In Huckabee’s America, all who fail to believe as he does are morally bankrupt
From Mike Huckabee’s announcement of his 2016 presidential campaign:
“But we’ve lost our way morally. We have witnessed the slaughter of over 55 million babies in the name of choice, and are now threatening the foundation of religious liberty by criminalizing Christianity in demanding that we abandon Biblical principles of natural marriage. Many of our politicians have surrendered to the false god of judicial supremacy, which would allow black-robed and unelected judges the power to make law and enforce it-upending the equality of our three branches of government and the separation of powers so very central to our Constitution. The Supreme Court is not the Supreme Being, and they can’t overturn the laws of nature or of nature’s God.”
Mike Huckabee, who, as one anonymous commenter wrote, wants an America reflective of the 1950s as depicted in a Western, seeks to be president (again). And he charges us with moral bankruptcy — “we’ve lost our way morally.”
So, Mike, who’s the “we” you’re talking about? The women who seek the legal right to maintain control over their own bodies? The men and women who simply seek to marry and share equally in the opportunities and burdens of marriage? And who, exactly, are the politicians who have “surrendered to the false god of judicial supremacy”?
I get the feeling, Mike, that you believe so many of us have “lost our way morally” for one reason: So many of us do not follow your way.
You have no right to tell me (or anyone else) what my morality ought to be. When I teach opinion writing to college students, I tell them this on the first day: First: Have a well-developed sense of right vs. wrong. Second: Apply it consistently. Third: It does not have to match my sense of right vs. wrong.
That’s the consequence of living in a democracy that has increased in religious, spiritual, ethnic, and political diversity. Instead of adapting (the act of an adult) to almost seismic changes in the demographics of the American landscape, Mike, you rail childishly against those who do not follow your way. You offend us who actually believe science can provide answers to life’s great questions. There are many people of faith who still believe science is not the antithesis of faith but its adjunct.
Do not accuse me of “having lost my way.” My parents raised me as Catholic: their choice, not mine. Today, perhaps secular humanist (gasp!) seems to fit. I have a belief system. It’s mine. It functions. It does not offend my friends or my students. It accepts as real and truthful the belief systems of others — the Catholics, the Jews, the Pentacostals, the Muslims, the Adventists, the UU’s, the Protestants, the Hindus, the Buddhists, the Wiccans and Pagans, even the guys who wear aluminum foil hats to ward off the voices.
You cannot run a successful presidential campaign by accusing so many of such diverse backgrounds and senses of spirituality of having “morally lost their way.”
Mike, you divide us on this basis: Believe what I believe, or go straight to political and electoral hell.
photo credit: Matt Sullivan/Getty Images North America
Reblogged this on Adventures and Musings of an Arch Druidess.
Reblogged this on deadlines amuse me.
I think he stands exactly the one chance he hopes to stand. You might enjoy this analysis from truth-out.org: http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/30598-how-to-run-for-president-for-fun-and-profit-2016-edition
Reblogged this on The Ratliff Notepad.
now this is fascinating. one game i play at s&r is trying to figure out who wrote the post before i look up the author. of course that’s usually easy with jim, ceejay, russ, patrick or brian because each of them owns a topic area, but it’s much harder with the rest of you. it’s easy with in this case, this could have been a sam, joshua, frank, lisa, denny or wufnik post, but i was able to figure out it was denny by the third graf. not as passionate as josh or frank. not as complex sentenc structure as wufnik. not as much swiftian bite as sammy. not sure why, but it just didnt feel like lisa.
of course, it’s unfair to describe something in terms of what it’s not. this has denny’s clean sentences and straightforward argumentation, prob reflective of his journo training.
You’d pretty much never confuse Denny with me, to his credit. And I take it that “Swiftian bite” is a euphemism for snark?
yeah, “slobbering incoherent hydrophobic rant” seemed a tad harsh.
Actually, I now feed nouns and verbs into my computer and let my Denny algorithm do the writing. 🙂