Mike Huckabee: I’m Not Homophobic, I’m On The Side Of The Bible
Former Arkansas Governor, and possible 2016 Presidential candidate, Mike Huckabee wants us to know that he’s not homophobic:
(CNN) - Mike Huckabee told an Iowa crowd on Tuesday that he’s “not homophobic,” but believing marriage should be between one man and one woman is being “on the right side of the Bible.”
Huckabee, who is also a pastor, told a conservative crowd, “I’m not against anybody. I’m really not. I’m not a hater. I’m not homophobic.”
“I honestly don’t care what people do personally in their individual lives,” Huckabee said in his keynote address to the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition.
“But…when people say, ‘Why don’t you just kind of get on the right side of history?’ I said, ‘You’ve got to understand, this for me is not about the right side or the wrong side of history, this is the right side of the Bible, and unless God rewrites it, edits it, sends it down with his signature on it, it’s not my book to change.’ Folks, that’s why I stand where I stand.”
The problem with Huckabee’s position, of course, as well as the position of every other opponent of marriage equality who bases their position on religion is that this isn’t an issue of whether they have to accept something or not, it’s a question of whether or not their fellow citizens should be denied equal rights. What Hucakbee is essentially saying is that he favors denying equal rights to people because of what’s written in a book. If that’s the case, then he needs to consult some other books.
I must have missed the sex-obsessed Almighty Creator God’s signature on the original. What page was that on again? (You’d think it would be obvious, what with God’s Infinite Pen and God’s Infinitely Non-erasable Ink.)
Someone ought to ask Huckabee if he’s “on the right side” of Leviticus 20:13
Well, he’s on the “right” side of that portion of the Bible anyway. Funny how no one argues for imposing bans on shrimp, or on multi-fabric clothing, or permitting polygamy, based upon being on the “right” side of the Bible.
His religious position isn’t even defensible. How many wives did Solomon have again? The Bible’s statements on marriage that Huckabee and his ilk love to cite are in the context of a nomadic tribe that lived thousands of years ago in a desert. (And even the historicity of that is questionable.) Meanwhile, you’ve got a prophet — the term for a member of the religion he ended up founding literally means “follower of Christ” — who said nothing recorded about gay people.
Great, I can’t believe I’ve turned into the religion guy here…
@ptfe:
BINGO.
Beyond that:
He’s actually saying something even more damaging about Christantity — that there is only one *valid* interpretation of the text… his.
We’ve had this discussion a number times here on OTB. Like much of the bible, the parts about Homosexuality are open to a lot of interpretation based on (a) other sections of the same book, (b) the text around those passages, (c) an examination of the context that those initial passage were written in, and (d) an examination of the context and process of their multiple translations.[*]
There are numerous Christian scholars who would take Huck to task on his interpretation of the text.
—
[*] – This is not just true for Christianity of course. The same is true of every religion and philosophical movement. Well, everyone except for the Objectivists I guess (or at least thats what they would claim).
The real danger is that once you allow one side to make law based on their scripture, democracy would mean once the other side gets into power they are allowed to use their own scripture as base. Soon we end up with “no working on Friday, Saturday and Sunday, holy days”, “no pigs, no lobster, no beef” (someone hopefully exempted chicken from the holy animal list, or we’re in deep trouble), no medical care (prayer only, so that saves tons on Medicare/Medicaid payments), and all the fun of marriage only with the approval of the parents (capital offense to elope).
And that all because someone is on the side of the Bible, Koran, Torah, and probably a dozen other books seen as “scripture” by someone.
@Tillman:
Correct. Of course the issue with the New Testament (if you’re trying to point to extending the prohibition on Homosexuality) is a couple lines in the writing of Paul. But, as has been discussed here in the past, a defensible argument is that his issues wasn’t so much with homosexuality as the orgies that were going on in a particular church.
Even if you believe in God…you ought to know that she didn’t write the Bible…and especially not the versions that exist today.
Question: we spend gazillions searching for quarks and bosons and what-not. Why not just spend that money searching for God and ask her to explain it all to us???
You’re calling for every priest’s worst nightmare. How can he stay in business if there’s “the one and only true explanation” and everybody can read it? Or worse, God wears long underwear for services?
So he’s saying “Don’t blame me, blame my religion”?
OK, I’ll do exactly that.
“I honestly don’t care what people do personally in their individual lives,” Huckabee said
Right…except…clearly you do.
It gets worse…apparently at the same event he said:
Huckabee’s mistake here is that you can’t justify calling for the enactment of secular law based purely on the Bible. I’m sure he would not be in favor of the Old Testament position on polygamy, eating shellfish, or wearing clothing made of two or more fibers.
I’m also sure he would want no part of a Muslim calling for secular law based on the Qu’ran. As usual, conservatives don’t think through the consequences of their favorite applause lines.
God was preoccupied with ignoring the regular carnage that happens on his watch, and so was too busy to sign off on his book – so he had his Personal Assistant sign for him.
This has always interested me about religious folks.
If God were to rewrite the Bible, how would they know?
@al-Ameda: Reminds me of this SMBC strip.
@James Pearce:
Simple, he would tell Pat Robertson.
@Tillman:
that is a great comic strip.
@James Pearce:
Again, you mean?
Where is seperation of church and state
@James Pearce:
Or would they accept it? Imagine Sean Hannity confronting Jesus.
@C. Clavin:
Was God a legal immigrant to Judea? Jesus was clearly an anchor baby.
and it isn’t even written in the book he says it is
Catholic and following Christian prohibitions against polygamy were Roman in origin, not biblical.
@Matt Bernius: Many years ago my mother read a magazine article about new theology and became concerned. She asked my brother, the Reverend Bruce, if he believed the Bible was literally true. Without hesitation he replied that he absolutely believed in the literal truth of the gospel. She was satisfied. She did not know, and I knew only because of an earlier chance conversation, that “gospel” is a term of art, meaning those parts of the Bible that are divinely inspired. And that his Lutheran theology didn’t claim to know which parts those are.
My own observation is that a little bit of agnosticism is necessary for us all to live together. An acceptance that maybe what I believe isn’t 100% “gospel”, so maybe a little modesty and a little tolerance of others is in order.
The same argument has been used throughout history:”we don’t hate you, but because you’re a heretic we’re turning you over to the secular authorities to be burned at the stake.” Or “the Bible says…” to justify any grab of land, power, or whatever.
@gVOR08:
For people like Huckabee and Hobby Lobby and the rest of the zealots “tolerance” means you tolerating me.
@gVOR08:
Some — the more academic Lutherans — are pretty good about that.
But without a doubt there are members of ever denomination who are vulgar literalists. I tend to find that there is a direct relationship between these individuals level of education and their tendency towards literalism. And to some degree the Calvinist influence doesn’t help here.
I think your point about agnosticism makes sense. Or put another way, everyone needs to appreciate the hermeneutical traditions that exists in all religions and philosophical movements.
In college we used to have fun with the literalists by memorizing a half dozen of the obvious self contradictions in the bible (Josef’s ancestors, Judas’ death etc) and innocently asked for explanations.
Just occurred to me that maybe Huckabee’s being literal. “I am not afraid of the gay, I simply assert that the gay shall burn forever in the flames of Hell upon death.”