Mike Huckabee: Vote for the ‘Right’ Candidate or Go to Hell

Here’s Mike Huckabee explaining a campaign ad he just put out:

“Although I clearly have a point of view and a preference for a candidate, this was about asking people to think for themselves.”

Oh good! Thinking for ourselves! Then this won’t be partisan at all:

“Many issues are at stake, but some issues are not negotiable… The right to life from conception to natural death. Marriage should be reinforced, not redefined. It is an egregious violation of our cherished principle of religious liberty for the government to force the church to buy the kind of insurance that leads to the taking of innocent human life.

Your vote will affect the future and be recorded in eternity… Will you vote the values that will stand the test of fire? This is Mike Huckabee asking you to join me November the 6th and vote based on values that will stand the test of fire.”

So if I have Huckabee right, gay marriage and abortion take precedence over whether or not a candidate accepts Jesus as his savior. Good to know. And remember: Liberty for all! (Unless you want an abortion or you’re gay and want equal rights, in which case, kindly exit this country and shut the fence on your way out.)

Personally, I support the right to live your life without someone forcing you to stay alive against your will or have your rapist’s baby. I support marriage for all. I support universal health care. I support a government that doesn’t push Christian beliefs on its citizens. I support a worldview based in reality instead of one focused on “eternity.”

But what do I know. I’m going to hell. (And smiling on the way there, of course.)

(Thanks to Seth for the link)

About Hemant Mehta

Hemant Mehta is the editor of Friendly Atheist, appears on the Atheist Voice channel on YouTube, and co-hosts the uniquely-named Friendly Atheist Podcast. You can read much more about him here.

  • http://www.holytape.etsy.com Holytape

    Yes, Mike Huckabee is sort of right.  You have to vote for the right candidate or go to hell.   However, he has the wrong candidate.  Jesus, who loves America, would never vote for a mormon.  No, the right candidate is Tomás de Torquemada.  And God doesn’t care that he has been dead for more than 500 years.

    The third rider

  • http://www.holytape.etsy.com Holytape

    Yes, Mike Huckabee is sort of right.  You have to vote for the right candidate or go to hell.   However, he has the wrong candidate.  Jesus, who loves America, would never vote for a mormon.  No, the right candidate is Tomás de Torquemada.  And God doesn’t care that he has been dead for more than 500 years.

    The third rider

    • Len

       You’re probably right. The three-day resurrection was just pilot testing. Bring him back after 500 years – no problems.

  • jdm8

    It’s just a way to try keeping the flock in line.

    Telling people to think for themselves contradicts saying there are eternal consequences to going against the way he thinks. It’s not really much of a choice but the kind of choice a tyrant offers.

  • jdm8

    It’s just a way to try keeping the flock in line.

    Telling people to think for themselves contradicts saying there are eternal consequences to going against the way he thinks. It’s not really much of a choice but the kind of choice a tyrant offers.

  • CelticWhisper

    “Personally, I support the right to live your life without someone
    forcing you to stay alive against your will or have your rapist’s baby.
    I support marriage for all. I support universal health care. I
    support a government that doesn’t push Christian beliefs on its
    citizens. I support a worldview based in reality instead of one focused
    on “eternity.””

    And that’s really it, isn’t it?  People can already uphold these values themselves, if they believe in them.

    A person who believes abortion is wrong is free to refuse abortion, even in circumstances of incest, rape, or even directly life-threatening complications of the pregnancy.

    People who believe in “traditional” marriage are free to marry a single person of the opposite sex.  They’re free to do this even if they themselves are of the LGBT demographic.  Why they’d want to is beyond me, but the point is they have the liberty to do so.

    Corporations aren’t people, so “forcing employers to buy health insurance” blah blah blah harms nobody.

    But that’s not what Fu–erm, Huckabee really wants.  He doesn’t care that people are free to support these values if they want to.  He wants everyone forced to support these values even if they don’t believe in them.

    As someone who puts freedom first, there’s no way I’d follow his advice on this.  I believe in marriage equality, reproductive freedom, the right to die with dignity and unrestricted access to birth control without parental consent, just the same way as I believe in gun-ownership rights, the right to make private contracts (within reason, so long as they don’t infringe on fundamental individual liberty), and the right to be a religious fuckwit as long as you keep it to yourself.

    Individual liberty and personal choice are paramount, and I don’t believe for a second that Huckabee (or Romney, for whom he’s obviously shilling) values them.

    So while there’s no force in the world that can persuade me to pull the lever to support the perpetuation of Obama’s assault on civil liberties this Election Day, there’s likewise nothing that can get me to vote in favor of Romney being the one to take over for him.

    • Bear31

      You have summed up my feelings on this better than I ever could have dreamed of. We are a nation with diverse cultures and values, why would anyone ever think that their values apply to everyone, or even should? I have never understood this. It seems so arrogant.

    • JohnnieCanuck

      Why would an LGBT person marry someone of the opposite sex? That’s easy.

      Religion. Most obviously Mormons, though Catholics and fundamentalists have to be in there too, along with Islam and any number of others. Probably there’s a fair few non-religious ones as well that are in denial about their sexuality and just want to pretend it isn’t so.

      Seems to happen a lot. People write books about it. Carol Lynn Pearson wrote Goodbye, I Love You and curiously, her daughter Emily went on to have the same experience and write Dancing with Crazy.

      Just one more way religion is evil.

    • Maria

      I love most of what you said, just wondering what civil liberties you believe Obama is assaulting.

      • CelticWhisper

        The first ones to come to mind are the assassination of Anwar Al-Awlaki, the signing of the NDAA, the response to the Occupy protests and the instituting of Scope-n-Grope at airports.

  • Sarah T.

    What I find fascinating about this is that  Huckabee has borrowed most of this video from a Catholic pro-republican political ad that went viral back in April. Protestants originally split from the Catholic church, in part, because they emphasized Salvation by Grace Alone. It looks like conservative Catholics and conservative Protestants can agree that you are only saved if you believe in the right political opinions. Salvation by Politics.

  • Baal

    Hi to the Christians who read this blog.  Please note that Mike Huckabee doesn’t sound all that different from many of your leaders.  His argument is one of fear.  Do this or else….  Christ’s message was one of love and compassion (when read broadly) and you cannot use fear and threats to serve that end.

    Disgust over use of this fear tactic is one reason why some of us became atheists in the first place.

    • The Other Weirdo

       When read narrowly, however, he wasn’t above having towns burnt to the ground for now accepting him. And also telling people they couldn’t be his followers unless they abandoned their friends and families first. So, I’m not sure what reading broadly in this case means.

    • http://snickersnackbaby.blogspot.com/ David Ferguson

      I am an evangelical Christian.  Don’t like Huckabee.  Don’t like this ad discussed in this thread.  That said, the Gospel is offensive.  Not only that, but there are many, MANY atheist leaders with much blood on their hands.

      • matt

         Far less than that those who conquered in the name of religion.

      • Baal

         I hope you’re not trotting out Stalin.   It’s not relevant.  I’m complaining about Christian leaders in the US as fear mongers being hypocrites since the majority of US Christians think their religion is one of peace and love.  It’s judging you by your standards.  If you’d like to say I’m not meeting my own standards or I’m failing to call out atheist leaders for their failings, I’m all ears.

      • Aaron

        Really? I can’t think of one.

      • Coyotenose

        Many leaders and millions of their followers have killed in the name of religion or political ideologies, but not in the name of atheism.

      • Baby_Raptor

        Far less than there are christians. 

  • C Peterson

    Of course, everybody is supposed to think for themselves. They just aren’t allowed to come to any conclusions that differ from the way Huckabee thinks.

  • Aaronlane

    Liberty for all! (Unless you want to choose your child’s school. Or choose whether to join a union. Or what lightbulbs to use. Or what to put in your body.  Or the size of your soda. Or how much to donate to political causes. Or what kind of energy you want to use. Otherwise, get out of this movement, and shut the fence
    on your way out.)

    • Pawel Samson

      Yeah I agree.  The government should be able to control who we marry and how women make healthcare decisions…  but controlling the size of sodas and the types of light bulbs we use is an attack on LIBERTY and FREEDOM!

    • Baby_Raptor

      So…The Republicans want to control deeply personal decisions like marriage and bodily autonomy (all the while screaming about small government), and all you have in response is lightbulbs, encouraging healthy food and strawmen?

      Any wonder why people think your side is full of shit?

    • CelticWhisper

      Speaking as someone who prepares his own vegetarian food, loves his fully LED-lit house, and supports energy generation from wind, solar and next-generation breeder reactors run on unweaponizable Thorium, I have to say the incandescent ban and the large-soda ban are flat-out fucking stupid.

      Incentivize the adoption of new, green technologies, yes, but don’t prohibit people from making their own choices with regard to energy usage.

      Educate on the dangers of overconsumption of empty liquid calories and HFCS (oh, sorry, it’s “corn sugar” now), but don’t make it illegal to sell beverages over a certain size.

      That said, the infringements on liberty that Romney and Huckabee advocate are more onerous than that, and not just by a little bit.  I tend to vote Libertarian based on the “Pro-Choice On Everything” principle, but if forced to choose between large-soda and incandescent-bulb bans, and bans on marriage equality and reproductive autonomy, I’ll vote in favor of marriage equality and reproductive autonomy, buy and sell incandescent bulbs on the black market, and bring nice, big water bottles full of syrupy non-diet soda just for spite.

  • http://twitter.com/ylaenna M. Elaine

    Reminds me of the Pledge from Moral Orel:

    …and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God and Jesus Christ who died on the cross for all of our sins and then rose on the third day, indivisible, with liberty and justice for most.

    http://video.tvguide.com/Moral+Orel/Pledge+of+Allegiance/338290

  • RobMcCune

    This election is about thinking for yourself, now do as your told, the lord commands you!

  • Octoberfurst

    Dear Mr Huckabee, in regards to your comments I would like to make a few observations:

    1) You said one of your “”non-negotiables” is that “the right to life from conception to natural death.”   When you come out against war and capital punishment I will start to take you seriously. And since many people have their lives shortened because they can’t afford health care I assume you will also come out in favor of universal health care for all.  If not, shut the hell up.

    2) You said “marriage should be reinforced, not redefined.” Ok, I assume that since you want marriage reinforced you will obviously demand that it become tougher for heterosexual couples to get divorced. After all, 50% of all marriages end in divorce and since you are so big on “reinforcing” marriage I assume you want to do away with divorce.  If not, shut the hell up.

    3)  You said that “your vote will affect the future & be recorded in eternity.” That sounds like a veiled threat.  Why dont’ you just show some balls and just come out and say, “Vote Republican or burn in Hell”?  It would be a lot more honest.  If you can’t do that then shut the hell up.

    • Willy Occam

      Let’s just cut to the chase, Octobertfurst:

      Mr. Huckabee… SHUT THE HELL UP!

  • The Other Weirdo

    The right to life from conception to natural death.

    So, okay, from conception to natural death. Who gets to determine what natural death is. Is it the person in question? Is it the doctors? Is it the family? Is it the priest? What is a natural death these days, anyway?

    • jdm8

       But the pro-life platform isn’t just about natural death, they’re eager to deny people any way to waive that right for their own life, even in the worst circumstances.

      Natural death also lets them weasel out of health care, because if someone dies due to health care being impossible for them to get or afford, then that’s a natural death.

    • Maria

      Yeah, and I bet death from fighting in a war is considered natural too. Please. I say anyone who’s “pro-life” and also “pro-war” is “anti-life.” And that covers most religious republicans. So that’s why I will never believe that these people actually believe in a right to life from conception to natural death. No. You’re saying they have a right to be born. You don’t give 2 shits what happens to them after that.

  • SJH

    Not sure I understand the “or go to hell” thing. Where do you get that from the video?

    Liberty for all (Unless you want to kill your baby). Yeah, of course.

    Regarding the gay thing, I have stated and shown this many times yet everyone on this blog seems to close their ears and eyes. Homosexuality is an open issue and we should be able to disagree without being labeled homophobes. If we reasonably disagree then it is not unreasonable to want to prevent the redefinition of marriage. This is not about equal rights, this is about the health of our nation.

    • CelticWhisper

      Abortion has nothing to do with killing babies.  Blastocysts or
      developing embryos are not people.  Even if they were people, they are
      people who have existed for a matter of weeks or months, and the loss of
      whose life experiences is minimal next to the loss of the life
      experiences of the definitely-a-person mother carrying them. 
      Hypothetical arguments are a waste of time – an embryo that “could be
      the next Beethoven” could just as easily be the next Josef Mengele.
      Barring the invention of forward time travel, there is no way to know,
      so that argument comes out in a wash.

      I’m not certain what you mean by “open issue”, nor what you mean by “health of our nation.”

      I would posit that the health of a nation is best measured by its economic prosperity, the overall physical health and lifespan of its citizens, and its degree of technological advancement.

      Regarding disagreeing and openly discussing homosexuality: I agree that there is really nothing in the world that shouldn’t be open for discussion.  Some topics are simple matters of fact (e.g. gravity, heliocentrism) and discussions won’t get very far, but it should never be verboten to TALK about anything with anyone.

      While I know where I stand on matters of sexual orientation (differences exist; whether it’s genetic or a lifestyle choice doesn’t matter because if it IS a choice, then it is a perfectly valid one; LGBT people are PEOPLE and thus deserving of exactly the same complement of human rights that heterosexual people are), you have a right to believe what you want and perhaps we will disagree.

      What you do NOT have a right to do, however, and what politicians do not have a moral right to do (irrespective of their legal rights and powers), is to attempt to legislate any personal moralistic viewpoint which diminishes the personal freedom of a human being based on a criterion that does not affect anyone else.  For example: Owning firearms should be perfectly legal.  Discharging those firearms into another person’s body, excepting cases of self-defense against imminent danger, should not be legal.

      Likewise, mutually-consensual non-heterosexual relations between adults of sound mind should be perfectly legal.  Non-consensual sexual relations between…well, anyone, is sexual assault at minimum and should not be legal, even in airports.

      • SJH

        Why aren’t developing embryos people? Please explain.
        By open issue I am referring to the fact that many people/scientists believe that homosexuality is dysfunctional behavior. It used to be considered a psychological disorder and there is ample information out there that suggests that it was changed for political reasons and not scientific. Just like we limit other dysfunctional behavior, many believe that this behavior should be limited as well. We limit many types of behavior when we think it is dysfunctional or harmful to society and this is potentially no different.

        • CelticWhisper

          Exactly how is it harmful, and to whom?

          Please quantify and describe, in detail, the harm done by two consenting adults of the same sex engaging in a romantic and/or sexual relationship.

          Assume that:
          -Both partners are disease-free
          -The relationship is monogamous or, if not, all involved partners are honest and forthright about their feelings, health, and needs
          -Both partners are of the legal age of majority and free from any mental disorders that would render them unfit to give consent
          -Both partners are law-abiding citizens

          Does this relationship harm the people engaged in it?  As far as I can see, it does not harm me in any way for two people who are not me to become romantically and/or sexually involved.

          I do not see the harm.

          • SJH

             One problem is that you can’t assume those things. Gay men are more likely to have STD’s. They are less likely to be monogamous. Homosexuality itself may be a mental disorder. The argument would be that it is bad for our society because these things are potentially true.

            • Deven Kale

              You can’t assume any of those things with a heterosexual couple either, and yet we allow them to marry without hesitation anyway. This really has nothing to do with the question though.

              Regardless of the general problems within homosexual society, the question is how is a clean/healthy/monogamous/adult homosexual relationship harmful to the couple?

      • SJH

         “Even if they were people, they are
        people who have existed for a matter of weeks or months, and the loss of
        whose life experiences is minimal next to the loss of the life
        experiences of the definitely-a-person mother carrying them. ”

        Are you suggesting that a person life is worth less if they have fewer experiences.

        So by that logic: A 1 month old is worth less. A retarded person is worth less. A 100 year old person is worth more than a 20 year old. So we should have the right to decide who lives or dies depending on what their life experiences are? What if I think my life experiences are more important than yours? Who gets to decide whether you or I get to live?

        • CelticWhisper

          A 20-year-old is a person.  A 100-year-old is a person.  You and I are people.

          An embryo is not a person.

          As for age and life experiences, you could argue that someone who’s 100 years old, while they’ve touched many lives and likely made a great impact on the world, has already led a fulfilling life and so their death is less of a tragedy than that of a 20-year-old.

          However, I’m not interested in debating the minutiae of age-value.  The point is that whether someone is 1, 5, 20 or 100, they’ve made a more significant impact on the world by actually being a person and interacting with other people than has a developing embryo which has impacted only itself, its parents, and apparently every whiny-ass piece of fundamentalist christian shit on the face of the Earth (their beliefs and feelings, however, do not matter and so I discount them wholesale).

          I’m well aware you’re trying to trap me into a semantic argument and I’ll have none of it.  You’re not going to change my mind and, even if you did, I’d vote pro-choice anyway because christians hate it and their tears taste really really good in martinis.

    • RobMcCune

       

      Your vote will affect the future and be recorded in eternity

      Unless he’s talking about the state’s election offices lasting forever, I’m pretty sure Huckabee is saying that a person’s vote in this election will count for or against them when they are judged. Which is pretty manipulative, imo.

      Liberty for all (Unless you want to kill your baby). Yeah, of course.

      So no health exceptions?

      This is not about equal rights, this is about the health of our nation.

      Let me get this straight, you base your christian abortion position on the unalienable rights of a human being, but if that person is gay suddenly consequences matter and they’re too icky to have rights?

      Contradiction much?

    • Baby_Raptor

      A first trimester fetus is not a baby. That word has a very solid definition. Use it. 

      A person’s sexuality is not an “open issue.” What business do you have trying to nose into any relationship you’re not in?  

      And, no. Just no. There is NO reasonable way to deny someone rights. There is no reasonable way to look someone in the eyes and say “I don’t consider you worthy of being treated as a human.” You’re just trying to make yourself and your douchebaggery look okay when you claim this. I highly doubt you’d be saying “It’s okay, we can be reasonable about this” if someone were trying to deprive YOU of rights.

      And what does anyone’s personal relationship have to do with the “health of the nation,” anyway? What, you think your god is going to freak out if we allow people you happen to disagree with basic human rights? Guess what? That’s your problem. Religion is NOT a valid thing to base laws on. 

    • Silentbob

      This is not about equal rights, this is about the health of our nation.

      This makes as much sense to me as, “This is not about diet and exercise, it’s about physical health”.

      Since when can you have latter without the former?

  • smrnda

    I never the the ‘you’re forcing religious employers to pay for insurance that covers things they don’t believe in!’ Workers are forced to do things they don’t want to and don’t believe in so a bunch of worthless shareholders can make money doing nothing. The workers are the ones who keep any business running – and I’ve run them and I’m not deluded enough to think it was me who was doing everything – so workers should get a health plan they want. 

    • CelticWhisper

       Besides, there’s nothing stopping me from going to work for a church and then donating half my salary to FFRF.

      Companies can’t control what their employees do with their money once it’s been paid out, and if we take the position that insurance is another form of payout, there’s no reason they should be able to choose what kind of healthcare their employees receive.

    • Silentbob

      Workers are forced to do things they don’t want to and don’t believe in…

      Not since the abolition of slavery. Workers may choose to do things they might otherwise not do in return for cash.

      … so a bunch of worthless shareholders can make money doing nothing.

      If you needed a life-saving operation, but couldn’t afford to pay for it, and I came along and loaned you the money – would you describe me as “worthless” and as “doing nothing”?

      The workers are the ones who keep any business running…

      In the same sense that an orchestra of musicians playing Beethoven’s Ninth are responsible for the beauty of the music.

  • CelticWhisper
  • pagansister

     Mike needs to get a life—and stop interfering with those of other people.  

  • Robster

    Did the baby jesus open a building development firm then Mike? If he did, there’s bound to be plenty of business on the East Coast. Wouldn’t be able to trust him though as he’s a bit dodgy.

  • MKC

    Wow…you ARE the spin room!!!
    Why are you so uptight & angry? The Test of Fire has nothing to do with Hell…study your Bible…iron sharpens

    • Deven Kale

       What makes you think his statement ,”I’m going to hell,” has anything to do with Huckabee’s mention of the test of fire? We’re atheists, we’re all going to hell, why can’t it just mean that?

    • Coyotenose

       

      Why are you so uptight & angry?

      Why are you so deceitful and prone to making up things about people to help you dismiss and ignore the actual arguments?

    • Baby_Raptor

      I know the bible, better than most people who claim to follow it, and would be happy to prove myself. 

      I’m what I am because of that fact. (Can’t really say Atheist, I don’t not believe in god…I just don’t care if he exists or not, because either way I refuse to worship him.)

  • http://twitter.com/TodThompson Tod Thompson

    This ad has nothing to do with hell.  “The test of fire” refers to going through a trial and coming through it purified, like steal being tempered or gold being refined.  People who equate this ad in any way with hell are either being intentionally dishonest or they are so ignorant about the beliefs of the Christian Church they probably should not be discussing them.  I have no problem with people taking opposing points of view, but this is just dishonest.  I suppose when a candidate doesn’t have a very good record to run on he needs to slander the other side.

    • Deven Kale

      Do you mean to imply that somehow Hemant is running for a major public office? Because, unless you do, I fail to see how your statement, “I suppose when a candidate doesn’t have a very good record to run on he needs to slander the other side,” makes any sense. You see, Hemant isn’t a candidate for anything (well, maybe teacher of the year or something, but that doesn’t count), so no matter what he says the term “candidate” just doesn’t fit, even if it is slanderous (which it isn’t, in this case).

      Otherwise I think you people need to relax. You wanna know what I think the most likely meaning of the hell reference is? Here ya go: Hemant’s an atheist, so he’s already supposedly going to hell and he’s obviously got to be on the wrong side of things. It’s sarcasm, that’s all. It’s a joke, a bit of humor thrown in at the end to make an otherwise aggravating thing less so. Just calm down…

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1351473675 Matthew Baker

     I don’t think I fully understood the words Demagogue  and pandering until I watched that video. 

  • Colleen Rosso

    Wow..just wow..wow..even though I really try to be a good Christian, apparently because I care so much about our environment and clean water I will see you in hell;) It’s sad that an atheist has to remind us that the only way to heaven is through Jesus Christ.

  • Colleen Rosso

    let me word this differently..It’s sad that an atheist needs to remind us what a true Christian believes. 


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X