Huckabee and Right Wing Nuttery

Religious nut Huckabee is gaining in the polls.  This is a very worrying sign for Americans concerned with freedom of and from religion.

What caught my eye is the degree to which conservatives will lie to themselves about the many problems that plague his candidacy (Wit or Wisdom, emphasis mine):

So, in the endless pursuit that everybody and their brother is engaging in to find dirt on Mike Huckabee, it seems that they have discovered an AP questionnaire from way back in 1992. He said that AIDS victims should be quarantined, which is admittedly peculiar, though perhaps is attributable to the lack of knowledge about AIDS at the time.

As Digby observes (emphasis mine):

How very conservative of him. Not big on compassion, though, was he? Remember, this was 1992, many years after everyone knew that AIDS was not transmitted through casual contact. Indeed, by that time the “plague” had already slowed in the United States.

Oops.

But Wit or Wisdom really puts his conservative mettle on display here:

However, much hay is being made of the fact that he views homosexuality as “aberrant” and “sinful.”

*cough, cough* Ahem, excuse me Mr. Media-Man, but you are aware that the majority of the country agrees with Mr. Huckabee? And you do realize that the people of the United States have time and time again voted for state marriage amendments. Right?

So this would be a good thing, it would seem. Not a bad thing. It’s certainly good in my book.

So all it takes is for a majority to agree on restricting the rights of the minority for it to be a good thing in his book?  Does that only apply to homosexuals, or would it work for other groupings of people?

Advertisements

10 Responses

  1. The “good thing” reference was to in terms of electability. My fault for not clarifying.

  2. Gotcha. In that case it would be a very interesting observation, but looking at the past round of elections, I think the country is more sharply split on the issue of gay marriage. Over time, we are certainly trending towards acceptance (especially if you poll younger and younger Americans).

    But on the subject, do you think it is a good thing? Should the rights of homosexuals be restricted?

  3. Perhaps the country is shifting, but until such time as I actually see the numbers changing at the election booth, I highly doubt it.

    To the issue of whether it’s a good thing or not, that depends pretty much solely on what you believe to be moral or not. I happen to believe it is immoral, you obviously do not. I don’t want my government recognizing it as “marriage,” but I also don’t want my government trying to do impossible things like ban it. The truth is, as long as a person’s immorality isn’t hurting other people, the government can’t really outlaw it. This brings us to the one part of the post you didn’t quote. (No problem with that, just stating.) I mentioned that perhaps AIDS diagnosed people should be kept from sexual contact, since this clearly provides harm to those (the sexual partner, if uninformed of the condition, and the offspring that could potentially come of a heterosexual union) who have no part in this person’s sickness. That is the principle behind quarantining, and I think maybe that should be looked at. Of course, it would probably be impossible to enforce, and is again delving into how many rights does the government have to get into our personal lives.

    On a side note, none of this is because I “hate” homosexuals. Please don’t make that charge, because it’s as ridiculous as saying that I think people who murder should be thrown in jail, (because I consider that morally wrong) therefore I hate them.

  4. I think from 2004 to 2006 we saw a real shift. The “gay marriage” specter was a successful get out the vote mobilizer in 2004, but not in 2006. We are seeing some of that shift now, just not the generational aspect of it. In some states its still effective, just not as much as it once was.

    It also depends on whether you think the government should legislate morality. This is too important an issue to be taken as a given. For example, the very act of sex outside of marriage is viewed to be immoral by some.

    The truth is, as long as a person’s immorality isn’t hurting other people, the government can’t really outlaw it.

    Exactly.

    The idea of keeping people with any lethal STD from having sex is interesting, disturbing, and a whole lot of other things. Enforcement is only the start of the problems. But to a degree doesn’t current law already apply? If a person has a lethal disease, and they knowingly infect someone, they’ve effectively murdered that person.

    On a side note, none of this is because I “hate” homosexuals. Please don’t make that charge, because it’s as ridiculous as saying that I think people who murder should be thrown in jail, (because I consider that morally wrong) therefore I hate them.

    This is an important distinction to make. I have to find the right language here. There is this mindset where you can consider a person inferior in many ways (unsaved, hellbound, etc), and yet sincerely not feel an ounce of hate towards that person, just a desire to “save” them. For some in the anti-gay community, this is definitely the case. At the same time this is clearly bigotry. Its just that bigotry is not always based on hate.

    This would be a very interesting topic to explore further.

  5. There is this mindset where you can consider a person inferior in many ways (unsaved, hellbound, etc), and yet sincerely not feel an ounce of hate towards that person, just a desire to “save” them.

    That’s a misconception, partially perpetrated by the Catholic church. As a Christian, I don’t feel that anyone is “inferior” to me. Being saved isn’t really because of something I’ve done to make me better, I’m still as black as I was before, but I’ve made the decision to put my trust in a Higher Power to take my blackness away. Other people not making that decision may be misinformed and making a mistake, but they are not worse people than me.

    There’s a certain amount of legislating morality that goes on regardless. If you subscribe to a communist/socialist system of government, you’re legislating your morality in terms of how wealth should be distributed on the people. Similarly, if you support Capitalism, a completely opposite point of view, then you are imposing morality. Outlawing murder, theft, assault, rape, etc. All these are legislating morality. The question is to what extent. While something may still be dumb, wrong, and just plain loco, you can’t really stop a person from jumping off a cliff. Legislating against that would be silly. Obviously, if people are consenting, it’s a little hard to outlaw homosexuality, as long as they’re practicing it in a private environment. However, the moment that behavior becomes dangerous to “innocent bystanders,” we have a major problem. Unfortunately, many people who engage in what I would consider immoral activity do not care who they hurt, no matter how innocent. The essence of unethicality, immorality, etc. is that you are being selfish, and looking out for something you want, which by itself has no issue, but when you endanger the lives and well-being of others, you are breaking the law.

    Perhaps it would apply under pre-existing law. It’d be interesting to see what happened if something like that ever went to court.

    As a side note about the original post, you got me again on the lack of knowledge about AIDS. It was irresponsible of me to put that in. However, the Governor does have point that it is dangerous, and there’s no reason to treat people who have a disease as if it’s an issue of civil rights when their disease likely came as a result of irresponsibility on their part (homosexual acts, “unprotected” sex of any sort), and they place others in danger. We were all horrified when we discovered that the man with TB (I think it was TB, though it might have been something else) was traipsing around exposing others. There’s no reason we shouldn’t be horrified when someone with AIDS or another STD risks someone else’s life merely for their own pleasure.

  6. heh. By the term black towards the beginning, I mean black as in dirty and sinful, not black as in skin color. I’m very white. 😉

  7. Gotcha on the color bit.

    Other people not making that decision may be misinformed and making a mistake, but they are not worse people than me.

    Again, gotcha. That is definitely not how a lot of Christians feel, but right now I am in no place to judge exactly how many turn this way or that. Thanks for the clarification 🙂

    Outlawing murder, theft, assault, rape, etc. All these are legislating morality.

    Not necessarily. One is outlawing an action that is immoral in the views of a pretty large majority of beleif systems (if not all), so yes, these are immoral actions. But the law isn’t as such because it is immoral, but because having it in place protects lives and rights. Morality is about the value of an action. Law is about the effect of an action.

    But lets say for the sake of argument we can and do legislate morality. Whose? Something like murder is a pretty well recognized no-no. How about killing? One of the ten commandments is “Thou Shall Not Kill”. Not murder, kill. Hence war, the death penalty, assisted suicide, etc, are all immoral acts if we go on the authority of the Bible. Should these acts all be outlawed? What if we consider the question of idolatry?

    So if we are to make laws based upon morality, we must find a common ground of morality upon which to base them.

    but when you endanger the lives and well-being of others, you are breaking the law.

    I agree.

    Perhaps it would apply under pre-existing law. It’d be interesting to see what happened if something like that ever went to court.

    It might have. I know there was one case, but the man was murdered before any trial could occur (I’m not sure if they ever figured out if the shooting was connected. Drugs and robbery were both cited as possibilities). I also know some states have “knowingly spreading aids” as a specific felony on the books.

    when their disease likely came as a result of irresponsibility on their part (homosexual acts, “unprotected” sex of any sort),

    Birth and blood transfusions are both ways to get aids. And a death sentence is a bit severe for simply having sex.

    Again, back to how the disease is spread. They aren’t contagious just traipsing around. But I agree, if someone has aids and they deliberately hide this from their partner, and the partner becomes infected, they should be in a world of trouble.

    But back to Huckabee, I don’t think his positions on gay marriage, or his original statement on aids (has he issued an updated clarification?) speak well to his ability to lead.

  8. It looks like Huckabee has issued a clarification. He’s sticking with his earlier statement.

  9. I’m laughing at what you guys are talking about here. The bottom line is that Huckabee already made his last mistake. When he talks about how much “faith” plays a role in his candidacy, and guides his morals, then you realize he will be no better then Bush. Bush said the same exact crap. It’s unnecessary and in the words of Ron Paul, “it is tragic,” (Newsweek interview) that both Huckabee and Romney have to court voters through religion at a time when our country is on the verge of collapse. Once he issued his personal opinion on homosexuality, he broke that trust between the President and his people that he can govern as a secular leader. Who is he to judge anyone? He is not God and his purpose as leader of our country is to protect liberty and the Constitution, not protect people from themselves because God told him to.

  10. Plenty of politicians pander using faith. I don’t know that its tragic so much as it is effective. It isn’t that the politician has credibility, but that religious voters want to feel that they are voting someone into power who will follow their agenda. In a way its a little like liberals continuing to vote for Democrats hoping for a liberal, just as religious conservatives continue to vote for Republicans and hope for a religious conservative. One difference is they are far far more likely to hit paydirt.

    Once he issued his personal opinion on homosexuality, he broke that trust between the President and his people that he can govern as a secular leader. Who is he to judge anyone? He is not God and his purpose as leader of our country is to protect liberty and the Constitution, not protect people from themselves because God told him to.

    I agree completely.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: