U.S. GOP Candidate Mike Huckabee - Disturbing video

[MadArchitect]

The main thing here Mad is that you KNOW that this place is (or was until recently) a place more geared towards atheists. So you should expect this to be a legit issue for most of us here. For you to continually show disdain or grist towards topics like this...I just dont get it.

It wouldn't bother me so much if a) it weren't just about the only thing some people seem concerned about, and b) there was more charity in considering other points of view. But in regards to point b, it seems to be taken for granted in here that an outraged atheism is obviously the more reasonable response, and that any more moderate view of the situation is dangerous for underestimating the threat posed by religion. In in regards to point a, there are so many other topics that ought to concern us that it seems to me dangerous to put so much effort into scrutinizing every episode with a religious connection that we don't talk about other topics as well. If you need an illustration of my point, take a look at this sub-forum. I and others have raised any number of topics related to politics, current events and history, but almost the only threads that take off are the ones that render religion in the simplest of terms. If there were more posts about subject that don't dwell at length on the dangers of religion, I'd probably roll my eyes less at the ones that do.

Like it or not, this is political, if ONLY because he is running for President.

Right. And if it came in the context of a broader discussion of what the candidates stand for, then I'd have made my comment and moved on to something more interesting. But as it stands, we're not discussing the presidential candidates, save for this one guy, who is practically a non-contender, and his religious beliefs.

Enough with the attempts to belittle our concerns already.

For the record, I've never tried to belittle your concerns. Having another person wield their beliefs as a hegemony over your own (or even your lack of beliefs) is a serious thing. But I think there's a bad tendency in this forum to 1) make a big deal out of episodes that really don't amount to much, 2) ignore other serious issues by concentrating solely on religion, 3) ignore certain issues that have serious implications for atheism, and 4) disparage any attempts made by theists to contribute to a level discussion of atheism. If, for example, I attempt to raise the point that atheism faces problems, with regard to substantiating and systemizing ethics, that don't particularly plague religious ethical systems, that's automatically interpreted as an attack on atheism, rather than as an invitation to discuss how naturalistic philosophy can address those problems. With the responses I've gotten in the past, you'd think I'd been trying to stage prayer vigils and re-orientation seminars on the site.

But I relent. You guys are welcome to talk about Huckabee's religion all you like. Use this thread as a staging ground for protests and petitions, if you want -- I've said my piece about it, and I don't intend to push the point further.

[irishrosem]

But if he's going to be a topic of discussion, let's talk about what he's actually likely to do rather than speculate based on a three-second sound byte from YouTube.

Yes I understand that's what you think. I'm assuming you want the discussion to be more like: Huckabee's plan to eliminate federal income tax in favor of sales tax sounds intriguing. But, I'm not quite sure how this overhaul of federal tax is really going to work, specifically how he intends to finance even his idea of limited government without federal income taxes, and he hasn't explained it well enough for me to support it. Or even, hey, he seems to be concerned about America's problems with obesity, particularly childhood obesity, which is probably good for our federal government to start paying attention to, considering the high health care costs associated with obesity. But he seems to want to wrap up federal attention to childhood obesity with public schooling, which may be cause for concern.

But my point is, if he is going to be the topic of discussion, as he is in this thread, that discussion is likely to be (and justifiably to be, in my opinion) ridiculous, because he's ridiculous. He makes bullshit claims that he doesn't bother to substantiate; and he, presumably, doesn't realize the rest of us recognize that they're fucking nonsense. As I said, I haven't watched the YouTube segment, but I can imagine what goes on in it. Huckabee's running the fool's errand, so he's likely to be treated as a fool. When he's serious, I'd get behind the discussion turning serious too. Until then, he's a jack, and who cares what discussions about him focus on? That's what I meant when I said pretending to take him seriously further degrades an already embarrassingly disgraceful process.

Rose, I never SAID this was solely a RELIGIOUS issue...it is all about separation. For ME though, it ALSO addresses my disdain for his religion.

Whoa, stop yelling. I never said, or inferred, that you had stated as much. I merely clarified

[Mr. P]

[quote="irishrosem"] Whoa, stop yelling. I never said, or inferred, that you had stated as much. I merely clarified

[irishrosem]

You dont want me yelling at you now do ya?

Meh, I'd probably just tune you out then.

...that does not mean I am not also considering the separation issue.

O.K., then let me say that you had never mentioned separation, nor did I infer from what you had written that the issue for you was separationism.

I did not need you to clarify anything for me Rose...for you and I were never in discussion within this thread...

Well, I guess I take it for granted, when we are all in the same discussion on a thread, that we are communicating with each other. Kind of how a discussion would go in a live group. I had responded to something that Mad had written, Mad had responded to me, and then you responded to Mad, and in responding you talked about "we" and "us." So that's why, when a discussion in which I was participating started to turn predominantly on the matter of religion, I wanted to clarify that that wasn't the issue for me

[MadArchitect]

But my point is, if he is going to be the topic of discussion, as he is in this thread, that discussion is likely to be (and justifiably to be, in my opinion) ridiculous, because he's ridiculous.

Fine. As I said, I'm not terribly interested in discussing Huckabee. My very first comment in this thread was that the whole point was probably moot since he doesn't stand much of a chance anyway. But you can say that he's ridiculous because you actually have some sense of what he represents. Nothing in this thread or anywhere else on BookTalk has given me the impression that anyone else does. The only issue they seem to care about is the fact that, when asked how he accounts for a surge in the polls, he attributed that surge to an act of God. It seems to me that, if everyone here thought as you do -- that he's ridiculous -- or as I do -- that he doesn't stand a chance anyway -- then this thread would have been an amusing little bit of trivia, and we'd have all moved on. But instead, people are suggesting that "we" (again) raise a stink about it if Huckabee wins the Republican ticket and jumping on my case for suggesting that we'd be better served by discussing some other aspect of the election.

Anyway, in case it wasn't clear, my point from the get-go wasn't that we should be discussing Huckabee in different terms, but that's it's worrisome that this particular thread is just about the only indication that anyone is even interested in the upcoming elections.

As I said, I haven't watched the YouTube segment, but I can imagine what goes on in it.

It's actually a lot more innocuous that some of the comments in this thread might lead you to believe.

[Mr. P]

You dont want me yelling at you now do ya?

Meh, I'd probably just tune you out then.

Whatever. I was not yelling in the first place, was I?

...that does not mean I am not also considering the separation issue.

O.K., then let me say that you had never mentioned separation, nor did I infer from what you had written that the issue for you was separationism.

Say what you want, but I thought I clarified that in my last post. Just because I do not preface every response with eveything that makes up my worldview does not mean I was not taking them all into account when responding. There are many facets to why I feel the way I do about certain issues. As an atheist, separation is that much more important to me.

But the reason I entered this thread in the first place was because, again, Mad was trying to downplay the original intent of the post...which is Huckabee's religion and where it stands in his mind and his campaign. Even if he disagrees, it was still the point of this post, not Huckabee's other positions. We have talked in the past about people derailing posts with tangential topics.

I wanted to clarify that that wasn't the issue for me

[irishrosem]

My very first comment in this thread was that the whole point was probably moot since he doesn't stand much of a chance anyway.

Yeah, and I meant to note that in my last post, but forgot. I hadn't lost sight of the fact that you don't consider Huckabee to be a real contender. (Though his peeps seem to think the South will embrace him, propelling him into a prime spot for the nomination

[Mr. P]

[quote="irishrosem"]
Mr. P., as far as my knowledge of internet etiquette goes, caps are yelling, while emphasis is indicated with italics or underline, or even bold. So that's why I perceived your caps as emphasis with increased volume

[irishrosem]

Jeepers, Mr.P!

I'm really not sure why this would have to transfer to p.m., it's not like we're derailing an important discussion. Unless it degrades into personal attacks, which, of course, it did. I won't be engaging in personal attacks, so I won't be replying in p.m.

Really, Mr.P., I didn't know what else you wanted me to say. I had already wrote that perhaps I shouldn't have directed the clarification to you, and you still seemed to be looking for some kind of satisfaction. I wasn't going to distance myself from the comment, and I certainly wasn't going to apologize.

I think the clarification was valid, particularly in light of your use of the inclusive plural pronouns, in the context that they were used. That you are personally affronted that I threw your name into a clarification, as reference to the post from which I was clarifying, is obvious. But I'm at a lost as to how to address it further. Frankly, I'm astounded it's come this far.

The above was meant to wittily demonstrate what it would look like if I measured every word I said. Obviously, it wasn't funny. Most people don't think I'm funny, so that's nothing new for me. But, really, I've tried twice now to address this with you, in a way that satisfies the injury you feel, and have been unsuccessful in both attempts. What else do you want me to say? That's not rhetorical, btw.

And thanks for that morning message, it's a lovely way to start the day.

[George Ricker]

So does anyone out there really think Huckabee is likely to be the Republican nominee, or even on the ticket?

I don't, though I must confess it would seem poetic justice