Once again, the left exposes their double standards and their true feelings towards honest faith. Presidential candidate I <3 Huckabee recently put out a Christmas "political" ad in which he basically apologizes for the number of political ads that have run this season and wishes viewers a merry Christmas season. In this ad there is a bookcase in the background that could possibly resemble a cross. Horror of horrors! Not only that, but he wishes people a "Merry Christmas" and references Jesus Christ as the reason for the holiday. Shame on him!
At the outrage announced by those who oppose such public displays of faith, I'd like to pose two questions. First, Huckabee (who is a minister! Should we really be surprised?) comes right out and says that the reason for Christmas is the birth of Christ. It's not implied, it's not suggested, it is explicit! However, the ire from those who like to find reasons to be offended have not mentioned this comment. Rather, their biggest beef is with the fact that the bookcase in the back is lit in such a way that it looks like a cross. (Better not have Hillary in front of any windows. You never know with those pesky panes...) So, my question is this: Why is the birth of Jesus so much less offensive than His death on the cross? The complaint is about the image of the cross, not the mention of Christ's birth. Perhaps people don't realize that He had to be born before He could die...
My second question is, perhaps, more to the point of this post. During this election season, the left has attempted to convince the common voter that they are just as religious as the next (conservative) candidate. Time magazine dedicated seven pages to the faith of the Liberal '08 Presidential candidates (and only the Liberal '08 Presidential candidates). They listed, among other things, their favorite hymns (75% of which were Amazing Grace (could that be because it's the only one they know?)) and favorite Bible verses (75% percent of which were John 3:16 (see previous parenthetical comment)). Yet here is a conservative candidate expressing the very same belief system that the liberals are claiming to possess ~ and he's getting slammed for it. I must have missed the memo that stated that once the left used a political strategy, the right was henceforth forbidden from employing it (even though said strategy was originated by the right.) How seriously are we expected to take the Democrats if while, on one hand, their candidates are expressing their deeply held religious convictions, and on the other they are decrying a Republican candidate because he does the same? (Isn't this the same party that likes to remove the nativity scenes from local greens?) What if the right attempted to gain votes by using the left's strategy of instilling false fear due to Global Warming and then denounced the left for actually using that same time-tested scheme? Wouldn't we be hearing about the two-faced-ness of the right? I've been listening to people complain about this "advertisement" (which is not an ad at all, simply a "season's greetings" after which he had to say that he "approved the message") for about a week now, yet I have not heard anyone mention the fact that the left is also proclaiming their faith in 2008.
It drives me a little crazy that the liberals of this country get to talk about of both sides of their mouths and no one blinks, yet anytime there even appears to be hypocrisy from the right it's the leading story on every news program.
So, the three questions (two that I've discussed above and another thrown in for good measure) that I seem unable to resolve in my head are:
Exactly what is so offensive about a child born in a stable to a young poor couple displaced by a government-required journey 2000 years ago?
Why is His cruel death as an innocent person hung on a tree between two thieves so much more offensive than his humble beginnings?
Finally, why is the left so upset about a conservative candidate not hiding his faith when they are claiming to believe the same message as him?
Anyone? Anyone? Beuller?
5 comments:
Yeah, I thought the 'controversey' was pretty rediculous. I mean, he's flat out showing exactely what kind of guy he is; to me that's exactely what you want a candidate to do. If people don't like it, don't vote. What has them freaked out is that apparently a LOT of people are starting to like the guy and he's becoming a contender! I guess someone so unafraid of putting his faith out there is a terrifying thing ...
Welcome back Matthew! It's great to have you as a contributor to this blog again!
And Merry Christmas to you and yours! (Say "hi" to Heather from V and I)!
Huckabee certainly has some momentum right now, but I'm afraid he would be as polarizing a candidate as Hillary would be for the Democrats.
Amidst all this talk about who is more pious--I haven't heard who has a plan for the future of Iraq, who is going to lower my taxes, solve the immigration crisis, appoint the next Supreme Court justice, and other things a president ought to do.
Wake me up when we start talking about issues in this election and we're not pretending we're all on the 700 club.
Merry Christmas Marc!
I agree with apu--Huckabee seems to be the polarizing equivalent on the right as Hillary is on the left.
What do you think of Ron Paul?
Welcome mindfulmama!
I have to admit there is a lot about Ron Paul that I like. I tend to lean more towards the libertarian side so much of what he stands for strikes a chord with me. However, he seems to be more of a true libertarian than I am, legalize drugs, isolationism, etc.
All that to say, I wouldn't be heartbroken if he was actually able to garner some support but I don't think I can cast my ballot for him unless he's the last (R) standing.
Post a Comment