A Religious Candidate Who Respects Atheists?

Mike Huckabee says so:

The First Amendment requires that expressions of faith be neither prohibited nor preferred. We should not banish religion from the public square, but should guarantee access to all voices and views. We should share and debate our faith, but never seek to impose it. When discussing faith and politics, we should honor the "candid" in candidate - I have much more respect for an honest atheist than a disingenuous believer.

My faith is my life - it defines me. My faith doesn't influence my decisions, it drives them. For example, when it comes to the environment, I believe in being a good steward of the earth. I don't separate my faith from my personal and professional lives.

Real faith makes us humble and mindful, not of the faults of others, but of our own. It makes us less judgmental, as we see others with the same frailties we have. Faith gives us strength in the face of injustice and motivates us to do our best for "the least of us."

Our nation was birthed in a spirit of faith - not a prescriptive one telling us how or whether to believe, but one acknowledging that a providence pervades our world.

OK, cynics, maybe his speechwriter said it.  But at the very least, he "approved this message."  In a country where polls say atheists are the most mistrusted minority, that part of it is unusual.

It can't be pandering leftward, because on gay marriage and abortion, he gives no ground at all (except to say that the right to life continues past birth and includes, of all things, arts education).

Comments

[Rod]

I get the feeling Mr. Huckabee would have the same opinions if he wasn't running for President, and I can't help but respect someone like that whether I agree with him or not, because his positions on issues seems to be driven by who he is rather than who he thinks we want him to be.

An interesting side note (at least to me) is that many people have difficulty realizing one can be a sincere and serious Christian without trying to monopolize the public square. I support the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because I don't want my right to practice my faith to be dependent on those who share that faith controlling the levers of power. Freedom of religion is not freedom at all unless we have the right to reject religious beliefs.

If God gave us a free will, who are we to deny it to others?

[Tom Strong]

I get the feeling Mr. Huckabee would have the same opinions if he wasn't running for President.

I am skeptical of that. His statement against gay marriage, at least, is a marvel of evasion.

How two gay men exchanging vows could have persuaded him to abandon his invalid wife is never explained, just winked at. I like Hucakabee more than the other Republicans, but I found that statement nauseating.

[Tom Strong]

Tip of the cap to him, though, for giving us atheists a little respect. That's something ol' GW has been good about too, though he's rarely credited for it.

[michael Reynolds]

I'm with Tom. Skeptical but nevertheless pleased to see that in a Huckabee administartion I won't be hunted down by helmet-haired southerners in J.C. Penney's slacks.

[PatHMV]

It's not that gay marriage (or polygamous marriage, or whatever the next demand will be after that) will threaten every individual marriage, Tom, so your desire to see Huckabee explain how it would affect his own marriage is misplaced. The argument is that it weakens the institution of marriage, that looking at the sum total of all marriages, it will have a negative impact on them, statistically.

How does an ad for McDonald's cause a single person to become obese? It doesn't. But the cumulative impact of all the ads for McDonald's on all the adults and children in our society has undoubtedly helped cause the increasing numbers of obese people.

A single ad for beer doesn't cause any one teenager to drink. But the sum total of all the beer ads children are exposed to everyday, the message that beer is sexy and will help you get women has an impact on their behavior as teens and in college.

I'm not saying all these things are equivalent. I'm not even making an argument here in opposition to gay marriage. My point is simply that the argument against it is much stronger and more subtle than Tom, and so many other gay marriage supporters, claim. This "how would it weaken YOUR marriage" bit is facile and utterly unconvincing.

[amba]

How two gay men exchanging vows could have persuaded him to abandon his invalid wife is never explained, just winked at.

That's an interesting way to put it. He puts the two things side by side without explicitly linking them. He also mentions a Pope's disapproval of civil unions on the basis that they devalue marriage for everyone, and slips the word "decadence" so that it encompasses both divorce and homosexuality. I once heard him make the same evasion in a more positive way -- sliding past the gay issue to emphasize keeping straight marriages together, implying in that case "Why are we straights minding other people's business before taking care of our own?" It seems to depend on who he's talking to, which side of it he emphasizes by implication. Which is to say -- At the end of the day, he is a politician. (Surpriiise!) At least, unlike Romney, he just changes his emphasis, not his position.

But you've hit on my biggest problem with him. He doesn't seem obsessed with homosexuality, and a "marriage amendment" seems like a safe evangelical position since it's unlikely to pass (not because a majority of Americans favor gay marriage, but because they don't like messing with the Constitution). But if he opposes even civil unions, I have a real problem with him. See next post (when it gets written).

[michael Reynolds]

Pat:
Gays getting married does nothing to weaken the "institution" of marriage. Straights getting divorced does that. You want to save marriage? Outlaw divorce. Let's see the candidate who is willing to try that line.

Obviously won't happen: divorced people form a pretty big percentage of voters, and an even bigger percentage of GOP candidates. Depriving a small, despised minority of the chance for happiness is obviously much more politically palatable. A little moral scapegoating. Quel surprise. Morality among politicians is just a tool to be deployed in their own self-interest.

[amba]

Erps, not the next post; the one after that.

[PatHMV]

Yes, Michael, because there can only be one possible cause behind the weakening of marriage. If it's divorce, it can't possibly be anything else, is that what you're saying?

It makes it easier to grapple with tough questions confronting our society and our culture by passing all the blame on to moralizing politicians. But in fact there are real differences of opinion among a wide number of segments of our population on this and many other issues. It's not just pontificating politicians stirring the pot.

[michael Reynolds]

Yes, Michael, because there can only be one possible cause behind the weakening of marriage. If it's divorce, it can't possibly be anything else, is that what you're saying?

Sorry, a little close to the bone, was I?

Since gays are not marrying in any appreciable numbers it would be nonsense to suggest that they are responsible for problems in the institution of marriage. Not unless they've managed to reverse time's arrow and violate causation.

So, yes, if there are problems in marriage it is necessarily the fault of straight people. They're the ones marrying.

And I'm afraid it's just about impossible to argue that divorce does nothing to injure the institution of marriage. When major percentages of the married begin by vowing "Till death us do part," and end two years later by hiring lawyers and hurling accusations, that's going to damage the credibility of a supposedly enduring institution.

That damage is real. It is present. It is not speculative. And yet no politician is vowing to end divorce. Hmmm. I wonder why.

Yes, there are many opinions on gay marriage. The people who hold opinions that oppose it are wrong. The people who advance the "damage the instuitution" argument are wrong.

The essence of marriage is not the question of man and woman or man and man, but committment. If gays marry and remain committed they have done no damage to the institution. If straights marry and casually blow off their vows as soon as they become inconvenient, they have damaged the institution.

Institutions are not supposed to be about individual gratification or transient individual needs. Institutions, as the word implies, are expected to bring some form, and some limits, and some stability to society. It is not gays who have steadily undercut this supposedly sacred institution, it is married people who refuse to take their vows seriously.

But again, that's a politically difficult position to take. That position blames the people who are actully guilty, as opposed to scapegoating the innocent minority that the majority holds in contempt.

[wj]

Someone who is really, truly concerned about the weakening of the institution of marriage would put all their efforts into a) legalizing gay marriage, and b) abolishing "domestic partnerships." Note that domestic partnerships (whatever they are called in your state) have two characteristics:
- they provide many of the legal benefits of a marriage, without requiring most of the responsibilities that come with it,
- they are formed by far more heterosexual couples than homosexual couples. People who could legally get married, but choose not to.

Which leads to the conclusion that those who are fighting against gay marriage are concerned with something entirely other than the institution of marriage. No matter their protestations to the contrary.

[PatHMV]

That's YOUR definition of the essence of marriage, Michael, but it's not everyone's. The people on the other side of the issue think that you're the one who is wrong with every bit as much good faith and sincerity as you believe in your position.

[Tom Strong]

Pat,

While the best arguments for gay marriage may indeed be stronger and more subtle than what I'm criticizing, the argument on Mike Huckabee's website is not. In fact, it's not even an argument - just a quick statement of position followed by some associations.

What I'm snarling at are those associations. Without any argument whatsoever, he goes from "homosexual marriage" to no-fault divorce, decline & decay of our civil society, before concluding with an oh-so-touching story about his wife's illness and his own resolute commitment to her.

What "homosexual marriage" has to do with all that is never explained. Its inclusion in the piece is a wink and a nod, red meat for the base.

[Tom Strong]

Incidentally,

That's YOUR definition of the essence of marriage, Michael, but it's not everyone's.

Well, the conclusion of Huckabee's piece does seem to clearly suggest that commitment is the essence of marriage. Not that it's the Bible or anything...

[jason]

I like him. I don't even know who he is and already I like him. I'll stick with Michael's comment (since my fashion sense would be offended to the nth degree!):

I'm with Tom. Skeptical but nevertheless pleased to see that in a Huckabee administartion I won't be hunted down by helmet-haired southerners in J.C. Penney's slacks.

Let's hope Mr. Huckabee isn't just paying lip service to gain support of the inclusive crowd while tempting the skeptics into the light of day.

[Simon]

Michael,
I lean against gay marriage. It doesn't make me homophibic, any more than my adamant hostility to polygamy makes me straightophobic. This isn't a civil rights issue. As you say, marriage is an institution. It is an institution you enter on its terms, not yours, and throughout history, in western civilization, marriage has always been between one man and one woman. Changing the institution necessarily weakens it. Permitting a deviation from the one man one woman standard weakens it; permitting a deviation from the one man one woman standard may very well weaken it too. It changes the fundamental assumptions of society, and I'm not much inclined to mess with an institution that long in the tooth. Lastly, I wouldn't ban divorce outright, but I'd be fully in favor of eliminating both no-fault and quickie divorce.

[Rod]

Tom Strong is a skeptic who does not think Huckabee believes what he says, and the example Tom gives is opposition to gay marriage. Michael Reynolds thinks Huckabee is just using the gay marriage issue to appeal to his conservative Christian base. I disagree.

More likely, Huckabee simply agrees with his conservative Christian base. He is, after all, a self identified Evangelical. In a discussion of "faith and politics" on his website, he says,

"My faith is my life - it defines me. My faith doesn't influence my decisions, it drives them."

Why is it difficult to accept that he takes at face value the condemnation of homosexuality as an "abomination" in Leviticus and the rather direct prohibition of homosexual acts in Deuteronomy, the description of God's destruction of...Sodom, and the inclusion of homosexual relations in lists of sinful acts in Romans and First Corinthians?

Many Christians, especially Evangelicals, oppose gay marriage based on the following logic: (1) the Bible is the inspired word of God; (2) the Bible condemns homosexuality as a form of sexual immorality; (3) sex is central to marriage; and (4) marriage is a holy relationship (some would say a sacrament) which would be debased if society sanctioned gay marriages.

Huckabee is no bigot. Nor is he trying to outlaw homosexual acts. He would probably, "hate the sin, not the sinner." But I think it is a mistake to assume his decisions on social issues would not be driven by his faith.

[Tom Strong]

Why is it difficult to accept that he takes at face value...

Because he's a politician.

Sorry, but I'm cynical about politicians. Even the ones I like.

[jason]

Why is it difficult to accept that he takes at face value the condemnation of homosexuality as an "abomination" in Leviticus and the rather direct prohibition of homosexual acts in Deuteronomy, the description of God's destruction of...Sodom, and the inclusion of homosexual relations in lists of sinful acts in Romans and First Corinthians?

Oh my, someone who hasn't actually read the bible but instead attempts to preach it to others based on blind acceptance and ignorance. Read it. Really read it this time, that is, for you're doing nothing other than demonstrating that you haven't a clue what's in the doggoned text.

Sodom was not destroyed due to homosexuality. Look at the issue of "daughters" to see the real reason. I'm not even a Christian yet have read the damn book often enough to know that much.

Then again, that same book condemns any damage to marriage far more often than it does homosexuality, yet I see no indication that you're fighting divorce and attempting to make it illegal.

I could go on, but instead I'll say this: You have no idea what the bible says yet attempt to use it to support and vindicate intolerance and bigotry. That's a terribly weak position to have.

Why not hate shellfish and anything from the sea that doesn't have scales? The same bible says in the same book and chapter you reference that catfish, shellfish, and anything without scales is a sin (along with pork and a great many other things). I bet you missed that part. Not to mention you obviously missed the entire new testament which does away with the old testament rules and institutes a new view of love, compassion, acceptance, and no one is sinless. Oh, and Jesus never ever mentioned homosexuality, although he did a great deal of preaching about intolerance, non-acceptance, inequality, and so on.

This is why religion is such a farce and so deplorable. You pick and choose what you want to believe and practice, and then you violate those you see as weaker and socially/politically susceptible. But you do so only by way of hypocrisy and hate. What you practice and believe isn't based on the bible. . .

[Rod]

Jason:

Your post demonstrates both the bigotry and the superficiality you ascribe to me and to Christians.

First, you slander me as “someone who hasn't actually read the bible.“ You have no idea whether I have read the Bible and, as I will show you below, you were less than intellectually rigorous to leap to that conclusion based on my reference to Genesis 19. I have read the Bible, virtually from cover to cover over one two year period, and in probably 20 Bible studies as an adult over the past thirty five years. I have taught Bible studies and read the works of many skeptics and non Christian philosophers. You don't know me.

Second, you describe me as “one who attempts to preach it [the Bible] to others based on blind acceptance and ignorance.” That illustrates your lack of comprehension. My post neither contained nor reflected any attempt to preach the Bible. It was a commentary on Sen. Huckabee, suggesting the Senator may take at face value some rather harsh views on homosexuality expressed in scripture. Indeed, I did not even state whether I agreed with the Senator’s views on gay marriage or exhort anyone to judge or condemn homosexuals. I merely said the Senator’s views on homosexuality and gay marriage may derive from his reading of the Bible, since he makes the point on his website that his views on many issues are “faith driven.”

Third, you blithely assert Sodom was not destroyed for homosexuality, obliquely referencing Lot’s offering of his daughters in v.8. From this, I suspect you are referring to one of the modern revisionist views that Sodom was destroyed for inhospitality to strangers or because its residents tried to rape angels. (Both views, and a couple of other alternatives, are articulately expressed in John Boswell’s book, “Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality.”) Mr. Boswell’s argument is thought provoking, but not universally accepted. I doubt it is even a majority position among Biblical scholars. But, keep in mind, I wasn’t saying the “inhospitality” argument was wrong, merely that the Senator, on reading a number of passages, including Genesis 19, might honestly conclude the Bible does not support gay marriage. Would a fair reading of Genesis 19 lead one to conclude homosexuality had something to do with the destruction of Sodom, as recounted therein? I think so.

In the Genesis story two angels visit Sodom and are invited to spend the night in Lot’s home, then “all the men from every part of the city, both young and old, surrounded the house,” v.4. Why are they there? They explain their purpose in v.5, calling out to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.” He responds in v.7, saying, “Don’t do this wicked thing.” He offers his virgin daughters to the assembled crowd of men in v.8 and certainly tells them this is no way to treat guests, but they express no interest in the women, instead threatening in v.9 to treat Lot worse than his guests. They then try to break down the door. Why? Because the men want to have sex with the male visitors. Jason, is it intellectually honest to suggest, as you do, that anyone who concludes the destruction of Sodom had something to do with the homosexual proclivities of its populace “[hasn’t] a clue what’s in the doggoned text?”

Being the advanced biblical scholar that you are, you must concede that exegesis of any particular text must involve one of the most basic principals of hermeneutics - to read the passage in the larger context of other verses related to the same subject. This is particularly apt since my post was about whether the Senator’s stance against gay marriage might be based on his reading of several Bible verses. So let’s look at Leviticus 18:22, “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination.” To me, that verse appears to be critical of homosexuality, but, of course, I’m not the Biblical scholar you are. Perhaps you can point out some verses which say homosexuality is a “good abomination,” or which approve of homosexuality? Leviticus 20:13 is also helpful in understanding the Old Testament view of homosexuality. It says, “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death.” To me, the word "detestable" and the prescribed death penalty for homosexual acts, imply a negative attitude about homosexuality, but perhaps that's because I'm an ignorant bigot, not a fair minded reader of scripture like you.

As a Christian, the Senator would look to the New Testament, as well. What does the New Testament say about homosexuality? St. Paul addresses the topic in his first letter to the Romans, at chap. 1, v. 24 - 27. He discusses the fall of man, of people being “given over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.” Lest this reference be too ambiguous, in v. 26 Paul writes, “Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even the women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.” Paul writes again in I Corinthians 6, at verses 9 and 10: “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” Jason, is it really fair to say anyone who reads these words and concludes that the Bible takes a dim view of homosexuality is ignorant?

Another father of the church, St Peter, writes in 2 Peter 2:6 writes of Lot as a righteous man “distressed by the filthy lives of lawless men” in Sodom. Finally, the New Testament book of Jude contains at v.7 this discussion of the reason Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed: “In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.”

So, Jason, on what basis do you assert that I am ignorant and unread, and “have no idea what the Bible says,” simply because I wrote that Sen. Huckabee, as an Evangelical Christian, might read the above verses and conclude that the Bible does not endorse homosexuality? More importantly, what is the basis for your claim that I support intolerance and bigotry? Read the post as closely as you chide me for not reading the Bible, Jason. I do not even say that I agree with Sen. Huckabee, if that is the basis for his opposition to gay marriage. Nor do I encourage anyone in that post to look down on gays, to discriminate against gays, or even to avoid a gay lifestyle.
Name calling is no substitute for reasoned analysis. Calling me an ignorant bigot was a cheap shot. If you have any class, you will apologize.

[jason]

They then try to break down the door. Why? Because the men want to have sex with the male visitors.

Please, tell me the book, chapter, and verse where that claim is made. As often as I've read the bible, I've yet to see it. What I do see is chapter 19 verse 9, the only reason given by the crowd in the whole of the story, and it says nothing whatsoever that supports that claim. It does, however, infer the men are to be judged. One must read through the whole of the Zoar tale from its original text to comprehend why the biblical version is so errant (the real story is that it's an issue of inhospitable and cruel treatment, with a real focus on want for the daughters in trade for judgment against the angels).

Being the advanced biblical scholar that you are, you must concede that exegesis of any particular text must involve one of the most basic principals of hermeneutics - to read the passage in the larger context of other verses related to the same subject.

Wrong. My view is that one must disregard the translations and return to the original texts. It's also that one must accept without doubt that these works are the result of human interpretation of whatever their inspirations might be. There are political issues in play back then which are wholly disregarded and shrouded in the bible. Only comprehending the true context and writs can provide the answers all other interpretations claim to offer (and wrongfully so).

If you want to quote Leviticus, you must adhere to all old testament proscriptions. I assume, then, that you perform regular animal sacrifices, that you sell your daughters into slavery (but not your sons), that you never wear clothes made from two or more fabrics, that you never eat anything from the sea that doesn't have scales, that you forbid your sons from being taught by women, that you wear no jewelry, that you fully support that a man must marry his brother's widow irrespective of his own marital status, that you see polygamy as a natural state of human relationships . . . and I could go on but won't. Only a true believer in the old testament can use Leviticus for such purposes. If you're going to pick and choose the pieces you want to believe and practice, you've proven my point already (for many of those same things I mentioned are in that book, some in the same chapters you reference, and the others are in the old testament alongside what you claim to be inerrant guidance to hate, despise, mistreat, ostracize, and abuse people like me).

The word "homosexuals" NEVER appears in the bible. NEVER. I'm completely disregarding that gibberish for its inaccuracy and dishonesty.

Let's focus on Jesus. Did he mention homosexuals? Once? At all? No. He focused on equality, forgiveness, the abhorrence of sin with full acceptance and love for the sinner. Perhaps you've missed this important quote from his own words.

"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." (Matthew 7:12) Basically, it's the Golden Rule in Christian terms. That's a direct commandment from the Christian god. It overrides all else (if one believes the new testament negates the old testament based on Jesus being a god incarnate).

But let's quote Paul since he seems to be important here. "Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves." (Philippians 2:3)

A true Christian will follow only the teachings and words of Christ. If one studies those words and teachings, one finds he abhors the very mistreatment and inequality you purport to come from him (um, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" and all). If one follows the old testament and uses it to bludgeon others, one must follow it in its entirety, not just in bits and pieces as one deems convenient. Which is it?

And no apology will be forthcoming, for none is necessary. You've only proven me correct by offering misquotes, misinterpretations, and a conflicting claim that you either follow the old testament or don't, that you either follow the direction of Jesus himself or don't, or that you pick the bits you like and ignore the rest. My original comment stands.

[amba]

Jason -- the one part you might want to reconsider is that Rod was not, in this comment, pushing a point of view. He was saying there's no reason not to think Huckabee sincerely believes that the Bible is negative toward homosexuality. And indeed, in the translations there is evidence for that, though none of it in Jesus' words. It would be fascinating to hear more about the new translations from the original sources.

[amba]

On the other hand, I don't think abortion is mentioned in the Bible. I may be wrong, but I think the religious arguments against it are by inference from other passages, such as ""Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; before you were born I set you apart..."(Jeremiah 1:5)

[amba]

Most of those passages are cited here. They're quite beautiful.

[jason]

Actually, Annie, my response was addressing Rod's assertion that Huckabee believed such things. I wasn't questioning Rod's beliefs, but I was questioning Huckabee based on Rod's statement (i.e. if Huckabee and crew believe such things, then yadda yadda yadda). That Rod took it personally seems collateral damage that I hadn't intended, although his response attacking me personally did cast light on what I originally understood as you did--to be a projection of what Huckabee believes. Apparently, there wasn't as much projection involved as I thought.

As an aside, use of the term "you" is generally accepted as both second- and third-person, so perhaps I should have offered more precise verbiage to indicate I was speaking rhetorically to Huckabee in response to Rod's statements that Huckabee believed such things. But the all-inclusive "you" hit a nerve, I see, which I suppose illuminated the hidden disparity between what Huckabee might believe and what others do believe.

[Rod]

Jason:

When you wrongly malign someone, the honorable response is not to hurl new false allegations at him or to dodge the issue through a contorted semantic argument. The second person plural use of "you" would still include the person to whose post you were responding. Barring certain literary devices, if you were addressing a hypothetical group of narrow minded Christians in a response to my post, the proper pronoun would be "they."

The new false allegation is that I misquoted scripture. With the exception of the quote from Leviticus 18, all of the others in my post were cut and pasted from the New International Version ("NIV"), available online (along with several other translations) at BibleGateway.com. For some reason, the Lev. 18 quote was pulled from the New American Bible ("NAB"), which is the authorized Catholic translation. I checked to make sure nothing was missing in the quotes. If you believe the quotes are not accurate compared to some older, more authentic text, your quarrel is with the editors of the NIV, which has generally been hailed as a triumph of modern translation. Although the NAB is not included among the texts at BibleGateway.com, it is available online. I did not cherry pick the NAB for the first Leviticus passage, it was just the first text of the verse which I ran across online. A few translations use "detestable" instead of "abomination," but the general attitude towards "lie[ing] with a man as with a woman" is about the same.

Are you quite sure the word "homosexuals" does not ever appear in the Bible? If you go to the BibleGateway site and search for 1 Corinthians 6:9, you will find that the various translations refer to homosexuals, homosexual offenders, and those who practice homosexuality as listed among those who "will not inherit the Kingdom of God." Moreover, whether the specific word, "homosexual," appears in the Bible is beside the point. What else do you think Paul was talking about in Romans 1 when he said, "In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion?"

Your rejection of hermeneutics and refusal to acknowledge any translations in favor of original texts makes it difficult to find any common ground on which to discuss the Bible, particularly since I am not well versed in either Hebrew or ancient Greek. I find it amazing that you apply such a rigorous standard. Do you accept the Septuagint as authentic, or do you rely on some earlier Codex? Indeed, since authorship of the Pentateuch has traditionally been ascribed to Moses and there are no original texts extant, it is impossible for us to carry on a meaningful conversation on Genesis 19 or Leviticus at all under your exacting requirements. But, since the subject of my original post was how Sen. Huckabee might respond to the Bible's statements about homosexuality and since the gist of most modern translations' explication of the verses is the same , we can probably assume he would rely on one or more of the several well recognized translations for his Bible study, as do the vast majority of Christians. Thus, he would have to confront the same verses I accurately quoted to you in my prior post.

This brings me to what is so sad about your attack. As a believing Christian I must contend with those same passages. If you do not believe the Bible is divinely inspired, studying it is little more than an exercise in literary or cultural history; but if it is the Word of God, then I must confront whatever it says about gay sex, adultery, or bearing false witness head on because I am betting my eternal salvation on the authenticity of the book, which is what I suspect Sen. Huckabee is trying to do. And, in looking directly at the Bible's references to homosexuality, a fair reading convinces me that it is condemned as a sin, no better or worse than other sins.

I wish it were not so. I have no quarrel with gays or lesbians and no appetite for discrimination against them. I am far too engaged with my spiritual shortcomings to worry about what goes on in other people's bedrooms. The anger and despair of gays who would join the church, but find it rejects a central part of their being in the harshest terms, is not lost on me. I have looked at the attempts to explain away the most judgmental passages (e.g., the Deuteronomy passages were just about ritual cleanliness,) but I found them unconvincing. Jesus preached a sublime message of tolerance all of us should emulate, but He did not revoke the Mosaic Law. His message was much more about salvation, and He said He came not to destroy the Law, but to fulfill it. After the famous statement about casting the first stone, His last words to the women caught in adultery were, "Go and sin no more."

I mourn for the friendship rendered eternally awkward because of an answer I had to give years ago. My close college friend, with whom I shared so many laughs and sorrows, had come out of the closet since college, and he was visiting me for a weekend for the first time since he told me. He knew I had become a Christian in law school and the question hung over us for two days without being asked. An hour before he was to leave, he said it. "What do you think the Bible says about homosexuality." I had to tell the truth.

It's a funny thing about truth, Jason. That Jesus fellow says it will set you free, but sometimes it feels like shit. Seek it anyway, Jason, because it is the only thing that is real. I won't be holding any stones when you find it.