Might I point something out?

By Erick Posted in | | Comments (112) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Mike Huckabee ran a Christmas time commercial in Iowa that had a "subliminal cross" in it. Remember that? It was a bookshelf. The media went nuts.

"He's using *religion* to get votes," the MSM said. "That's disgusting." "That's a violation of the separation of church and state," the MSM continued.

For days the media, more so than any candidate, blasted Huckabee for daring to do a Christmas ad with a bookshelf that looked like a cross.

Since we haven't heard any outrage about this from the MSM, I guess they're all burned out of anti-religion vitriol.


« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims?Comments (2) | Today's the day for Greg Davis (MS-01)...Comments (5) »
Might I point something out? 112 Comments (0 topical, 112 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »

Theocracy! Oh, wait, it's the good kind of theocrat. You know, the kind who doesn't actually believe it.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

1) It's only potentially subliminal images that are out-of-bounds. Explicit images are okay.

2) Crosses are barred from your advertisements only if you're an ordained pastor

3) Crosses are banned only if the ad is being aired around the time of a high-visibility Christian holiday (Pentecost doesn't count)

4) Crosses are banned only if you're a member of that political party that's trying to tear down the "wall of separation" between the state and religion.

Other bids gleefully accepted.

And Rightly So!

of a certain party and certain of its candidates are highly acceptable.

Notice in the pic how the Divine Presence of Obama precedes the cross?

Obama- you walked into
the party, like you were
walking onto a yatch

Descriptive text here

That's pretty subtle. I'm not sure anything was intended there.

You all know - but are afraid to talk about it - the reason crosses are out of bounds for conservatives (or in Huck's case, Republicans) is that EVERYBODY knows that sooner or later we'll burn them.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Just a typical, small town, white girl...

But funny.

or implying that he is a secret member of Hamas, he wouldn't have to do something this silly. Of course the media is applying a double standard here. If there were any fairness, you would see MSNBC or ABC or the NYT calling him out on this. The ad is an overtly religious pander (unlike Huck's bookshelf).

thing. Its more fundamental pandering in states where he needs to appeal to Reagan democrats. He is trying to shed his elisist image.

Nobody has been saying Obama IS a Muslim. There are those who have suggested that Obama was BORN a Muslim (according to Islamic law since his father was a Muslim), and thus Obama may be an APOSTATE.

Nobody has been saying Obama IS a Muslim.

I have heard people say this. Not people on RedState, and not prominent Republicans, but there definitely people who think he is.

Look at this poll. Find the Muslim question, asked late April.

"As far as you know, what is Barack Obama's religion? Is he a Christian, a Muslim, or something else?"

Only 52% said Christian
13% said Muslim
26% said unsure
9% said something else

That is 40% who think he might be a Muslim.

This is not just some stupid thing, I think the Obama camp really is afraid of the Muslim rumors.

5% will say after 1950. 36% of Germans in a recent poll thought that Bush purposely let 9/11 happen.

Polls illustrate that a non-diminis portion of the population is nuts, or don't take polls seriously.

13% said Muslim. 20% would say that Kennedy was assassinated by a UFO.

I guess I should have said nobody SERIOUS has been saying that Obama is a Muslim.

I saw a poll once that asked who the greatest American of the 20th Century was, and 3% said Abraham Lincoln.

That is true. But think of it this way; even if said people are being idiotic by thinking Obama is a Muslim, if I were Obama I would still be concerned.

I think 40% is too high a number to just be written off as poll idiocy (he is probably as worried about the "unsure" people as much as the wrong people. I mean, someone who wouldn't vote for a Muslim would also probably not vote for someone who might be a Muslim).

13% thought he was a Muslim. Adding the "not sures" and "others" (Hindu, Buddhist, etc) is not fair unless you are lumping all religions into one of two categories, Christian or non-Christian.

Hell, 40% of Redstaters might think Ron Paul's a Martian, but it doesn't make it so.

I can't see a shread of evidence that he has any beliefs or devotion other than to standard-school east coast liberaism and doing whatever it takes to get elected.

Just because we're not pushing it here, or just because the GOP isn't, it doesn't follow that the rumor's not out there.

Moe

*Yeah, well, don't let it go to your head.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Which puts that conclusion firmly in the conspiracy theory category, along with items like:

Bush purposely allowed 9/11 to happen.
The U.S. government killed Kennedy
UFOs have been visiting us for years, and the government is covering it ut.

While only 13% responded Muslim, what I'd be worried about is the 26% also. Anyone who would not vote for a Muslim (or if they would be less likely to vote for a Muslim), would probably also not vote (or be less likely to vote) for someone if they thought there was a significant chance they were a Muslim.

Another poll, somewhere on this page it asks "Are you more or less likely to vote for someone who is a ____?" Muslim gets about half saying doesn't matter, half say less likely. (It is the second worst, after atheist).

But since the assertion that many Americans think Obama is Muslim is actually a backhanded way to insult Americans (e.g. we are dumb islamophonic and racist hicks), I give people the benefit of the doubt and use the 13% number.

The 26% obviously aren't sure because they don't know, don't care, or haven't looked into it yet.

Lets not lump ordinary Americans with the nutjobs.

"I don't know" when they mean "I don't care" or "Why are you calling me during family meal time...(click)"

That is certainly possible. I have no idea.

But this is exactly the type of thing I would expect the Obama campaign to be paranoid about, and to be better safe than sorry. So they'll go out of their way to set the record straight, because even if this only has like a 1-in-1000 chance of losing him the election it is still probably worth it to spend some money on an "I'm not a Muslim" ad rather than on another standard ad, or whatever else he might spend it on.

Also, the other thing it could be is that when you ask people the question it makes them suspicious.

If a pollster called and asked, "To your knowledge did John McCain say that he hates Jews on April 27, 1998?" You might have the reaction of "he really said that?" even if you have never heard this before, and it doesn't at all sound like something McCain'd say.

So maybe people who assumed he was Christian hear this question and then think to themselves "I guess I don't know for sure that he is Christian, I just assumed it, maybe he is Muslim..."

In which case Obama making an "I am not a Muslim" ad makes sense. To nip it in the bud.

... even after all the Jeremiah Wright coverage. I guess we'll just have to keep on reminding people that he sat in Wright's church for 20 years. That should help.

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

Small is beautiful.

I think the question of "Muslim" or even his middle name become moot points....

" We look at things as black and white, and not gray. It’s conceivable that there are those in the Arab world who say to themselves, “This is a guy who spent some time in the Muslim world, has a middle name of Hussein, and appears more worldly and has called for talks with people, and so he’s not going to be engaging in the same sort of cowboy diplomacy as George Bush,” and that’s something they’re hopeful about. I think that’s a perfectly legitimate perception as long as they’re not confused about my unyielding support for Israel’s security."

You can't have it both ways.

" Got to love the Lord for making things like that."
Morally Compromised

except for the comment about President Bush. Not even the Liberals can argue that President Bush has been a fair broker in the Israeli/Palestian conflict resolution process. He was the first President to openly call for a free Palestinian state to be created along a free and secure Israel. I think that having the Palestians think that our President will take their point of view into account is a good thing.

President Bush was beat up pretty steadily because he saw things in black and white, and not gray. Months and months and millions upon millions of words were spent by MSM and the netroots describing and assserting how incompetently narrow, bigoted, close-minded, and ill-informed he was, because he was not nuanced. The world is not black and white, they lectured; only a fool lives in those extremes, they proclaimed.

But now that their hero has said the same thing...

miniscule and irrelevant. His problem is the kind of Christian church he sat in for 20 years, and as more people learn of that, many will prefer a good patriotic muslim.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

Yes, what a silly non-issue. All this trucking with rogue states and wanna-be Israel erasers isn't relevant.

So the leading Democrat nominee plays with anti-Semites. Big woop. Who gives a doodle? Whoopie ding-dong doo.

So he wants to unconditionally meet with terrorists and shares long-term friendships and dinner table roundtables with pro-Hamas radicals and sixties era bombers and killers. Whoop dee doo. Who gives a bibble? Gabba-gabba hey.

The important question is, is he comfortable? Can we get him a pillow?

absentee
Also Find Me Here.

I don't believe he is "pro" Hamas. I do agree with you on the issue of his judgement re: meeting with Iran and others with no pre-conditions. That's insane.

However, I think the whole guilt by association thing is also insane and ridiculous. Do we think that McCain is a "Manchurian Candidate" because he spent time in a VC prison? Do we believe he is corrupt because he "associated" with Charles Keating? Do we think he is pro-despot because one of his "advisors" worked for the murderous government of Burma?

If you want an example of an anti-Semitic president, see Richard Nixon. If you want an example of a president who has a horrible vision for US/Israeli policy, see Jimmy Carter. I don't think anything Obama has said or done but him in either category.

I understand that some think that all is fair in politics, but I'm not a politician. I don't think that Obama will be a disasterous president because he will allow Israel to be destroyed, I think he will be a poor president and nowhere near as good as John McCain because his policy proposals are likely to slow our economy and put America in a weaker position in the GWOT.

I don't consider Dems the enemy. They are the opposition. Half of my neighbors are Dems and I would bet that in this traditionally "Red" county, Obama will win 60% of the vote in November. Should I stop talking to my neighbors or start calling them terrorist lovers or anti-Semites?

I hate feeling that I have to write posts defending Obama, but the little idealist in me can't stand to see the bs that is hurled at him. I would rather talk about why John McCain is the right man for the job at this time in our history. But, I will continue to debate my fellow RSers if I have to.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

as anit-semitic, but I don't think the word truly fits.

Leftists are increasingly hostile to Israel, but I don't think that they are truly hostile to Jews per se.

All I have to say is GOD BLESS ISRAEL! Is there a better example/contrast than a tiny and prosperous free nation without any natural resources surrounded by much larger poverty stricken aggressors who can literally pull money out of the ground.

Freedom works.

... with Hamas was pro-Hamas?

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

Small is beautiful.

at the very least they were displaying the same ignorance as Barack Obama has promised as his foreign policy. One can't meet with terrorists with no pre-conditions. Even if you think you are trying to help out, Hamas or Hezbollah are not the idealists that these people might be. They are not going to be reasonable just because we wish it to be so. There must always be a pre-condition: "Israel has a right to exist within secure borders". Period.

I said he was an anti-semite. There is ample evidence of what Nixon thought of Jews.

the threat Obama is to american foreign policy.

The hamas endorsement is huge, and it bespeaks one of the main truths about dems

weakness
appeasmement of evil
for 35 years

Nixon used anti-semitic language but had moral policies.

Reminds me of a lot of libs on the race issue. They would never say the n word as they treat blacks like children.

But I have known many people that talked racist in private but actually hired blacks to run their businesses.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

The subliminal cross thing was always dumb...I bet if Huckabee were in the race still/was the nominee this would be a big deal, "Is Obama trying to woo religious voters from Huckabee?" etc.

I think what this really is about (I mean, why Obama made this ad) is the Muslim stuff.

What made the Huckabee ad controversial, was NOT its invocation of Christianity. (There had already been another Huckabee ad with the words "CHRISTIAN LEADER"--can't get more explicit about Christianity than that)

What made this ad controversial was that it appeared to some folks (like me) that it was using subliminal perception techniques--a bookshelf lit in such a way as to resemble a cross.

After all, there was an explicit symbol in the ad too--a Christmas tree--yet nobody complained about that.

Candidates frequently wrap themselves in religion when running for office. That's not noteworthy. But doing it subliminally is.

At least number one on my list of rationalizations.

...except that I wasn't trying to be serious. Since you are, though, a few points.

1) A Christmas tree is not an explicit Christian symbol - and the Wiccans and lots of merchants, among others, would be offended that you would want to take their toay from them and give ownership of it to the Christians. Indeed, the Reformed/Puritan element of Christianity historically were scandalized (and some still are) by displays of Christmas tree - or for that matter, the celebration of Christmas itself.

But today certainly no one in the popular culture would blink an eye at Christmas decorations. Besides, have you already forgotten the Christmas Gifts from Hillary ad (and RedState's creative editing thereof) that came out around the same time as Huckabee's ad.

But again, the controversy was over the imagery of a cross, not holiday/Christmas imagery.

2) Yes, there was a sub-controversy around the subliminal issue, though I really wonder what is accepted definition of subliminal advertising and how closely this bookshelf image meets that definition.

3) However, the energy behind the commentary around that ad was predominantly the manufactured outrage that somehow Huckabee was trying to position himself as the only true Christian candidate (and at least, the truest Christian in the race,that took nourishment froom Huckabee's being a pastor. Thus the spreaders of outrage took great umbrage that Huckabee was trying appropriate the great symbols of the Faith for his campaign.

4) Actually, I would disapprove of a candidate trying to annoint themselves as God's approved candidate - subliminally or overtly. In that regard, Huckabee's calling himself "Christian Leader" comes far closer to that morass than a fleeting image of a Cross. And I recall that the "Christian Leader" line did evoke criticism at the time also. (The subliminal advertising issue has been around since the 50's and at this point in time, subliminal imagery is rather ubiquitous and of dubious effectiveness in changing personal preferences.)

5) The point is that those corners of the media who castigated Huckabee for episodes of overt (as well as arguably subliminal) identification of himself with Christianity - these characters are silent when it comes to Obama positioning himself next to a Cross - in a setting with organ pipes that also identifies Obama with church services. It's the disparity in treatment of the same basic issue (boundary of church and state) that indicates a media bias which looks to be partisan in nature (candidate-based) since no consistent alternative explanation seems to be there.

6) Personally, I don't find it offensive that either used religious imagery or sought to identifying themselves as Christians. The voters are free to decide how to weight this in their choice of candidate. The boundary is when a candidate starts claiming divine mandate, and thus far both have kept clear of that (although some of Obama's public gathering and some of his surrogates have come uncomfortably close to the edge of that precipice).

And Rightly So!

having a problem with the Huckabee cross ad. It's interesting how times change.

I am pretty sure that Obama realizes he is having problems with the larger "Christian" vote and wants to shore it up. Obamiacs are not his target. Most of them are anti-god socialists (products of our public school systems) anyway.

It is time for him to move to the center. Here we go.

in November and more than 75% of the country is self-identified Christian and almost 90% believe in "god" of some kind, how can most of Obama's supporters be anti-god? Socialists? Maybe.

A large number of Americans claim to be Christian, but surveys show they don't believe the Bible, they don't Believe Jesus Christ is the only way to heaven, and they do believe the state should take care of them.

The younger population is leaving the church in droves, because they never believed what they were being taught in church anyway. They do believe the indoctination they got in public schools. Many call themselves "Christian," but don't live like it and don't see any conflict believing Buddha is just as easily the path to heaven.

Jesus, himself, said he is the only way to heaven. If you do not believe this tenet and live by it, you really can't say you are a follower of Jesus Christ.

It gives McCain cover to select Huckabee for VP.

McCain/Huckabee means I will consider voting for Bob Barr in November

gay tolerant, abortion supporting, education worshiping, poverty pandering kind. --- Their problem is with people who actually believe in traditional Christianity and traditional Christian social values. i.e. the Huckabee kind.

I like education worshiping Christianity too. Anyone who insists the world is only 6000 years old doesn't deserve to be taken seriously.

Does not a consensus make. I wouldn't say there is a universal consensus among young earth creationists at all, and I certainly dispute the idea that there is a 4000 or 6000 year consensus. This idea that this is what "christians" think is just a false meme. Biblical scholars have a wide range in their assessments. The 6000 year thing is red herring.

absentee
Also Find Me Here.

Most Christians,including myself, know that the world is billions of years old and that life evolved over hundreds of millions of years. The one's who believe in any young earth theory are the ones I was writing about.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

those who believe that our government should implement a command economy. I disagree with them and I don't think they are to be taken seriously. They are wrong.

And you're a bigot against some Christians.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

I would call it intolerant against ignorance. If you want to think the moon is made of green cheese, I say you are welcome to that belief. I don't, however, have to take you seriously because you are obviously delusional.

Christians who actually believe what the Bible says, rather than just aking it as metaphors to be interpreted by left-wing judges, are mentally ill and equivalent to beleiving the moon to be made of green cheese, hm?

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

I should not have stooped to name calling. If you can delete that post for me, I would appreciate it. If you can't, it will stand as an example of my profound mistake.

However, I still stand by my own belief that folks who take the entire Bible literally are ignoring all available scientific and historical evidence. Once they take that approach, it is difficult for me to take them seriously on issues of science or education. I do respect and share most of their religious, philosophical and moral views.

the myth of abiogenesis on which the entire Darwinian paradigm rests, despite the fact that everything we know about science and the physical universe screams that it is impossible (unless one subscribes by religious faith to the multiverse escape hatch), they discredit themselves greatly. People would rather just trust the timeless Bible which has been right before.

I must say, turning the old abiogenesis theories into a sword against scientific theories on the origin of life, that's interesting.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

"I do respect and share most of their religious, philosophical and moral views." other than faith obviously.

Christians who believe in the creation story are not ignorant, they are faithful. And just because "science" cannot understand the divine nature of the creation story does not make it false. Also if you really understood the creation story than you would understand that it is the creation of life on the planet not the planet itself so the age of the earth is irrelevant to the creation story told in Genesis. So my advice to you is don't be ignorant of the divine while accusing believers in the creation story of being ignorant themselves.

"Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper" Peter Griffin...Family Guy

conform and celebrate diversity....or else!!!

Also if you really understood the creation story than you would understand that it is the creation of life on the planet not the planet itself so the age of the earth is irrelevant to the creation story told in Genesis.

I don't know that this is right. In Genesis, the Sun and stars and moon are created on day 4. There are two options here:

1) You read Genesis in a way that is consistent with the Heliocentric model of the Universe, in which case, the only explanation is that the Earth existed before the rest of the solar system, and the Earth was kinda wedged into place in its orbit and all at that time.

2) You don't. I bring up this possibility because Genesis has there being the world divided into three with heaven in the middle and land/sea on the one side, with the stars and moon and sun in the heavens, which does not sound very heliocentric to me.

Assuming you go with 1, then you'd say that Earth was created on day 3 (and by Earth I mean dry land, not The Earth, I use the word Earth because that is what is says in the King James Version which I am looking at). That still does not jive with the scientific evidence I think shooflyguy68 is referring to, such as carbon dating rocks and stuff.

Unless you want to say that the Earth (by which I mean dry land) existed below the water the whole time (which is what I think it says), which (my guess is) is also not consistent with various scientific evidence. Because land being underwater for a long time leaves its mark in certain ways that scientists can pick up on.

You could also say that God created the Universe in a way such that it would look older than it was. But from the standpoint of someone who strictly looks at scientific evidence that carries no more bearing than saying God created the Universe five minutes ago and altered everything (including our memories) to make it seem older.

I'll just ask you two questions, and then a follow up:- 1) What was created in v. 1, and 2) how much time elapsed between v. 1 & 2, and the rest of the verses in chapter 1, given that with God "a day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years a day"; and based upon your answers to these, 3) how can anyone say with any degree of certainty whatsoever what a "literal" interpretation of Genesis should be?

what exactly you mean by "Genesis as a scientific basis for creation". Or not, since this is a major threadjack - I don't really care. I just continue to be amused by folks who don't believe in the Bible who then seize upon whatever ludicrous theory they've seen anyone calling themselves Christian advance in an effort to denigrate it, as if that view is the only way it could possibly be interpreted. I get it that you all don't believe it. I'm fine with that. You've said earlier that you're fine with anyone believing (albeit with some nice snobbish elitist snark added for good taste). Why can't you just leave it at that?

The orignal post I responded to was about the MSM's acceptance of Christianity only when is was "pro-education". I thought that was an odd point and made my comment. I believe God created the world. That is faith. I can't prove it through scientific method. I know based on scientific evidence that God did not create the universe in six days. I know based on scientific evidence that the earth is billions of years old, that life is billions of years old and that man has been around for a few hundred thousand years.

You wanted someone to show you why Genesis was not a valid document to base our knowledge of creation. Since the creation story, as literally told in Genesis, is falsifiable based on scientific evidence, it is then best understood as an allegory similar to the other creation stories I posted a link to.

you assume that your view is the only possible way Genesis could be interpreted. You completely missed the point of my post. Oh well. I tried...

to maintain that Genesis can only be interpreted to mean that God created everything within six twenty four hour periods. First off, you have to deal with v. 1, which says he created the heaven and the earth. Well, he must have created something then; what was it? And how much time elapsed between v. 1 and v. 3? A day? A month? A year? Eons? And given that 2 Peter 3:8 says that to the Lord a day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years a day, could it be argued that the definition of a "day" might be a bit more complex than just a 24 hour period? I could go on, throughout the chapter, listing differing possible interpretations - cripe, people write entire books on these things. There is simply no basis for dogmatically stating that the creation framework set forth in Genesis One MUST mean six twenty four hour periods. Maybe it does. I don't think so, but I don't claim to know - and it makes no difference to my belief. The fact is, no one really knows for sure what it means. And claiming that it can only mean what you interpret it to mean is simply wrong.

My issue was with Bible literalists. I have no problem with belief in a Creator since I would consider myself a believer in theistic evolution. However, if you believe in the literal 6 day creation story and a young earth, you can't be taken seriously on issues of science, education or reason.

Normally when I post on such things I include a qualifier such as "I am no expert but..." which I forgot to include here. So, I am no expert, but...

Young's literal translation, which is supposedly closer to the original Hebrew, translates Genesis 1:1 as "In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth" - in other words, happening at the same time, and more of a prelude to everything than a separate event.

As for what was created in Genesis 1:1 assuming the traditional translation, I would say the Earth, as a body. Which is what I originally said, when I said that Genesis does concern the creation of the Earth, and not just life on it. As for how much time passed, I don't know (obv). It does not matter to my main point though.

If you don't assume the Earth was created in 1:1, then what was? The ground below the water on the Earth? That doesn't seem to make sense, that the Earth existed but the ground that it consists of did not.

As for the thousand years thing, this is an odd situation as I am Jewish and so know even less about the New Testament. So you tell me what that means.

As for the literal interpretation thing, that is true. But I think that it is not true that anyone who knows anything about Genesis ought to think that it concerns only the creation of life on Earth and not Earth itself.

I see your point there and concede for now that is speaking of both life on earth and the earth itself. But I am going to look into that more. I hate it when you science geeks make me think...;)

"Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper" Peter Griffin...Family Guy

conform and celebrate diversity....or else!!!

The idea that God is limited to our perception of time is silly. I also believe that science has limited itself by setting our perception of time as a constant. And since I don't believe that time is a constant I can't reliably define when the earth was created and it is of no consequence to me. The earth could be a billion years old or it could be 6000 years old but that make know difference to me. And from what I know the way that the 6000 year old earth theory came about was by counting generations throughout the Old Testament and adding that to the known time line of our current calendar. The point of all of this is that time is not a constant and therefore we cannot conclusively determine the age of our planet, not to mention the Universe. It's a red herring created to instill doubt in the mind of the believer.

"Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper" Peter Griffin...Family Guy

conform and celebrate diversity....or else!!!

Time is complicated enough, even from the scientific point of view, what with Special Relativity, not to mention General Relativity, that I don't claim to be able to wrap my head around it. I have no idea what to make of God operating outside of our ideas of time, though I am not saying it is not true (if God exists you would think it is). I stand by the point I tried to make originally, though, which is that a person can believe/know well the creation story as laid down by the Bible and interpret it to be referring to the creation of the Earth and not just life on it.

I conceded up thread but we will talk more I am sure...I always enjoy a good theological conversation...after all God communicates to us through us.

"Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper" Peter Griffin...Family Guy

conform and celebrate diversity....or else!!!

This is America. You can believe and worship as you see fit. I don't care if you are a Bible literalist, a Xenu worshiping Scientologist or a follower of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I just don't want your religious beliefs, or mine for that matter, to be adopted by our government and implemented as official policy. Governor Huckabee stated that the US Constitution should be changed to comply with God's law. Uh,no. It shouldn't. It's fine the way it is.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

Because only Christian morals keep us from killing each other. (snark).

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

The original context of my comment was to delineate between the type of Christianity which the MSM allows and appreciates and the type it does not. I did so. You pointed out you follow the MSM on this one. So here we are. No arguments there. To respond more carefully to your comments would threadjack so I won't for now.

Enjoy.

Yes, the media and the country do have a more socially libertarian point of view. There is no doubt about that. My point is that I happen to think they are correct in their bias but only insofar as they don't trample on your right to believe whatever you wish.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

They have a voice in this country, but so do those who disagree.

to characterize the media as socially libertarion is a bit of a reach. Socially liberal certainly. Socially libertarian no. In addition to also link the position of the MSM on Christianity with the position of the country is incorrect.

because I think it's more of a live and let live then a "let's destroy traditional values" kind of thing, but perhaps I'm projecting my own ideology there.

Most of the MSM has an ideology that over the last thirty years has worked actively to change our nations social structures and perspectives. Furthermore they have advocated that these changes be codified in law. This is social liberalism by any definition.

To slice it thinly I would guess that you ascribe to social liberalism as a way of creating what from your perspective would be a more libertarian environment. You would naturally rather call it social libertarianism because that fits your view of yourself as a libertarian rather than a liberal. I understand that perspective; however it is still social liberalism.

BTW. I'm not saying your a liberal just attempting to carefully delineate the arguments.

The media has a more socially liberal point of view NOT libertarian. That's why there was little outrage at what the Texas law enforcement did to those FLDS families.

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

Small is beautiful.


The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther

... education isn't God. So why would any Christian worship it, besides idolatry?

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

Small is beautiful.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Sorry but I can't believe that Huckabee didn't know what he was doing with the book shelf. It was obvious. And Huckabee ran on the Christian leader theme. If his handlers didn't know it looked like a cross, they should have been fired.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater


omnia dicta fortiora si dicta Latina

I don't have any problem with people going on and on about Christianity in their ads (though since I am not a Christian it matters less to me, and I wish they would spend more time on issues in general, and I don't care much about the candidates' level of belief in Christianity).

I also don't think that the Huckabee cross thing was intentional, though I am not an expert on campaign ad practices so maybe it was. If it was, I think that wouldn't be right, not because it is subliminal Christian stuff but because it is subliminal stuff in general. I think if you are gonna say something, come out and say it directly, whether that message is "I am a Christian" or "my opponent hates children." But I am willing to pass it off as standard campaign stuff, and the only reason it was considered a big deal was because Huckabee was already considered the "religion guy" by the media.

When someone asserts that they are a "christian leader" in a political race and implies that others are not even though they are devout christians. And when supporters of that "christian leader" vicously attack another fellow righteous christian because he does not follow their brand of christianity.

Gosh, I must have missed that.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Just a typical, small town, white girl...

From his Mormons are evil push polling in Iowa and South Carolina, to his asserting that Fred was as strong of a Christian conservative because he didn't push HLA, to his wanting to mold the Constitution in God's standards, he absolutely ran a campaign based on Christian identity politics, and it was just as ugly as Barack's racial politics and Hillary's gender politics. It wasn't just the ad-it was his whole campaign.

Photobucket End the NewTone. Punch the hippies.

"Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper" Peter Griffin...Family Guy

conform and celebrate diversity....or else!!!

with you.
I think the reaction to the ad was insanely ridiculous. The man's campaign paid for ad time. He was entitled to put whatever he wanted in that ad as long as it met FCC guidleines which it did. That so many got all in a spasm on a possible, subliminal cross on a FREAKIN' CHRISTMAS greeting. Come on! There are much worse things to worry about.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Just a typical, small town, white girl...

If he didn't run such an ugly identity politics race, than I think it would have been less of a big deal. All of the other candidates ran Christmas ads, and I think openly had crosses and Christmas trees-it was just a reaction to Huckabee more than anything.

Photobucket End the NewTone. Punch the hippies.

the libs were all over Huckabee for being a Christian. And now, Barack can't get that religion quick enough.
Heh. Double standard much?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Just a typical, small town, white girl...

It's one of the reasons they were so excited about him-he goes to church every Sunday. Liberals almost peed their pants that they had found someone who could quote the Bible without talking in a creepy voice about their dead son like the Breck Girl.

Photobucket End the NewTone. Punch the hippies.

Same old, same old. But we knew that already, didn't we? Yes, because we are SMART!
As for attending church every Sunday, remember he wasn't there on the Sundays Jeremiah went all crazy. Heh.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Just a typical, small town, white girl...

Probably had something better to do anyway, more hopeandchange seeds to sow I suppose. Isn't it a sad state now that it looks like the Breck Girl had the best shot to win this year.

Photobucket End the NewTone. Punch the hippies.

I never used the word stated. I used the word implied for a reason. His campaign was rife with the most thinly vailed discrimination I have witnessed in a long time.

lead Christian churches. McCain was a congressional leader. Fred was a leading supporting actor.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

of the incident with Bush's campaign and the supposedly subliminal Democ"rats" ad. Who really cares? It is really just another opportunity for the media to talk negatively about a Republican candidate over a non-issue. A lame excuse for a manufactured controversy imo.

... realized the bookshelf looked like a cross until the media reports came out. But I understand that a more presumptive speculation fits better with the nefarious "snake oil salesman" rendering of Mike Huckabee, against all evidence in his personal life. It's pretty easy to believe that, I guess.

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

Small is beautiful.

He was wishing us a Merry Christmas. And, the cross is kind of important to that holiday. Without the cross of Easter, there woudl be no Christmas.
So, I don't see a problem here.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Just a typical, small town, white girl...

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

Is that Huck openly said something about "the birth of our Saviour" in the ad, didn't he? I mean, he wasn't exactly subliminible about it. I don't see why the "cross" would be a problem if the actual script of the ad wasn't.

Also, a note about "evangelical identity politics": Evangelical Christianity isn't an identity. It's a set of beliefs. (Just like conservatism is a set of beliefs; would it make any sense to talk about "conservative identity politics?") Saying that religious faiths are really just identities is buying into a subjective understanding of religion. When I recite the Nicene Creed, I'm not "expressing my identity," I'm making a series of statements (correct or incorrect) about objective reality. When evangelicals vote for Huck, they're not doing it because he's a fellow member of Tribe Evangelical; they're doing it because they agree with him on the most important questions that exist, so they trust him to get other stuff right too. And that's a pretty rational, legitimate reason to vote.

 
Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)


©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service