Not that I want to defend the SBC, but maybe what they are really proposing is a listing of groups that they do not consider Christian.  They describe their theological objections to each of them.  And ultimately their beliefs are their own.

If you want to question Huckabee whether specific positions of the SBC are his own, shouldn't we also question Romney on whether specific beliefs of Mormon's are his own?  Not that they haven't opened that Pandora's box by suggesting a greater presence of religion in the public square, but it is such a touchy subject.  Maybe it is best to avoid it.  Do we really want to go there?

My main concern is not who believes what, but whether the candidate exhibits a kind of black/white thinking suggesting he cannot analyze complex situations, see nuances, respect beliefs of others, etc.  

That said, "cult" is a pejorative term.  And yes, I'd like to know whether the candidate of the Baptists (and he is actively seeking their vote, through their ministers) thinks UUers are part of a cult.  Because when one starts tossing around the word cult loosely like that it suggests a deep level of bigotry.

I suspect Huckabee thinks in such simplistic terms, and is therefore a dangerous person.

I'm also aware that history shows remarkable periods of intolerance of one religion or belief system over another -- millions have been killed -- and I do not want the type of candidate who thinks in such terms -- "me good, others bad-kill."  That's the way George Bush thinks -- he really is mentally unbalanced.  I'm afraid of Huckabee for the same reason.  

I would write his campaign if I were you.  He doesn't have that much in terms of organization; so, you might get a personal response.  But I think your concern is probably broader than specific doctrinal agreements or disagreements he may have with the SBC.

I still think that this gets into a theological / doctrinal debate.  Because you are taking specific arguments that the SBC has with other faiths, it seems to me to move to close to arguing against Huckabee because he is a Southern Baptist.

I was trying to assess Huckabee's critical thinking powers.

But it does appear that the person who wrote this material for the leadership of the SBC lacks those critical thinking powers.  

There are cultural and historical reasons why sects develop.  Those who follow the Santeria religion, for example, were reacting to pressure to follow a religion they did not want to follow.  (And is THAT a common horror story throughout history.)  There's a story behind these religions, and to suggest that someone else's religion is  immoral because they don't believe in yours -- well,  I just don't want those types of thinkers leading this country.  It indicates a very low ability not only to assess complex ideas, but to empathize as well.  In fact, I wouldn't hire such a person for a job that required any but the most elementary decision making skills (e.g., a stock clerk).  

Unfortunately, the Bush Administration hired lots of simplistic thinkers for sensitive positions.  That's how we got, for example, all those daffy anti-science decisions.  See, e.g., the report Waxman just issued that describes the systematic White House effort to manipulate climate change science.  http://oversight.house.gov/sto...

From what I keep reading about Huckabee, he's going to be the same type of one-dimensional thinker Bush is.  And given the new news coming out about the DuMond case, I've already pretty much written him off as a phony who placed politics ahead of the public's well being.  (There is very good evidence now that DuMond had a history of rape and stalking.) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...    

Certainly there are causal factors historical, cultural and others that form the basis of how faiths develop.  I think you may becoming from a position of not knowing an absolute truth, is that right?  But there are people who believe based on their creeds that they possess the absolute truth.  And just because they don't question that absolute truth, does it also mean that they cannot think critically?

I don't want uncritical, dogmatic thinkers like Huckabee ruining other people's lives. How many times can I say that?

Here's what it leads to:

Huckabee also stated on Fox News Sunday that "I had simply made the point, and I still believe this today, that in the late '80s and early '90s, when we didn't know as much as we do now about AIDS, we were acting more out of political correctness than we were about the normal public health protocols," to which Wallace responded: "All the way back in 1985, this wasn't political correctness. The Centers for Disease Control back in '85, seven years before you made your statement, said that AIDS could not be spread by casual contact." Huckabee then asserted "We didn't think that there was a casual transmission. There were studies that showed that. But there were other concerns being voiced by public health officials."

http://mediamatters.org/items/...

I hang with Mother Theresa on this one.  Some of her newly revealed statements and letters show a person struggling with the eternal questions:

Jesus has a very special love for you. As for me, the silence and the emptiness is so great that I look and do not see, listen and do not hear.
- Mother Teresa to the Rev. Michael Van Der Peet, September 1979
***
"I spoke as if my very heart was in love with God - tender, personal love," she remarks to an adviser. "If you were [there], you would have said, 'What hypocrisy.'"
***
So many unanswered questions live within me afraid to uncover them - because of the blasphemy - If there be God - please forgive me - When I try to raise my thoughts to Heaven - there is such convicting emptiness that those very thoughts return like sharp knives & hurt my very soul. - I am told God loves me - and yet the reality of darkness & coldness & emptiness is so great that nothing touches my soul. Did I make a mistake in surrendering blindly to the Call of the Sacred Heart?

 http://www.time.com/time/world...

In short, seeking the truth is a never ending quest.

Put another way, if you feel you possess the ultimate religious truth, I feel sorry for you.

Your previous post stated, at least as I read it anyway, that you would discriminate in employment practices based on someone's religious belief.  If they held fast and did not question the doctrine of their particular faith, then they must not be critical thinkers.  I was just offering that some people's beliefs may be more absolute in one regard and that doesn't mean they lack critical thinking abilities, just that they choose not to question one aspect of who they are and what they believe.  I am not speaking for myself, I am just pointing out people's religious beliefs can be rigid, but that doesn't mean they are simplistic.  That's it.

And soon enough Huckabee will be widely renowned as Mike Huckster. It will be impossible to resist using the nickname.

Thanks for tracking down this Southern Baptist list of "cults."

It is fascinating to watch the evangelical/fundamentalist voting core of the Republican Party try to move beyond being treated as credulous, easily manipulated rubes. Karl Rove understood their psyches and knew how to herd them by pandering to their xenophobia, intolerance, bigotry, revulsion toward gays and lesbians, and mistrust of science. It was mainly, of course, a sham merely intended to garner votes to undergird the G.O.P.'s corporatist agenda.

There is just one problem: under Huckabee the previously manipulated rubes threaten to take over control of the G.O.P.--not merely serve as the field workers providing the wealth and privilege enjoyed by the corporatists.

So what is a suddenly threatened corporatist to do? The first instinct will be to throw money at a reliably corporatist G.O.P. candidate: Giuliani, Romney, or even McCain may see a sudden spike in contributions in coming weeks. Also watch the G.O.P.'s corporatist media propaganda machine go into full anti-Huckabee panic mode.

But the smart, strategic corporatist money will likely now give up on the self-destructing G.O.P., which is well on its way to becoming a sort of religious rump of a formerly national party, soon to be dominant only in the Deep South and in a few especially benighted rural areas in the Midwest and West.

There is only one rational thing left for the smart corporatists to do: buy more Democrats, many of whom are already helpful supporters of the corporatist agenda. There are many Democrats waiting with outstretched arms and open pockets. Which ones will win the most support from the G.O.P.'s former financial backers?

We should start making a list of such Democrats and checking it twice.

Of course, there is one more option for the corporatists: buy off Huckabee. If he really is just another Elmer Gantry huckster, he should be more than happy to accept the cash, continue with his populist rhetoric and medieval claptrap to garner votes, but ultimately deliver what the corporatists want: as little interference as possible with their continued looting.

I really can't add to it, and I urge others to read it and think about it.

And really, it is already happening. Just watch the behavior (and scrutinize some of the contributors' lists) of our Democratic leadership.

It appears that most have already sold out.

They are not just self-serving Village Idiots. They are Bought-Off Village Idiots.

Bail out the hedge fund operators and keep their tax rates lower than those of the middle class? A-OK.

Support more panic cuts in the Fed interest rates to shore up Wall Street, despite the negative consequences for the dollar and the inflation rate? A-OK.

Torture? A-OK.

Warrantless wiretapping and ex post facto immunity for the telecoms? A-OK.

More funding to occupy Iraq in perpetuity? A-OK.

Push to engage Iran, China, and Russia in an effort to assure an uninterrupted, secure, and stable flow of oil from the Gulf and Central Asia to the industrial world? Nah. Might cut the current profits of Big Oil and diminish the long-term profits of Big Guns.

Pursue an urgent national energy program to promote renewable energy and more efficient use of fossil fuels? Nah. Too hard. Might anger Big Oil and Big Coal.

Promote universal health care--even a single payer system like in the rest of the industrial world? Nah. Too hard. Might anger Big Pharma and Big Insurance.

And so it continues to go.

I have not read the details of the current legislative "trade" -- the Dems get projects funding but give up on a withdrawal timeline.  That sounds like pork/election guarantee versus morality.  But I'll defer to others who know the details.  Sure looks like it might be that, on the surface anyway.

but both factions (Republican and Democratic) of the Corporatist Party have us bamboozled so that they do not need to pursue policies, foreign or domestic, that are in the public, rather than in the corporatist, interest.

What is the public interest? Pursuing the greatest good (education, health care, public transportation, clean environment, safety of products in the marketplace, regulation and oversight of investment exchanges and corporations to prevent fraud, economic opportunity and class mobility) for the greatest number, while minimizing the odds of perpetual wars and a cataclysmic conflict.

I doubt that there is much point in making a moral argument with politicians. But why can't they reflect on the long-term health and prosperity of their societies? Arrogant aristocracies of wealth and privilege generally come to a bad end, and their societies with them.

Sorry for the rant, but I'm at this point nearly as fed up with the Dem leadership as I am appalled by the Republican neoconderthals.

Up to a point--and I don't want to belong to a political party that holds its convention in a phone booth.

But the current state of affairs is sad.  I'm ranting, too.

Immediate optimism -- my wife just got a big package of gourmet cookies from her workplace in the mail.  

I try to keep up with world and national events to enable me to make responsible decisions, but . . .

as this commenter notes:

I had the strongest sense of deja vu reading this fantastic piece on how depressing it is to be informed these days. I don't know if I read a similar article before, or if it's just something I've been thinking about for a while, but the tagline really sums it up well: "Staying informed has become -- for so many of us -- a moral obligation that feels like hell."

As the author, Courtney Martin, laments,

   Some weekends it feels like a masochistic, last-ditch effort to keep myself from going numb. Some weekends, I can hardly read the headlines without feeling myself being pulled into a morass of 21st century existential pain over the challenges of living aware in a globalized world with so much violence, soulless bureaucracy, and disappointing leadership. . . .

http://www.americablog.com/200...

in one of his books recommends talking "vacations" from the news to promote both mental health and physical well-being.

I have no doubt that Dr. Weil is right. There is something mesmerizing about scrutinizing the latest debacle in the public square, and doing so helps fill the day. But it is addictive, and therefore it is unhealthy.

Perhaps we would be far more happy by being ignorant and stupid. But then we would be ignorant and stupid. I think I'd rather remain conscious and depressed by the news.

Still, having to endure the fecklessness of Fancy Nancy Antoinette and Weak Harry Reid makes me yearn for a news vacation. Taking one may be a good thing to do during the holidays.

But this one certainly is a cult:
Church of Scientology International

Yeah, they go that one right.

A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ."

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/12/11/mike-huckabee-women-should-submit-to-their-husbands/

Huck signed on to that statement in a 1998 USA Today ad.

He is a Neanderthal.  Yeah, I know it's in the Bible.

People look at my record and say that I'm as strong on immigration, strong on terror as anybody. In fact I think I'm stronger than most people because I truly understand the nature of the war that we are in with Islamo fascism. These are people that want to kill us. It's a theocratic war. And I don't know if anybody fully understands that. I'm the only guy on that stage with a theology degree.

 http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/266...  

we would likely find out what a complete theocratic nut job Huckabee really is.

You're doing a great job of collecting these gems. Trust you are saving them up to spread far and wide if Huckabee becomes the Republican nominee.

(Yeah, I know that even the Dem apparatus is probably smart enough to do as much in terms of oppo research, but the Dems tend to play nice-nice at campaign time and are reluctant to risk offending religious nuts--no matter how medieval.)