CNN) —Mike Huckabee is explaining comments he made earlier this week criticizing Oscar winner Natalie Portman for being pregnant and unmarried...
“In a recent media interview about my new book, A Simple Government, I discussed the first chapter, ‘The Most Important Form of Government Is a Father, Mother, and Children,’” Huckabee said in a statement obtained by CNN.
“I was asked about Oscar-winner Natalie Portman’s out-of-wedlock pregnancy. Natalie is an extraordinary actor, very deserving of her recent Oscar trophy and I am glad she will marry her baby’s father. However, contrary to what the Hollywood media reported, I did not “slam” or “attack” Natalie Portman, nor did I criticize the hardworking single mothers in our country.”
The former Arkansas governor and possible Republican presidential candidate criticized the actress Monday on a conservative radio show for being pregnant and unmarried.
“One of the most troubling things is that people see a Natalie Portman or some other Hollywood starlet that boasts of, hey look, we’re having children, we’re not married, but we’re having children and they’re doing just fine,” Huckabee told host Mike Medved on his radio program.
Portman, who won the best actress Oscar on Sunday for her role in “Black Swan,” is engaged to choreographer Benjamin Millepied, who also worked on the film.
Huckabee, a Baptist minister who ran for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination, said when wealthy actresses have children without being married, they set a bed example for the rest of America.
“There aren’t really a lot of single moms out there that are making millions of dollars each year by being in a movie,” Huckabee said. “I think it gives a distorted image that not everybody hires nannies and caretakers and nurses. Most single moms are very poor, uneducated, can’t get a job, and if it weren’t for government assistance, their kids would be starving to death and would not get healthcare.”
HINT - Read the line in bold type.
And your point is.........?
The family is the basic unit of society. Every child should have the innate right to be born to a mother and father who are legally and lawfully wed and who have taken vows to each other and their potential family. What's wrong with this value?
By no means am I slamming the extracurricular activities of people outside of marriage but it should not be publicized as the norm or as the modern acceptable field of a "family." It's not and should never be. Those vows provide the haven upon which that child will build a life of certain morals and values that will be carried into his posterity.
I understand that things happen but I also lament that these occurrences happen with increased regularity without thought and with little remorse or recourse.
Sorry for holding true to traditional values that have raised strong families of faith and virtue.
God bless - now until they make it a law requiring marriage in order to get pregnant, given birth, etc. how about everyone mind their own business. There.. problem solved. I won't throw rocks at you, you don't throw rocks at me. Kind of the Golden Rule factored to the n'th degree, n'est-ce pas?
Fusion of church and state is a false religion. You can win president and burn in hell on that platform.
Couldn't get past the first line of this one. Mike Huckabee never criticized Natalie Portman for being pregnant. If you haven't noticed there are a lot more fatherless children in our country which is devastating not only for the child, and mother but for the taxpayer that has to make up the difference and provide what the father should provide. Mike Huckabee is a Christian man and doesn't JUDGE people. He's just pointing out that young girls are impressionable and that when they see someone they admire doing something they may think it's ok for them to do the same even tho they don't have the same means as Natalie Portman. Which is true.
they do not need proof readers, they need real reporters not actors doing the news!
A friend's grandson goes to public school. I attended his award ceremony with her and saw that Miss _____, his single third grade teacher, is pregnant and everyone seems delighted. The school counselor announced the obvious and congratulated her.
It wouldn't have surprised me if he'd called out to her "partner" to stand up and take a bow.
It's not the world I grew up in that's for sure.
How do you teach a child about morality in the face of this sort of example? Children should respect their teachers.
Yes, they should have stoned her to death, that's morality for you.
Irony Ann. irony.
I was suggesting the logical conclusion of your line of thinking.
Your logic went down a rabbit hole as usual. I'm for life as most social conservatives are. It's liberals who are in favor of violence and death. The younger the better.
He is saying that fusion of Church and State leads to public forms of punishment like in the Old Testament.
Here's the deal in a secular democracy. If your morality says you can't get pregnant out of wedlock - don't. No one will criticise you for that choice. But your morality, which you can apply to yourself and your church and family (assuming they share that morality) is not an absolute you can impose on ALL society.
But your morality, which you can apply to yourself and your church and family (assuming they share that morality) is not an absolute you can impose on ALL society.
but isn't that exactly what the teacher, the counselor, and everyone else were doing?
The teacher - by being a role model for her students
The counselor - by announcing it & congratulating the teacher
Everyone else - by being delighted for her
There's two sides to the coin, you know.
The teacher, the counselor and everyone else in an educated society were happy for her. That's how normal people react to a welcome pregnancy.
You want to brand her a sinner, that's your business in your social clique. No enlightened person will lose sleep over your opinion UNTIL you bring it into general society.
Excuse me?? Attacking me over pointing out the obvious does not address the issue, now does it?
A positive reaction to a welcome pregnancy is one thing, but displaying a lack of acceptance & understanding that a different set of morals may be present is quite another. Especially when we're talking about an audience of impressionable elementary age students.
If you have a neanderthal morality, and you want to hang out with others with similar views, freedom of religion says you are entitled to that. I don't dispute it and I would be the last person to discourage the private practice of freedom of religion. In your own home or church. Not a public school.
A code of intolerance, which may be imbedded in your beliefs, is especially inappropriate in a public school, in the view of (I agree) impressionable elementary age students.
He does not understand what you are talking about, Rafini
So it appears Misha.
It's really rather difficult when opposing morals are thrown together without warning, isn't it?
Well, I can't really blame him, it is certainly quite difficult to understand if you are (or were) not exposed to different cultures on a grassroots level.
You can try an imaginary situation. You are a nudist/naturist, and a teacher. And you come to the class naked. Then a counselor congratulates you for your perfect body lines, and everyone is quite delighted. What would be his reaction, if he has grandkids in the class?
So that argument is enough to deny someone the right to have child?
Really? What right do you have to control this womans body?
Tell your children that it is your belief that she is a sinner and what she has done is against your religion, morals and philosophy. Tell them that she will go to hell if that is what you want. All of that is absolutely fine, but that is where it ends.
Your beliefs are your own, not hers.
I may completely disagree with anyone telling their children that what she has done is wrong, but I 100% defend your right to do so and will never try and convince you otherwise. It has nothing to do with me and I respect your beliefs.
LOL Another example of a brick wall.
Where did I say I deny her a right to have a child?
Where did I say I want to control her body?
etc, etc, etc...
All what I was trying to demonstrate is that people with different cultural backgrounds comprehend things differently, and it pays to consider other people reaction if you don't want to get in trouble. If I understood her correctly, this is what Rafini was trying to say, too
That doesn't really work. One can choose when to not be nude at will, and very quickly. You can't do the same with a pregnancy. You can expect certain behaviour from an influential figure while they're doing their job.
You can't on the other hand, expect someone to change her work AND off-work life just for you.
Doug, it's hard to believe, but this is something we can agree on.
"How do you teach a child about morality in the face of this sort of example? Children should respect their teachers."
You just teach them. If you do a good job, then interacting with people who behave differently from what you've taught them will not lead them astray. Of course, children eventually have minds of their own and will make their own choices.
To send your child to school means to surrender your authority to the authority of the school. If the school puts your child under the authority of a teacher, who is gay, and raises a child with a gay parent, the school is blessing their behavior, under the color of authority.
To pretend that school is NOT an authority, is to create the lawless jungles we see in a few movies about such matters (and in real life in many large cities).
Thus, liberals seek to have it both ways... "School is not an authority, it doesn't matter if your teacher is a sexual pervert, he or she doesn't teach morality", but yet, such behavior is sanctioned under the color of authority, by demanding that the school BE an authority.
The entire purpose of education, is to provide authoritative information, resources, and instruction in front of impressionable minds.
Thus, the teacher can be single and pregnant. And that's ok, because it's not an authority. But the school cannot present creationism, because that's falsehood under the color of authority.
Notice the completely illogical and unreasoned dichotomy?
This is why they can believe they can run and plan an economy and a society. Just ignore reality.
You don't, and the examples that children are now getting have much less moral value than ever before, much less, it is frightening when you have a teenage daughter. While we really do not want to go back in time to the days when unwed mothers were persecuted, literally, we also should not glorify them, which is precisely what seems to be happening now.
Such glorification is wierdly at odds with liberal abortion advocates and maniacs, they are playing both sides of the issue in large, for pathetic political gain.
Who advoates abortion?
We only advocate that we have that choice available to us!
Nobody is glorifying single mothers either--we just accept them as normal, not as some disgusting abberation who should be stomped it the dirt and lettered with a Scarlet A.
You seem to have a total disregard and disrespect for women.
pft. "bed" *lol*
Well, let me put it this way.
I do not plan on having sex unless I am married. Therefore, I shant run the risk of getting pregnant! yay me!
At least Natalie Portman is engaged to the father of her child.
More than we can say for Bristol Palin.
I wonder if Mr. Huckabee ever uses her as an example of immorality (?)
Why do more and more CNN talking heads have British accents?
Why, why for christ's sake, are so many people concerned, and desperately trying to control other people's sexual lives? Is it repression? Fear? Hidden envy camouflaged as moral superiority?
Condoms, pills, homosexuals, marriages, what else? Just let go already and accept not everyone thinks like you, nor should they; nor you have a right to tell anyone what to do or not to do, unless they directly harming someone.
How twisted do you have to be to think it's wrong to congratulate a soon to be mother?
Okay, okay, so it isn't wrong to congratulate a soon-to-be mother. Next issue. The mother is unmarried, which, according to her moral standard, is okay but, according to the third grader's parents set of morals, is not okay. Who is right?
Why should it be okay for the soon-to-be mother (and so many others) to ignore the fact that she's modeling inappropriate morals for that particular third grader?
In a diversified world, such as ours, it is more prudent to be sensitive to other cultures than to ignore them completely.
The only difference I see here is one side trying to impose their moral views on the other.
If the teacher was actively encouraging her students to get pregnant out of wedlock that would be an issue. From the information we have she is not.
You however are trying to impose your values on another. This I do have an issue with. Are you seriously saying you feel others should decide if this woman is permitted to have a child? I was under the impression that America was a free country.
Live and let live people. You have the right to explain your views to your children - thats it. Be happy with your own beliefs and guide your children's moral development as you see fit. Leave everyone else alone and the world will be a happier place.
You're right, the teacher (and everyone congratulating her) is imposing her moral views on the innocent & impressionable elementary age students - why is that okay??
Modeling any type of behavior is equivalent to active encouragement...what I'm interested in knowing is why the teacher, counselors, and others, feel it is okay to impose their values on impressionable elementary age students yet, at the same time, feel it isn't okay for the parents to stand up for their beliefs when their impressionable elementary age children are presented with the conflicting morals of their pregnant & unwed teacher.
She's not impossing anything, you're the only one trying to. You're actively trying to stop a woman to live her life and use her body the way she intends to. The teacher just wants a kid and a has a job teaching other people's children. She's not imposing anything. If you think she is, you have a wrong definition of the word imposing. No one's encouraging either.
She's just living her life. Are you encouraging every member in Hubpages to use avatars with ladies wearing hats just by doing it yourself?
Okay, let me just, lol, stop laughing, lol, okay?
By the, um, counselors public congratulatory announcement, the teacher, counselor and others are imposing their morals on the elementary school students. The congratulations should not have been announced at a school event (for a wed or unwed teacher/mother). Sorry, wrong time, wrong place.
Besides, publicly congratulating an unwed soon to be mother is imposing beliefs/morals/values. A private congratulations is not.
Think about it - a proudly pregnant woman isn't about to hide the fact she's pregnant. Right? Not a problem - married or not. However, when this pregnant woman is the teacher of impressionable elementary age children she (as well as every other school employee) ought to understand that not all parents are going to be pleased with the message an unwed soon-to-be mother is sending to their children. As a teacher, she (as well as every other school employee) needs to show a knowledge/acceptance of, and appreciation for, cultures and beliefs other than her own.
Now, as for me personally, let's get this straight right now, okay? I am not attempting to impose anything on anyone, other than a tolerance/acceptance/appreciation for diversity. I am nowhere near trying to stop a woman from living her life or using her body the way she chooses. Got it?
The issue I've address in this thread, is this: What do you do when conflicting morals are thrown together without warning?
Yes, hats. In fact I am now wearing one and it's your fault for impossing me with your avatar.
I apologize, I thought your problem was the mere fact that she was pregnant (I guess I threw you into the same bag aso some other posters who seem to think that way).
The public announcement is a different story, but I still don't think it's imposing, since it doesn't imply a direct and active intention of forcing any moral or any other kind of values into anyone, as far as I can see.
If you were to be so extremist as to impose your moral values on your children's teacher as far as preventing her to have children of her own in a different life-style that you have had, so that you can more easily impose your moral values to your own children; couldn't you just change schools? Why would you have to complicate everything and try to control other people's lives so much?
Wow, is this ridiculous. My son is in 6th grade now but had he been in 3rd grade with Ms. Teacher and she was unmarried and pregnant and he asked me about her I would tell him that she is having a baby and isn't that nice? After all she is probably at least 25, not a teenager and can live her life her way. He will learn his morality in MY HOME. What his teacher, or anyone does is not his business and do not influence him anywhere near as much as I DO. No one is an "example" for anything. They are just other people living their lives. We do not judge them or condem them because we are just people living our lives as well. Not God.
Although I agree with you, I have to disagree also. Your son will learn the bulk of his morality in YOUR home, but honestly? He will eventually choose for himself and the unwed pregnant 3rd grade teacher will have some influence over his decisions. Why? Because everything we see, hear, feel, think, and experience has an impact on our lives whether we are aware of it or not.
And hopefully he'll learn that pregnancy out of wedlock is not the preserve of feckless teenagers, that an intelligent professional can chose not to be taken in by the moral brigade.
I'm old enough to remember when pregnancy almost automatically condemned two people to eternal unhappiness, sorry, marriage.
I now know several women who have chosen not to get married but still have children. They generally are very happy families and well adjusted too!
It's just a different dynamic, some men are good breeding stock but with lousy parent potential
That is just your opinion. Others may view it differently.
To tell you the truth his aunt (my sister) had 4 boys out of wedlock. She was married to her 4th sons father. Not the rest. So he knows what goes on out there. He does not think anything about it one way or the other as he is a 12 year old boy and it has no relationship to HIS life. It were about Xbox or baseball he would care. If you ask him his opinion he just shrugs. My 22 year old says "Hey, to each his own" when asked what he thought about it and added "whats the difference if she were married, she would be divorced by now anyway". Hmmm...I think we have to face the facts that as much as we loved holding onto those good old fashioned values, times have changed and will change again and we just have to learn to live with this fact. Judging or condemning others whose lifestyles we don't agree with will not make a bit of difference. BTW, the 22 year old wants kids but has no intention of getting married.
And why is pregnancy a "moral" issue???
And BTW--being a single mom IS the new "morality". Only 12% of people in these United States are the 2 parent, 2 kid family with the white picket fence.Yet they STILL try to dominate! Time to leave that behind, it is not 1950 anymore. And it would do well for the schools to realize that too.
WAY too many vacations throughout the year!! SO hard to find babysitting!!
(and two of those long vacations are Christian in nature.....is THAT imposing on others???)
Why are some parents so fearful of letting their kids see that people choose a variety of different lifestyles and sometimes make choices that are different from their parents' choices? To me, a child's exposure to a different lifestyle is a teaching moment, a perfect opportunity to discuss the ramifications and consequences of decisions. Why is that so scary? It is these types of conversations that enable a parent to explore their child's perceptions and discuss with them how the choices they make can have major impacts on the type of life they will lead as adults.
Yes, and if they don't talk...they will never know what is going on....
It is VERY different! According to my 16 yr old daughter, and 11 yr old grandson---the "new" thing for kids is to be Bi-Sexual!! (not HAVING sex, but liking both sexes)
I was like----WHAT?
Either you like one or the other, how can you like both?
"It's the 'cool' thing to do".
Cool? How about messed up?? But, who am I to tell them?
You said that very well. I think I have to agree with you.
Cultural values have been stomped on for a very long time, you know.
When I was in kindergarden, every morning we had to stand and say The Pledge of Allegiance, and The Lord's Prayer.
My parents were not religious, but they didn't cause a stink about it!
Every year, we celebrated Christian Holidays, and took vacations in school for them. Not everybody was Christian, but they never made a big stink about it.
But you see what happened when they removed prayers from schools...
All of a sudden,people's "values" were being repressed?
This is just a case of changing times, and those who don't want times to change need to accept it with a little grace, imo.
After all--other people have accepted your values as being the most important for a very long time.
Just tell your kids that in America, there are a lot of different ways to have a family!
As long as people love each other, what is the gripe?
by Dan Harmon15 months ago
For some reason I've been getting emails from Mike Huckabee, running for President. They include such statements as:"I, Mike Huckabee, pledge allegiance to God, the constitution, and the citizens of the...
by Steven Escareno5 years ago
As some of you may know, Patty Jenkins was hired to direct the sequel to Thor after the Avengers. This would've made her the first female director for Marvel Studios, but it wasn't meant to be. As it turns...
by Stacie L3 years ago
Mike Huckabee says removing God from schools is to blame for shooting Huckabee answered the question, "How could God let this happen?" by saying, "We've systematically removed God from our schools. Should...
by Susan Reid5 years ago
Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum have both been suspended by Fox News. The suspension is for 60 days. If they don't announce their candidacy for president during this time, they can come back.Now, Mike Huckabee and Sarah...
by ilmdamaily6 years ago
Been grappling with this one for a while now. Can't seem to find a way out of it. Is what is "legal" equivalent to what is "moral"? The question is raised because the justification for the...
by caravalhophoto7 years ago
I think this conversation came up the other day about what to do with child rappists, kidnappers and pediphiles. Here is one on the loose that was granted clemency in 1 State, then goes to another one, suspect in...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.