still have hopes that this current horror of an administration will convince more people to get out and vote, and not rely on divisive issues like gay marriage and "family values."
      Now, back to your regularly scheduled topic, already in progress...
      Reply
      2 Replies
      - 0%
        Teech8 months, 4 weeks ago
        
        Agree on all points. Well said, Templar.
        Reply
      - 0%
        memestryker8 months, 3 weeks ago
        
        Templar, "g-d" was added to our pledge and our money under Eisenhower, when the Repubs controlled the White House and both houses of congress. And he signed it. It was an effort to show we were not "g-dless" like the Russians.
        Reply
    - 0%
      tkyrchncs8 months, 4 weeks ago
      
      And Lincoln only succeeded in keeping the union together by killing more Americans than anyone else, ever. So he's not so wonderful either.
      Reply
  - 0%
    kvan19409 months ago
    
    Just out of curiosity, what is the reason that you consider Clinton to have been a bad president?
    Reply
    4 Replies
    - 0%
      earthlingerer9 months ago
      
      He helped to lock up more marijuana users than ever before in the United States. That was bad. But....
      "Our democracy must be not only the envy of the world but also the engine of our own renewal." Words that mean as much, if not more, now as at the inauguration.
      When you consider what he did for the US in the eyes of the world, reducing the deficit, and the HUGELY pro-america, pro-freedom Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, as well as bolstering the self-images of frumpy assistants and interns nationwide, this all almost makes up for the arrests.
      But not really...
      Reply
      1 Reply
      - 0%
        MntnWllm8 months, 4 weeks ago
        
        The War On Drugs was hardly Clinton's idea, that is usually the Bastion Of Republicans - but, agreed: he did little to abate the injustice, for sure.
        Reply
    - 0%
      memestryker8 months, 3 weeks ago
      
      Clinton strongly backed the so-called "assault weapons ban" which statistics had already suggested would not have any positive effect, and just focused on features of recreation and sporting guns that make them the most popular, especially with women, people with disabilities, etc. It was totally "feel-good" legislation for those who had suffered post-trauma stress, such as Carolyn McCarthy and Sarah Brady. This bad legislation just ******ed away at our rights guaranteed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights and potentially greased the skids so extremists on the right or left could push us to become either a fascist or extreme-leftist/socialist dictatorship.
      Reply
      1 Reply
      - 0%
        memestryker8 months, 3 weeks ago
        
        This is ridiculous. I can't use the Vice President's first name "D-i-c-k" or use the perfectly good dictionary word, "c-h-i-n-k" because they are considered politically incorrect. So much for free speech--and I've never used them in their derogatory sense.
        Reply
- 0%
  jordan119 months ago
  
  http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/70374/
  Here's a fun declaration from huckabee for the ladies.
  Reply
  2 Replies
  - 0%
    Searchbeam8 months, 4 weeks ago
    
    That's a good one, Jordan!
    Here it is for the benefit of those who want to know:
    "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."
    he is really worse than I thought!
    I will leave it up to the ladies to take him apart piece by piece, and hang them to dry, so that future anthropologists will have a good specimen to study!
    Reply
    1 Reply
    - 0%
      memestryker8 months, 3 weeks ago
      
      Actually, Huck is much worse. The Southern Baptists recently fired tenured female professors from their universities who taught anything but "girly" subjects, like "home arts" because of a statement made by their favorite cultural engineer, St. Paul. (Note: Most Christian sects focus on the teachings of Paul--they are actually Paulists rather than "Christians.")
      In fact, a Southern Baptist college is planning to hold more home arts classes so women can be kept barefoot and pregnant even when "educated"--courses already taught in U.S. public schools to adolescent girls, but now they can get college credit instead of middle school credit for them.
      Reply
- 0%
  om36m8 months, 4 weeks ago
  
  "I don't think the issue's about being against gay marriage. It's about being for traditional marriage..."
  Now that's a political response. He basically said: It's not about being against gay marriage. It's about being against gay marriages."
  Reply
- 0%
  mikhurst8 months, 3 weeks ago
  
  Ricky - I notice you have regularly used "scienceblog.com" as your "source".
  I believe it's fair to say that "science" and "atheism" are not synonymous, are not interchangeable terms, and science is not used exclusively to "discredit" or "disprove" God or the Bible. Yet you use "scienceblog" articles fairly regularly to attack Christianity. This article in particlar spills even into the political arena.
  Wiki states that "Pharyngula" (P.Z.Myers) is "A self-avowed "godless liberal" and outspoken atheist, and a vocal skeptic of all forms of religion..." It also states that "Myers was raised as a Christian". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PZ_Myers
  I'm confident that like-mindedness draws you to each other, but aren't you two promoting a wrong image of the mild-mannered "gift of science"?
  Reply
HmacComment removed: User banned.11 Replies
- 0%
  Teech9 months ago
  
  ..." I hope we answer the alarm clock and take this nation back for Christ."...
  Go get 'em Huck! First, you keep this war going in Iraq until all those non-Christian moslems are "liquidated" or convert to Christianity. Then, you find a way to start killing off any and all who do not accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior and redeemer. While you're taking back this nation for Christ, you might have a problem with all those who believe in Budda, or some other deity. Then, there's the Jewish question. Do they believe in Christ? History has seen the likes of Huck before. He'll get lots of votes. Fanatics always do. Promise a few billion in federal money to churches for "faith based" programs and the preachers will fall over themselves telling their faithful who to vote for.........in order to be saved! Worked for Bush, it'll work for The Huckster. Better put your crosses out on your doorposts at night so the Huckstapo will pass you by.
  Reply
  3 Replies
  - 0%
    splitrch9 months ago
    
    "Liquidate" or "Perfect"? Tough choice facing the Huckster.... Let's make sure he isn't burdened with having to make one, vote for someone else (from the other party)
    Reply
    2 Replies
    - 0%
      TemplarScribe8 months, 4 weeks ago
      
      Wow, Teech! Right on! You tell 'em!
      Adding you as a friend ASAP! (:^D)
      Reply
      1 Reply
      - 0%
        splitrch8 months, 4 weeks ago
        
        Thanks! {I think... :-)}
        Reply
- 0%
  TemplarScribe8 months, 4 weeks ago
  
  How about someone allowing their faith to "misguide" them?
  This country was based on our Founding fathers' desire to be FREE from religious oppression. And they weren't worried about Muslim or Jewish oppression: they were worried about CHRISTIAN oppression. They'd already had enough of that in England.
  That's why although many of the FFs had Divinity degrees (pretty much the main degree an educated man could get back then, before a law degree), they were by and large Deists, who believed in an unknowable God, a worldview that allowed them to believe what they chose (also known for this as Rationalism), disputed many of the miracles in the Bible, and shunned most organized religions as a tool of the oppressors.
  Take your finger off the trigger, Sniper, and try cracking open a good book. "The Indispensable Man," a wonderful bio about George Washington, is a good start.
  Reply
- HmacComment removed: User banned.4 Replies
  - 0%
    MonkeyBiz8 months, 4 weeks ago
    
    I suspect it might be coming from an "undisclosed location."
    Reply
    3 Replies
    - 0%
      Shadowolf8 months, 4 weeks ago
      
      ...UP HIS ASS???
      
      Reply
    - 0%
      Searchbeam8 months, 4 weeks ago
      
      MB,
      You must be kidding!
      Are you suggesting that sniper is actually Shotgun Dickie?
      He has the habit of moving to some "undisclosed location" when going gets rough in this neighborhood - you know, places like Australia!
      LOL!
      Reply
      1 Reply
      - 0%
        MonkeyBiz8 months, 4 weeks ago
        
        Think about it...Dead eye dick or sniper? Dead eye sniper or sniper dick? Hmmmm...
        Reply
- HmacComment removed: User banned.
0%
Grrr9 months ago

It's the antithesis of Kennedy's religion/presidency speech. This one could be titled
"Reasons for the Separation of Church and State
or
How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Become A Racist Homophobe".
Reply
17 Replies
- 0%
  gamahuche9 months ago
  
  Can someone explain how the fundamental democratic principle of separation of Church and State somehow disappeared from the US variant on democracy?
  Its something that has always completely baffled me.
  Reply
  14 Replies
  - 0%
    StillUnashamed9 months ago
    
    Actually, the concept of separation of church and state is a religious doctrine held by a minority of the denominations in the New World at the time the Bill of Rights (including the First Amendment) was drafted.
    Reply
    13 Replies
    - 0%
      deathray9 months ago
      
      Those who make the case for the blurring of the lines between church and state tend not to like to mention Article VI, Section III of the Constitution.
      This particular bit of the Constitution should be rigorously applied to the candidacy of Mike Huckabee, who publicly campaigns as a "Christian leader" and attributes his surge in popularity to "Divine Providence".
      
      Reply
      12 Replies
      - 0%
        RickyDawkins9 months ago
        
        http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/art6.htm
        3. The senators and representatives before-mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
        --see deathray for details
        Reply
        10 Replies
        
        0%
        deathray9 months ago
        
        You will likely find this link both educational and useful:
        http://candst.tripod.com/testban1.htm
        
        Reply
        
        0%
        gamahuche9 months ago
        
        Which makes it sound as if it should be a "Don't ask, don't tell" issue rather than being interpreted as a requirement to perform the revivalist preacher schtick.
        Isn't this precisely what leads to the "hypocrisy" which then becomes a basis for condemnation when they fail to live up to or "betray" their "Christian values"? Candidates of "other" faiths or agnostics are in this way also inevitably discriminated against.
        Reply
        3 Replies
        
        0%
        RedstateLib9 months ago
        
        What gives me hope is I was meeting a friend for a beer in a real redneck joint the other day. The bartender mentioned that she was for Hillary but if Obama got the nom she would vote for him. This 60 something year old loadmouth redneck announce he would do the same. He then very loudly announced that last year he did two things that he never believed he would do in his life. He said " I voted for a Ni**er and a qu**r, I never would have thought that I would do one yet alone both of those things." Those were his words not mine but it gives me hope that people are looking at thing differently these days and even some of the most hardcore are able to put their prejudices aside and look at who is the best person for the job.
        Reply
        2 Replies
        
        0%
        RedstateLib9 months ago
        
        Ricky are you opposed to people voting based on who is best for the job? Why do you dislike my posting that people are shifting their attitudes and looking at the person and not the persona?
        Reply
        
        0%
        RedstateLib9 months ago
        
        Ricky,
        Let me explain Why I found this encouraging. All this mans life he had looked at people black and gay as something less than him. He had been raised that way and his environment encouraged those beliefs. During the 2006 elections he took a hard look at the candidates he had to choose from. He voted for a black candidate and a gay candidate based on their merits. That vote went against everything he was raise to believe but he voted for who he thought was the best person for the office. I find that encouraging.
        Reply
        
        0%
        StillUnashamed9 months ago
        
        You are correct. There is no religious requirement to run for or hold office, period. However, many on this thread seem to be applying a religious test. If one holds certain religious views, in their oppinion, they are disqualified from holding office.
        Even though the government can't have a religious test, individual voters may apply whatever standard they want, including a religious test. If someone chooses to vote against a candidate because he/she is religious, that is that person's right. It is also a person's right to vote for a candidate because he/she is religious or even of a certain religion.
        Reply
        4 Replies
        
        0%
        deathray9 months ago
        
        That's funny, because the Article VI, Section III of the Constitution applies to the elected representatives of the government, as well as the appointed, so if voting citizens are applying such tests, they are violating the Constitution...now, whether or not you can prosecute, or can prove within whatever measure of certainty satisfies the law, is another matter.
        I believe that voting along religious lines is an extension of identity politics, and it's unfortunate.
        Besides, one of the most significant legal precedents in this country is the preservation of the rights of the minority...namely, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and dare I say it, atheists. A negative example of this sort of voting is what got Iraq the miserable religiously fractured and biased government it has today...if that's not a portent of what could be, I don't know what is.
        Reply
        3 Replies
        
        0%
        earthlingerer9 months ago
        
        I wouldn't necessarily vote based on religion, but what the said or did.
        Now, depending on the religion, I think we are able to examine what is accepted, and what would be considered by most sensible people to be some kind of sham religion, or one at best easily examined to be faulty. Association with religious leaders and the possible influence of them should be taken into account, also.
        If someone is wholesale invested in a system of outright lies, or one continually at odds with most accepted norms of society, do they really have the wherewithall to rule a nation that has been or is against their own fundamental beliefs?
        Reply
        
        0%
        StillUnashamed8 months, 4 weeks ago
        
        The government can dictate who gets to run for public office, hence no religios test. But private citizens who are registered to vote can cast their vote on whatever criteria. The government cannot dictate to me how to vote. If you think that violates the constitution, what about people who have said they will vote for Hillary because we need a woman in the White House, or those who will vote for Obama because it's time we had a Black as president?
        Reply
        
        0%
        tkyrchncs8 months, 4 weeks ago
        
        You KNOW this is incorrect interpretation of the Constitution, deathray. I may vote for whomever I choose for whatever reason I choose, and you KNOW that.
        Reply
      - 0%
        Searchbeam8 months, 3 weeks ago
        
        Let Mikey, get his divine but* out of pulpit, and run his campaign like a sinning mortal that he is!
        Taking the name of Jesus in a political campaign is pure blasphemy.
        His Divine Providence is going to kick his behind sooner than he thinks!
        Reply
- 0%
  AntiNeoCon8 months, 4 weeks ago
  
  Yeah sniper91, Ricky has this screwed up thing about religion and gays. Seems he fears eternal hell so badly he has to attack Jesus and/or any of his followers. The gays, well they represent the other side of the coin. Don't pay any attention to Ricky, his train is off the track.
  Reply
- 0%
  tkyrchncs8 months, 4 weeks ago
  
  What you are required to accept (by ME, PERSONALLY, forget the law) is that I am an equal citizen with equal rights and if you make any attempt to abrogate my rights based on my homosexuality or my chosen relationships I suggest strongly that you do so by killing me. You are free to believe whatever bigoted lunacy you choose but you WILL NOT enforce it on me however you try.
  Reply
0%
Lurch9 months ago

He`s a neocon. What he says today, is not what he`ll do tonight. What he says tomorrow, is not what he said today.
But one things for sure, he`ll make up or change laws as he goes if elected. And they won`t be in our favor.
Reply
1 Reply
- 0%
  blinkers9 months ago
  
  "He's a neocon." That looks about right, Lurch, or at least voters retaining support in this discreditted PNAC-based dogma, will see Huckabee as "Their man".
  With Huckabee in the White House, the "House of Bush" will have extended its longevity. It must not happen.
  Reply
0%
rightfromwrong9 months ago

Huck is one fricken idiot!!!!
Reply
HmacComment removed: User banned.4 Replies
- 0%
  lvrofwolves9 months ago
  
  Hmac-I agree, I think those odds are much better then what we have to work with right now.
  Reply
- 0%
  scriblerus19 months ago
  
  I think you hit on somehing, Hmac. Drawing lots makes a whole lot more sense than the current system. When I see people who want to become president (or any other office) and are willing to do ANYTHING to win, I think we'd be better off selecting some homeless person off the street. They be lots more likely to do an honest job.
  Reply
- 0%
  Searchbeam8 months, 4 weeks ago
  
  Hmac,
  The entire Republican field of Presidential candidates looks like a flock of chicken hawks, except Ron Paul who served as an officer in our armed forces.
  What would you expect from chicken hawks?
  Why, chicken sh**, of course! Huck's smells worst than the rest of them!
  Reply
- 0%
  Lurch8 months, 4 weeks ago
  
  If George Bush had just flipped on a coin on every decision he has made in the WH, just imagine how much better off we would be.
  Reply
0%
tkyrchncs8 months, 4 weeks ago

If only these guys would try to run their own lives in a Christ-like way: PEACEFUL, forgiving, generous of spirit and pocketbook, self-efacing, self-sacrificing. "They will know we are Christians by our LOVE." So where's the LOVE, y'all?
Reply
1 Reply
- 0%
  Shadowolf8 months, 4 weeks ago
  
  ...umm, they love...themselves???
  Reply
ranchhandComment removed: User banned.10 Replies
- 0%
  RickyDawkins9 months ago
  
  The quote by Huckabee says it all. He deserves to be outed for the religious loon that he is. Sorry if I forgot my manners, Ranchy. God Bless.
  Reply
  2 Replies
  - ranchhandComment removed: User banned.
  - ML2007Comment removed: User banned.
- 0%
  vettenut9 months ago
  
  Ricky:
  I also am surprised that you would resort to the tactics against which you have so eloquently and fervently (and generally, so rightly) objected in the past on this site.
  Perhaps I can make the same plea to you that I could have quoted almost verbatim from some of your threads--
  "Can we PLEASE approach this topic from the basis of fact, and not from emotions and pre-formed, biased opinions???"
  BTW, I do like your "Sting as a young man" avatar....
  Sincerely,
  vettenut
  Reply
  6 Replies
  - 0%
    RickyDawkins9 months ago
    
    I never realized my opinion was so respected by the 'cons.
    I am flattered!
    (sting as a young man?)
    Jesus HUCKING Christ!
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Williams
    Reply
    5 Replies
    - 0%
      vettenut9 months ago
      
      Hey, Ricky:
      Yes, although I do not concur with very many of your beliefs as read here on Propeller, I usually can count on a certain civil decorum within them. This one, on the other hand.....
      And didn't you know that Sting is actually Robin Williams' identical but more gifted twin brother??????
      OK, would you believe second-cousin???
      LOL!!!
      Reply
      4 Replies
      - 0%
        RickyDawkins9 months ago
        
        It IS pretty amazing that we are still on speaking terms, based on how little we have in common in terms of our politics, religion, and experiences. Kudos!
        Reply
        3 Replies
        
        0%
        aceofspades19 months ago
        
        It IS pretty amazing that we are still on speaking terms, based on how little we have in common in terms of our politics, religion, and experiences. Kudos!
        YES it is Ricky - but when we descend to the mindless dogma of a person like Huckabee ( the temptation to pun his name is almost overwhelming) , civil discussion will denigrate into simple repetition of nonsense cliches.
        Reply
        
        ML2007Comment removed: User banned.1 Reply
        
        0%
        memestryker8 months, 3 weeks ago
        
        Show evidence that Ricky "hates" Christians. Christians have been culturally programmed to be blind to reality, and open themselves to mind control by priests and politicians.
        I do think it's a serious problem, especially since extremist Muslims, Hindus, Maoists, etc. all are just as "certain" of the truth of their own programming--and globalization has brought them all face-to-face in the same shrinking pond.
        Huckabee's church recently regressed to their ancient Paulist roots. No evidence exists for the truth of any religion with magical/supernatural elements. The fact that adults believe this stuff in the face of no actual evidence boggles the mind.
        Reply
0%
Poulenc9 months ago

It is endlessly discouraging that American candidates endlessly confound faith (or, more accurately, "faith") with policy.
The underling assumption--that we're all Christians seeking to do Christ's work--AS WE HAPPEN TO INTERPRET IT, based, too often, on know-nothing prejudices--is loathsome.
In a better American world, an atheist or agnostic would run and be elected--someone for whom faith and religious dogma are irrelevant.
Reply
2 Replies
- ML2007Comment removed: User banned.
- 0%
  memestryker8 months, 3 weeks ago
  
  I agree that religious people are programmed by strong cultural forces, but even those that are not religious--such as Maoists, socialists, and communists have the same problems with people planting ideas and using various control mechananisms that deny them their freedom and liberty. So although I don't think getting religion or false belief in the supernatural out of it solves ALL cultural problems, I think it's a good start.
  We still have psychopaths, sociopaths, narcissists, etc. to deal with--even without religion.
  Reply
0%
aniokly9 months ago

This article is discusting. Like these people would know about Jesus. I have many reasons to not vote for Huckabee, or Romney, and they have nothing to do with religion. Maybee if they were running against a lesbian, or a Muslim, or a disgraced, Impeached President I might pick one of the Republicans.
Reply
2 Replies
- 0%
  RickyDawkins9 months ago
  
  Annie, I'm glad you at least got to see how the legions of godless Americans feel about things. It is however, disconcerting to me that you find this story disgusting.
  Reply
- 0%
  earthlingerer9 months ago
  
  Discusting???
  I know something about Jesus. I know that he abhorred war, and I'm sure that even he loved homosexual people for the huamns they were and are.
  He even hung out all night partying with twelve guys and a prostitute. How many "christians" would even consider doing THAT! Then again, at such a party, most "christians" would be too tempted.
  Reply
0%
Poulenc9 months ago

Ani, you misspelled "disgusting."
But at least you make your "discusting" bigotry perfectly clear.
(By the way, do you know NO gay people? Or only think you don't? They have the oddest habit of showing up among those nearest to us: children, say, or brothers or sisters--even husbands and wives.)
Reply
5 Replies
- 0%
  Dionys9 months ago
  
  Oddly enough they seem to be springing up everywhere in the strongest strongholds of the anti-homosexual GOP.
  Reply
  4 Replies
  - 0%
    slate9 months ago
    
    Pretty funny coming from a side that says A Couter is a man and makes homophobic statements about it
    Reply
    3 Replies
    - AlphaGnosisComment removed: User banned.2 Replies
      - 0%
        slate9 months ago
        
        TY Pretty one.
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        AlphaGnosisComment removed: User banned.
AtheismIsRealityComment removed: User banned.21 Replies
- 0%
  vettenut9 months ago
  
  AIR:
  I find your comment absurd and "knee-jerk."
  There is no large problem of organizations or the government denying anybody their rights because of their sexual orientation. If they were, there would have already been a Supreme Court case and legal principle addressing this issue.
  This issue is a tempest in a teapot that has been magnified and elevated to "hurricane status."
  
  Reply
  4 Replies
  - AtheismIsRealityComment removed: User banned.2 Replies
    - 0%
      vettenut9 months ago
      
      AIR:
      Since your statement is absolutely false and utterly slanderous, I will not respond to it.
      Instead, I will loosely paraphrase a quote from a famous young American icon:
      "I never said or wrote those things, nobody heard me say or write them, and you can't prove anything!!!"
      LOL!!!
      Reply
      1 Reply
      - AtheismIsRealityComment removed: User banned.
  - 0%
    NelsonR9 months ago
    
    Huckabee did say gays, I'm not, should be segregated from the populace and became a Hitler demagogue all in one. His words convicted him, others on this blog did not.
    Yes, I made sure to others that I was not gay by defending their sexual orientation, that's their choice and I wanted to make that clear. Huckabee is paranoid about gays and the agnostics and atheist of the world should be wary of this man of god who makes certain you get the word of righteousness. His thoughts, Theorcracies are prudent.
    Please I do not want to become an Evangelical.
    Reply
- 0%
  slate9 months ago
  
  Adult Love of anykind should be welcomed,,,,, gays should be able to marry IMO,,,, it's not up to me or anyone else to decide if it's a sin or not.
  Reply
  10 Replies
  - 0%
    StillUnashamed9 months ago
    
    Why discriminate against children?
    Reply
  - 0%
    slate9 months ago
    
    If your 5 year old said he/she wanted to marry the 4 year old next door,,, will you start making plans for the wedding or tell em to wait till they are old enough to make that sort of decision?
    Reply
    8 Replies
    - 0%
      StillUnashamed9 months ago
      
      I was making the point that everyone except extreme perverts will draw a line somewhere. The only difference is where that line is drawn. slate says ADULTS should be able to do whatever they want and be considered moral. I disagree.
      Reply
      7 Replies
      - 0%
        slate9 months ago
        
        Where did I say anything and everything between adults was moral? I said it's not my job to judge,,,, that belongs to a higher source,,,, You know something I've always believed was the only thing of value in the human experience is love,,,, why deny anyone that right because it doesn't fit into your narrow view of what is moral or immoral?
        You have good and bad people in all groups,,,,, judge them by who they are as individuals and not by their groups seem to be the best policy.
        Reply
        6 Replies
        
        0%
        scriblerus19 months ago
        
        Now I've seen it all! Slate has written something sensible.
        Reply
        4 Replies
        
        0%
        Shadowolf8 months, 4 weeks ago
        
        ...I was so excited, I signed him up for the "Banana of the Month Club"...
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        0%
        slate8 months, 4 weeks ago
        
        Shadow I'm the president of that club,,, I'm the head Nanner
        Reply
        
        0%
        slate8 months, 4 weeks ago
        
        Ok now your turn scrib,,,,
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        0%
        Shadowolf8 months, 4 weeks ago
        
        YOU run the Slippery Slope???
        Reply
        
        0%
        memestryker8 months, 3 weeks ago
        
        "that belongs to a higher source"
        Which one?
        Reply
- 0%
  StillUnashamed9 months ago
  
  "Let's see Golden Rule - Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
  Do you want people to deny you rights due to your sexual orientation?
  Nope?
  Then butt out of homosexuals' rights, you busybodies."
  Please apply that same logic to pedophiles (concerning consentual adult/child sex). That is also a sexual orientation.
  Let me respond for you: BUT THAT IS DIFFERENT! Don't compare homosexuality with pedophilia. Not comparing the acts, just applying the same logic.
  Reply
  4 Replies
  - AtheismIsRealityComment removed: User banned.2 Replies
    - 0%
      StillUnashamed9 months ago
      
      My point is the aforementions logic is faulty. Yes Pedophilia is illegal. Homosexuality was illegal in most places in the U.S. a generation ago, so what does legality have to do with morality?
      And to reply to kobzikov below, who aparently read only a part of my post, I am not comparing the acts of homosexuals with the acts of pedos but merely stating that the logic is identical, specifically that sexual orientation is determined at birth thus making it moral.
      As to pedo. being illegal, there is a perverted group (thankfully an extremely small minority) that is trying to make consentual adult/child sex legal and are at the place now where homosexual advocates were a generation ago.
      Reply
      1 Reply
      - AtheismIsRealityComment removed: User banned.
  - 0%
    kobzikov9 months ago
    
    This isn't application of logic. It's perversion of logic.
    Children can't consent to sex, because they don't have the legal right to do so before they reach legal age of consent.
    The name for the type of arguments where homosexuality is equated with pedophilia is hypocrisy unless those who propose it are of course willing to equate heterosexuality with pedophilia as well (concerning consensual sex between adults and children of opposite sex of course) in the spirit of applying the same perverse logic.
    Reply
0%
SonOfTheMask9 months ago

Good for Huck. If those are his beliefs, I'm glad he's sharing them.
For the atheists here, don't vote for him if you don't like his religious beliefs. Find an atheist candidate if that's what is important to you.
I'm glad to see a strong defense of traditional marriage. That's important to me. It's not the most important thing I care about in a presidential candidate, but it is something I'll consider if I need to make a decision between two otherwise equal (in my view) candidates.
Reply
85 Replies
- 0%
  SonOfTheMask9 months ago
  
  Also, wow, what a shocker of an article from PZ Myers...LOL
  Reply
- AtheismIsRealityComment removed: User banned.53 Replies
  - 0%
    SonOfTheMask9 months ago
    
    Straw man argument
    Reply
    52 Replies
    - AtheismIsRealityComment removed: User banned.51 Replies
      - 0%
        SonOfTheMask9 months ago
        
        "Who's throwing up a straw man?" I believe that you are, AIR. Your misrepresented my position to suggest

Hello!

Jesus Huckabee Christ »

Scale of 1 to 10

Click Prop It to Raise Score

Read Full Story at scienceblogs.com

Join the Discussion

Comments So Far: 317

RickyDawkins9 months ago

Redneck9 months ago

Grrr9 months ago

TemplarScribe8 months, 4 weeks ago

Teech8 months, 4 weeks ago

memestryker8 months, 3 weeks ago

tkyrchncs8 months, 4 weeks ago

kvan19409 months ago

earthlingerer9 months ago

MntnWllm8 months, 4 weeks ago

memestryker8 months, 3 weeks ago

memestryker8 months, 3 weeks ago

jordan119 months ago

Searchbeam8 months, 4 weeks ago

memestryker8 months, 3 weeks ago

om36m8 months, 4 weeks ago

mikhurst8 months, 3 weeks ago

HmacComment removed: User banned.11 Replies

Teech9 months ago

splitrch9 months ago

TemplarScribe8 months, 4 weeks ago

splitrch8 months, 4 weeks ago

TemplarScribe8 months, 4 weeks ago

HmacComment removed: User banned.4 Replies

MonkeyBiz8 months, 4 weeks ago

Shadowolf8 months, 4 weeks ago

Searchbeam8 months, 4 weeks ago

MonkeyBiz8 months, 4 weeks ago

HmacComment removed: User banned.

Grrr9 months ago

gamahuche9 months ago

StillUnashamed9 months ago

deathray9 months ago

RickyDawkins9 months ago

deathray9 months ago

gamahuche9 months ago

RedstateLib9 months ago

RedstateLib9 months ago

RedstateLib9 months ago

StillUnashamed9 months ago

deathray9 months ago

earthlingerer9 months ago

StillUnashamed8 months, 4 weeks ago

tkyrchncs8 months, 4 weeks ago

Searchbeam8 months, 3 weeks ago

AntiNeoCon8 months, 4 weeks ago

tkyrchncs8 months, 4 weeks ago

Lurch9 months ago

blinkers9 months ago

rightfromwrong9 months ago

HmacComment removed: User banned.4 Replies

lvrofwolves9 months ago

scriblerus19 months ago

Searchbeam8 months, 4 weeks ago

Lurch8 months, 4 weeks ago

tkyrchncs8 months, 4 weeks ago

Shadowolf8 months, 4 weeks ago

ranchhandComment removed: User banned.10 Replies

RickyDawkins9 months ago

ranchhandComment removed: User banned.

ML2007Comment removed: User banned.

vettenut9 months ago

RickyDawkins9 months ago

vettenut9 months ago

RickyDawkins9 months ago

aceofspades19 months ago

ML2007Comment removed: User banned.1 Reply

memestryker8 months, 3 weeks ago

Poulenc9 months ago

ML2007Comment removed: User banned.

memestryker8 months, 3 weeks ago

aniokly9 months ago

RickyDawkins9 months ago