Saturday, December 22, 2007

No Huck, It's Not Just a Bookshelf

Mike Huckabee claims it's just a bookshelf in defense to criticism that he used a cross in his Christmas ad that has been running the last few weeks in Iowa and New Hampshire...not buying it Huckabee.

Mr. Huckabee is a right wing religious nut who insists on shoving HIS religion down our throats any chance he can get. This time through a political ad with a bookshelf that has a hidden subliminal message.... a Cross and a symbolic way of how he will run this country if elected. Didn't we already have eight years of a president that has worked hard to appoint judges to the Supreme Court that will try and overturn a woman's right to choose, and a president that consults with God on policy decisions.... It's a very scary way to govern.

I have no trouble with a person that has strong religious beliefs, I think that's important. I myself was raised with strong religious beliefs but there needs to be a separation of church and state in this country. A public servant that is given the privilege of being elected should not impose their views on anyone else, especial the diverse group of constituents they were elected to represent.

Please watch the Huckabee ad below and judge for yourself.

20 comments:

Anonymous said...

All you need to do is read Chuck Norris' endorsement that Mike is the best candidate to fight against "secularist beliefs" to realize that the right-wing is determined to overthrow our secular democracy in favor of a theocracy. Iran is their ideal form of governance. Do they want to bomb them to steal it? When are the people ,religious or not, going to realize that our secular government is the only protection of their religious freedoms? Without the separation of church and state, the government would dictate sermons and practices. I urge all concerned to visit the Americans United for the Separation of Church and State (AUSC) website to read up on this. The good reverend Barry Lynn is fighting for our freedoms.

Anonymous said...

Jeremy, thanks for posting this. I've tried to respond on Cahill's blog ("Cahill on Kingston") a couple of times... But I've apparently been censored out because my views differ from his, and I've found his choice of wording [re. those he considers "athiests" (which might not even be the case)] offensive.

I have no problem with any of the presidential hopefuls Christmas and/or Holiday (s) ads that I have seen... Not even Huckebees. But that is because I don't care to get wrapped up in the "little stuff" - whilst the bigger issues, the violation of the "U.S. Constitution" and "Bill of Rights" ("Freedom of Religion;" "Freedom on the Press;" etc) are being violated by the CURRENT Presidential administration --- which is setting the groundwork for Huckabee and all that might well (if progressive Democrats are not successful) come...

I have a nativity scene in front of my house (for the joy of family and friends that appreciate this). I have a Santa and a Snowman in back of my house (for the little people, primarily; but it is also FUN). In fact, I have a house full of the Christmas and holiday (s) spirit - because all of this has been part of our cultural history - for a very long time now - and multiculturalism is itself deseving of respect and celebration.

These items do not clash. They blend in nicely. Which is what all of us could do if politicians would publically and finacially stay OUT of the religious realm and zealous politically (or financially) motivated religious folks would stay out of the political realm!

As an Agnostic and a humanist that believes over-zealous religiousity has brought a lot of harm to this nation... and around the globe...
I show respect and listen when a grandchild speaks of her love for the baby Jesus... and when another speaks of her desire to get a puppy under the tree... and when another has visions of ipods and MP3 players bouncing round in her head...

All are signs of the times. All have thier place. And all are food for discussion and personal growth (in a variety of directions) without any nastiness having to be involved...

The most discusting thing that I have read in the paper so far this year - around this sort of thing - is an article about a guy (and/or gal) that has a crucified Santa Claus figure skewered on a cross by his or her house...

Which was actually topped off last year (or at least on the same par) with a mutilated Santa scene (Halloween style...) in the front yard of some wealthy persons' house in N.Y.C. somewhere...

YUCK! Don't ya' think these people need to "get over themselves?" Think about the children that are viewing these gross displays?

Does that sort of thing (done BY purported Christians...) reflect Christianity...?

If so, we are indeed in deep (and distorted) doo-doo. Don't ya' think?

We need to get back to the basics, folks, to a respect for a diversity of views, beliefs and opinions...

And, if we don't want this country to be a Christian Theocracy (it it already headed that way, big time...), then we better get cracking on ways to do something (like yesterday...; NOW!) to prevent this from happening!

Should ordained ministers even be allowed to run for public office? Isn't this a conflict of interest considering the wording of the "U.S. Constitution" and "Bill of Rights?"

Isn't this the reason why the early "Mormon" church, which basically took over the state of Utah (which might have still been in the province of Mexico at the time?) got the boot FROM that era's U.S. President?

I just read in one of the papers that an ordained minister has joined the race for the position that M. Hinchey will apparently (?) be vacating...

So, start adding them (ordained ministers and/or religious zealots in high public offices) up folks, accross the nation, and see what ya' get...

Cause it "ain't" looking good!

I went to a church event the other day, in honor of two of my grandchildren --- and it was very, very nice.

But if I see the churh's Reverend sitting in the Mayor's seat or the City Council President's seat --- any time soon --- I'm going to go (peacefully, but of course; I am also a pascifist) ballistic.

If anyone else is interested in these issues, a lot of pertinent and timely information is available from the Freedom From Religion Foundation [ffrf.org].

The FFRF is NOT anti-Christian. In fact a number of Christians belong to the FFRF.

Their main thrust is to re-instate and/or maintain "Separation of Church and State" (which a lot of religous folks would like, as well); and a reporting of crimes allegedly and/or definitively committed (there are an awful LOT of them, ranging from monetary fraud to child sexual abuse...) by religous "leaders" and/or associated institutions.

Wishing peace, good health, and prosperity to all.

N.S.S.

Anonymous said...

Nonsense, Jeremy. It's a book shelf.

Now, tell us exactly when Huckabee forced his religion down our throats. He mentions God sometime during his speech. Is that bad?

I see a religious man in Huckabee, but nothing that signals the forcing of religion.

Anonymous said...

To clarify something from above (my own ambiguity)--- although it moves more in the direction of presidential hopeful Mitt Romneys' histroy (at least in regard to early fundamental Mormon history...):

"Bringham Young, another believer in "holy" or "unholy" (Take your pick.) visions, "plural marriage" (Young took the doctrine public.), and "blood atonement" (A Mormon euphenism for cold-blooded murder?) took control of the group...; became (after the U.S. Government snatched the land away from the Mexicans) territorial governor of Utah; established a theocratic Mormon empire (with... control over most of the officials, agencies, and businesses in the region); and apparently excelled at theocratic (in miniature)rule, until his militia killed over one-hundred people (men, women, and children) in a hedonistic raid that even Young could not justify (or blame on others). After which, President Buchanan sent troops to Utah to reinstate something - at least slightly akin - to justice" [Nancy S. Smith (local author); "Ode to the Wicker Man (Book I)"; iuniverse.com; 2007; p. 196.]

Anonymous said...

There is a "secret" symbol of a fish (ralated to the story of loaves and fishes) that has been traditionally used by Christians to discretely reveal themselves to one another. The use of the cross for this purpose would be somewhat innovative, if not groundbreaking for a politician.

When is a bookshelf not a bookshelf? When it's lit like a cross to send a subliminal message to fundamentalist Christians. As a progressive, mainstream church-going Christian, I find this offensive.

Anonymous said...

Thank you to the 1:57pm poster. It is really important for Christians who value the American way of life (our Democracy; our Civil Rights; our freedoms) to speak out on these issues. It is not an us versus us issue. It is a relgio-political powerplay from up top that should concern us all.

Anonymous said...

Have you forgotten all the church services that followed 9/11 attended and sponsored by the politicos? One large service in Yankee Stadium comes to mind. No one complained. Guess it is o.k. to invoke God when the country is in crisis. Even Joe Stalin realized the importance of keeping the churches in the atheistic Soviet Union open during world war 2. Or, maybe he was "covering his bets"? So, let's just keep our "pocket Jesus" ready for another disaster. Separation of church and state is freedom of religion where the state shall not sponsor one denomination over another such as the Church of England, et al.

Anonymous said...

I don't here anyone here saying that any churches should be closed down.

I see the politically funded (?) post-9/11 religious services as more gaming...

And I'm relatively sure that most of the sincere church-going people would have been just as comfortable, or more so, attending thier usual churches, post-9/11. [Which is what many of them, not politically inspired, probably did.]

I stand by my previous comments.

All is NOT right with the world.

And I SINCERELY doubt that ALL religions are being financed, promoted and/or more covertly sponsored EQUALLY by the Bush Administration, et al.

And, if that were the case [equal Federal funding and promotion for Christians, Catholics, Mormons, Moonies, Jehovahs Witnesses, the Krishnas, Scientologists, religious Satanists, etc., etc., etc...]would you still be strumming the same guitar?

What about all of the folks that have mail-order degrees (minus any real knowlege of theology of any sort) and ministries/churches? (They are allowed to call themselves ministers, bishops, etc., as well]

Should they get Federal funding and promotion?

Even the ex-convicts?

Gang members? (They are onto the religious benes that might be available to them - if they play their cards right - as well...)

Convicted pedophiles?

Or... how about the Church of the Creator, which does not worship a deity, per se; but instead, worhips the White Race and reputedly advocates the "elimination" (death will do; murder is reputedly acceptable...) of everyone that is not white?

Should they get equal federal funding and promotion?

I've been saying, for a long time, that people should do thier homework on this stuff, because I don't think most people really have a grip on what IS going on...

For example, did you know that a Hell's Angel's clubhouse in NYC (I think it was in Manhattan) was (and possibly still is) dubbed the "Church of the Angels" - and reputedly recieved a religious tax exemption?

Did you know about Rev. Pat Robertson's close relationship with a brual African dictator? (It seems they get along fine in regard to diamond mining...)

Are you aware of the fact that religious demominations are losing billions of dollars, annually, to fraud? And that is representative, only, of what is on the books????? [Religious organizations don't even have to keep records to the degree non-religious organizations do.]

I don't see anyone here advocating that churches be shut down.

But churches, ministers, priests, prophets, and such should not be engaged (monetarily or in regard to promoting certain politicians...) in politics and politicians/the Federal Government/etc should not be doling out money and/ot benefits to certain religious bodies and/or representatives of...

Why?

Because that basically "begs" corruption. And there is plenty of corruption to go around already...

Don't ya' think?

Anonymous said...

BTW, if you want the sources in regard to any of what I've written, I'd be happy to oblige...

In the meantime, I recommend checking out ffrf.org, the AUSC (as someone else noted, and other resourses on the topic.

This is the real deal, folks. We need to DEAL with IT - or it will dead (a dirty hand indeed...) with US.

Anonymous said...

The FFRF looks good,I'm waiting for my first copy of Freethought Today to decide on joining. Thanks for the referral. We who fight for the separation are the defenders of the right to worship. Not the enemies of religion as they would have people think. We could just as easily sit back and watch them implode. Empathy for our fellow americans and their suicidal path to religious strife keeps us going. It would be immoral not to help them.

Anonymous said...

sorry for the mispellings up above (i.e., "here" should be hear," "dead" should be "deal," etc.)

i guess my fingers were typing too quick for my mental spell check to engage...

wishing everyone here the best...

stay warm. stay safe. and strive to be happy :)

gerald said...

He did it beautifully. And it was a cross.
We elected an oilman, and we got bad oil and bad government.
This guy could bring us bad religion and bad government. Maybe not.
But George Bush scares the hell out of me: how could anyone so incredibly bad rise to the presidency and how could the people of this country re-elect him.
That's scary. That was done in the broad daylight, eyes wide open.
The only guy that really see's the problem is Edwards: this country is of the corporation. This war, the weak dollar, the oil prices: people are making huge amounts of money, then there's a bunch of wannabees who want the table to be open when they get there and then there's a whole bunch of people who just admire money ala "if you're so smart why ain'tcha rich."

Anonymous said...

6:25 - i'm glad you sent for a free copy of "Freethought Today." i had forgotten that this is one evaluation tool the FFRF's offers - and it is a great (serious here... funny there... important throughout...) paper.

and, as you (?) or someone else noted, there are a bunch of other valuable organizations out there trying to educate the public, and save our "Constitution," "Bill of Rights," etc., as well.

I don't know anything about Reverend Barry Lynn, though. So I guess I'd best check that out.

Needless to say, another "rev... fighting for (?) our freedoms" worries me at this point...

But then, Rev. Martin Luther King was a stand up guy, whom I (through the lens of history) admire deeply. And there have been others.

I almost bought into the whole La Rouche (sp?) thing for a while, only to discover that there is a lot going on (or that "has" gone on...) in association with that organization that is not cool (at all!) either.

So one does have to be careful - in every realm. The truth is often buried deep. The glitz is what is publically (by the mainstream, especially) offered up to us.

Another poster said that it would be immoral NOT to try to educate the public about these issues.

I agree.

It sure isn't easy though.

There is a whole lot of hurt involved - a lot of misunderstanding - a lot of people who feel like thier personal faith is being attacked (it is not) - a whole lot of people that are on the defensive from the onset - and some folks that are downright mean...

Like this is a topic that can not be questioned, debated or discussed - at least not (ahem) by us "little people."

I am also hoping Edwards takes the Democratic lead in the presidential race - and comes out on top.

After which, I hope he puts this country on the foundations (rational; thought out; pragmatic; honorable) it needs... and does not become just another puppet president.

Sometimes, I think it is too late.
And I can only hope, for the sake of our children and future generations, that it is not.

Anonymous said...

I only did a brief skimming of the info about Rev. Barry Lynn, and though it sounds as if he has been engaged in some confrontational and educational endeavors, some of his associations (for example, with Lt. Col. Oliver North) make me uncomfortable.

I'll read more about the AUSC tomorrow, if I get a chance, but it looks a bit, so far, like a left wing org. (or middle of the road org.) that could easily go conservative right wing... kinda' like La Rouche (who was a presidential hopeful at one point).

I could be wrong. But associations mean a lot to me... and I've seen enough people play both sides of the coin to make me extremely cautious.

Basically, I'm not a joiner. I do read/research a LOT though - and I do appreciate getting my info from a variety of sources.

I love a line in the first post (not mine) on this blog, and it is worthy of repeating:

"When are the people, religous or not, going to realize that our secular government is the only protection of thier religious freedoms?"

Thanks,

N.S.

Anonymous said...

if this page is still active it is a good one, for informational purposes, to check out: http://www.alternet.org/story/38467

Anonymous said...

and another... (this organization is apparently struggling financially, and it is a great resource on a variety of religious and/or cult-related topics):

http://factnet.org./

Anonymous said...

Thanks NS,the organizations that stand up for principle even when it means standing up for the rights of extremists should not be faulted for doing so. The ACLU stood up for people like Falwell and Barr when their rights were at risk. It's important to keep the principles alive,despite whose rights are being infringed upon. I don't approve of religion,but I'd fight for everyone's right to practice it. Freedom for all,discrimination for none.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for thanking me (lol), but I need to put a caveat on that...

I do believe the freedoms of everyone (individuals and groups) need to be protected, but that when crimes are being advocated and/or committed --- "that" crosses the line to where criminal prosecution is called for.

In other words, I don't believe anyone's secular, theological or ideological views should exempt them from criminal prosecution when it is called for --- and there are times (in regard to certain issues) when I find myself in disagreement with the ACLU.

That said, I guess I've talked myself right around in a circle. And it is time to shut up.

I'm just bobbing and weaving my way along, like everyone else, trying to understand all of this a little bit better - and adding my voice (I grew up in a place where if a female had an opinion she got her head slammed into the wall...) to all of the other voices that are out there...

I don't mean to offend anyone. And if I have done so, I apologize for that.

It is a very complex world.

Anonymous said...

No offense taken (or noticed) here. Keep speaking your mind and rest assured that no females will be subordinated here. Narrow-minded control freaks yes,but no sexism. This is the age of free thought and will. This is the forum for free expression. Jeremy is extraordinarily accomodating and deserves a lot of respect for that.

Anonymous said...

I have respect for Jeremy in a multitude of ways, one of which is how he handles this blog site :)