Why Are Liberals So Afraid of Baby Jesus?

That's weird about giving the guy a listen because he likes Hendrix. Hey, Manson likes the Beatles! J/K

I'm guilty too becuase I saw Huck play bass before I listened to his pitch. And I saw Clinton play sax before I gave his routine a listen too.

Sent by Buzz | 6:03 PM ET | 12-21-2007

I find the "first born-again" statement suspect. Aren't we ALL considered born again when we enter the faith? So--that means everyone prior to Carter really were Godless heathens. OK then.

1) Jimmy Carter? Different climate, different time. We weren't so obsessed with political correctness. Arguably, we shouldn't be today either.

2) Would you rather people see the cross as a racist sign? I didn't think so, but we could just as easily have equated it with the Klan--and Huckabee being from the south, maybe we should.

3) How about that huge Christmas tree sitting over Huckabee's shoulder as actual imagery of, say, a traditional decoration?

4) I have many Jewish co-workers. They LOVE Christmas because it's like free weekend days to them. Nobody--governmental employees or not--is going to argue with paid time off. Don't be an idiot. I'm white, and you'd better believe if someone offered me Kwanzaa off with pay I'd jump at it.

5) I'm not sure what rock you live under out there in La-La Land, but the decision of Obama to include McClurkin created HUGE waves of protest. I guess it depends on what news pipeline you're plugged in to whether you heard or not.

6) As long as Sharpton and Jackson keep up the circus mentality, nobody's going to take them seriously as anything, including candidate.

7) So I should listen to Paul McCartney regarding politics because he can play guitar. All righty. It makes as much sense as your argument re: Hendrix and Huckabee. I bet Huckabee's never even heard Hendrix. Ask him what national tune Hendrix played. I bet you'd stump him.

8) Did you know Kwanzaa, or did you have to Google it?

I'm white, non-Jewish, and I can tell you when both holidays happen(ed).

Merry Christmas.

Sent by Wolf | 7:17 PM ET | 12-21-2007

I would agree that liberals have trouble with faith. However, the way Huckabee uses his faith ought to give everyone pause. This Christian soldier however may just fall on his own sword and spare us all the trouble.

Take his ramblings on evolution for instance. On that matter, he demonstrates a murky righteousness and an inability to acknowledge facts contrary to his beliefs (Hey, Mike! You didn't just evolve from primates. You ARE a primate!). Carter at least defended the teaching of evolution in Georgia so he doesn't rile the liberals on this point. Huckabee divides his Baptist beliefs in God-driven creation from those of God believers that recognize evolution. Does he believe that a belief in evolution is heresy? Listen carefully to the YouTube debate clip (link below) for the line in the sand he draws to this point and then turns it into a more benign question whether or not he believes in God. Huh? Is he evading the question? Or is he suggesting a person can't believe in God AND evolution without being a heretic? And where are all these atheist candidates he is talking about? Present company excluded? It's madness! Madness!

This guy lists faith first in his campaign slogan "Faith, Family, Freedom." If he is going to advertise his faith first in a slogan, then by all means his faith should be the first thing we talk about (where liberals fear to tread). But with faith first, Huckabee also shouldn't whine about getting a question about evolution either. I haven't even started on his view on gays, AIDS, marriage (even heterosexual marriage). My point is if faith propels this guy's politics then we deserve to be critical when he uses it like a blunt political instrument or as a free pass from having to answer a question about his views on evolution.

Also worth noting in the video is when Blitzer pressed him on (the original question) if he believes in a Bible-literalist creation. He exclaimed in utter seriousness, "I don't know, I wasn't there" while notably eliciting audible chortles from the audience. Let's hope evolution is the only phenomena he uses such a self-centered standard for evidence - the equivalent of an adult saying to a child that something is true "because I said so." Don't know about the religious right, but liberals really loath this kind of righteous condescension from their leaders.

Bill Graham
Port Hadlock, WA

Sent by Bill Graham | 12:29 AM ET | 12-22-2007

I don't think it's the case that liberals are afraid of the baby Jesus so much as they are the neo-conservative's version used to get them votes based on nothing but sentiment.

This same version of Jesus is used to justify an agenda than is anything but based in the life and teachings of Christ.

Sent by Liz Lewis | 7:17 AM ET | 12-22-2007

Unfortunately, John Ridley fails to point out one big difference between Jimmy Carter and Mike Huckabee. Jimmy Carter never made statements indicating that this country should be a religious state; Mike Huckabee has. In 1996 he said "it's time to take this nation back for Christ." Huckabee hasn't changed those views. He might not say it publicly, but the guy's a Southern Baptist evangelical Christian; he believes, as others of his ilk, that the re is only one way to salvation: through Jesus Christ. We all should be concerned . This guy is scary. He would work to overturn Roe v Wade, and would be perfectly happy seeing this country become a Christian nation -- as long as it's his flavor of Christianity. Liberals aren't afraid of Baby Jesus; they're afraid of guys like Huckabee who want to shove Baby Jesus down everybody's throats.

Sent by Michael A. Cummings | 9:31 AM ET | 12-22-2007

There is a difference though between openly stating one's religious foundations and beliefs, and quite another to use/abuse their religion for political gain. If the very obvious yet overtly "subliminal" floating cross where replaced with a nativity scene and talk of what "Christmas" is all about, I would have now problem. However, using tactics such as this - especially in such a subliminal way - I find completely distasteful. Huckabee, though a minister, tries to ride this "God" ticket (as much as Guiliani does "9/11") as if he's the most God-chosen leader. I don't buy that, and it reminds me of the Sadducees and Pharisees in the bible - who would boast of their piety and pray in outwardly in public so that they can be seen - while the bible tells us to be humble and pray in secret. Ron Paul serves as a prime counter example, who has the most pro-life/pro-consitution stance of any of the candidates (he personally disagrees with the death penalty and abortion, and is the only R-candidate to Not advocate _preemptive_ nuclear war _without_ Congressional consent). Ron Paul released a Christmas message[1] and it clearly identifies his Christian faith, but in an upfront and honest way. If he as Jewish or Muslim, it would make no difference to me. He also keeps his prayer life as a personal matter, as the bible teaches. So it's not a crime to practice one's faith, be proud of it and let people see it - but it's a completely different thing to use it as a subliminal political/marketing tool to attract Christian voters.
[1] http://youtube.com/watch?v=XZPCWGtIupE

Sent by Brian | 10:58 AM ET | 12-22-2007

This commentary by John Ridley is the latest stitch in the pattern of conservative commentary on "public" radio with no voices from the Left for balance. So much for the public in "public" radio.But I would also contend that President carter ,though a "nice guy" is not necessarily a "liberal" given his support for dictators such as the shah of Iran and Nicaragua's Somoza. But that notwithstanding, Carter, at least kept some distance between his professed faith and his duties as president. He didn't try to intorduce prayer back into public schools or intorduce religious "alternatives" to evolution in biology class. Furthermore, Revs. Jackson and Sharpton never claimed divine imprimatur from the podium. They never try to push a religious agenda. and historically the black church served a social as well as a spiritual function in a racist society.
Finally, I do agree that the candidates should not try to sell themselves with religion. How pitiful to see them trying to out religious each other in the debates. Have they never heard of "separation between church and state"?In my opinion, presidential candidates should never profess their faith until the race is over.

Sent by dana franchitto | 12:58 PM ET | 12-22-2007

Moments like this reveal the deep spiritual hypocrisy of the liberal establishment. ALL liberal values of mercy and justice originate in religion, and the traditional churches who fought to wrest those right from the seats of worldly power over the course of millenia. When a supposedly enlightened liberal outlook loses its foundation in belief in a higher authority, it loses all integrity, and has become inherently corrupt. Such a liberalism forfeits all claim to respect from a candid world populace.

Sent by Kevin M. | 2:10 PM ET | 12-22-2007

I tell you why this liberal is afraid of Jesus-talking. First of all I have never forgiven Carter for his "life is unfair" speech. Remember that one? The problem with some Christians is they can accept everything, even a lack of choice cause it's "God's will."
The thing that changed it all was the last 10 years, when people like Bush went to war, thought poor people deserved to be poor, thought I had no right to reproductive freedom, or that the world was only 5000 years old and the textbooks and teachers who thought otherwise should be eliminated--all because Jesus told them so.

Sent by mary Simmons | 5:03 PM ET | 12-22-2007

Ya just don't get it! Speaking as a very liberal and very much a practicing Christian, Merry Christmas! Baby Jesus and the symbol of the cross don't scare me at all. I belong to a mainline Christian, organized church that allows gay or lesbian leaders in ministerial positions, and proclaims, "God is still Speaking" and we advocate for social justice. However, I find myself completely repulsed when I see ANY politician using and manipulating any religious symbols in political adds or manipulating supposed Christian ideas (not to be confused with ideals)to garner more votes.
It's the offense of using Christianity for votes that most Christian liberals I know don't like. Please! Quit perpetuating some silly myth that liberals don't include millions of Christians in this country. It's embarrasingly poor journalism to do so!It's not unsound theology to realize one can very much be a "liberal" AND be a Christian!

Sent by Joan Barber | 9:19 PM ET | 12-22-2007

I think the weirdest thing is all the "subliminal" talk. I mean, he's pretty out front about what he's saying. If the cameraman or art director soft-focused the book shelf a bit to make it look "cross-y" it is only because it fits the subject matter. There was nothing hidden about what was being said there. And wether that soft focus cross effect is intentional or not, its pretty and appropriate, I would think, when someone is talking about Jesus. Just another reminder that cranial thickness knows no political boundaries.

Sent by Chris Harlan | 12:20 PM ET | 12-23-2007

"How about that huge Christ-mas tree sitting over Huckabee's shoulder as actual imagery of Christ? You know, just like the tree that sits at the White House in Washington, where all the government offices are shut down on Dec. 25 ??? the day we celebrate as the birth of baby Jesus."

Many conservative Christian's complain that the Christmas Tree is a Pagan symbol. These same folks also complain because Dec. 25 happens to coincide with the Pagan holiday Yule. They believe it is inappropriate to dillute the Christian aspects of Christmas.

Now you're asserting that the Christmas Tree is primarily a Christian Symbol, and that December 25 is a Christian holiday.

"Your Peanut Butter is in my Jelly!"
"Nuh-Uh! Your Jelly is in my Peanut Butter!"

Hee-larious!

I'm don't feel I'm a liberal (I've decided to "pass" on the last 3 Presidential elections completely), but maybe, just maybe, we've been bitten one time too many by prominent politicians who wear their faith their sleeve.

As for Kwanzaa, wasn't it created in the 1960's. Christianity, Islam, and all the other usual suspects have been around for centuries. Do you really think that Kwanzaa deserves equal billing, or were you just being cute?

If Huckabee's still looking for votes, maybe he should try to draw in those Pagans I just mentioned. Of course, if you press him, Huckabee will tell you that December 25th is really "The Feast of Chuck Norris".

Sent by Colby | 2:52 PM ET | 12-23-2007

It is the nauseating hypocrisy of the Christian right that makes us liberals cringe, not the image of Jesus. I don't mind people of faith running for President. I mind someone who tries to score political points by beating up on homosexuals draping themselves with Jesus.

Sent by bobs | 7:56 AM ET | 12-24-2007

Ridley's silly title masks the real issue here which are the differences between Carter and Huckabee and others who run their campaigns on their religious beliefs. Carter had a robust conception of the separation of religion from the government and its policies which have been entirely lacking in the GOP for the last 27 years. Carter even believed that the profitable ventures of religious institutions should be taxed and he never supported transferring hundreds of millions of government dollars to "faith based charities" (which should be renamed "church based charities") for dubious programs such as sexual abstinence education.

Carter never disparaged secular people the way the GOP candidates (read Romney's speech)routinely do nor connect political freedom with God. His main speech writer for the duration of his single term, Henrik Hertzberg, now political editor for the New Yorker was a Jew who did not believe in the existence of God. Carter had no problem with this whereas todays candidates score points by disparaging secular people as if they are third class citizens. As George H.W. Bush put it "atheists are not good citizens, this is one nation under God".

Frankly, I don't care when the artificial holiday of Kwnazaa began, though I know its history. It is irrelevant to public policy and it is cynical and dishonest to encourage the "far left" or anyone else to pretend to embrace views that they do share.

I am surprised at NPR for featuring such an article, not because of its orientation, but because it is so poorly reasoned it should never have been published.

I just made my pledge to NPR and will do so again during this next drive. However, I would like to see the standards of NPR maintained and not sacrificed for what should be called "religious correctness" by publishing some third rate silly religious polemic such as this. There are plenty of other media who do this incessantly and we expect better of NPR.

Sent by David | 11:18 AM ET | 12-24-2007

Maybe the reason there is more caution about a candidate's religion now is that people who are religious zealots have made it clear what their ambitions for America are. When Huckabee sounds like them (referring to himself as a "Christocrat," for example) he does not sound like a Jimmy Carter. Moreover, since 9/11, vocal members of the Christian Right have provoked reaction against themselves by the smug malice of their attitudes toward non-Christians. Huckabee is campaigning in a new environment of divisiveness fomented by the right. It's not the same ball game as it was in the past.

Sent by Harry Smallenburg | 12:18 PM ET | 12-24-2007

Liberals don't reject religion or religiously-based values. We reject governmental support of religion in the public sphere. Politicians' values are a valid source of inquiry; the basis of them is private and, more importantly, should be irrelevant to matters of public policy.

Sent by Betsy J. Miller | 12:59 PM ET | 12-24-2007

I'm not "afraid" of Baby Jesus. I support the separation of church and state (which just so happens to be in our constitution).

Sent by Shawn Green | 1:22 PM ET | 12-24-2007

Mr. Ridley,

PULEEZE, are you kidding me here? Is this a humor column?? If so, then you are a poor jokester. The state this country is in now, is NOT a joke. It's an atrocity. It's heartbreaking, if you really care about America, and what she is truly meant to stand for: freedom for all, freedom of speech, separation of chuch and state. Something the present administration has become more and more foggy on.

When Jimmy Carter was running for President of the United States of America, I had absolutely NO fear that he would dismantle the separation of church and state. I was raised a Baptist, and firmly believe that separation of church and state must be maintained. Now, everywhere I turn, certain groups of extreme, right-wing, conservative, Christian, Republicans are muddying the waters and mixing church and state.

This is NOT okay. Not in the America I live in; not in the America I believe in.

It seems Mr. Huckabee does not stand strongly for keeping church and state separate. I get the impression, that if he gets the opportunity, he will impose his beliefs on the laws of this country. This is NOT OKAY.

He is a spade, being called a spade.

Knock liberals all you want, truth will remain the truth, no matter which direction you attempt to spin it.
(i.e. waterboarding IS torture. Lying about weapons of mass destruction in order to attack another sovereign nation is a war crime. Need I say more?) I am hoping you get the picture.

I am an American citizen, a patriot, who cares deeply about my country.

I will work honestly and hard to help restore her honor and dignity.

Can you say the same?

Sincerely,

Kim B.

Sent by Kim B. | 7:43 PM ET | 12-24-2007

"You Liberals", kind of like all the white religous zealots I know using the words "Those People" when they refer to the African-American community. There is really nothing I can add to the beat down you got on The Huffington Post. This was an absolute horrible post by an otherwise intelligent person. While Jimmy Carter may have believed and lived a life of faith he never once had the televangelist crowd to dinner at the White House to try and form policy. We trusted him. I can no longer do that with anyone in the Republican Party. For the record, as a member of the Democratic Party, I'm a centrist, as is the vast majority of its members. Liberals were the old communist party.

Sent by Joseph G. Elden | 12:37 PM ET | 12-25-2007

Well, as a far left, typically liberal, non-Christian, Democrat-voting, Jimi Hendrix-appreciating secular humanist, I guess I'd say that the difference between a Carter and a Huckabee is that Carter never implied that his religious views would guide his policy-making, that the United States is a Christian nation (rather than a nation of Christians, which it is), or that his faith required him to deny reality (i.e, evolution). I am happy to criticize Democrats and Republicans alike who seek to gain approval based on their religious practices, which I don't care about, instead of their policy positions, which I do. It's hard to blame Democrats for putting their religiosity on display when not doing so tends to suggests anti-religiosity to some people. (Polls suggest that people falsely believe that Hillary Clinton is the least religious of the candidates, when in fact she attends church regularly, unlike a couple of the Republican candidates.) I'd just as soon not know a thing about what the candidates think about God, except when they are going to be using that to determine their political course, as Huckabee clearly is. Anyway, as we lefty, pinko non-believers like to say, Merry Christmas.

Sent by Adam Block | 3:24 PM ET | 12-25-2007

Carter's not a good example. While he directly brought born again Christians into politics he did it at the same time the same group was busy finalizing its split from the Democratic party over integration issues. What's the line about losing the South for generations? As you note, he split with his church over the issue.

Not the same as using religion to play to the base and/or pander (which candidates of all stripes do to varying degrees). Huckabee may have genuine regrets over his past beliefs about homosexuality but there's no evidence they are past beliefs--only carefully disavowed statements.

To Wolf: Of course he does. Name checking Hendrix isn't something a Republican religious candidate does to get votes. Not if he's sane. He obviously cares about that music.

Sent by E. Sicotte | 7:34 PM ET | 01-21-2008

with special interest groups chipping away at the separation of state and church, and crazed religious fanatics (Muhammad and Christ followers) who wouldn't be concerned about the faith card?

Sent by danma | 12:40 AM ET | 01-22-2008

Clearly your wrong. Neither Sharpton nor Jackson were ever taken seriously as candidates for the Presidency.

Sent by peter | 10:52 AM ET | 01-26-2008

While I am not a fan of over-the-top politcal correctness, I maintain that religion should be interrogated as much as possible these days, and its invasion of public life should be an open point of public debate.

More often than not, when religion enters the picture, debate withers because we are now treading on "holy ground." You can't take anyone to task on their religious beliefs precisely because they're religious. "It's my religion!" people whine and we coweringly allow a host of ridiculous entitlements that have no place in the public sphere.

The most dangerous being our silence on the hegemony of religion. And the politicians should be the first to have to answer for it, because religious views tend to propagate religious views. Religion is not content to exist unto itself; it must make the world a better place (read: Like Us!)

Even liberals fall prey to religious obsurantism, appeasing religious fascists with soothing platitudes about mutliculturalism and relativistic "respect" crap that they would never get in return from the Neo-con fascists.

The reason to fear religion is because of religious agendas. And if you're female, non-white, or in any way inclined to doubt the narratives you've inherited from Patriarchal culture, you better push for the right to interrogate religion and religous politicians.

Sent by Paola | 1:34 AM ET | 01-28-2008

Those who support(ed) people like Carter, Obama, Sharpton and Jackson, but reject Huckabee have apparently looked deeper into these men's candidacies that just their faiths. This is something those damned liberals do- you know, thinking. I don't recall any of the former group calling for changing the Constitution to fit "God's law" like Huckabee has. The thesis of your post is, "You don't like Huckabee because he's a Christian, but you like these other guys who are Christians. What's with that? You liberals are idiots". The truth is, Huckabee is a dangerously ignorant right-winger in his most of his policies, whereas the others are not. They just all happen to worship the same god, which gives you an opening for your nonsense. And what's with the line condemning me for not knowing what day Kwanza starts, (nor even how to spell it)? I don't care and neither does Huckabee, I'll bet, but he's running for president and someone looked it up for him because he needed to know that fact in order to win the votes of people like you who are easily influenced by such trivia.

Sent by Jamie | 2:14 AM ET | 02-11-2008

Liberals for Jesus, is an on going group in America,like it or not,liberal for Jesus loves leberals too

Sent by barry grumley | 5:42 AM ET | 02-13-2008

Christians are trying to protect their security and privacy at Georgia, Estonia

Sent by father Bob | 2:45 PM ET | 02-29-2008

the team oriented mentality of we are left and you are right is no doubt derived from the holy of holiest SPORTS SPORTS SPORTS some day all you spectator speculators are going to have to dig in and do something and quit exempting yourself and your sports heroes from the real war outside of the stadium gates. INDEPENDENT NEWS

Sent by Gary Alan Brumley | 12:11 PM ET | 06-27-2008