Posted on 12/04/2007 11:44:21 PM PST by Plutarch
DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, a Southern Baptist preacher who has surged in Iowa with evangelical Christian support, bristled Tuesday when asked if creationism should be taught in public schools.
Huckabee — who raised his hand at a debate last May when asked which candidates disbelieved the theory of evolution — asked this time why there is such a fascination with his beliefs.
"I believe God created the heavens and the Earth," he said at a news conference with Iowa pastors who murmured, "Amen."
"I wasn't there when he did it, so how he did it, I don't know," Huckabee said.
But he expressed frustration that he is asked about it so often, arguing with the questioner that it ultimately doesn't matter what his personal views are.
"That's an irrelevant question to ask me — I'm happy to answer what I believe, but what I believe is not what's going to be taught in 50 different states," Huckabee said. "Education is a state function. The more state it is, and the less federal it is, the better off we are."
The former Arkansas governor pointed out he has advocated for broad public school course lists that include the creative arts and math and science. Why, then, he asked, is evolution such a fascination?
In fact, religion seems to be more of an issue in the GOP Iowa caucuses with one month left before the voting.
In recent weeks, Huckabee has moved from the back of the pack in the state to challenge longtime leader Mitt Romney, who would be the first Mormon president.... Christian evangelicals, by many estimates, make up anywhere from 30 percent to 50 percent of Republicans who will attend caucuses...
Earlier Tuesday in Newton, Iowa, Huckabee wouldn't say whether he thought Mormonism — rival Romney's religion — was a cult...
(Excerpt) Read more at ap.google.com ...
I'm not a Huck fan but I didn't take it that way. I hear him saying I've answered this 1,000 times and I'm proud to answer it again but can't we focus a little bit on some issues that are really relevant to the race and also to people who aren't religious but I'm asking them to vote for me. Huck's got the religion thing going nicely, now he needs to reach out to some other blocks.
Yes, creationism should be taught in schools and yes, sadly Mormonism is a cult.
This could seem to be a tiny question by some, but it was posted as a snide, little comment by a Macroevolutionist freeper on a crevolist thread months ago. And it does seem to be rather big.
The question was basically that if the Bible is taken literally, what about a seed of mustard being the smallest? Looked at Creationist sources, and to be frank, their answers to the question/criticism was infuriating--one more or less just childishly blew off the topic without giving an adequate explanation.
There are a lot of intelligent Creationist freepers on FR. Can one of you give an explanation about the mustard topic? (this is asking Creationists specifically--at least trying to get Creationist comments first before snarky Macroevolutionist ones (and do personal requests have to be fair anyway?)).
His answer was sort of iffy for a “Do you believe the Bible should be taken literally?” question during a debate. Still, it was more straightforward than Romney—and Giuliani’s answer was a load of wishwashiness.
That one is pretty easy. The mustard seed was the smallest seed his audience knew about. Jesus repeatedly uses allegories to make larger incredibly profound spiritual points. By using universal real-life experiences to make larger points I believe he knew that it would be easier to by understood centuries and cultures down the road by even the least educated audience. I think it's pretty obvious Jesus' point was that from something incredibly small can come something great and beautiful. The seed analogy, in a largely agrarian world, is an excellent universal analogy (I consider the mustard seed discourse to be an analogy rather than a parable) to make this point. The seed analogy is used in other context throughout the Gospels. Since the mustard was the smallest seed they knew of that's the one Jesus used for his illustration. It would have defeated the purpose to cite the actual, obscure seed that's actually smallest if no one has ever heard of it.
This is exactly what happens when verses are dissected out of context. The point being made at the time wasn't "what's the smallest seed in the world" it was "Just as something tiny as a mustard seed can grow into a large beautiful thing, even so Heaven (or faith) is something which starts out small and grows into something as glorious as the Kingdom of God." The immediately following analogy of the leaven makes the same point using a different analogy.
LLS
The thing that irks me is that the question, "Do you believe the Bible should be taken literally?" is an invalid question akin to "When did you stop beating your wife?" Jesus said "I am the vine," yet obviously he did not believe that he was really a plant. Jewish civil law required stoning adulterers. But Christians do not routinely stone people.
The real question that should be asked is, "Do you believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God?" Asking if one takes the Bible literally either shows incredible spiritual, historical and literary ignorance, or a desire to skirt the real issue and entrap the person. I wish there were a candidate smart enough to see through this ruse.
Extremely spot on explanation. You should teach the scriptures, if you don’t already.
Shows you things haven't much changed in the past 2,000 years. I'm not comparing the Huckster to Jesus but the alleged wisemen and religious leaders of His time tried the same thing. Trying to trip Him up with made-up scenarios. I think the ones smart enough to see through this do not get involved in politics but are more involved in hands-on helphing people.
There is nothing new under the sun!
Last night, I was at a party where I talked to a lady I hadn't seen in a long while. She told me she couldn't imagine ever voting for a Republican, but then she saw Huckabee speak and was amazed to find herself actually liking him. She said, "I don't agree with most of his policies, but I got the feeling that he's genuine and quick-witted and respects other people. He wouldn't try to put me in jail for disagreeing with him," which is probably her opinion of most Republicans. She said, "I couldn't believe it, but I could actually see myself voting for him." In other words, Independents who are generally hostile to Republicans find him appealing enough that we might actually have a chance of winning.
But no, having p*ssed away the House and the Senate, we need to rip to shreds the one broadly-appealing candidate we have. We've got to cherry-pick out-of-context quotes and votes from 20 years ago, put the most nefarious spin possible on them, and destroy this guy so that we can get a true-blue, 100% right-wing puritan who'll go out there, scowl at Americans like Fred Thompson does, tell them all the things they're wrong about, and haul in an impressive 32% of the vote, which is about the number that are still willing to call themselves Republicans. And if we don't nominate someone like that, why, they'll sit home in a huff, refuse to vote, and let Hillary or Obama or Edwards become president, just so they can maintain their purity. This is why the GOP has the nickname, "The Stupid Party."
It's usually an entrapment technique used to try to discredit Christians and creationists.
The distinction between *true* and *literal* is always being blurred in that kind of argument, being treated as the same thing. They aren't. Any reading of the definition in any reputable dictionary will demonstrate the difference.
The other tactic is to accuse that if one accepts the creation account as being literal, then one MUST accept the WHOLE Bible as *literally true* (whatever that means), and if one doesn't, one is accused of being a hypocrite or liar.
That’s what I suspected, but I don’t suppose it’s an adequate enough answer for the Pharisees amoung us.
ping
Just take the literal parts literally, and the figurative parts figuratively!
Your interpretation of Jesus' use of the mustard seed is in error because he is teaching the seed is the least DESIRABLE among plants yet outproduces all others even in the most harsh of climates. The Mid-eastern mustard specie as would have been known to him is a very prolific reproducer.
"In 1976 Indian farmers plowed the ground then broadcast the seeds by hand, others used seed drills. By sowing 2 kgs. per hectare they were getting an average yield of 547 kgs per hectare. Record wheat harvests in the US sometimes exceeded 100 bushels per acre, and most of the highest yields were probably in the range of 125-150 bushels per acre with few reports of higher yields. Standard wheat sowing rates were usually 1-1.5 bushels per acre. A species of brown mustard produced on average more than 250 times what was sown in India with the world record not known."
Jesus is teaching that if we had the faith of even one of the least desirable mustard seeds, it would grow and outproduce beyond our wildest imaginations.
Regards,
Feel better?
I disagree with your analysis as most people I’ve spoken to don’t want anything to do with Huck. People see a big gov’t, soft on borders politician wearing his religion on his sleeve. We already have one of those in the White House and people are not lining up for another. Huck even loses there with his recent Gitmo statements. Most people I’m talking to have two major issues this election cycle: keep us safe and fix the illegal immigration problem (I’d add in taxes, but that’s my own priority). Huck is soft on both fronts. He’s coasted until now and he hasn’t impressed much since actually being challenged on some issues.
Well said. Think of the “heavyweight” democrats who have been nominated over the past few decades and ask if Dukakis, McGovern, Gore, Kerry or the current crop of dem hopefuls shine brighter than any of our candidates? I say no. How about those who actually got elected? Carter? Clinton?
Why can’t we adjust our thinking to reality? One republican out of the field will get the nomination. One democrat will as well. Which one do we want to win?
But as president and the person responsible for the Department of Education, his personal views may well be foisted on school children nationwide as public policy. It's a valid question and one he has no right bristling at it.
"Education is a state function."
The heck it is.
You have just insulted millions of fundimentalist Christians who DO believe that the Bible is the literal word of God and is not open to interpretation.
If his faith is so important to him, why is this question so annoying to him?
I would answer “I homeschool my kids and since evolution is believed by most of the world I teach my kids about it, then tell them that it is not true”.
And I don't think he is a socialist. I actually think he has an extremely consistent worldview, i.e., a religious person who believes that certain moral absolutes (no abortion, marriage only between a man and a woman) should be followed as well as apparently a fiscal absolute, for lack of a better word -- that it is the federal government's job to help the poor, needy, less fortunate, deserving, etc.
That last absolute is what gets him into trouble here at FR.
Admittedly, he is no wild-eyed tax-and-spend liberal recklessly throwing money at each and every ostensible social problem that comes down the pike. But a record of even minor social spending along these lines is enough to get him in trouble with the small-government crowd here (many of whom are somewhat suspicious of certain brands of social conservatism to begin with, at least those which impose moral fiats).
Still, you are right because even with what I see as certain profound shortcomings, he does seem to be the most personally appealing candidate. I cannot dislike him.
If he wins the nomination, I could not conceive of rejecting him simply because his views do not align precisely with mine. I ultimately vote for the candidate whose views come closest to my own, secondarily voting against a candidate whose views diverge too far from my own. I can't imagine anyone here would do otherwise (i.e., stay home in a snit and not vote) come November 2008.
I find it funny.
That said, I actually think he answered the question quite well.
I see he’s now trying to capture Fred’s federalism...sorry, Mike, Fred’s is genuine.
Many men of the cloth believe just what he said.
I can’t believe I’m sticking up for the Huckster, but out of all the things he said during the debate, I had no issue with that explanation.
Most people who are quick to comment on the Bible don't know squat about its literary structure, historical context or spiritual meaning.
In the general election, I will vote for any of these men against the Democrat, although I may have to "hold my nose" to do so in some cases. However, I want to influence the Republican Party in a conservative direction, and the more votes received by the conservatives, the better.
I’m a Fred Thompson supporter and not a Huckabee fan, but I’ll respond fairly.
Mike Huckabee is a heck of a likeable guy. He’s got the social issues down pat. I would vote for him if he got the nomination.
Here’s where I take issue with him:
OK. So Arkansas was better when he left than when he took office. Couldn’t have gotten much worse from what I’ve heard. Granted, I’ve never been there.
He raised a lot of taxes and cut a few, and increased spending. His fiscal record is similar to any average liberal Democratic governor.
He’s good on guns and God. Two important issues, but there are hundreds more that he’s not strong on. I think his good heart and Christian beliefs lead him to think that he must care for illegal immigrants without regard for those of us who are citizens and legal immigrants. He also shows a major tendency to support nanny-state type policies like diet regulation, national health standards, and smoking bans.
He’s just not my kind of conservative. I disagree that he has broad appeal. Think about it this way:
Bush BARELY won in 2000 and only did somewhat better in 2004. Gov. Huckabee, good man that he is, has most of Bush’s negative traits, and few of his good ones.
Sen. Fred Thompson is the one that has a broad appeal between law-and-order conservatives, fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, and Constitutionalists. Ditto for Hunter, who is, unfortunately, virtually unelectable and has a less stellar fiscal record than FDT (granted, much better than Huckabee’s.)
Go to Genesis 2:5.....after 7 days there was NO MAN TO TILL THE GROUND..... Then we are given the description of a 'farmer' being created to tend God's Garden which is totally different from the them created on the 6th day. From Genesis to Revelation there is much instruction given based upon the 'horticulture' of seeds and what they produce. Studying and learning the horticulture of the type of plant given is instruction for why it is used as measurement of the subject. So take a little time learn what is known about the mustard plant from the seed to the harvest then apply that knowledge to what the subject is.
There are many plants/seed types used all through the Bible, given they were all created for purpose by the Heavenly Father the horticulture of each is most helpful in gaining understanding of the subject being discussed.
When Joshua stopped the Sun and the Moon, was that true, literal, figurative, or a myth?
To even ask this question calls into question Mr. Huckabee's depth of gravitas. He should know why there is a paralyzing fear among evolutionists about any one who would call into question their funding. Evolution will not survive without the taxpayer forced lifeline.
Literally happened!
Impossible. It’s allegorical.
So what is the difference between true and literal?
Great explanation, now, back at the questioner -
what is behind your motivation and obsession with trying to “prove” the Bible to be irrelevant and false?
As I said earlier, Huck has all Bush’s negative traits and few of his positive ones...
I don’t think anyone is trying to prove it’s “false.” However, there are things that are spoken of in the Bible that we know to be scientifically or literally impossible or otherwise couldn’t have happened exactly as they are printed.
Now, one can make the argument that God, maker of miracles, could have allowed it, and I believe that to be so. However, none of us were there, and most religious leaders also believe that parts of the Bible are meant to be a way to explain a particular lesson, moral decision, or world event in a way that the simplest, least educated person can understand it. So there’s some allegory there.
The long-standing debate is what is literal, and what is not. To question the meaning of something in the Bible, which is the Word of God, but has been written and translated by Man for centuries, isn’t the same as questioning the divinity of the Lord Himself.
And I will state again that there are millions of people in this country who believe the Bible is literally true. That it is inerrant and a completely factual account of what actually happened; including the 6 days creation, Noah's flood, the Earth being thousands rather than millions of years old, the whole nine yards. And a lot of them post here. Don't believe me? Check out a Darwin thread sometime.
Still, the underlying motivation behind most of the anti-religious bigots who try to pin and humiliate people with such questions is to “prove” that there is no objective truth and morality in order to justify behaving any way they damn well please.
Here are some other underlying motivations for surface issues:
Stem cell research -> Abortion, devaluing of the unborn
Global Warming -> anti-capitalism, global socialism
Multiculturalism/diversity/tolerance -> destruction of Western Culture
Abortion itself -> making the innocent pay for the decisions of the irresponsible
WRONG!
The Bible was written for adults. It includes a lot of allegory, and a basic principle of interpretation is to examine how the listeners would have understood it at the time.
As for the mustard seed, I’m assuming it was known at the time as a very tiny seed, so it was used in an allegorical explanation. At the time, Jesus wasn’t trying to discuss biology.
Just because Psalms talks about God wanting to gather His children under his wings DOESN’T mean that God is Big Bird.
Which must mean that the sun revolves around the Earth instead of the other way around, right?
Well said!!!
If you take all three statements literally, then I arrived at my desk at 6:18am this morning (true), we had plates of unadorned pasta for dinner last night (no, there was also sauce, meat and cheese), and my hair is brown and formed into viscous blobs (no, it's just frizzy and unmanageable).
Yet the meaning of those statements are clear without further explanation.
Now I will go beat my head against the wall elsewhere.
I’m more concerned about his views on Gitmo than the Bible—should he put his hand on one on a cold day in January 2009.
There is some truth in what you say. My Mom voted for Clinton because “Bob Dole has mean eyebrows”! Since an amazing number of people like that vote, having an attractive candidate helps a lot - think JFK (the original).
But positions also matter. What he will do once in office counts. Huckabee bases his decisions on what makes him feel good about himself as a Christian.This leads to a lot of positions that conflict with sober government. Hence my tag line - Sandra Day O’Connor was the swing vote because you never knew how she would feel about an issue - and she based her decisions on her feelings instead of the Constitution.
I wouldn’t vote for Huckabee in the general election. Why? Because he misuses his faith to justify his feelings, and because when he screws it up, he lies about it. He’s a cross between Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, and I can’t be part of putting him in the White House.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.