Via crucis

Mike Huckabee, bass-playing former Governor of Arkansas and actual Republican Presidential candidate, found another use for Jesus on the cross:

>”Interestingly enough, if there was ever an occasion for someone to have argued against the death penalty, I think Jesus could have done so on the cross and said, ‘This is an unjust punishment and I deserve clemency.’ ”

That’s not an argument for capital punishment, but for unjust capital punishment, unless, of course, Jesus was guilty.

5 thoughts on “Via crucis”

  1. I can sympathize with the reaction of the blogger who highlighted this comment, as it is difficult to fathom this coming from a viable presidential candidate. Huckabee’s determination to become the poster-boy of the religious right has been entertaining. After more consideration, however, I can see what he was getting at

    “This is an unjust punishment and I deserve clemency”

    If we understood this to be a reference to the appropriateness of the death penalty in Christ’s case, we either have to reject Christ’s perfection, or we are left defending unjust punishment, as you have rightly concluded.

    Perhaps, Hucakbee was simply indicating that Christ, on the cross, chose not to attack capital punishment as an inappropriate measure in any case. Were he to find such punishment inconsistent with the teachings of the Bible, we might expect him to say something along the lines of “This is an unjust {form of } punishment”. Were that so, anyone (not just him) would deserve clemency. He wasn’t then advocating that he be released and free from prosecution, but rather, he be subjected to some other form of punishment that was consistent with teachings. Not that I find this notion persuasive, as his death is essential to the story of the New Testament, but seen in this light, the comment makes some sense.

  2. That’s funny, Steven. But I think what you got Huckabee making now is an “argument from silence.” Since Jesus said nothing about capital punishment, he must endorse it. Jesus said nothing about lots of things–abortion, for instance–so he must endorse that as well.

  3. Jebus didn’t say squat about evolution either, but that didn’t stop this moron from raising his hand to declare his disbelief about natural selection. And while we’re at it, why doesn’t he talk about what Jebus did endorse, like prohibiting divorce unless the wife screws around?

  4. “But I think what you got Huckabee making now is an “argument from silence.” Since Jesus said nothing about capital punishment, he must endorse it. Jesus said nothing about lots of things–abortion, for instance–so he must endorse that as well”

    That of course is perfectly sensible. But, if we consider the context from which this quote was lifted, I’d say this response makes more sense. As I recall from the debate, Huckabee was responding a claim that the death penalty was somehow inconsistent with the teachings of Christ. (Something along the lines of the pro-life, pro-capital punishment issue). Thus, he need only demonstrate that Christ did not expressly forbid that form of punishment. The questioner saw a contradiction with his policy and his religious conviction on this issue. If one of these sources does not speak to the issue altogether, they could hardly be understood to contradict one another.

    That’s not to say that Christ’s silence would amount to an endorsement, either. It’s an ineffective argument for the death penalty, but it certainly can offer a decent response to the hypocrisy charge that Huckabee was facing.

  5. Here I think you’re bending over backwards to make sense of an obvious sophism. You write:

    “But, if we consider the context from which this quote was lifted, I’d say this response makes more sense. As I recall from the debate, Huckabee was responding a claim that the death penalty was somehow inconsistent with the teachings of Christ. (Something along the lines of the pro-life, pro-capital punishment issue). Thus, he need only demonstrate that Christ did not expressly forbid that form of punishment. The questioner saw a contradiction with his policy and his religious conviction on this issue. *If one of these sources does not speak to the issue altogether, they could hardly be understood to contradict one another.*”

    The suggestion is that the death penalty is inconsistent with the notion of forgiveness, Huckabee says it’s not, because Jesus said nothing explicitly about the death penalty. On that argument from silence, as the author of the original piece in the Arkansas Times notes:

    “Now this method of biblical exegesis opens, as Bob Lancaster pointed out in a bitterly funny column in the Arkansas Times, a very large can of worms. After all, there’s a whole world of things Jesus failed specifically to address besides capital punishment: grocery tax rebates, the infield fly rule, pari-mutuel betting, legalized prostitution. Well, you get the picture. *Are we now to operate on the assumption that Jesus’ silence constitutes approval?*”

    Besides, Huckabee isn’t facing a charge of hypocrisy. Rather, the suggestion is that his belief in the death penalty is consistent with basic biblical *principles.* His answer, that Christ has no problem with trumped up charges and so forth, only makes it worse.

Comments are closed.