And you’ll be surprised (or maybe you won’t) at how many people take what I say in a satirical vein as literal truth – look at the hate mail Jonathan Swift got for penning his book “A Modest Propsal” because people though he actually intended the Irish to eat their own children.

I am always amazed at the number of people who don't seem to "get" satire at all. I remember the time a former youth pastor (I was an adult youth volunteer at the time) came in an gave us a copy of that Onion article that "quotes" J.K. Rowling as claiming to be a Satanist. He thought it was for real and brought it to us because he knew we liked Harry Potter. I had to explain to him that it was from The Onion, and then had to explain to him that The Onion was satire and therefore was not a reliable source of information.

For example, when my first book came out, a priest posted one of her sermons online that railed against the current crop of politics and faith books – she cited my book "Red and Blue Church, Black and Blue God" (The actual book title is "Red and Blue God, Black and Blue Church") as the worst stating I was promoting beating up God. I emailed the church office asking if they could kindly correct this point, adding that the point of the book was when we make God out to be a member of a particular party, the church becomes a political pawn and thus loses its ability to be a prophetic witness to the world. No answer. Fortunately the sermon has now gone offline.

Also, I've lost track of the number of times I've interviewed someone for The Door and I get mail that goes something like this … In your interview with (insert controversial interviewee), I can't believe you think that … when all I am doing is allowing the subject to tell their story and ask probing Qs as need be.

And you'll be surprised (or maybe you won't) at how many people take what I say in a satirical vein as literal truth – look at the hate mail Jonathan Swift got for penning his book "A Modest Propsal" because people though he actually intended the Irish to eat their own children.

I can see if a journalist wanted Huckabee's sermons because they wanted to do an in-depth piece about Huckabee's faith journey. I would hope that his theology has developed over the past twenty years – I know my thinking has been greatly shaped by the recent works of N.T. Wright, Brian McLaren and John Caputo – three authors that weren't on my radar when I was at Divinity School back in the '90s. But something tells me they'll be trolling for bits they can extrapolate and use out of context against him.

I'm not saying I support Huckabee – his Christmas message poltical ad and a few other moves that have made Huckabee and Mitt Romney major Door fodder. (See http://www.wittenburgdoor.com). Yes, other candidates are doing some rather silly spiritual slip-ups and they will be satirized as warranted.

Honestly, and this sounds cynical I guess, I think Huckabee doesn't release them because his is an art of pandering. Pandering doesn't work if it's broadcast widely, and from what I can tell Huckabee sought political advancement through ministry, and that meant saying what he thought people would want to hear.

Who knows what he actually believes? I suspect it depends on the audience in front of him.

Now this whole comment probably just cancelled out my delightfully conservative Theology of Culture papers.

That's why I like Obama's response to questions about earlier marijuana use. Did he inhale? "Yes," he said. "That was the point." He doesn't smoke it anymore so let's move on.

I'm a model citizen now … but I was nearly arrested for shop lifting in college and smoked pot. Who can stand? And who knows their own future? Why the media expects such perfection from the past in politicians is beyond me. I expect that they behave themselves now, while they're in office … but the past is in the past and only reveals that they're human.