Huckabee’s Warped Understanding of History

Mike Huckabee went on a wingnut radio show and said that the contraception mandate in the Affordable Care Act is just like the tyranny that caused the American revolution as King George “began to tell people what limitations of their belief could be.”

While speaking today with American Family Radio host Kevin McCullough, who falsely claimed that “Obamacare makes abortion taxpayer funded,” Huckabee baselessly charged that the mandate covers “abortifacients.”

Huckabee said that the mandate represents such a threat to freedom that it is similar to the actions of the British government that sparked the American Revolution: “When I go back to American history, that’s why the American revolution started. You had a government that became a tyranny and that government began to tell people what limitations of their belief could be.”

He doesn’t specify which government he is referring to, but I don’t think it could be the British government. It could well be the governments of several of the original colonies, the ones Huckabee and his fellow Christian nation advocates continually point to as examples of what they think the founding fathers wanted. Most of them were theocracies of various types. In Virginia or Massachusetts, for example, Huckabee might have been arrested, jailed, exiled or even put to death as a Baptist minister. And yet Huckabee loves to point to the Mayflower Compact as some sort of model for the Constitution when it was exactly the opposite in almost every way.

Follow Us!
POPULAR AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • dingojack

    Heh, silly ol’ Dingo — I always thought it was about getting the American colonialists to actually defray some of the costs of saving them from the authoritarian rule of the Absolutist French Kings* —

    but what else would we expect from the party of personal and fiscal responsibility!

    @@ Dingo

    —————-

    * not that the ‘Huckster’ has ever seen an authoritarian government he hasn’t drooled over whilst masturbating furiously

  • John Pieret

    government began to tell people what limitations of their belief could be

    Damn gubbmint won’t even let us stone to death a few gays here ‘n there as we believe god has told us to do!

  • Mr Ed

    If you think of Huckabee as a politician, leader and potential president his willful ignorance or willful misrepresentation of history is shameful. If you think of Huckabee as a carnival huckster pedaling books and speeches then it is just what you would expect. He is really no different than the side show guy with the never dull knife that can cut a Buick in half and cut tissue thin tomato slices.

    “Step right up ladies and gentleman just two bits and you can hear God’s special message just for you.”

  • dugglebogey

    I cannot comprehend how people who scream at the top of their lungs about how the most important thing in the human experience is freedom would consider electing a person who wants to be able to command people on whether or not they have to produce children or not.

  • peterh

    Or even stone a few recalcitrant children . . . .

  • scienceavenger

    …government began to tell people what limitations of their belief could be

    I don’t expect it of nutcases like McCullough, but it would be nice if just once, one of the so-called professional media would note that this government has not told anyone what limitations of their belief can be. Ever. At least in my half century here.

  • Lady Mondegreen

    King George “began to tell people what limitations of their belief could be.”

    And then he cackled evilly as he rode away on his flying unicorn.

    –Wait, this is Made Up History Day, right?

  • Kevin Kehres

    Huckabee…forgotten but not gone.

    I expect he’ll finish dead last in Iowa and slither back to his underground lair.

  • Kevin Kehres

    FWIW: This is the entire text of the Mayflower compact.

    In ye name of God Amen· We whose names are vnderwriten,

    the loyall subjects of our dread soueraigne Lord King James

    by ye grace of God, of great Britaine, franc, & Ireland king,

    defender of ye faith, &c

    Haueing vndertaken, for ye glorie of God, and aduancemente

    of ye christian ^faith and honour of our king & countrie, a voyage to

    plant ye first colonie in ye Northerne parts of Virginia· doe

    by these presents solemnly & mutualy in ye presence of God, and

    one of another, couenant, & combine our selues togeather into a

    ciuill body politick; for ye our better ordering, & preseruation & fur=

    therance of ye ends aforesaid; and by vertue hearof, to enacte,

    constitute, and frame shuch just & equall lawes, ordinances,

    Acts, constitutions, & offices, from time to time, as shall be thought

    most meete & conuenient for ye generall good of ye colonie: vnto

    which we promise all due submission and obedience. In witnes

    wherof we haue herevnder subscribed our names at Cap=

    Codd ye ·11· of Nouember, in ye year of ye raigne of our soueraigne

    Lord king James of England, france, & Ireland ye eighteenth

    and of Scotland ye fiftie fourth. Ano: Dom ·1620·|

  • sugarfrosted

    And to think I thought it was about taxing the colonies though they had no members of parliament. Silly me.

  • Kermit Sansoo

    scienceavenger says: I don’t expect it of nutcases like McCullough, but it would be nice if just once, one of the so-called professional media would note that this government has not told anyone what limitations of their belief can be. Ever. At least in my half century here.

    .

    Sure it does. You can believe in the existence of, and worship, the old Aztec gods, but you can’t rip the hearts out of living people – even volunteers. We told the Mormons that they can’t practice polygamy. The test is whether or not the conflict between a religious practice and the laws are important or not. So, for example, some First Nation people are legally allowed to consume peyote but only in a religious ceremony context. I’m pretty sure that Sikhs cannot be firemen, however, unless they are willing to shave their beards off, for that would be a fire hazard and prevent a good seal wearing breathing apparatus. I’ve heard they are allowed in the military now with religious beards, depending on their assigned job.

    Until recently, religious people here have been largely OK with that.

  • Kermit Sansoo

    To clarify, scienceavenger, by “limit belief” I mean “to limit religious practice”, which I think is also what Huckabee means. Not actual belief, which couldn’t be limited anyway by fiat, although communication might be.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    He’s got a point. The American Revolution started after King George forced America’s Job Creators’ to cover employee contraception that the Job Creators believed, falsely, caused abortions. So, rather than learning how contraception works, they rebelled, saving themselves from the tyranny of being forced to cover employee ladyparts.

  • jimmiraybob

    In 1641, Massachusetts Colony passed its first written legal code, the Massachusetts Body of Liberties. See that! Right there in the title, LIBERTIES! See that! And, in Section 94 it is clearly spelled out that all are totally and completely free in their beliefs according to one’s own conscience within the constraints of the law as follows,

    ” If any man after legal conviction shall have or worship any other god, but the Lord God, he shall be put to death.”

    Also too, there’s a slight death thingy for witches and for blasphemers against the name of God, the Father, Son, or Holy Ghost.

    But really, other than that, Huckabee Liberty! Huckabee Freedom!!

  • Artor

    As usual, the headline could be shortened and be more accurate. “Huckabee’s Warped.”

  • marcus

    I am outraged that SCOTUS found, against all common sense and science, that something is an “abortifacient” if it is a “sincerely held religious belief” that it is an abortifacient, even if it is not, in fact, you know, an “abortifacient”.

    Another notorious christofascist politician, Bob Beauprez, stood at a lectern, in a gubernatorial debate with Hickenlooper and said, “IUDs are abortifacients,” and not a single person corrected him, during the debate or since.

    Disgusting.

  • Michael Heath

    Here’s the capital law’s portion of the document jimmyiraybob quotes:

    94. Capitall Laws.

    1.

    (Deut. 13. 6, 10. Deut. 17. 2, 6. Ex. 22.20)

    If any man after legall conviction shall have or worship any other god, but the lord god, he shall be put to death.

    2.

    (Ex. 22. 18. Lev. 20. 27. Dut. 18. 10.)

    If any man or woeman be a witch, (that is hath or consulteth with a familiar spirit,) They shall be put to death.

    3.

    (Lev. 24. 15,16.)

    If any person shall Blaspheme the name of god, the father, Sonne or Holie Ghost, with direct, expresse, presumptuous or high handed blasphemie, or shall curse god in the like manner, he shall be put to death.

    [Page 274]

    4.

    (Ex. 21. 12. Numb. 35. 13, 14, 30, 31.)

    If any person committ any wilfull murther, which is manslaughter, committed upon premeditated malice, hatred, or Crueltie, not in a mans necessarie and just defence, nor by meere casualtie against his will, he shall be put to death.

    5.

    (Numb. 25, 20, 21. Lev. 24. 17)

    If any person slayeth an other suddaienly in his anger or Crueltie of passion, he shall be put to death.

    6.

    (Ex. 21. 14.)

    If any person shall slay an other through guile, either by poysoning or other such divelish practice, he shall be put to death.

    7.

    (Lev. 20. 15,16.)

    If any man or woeman shall lye with any beaste or bruite creature by Carnall Copulation, They shall surely be put to death. And the beast shall be slaine, and buried and not eaten.

    8.

    (Lev. 20. 13.)

    If any man lyeth with mankinde as he lyeth with a woeman, both of them have committed abhomination, they both shall surely be put to death.

    9.

    Lev. 20. 19. and 18, 20. Dut. 22. 23, 24.)

    If any person committeth Adultery with a maried or espoused wife, the Adulterer and Adulteresse shall surely be put to death.

    10.

    (Ex. 21. 16.)

    If any man stealeth a man or mankinde, he shall surely be put to death.

    11.

    (Deut. 19. 16, 18, 19.)

    If any man rise up by false witnes, wittingly and of purpose to take away any mans life, he shall be put to death.

    12.

    If any man shall conspire and attempt any invasion, insurrection, or publique rebellion against our commonwealth, or shall [Page 275] indeavour to surprize any Towne or Townes, fort or forts therein, or shall treacherously and perfediouslie attempt the alteration and subversion of our frame of politie or Government fundamentallie, he shall be put to death.

    Link: http://history.hanover.edu/texts/masslib.html

    jimmyiraybob, some months back I stopped reading American Creation altogether. I could no longer justify my visiting a site with such a buffoonish troll enjoying blogging rights, especially given the absurdities of his comments in the other bloggers’ posts at that site. I value my time far too much.

  • jimmiraybob

    Michael, I still go there fairly regularly although many of the contributors and commenters no longer seem to show up. I still value Jon’s contribution but that’s somewhat spare and I understand that one person can’t necessarily be a daily contributor what with work and life demands.

    I have found that the “trolling” has been advantageous in that it pushes me to do a lot of extra research in areas that I already find interesting. I’m mostly focusing right now on 17th-18th century Dutch contributions to ideas that historians call the “radical Enlightenment” – notions like the right of conscience unhindered by theological/ecclesiastical interference. As Spinoza argued, the right to philosophize shouldn’t be hindered by bad religion and superstition (heady stuff for the times when this kind of stuff got people drug in front of an Inquisition). Also the companion notion of freedom of expression and freedom of the press. Two center pieces of our constitution that I don’t see developing directly out of the more restrained moderate Enlightenment or, more specifically, out of the often touted at AC “Calvinist Resistance Theory.” Most religiously-centered resistance theories seem to be much more narrowly focused on self preservation (one sect hoping to gain toleration from the dominant sect) and usually falling back on OT law for anyone not believing like their sect – like in the Liberties.

    Natural law is somewhat the topic de jure, at least in the comments sections. Anyway, good times.

  • scienceavenger

    To clarify, scienceavenger, by “limit belief” I mean “to limit religious practice”, which I think is also what Huckabee means.

    I know what he means, and I’m calling him on his bullshit, and wish others would do the same. He knows he can’t make the case that the government can’t limit religious practice, because as you rightly document, cases of that are fairly common. So he (and many others) phrase it as limiting religoius belief, because they know most everyone agrees that shouldn’t be limited. But its dishonest. I may (hypothetically) believe having to get a drivers license is bullshit, but if I get one anyway because the law says I have to, that hasn’t changed my belief one iota. Same with his claims. He can believe whatever the hell he wants. But his actions need to follow the law.

  • dingojack

    jimmiraybob – “… heady stuff for the times when this kind of stuff got people drug in front of an Inquisition.”

    Which drug specifically? LSD, Δ9-THC, 1,3,7-Trimethylpurine-2,6-dione, MDMA… ?

    scienceavenger — ” He knows he can’t make the case that the government can’t limit religious practice, because as you rightly document, cases of that are fairly common.”

    Really? Do you have citations of several actual & recent cases of this ‘fairly common’ occurrence? (Oh – and double negative).

    Dingo

  • jimmiraybob

    dingojack – “Which drug specifically?”

    Perhaps I meant dragged….maybe hauled. But, there could have been drugs too. It was, after all the inquisition.

  • dingojack

    jimmyraybob – That’d certainly be unexpected! :)

    Dingo