Huckabee is going to toss his hat in the presidential ring, I read. It would have been a lot harder to write sarcasm without his presence so I'm grateful. mm.
He's a man of God, Mike is. He is going to run on the divine side:
"We cannot survive as a republic if we do not become, once again, a God-centered nation that understands that our laws do not come from man, they come from God," he said on the show "Life Today."I need to take out my brain and vacuum it before returning it to its nest, what with the idea of something called secular theocracy.
When Huckabee added that he wasn't demanding a theocracy, host James Robison said, "We have a theocracy right now. It's a secular theocracy."
"That's it!" Huckabee said, describing the current political order as "humanistic, secular, atheistic, even antagonistic toward Christian faith."
But what is the difference between theocracy and "understanding that our laws do not come from man [sic], they come from God?" Please someone tell me.
I have difficulty with the extremist Islamic ideas (ISIS) of how a country is run as a theocracy, and I have difficulty with Huckabee's version, too. Many years ago:
...former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee forcefully defended an earlier statement backing the biblical admonition that wives should submit to their husbands.
"I'm not the least bit ashamed of my faith or the doctrines of it," Huckabee said. "I don't try to impose that as a governor, and I wouldn't impose it as a president. But I certainly am going to practice it unashamedly.... "
He went on to explain that the Bible also commands husbands to submit to their wives and that marriage requires each spouse to give 100 percent to the other.
That's gobbledegook, that idea of mutual submission, based on the Bible. But if you grant Huckabee his god ideas, it would suggest that in the past he wasn't going to use those to run the country. How can you both have theocracy and not have theocracy?
The real problem, naturally, is that nobody truly knows how a divine power would rule a country (well, you could ask me about my rules). What we have instead are writings by human beings who lived thousands of years ago and who lived inside a society which looks very different from many societies existing today. Adulterous women were stoned, men had absolute rule over their families, homosexuality was a crime punishable by death and so on. That the writers or recorders believed all this to be the will of god doesn't prove that it is.
But those are the writings the extremist literalists and fundamentalists attribute to gods in all religions today. Thus, Huckabee is a brother under the skin with those who planned the Islamic State of Syria and Iraq. Granted, he's a much kinder and gentler brother, but he uses similar books as his guide to what should be.
The difficulty with that approach is pretty obvious for the rest of us: How do you debate issues with someone who believes that he speaks for God?