Huckabee defends admitted child molester

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Believing in redemption is scandalous.  It has always been thus.

It's fine to believe in redemption, but Huckabee goes out of his way to defend these people solely because of their Christianity. I don't believe he would be talking about redemption if this were some random child molester.

Yes, there is nothing wrong with redemption.  Being a Christian means hoping that all might one day be redeemed.  When it comes to child sex crimes and premeditated murderers, however, the perpetrators will have to seek redemption in the next world.  Not because they are inherently irredeemable, but because of public safety.    

Redemption doesn't mean that you don't have to face legal penalties.  It means that you are not defined by what you did, that you are not forever judged for it as being unworthy of respect and incapable of goodness.  If you do not believe that people can change and learn and grow from what they did in their youth, then you do not believe in redemption.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

He does have a history of defending deplorable figures. The article describes a perfect case where he wanted a rapist free and, sure enough, he raped and murdered someone else. He seems to show compassion for, in particular, males who commit horrible sexual acts.

Joke candidate.

Another example.

He seems willing to believe anyone who proclaims to be a good Christian. Some what call that compassionate, I see him as being gullible.

And I see it as playing to his customers. The Huckster isn't running for president. He's getting tons of free PR for his book sales and next TV contract.

[Ebsy]

For the Arkansas politicos out there, apparently Jim Holt, twice candidate for Senate and Republican nominee against good 'ole Blanche Lincoln in 2004 knew about the molestation and blamed Josh Duggar's sinfulness for his defeat in 2004. Apparently Holt's daughter is the same age as Josh, and they were betrothed at the time at the ripe age of 14. The betrothal was obviously broken off at some point. This story is just so f [Inks]ed up.

[Middle-aged Europe]

Given that the perpetrator was still a - admittingly disturbed - child himself at that point and he apparently hasn't suffered any relapses since then, I'm willing to give the boy the benefit of the doubt. I'd assume at the age of 14 you're still young enough that there are pretty good chances for a successful treatment. I just hope the counseling he received back then has been a bit more professional than just consisting of "come to Jesus" lectures.

That Daily Beast article does have a point however that it makes look Huckabee like a hypocrite due to his habit of slandering people he doesn't agree with (or just doesn't like ) and accusing them of the worst crimes possible.

[pbrower2a]

Believing in redemption is scandalous.  It has always been thus.

It's fine to believe in redemption, but Huckabee goes out of his way to defend these people solely because of their Christianity. I don't believe he would be talking about redemption if this were some random child molester.


Yes, there is nothing wrong with redemption.  Being a Christian means hoping that all might one day be redeemed.  When it comes to child sex crimes and premeditated murderers, however, the perpetrators will have to seek redemption in the next world.  Not because they are inherently irredeemable, but because of public safety.    

Redemption doesn't mean that you don't have to face legal penalties.  It means that you are not defined by what you did, that you are not forever judged for it as being unworthy of respect and incapable of goodness.  If you do not believe that people can change and learn and grow from what they did in their youth, then you do not believe in redemption.

Redemption is not without a price -- namely, taking the worldly penalties (including shame, pain, imprisonment, and financial ruin) that one accepts if redemption is genuine.

A murderer is still a murderer in our world. A thief is still a thief in our world. A rapist is still a rapist in our world. If one accepts Christianity as true, then even being burned at the stake is a minor payment for eternal salvation.

[bobloblaw]

His judgment of human character is just horrible.

Any good cabinet picks by him would be pure luck.

I agree, Huckabee has real poor character judgement.

Another problem is that he 100% in the concept of biblical redemption for murders and molesters

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

His judgment of human character is just horrible.

Any good cabinet picks by him would be pure luck.

I agree, Huckabee has real poor character judgement.

Another problem is that he 100% in the concept of biblical redemption for murders and molesters

Well, they ARE redeemed if they are in Christ.  There is forgiveness for these sins in Heaven; Christ has already provided for that. 

Restoration is a different issue.  The forgiveness of Christ is not a pardon from Earthly penalties, and it does not automatically mandate that the forgiven party should be restored to their former position, particularly if they continue to struggle in an area of sin.  It is one thing to forgive a sex offender.  It is another thing to restore him to a congregation (which is possible).  It is yet another thing to restore him to children's ministry (which, on it's face, is unsafe).  It's one thing to forgive an adulterous Pastor and restore him to ministry as an Evangelist; it's another thing to restore him to a Pastorate, especially if his dalliance was with a congregant, and even more especially, if it was someone he was actively counseling with. 

Huckabee's loyal to his friend, and I give him some props for that.  Whatever Jim Bob Duggar's faults in the matter, Huckabee isn't turning his back and letting the media wolves just have at him.  I see nothing wrong with that.  It's not like Huckabee is proposing to nominate Jim Bob to head up the Department of HHS.  "A friend loveth at all times."  In my own life, I'd rather have a friend like Mike Huckabee than a whole lot of folks I can think of.

[afleitch]

The sympathy for Huckster here sickens me.

[Indy Texas]

Believing in redemption is scandalous.  It has always been thus.

It's fine to believe in redemption, but Huckabee goes out of his way to defend these people solely because of their Christianity. I don't believe he would be talking about redemption if this were some random child molester.

Yes, there is nothing wrong with redemption.  Being a Christian means hoping that all might one day be redeemed.  When it comes to child sex crimes and premeditated murderers, however, the perpetrators will have to seek redemption in the next world.  Not because they are inherently irredeemable, but because of public safety.    

Redemption doesn't mean that you don't have to face legal penalties.  It means that you are not defined by what you did, that you are not forever judged for it as being unworthy of respect and incapable of goodness.  If you do not believe that people can change and learn and grow from what they did in their youth, then you do not believe in redemption.

But Josh Duggar didn't face legal penalties. This wasn't a "slip up" either - it was a consistent pattern of behavior over several years. He is not worthy of respect and never will be. He is disgusting. His family is disgusting. And Mike Huckabee is disgusting for being an apologist for such a twisted and sick family.

[WVdemocrat]

The sympathy for Huckster here sickens me.

Yeah, it's also sickening that some of these people think if Huckabee were a Democrat we'd be defending him.

Huckabee is a pathetic lowlife not simply because he is defending Duggar. But because he is clearly only defending him because of Duggar's very generous donations. Sickening, indeed.

[publicunofficial]

[WVdemocrat]

^The hypocrisy is pathetic and obvious.

He is supposed to be a man of God, and these are the battles he chooses to fight? These are the people he chooses to defend? This man has no morality.

[NeverAgain]

^The hypocrisy is pathetic and obvious.

He is supposed to be a man of God, and these are the battles he chooses to fight? These are the people he chooses to defend? This man has no morality.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Believing in redemption is scandalous.  It has always been thus.

It's fine to believe in redemption, but Huckabee goes out of his way to defend these people solely because of their Christianity. I don't believe he would be talking about redemption if this were some random child molester.


Yes, there is nothing wrong with redemption.  Being a Christian means hoping that all might one day be redeemed.  When it comes to child sex crimes and premeditated murderers, however, the perpetrators will have to seek redemption in the next world.  Not because they are inherently irredeemable, but because of public safety.    

Redemption doesn't mean that you don't have to face legal penalties.  It means that you are not defined by what you did, that you are not forever judged for it as being unworthy of respect and incapable of goodness.  If you do not believe that people can change and learn and grow from what they did in their youth, then you do not believe in redemption.

Redemption is not without a price -- namely, taking the worldly penalties (including shame, pain, imprisonment, and financial ruin) that one accepts if redemption is genuine.

A murderer is still a murderer in our world. A thief is still a thief in our world. A rapist is still a rapist in our world. If one accepts Christianity as true, then even being burned at the stake is a minor payment for eternal salvation.

What kind of weird theology claims that being burned at the stake could be payment for salvation?  The idea that a person cannot be redeemed from sin if they do not suffer criminal penalties, or that they should live their entire lives being shamed by those around them for what they did completely misses the role of grace. Christianity is not "you deserve forgiveness if you suffer enough or what you did isn't that bad."

[pbrower2a]

Believing in redemption is scandalous.  It has always been thus.

It's fine to believe in redemption, but Huckabee goes out of his way to defend these people solely because of their Christianity. I don't believe he would be talking about redemption if this were some random child molester.


Yes, there is nothing wrong with redemption.  Being a Christian means hoping that all might one day be redeemed.  When it comes to child sex crimes and premeditated murderers, however, the perpetrators will have to seek redemption in the next world.  Not because they are inherently irredeemable, but because of public safety.    

Redemption doesn't mean that you don't have to face legal penalties.  It means that you are not defined by what you did, that you are not forever judged for it as being unworthy of respect and incapable of goodness.  If you do not believe that people can change and learn and grow from what they did in their youth, then you do not believe in redemption.

Redemption is not without a price -- namely, taking the worldly penalties (including shame, pain, imprisonment, and financial ruin) that one accepts if redemption is genuine.

A murderer is still a murderer in our world. A thief is still a thief in our world. A rapist is still a rapist in our world. If one accepts Christianity as true, then even being burned at the stake is a minor payment for eternal salvation.

What kind of weird theology claims that being burned at the stake could be payment for salvation?  The idea that a person cannot be redeemed from sin if they do not suffer criminal penalties, or that they should live their entire lives being shamed by those around them for what they did completely misses the role of grace. Christianity is not "you deserve forgiveness if you suffer enough or what you did isn't that bad."

That is how the Inquisition operated. The heretic or non-Christian who repents of his 'sin' of identity is saved from far worse than any flames at a stake or being eaten alive by dogs (a Nazi horror done with no pretense of mercy.  The fault with such torment is that applying it is one of the sins (really CRIMES*) most difficult for God to forgive. (I am tempted to believe that God forgives the heretic or says "there is nothing to forgive" -- and condemns the Inquisitor.)
 
It is the value of eternal salvation that -- if one most fully believes -- that no torment in This World is excessive if it is necessary for salvation. Rarely does such torment prove necessary.

...God cannot pardon people in THIS WORLD from the honest, fair judgments of due process of law. Jesus never offered any get-out-of-jail-card to such overt criminals as thieves, rapists, and killers; such would have been a travesty of justice. It is the salvation from damnation for earthly sin.

*Sin can run the gamut of misdeeds from cutting in line (minor indulgence) to perpetrating the Holocaust. I remember a bakery in Texas that changed the "C" to "S" in "Cinnamon rolls", suggesting that a minor indulgence in life was worth "sinning" for.    

[pbrower2a]

A psychological explanation, page 90 (from a PDF of 200+ pages)

Do most people trust someone who seems to agree with them? Probably, but people differ enormously in gullibility. (People showing few right-wing authoritarian tendencies) are downright suspicious of someone who agrees with them when they can see ulterior motives might be at work. They pay attention to the circumstances in which the other fellow is operating. But (people with strong tendencies toward authoritarianism) do not, when they like the message.

Imagine a completely unethical, dishonest, power-hungry, dirt-bag, scum-bucket politician who will say whatever he has to say to get elected. ... Whom would he seek to lead, people with strong tendencies toward authoritarianism or people who have few authoritarian tendencies? Isn’t it obvious? The (gullible right-wing authoritarians) will open up their arms and wallets to you if you just sing their song, however poor your credibility. Those crabby non-authoritarian types, on the other hand, will eye you warily when your credibility is suspect because you sing their song?

So the scum-bucket politicians will usually head for the right-wing authoritarians, because the (right-wing authoritarians) hunger for social endorsement of their beliefs so much they’re apt to trust anyone who tells them they’re right. Heck, Adolf Hitler was elected Chancellor of Germany running on a law-and-order platform just a few years after he tried to overthrow the government through an armed insurrection.

You sometimes hear that paranoia runs at a gallop in “right-wingers”. But maybe you can see how that’s an oversimplification. Authoritarian followers are highly suspicious of their many out-groups; but they are credulous to the point of self-delusion when it comes to their in-groups. So (in another experiment the author ran) subjects were told a Christian Crusade was coming to town led by a TV evangelist. The evangelist (the subjects were further told), knowing that people would give more money at the end of the evening if he gave them the kind of service they liked, asked around to see what that might be.

Finding out that folks in your city liked a “personal testimonial” crusade, he gave them one featuring his own emotional testimonial to Jesus’ saving grace. How sincere do you think he was? Most subjects had their doubts, given the circumstances. But (right-wing authoritarians) almost always trusted him.


http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/TheAuthoritarians.pdf

My comment:

Mike Huckabee belongs gets his support from the gullible... but he has shown himself gullible, too. Such goes with the territory of right-wing authoritarianism: double standards in which affinity creates moral tolerability.

Should he be the Republican nominee, then Democrats will be able to Mike Huckabee FROM THE RIGHT on law and order. Liberals have largely abandoned the idea that criminals are good people who made bad choices; criminals are instead bad people who do exactly what one expects of bad people. 

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Liberals have largely abandoned the idea that criminals are good people who made bad choices; criminals are instead bad people who do exactly what one expects of bad people. 

This is literally the only thing that keeps me voting D. If the parties switched on this, I would never have a difficult choice of conscience in the polling booth ever again. For once, I hope you are right.

[RI]

What did Huck actually say in the article? He said

You must be logged in to read this quote.

which is 100% correct. Nothing is unforgivable. In fact, I'd say that Huckabee has time and again erred on the side of forgiveness. That's admirable in my book.

[Ebsy]

What did Huck actually say in the article? He said

You must be logged in to read this quote.

which is 100% correct. Nothing is unforgivable. In fact, I'd say that Huckabee has time and again erred on the side of forgiveness. That's admirable in my book.

From my perspective, Josh's actions aren't beyond redemption. But his family's hypocrisy is. That Michelle Duggar has the nerve to record a robocall against a nondiscrimination ordinance claiming that trans people are child molesters when her own son molested four of their own daughters is beyond inexcusable.

[WVdemocrat]

What did Huck actually say in the article? He said

You must be logged in to read this quote.

which is 100% correct. Nothing is unforgivable. In fact, I'd say that Huckabee has time and again erred on the side of forgiveness. That's admirable in my book.

From my perspective, Josh's actions aren't beyond redemption. But his family's hypocrisy is. That Michelle Duggar has the nerve to record a robocall against a nondiscrimination ordinance claiming that trans people are child molesters when her own son molested four of their own daughters is beyond inexcusable.

Exactly. I believe in the concept of rehabilitation, but the hypocrisy is awful.

[pbrower2a]

Liberals have largely abandoned the idea that criminals are good people who made bad choices; criminals are instead bad people who do exactly what one expects of bad people. 

This is literally the only thing that keeps me voting D. If the parties switched on this, I would never have a difficult choice of conscience in the polling booth ever again. For once, I hope you are right.

Liberals are much more likely to pay attention to mainstream psychology -- which the Right often considers a black art. It is far easier to explain crime with words like 'psychopath' or 'sociopath' than to speak of a 'poor misguided soul'. Most people, even denizens of the worst hell-holes of urban deprivation, avoid doing crime.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

Believing in redemption is scandalous.  It has always been thus.

It's fine to believe in redemption, but Huckabee goes out of his way to defend these people solely because of their Christianity. I don't believe he would be talking about redemption if this were some random child molester.


Yes, there is nothing wrong with redemption.  Being a Christian means hoping that all might one day be redeemed.  When it comes to child sex crimes and premeditated murderers, however, the perpetrators will have to seek redemption in the next world.  Not because they are inherently irredeemable, but because of public safety.    

Redemption doesn't mean that you don't have to face legal penalties.  It means that you are not defined by what you did, that you are not forever judged for it as being unworthy of respect and incapable of goodness.  If you do not believe that people can change and learn and grow from what they did in their youth, then you do not believe in redemption.

Redemption is not without a price -- namely, taking the worldly penalties (including shame, pain, imprisonment, and financial ruin) that one accepts if redemption is genuine.

A murderer is still a murderer in our world. A thief is still a thief in our world. A rapist is still a rapist in our world. If one accepts Christianity as true, then even being burned at the stake is a minor payment for eternal salvation.

What kind of weird theology claims that being burned at the stake could be payment for salvation?  The idea that a person cannot be redeemed from sin if they do not suffer criminal penalties, or that they should live their entire lives being shamed by those around them for what they did completely misses the role of grace. Christianity is not "you deserve forgiveness if you suffer enough or what you did isn't that bad."

For the unbeliever, Christ is nothing more than a new Kevin Trudeau, promising something too good to be true.  Works-based plans of salvation make more sense to people at one level, and I include many folks who profess to be "Christians" in this because it seems unfair that a murderer/child molester, or someone as awful as a Hitler or a Stalin could have a deathbed revelation and truly accept Christ and receive an eternal reward and be forever in the same Heaven that a "good person" goes to.  The real attraction to works-based plans of salvation is that it seems to offer folks some control over their eternity.  ("I can be good and make the cut!") 

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

What did Huck actually say in the article? He said

You must be logged in to read this quote.

which is 100% correct. Nothing is unforgivable. In fact, I'd say that Huckabee has time and again erred on the side of forgiveness. That's admirable in my book.

From my perspective, Josh's actions aren't beyond redemption. But his family's hypocrisy is. That Michelle Duggar has the nerve to record a robocall against a nondiscrimination ordinance claiming that trans people are child molesters when her own son molested four of their own daughters is beyond inexcusable.

If Michelle Duggar did this, then, yes, this is extreme hypocrisy, but hypocrisy is not beyond redemption.  After all, do any of the liberals here call for Jesse Jackson to just pack it up and disappear for his 1984 slurs on Jews?  Do any of the liberals here demand that Al Sharpton, who has never apologized for perpetuating the Tawana Brawley hoax, have his show on MSNBC yanked?  (C'mon, somebody!)

As to Michael Brown, (A) the Officer who shot him has been cleared of criminal wrongdoing and (B) a video clearly shows him committing a strong-arm robbery against a weaker, smaller store clerk.  Huckabee's response on Michael Brown is to the assertion that he is, somehow, a victim who didn't deserve to die.  And his death was certainly avoidable, but it was up to Michael Brown to do the avoiding and comply with lawful police commands.  I get it that the people of Ferguson have a number of legitimate grievances, but there is this implication made in the discussion about police conduct that, somehow, people have the RIGHT to resist a lawful detention or arrest by a police officer.  Michael Brown's death at a young age is a tragedy, but his committing strong-arm robbery against a weaker victim (a fact, verified by video) is never acknowledged by the Sharptons of the world, and Huckabee isn't wrong to point it out.

The Duggar hypocrisy is obvious; I get it.  They're not alone in the hypocrite tent, however, and that tent is by no means a "religious right, only" area.

[pbrower2a]

Believing in redemption is scandalous.  It has always been thus.

It's fine to believe in redemption, but Huckabee goes out of his way to defend these people solely because of their Christianity. I don't believe he would be talking about redemption if this were some random child molester.


Yes, there is nothing wrong with redemption.  Being a Christian means hoping that all might one day be redeemed.  When it comes to child sex crimes and premeditated murderers, however, the perpetrators will have to seek redemption in the next world.  Not because they are inherently irredeemable, but because of public safety.    

Redemption doesn't mean that you don't have to face legal penalties.  It means that you are not defined by what you did, that you are not forever judged for it as being unworthy of respect and incapable of goodness.  If you do not believe that people can change and learn and grow from what they did in their youth, then you do not believe in redemption.

Redemption is not without a price -- namely, taking the worldly penalties (including shame, pain, imprisonment, and financial ruin) that one accepts if redemption is genuine.

A murderer is still a murderer in our world. A thief is still a thief in our world. A rapist is still a rapist in our world. If one accepts Christianity as true, then even being burned at the stake is a minor payment for eternal salvation.

What kind of weird theology claims that being burned at the stake could be payment for salvation?  The idea that a person cannot be redeemed from sin if they do not suffer criminal penalties, or that they should live their entire lives being shamed by those around them for what they did completely misses the role of grace. Christianity is not "you deserve forgiveness if you suffer enough or what you did isn't that bad."

For the unbeliever, Christ is nothing more than a new Kevin Trudeau, promising something too good to be true.  Works-based plans of salvation make more sense to people at one level, and I include many folks who profess to be "Christians" in this because it seems unfair that a murderer/child molester, or someone as awful as a Hitler or a Stalin could have a deathbed revelation and truly accept Christ and receive an eternal reward and be forever in the same Heaven that a "good person" goes to.  The real attraction to works-based plans of salvation is that it seems to offer folks some control over their eternity.  ("I can be good and make the cut!") 

I recall seeing an account an incident related to the trial of Adolf Eichmann. A Christian evangelist went to Jerusalem. A Jew asked what the evangelist was there to save, and the evangelist replied "Eichmann".

The same Jew asked, "but what of all my relatives that he killed?"

The evangelist said, "They are in Hell for not accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior".

Another Jew said, "So I will be content to go to Hell where my relatives are, and you can be with your pervert forever!"

... All in all I find the Jewish promise of Heaven to all righteous people far more satisfying for humanity as a whole than any credal toadying limited to any single culture. That is a far better hope than almost any other religion can offer.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

I believe that if Mike Huckabee had done the opposite of what he did; if he had lambasted Josh Duggar for his actions, and lambasted his father for not reporting this matter to authorities immediately upon discovery, he'd be lambasted by the same people for not being forgiving.  There would be references as to how "hypocritical" he was and how "judgmental" he was by the same people pillorying him now.  They'd be pointing out Scripture on forgiveness and painting Huckabee as a judgmental, condemning religious fanantic.

I realize there are a number of whining Christians who can't tell the difference between real religious persecution and merely receiving flak for being a Christian.  Jesus, Himself, told His Disciples, "If the World hates you, remember that it hated Me first."; these folks ought to have been forewarned that not everyone is going to give them a Gold Star for being a Christian.  But Huckabee is in a position where he can't win either way.  He's a Pastor, and he can't claim ignorance as to what Scripture says on forgiveness.  As a Pastor, he's done the right thing.  If folks don't want a former Pastor as their President, they don't have to vote for him, but in his particular spot, I believe he did the right thing.