LaHuckabee

Steve S. e-mails this nugget from Zev Chafets' New York Times Magazine profile of former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee:

The governor was especially happy that morning about an impending endorsement he expected (and received the following day) from Tim LaHaye, the author of the apocalyptic Left Behind series of novels. Left Behind is wildly popular among evangelicals, who have bought more than 65 million copies, making LaHaye a very rich man and one of the few writers who is also a major philanthropist. ... Huckabee, an ordained Southern Baptist minister ... considers the Left Behind books, in which the world comes to a violent end as Jesus triumphs over Satan, a "compelling story written for nontheologians."

That makes me worry about what Huckabee means when he says he supports "arts education." But his endorsement of the World's Worst Books also makes one wonder how much the candidate agrees with LaHaye's warmed-over John Birch Society insanity. When Huckabee parrots Bill O'Reilly's conspiracy theories about billionaire George Soros, does he think of Soros as "Jonathan Stonagal," the many-tentacled Jewish banker in Left Behind?

LaHaye and his books are ridiculous, but they are not inconsequential. Huckabee's enthusiastic acceptance of LaHaye's endorsement requires several follow-up questions that Chafets doesn't ask. Here are just a few of those:

1. Does Huckabee believe that the Rapture and the End of the World are likely to occur in his lifetime? If so, how does that affect his views on foreign or fiscal or environmental policy?

2. Does he share LaHaye's belief in the coming of The Antichrist? How would he respond to LaHaye's readers who would view his support for NAFTA as a step toward One World Government? How would he respond to those who would view his proposed universal 23-percent sales tax as a precursor to the Mark of the Beast?

3. Does he share LaHaye's belief that the United Nations is a tool of Satan? Does he have a better grasp of the U.N.'s actual role and function than LaHaye does?

4. Does Huckabee believe that Israel's role in "Bible prophecy" should shape American policy toward Israel and the Middle East? If so, how?

5. If the world is destined to, very soon, descend into chaos and Armageddon, then is any kind of cultural/political/economic progress possible or meaningful?

6. Is the End of the World something he's eagerly looking forward to?

(Todd Gitlin proposes some more questions for Huckabee. via)

Comments

[Robb]

Hmm. . . I dunno - after the NPR interview with him on Friday (& political analysis from the NYT & WSJ), I got the impression he's a lot smarter than most expected him to be; he may just be hoping for LaHaye's support just because LaHaye is a high profile writer to many American Christians. Ah but then, I was impressed when I heard George Bush speaking Spanish & using sympathetic language to immigrants back in 2000. I'm sure all the Republicans know they can't win without playing a few moderate cards, just to try & fool those of us who aren't totally comfortable with either party.

[RickRS]

As LOTS of Southern Baptists are very engaged in the idea that the endtimes are getting underway right now, I think all those questions are fair game for a supposedly smart Southern Baptist preacher/politician. I would be very interested in avoiding another president that thinks he is going to be instrumental in ushering in the Second Coming of Christ and more interested in keeping this world together, as is (with improvements where we can make them).

[Ember Keelty]

Wait. WAIT.

He's a Southern Baptist. He believes that the Rapture is coming ANY DAY. He believes that HE will be Raptured.

Given all that, doesn't he think it would be irresponsible of him to accept a major leadership position in a large and powerful country?

[damnedyankee]

Hey, if he thinks it's fair game to ask Romney about the whole thing with Jesus and Satan being brothers...

[Ecks]

Ember, that's a brilliant point. I mean, what happens to the USA when it is suddenly left leaderless at its moment of greatest crisis? This'll make 9/11 look like nothing, America will need a fully functioning executive like never before. Add this to the list of questions:

7. Do you promise to nominate a vice president, and other senior cabinet leaders, who have not been saved, and who will swear not to accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior until they leave office and/or the Rapture has occurred?

[Glenda]

And maybe every car on the road should contain a designated sinner.

[Anna]

Sort of new here, and loving the LB series, Fred.

Just to correct a few misapprehensions, though: Southern Baptist != PMD. In fact, most Southern Baptists, and even a lot of Southern Baptist pastors, don't have a grasp on what pre-millennial dispensationalism entails. It's possible (in fact, I'd say likely) that Huckabee wants the LaHaye endorsement for the politically pragmatic reason that LaHaye carries weight with evangelicals, not because Huckabee endorses LaHaye's particular brand of Apocalypse. I don't imagine that he anticipates being raptured within his lifetime.

I dislike Huckabee because he's willing to accuse others of pandering to religion on one hand while he holds up his ordination as a pass to the White House with the other, but I think there's plenty of reasons to find him distasteful without ascribing to him an apocalyptic philosophy which he probably doesn't hold.

[ako]

Look, Huckabee either believes in a warped and scary religious philosophy, which will affect how he acts as president; or he's actively seeking to pander to a warped and scary religious philosophy, which will certainly affect decisions he'll make as president. It's good to know which, and how it'll affect his political career.

[Nenya]

Wait, wait, twenty-three percent sales tax?!

I hate to sound like Scott here, but what the buggeryfuck.

(Income tax at least taxes people who make money--sales tax taxes everyone, even if they don't make much. Seems not to apply to my food stamps, though, thank Eru.)

[Paul Walton]

And maybe every car on the road should contain a designated sinner.

ROFLMAO!!! (Hey -- do I get to pick mine?)

[cuzco]

All those questions can really be condensed to "Do you believe in an actual being named Satan? Or is Satan merely the name we've given to our worst impulses?"

[Wakboth]

"Income tax at least taxes people who make money--sales tax taxes everyone, even if they don't make much. Seems not to apply to my food stamps, though, thank Eru."

That's something the proponents of the so-called "fair" flat taxes either don't ever bother to think about, or which they consider a *good thing*.

[Caravelle]

Actually I believe one should ask those questions of Huckabee, even if he isn't a PMD. Just to clear things up. My questions would be :

1) Do you think there's a chance the Rapture would occur during your term ?
2) Do you think there's a chance you would be Raptured ?
3) If so, what steps would you take to make sure the US isn't leaderless during the Tribulation ?

And if his answer to 3) is something along the lines of "never thought of it", "nothing", or "I would do my best to save everybody before the Rapture", then it sends a clear message to all non-Christians (and all Christians who feel they wouldn't be saved by Huckabee's God, which is a different set from "all the Christians who wouldn't indeed be saved by Huckabee's God) that he wouldn't be their president.

[Jesurgislac]

Aw, Scott. *hugs*. Your tale of woe has touched so many hearts. We understand. We pity. We forgive. Fred disemvowels.

[aunursa]

I don't think any candidate should be expected to answer questions about his or her religion or his or her personal theological beliefs. Doesn't matter whether he's Christian, Jewish, or miscellaneous. You can ask him policy questions and get the answers voters need to make an informed decision.

(And no, I'm not a fan of Huckabee.)

[aunursa]

When Huckabee parrots Bill O'Reilly's conspiracy theories about billionaire George Soros, does he think of Soros as "Jonathan Stonagal," the many-tentacled Jewish banker in Left Behind?

Did the book actually state that Stonagal is Jewish? Or is that an inference?

[Geds]

I don't think any candidate should be expected to answer questions about his or her religion or his or her personal theological beliefs.

What if there were a theoretical candidate who was on record as belonging to a religious group with a history of child sacrifice? Should we ask questions then?

[Iain]

I don't think any candidate should be expected to answer questions about his or her religion or his or her personal theological beliefs... You can ask him policy questions and get the answers voters need to make an informed decision.

What if the policy is based on the religion? I know the current fad is to treat candidates' policy proposals as if they appeared out of thin air, but voters would be better served by an exploration of how the candidates arrive at their policies. If the answer is, "God told me," I think that's information voters deserve to have.

[Jesurgislac]

Aunursa: I don't think any candidate should be expected to answer questions about his or her religion or his or her personal theological beliefs. Doesn't matter whether he's Christian, Jewish, or miscellaneous.

Or she is. ;-)

I think if a candidate is making a point that they are a Christian (or other) candidate, as if this was itself a valid reason to vote for them, then it's fair to question them on their religion. They themselves have brought their faith into the election as a vote-getting gambit.

Also, if someone gives religious justifications for certain policies (as for example: depriving family-planning groups of funding because they advise women who need them how to get abortions) then obviously they should be questioned about why they think they should use their position of power to impose their beliefs on people who don't share them.

[starroute]

Huckabee has been quoted to this effect:

"You don't impose religious viewpoints," he said. "And, frankly, I don't know how things are going to turn out. I really don't. I think the older I get, the less absolute I am about 'here's the way it's all going to line up.' It could be another 10,000 years before the end of the world comes. You know, as long as there's been a Christian church, every generation thought they were the last one. I came to the conclusion that I needed to live as if it's all going to end tomorrow, but also to believe that it may be another million years before it comes to a conclusion."

[Rosina]

How would he respond to those who would view his proposed universal 23-percent sales tax as a precursor to the Mark of the Beast?

Does he actually propose a universal tax? Because I don't what they will think of that in the Horsehead nebula, but in the UK we already have a sales/Value Added Tax, and don't need US politicians imposing more.

[Jesurgislac]

starroule: "You don't impose religious viewpoints," he said.

He hasn't told his followers. They think he's going to impose the religious viewpoint that a woman should be forced through pregnancy against her will.

[Caravelle]

I don't think any candidate should be expected to answer questions about his or her religion or his or her personal theological beliefs. Doesn't matter whether he's Christian, Jewish, or miscellaneous. You can ask him policy questions and get the answers voters need to make an informed decision.

That's the point. If we consider that PMD evangelism is true and that the Rapture can indeed happen at any time, then "what will you do in case of Rapture" is a policy question. And even if we don't believe it's true, the reaction of a politician who does believe it is significant.
For instance, if the politician believes it's true and doesn't worry about what will happen afterwards, if he intends to leave non-saved people out to dry in case of Rapture, then in what other circumstances will he leave non-saved people out to dry ?

[MikhailBorg]

Can anyone really be expected to separate their personal theological beliefs from their decision- and policy-making?

"I have been taught since I was 2 years old that painting flagpoles white will bring a Rain of Fire upon the land, and I believe that whole-heartedly, yet I will vote the will of the people and support the White Flagpole Bill. Afterwards, you may find my family and me in the family bunker in the Cascades."

[mmack]

The governor was especially happy that morning about an impending endorsement he expected (and received the following day) from Tim LaHaye, the author of the apocalyptic Left Behind series of novels.

As one of my favorite writers would respond, Ye Gods and little catfish!

I read this post, and thought immediately of the joke at the bottom of Fred's Council of 1879 post. I can see it now:

Huckabee: "I want to thank you Tim for your endorsement."
LaHaye: "You're very welcome Mike. But just because I'm endorsing you doesn't mean you'll be saved when The Rapture comes."

[aunursa]

Geds,
What if there were a theoretical candidate who was on record as belonging to a religious group with a history of child sacrifice? Should we ask questions then?

If there's an indication that the candidate advocates child sacrifice. The Bible revered by Jews and Christians advocates slaughter of animals and the death penalty for homosexuals, adulterers, and diobedient children. But it would be considered highly inappropriate to quiz a Jewish or Christian candidate on such issues.

Lain,
What if the policy is based on the religion? I know the current fad is to treat candidates' policy proposals as if they appeared out of thin air, but voters would be better served by an exploration of how the candidates arrive at their policies. If the answer is, "God told me," I think that's information voters deserve to have.

You don't KNOW that the candidate's policy view is based on his religion. It's perfectly fine to ask a candidate what factors influence his position on a certain matter or on politics in general.

Jesurgislac,
Also, if someone gives religious justifications for certain policies (as for example: depriving family-planning groups of funding because they advise women who need them how to get abortions) then obviously they should be questioned about why they think they should use their position of power to impose their beliefs on people who don't share them.

I agree with you here.

Or she is. ;-)

Yeah, yeah, yeah. "His or her" gets tedious the third time around. I'm open to suggestions.

[aunursa]

slaughter of animals ... specifically animal sacrifice

[Cowboy Diva]

Thus spoke Anna:

Just to correct a few misapprehensions, though: Southern Baptist != PMD. In fact, most Southern Baptists, and even a lot of Southern Baptist pastors, don't have a grasp on what pre-millennial dispensationalism entails.

I dunno, Anna. The SBC seminaries do teach theology (yes, even Midwestern). Whether or not the pastors themselves are PMD, I cannot say. Growing up, the congregations (read, Board of Deacons) were pretty good at hiring those pastors who agreed with them. Now as for the baptists in the pews, most of them are easily persuaded that the Left Behind series, even though fiction, is factually based. They've all sat in sermons and church training classes discussing the end times and are more than willing to believe it will happen without them.

[Cyllan]

Wait, wait, twenty-three percent sales tax?!

I hate to sound like Scott here, but what the buggeryfuck.

It's intended to replace all existing tax mechanisms including social security, payroll, etc, etc. In most plans that I've seen, the proposal calls for some variable amount of tax to be rebated to each family every month. This rebate is supposed to cover the basic necessities of food, clothing, and shelter.

As far as I can tell, the proposal is based on the following logic: the tax code is broken because there are too many loopholes, it's not transparent, and it's horrifically complicated. Making the tax code simpler will eliminate a number of problems. The only way to make the tax code simpler is to completely change the way we collect taxes.

It's the latter logical leap that I have problems with. The tax code is horribly broken; there are too many loopholes, and it's exceedingly -- overly -- complicated because of the way that we use it. However, switching to a national sales tax (which, BTW, may need to be closer to 35% or even 40% to actually get the same amount of taxes that we currently collect) is not the only or even the best solution. If we want a simpler tax code -- write a simpler tax code. The implementation of the national sales tax, I suspect, will wind up just as complicated as our current system if not more so.

[Jesurgislac]

Aunursa: "His or her" gets tedious the third time around. I'm open to suggestions.

Use "her" if you find "his" gets tedious, and, if challenged, say you're just following the practice that a gendered pronoun can be assumed neuter. Point out that "his" is used as if neuter, so "her" can be as well.

If you don't like using a pronoun that excludes you from public office, use they as if singular. That practice has been around for a couple of hundred years, and if it was good enough for Jane Austen, how can any lesser writer complain?

MikhailBorg: Can anyone really be expected to separate their personal theological beliefs from their decision- and policy-making?

Yes. In a secular government, a Catholic representative who believes in freedom of religion and equality for all must vote for the secular and civil right of sexually active hets to have access to contraception, for a woman to terminate a pregnancy if she chooses, a divorcee to remarry, and a same-sex couple to remarry. Only in a theocratic state could that Catholic representative vote for the imposition of their religious beliefs on people who do not share them - and only if it were a Catholic theocratic state.

Which is why most people prefer a secular state, as Fred has discussed at length...

[Geds]

In fact, most Southern Baptists, and even a lot of Southern Baptist pastors, don't have a grasp on what pre-millennial dispensationalism entails.

There's a reasonably good chance that if you spoke to the average Southern Baptist and possibly a bunch of the pastors (depending on their education), "Do you agree with pre-Millenial Dispensational thought?" they'd say, "What is that?"

However, if you were to ask many of those same SBCers, "Do you think the world will end as the Book of Revelation says?" they'd say, "Yes." From there the finer points of things like Pre-Trib, Mid-Trib, Post-Trib, or no Rapture might get more disagreement, but I'd be willing to bet that greater than 50% of SBCers would be in agreement with PMD thinking and believe that Left Behind isn't offering theology, it's simply telling it like it is.

(That's one of the bigger problems with a lot of rank-and-file Christian thought. Everything we humans think about with regard to god is a form of theology and interpretation. Most people, however, seem to take certain things as simply "the way things are" and don't actually think about them much.)

[Ecks]

Scott (why am I always answering you), Liberals don't want everyone else to pay for society, we want the rich to do it. Because we're not rich outselves? No, even rich liberals believe this (see for instance George Soros, or heck, Bill Gates who has publicaly stated that it's good to tax the rich at higher rates). Why the rich then? Because they can afford it. That wasn't so hard was it?

And before you try to bring up the half assed cliche, no this doesn't amount to communism, because the tax rates are set such that even after they've paid the far higher tax rates, the rich STILL have a lot more money than everyone else. They can still afford personal jets, while the rest of us cannot. They can only afford 30 instead of 86. i.e., more than they could possibly use.

[MikhailBorg]

I agree, Jesu. While separation of belief and state is certainly how a representative should conduct himself, I suppose that what I meant to ask was, how many of those representatives are willing to do so, and of those, how many succeed?

I'm not sure how one would get an accurate answer, though.

[aunursa]

Use "her" if you find "his" gets tedious, and, if challenged, say you're just following the practice that a gendered pronoun can be assumed neuter. Point out that "his" is used as if neuter, so "her" can be as well.

If you don't like using a pronoun that excludes you from public office, use they as if singular. That practice has been around for a couple of hundred years, and if it was good enough for Jane Austen, how can any lesser writer complain?

In some instances I have used "her" for a respite from "his". But I won't switch between "his" and "hers" in the same paragraph -- it sounds too awkward. On occasion I've used "they", but only when I've been lazy -- I hate to break the rules of grammar.

I wish English had a true gender-neutral singular pronoun.

[Jesurgislac]

In some instances I have used "her" for a respite from "his". But I won't switch between "his" and "hers" in the same paragraph -- it sounds too awkward.

Agreed. I don't like that at all.

On occasion I've used "they", but only when I've been lazy -- I hate to break the rules of grammar.

I prefer to use they as a neuter pronoun by recasting the sentence so that it takes a plural, simply because it avoids complaints. But using they as a neuter singular pronoun falls within the rules of grammar as used by native speakers of English, just as splitting infinitives does... though that too I prefer to avoid, just to avoid complaints.

[Geds]

Okay, I think it's time to start gearing up for this week's Thursday Flame War: English usage.

Actually, that might be more divisive than anything else we've come up with.

[Tonio]

Southern Baptist != PMD. In fact, most Southern Baptists, and even a lot of Southern Baptist pastors, don't have a grasp on what pre-millennial dispensationalism entails.

Then what denominations teach PMD? Or do PMDs belong to independent congregations?

It's possible (in fact, I'd say likely) that Huckabee wants the LaHaye endorsement for the politically pragmatic reason that LaHaye carries weight with evangelicals, not because Huckabee endorses LaHaye's particular brand of Apocalypse.

That sounds like the probable explanation. I still regard that as a Faustian bargain:

LaHaye: I'm keeping a detachment of PMDs here to watch over the First Amendment.

Huckabee: That wasn't the bargain. You said the Religious Right wouldn't interfere in -

LaHaye: I'm altering the bargain. Pray I don't alter it any further.

[aunursa]

Jesurgislac, I don't think I would get along with you. A split infinitive -- perish the thought! I go out of my way, including recasting the entire sentence, so as to especially avoid [sic] the creation of a such a flaw.

[cjmr]

"His or her" gets tedious the third time around. I'm open to suggestions.

Well, if you're only discussing the current crop of presidential candidates, you could try counting up and using 'her' every fourteenth time...

*ducks*

[Jesurgislac]

cjmr: *ducks*

Hey! And drakes.

Aunursa: Jesurgislac, I don't think I would get along with you.

Roscius was an actor in Rome. I stand with H. W. Fowler on this: to boldly split an infinitive is better than awkwardly to avoid the split.

[mmack]

LaHaye: I'm altering the bargain. Pray I don't alter it any further.

Tonio, is it before or after that scene that LaHaye has Mitt Romney encased in carbonite? :^)

[MikhailBorg]

As a lifelong Trek fan, we've all agreed to boldly split infinitives for 4 decades now, and we're not changing our minds anytime soon.

[Ian]

Eks, it seems that Scott is on to something here. (no, I am not a libertarian)

Scott's second sentence is arguing that taxing other people to support the poor does not satisfy my personal obligation as a Christian to support the poor. That's a valid point. This is apart from questions about the sort of society we ought to live in and the sort of society God would want us to live in. Scott's argument here does not explain why progressive taxation is a bad idea from the perspective of that debate, but it is worth saying.

Scott's first sentence reminds us that he is the crazy uncle of our little family here -- opinionated and ill tempered but one of us none the less. The comment threads would be poorer without him, my two cents.

[Ian]

Ecks, sorry for the typo.

[aunursa]

MikhailBorg, you've just given me a case of cognitive dissonance.

[Jon]

I've been a proponent of using "it" as a gender-neutral pronoun for some time. Given that you're generally speaking of a hypothetical person, I see no reason for the use of "it" to be deemed offensive or dehumanizing. You're not talking about an actual living, breathing person. If you are speaking of an actual person, presumably you would know the gender and could use the appropriate gender-specific pronoun.
My biggest problem with using "they" is not grammatical, but logical. One person != "they."
I find it particularly bothersome when people use "they" as the pronoun even when the gender of the person the pronoun refers to is known and explicitly stated. Something like "A woman has to do what they think is right."
Honestly, as far as issues of gender politics go, gender-specific pronouns strike me as being fairly trivial, and I think the use of he or she should simply be left to personal preference.
But what do I know?
Anyway, as far as whether or not a candidate's religious beliefs should be an issue, it does matter if "their" religious values come into conflict with the common, pluralistic good, or if there is a danger of those values being imposed on segments of the population that don't share them. If a president believes that her actions can usher in the Rapture, for example, and she will act accordingly, that's a significant problem for those portions of the population who don't share that belief but will have to suffer the consequences of any policies built around that belief.
But, again, what do I know?

[aunursa]

It's perfectly fair for a reporter to ask about a candidate's values or motives. That can be done without specifically probing into a candidate's religion or theology. If in the answer a candidate cites a religious influence, THEN it becomes fair game.

[Boze]

I'm a Huckabee supporter - he's the only Republican candidate, other than McCain and Ron Paul, who's spoken out against torture and wants to close Guantanamo Bay (as opposed to doubling it).

However, I get worried when I read his foreign policy pronouncements, such as his answer at the June 5th debate to the question, "Do you have confidence in the leadership of al-Maliki?"

"I think there's some real doubt about that, Wolf. But I want to remind all of us on this stage and the people in the audience that there's a reason that this is such a struggle. And I think we miss it over here in the West. Today's the birthday of Ronald Reagan. We all would believe that Ronald Reagan is the one who ended the Cold War, and Ronald Reagan is the one who helped bring about the collapse of the Soviet Union. But there's a group of people who don't believe that, and that's the Taliban. They believe they brought about the demise of the Soviet Union because of the way they fought in Afghanistan. And what I want to just mention is that it is not the size of the dog in the fight, it is the size of the fight in the dog."

[Jesurgislac]

But there's a group of people who don't believe that, and that's the Taliban.

There are many other groups of people who don't believe the Reagan myth that right-wing America has swallowed.

[Jesurgislac]

Ian: Scott's second sentence is arguing that taxing other people to support the poor does not satisfy my personal obligation as a Christian to support the poor. That's a valid point.

Only if you think your personal obligation as a Christian is to keep the poor poor. If you feel that your personal obligation as a Christian is to "feed the hungry and clothe the naked", one of the most effective ways of doing that as a citizen is to encourage your government to spend your taxes in ways that will help the poor out of poverty.

Of course you can also donate to charity, and give on a personal level. But there's a reason we form governments, and it's because on a large scale, governments are way more effective. A right-wing government voted in by Christians who are donating "to the poor" with their other hand will ensure their donations are less helpful and more needed.