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 ...
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...
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.