Father, this is shabby stuff ... "the company Huckabee keeps"?? What is this ... Deuteronomy? Amish shunning?
I can't get exorcised about these sorts of ritual-impurity tests, where someone is assumed to agree with everything said by those with whom one in any sense "associates." And that's all this stuff is. Does the Politico report (or the Weekly Standard one from the other day) say what Huckabee said at any of these honoraria venues?
Of course not, but then there would be no story. If Huckabee had said "I back everything you folks at Novo Nordisk" or "your work on stem-cell research gives my diabetes hope," etc. ... then we have a problem. But not "until" that were shown.
And Father Gearhart ... you really don't want to be applauding this "ritual impurity" standard, given what it would "prove" [sic] about Ron Paul.
What I see is someone who looks rather anti-nomian, and who "did a lot of business" while governor; and no, I don't like those with whom he did business.
But nobody says you have to like those with whom he did business.
"First-degree dislike" is perfectly rational. "Second-degree dislike" is perfectly trivial. Kinda like the difference between a strike and a sympathy strike.
And I'm afraid you lost me on the "antinomian" part ... I know what it means. But its application to Huckabee ... beyond what comes with the territory of being an SBC Protestant ... is unclear to me. Certainly, taking honoraria from groups that do some bad things isn't it.
It's about more than this, of course; what I see is someone who -- because he's got a special relationship with Jesus -- also has a special insight into what's true and good, and therefore what he's for, is true and good.
I don't trust him; and he reminds me, in this regard, of Pat Robertson, and I mean before all the really crazy talk.
7 comments:
My, my, my. The only man left standing appears to be Ron Paul.
Father, this is shabby stuff ... "the company Huckabee keeps"?? What is this ... Deuteronomy? Amish shunning?
I can't get exorcised about these sorts of ritual-impurity tests, where someone is assumed to agree with everything said by those with whom one in any sense "associates." And that's all this stuff is. Does the Politico report (or the Weekly Standard one from the other day) say what Huckabee said at any of these honoraria venues?
Of course not, but then there would be no story. If Huckabee had said "I back everything you folks at Novo Nordisk" or "your work on stem-cell research gives my diabetes hope," etc. ... then we have a problem. But not "until" that were shown.
And Father Gearhart ... you really don't want to be applauding this "ritual impurity" standard, given what it would "prove" [sic] about Ron Paul.
VJMorton:
What I see is someone who looks rather anti-nomian, and who "did a lot of business" while governor; and no, I don't like those with whom he did business.
no, I don't like those with whom he did business.
But nobody says you have to like those with whom he did business.
"First-degree dislike" is perfectly rational. "Second-degree dislike" is perfectly trivial. Kinda like the difference between a strike and a sympathy strike.
-- Victor
And I'm afraid you lost me on the "antinomian" part ... I know what it means. But its application to Huckabee ... beyond what comes with the territory of being an SBC Protestant ... is unclear to me. Certainly, taking honoraria from groups that do some bad things isn't it.
-- Victor
Victor:
It's about more than this, of course; what I see is someone who -- because he's got a special relationship with Jesus -- also has a special insight into what's true and good, and therefore what he's for, is true and good.
I don't trust him; and he reminds me, in this regard, of Pat Robertson, and I mean before all the really crazy talk.
Game, set, and match for Fr. Martin Fox!
Post a Comment