Monday, February 2, 2015

Mike Huckabee And the Gay Shrimp

For those who missed it, Mike Huckabee has been busy lately trying to get his name back in the news for a 2016 run. He seems to have decided that the one issue that might help him pull this off is gay marriage. For the most part, his comments are the usual stuff. Today, however, he said something interesting. Indeed, buried among a dozen or so comments about gay marriage bring about the end of the world, Huckabee said that forcing Christians to accept gay marriage is the same thing as “forcing Jews to eat shrimp.” Really?

This quote more than any other exposes Huckabee’s view of Christianity and it’s an aggressive view I really can’t support. Indeed, let's consider if these really are comparable things. By forcing a Jew to eat a shrimp, you are actively forcing that individual to engage in an activity that violates the dictates of their religion. Huckabee believes that imposing gay marriage into the law would be the exact same thing to Christians. But would it?

Well, no.

In Huckabee’s example, the Jewish individual is forced to engage in conduct they believe violates their religion. Nothing similar happens with gay marriage, however because no one is forced to marry someone of the same sex against their will. Indeed, no one is forced to engage in any conduct that violates their beliefs. The closest you can come is that the Christian individual will be forced to tolerate their neighbors engaging in behavior they consider to violate their religion. But that is truly, fundamentally different from being forced to actively engage in conduct violating your beliefs.... unless you (like Mike apparently) believe that Christianity requires one to control the behavior of others. That’s simply false, however. If you read the words of Jesus, as Mike apparently hasn’t, his teaching are packed with example after example where Jesus admonishes Christians to worry about themselves, and not their brothers or neighbors. There are even admonitions against politicking, though I’ll save that for another day.

Now, you could argue, I suppose, that the shrimp comparison works for those who are required to provide services to these gay people. But again, that seems an aggressive view of the reach of Christianity. Indeed, once again, the Christian isn’t forced to engage in the activity, they are simply prevented from discriminating in the providing of services to the public between people the Christian views as complaint with their views and others who are not. But this is just another form of the first point, and is no more valid.

The closest I can come to finding merit in Huckabee’s comparison is if you assume that by letting the government endorse gay marriage, the Christian is forced in some manner to support the practice through their tax dollars. I have more sympathy for this argument, except there still is lacking some direct link. The government spends so much on so many disagreeable things and the taxpayer pays so little toward this vast budget that the idea of “contributing” to any particular government spending is basically theoretical at best. In other words, my dollar will be spread over so many expensive causes that my contribution to any one thing is negligible. Moreover, Jesus dispelled this argument very quickly with his “render unto Caesar” quote, which makes it clear that Christians must obey the law and cannot be held morally responsible for acts done by the government in their name because they have no power to shape such acts.

Obviously, this whole issue gets into hair splitting. But what fascinated me about the quote was the sense I got from Huckabee that, in his world, Christians have a right to impose their will on others and being denied that right is the same as being forced to engage in the activity itself. If I’m reading Huckabee correctly here, then his view of Christianity is troublesome.

Thoughts?

P.S. Up yours Tom Brady.

23 comments:

Kit said...

If he brought up how California colleges are shutting down Christian groups that do not allow non-Christians and persons who are openly gay to run for leadership in their organization on the basis of a state-wide college rule that in order to be recognized as a campus group and all the privileges that entails they have to open their leadership to all students regardless of orientation or belief. This is resulting in most evangelical organizations on these colleges being shut down.

In 2010 the Supreme Court upheld this as long as it applies to all organizations.

If he brought up that then he might have a point. But for some reason I don't think he did…

AndrewPrice said...

Kit, I don't have a transcript of everything he's said,but I haven't seen anything like that. Instead, it's the usual "end of the world" stuff with a lot of "I'm the only one who cares about this." He's also recently lobbed an attack on NYC women for swearing.

My guess is that he wants to grab the evangelical vote right now before anyone else begins to secure parts of it.

Rustbelt said...

Andrew, you do put up a good theological argument. I would, however, wonder how Huckabee's argument would hold up if he compared it to Henry David Thoreau's situation. In that sense, Thoreau, a militant abolitionist, refused to pay his taxes on the grounds that said taxes might go to to the wages of sheriffs hired to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act. Just some food for thought.

On your second point...

I think the old Big Ten saying has proven true again:
If you want to crush the Super Bowl dreams of a despised University of Hell graduate QB, never entrust the job of doing so to a Badger. And just for the sake of picking on Wisconsin a little more, I'm finally posting this link... (There's a shorter version, but that clip didn't have the Brett Favre joke.)

Rustbelt said...

And just so I can say it before someone else gets a chance...

A Republican Presidential hopeful is saying something that may make him unelectable.
It must be Groundhog Day. Again.

Anthony said...

I don't think the shrimp comparison will make Huckabee any more unelectable than he already is. Using government to force everyone to live by their take on God's law is pretty much the reason social conservatives are active in the political sphere.

Tennessee Jed said...

I doubt that was Huckabee's take (e.g. impose their religious will on the country.) Rather, I suspect he was just making a bad analogy, but Anthony is right .... the religious right candidates are unelectable. They can make it difficult for Republicans from the small government is best camp, however since they are fodder for the media to paint the party with a broad brush. Still, as we look at things right now, this country soundly rejected a Democratic Party that had shredded the constitution. Romney lost because he was unable to unveil and articulate an alternative other than "cut taxes" on big business, and the so-called Reagan Democrats stayed home.

I hope Huck and Santorum stay the hell out of things. They just muck things up. I care less about a woman's right to choose than I do about my having to fund their choice. This country needs real economic recovery. Statism is not a good idea, but religious intolerance drives people away.

AndrewPrice said...

Anthony, I don't think this makes him any more unelectable than he already is. There is no way he could win a general election.

Instead, I wrote this because I thought it showed something interesting. It shows that his view of freedom for Christians is not limited to practicing their own beliefs, but instead also includes a right to force others to comply with the Christian's views. Basically, it shows a serious lack of tolerance for other beliefs because he equates being forced to tolerate other beliefs with being forced to violate your own beliefs.

Not only is that similar thinking to Islamists, but it demonstrates that while the Religious Right claims to embrace religious tolerance, it really doesn't -- which is something many groups, including Jews, have long feared.

AndrewPrice said...

Jed, I am not as charitable about this just being a bad analogy because it fits with the rest of this thinking. In any event, it suggests that he needs to step back and ask himself what he really believes... though I think he knows.

It also tells me that he needs to go read his Bible again. He,like many others, has completely misread Jesus.

In terms of the election, I don't see Santorum or Huckabee being particularly relevant. Religion doesn't seem to be scoring any points in this election so far and I think it will come down to "Establishment" versus "Team Genuine," without issues really mattering.

Critch said...

If it was up to me everyone would be "married" as soon as they sign that marriage license at the court clerks office....then they can go and get a minister, priest, rabbi, or hippie guru to marry them. However, under no circumstances should a church be forced to marry anyone. Huckabee wasn't electable in the first place, nice guy, not presidential material. He can't seem to see the whole picture.

AndrewPrice said...

Rustbelt, Obviously, that's a tough question, but I will say this. There are several reasons I don't buy that argument.

First, in a Democracy, you need to accept the outcome and support the government. You have the right to try to win a change, but you have no right to simply pick and choose which parts you will support. To do so is anti-Democratic, and I don't support that. Moreover, if people accepted this idea, our government would collapse as everyone left/right stopped paying to support the things they dislike.

Secondly, protests like that are usually hypocritical because the person tends to pick and choose which benefits/obligations they will accept. In other words, it sounds principled to say "I won't pay because of X," but our roads and schools and everything else was built with tax dollars from the tainted sources, and yet the person never gives those things up.

Third, as I said, no one contributes enough to be able to draw a straight line to these things. So the idea that you are "contributing" is totally theoretical and rather ticky-tacky.

Fourth, there is again a huge difference between the government engaging in something as heinous as slavery and a the gay marriage issue, in which no one is hurt or oppressed... they are simply asked to tolerate.


As for saying something stupid, this is what certain people do for a living. And smearing the women of NYC is typical of that crowd. It makes them feel superior and victimized, which binds them together.

On the Super Bowl, I disliked both teams (arrogant winners, sore losers), though I hate the Patriots with the heat of a thousand supernovas, so I wanted them to lose more. To me, the quote from Joshua in Wargames described this game best... "the only way to win is not to play the game."

AndrewPrice said...

Critch, Agreed. I would take the government out of the "marriage" business. Let it designate legal partners, which the law will recognize, and then leave it up to individual churches to do marriages and let whoever wants to recognize those recognize them.

tryanmax said...

Something about shrimp cocktail? I stopped reading after that. Where's the buffet line! Gotta get me some!

tryanmax said...

In all seriousness, be on the lookout for the hosts at MSNBC to assign Huckabee's impositional views to all Christians in the segment following the round table discussion about how militant Islam is in no way connected to the Muslim faith in any way whatsoever.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, Totally agree, that is how MSNBC would handle the story. And that's why I don't take the left seriously. They are deeply hypocritical and will attack someone they don't like while completely giving a pass to others for the exact same thing. That tells me they aren't working on any sort of principle and, thus, their attacks are purely partisan... and meaningless.

Shrimp cocktail is pretty awesome. :D

Critch said...

I didn't know Jews couldn't eat shrimp.....must of missed that one..

AndrewPrice said...

Critch, I think they are forbidden from eating shellfish... but I'm not sure. I know they can't eat bacon.

Kit said...

TEST

Kit said...

I hate shrimp. Hate the smell, always have.

Critch said...

My mom used to run the cafeteria at Plough Inc. in Memphis, now Schering-Plough. There were many Jewish people working there so she had to learn their dietary laws...I remember her saying that Mr. Plough was always coming up with something different for the menu.

ScottDS said...

which is something many groups, including Jews, have long feared

To quote Jeff Goldblum in Jurassic Park, "Boy, I hate being right all the time!"

It's a slippery slope the old Huckster is walking. I'm not the first to say it, but if you take his argument to its logical conclusion, then anyone could say anything offends them. What's to stop a Christian electrician from doing a job for a gay person? I assume the answer is nothing, but the electrician would suffer from the resulting tide of bad press and the market would (hopefully) do its job.

I do love shrimp, though. :-)

BevfromNYC said...

Darn, I missed the whole gay shrimp controversy? Did Huckabee really say he would never eat gay shrimp? Now can he tell?

BTW - I am stuck out of town without the means to post for tomorrow morning. I promise to make it up to everyone...

Kit said...

Bev,

"Did Huckabee really say he would never eat gay shrimp? Now can he tell?"

It had a Kanye West tattoo on it.
LINK

Koshcat said...

Critch - when referenced Mr. Plough I couldn't get this image out of my head:

http://images.shirts.com/products/26267/14-14-47482/simpsons-mr-plow-t-shirt-logo.jpg

Post a Comment