I had this in my email from Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins…
A Reverse Religious Test
Over the weekend I had flashbacks of the brutal judicial confirmation hearings that took place between 2003 and 2005 where certain nominees like William Pryor, Janice Rogers Brown, Charles Pickering, and others were filibustered by the Democratic minority because of what Sen. Charles Schumer called their “deeply held personal beliefs.” Those “beliefs” were the religious convictions that led them in part to hold a position that abortion was wrong. There was a reverse religious litmus test applied. A subtle message was being sent that a person had to choose between an active, life-impacting faith and public service. It was wrong then and it is wrong now as it is being applied to Mike Huckabee. Let me preface what I am about to say by first recalling what I wrote last week (Dec. 3, 2007) explaining why I had not endorsed a presidential candidate and at present have no plans to do so. I remain undecided and what I say below does not imply a change in those plans; however, I feel compelled to rise to the defense of Mike Huckabee.
The media had been toying with and even promoting Mike Huckabee, thinking he would go nowhere; however, after FRC Action’s Values Voter Summit he began a steady rise in the polls. In my opinion it was not because he finished a close second in the straw poll to Mitt Romney, but because he came out for the first time at our event, co-hosted by Focus on the Family Action and others and spoke unabashedly and unequivocally conservative on all the core social issues. He began to compete for territory that had been ceded to Gov. Romney. That message has resonated and he has not only climbed to first place in Iowa, but nationally he is second only to Rudy Giuliani in the most current polls. There is apparently fear now among the elites that his rise could be real and not a creation of the media.
Enter the reverse religious test that is being applied. In various settings over the last few days Huckabee has been confronted with articles from nearly a decade ago containing statements on the morality of issues like HIV-AIDS, homosexuality and even the need for spiritual awakening in America. He was basically asked to recant. I am pleased to say that he did not recant.
This morning, for example, the lead story on Drudge was a 1998 article from the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reporting on a speech that Huckabee gave at the annual meeting of the Southern Baptists calling on the church to wake up following a rash of school shootings. The Drudge headline touted, “Take this nation back for Christ,” a subtle but clear warning to secular elites. Columnist Richard Cohen wasn’t as subtle last week when he said Huckabee is climbing in the polls because of “his obdurate and narrow-minded religious beliefs.”
There is clearly a reverse religious standard being applied to Mike Huckabee, a standard that says there will be no defining religious beliefs. I would hope the other candidates, including the Democrats, would clearly and absolutely denounce this reverse religious test and keep the media from going further down this path. If not, I predict that bible-believing Christians will step over policy differences they have with Mike Huckabee to stand by and support a candidate who is being attacked because he believes, as they do, that their Christian faith should actually impact the way they live. If that happens, the recent meteoric rise of the Huckabee campaign in the polls could look minuscule compared to the tsunami of support that he will get from Christians who are tired of the elites who belittle their beliefs and attempt to rob them of every public reflection of their faith.
Think this will have an affect, since it has been dropped in about 10 Million email boxes…?
Also…
Former Arkansas Governor and Presidential Candidate Mike Huckabee announced two key Florida Hispanic endorsements during a news conference in Miami today: House Speaker Marco Rubio and State Rep. David Rivera.
The announcement follows on the heels of the endorsement by another prominent Florida legislator, state Majority Leader Daniel Webster, who voiced his support for the governor on November 28.
Speaker Rubio is Florida’s first Cuban-American state House Speaker.
“I’m honored to have the support from Speaker Rubio because we share the same conservative values,” Huckabee said. “Everyone running for president wanted his endorsement. I’m glad he chose to join our efforts to seek the Republican nomination.
Rubio began serving Florida’s 111th House District in 2000 and has served as a City Commissioner from West Miami. He is a conservative Republican who shares Huckabee’s views on pro-life and strong families.
“For those of us who consider ourselves to be Reagan conservatives, Mike Huckabee is our best chance to win the nomination,” Speaker Rubio said. “People are looking for genuineness and sincerity in politics. He has those qualities as well as the positive leadership skills needed to run our country.”
Huckabee also received an endorsement from State Rep. David Rivera who serves Florida’s 112th district, which includes Miami and parts of Naples and Fort Lauderdale. Rivera is chairman of the state House Rules Committee and is former director of the Hispanic Outreach for the Republican Party of Florida.
“Representative Rivera is a great leader and role model for Cuban-American citizens in Florida,” Huckabee said. “I’m proud to have the backing from such a respected member of the Florida House.”
“Governor Huckabee understands the importance of freedom and democracy for all people throughout our hemisphere and our world,” Rivera said. “He is deserving of the support of Cuban- Americans like myself because he has articulated the most pro-active and bold policy geared toward hastening the demise of the Castro regime and promoting the cause of freedom and democracy in Cuba.”
Senator Daniel Webster, a Republican member of the Florida state Senate since 1999 who has served as Majority Leader since 2006, has also endorsed Huckabee. Webster, who previously served as a member of the Florida House of Representatives from 1981 to 1998, officially endorsed Huckabee earlier this year.
“I am honored to serve as co-chair for Governor Huckabee’s Florida Presidential campaign. Governor Huckabee is a principled, conservative leader who has proven he has the leadership qualities to be the next president of the United States. As governor, he demonstrated the ability to tackle tough issues and find solutions. I intend to work diligently in the days and months ahead to ensure Governor Huckabee is elected as our nation’s next President,” said Webster.
December 10th, 2007 at 9:28 pm
No
December 10th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
People just don’t want him to put his personal beliefs before the law in the administration of his duties.
James Dunigan: “I am Jared Cobb’s son in law. My wife deals with and lives with Dennis Lewis’ decision to take her dad’s life daily. Dennis has been given clemency many times in his life. Once but not getting the dealth penalty and second by being allowed to serve out his sentence close to his family. I might add this was allowed so he could be close to a gravely ill father who is still alive today! Let this person fufill his sentence ***as mandated by law***. Where is the justice for Jared, His wife, his children his grandchildren and great grandchildren, many of whom was robbed of being able to meet and know Jared. Governor it is time to make a stand for justice.â€
December 10th, 2007 at 9:31 pm
wow, this guy have the victim-role script down pat, eh?
December 10th, 2007 at 9:33 pm
The problem is not really Huck’s religious beliefs, even though his constant “holier than thou” act gets a little tiring after a while. The problem is that his religious beliefs lead him to do incredibly stupid things (see: Dumond), and blind him to the need to understand the world outside the walls of the church and the pages of the Bible. His ignorance of what goes on around him is startling for someone who aspires to be the leader of the free world.
December 10th, 2007 at 9:33 pm
This is stupid… they are questioning his faith… that makes it a religious test. Where is he getting this ridiculous “reverse” stuff from? Oh yes, and though it is in the Constitution, the religious test clause is one of the least enforceable laws in history. We have no idea what the Founders meant by such a “test,” however, I hardly think questioning someone’s fundamentalism would be objectable to Jefferson and crew.
December 10th, 2007 at 9:36 pm
good golly – this shit makes me want to stop being a social conservative and Evangelical Christian American. Huck, Perkins, Dobson, Robertson, Land, and none of their ilk speak for me even though I’m a weekly Evangelical church attender, attained my degrees from a Southern Baptist Seminary, and worked for 2 Southern Baptist churches.
I’m done with these bafoons saying they speak for every Evangelical and that we should take what all of them say as Gospel truth.
Damn, this garbages pisses me off.
December 10th, 2007 at 9:38 pm
Ray,
The saddest part is that the buffoons of which you speak have hijacked the Republican Party…
December 10th, 2007 at 9:40 pm
I think we know exactly what the Founding Fathers meant. The constitutions of European powers restricted their monarchies to persons of certain faiths. England still has a “religious test” for its monarchy. The fear then was that congress might try to establish a similar requirement. I am not well versed, but the Federalist Papers addresses this.
December 10th, 2007 at 9:41 pm
It’s really not his faith in question; it’s his incredibly stupid actions. Tax & spending, releasing felons, weird statements, should we ignore these things because of his faith? Nobody cares about the particulars of his faith, just why he gives out pardons like they’re business cards and why he spends like a teenager girl with her father’s credit card.
December 10th, 2007 at 9:41 pm
Rett – it’s nice to see that you’ve been able to write two sentences in this front page post. Good job.
Now, to your question – will this have an affect? Sure it will. So will the many facts regarding mike huckabee’s record in public life. Particularly as it relates to the issues raised in #2 regarding the granting of clemencies and how the governor repeatedly sided with convicted murderers and rapists so long as he, or one of his pastor friends, believed that the inmate had been saved. By his own admission, this weighed on his decision to grant parole.
Now as voters are beginning to understand mike huckabee’s soft record on crime, it is becoming increasingly clear that this is not the individual that they would like to see in the white house.
I respectively disagree with the assertions raised in the article by mr perkins that equate the criticism and concern regarding mike huckabee as some sort of a religious test and that the media is biasing the electorate against an individual of faith. That is not what is going on at all. I was particularly disturbed to read mr perkins all but threaten a ’stand up for Jesus’ rally around mike huckabee if the exposition of mike huckabee’s past continues.
welcome to the big leagues mike.
December 10th, 2007 at 9:43 pm
Huckabee has campaigned on his religious piety/record.
You can’t have it both ways Huck (Rett & Mr. Perkins too).
If you want to tout your religion to gain appeal among social conservatives, you better be prepared to take what’s on the other side of that coin.
And it’s not just “secular elites” who are disturbed by the “Take this nation back for Christ” comment coming from a staunch Evangelical Governor/Pastor . . . but every non-Evangelical in the nation (and probably many of the Evangelical’s too).
December 10th, 2007 at 9:48 pm
Isn’t it interesting how Huck speaks so often about using the government to further Christian ideals and mores (obviously he doesn’t say this directly, but it is strongly implied)… just by listening you wouldn’t think he had read the first amendment…
December 10th, 2007 at 9:49 pm
I still don’t understand why nobody’s hitting him on the Fair Tax. Middle class voters will be hit hard by it if it is enacted, and supporting it may have been the biggest mistake of his political career.
December 10th, 2007 at 9:50 pm
I’d tend to agree with Tony. It would be a mistake to press alot of these religious faux-pas too heavily; evangelicals will rise to his defense. I thought that comment on “wives submitting to their husbands” was, in context, something that doesn’t deserved to be pushed. It seemed to have nothing to do with politics. Where his religion does intersect with politics, it’s potentially problematic. I agree with others; when his beliefs seem to compel him to issue an astonishing number of clemencies, I think that warrants consideration. Even if some of my fellow Christians get mad at us for picking on Huck. Similarly I’d say it doesn’t matter if he wants to take this nation back for Christ. Many of us do. But, it does matter if he seems to have gotten into politics specifically to take the nation back for Christ. There are fine lines to be drawn, to be sure. But, that doesn’t mean we don’t try to draw them.
December 10th, 2007 at 9:52 pm
Seriously, I don’t trust Rett. Let’s see, He posted a false report about James Dobson endorsing Huckabee, he’s posted some evangelical nut-job who attacked Romney, and now he has a Romney supporter saying that Huckabee is going to sweep the general election.
Please, after all the stunts you’ve pulled you have ABSOLUTLY NO CREDIBILITY WITH ME, RETT. You’re probably just posting more propaganda that nobody here can validate.
December 10th, 2007 at 9:52 pm
Big S,
Neither Romney nor Thompson can hit him that hard on the fair tax; it’s enormously popular in Iowa, and they don’t want to alienate voters. Rudy can, since it’s not really playing in Iowa, and he did bring the issue up last week. We’ll see how it plays out.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:02 pm
RayinNH,
What seminary did you attend?
December 10th, 2007 at 10:04 pm
the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY – home to Dr. Albert Mohler.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:04 pm
Are you Ray Duquette?
December 10th, 2007 at 10:05 pm
Nope – do you know a Ray Duquette in NH and how do you know him?
December 10th, 2007 at 10:06 pm
He is the only one listed on the SBC roll with first name Ray in NH.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:07 pm
You do not work in an SBC entity right now?
December 10th, 2007 at 10:15 pm
Tex,
“the religious test clause is one of the least enforceable laws in history. We have no idea what the Founders meant by such a “test,—
I’m guessing that’s because- like so many other ill informed posters here- you think the religious test clause applies to voters, that it proscribes ‘unConstitutional thoughts’ when a voter is in the booth. Perhaps you think it means that voters are forbidden from considering a candidate’s faith, or lack thereof? Perhaps you think the Constitutiona has created a thought crime?
Well let me tell you that the religious test clause is one of the MOST enforceable laws in history, and we know EXACTLY what the founders meant- because it prohibits the G-O-V-E-R-N-M-E-N-T, not V-O-T-E-R-S, from applying a religious test. In other words, the government can’t pass a law that says Catholics can’t be president, or that 52 Congressional seats must go to Methodists. Crap like that. Great Britain, from whom we rebelled, had religious tests; for instance a Catholic still can’t be king of England.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:17 pm
no, i don’t – I worked for 2 churches in Kentucky from 2001-2003
December 10th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
Jeff Fuller,
“If you want to tout your religion to gain appeal among social conservatives, you better be prepared to take what’s on the other side of that coin.”
So what’s the flip side to soliciting all that Mormon money?
December 10th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
You are no longer in ministry?
December 10th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
Not in a church setting. My life is a living ministry.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:23 pm
I didn’t mean it that way. I meant vocational, but thanks for the answer.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
Ray where in Kentucky?
I’m familiar with a lot of Southern Baptist ministers down here in my wife and I’s volunteer work.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:27 pm
By the way, I am not some spy searching for info on you. I’m at NOBTS and I new where to look for info.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:28 pm
What I’m getting at is I didn’t mean to pry.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:30 pm
MWS, here’s the flip side to soliciting “all that Mormon money”. It’s encouraging all that non-Mormon money to be contributed to the non-Mormon candidates.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:33 pm
Irish,
I guess there’s tradeoffs to everything. I think Huckabee may rake in north of $10 million this quarter. Given that he only needs a fraction of Mitt!’s money to whip him, that can’t be good news to Team Mitt!.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:48 pm
So the fight will occur along the fundamentalist bigot line, and we’ll find out how many that can still see clearly. The bigots will hold fast to their imagined victimization by the big mean elites.
Bunker up, Mike. America isn’t ready for for your Khomenei-like theocracy.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:52 pm
“So what’s the flip side to soliciting all that Mormon money?”
There’s “Mormon money”? How do you get it and what can you buy with it?
December 10th, 2007 at 11:12 pm
MWS,
Ok then, what you said pretty much made my point… not religious test (normal of “reverse”) is being applied to Huckabee. Voters are entitled to question a candidate’s faith and I therefore see no reason for evangelicals to get so defensive. Oh wait, it’s probably just because it hurts their holier-than-thou egos for others to suggest that they are (gasp!) fundamentalists.
December 10th, 2007 at 11:21 pm
bjalder,
“How do you get it and what can you buy with it?”
You get it through fundraising, and with it you buy ineffective ads in Iowa.
December 10th, 2007 at 11:24 pm
rick,
Do you have any idea what a theocracy is? That word gets bantied around so much around here, and generally people who use start slinging it around because someone prayed. There is more mention of “theocracy” around here than “communism” at a John Birch Society meeting.
But since you brought it up, which planks of Huckabee’s program do you find most theocratic?
December 10th, 2007 at 11:27 pm
Tex,
I’ve got absolutely no problem with voters questioning or considering a candidate’s faith (or lack thereof). I wanted to clarify for you- since you said you didn’t know- what the Constitution meant by a religious test.
December 11th, 2007 at 12:03 am
Most of what Huckabee is encoutering in the press now has nothing to do with attacking his religion. His record contains plenty to attack. But I do want to say this: Some of you are non-Huckabee people (as I am) are making very harsh statements about Christians, or Christian conservatives, etc., and that can’t help your candidate. Huckabee has a lot of support, and we sure as heck don’t need his Christian supporters to dig in their heels and remain with Huckabee because they think that is the way they support Christianity. So knock it off. Huckabee is a terrible Republican candidate. But let’s knock him down on his record and views, not by knocking Christian. That’s what Perkins thinks has happened. Perkins has said many very positive things about Romney too, so don’t take what he said as an endorsement.
December 11th, 2007 at 8:11 am
[...] race42008.com » Blog Archive » Tony Defends Mike (tags: 2008 huckabee religion) [...]
December 11th, 2007 at 10:26 am
I couldn’t stomach this drivel. Mostly because it was SOOOO hypocritical. Huckabee urging everyone to vote for him because he is of the same faith, I would never vote for Reid and if Romney tried that same disgusting tactic, vote for me because I’m Mormon, people would be in an uproar. Huck is soft on crime, immigration, fiscal policy and the ONLY reason he is getting folks voting for him is because he is of the same religion and they’re not looking at his record.
He can never win against Clinton, because in most political policies he is to the left of Clinton. Hope this one works out for the Republican Party, but if Huck gets the nomination, Clinton is in.