Huckabee Should Lose Unless He Condemns Anti-Mormonism
Kenneth Anderson at the Weekly Standard captures the concern that many moderate conservatives have about the emerging dynamic of the Huckabee/Romney conflict within the Republican Party. Specifically, while many non-evangelical conservatives have been sympathetic to evangelical concerns about the anti-religious prejudices they face from many elements on the left (what Anderson calls the “predictable bigotry of the NPR cohort”, but now find themselves outraged at the willingness of many evangelical conservatives to embrace some of the grossest and most dishonest forms of anti-Mormon bigotry as their main reason for preferring Huckabee to Romney.
Anderson casts the resulting political problem in stark terms:
And if I, an ex-Mormon, am furious, I only wonder what actual Mormons think in the secret places of their hearts. The bigotry that has accompanied Huckabee’s rise has certainly shifted my view of evangelicals. Am I the only one to find tiresome the endless trope among Christians of this country that they wish they could have (wholesome, good hearted) Mormons without (cultish, anti-Christian) Mormonism? My former confrères among the Mormons apparently do not count as Christian, yet somehow feel themselves bound by their allegiance to the teachings of the Nazarene to turn the other cheek and meekly suffer these attacks upon their spiritual fitness to participate in the public square.
Many evangelicals are, in short, embracing hypocrisy and disloyalty with a sort of blatantness not often found even in the cynical world of politics. They object to anti-religious standards on the left that often seek to ban religious people completely from public affairs, but turn around and do even worse to Mormons who have heretofore been their staunch political allies. The consequenc, should Huckabee actually receive the nomination, might be a permanent schism within the ranks of Republicans’ religious voters and an easy road to Democrats’ victory in 2008 and beyond as secular conservatives join the betrayed Mormons in rejecting this new and dangerous application of evangelical power within the party.
Unfortunately, religious bigotry remains the last socially acceptable form of prejudice in American political society. Many activists on the feel little restraint in speaking about religious people in sweeping, pejorative terms that would leave audiences aghast if they were directed at racial or ethnic groups. And now even the usual victims of this sort of bigotry are embracing its fundamental tenets.
What is missing is the same thing that evangelicals often demand from Muslims — a prominent evangelical leader who is willing to stand up and directly condemn in unequivocal terms the extremism bigotry that is growing within evangelical ranks. Unless Huckabee himself is willing to become that leader, he will not deserve the political victories he may be poised to win and he will deservedly face the inevitable backlash from those of us who are concerned with religious tolerance and freedom across the board.
Bottom line: I won’t even consider voting for Huckabee in any phase of the 2008 election unless Huckabee takes a strong and explicit stance condemning anti-Mormonism. And I know that I’m not alone on this. If that leads to the election of a liberal Democrat, so be it. Better a round of even a substandard Democratic administration than the legitimation of a candidacy either built directly upon or willing to dance with blatant bigotry.
Quite well said Christine.
You’ve misunderstood me entirely Christine. What I wrote was not a criticism, more like a compliment. I was commenting on something I’ve always wondered about, how religious people manage with a doctrine that may condemn to hell people who aren’t evil. The result is, at least in the two cases you and Pam have presented to me, that they don’t, both doctrines have clauses that allow some form of escape from that sort of a destiny. My point was not that most religious people can’t wait to condemn others to hell but precisely the plight of those (a majority, I think) who would feel great distress at the idea of nonbelievers who aren’t evil being condemned along with the evil people.
As for my question about hell to Pam, it was a comparative one. Pam seems to say that for mormons there is a hell, while my understanding from what Jason said was that there isn’t. It’s a question of secondary importance to me, since it’s purely comparative mythology in my book, but I was/am curious.
For what it’s worth Lynx: I think that non-Christians can go to heaven as well, although I’ve got to say that I don’t know about atheists. It seems to me that if you want to go to heaven, well, you should at the very least acknowledge God’s existence.
On the other hand I’m not God and I don’t know what He does about that.
I can imagine that it may be a bit awkward for Christopher Hitchens, for instance, when he dies. He has dedicated his life to convincing as many people as possible that there’s no God and then, in my belief, he will suddenly stand before God when he dies.
Can someone like that enter heaven? I’m not sure. It’s difficult to think he will go, but who knows? God doesn’t play by our logic, He plays by His logic.
Why fret over life after death now? Soon enough you will know. Deal with it then. In the mean time, be the best you can be every minute of the day.
MTCW
I’m sorry if I misunderstood you then, Lynx. I do think that’s a common misconception about religious people by those who aren’t religious- that they think it’s all about trying to establish that we’re better than others, or that it has to do with judging others. To me, it’s pretty clear that we’re not only not empowered with that sense of judgment, but actually required to refrain from it and leave the judgment to God. That we have ideas about what standards He might apply ONLY means that we are to apply those standards to ourselves, not to others. In other words, if I believe that I should accept Christ as my personal savior, I might believe that others should do so as well- but I have to respect their right to believe otherwise and I have to presume that God will ultimately be just in how he judges those who don’t believe or accept this.
As far as what you wrote about atheists like Hitchens, Michael, it does seem to me that those who actively choose to oppose the idea of God and Christianity might face condemnation- but again, that’s not really my job to sort out. And of course- the vast majority of people that are agnostic (esp) and even many atheists, don’t hold those antitheistical views. They simply say that without proof, they won’t or can’t believe.
<>
That is actually a fallacy.
Whithout proof, the only thing one can do is believe or remain agnostic.
With proof, one can toss beliefs out the window. One knows.
OOPS, the editing controls had vanished and my attempt to use html tags instead failed. In #56 I was responding to this:
"They simply say that without proof, they won’t or can’t believe."
Now the editing controls are back. Trying to sabotage me MvdG?
Semantics, Robert. I guess a better way to phrase it would have been:
"They can only accept that which can be proven, not that which requires belief."
Better?
And BTW, by the same token as your comment, wasn’t it then strange when the GOP candidates were asked to raise their hands if they didn’t ‘believe’ in evolution? Shouldn’t that term not be used for the scientific theory of evolution, and didn’t the use of ‘belief’ then also frame the question as a philosophical one (as many Christians feel the scientific community sometimes crosses those boundaries- not simply applying scientific method to understanding the processes of evolution, but making philosophical claims about no need for a Creator?)
<< wasn’t it then strange when the GOP candidates were asked to raise their hands if they didn’t ‘believe’ in evolution? >>
Agreed. There are questions at these debates which I would consider only of secondary relevance to the issues at hand, this being one of them. I am much more interested in hearing what a candidate is going to do (or not, as the case may be) about those issues.
Robert E. the whole atheist vs. agnostic issue is an old one, which has been addressed previously here (the part on that question is brief, but explains the basics). I’ll admit the whole thing about God having his own logic that may not conform to human logic, therefore making gross injustices (on human terms) acceptable, always seemed like a cop out to me. For instance my humble human logic would tell me that someone who lived a good life, trying to help others, while honestly believing that religion was harmful and attempting (through words, non-violently) to convince others, should not warrant hell. Certainly excluding someone from heaven on the basis that all they did wasn’t in the name of a deity because they simply didn’t have it in them or didn’t have the upbringing to believe, seems rather petty. Yes, that’s human logic, but it’s all I’ve got. Again, these are things that I find interesting but not too important. Since I do not believe in an afterlife I obviously don’t spend too much time thinking about my posibilities of getting into heaven or fear going to hell. Robert E. that’s where your quote fails. Not worrying about an afterlife only makes sense if you don’t believe there is one. If you do, it makes all the sense in the world to worry about it. After all, your time on earth is but a speck compared to what’s coming after.
How can such a person go to heaven if he believes that the mere belief in a God is harmful? How can a person who’s so dishonest or blinded (with regards to the pros and cons of religion) go to heaven? Doesn’t someone like that cause people to leave their faith and, by doing so, perhaps change their behavior / convince more people that there’s no God and that religion is bad?
Frankly, if you don’t believe in a God and actively try to convince people that all religion is bad, I wonder why the heck it is you want to hear that believers believe that you’ll go to heaven nonetheless.
I beg to disagree, at least to a degree. When you do like Hitchens, again, I don’t think it’s being ‘petty’ to say "well, heaven’s for people who did good and convincing people that I [God] do not exist and that believing in me is per definition bad isn’t what I’d call ‘good’."
I don’t consider it important personally either, to know what the candidates believe about the origins of the universe. But I do think that there are people who use that as a code for viewing a candidate either as a religious, anti-science nut (and excluding him from consideration on that basis) or as a secularist who would refuse to protect religious beliefs from encroachment by atheistic scientists (and thus, some religious people might exclude candidates on that basis.) And I think the question as asked was designed to force the issue along those lines.
So Michael, where do those people go, hell? You and I disagree about the nature of religion, not just it’s accuracy. I don’t like Hitchens I find him to be childish and bombastic, but for instance Richard Dawkins is a hero of mine, and he’s very much an antitheist. I’m also antitheistic, though I’m probably very soft compared to most antitheists. I don’t think that I’m a bad person. I don’t know that I would deserve heaven, but I’m pretty certain I don’t deserve hell. In fact, I can’t think of ANYONE, even bonafide evil people, who deserve an ETERNITY of suffering.
I guess if you believe in purgatory, the equation changes. I still don’t think not believing in god is a bad thing, so I obviously don’t see that it should be punished. In the end though, it seems like it’s going to be two camps, heaven and hell, and if atheists can’t get to heaven, there seems to be only one place for them to go…I will never find that to be fair or logical.
I think what Michael is pointing out though, Lynx, is that some people (using Hitchens as an example) seem as though they DO have it in them to believe (otherwise, why the anger? Why discuss whether or not a being that you truly don’t believe exists is ‘petty’?) but they choose not to believe and not only that, but choose to try to convince others not to believe. Personally, if I had to guess how God might judge someone like that, I’d think it would depend on what the person’s true inner motivations were (and that’s only really known by God and the person himself.) I think some people like that are truly motivated not by disbelief, but by anger at God- which I’d say should be a sin that carries grave consequences.
But again, why would you CARE what religious people think about where you’ll ‘go’, if you truly don’t believe you will ‘go’ anywhere?
That’s a bit like being offended that some primitive tribe thinks you’re ugly for not having stretched your neck out with 100 gold rings. If that’s what they believe, what’s it to you? You’re not trying to find a mate in their culture, so there’s no harm done by their feeling that you are not meeting some standard of theirs.
Both charactizations are unfair, as religiosity need not mean you’re anti science, and "atheistic scientists" tend not to care what you think as long as you fund them (and yes, I’m aware that’s an issue unto itself). Asking about evolution in the debate (as shocking as it was for me to see three people raise their hand) would be like asking the dems "do you think we are a nation under GOD?". Sure it’s a good idea to make sure that a candidate is not extreme, but I think they can all be given the benefit of the doubt until they prove otherwise. Huckabee for instance, with his tone and commentary, could NOW be asked about evolution and other issues of religion, since he has overtly inserted religious conflict into his campaign.
Who says that hell’s like that? Some believe those in hell burn, others believe that all people have their personal ‘hell’, again others believe that hell will consist out of not being with God while knowing what you miss, etc. Some believe it’s eternal, others believe it’s not. And on and on.
Do they ‘deserve’ hell? I don’t know, it’s not up to me to jump to that conclusion. What I do find interesting is that you piss people off by saying "yeah, I think you will go to hell if you don’t believe there’s a God and actively try to get others to lose their faith as well and pretend that religion is per definition bad."
Do I find it hard to believe that someone like Hitchens will be received with open arms in the afterlife?
Yep.
I don’t find it logical for people to say that they think they should go to heaven while they don’t even believe in a heaven. What’s more, I also don’t find it logical for people who say they don’t believe there’s a God to go to heaven nonetheless.
That’s in contradiction with logic as well.
On the other hand, God is great. I consider it possible that there’s a way for people to enter heaven even if they don’t believe there’s a God.
I don’t know it, obviously, but perhaps there is.
Also: an important part of Christianity is the emphasis on faith. You seem to emphasize good works. Although these are important, they’re not what qualify someone for heaven according to Christian teachings.
And now I’ll stop talking about who qualifies for heaven for in the end I don’t know what’ll happen so it’s only a ‘if, if’ discussion which won’t lead to anything anyway.
Religion is not the mere belief in a god. Religion is organized belief.
I’ve known people that leave open the possibility
that there is a god, but they also think that organized religions like Christianity and Islam have had a net negative effect on the world. They also live their lives in a very moral way, even by Christian standards. Why would they not go to heaven if there is one?
Exactly.
That question has already been answered - and no one here said they can’t - we were talking about antitheists like Hitchens.
I vigorously disagree. Certainly there may be a few people "angry at god" and pretending to be atheists, but I can assure you that anger can exist without believing in god. Why? Because lots of people DO believe in god, and if you think that is a harmful thing, something that affects the whole world, you can become very passionate, and angry. There are two levels to this. On the one hand, you can be very displeased with the effect of a religion (or all religion) on society. You can find Islam harmful, and also point out flaws in their "perfect doctrine" without actually believing in it. On the other hand, you can also work within the doctrine itself. Think of it this way, I can talk about how I don’t think that the character of Sauron of the Lord of the Rings is a good guy, without actually believing he exists.
Also, if you really believe that God exists, and that hell is the price for going against him, you’d have to be unbelievably stupid to rebel. If I really thought I had a choice between heaven and hell trust me, I’d be working for heaven. Why do I care? I care because I have an annoying habit, which you’ve already tolerated quite a bit of, of wanting to understand things and people. I find religion fascinating, and it’s interaction with real people even more fascinating. I don’t believe a word of it, but greatly enjoy learning about it and the different ways people who DO believe it interpret it.
The last is what I believe, and when you think about that it makes the most sense. It even explains why ‘hell’ as the consequence for an antitheist isn’t necessarily God taking His vengeance on that person (in other words, not pettiness as you described it earlier, Lynx) but instead, it’s what the person himself chose. If the person chose to view the world as one where human beings could pursue goodness without God, then in the eternal life perhaps he has condemned himself to that state of being, and perhaps at that point, since he is able to actually perceive that he is wrong and there is a God, he regrets having made that choice. And that regret might carry with it a form of eternal misery, for not having the opportunity any longer to make a different choice.
That makes a certain amount of sense, ONLY if you limit it to people who direct their anger specifically at the aspects of organized religion which find harmful. I rarely see this to be the case though, and if you include being angry at people for even holding to the idea of existence of a God, then it no longer makes any sense. What could the possible harm to society be in that kind of belief?
Yes, that’s why I mentioned it. It’s also what I believe.
Yes, although I wouldn’t rule out that at a certain point that’s reversed. "Eternal’ can also be a feeling: think about it, what’s worse than to feel that you’re separated from God? A horrible feeling, that’ll give you the idea it lasts forever.
Even if it doesn’t.
I agree with Tim D I am a Republican and a mormon and if this is the way Huckabee and the republican party see’s us than I will no longer be a republican bigotry against any religon is probably one of the most horrible things some one could do
Religon shouldent really matter in the Presidential race I mean it shouldnt matter who is running for president (Black, White, Asian, Hispanic, woman, man, Christian, Catholic, Jew, Budhist, Taoist, Jainist, Athiest, Agnostic, and even Mormon.) As long as the person has great ideas and is a good person for our country and thats what should matter in the Presedential primaries and election.
Anthony T: in the Presidential race I mean it shouldnt matter who is running for president (Black, White, Asian, Hispanic, woman, man, Christian, Catholic, Jew, Budhist, Taoist, Jainist, Athiest, Agnostic, and even Mormon.) -
-You missed Muslims
and muslims as long as they arent fanatical one which is most fo them but okay muslims to althought they will never win cause a lot of America hates muslims but yah