I really don't have a dog in the race for the Republican nomination for the presidency: Frankly, I can't see that much good will come from the election of any of the people now running. But I have my questions about anyone the Democrats can nominate, too. In short: I have no partisan interest, and in support, I also point to the fact that I am a member of no political party.
But the fact that one of the candidates seems to claim that his surge in the polls is directly attributed to divine intervention (film clip here) and that he is better qualified than others because he holds a theology degree gives me reason to enter the fray.
Now I don't claim to be an expert in seeing miracles, so I'll let that one rest.
But M.Div.-student (at Fuller, hardly a bastion of liberal worldliness) and blogger Patrick McCullough (here) has checked the facts and raises some question about the directness (if not the honesty) of this most-religious-of-all candidates.
I'm sure the facts can be ascertained, but I'm not going to bother. I already know all I need to: He has not stated his case with an "aye" or a "nay," but instead has danced around and given the lie to his original claim. That doesn't look like honesty to me, and it is simply unacceptable that one who touts his Christian credentials should so blazenly not tell the truth. I know that that is a nasty thing to say about a fellow member of the Body of Christ, but I think he asked for it. So there.
I will also so say that, while many candidates seem to feel the need to give voice to their religious bona fides, Huckabee has made it central to his campaign (witness the Christmas ad). The others may not be any more straightforward about themselves, but Huckabee has set himself into a special category. And I think it's fair game now to judge him on the basis of his own-claimed credentials.