Dear Mr. Huckabee,
You believe that the defeat of your party in the most recent election must be evidence that "our country has slipped into a deeper state of dependence on government than I wanted to believe." I am confused as to how an election victory for one party can have anything to do with our "dependence on government" unless of course you believe that anyone who votes for a black man must ipso facto be either of color, dependent on government, or both. Since most of those who are dependent on government - through programs from social security and Medicare to Medicaid to veterans benefits to food stamps - are white, and many of them voted for Mitt Romney, how does this support your thesis? Do you really believe, as your colleague at Fox News Bill O'Reilly claims, that minorities are looking for handouts from their government, like children looking for free candy? What evidence do you have from exit polls or other demographic data do you have that this is the case?
As a man well-versed in Biblical allegories, you compare your national government to "Goliath." Since Goliath was a giant individual, not a giant government, is this not an odd comparison? Also, in the Biblical contest between David and Goliath, David, not Goliath, won. If you are trying to make the case that Mitt Romney was trying to slay what you call the "Goliath of government", why did he lose? Since the Old Testament story is an attempt to show that god favored David even over a giant, doesn't the latest electoral outcome say exactly the opposite - that god must (at least this election cycle) favor what you see as a giant government? Or perhaps Mitt just wasn't up to the role of playing David.
Of course, for any of this to make sense, President Obama must have been responsible for runaway growth of this "Goliath" of a government. As it turns out, most of the growth in government came from his predecessors, particularly the last one, and only two presidents since Eisenhower have had lower rates of government growth than President Obama.
You go on to claim that our "real problems are not political, but spiritual." Do you really believe that those flooded out of their homes, men, women and children of all faiths, would agree with you? Do you think FEMA should be put in charge of setting up places of prayer rather than distribution shelters for food and shelter (through cash vouchers)? Do the one out of five American children in poverty many of whom have to skip at least one meal a day and go hungry - many who belong to devout families - really need spiritual fulfillment more than food in their bellies? And why can't they have both? Since both campaigns generally agreed on the problems facing our nation from the effects of the Great Recession to foreign policy difficulties abroad, what puts you in a position to be able to second guess both, identifying "real problems" that were evident to neither Obama nor Romney? Since Romney never offered a spiritual solution for what ails us, how would voting for him have solved these "real problems" you believe actually face us? As you admit, "both parties have failed to acknowledge that" (meaning agree with you).
You claim that "Democrats have not wanted to even acknowledge the need for God in our public institutions" to which I must respond that you have not even wanted to acknowledge the need not to split infinitives.
But I digress. In virtually every public address, President Obama, a Christian, has acknowledged god in some form and has led prayers during time of national tragedy. At no time has he moved to strip religious language from the Pledge of Allegience, for example, even though it was inserted in 1954 during the McCarthyist era. He has not challenged any courthouse displaying the 10 Commandments, and has gone out of his way to please the bishops lobbying against having to implement healthcare reform, offering them multiple exceptions that they have publicly and loudly denounced through press conferences (rather than negotiating in good faith).
You further claim that Republican leadership mentions god not to out of humility but only selectively, such as in the unquestioning, unconditional support of the current right-wing Government of Israel, which you describe as a "badge of courage." I can agree with the absence of humility part, but how are Republicans behaving like lambs on the issues of "life and marriage"? As I recall, they quite vocally opposed abortion prohibition even in the case of rape or incest and the life of the mother (which they believe is never endangered by pregnancy, something that many obstetricians would be curious to hear), and as recently as a week ago, Paul Ryan was telling evangelical Christians that President Obama was waging a "war on religion." The Republican party even went so far as to claim that conception through rape is god's will and that in the case of "legitimate" rape a woman's body has a way to "shut that whole thing down." Is this lamb-like behavior?
Regarding the Lion of Judah, his mention in the Bible is not associated with a war on abortion or gay marriage, none of which are really mentioned in the Bible at all. In your Christian tradition, the Lion of Judah has come to represent Jesus who is allegedly (according to one Biblical version, contradicted by another) from the tribe of Judah. In Revelation 5:5, this lion makes a cameo appearance:
You suggest the Republican party should "gear up and get ready for the next battle." What battle? We transfer power peacefully in this country via ballots, not bullets. Are you advocating a coup? And if you just accused the GOP candidates of being lambs rather than lions, why do you write next battle? You just said they didn't really fight for what you call our "real problems." I am confused.
You claim that the Republicans are a "party of principle" but what principle are you referring to? Do you not mean principal - it's accumulation and freedom from taxation? Are you implying that the Democratic party is not a party of principle? Or could it just be that we share many principles, but prioritize them differently, or that we see different means of achieving the same ends from alleviating poverty, providing healthcare to all citizens, ending war and capital punishment, and other Christian mandates? Is it really your role, as a mortal among mortals, to be claiming that yours is the party of god and that any Christians who vote for President Obama would go to hell as you did prior to the election?
After bemoaning how the Republican party didn't mention god enough or in the right way, you then claim that they should not "stop believing what we believe" but rather "do a better job of doing what we're supposed to do." Circularity aside, that claim seems to negate everything you said earlier.
Finally, you claim that [only by Republicans] "attract[ing] voters and win[ning] elections" can you "save America from herself." Why are you so mistrustful of America that you feel she is inherently self-destructive and needs to be saved? And do you honestly believe that this salvation can only come from the Republican party? Since America is not a fixed entity, but a work in progress and a democratic one at that, who says America has to agree with you? Apparently "she" doesn't. You seem to confuse losing an election with losing a great Biblical battle between good and evil. Isn't this a tad grandiose?
One thing the Bible does warn us against is idol worship. When agreement with our own ideas becomes a litmus test for godliness and righteousness, are you not really saying "my will" rather than "thy will" be done? And if so, how is this compatible with the humility of a good Christian?
Sincerely,
Mike Victor
Appendix:
Growth of government:
After the spending burst of 2009, Mr. Obama, constrained by Congress and aided by repayments of bank and auto bailouts, increased spending just 0.5 percent a year over the next three fiscal years when adjusted for inflation; only two other three-year periods since Eisenhower had lower spending growth. - New York Times
Full O'Reilly and related quotations:
You believe that the defeat of your party in the most recent election must be evidence that "our country has slipped into a deeper state of dependence on government than I wanted to believe." I am confused as to how an election victory for one party can have anything to do with our "dependence on government" unless of course you believe that anyone who votes for a black man must ipso facto be either of color, dependent on government, or both. Since most of those who are dependent on government - through programs from social security and Medicare to Medicaid to veterans benefits to food stamps - are white, and many of them voted for Mitt Romney, how does this support your thesis? Do you really believe, as your colleague at Fox News Bill O'Reilly claims, that minorities are looking for handouts from their government, like children looking for free candy? What evidence do you have from exit polls or other demographic data do you have that this is the case?
As a man well-versed in Biblical allegories, you compare your national government to "Goliath." Since Goliath was a giant individual, not a giant government, is this not an odd comparison? Also, in the Biblical contest between David and Goliath, David, not Goliath, won. If you are trying to make the case that Mitt Romney was trying to slay what you call the "Goliath of government", why did he lose? Since the Old Testament story is an attempt to show that god favored David even over a giant, doesn't the latest electoral outcome say exactly the opposite - that god must (at least this election cycle) favor what you see as a giant government? Or perhaps Mitt just wasn't up to the role of playing David.
Of course, for any of this to make sense, President Obama must have been responsible for runaway growth of this "Goliath" of a government. As it turns out, most of the growth in government came from his predecessors, particularly the last one, and only two presidents since Eisenhower have had lower rates of government growth than President Obama.
You go on to claim that our "real problems are not political, but spiritual." Do you really believe that those flooded out of their homes, men, women and children of all faiths, would agree with you? Do you think FEMA should be put in charge of setting up places of prayer rather than distribution shelters for food and shelter (through cash vouchers)? Do the one out of five American children in poverty many of whom have to skip at least one meal a day and go hungry - many who belong to devout families - really need spiritual fulfillment more than food in their bellies? And why can't they have both? Since both campaigns generally agreed on the problems facing our nation from the effects of the Great Recession to foreign policy difficulties abroad, what puts you in a position to be able to second guess both, identifying "real problems" that were evident to neither Obama nor Romney? Since Romney never offered a spiritual solution for what ails us, how would voting for him have solved these "real problems" you believe actually face us? As you admit, "both parties have failed to acknowledge that" (meaning agree with you).
You claim that "Democrats have not wanted to even acknowledge the need for God in our public institutions" to which I must respond that you have not even wanted to acknowledge the need not to split infinitives.
But I digress. In virtually every public address, President Obama, a Christian, has acknowledged god in some form and has led prayers during time of national tragedy. At no time has he moved to strip religious language from the Pledge of Allegience, for example, even though it was inserted in 1954 during the McCarthyist era. He has not challenged any courthouse displaying the 10 Commandments, and has gone out of his way to please the bishops lobbying against having to implement healthcare reform, offering them multiple exceptions that they have publicly and loudly denounced through press conferences (rather than negotiating in good faith).
You further claim that Republican leadership mentions god not to out of humility but only selectively, such as in the unquestioning, unconditional support of the current right-wing Government of Israel, which you describe as a "badge of courage." I can agree with the absence of humility part, but how are Republicans behaving like lambs on the issues of "life and marriage"? As I recall, they quite vocally opposed abortion prohibition even in the case of rape or incest and the life of the mother (which they believe is never endangered by pregnancy, something that many obstetricians would be curious to hear), and as recently as a week ago, Paul Ryan was telling evangelical Christians that President Obama was waging a "war on religion." The Republican party even went so far as to claim that conception through rape is god's will and that in the case of "legitimate" rape a woman's body has a way to "shut that whole thing down." Is this lamb-like behavior?
Regarding the Lion of Judah, his mention in the Bible is not associated with a war on abortion or gay marriage, none of which are really mentioned in the Bible at all. In your Christian tradition, the Lion of Judah has come to represent Jesus who is allegedly (according to one Biblical version, contradicted by another) from the tribe of Judah. In Revelation 5:5, this lion makes a cameo appearance:
And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.Again, loosening seals is not very violent and has nothing to do with gay marriage. Even the version of the Lion of Judah that entered pop culture through Aslan in C. S. Lewis's Chronicles of Narnia does not rant against marriage equality or in vitro fertalization or stem cell research, as you seem to imply he should.
You suggest the Republican party should "gear up and get ready for the next battle." What battle? We transfer power peacefully in this country via ballots, not bullets. Are you advocating a coup? And if you just accused the GOP candidates of being lambs rather than lions, why do you write next battle? You just said they didn't really fight for what you call our "real problems." I am confused.
You claim that the Republicans are a "party of principle" but what principle are you referring to? Do you not mean principal - it's accumulation and freedom from taxation? Are you implying that the Democratic party is not a party of principle? Or could it just be that we share many principles, but prioritize them differently, or that we see different means of achieving the same ends from alleviating poverty, providing healthcare to all citizens, ending war and capital punishment, and other Christian mandates? Is it really your role, as a mortal among mortals, to be claiming that yours is the party of god and that any Christians who vote for President Obama would go to hell as you did prior to the election?
After bemoaning how the Republican party didn't mention god enough or in the right way, you then claim that they should not "stop believing what we believe" but rather "do a better job of doing what we're supposed to do." Circularity aside, that claim seems to negate everything you said earlier.
Finally, you claim that [only by Republicans] "attract[ing] voters and win[ning] elections" can you "save America from herself." Why are you so mistrustful of America that you feel she is inherently self-destructive and needs to be saved? And do you honestly believe that this salvation can only come from the Republican party? Since America is not a fixed entity, but a work in progress and a democratic one at that, who says America has to agree with you? Apparently "she" doesn't. You seem to confuse losing an election with losing a great Biblical battle between good and evil. Isn't this a tad grandiose?
One thing the Bible does warn us against is idol worship. When agreement with our own ideas becomes a litmus test for godliness and righteousness, are you not really saying "my will" rather than "thy will" be done? And if so, how is this compatible with the humility of a good Christian?
Sincerely,
Mike Victor
Appendix:
Growth of government:
After the spending burst of 2009, Mr. Obama, constrained by Congress and aided by repayments of bank and auto bailouts, increased spending just 0.5 percent a year over the next three fiscal years when adjusted for inflation; only two other three-year periods since Eisenhower had lower spending growth. - New York Times
Full O'Reilly and related quotations:
– BILL O’REILLY: “The white establishment is now the minority. And the voters, many of them, feel that the economic system is stacked against them and they want stuff. You are going to see a tremendous Hispanic vote for President Obama. Overwhelming black vote for President Obama. And women will probably break President Obama’s way. People feel that they are entitled to things and which candidate, between the two, is going to give them things?” [Fox News, 11/6/2012]
– RUSH LIMBAUGH: “It’s just very difficult to beat Santa Claus. It is practically impossible to beat Santa Claus. People are not going to vote against Santa Clause especially if the alternative is being your own Santa Claus. [The Rush Limbaugh Show, 11/7/2012]
– SEAN HANNITY: “One other thing that we need to come to terms with as a result of last night. What appears to have happened is that the liberal welfare state in this country has now grown. More and more Americans have become dependent on that welfare state. As they have, they have found themselves siding with the party of government.” [Fox News, 11/7/2012]
– STUART VARNEY: “With Obama’s victory, the takers have taken over. The makers are clearly in the minority.” [Fox Business, 11/7/2012]
No comments:
Post a Comment