Informed Comment

Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion

Juan Cole is President of the Global Americana Institute

Thursday, December 13, 2007

Ayatollah Huckabee's Fatwa

In Shiite Iran, only a Shiite may be president. Not a Sunni Muslim, not a Christian, and not a secularist. Article 115 of the current Iranian constitution says:


' Article 115

The President must be elected from among religious and political personalities possessing the following qualifications: Iranian origin; Iranian nationality; administrative capacity and resourcefulness; a good past-record; trustworthiness and piety; convinced belief in the fundamental principles of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the official [religion or ] madhhab of the country. '


Mike Huckabee seems to differ little from the ayatollahs in his willingness to deploy religious orthodoxy as a weapon to exclude others from high political office. Ayatollah Huckabee has issued his fatwa against a wretched heresy.

Here's the view from Salt Lake City: Huckabee is using Mitt Romney's Mormonism against him in a cynical bid to exploit the religious bigotry of the Protestant Right against Mormons. Excerpt from the article of Thomas Burr:

' Huckabee, an ordained Baptist minister, aired a TV commercial in Iowa recently telling voters he is a "Christian leader," a move that could be seen as a veiled hit on Romney, whose faith is viewed as heretical by some Protestant evangelicals. And Huckabee has so far refused to say whether he believes the LDS Church is a cult, as his Southern Baptist religion labels the church. In Sunday's New York Times Magazine, Huckabee goes even further when asked if he believes Mormons are cultists. While first saying he didn't know much about Mormonism, Huckabee then asks the reporter in an "innocent voice": "Don't Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?" Some political observers say Huckabee, now the leading GOP candidate in Iowa polls, is raising the issues of Romney's faith as a campaign tactic. "I think he knows it's clearly an issue with his base," says Kelly Patterson, director of the Center for the Study of Elections and Democracy at the LDS Church-owned Brigham Young University. "He's sending signals through his advertisements and his comments that his base will understand. It's obvious he's making it an issue." '


Huckabee just picked up that accusation against Mormons from some fundamentalist Protestant web site. (See below).

Almost as disgusting as Huckabee's willingness to hype his opponent's personal religious views was the mealy-mouthed statement his campaign put out on the issue:

' In fact, the full context of the exchange makes it clear that Governor Huckabee was illustrating his unwillingness to answer questions about Mormonism and to avoid addressing theological questions during this campaign.’'


But in fact there is no context that would change what Huckabee told the interviewer, which implied that he thinks Mormons are heretics, with the further implication that it is undesirable to have a heretic as president. (Of course, from the point of view of Baptist theology, most presidents have been heretics.)

Having failed to put the controversy to rest with his lame press release about the "full context," Huckabee then "apologized" to Romney, saying he would never make another candidate's religion an issue and that he wasn't aware that his remark would appear in the interview. But since the remark was made in the course of an interview, it is not plausible that Huckabee did not think it would appear. And, I am suspicious of this apology because its main effect will be to alter the headlines on Thursday from "Huckabee calls Romney a Heretic" to the more sympathetic "Huckabee apologized to Romney for Religious Slur." As you can tell, IC is not falling for it.

Of course, the irony is that Romney is also perfectly willing to cut out the secular "heretics" and the Muslims from high public office. The Republican candidates seem to be running on who can be the most religiously narrow-minded.

A secular person or a Buddhist might well argue that since all Christians believe God the father created all beings, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that they all believe all beings are in that sense siblings, including any two beings you'd like to pick. Only if Huckabee believed God the father did not create the dark angel would his own gibe at Romney be justified.

As for what Mormons really believe on this score, see below. The only thing I care about with regard to a candidate's religion is that he not try to use high political office to impose it on the rest of us. In that regard, none of the candidates scares me more than Huckabee, and if I were a biologist I'd be very worried what he would do to federal funding of that field-- a field which is crucial to America's economic future.

Below I am mirroring from A Mormon apologetic site the following explanation of the controversy from a Mormon point of view:

'Is Satan the Brother of Jesus?

by W. John Walsh

Is Jesus the brother of Satan?

This is a common question asked by those exposed to Anti-Mormon literature. Anti-Mormons often twist our doctrines out of context to make people falsely believe that Latter-Day Saints denigrate Jesus and consider Satan and the Lord to be equals. Of course, anyone familiar with our beliefs about Jesus Christ knows that we have the utmost respect and reverence for Our Savior and Redeemer.

First, Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten Son of God the Father (and is therefore divine) and the mortal virgin Mary. Satan, a malignant spirit, does not share this parental heritage of Jesus, and cannot be considered divine in any respect. Therefore, in the usual way that we speak of brothers and sisters, Jesus and Satan are not brothers.

However, Latter-day Saints believe that God is our Father in Heaven. Before we came to this world, we all lived as spirits under his care and guidance. We believe that God begat or created the spirits of Jesus, Lucifer, and all of the human family as his children. Our Heavenly Father is literally the father of our spirits. Jesus Christ is considered the preeminent "firstborn" or "firstbegotten" (see Hebrews 1:4-6; Firstborn in the Spirit)

Even though God the Father created all of our spirits, we were not equal in that premortal state. Jesus was a member of the Eternal Godhead, through his own innate worthiness, and created the universe under the Father’s direction. The Godhead is comprised of our Heavenly Father, his Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. Since the Fall of Adam, the Father has represented himself to the world through Jesus Christ. Jesus was Jehovah, the God of the Old Testament.

Lucifer, who was never a member of the Godhead like Jesus, rebelled against God, and was forever cast out. He became Satan, our adversary. Unlike Jesus or us, Lucifer will never be born into a physical body.

Latter-day Saint scriptures summarize this issue as follows:

AND I, the Lord God, spake unto Moses, saying: That Satan, whom thou hast commanded in the name of mine Only Begotten, is the same which was from the beginning, and he came before me, saying--Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor.

But, behold, my Beloved Son, which was my Beloved and Chosen from the beginning, said unto me--Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever.

Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down;

And he became Satan, yea, even the devil, the father of all lies, to deceive and to blind men, and to lead them captive at his will, even as many as would not hearken unto my voice. (The Pearl of Great Price, Moses 4:1-4)

So it can be said that Jesus and Lucifer were brothers, in the sense of both being spiritually begotten by the Father, but it is a misrepresentation to say so without giving the contextual background. Whatever similarities in background exist between Jesus and Satan pale compared to the differences. Jesus is the Beloved and Chosen, who is the Only Begotten Son of God in the flesh.'

19 Comments:

At 1:29 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

One might have as well mentioned the example of Lebanon, where the President has to be Christian, the prime minister Sunni, and the Speaker of the Parliament Shi'i.

In any case, I'm not sure bringing Iran's name into all this sheds any light on American politics, given that the two nations have very different religious and political heritages, and cannot really be compared.

Furthermore, "ayatollah" is not a dirty word, nor does the title imply anything about the mixing of religion and politics. There's no lack of ayatollahs who disagree with theocracy.

I guess I'm just a little weary of the ubiquitous habit of using Muslims as a foil while casting aspersion on domestic (American) foes. Doing so makes sense only if one has already decided that we all agree that Muslims have gotten it all wrong.

 
At 2:14 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is difficult for even the most zealots to use high office to impose their religion. People of different beliefs do not respond in significant numbers and those of the same believes do not see the imposition.

THe scariest thing about religous people in high office is that the law and other people's wishes come second to religous text. Bush and the other war criminals went into meetings armed with Bibles. Sharon went to meet Bush to recite select passages and interpretations to program Bush to his likings.

Then you have some lunatics, quite possibly including Bush, who see God's revelations in their dreams and act accordingly.

In W Europe, religion is mostly seen as a philisophy and spiritual relaxation trick rather than supernatural with absolute values and "commands from high above". That is the right way to avoid conflict between religion and civil values.

 
At 4:42 AM, Blogger Carl Spalletta said...

"Only if Huckabee believed God the father did not create the dark angel would his own gibe at Romney be justified."

Actually, Juan, you are wrong, both logically and historically. As an historian yourself, this is just the kind of faux pas you would jump on if committed by anyone else.

The Nicene Creed, which is the official statement of belief of about 90 percent of the world's Christians, including the Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Episcopal and Lutheran churches, calls Jesus:

"the only-begotten Son of God,begotten of the Father before all worlds, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, of one substance with the Father"

So while "the dark angel" is a created being, according to this doctrine, Jesus is not. And logically can't be "the devil's brother", since one was begotten and one was made.

Also, the very first verse of the Gospel of John says:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God."

Of course I don't know what Huckabee's church believes. Or Romney's either.

 
At 4:47 AM, Blogger ejh said...

For what it's worth, in the UK the Head of State is required to be Church of England....

 
At 7:29 AM, Anonymous John Francis Lee said...

Isn't it well past time to call a halt to the experiment in Xtian Talebanism that's been conducted for the past eight years here in the US?

When I was young "by their works you will know them" was the de facto extent to which religion entered politics, at least explicitly.

That was better than what we have today.

Back before the DLC had Mike Gravel removed from the "debates" he answered a set-up question in Iowa from someone in Utah (do you think it might have been a Mormon? it might have been a Baptist or a Catholic) concerning the efficacy of prayer.

Gravel replied that he believed in love, that love implements courage, and that courage fosters all the other virtues useful in life.

Gravel observed that many of the people who pray are the same ones who want to go to war and thus to kill fellow human beings.

Gravel said that more love between individual Americans, individual Iowans, would enable more individual courage, and that more courage would enable us to grapple with the problems of governance.

I'm with Mike Gravel. Down with the Xtian Taleban.

 
At 9:17 AM, Blogger Juan Cole said...

Dear Carl:

I am not expecting that the orthodox will agree with my point. I prefaced it by saying that a secular person or a Buddhist might well look at it it that way.

But for all the mysteries of the Christian Tritinity, logically speaking, there are only two categories, creator and creature. God the Father is the creator. Unless you want to maintain that Jesus created God, then he is some kind of creature. And if a creature then a sibling of other creatures. I think I've even heard preachers call Jesus "our brother."

Just saying, Huckabee 's holier than thou wouldn't be convincing among the secular

 
At 9:34 AM, Anonymous Jas said...

Huckabee is doing to Romney what Romney would be doing to Huckabee, if he could figure it out. Speaking as a non-religionist, they both scare the crap out of me.

 
At 9:43 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow. This "article" of yours is an absolute and utter smear job. I don't think it is Huckabee but rather cynical bigots like you who are trying SO very hard to make it appear that there is some kind of religious battle going on between the Republican front-runners in Iowa. If you had any desire to refrain from misrepresenting the truth, you would not employ such slimeball rhetorical tactics. But I suppose you are really not so much concerned with the truth of the matter, only with perpetuating the anti-religious bigotry typical of ignorant secularists.

 
At 11:22 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Trying to rationally explain religion, any religion, is like trying to put air in a box. It's all inherently nonsense. It's gibberish that has taken on airs of importance because it's thousands of years old. Whatever happened to thinking that people who said they 'talked to God' were crazy and treating them accordingly? It's terrifying that people who seriously believe this crap control all the levers of power in the United States.

 
At 11:33 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think it is interesting that Huckabee is being critizised for his comments. (which he should not have said and I think he regrets it) It was not the time nor the place for the comment. But I do not think he is wrong. If anyone does a logical look at the Book of Mormon (which Mormons believe is an addition to the Bible) they will find it is a false testimony. Here is a web site that points out things that most people do not know. www.whatismormonism.com.

 
At 11:42 AM, Blogger Aaron Shafovaloff said...

Mormonism Research Ministry just released:

The Relationship Between Jesus and Lucifer in a Mormon Context

 
At 1:10 PM, Blogger Bill said...

Dr. Cole:
Respectfully, you do not understand Christian theology. Christ is "begotten" of the Father under the Nicene creed, he is not "created", but eternally co-equal with the Father. The Spirit "proceeds" from the Son and Father, not begotten, but is likewise not created and is eternally co-equal. "Begotten" and "proceed" describe the relationship among the persons, but all are Creator. (Col. 1 states that all things were made by Christ and Gen. 1 describes the creation as occurring when the Spirit moved upon the face of the waters).

Mormonism is heresy by orthodox Christian teaching. It teaches that Christ is a created being, literally begotten by the "heavenly father" and his wife (your apologist omitted the fact that Mormon doctrine teaches both that Christ is the physical offspring of the father and has a mother--those are both false and heretical to orthodox Christians).

The point that liberals make is that the Constitution forbids a religious test. It does. But freedom of religion surely means that a Christian may refuse to vote for a person because of his religious beliefs (and similarly, that one may refuse to vote for an orthodox Christian). That in no way offends the Constitution's restriction on the government imposing religious tests.

At the same time, a candidate for the office of the Presidency may not establish religious tests either, since he is seeking a constitutional office that is restricted from establishing such tests.

Critics of the "religious right" can accurately raise the religious test issue. I submit, however, that those who are ignorant of Christian theology ought to refrain from opining on whether Mormonism can be considered consistent with it.

 
At 1:38 PM, Anonymous Trinitarian said...

For what it's worth, I have to endorse the view of poster above: I'm no Christian, but "the mysteries of the Christian trinity" are pretty central to Christianity, and that involves the Son not being created by the Father (though coming from him etc. etc.). This may not be what people generally mean when they talk about the Mormons not being Christians (I'm sure that, popularly, it's just jealousy) but the fact that neither Mormons, nor secularists, nor close-minded Christians, nor open-minded Christians understand the trinity - the rock of Christian doctrine - says something about how low Christianity has sunk. One might as well say that the Mormons are Muslims.

 
At 4:03 PM, Blogger james_speaks said...

Regarding Huckabee, I reiterate: Does the United States really want a President who believes Adam and Eve kept pet dinosaurs? Or that Noah had two each of velocirartor and t. rex on the Ark?

 
At 5:22 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I just talked to Jeebus and the Lard!
And I have a snake in each hand ! I'm going out to buy a shotgun and then I'm going to run for office !
I'm an orthodox X-tian, so I know Jeebus is in my heart and Say-tuhn is up to his old tricks!

 
At 10:29 PM, Blogger Tommy Times said...

This week: Huckabee explains the Mormon concept of Satan. Next week: Tancredo preaches on the story of the good Samaritan.

 
At 6:15 AM, Anonymous Mormon Joe said...

Hi Juan, thanks for posting something from an LDS Apologetic website to at least accurately explain our views/theology on these issues from the horse's mouth rather than others claiming to talk for us. I'm no Romney supporter and find the whole focus on religion in the Republican nomination process rather disgusting, but if the topic is gonna come up, I really appreciate attempts to present it properly.

Also, I can't help but note the similarity here between some of the commenters and Takfiris in the Islamic world. Both attempting to declare those whose views they don't agree with as outside-the-pale heretics/kafirs.

 
At 6:47 AM, Blogger gus said...

A big difference between what Romney said about Muslims and what Huckabee said about Mormons is that Romney was completely misquoted and misrepresented, and Huckabee wasn't. When Romney was asked by a Muslim-Democrat activist if he would reserve a place in his cabinet for a Muslim and he said he would not use religious bean counting to fill his cabinet but would choose the most qualified individual - a far cry from refusing to consider a Muslim because their numbers are too low.

Huckabee, on the other hand, admits he asked the inflamatory question about Mormons. is appology was basically, "sorry, I didn't know they were going to publish that."

 
At 8:56 PM, Anonymous whattodo said...

This religious crap is all so infantile -- it makes me lose heart. And the PC on the other side is mind-numbingly naive. I am losing my ability, and desire, to identify with Americans. Not with America, but with Americans.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home