Exactly. I don't mind in the least that Huckabee is a proud Baptist.
So am I.
But when he runs as a Christian FIRST, to the exclusion and criticism of other faiths, I say the man is not qualified to be President, not in a country that cherishes freedom of worship.
I was willing to give Huckabee a pass, actually, until he made that assinine comment to the NYTimes writer, "Dont Mormons believe that the Devil is Jesus' brother??"
Followed by Huckabee's comment on wanting to change the US Constitution to fit God;s Word -- as he interprets it, of course. .
At that point, Huckabee turned into an icon OPPOSED to what America was founded on -- Freedom of religion.
Never Huckabee. (and I am a practicing Baptist who was raised in church, three times a week, summer Christian camp, and a home where traveling ministers such as Billy Graham and Jack Van Impe occasionally came to visit.
It's mind-boggling that Huckabee's single comment, "Don't mormons believe satan is Jesus' brother" is claimed to be the arrow that slew the Romney candidacy.
What do the Romney supporters believe the Hillary campaign would have done, had Mitt become the nominee? They have already turned the democrat campaign racial, and for some reason you Mitt supporters don't believe that they would have used SEVERAL mormon practices against him, especially the fact that blacks were banned from receiving the mormon priesthood until 1978.
All the "crying victim" in the world wouldn't have done Mitt any good in the general election.
And you've now turned into an icon also OPPOSED to what America was founded on -- Freedom of religion. (You're opposed to people not keeping their faith hermetically sealed...you think their "religious freedom" is a bit too leaky, eh?).
Polls done in 2006 as well as Feb 2007 (Gallup for 2007) show that between 53-60% of Americans said they would not vote for either an atheist or a Muslim candidate. Obviously I would assume this notion was confirmed by these pollsters because of their own religious beliefs, and is based upon in part exercising that freedom of religion.
But then we have folks who come along, almost in a jackbooted way, and say to the majority of Americans (53-60%): "No, you CAN'T allow a Muslim's religion to influence your vote in a presidential election. And I'm here to make sure I impose my religious viewpoint upon your religious viewpoint. Your so-called 'freedom of religion' stops at your vote."
R&R, we just don't see any consistency out of the pro-Romney haters of the anti-Romney folks, do we? In late November, Romney says not enough of Muslim population to justify him putting a Muslim in the Cabinet. Were there dozens of outbursts from you on this issue like the whip you have for others? (Can you say two-faced?)
Or how about after Super Tuesday when it came out that 94% or so of non-Catholic weekly church attenders in Utah voted for Romney? Here, these voters exercised their "freedom of religion" and according to the Salt Lake Trib voted primarily based upon the "personal qualities" of the candidate (read: The Mormon connection). So bias based upon a pre-judged position about the religion of the candidate is OK for Utah voters, or LDS voters in other states, but not for non-Mormon voters. (Can you say two-faced?)
The fact is, according to a late 2006 Rasmussen Reports poll, just 'cause even the majority of Democrats and Republicans consider the faith & beliefs of a candidate in voting...somehow those folks who can't keep "religion" contained to a mass-only mentality has got you riled up.
You need to come out of the dark ages and read some polls. Try that 2006 Rasmussen Reports poll for starters. 55% of Democrats; 78% of Republicans; 62% of Americans; and 92% of Evangelicals ALL say they take the "faith & beliefs" of candidates into consideration when they vote.
(Yeah, yeah, we know...how dare these folks exercise such "freedom of religion" in your presence!)