Huckabee was signer on Anti-Woman SBC Family Statement

[Ryda Wong, EBfCo.]

here

In August of 1998, Huckabee was one of 131 signatories to a full page USA Today Ad which declared: "I affirm the statement on the family issued by the 1998 Southern Baptist Convention." What was in the family statement from the SBC? "A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ."

The ad wasn't just a blanket, "we support the SBC statement," but rather highlighted details. The ad Huckabee signed specifically said of the SBC family statement: "You are right because you called wives to graciously submit to their husband's sacrificial leadership."

I wonder how he's going to sugar-coat this one?

[Canuckistan]

Originally Posted by Ryda Wong, EBfCo.

I wonder how he's going to sugar-coat this one?

Why are you so anti-family, Ryda?

Well, he has the Southern Baptist vote.

And I do not see that as "anti-woman". More like literal Biblical theology.

As far as I can tell, there is nothing in that statement that talks about beating wifes and such, but maybe I didn't read the right section.

The section that comes from also talks about honoring your wife....

So I guess if Paul the Apostle was running for president, you would not vote for him.

[Ryda Wong, EBfCo.]

Originally Posted by Doug4.7

Well, he has the Southern Baptist vote.

And I do not see that as "anti-woman". More like literal Biblical theology.

As far as I can tell, there is nothing in that statement that talks about beating wifes and such, but maybe I didn't read the right section.

1. Literal biblical theology of this sort is anti-woman

2. Beating wives is not the only expression of anti-woman beliefs (I'm guessing you were going for a veiled "They aren't as bad as the muslims" thing here).

Telling a person that they have to fulfull a place of subserviance based only on their genitals is a negative, harmful thing. period.

[ThistleS]

Originally Posted by Doug4.7

Well, he has the Southern Baptist vote.

And I do not see that as "anti-woman". More like literal Biblical theology.

As far as I can tell, there is nothing in that statement that talks about beating wifes and such, but maybe I didn't read the right section.

The section that comes from also talks about honoring your wife....

So I guess if Paul the Apostle was running for president, you would not vote for him.

I would certainly not vote for Paul the Apostle for president. I would not vote for anyone who felt that women's place in society was one of subservience. I can't believe you really think such thinking isn't anti-woman.

[Ryda Wong, EBfCo.]

Originally Posted by Doug4.7

So I guess if Paul the Apostle was running for president, you would not vote for him.

Uh, why would I? Dude is one of my least favorite people in the NT. I'd elect Pilate before I'd elect Paul.

[Canuckistan]

Originally Posted by Doug4.7

And I do not see that as "anti-woman". More like literal Biblical theology.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

As far as I can tell, there is nothing in that statement that talks about beating wifes and such, but maybe I didn't read the right section.

So?

So I guess if Paul the Apostle was running for president, you would not vote for him.

Not a chance. His views are rather repulsive at times, and I'm not sure he believes in the separation of church and state.

Originally Posted by Ryda Wong, EBfCo.

1. Literal biblical theology of this sort is anti-woman

2. Beating wives is not the only expression of anti-woman beliefs (I'm guessing you were going for a veiled "They aren't as bad as the muslims" thing here).

Telling a person that they have to fulfull a place of subserviance based only on their genitals is a negative, harmful thing. period.

Originally Posted by ThistleS

I would certainly not vote for Paul the Apostle for president. I would not vote for anyone who felt that women's place in society was one of subservience. I can't believe you really think such thinking isn't anti-woman.

Then I guess you both have issues with Christianity (since those statements are in the New Testament).

[Minstrel]

I'm pretty sure neither Ryda nor ThistleS have ever claimed to be (currently) Christian.

And while I love some of Paul's writing for its poetic exuberance, I wouldn't vote for him either.

[ThistleS]

Originally Posted by Doug4.7

Then I guess you both have issues with Christianity (since those statements are in the New Testament).

I don't have any issue with people following Christ. I do have a huge issue with people believing that women's lot in life should be one of subservience. If that is an essential, integral part of Christianity then yes, I have a problem with Christianity. However, I don't really think it is an integral part of Christianity or any religion.

[ThistleS]

Originally Posted by Minstrel

I'm pretty sure neither Ryda nor ThistleS have ever claimed to be (currently) Christian.

That's correct- Ryda was, IIRC, raised in an evangelical household and currently has no religion. I was raised Catholic but am no longer practicing and consider myself agnostic. I believe we have both been fairly vocal about our lack of religion.

[Canuckistan]

Originally Posted by Doug4.7

Then I guess you both have issues with Christianity (since those statements are in the New Testament).

Some aspects of some people's version of Christianity, yes.

Is this automatically a bad thing?

[Ryda Wong, EBfCo.]

Originally Posted by Doug4.7

Then I guess you both have issues with Christianity (since those statements are in the New Testament).

I like Christ (and some other folk in the scriptures) quite a bit. I really don't like the common manifestations of Christanity who take the dogmatic, evil, and oppressive aspects of the religion and hold true to them.

I don't mind the Christians that have thrown those off and dissassocaited themselves from them.

Anyone who would sign such a statement is, IMHO, a bad person.

Oh, yeah, and ThistleS has my backgroud right. To add to it, I grew up in one of the largest churches in the SBC which was pastored by a past president of the SBC (who also,speaking at an SBC convention in 2002 said "Allah is not Jehovah… Jehovah's not going to turn you into a terrorist that'll try to bomb people and take the lives of thousands and thousands of people," and that "Christianity was founded by the virgin-born Jesus Christ" while "Islam was founded by Muhammad, a demon-possessed pedophile who had 12 wives, and his last one was a 9-year-old girl.").

Source Wiki.

[Chloe]

Originally Posted by Doug4.7

And I do not see that as "anti-woman". More like literal Biblical theology.

So if it said "A black man is to submit himself graciously to the servant leadership of a white man even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ," you wouldn't see that as racist? Why not?

So I guess if Paul the Apostle was running for president, you would not vote for him.

He wouldn't get in. He was Jewish.

[Ramblin' Dave]

Well, the love-to-hate-Hillary wing of the GOP is going to absolutely love this, aren't they? And Ryda, do you think he's even going to try to "sugar-coat" this? Seems to me it's perfect for the segment of the voting public he's aiming for to win the nomination.

[Blatherskite]

Originally Posted by Doug4.7

Then I guess you both have issues with Christianity (since those statements are in the New Testament).

I do have issues with Christianity, as do a lot of people who are actually Christian. But I have even more issues with sexism, which is what this actually is. Sexism and anti-woman sentiment isn't limited to beating, and just because something is religious doesn't mean it isn't also sexist. I could start a cult based on thwarting the masculine antics of the phallic demon Peen that lives in the loins of the menfolk, and I could claim it was a valid belief but it would definitely also be man-hating.

Originally Posted by Ramblin' Dave

And Ryda, do you think he's even going to try to "sugar-coat" this? Seems to me it's perfect for the segment of the voting public he's aiming for to win the nomination.

That's what I think also.

[Ryda Wong, EBfCo.]

Originally Posted by Ramblin' Dave

And Ryda, do you think he's even going to try to "sugar-coat" this? Seems to me it's perfect for the segment of the voting public he's aiming for to win the nomination.

Hmmm. Yeah, but if he's intending to win the nomination, he has to look at broader appeal after that. I'd think this would bite him in his pasty white *ss. At least, I'd hope so.

Originally Posted by Ryda Wong, EBfCo.

At least, I'd hope so.

Not really. Those folks vote and vote often. You might be surprised how far he could go with such a platform....

Nevermind, I got it all wrong...