Topic: Presidential Campaign 2008
Huckabee's Platform: Part 3 Today, I examine Huckabee's stand on faith and politics.by Kishi
(Centrist)
Friday, January 25, 2008
Whooooah boy. Now we come to the big one. Faith and politics. This is huge, guys. This is one of the things that Huckabee is banking on in his campaign – his appeal to the evangelistic Christian bloc.
Now, I'm going to be honest with you all – I am a theist. I won't tell you what kind I am, and I won't tell you what I think about religion, because this is a political blog. I'm not touching that intellectual battle because it's not one that anyone ever actually wins. And even if it were winnable, this isn't the place for it anyway. That's what belief.net is for. But, it came up as a plank. I will write about it. The man views it as an issue, and I want to understand.
He starts by citing the First Amendment. He says that it calls for a lack of preference or prohibition as regards religious expression. Given this, he has stated that his faith is his life, and that he won't keep the two separate. He says this is because real faith makes one more humble and mindful of our own faults. This in turn makes us less judgmental. He also sees faith as a source of strength in the face of injustice. He sums it up by stating that our nation was born in a spirit of faith that "acknowledges a providence that pervades our world."
Oh, Huck. Huck, Huck, Huck. Why did you have to say that the Constitution should be rewritten to match the standards of the living God? Mark my words: this man will complicate things for people of all faiths if he gets into the White House with these views.
What he says about the First Amendment is true. It calls for a lack of preference. That right is extended to people of every faith, including those whose faith runs counter to his own. If he isn't going to put his faith aside, that's going to lead to problems, because if he doesn't have to leave his faith outside his job then nobody else under him does either. The reality, I believe, is that these sorts of things as a rule need to be kept out for the sake of actually getting things done.
Faith, he says, "does not influence my decisions, it drives them." Well, being the driving force behind a thing is a pretty strong influence. It might make him a nice environmentalist, but I wonder about this. Lately, there's been a movement for the government to take steps to counter Roe v. Wade and the separation of Church and State, amongst others. If faith drives his decisions, I wonder what it'll drive him to? Will it drive him to embrace these measures?
Well, given what he's declared his intentions for our Constitution… we'll see.
Real faith makes one more humble and mindful of one's own faults. That's actually true. That still doesn't make a case for the direct intervention of his faith in his professional affairs as President of the United States.
He also says that faith serves as a source of strength in the face of injustice. This is also true, but it comes with a warning – your faith can have a tendency to identify injustices where others may not necessarily see them. It's very possible to set up a faith-based agenda for the world that terms such and such as an injustice, whereas other people may not agree with it. He's already made it clear that he's not willing to give up his faith for the sake of his job, and that it is the driving force behind his decisions. Therefore, it seems very likely that it will color his perception of the issues, make him see injustice where there may not necessarily be one.
Who's to say that he won't call the right to an abortion an injustice? After all, it means killing a potential human being, and murder is hardly just. But there are so many people who see it as a right and not an injustice. You know, it's just stuff like that that can come up that make his view problematic.
On the other side, I have to admit that I have a lot of respect for a man who can be so candid as he is. Huckabee has the courage to be honest about his convictions and his beliefs. Maybe it's my sentimentality showing, but I admire that in a man.
Doesn't make me agree with him, though.
Comments can only educate me.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 3 thumbs so far
2008 Kishi, all rights reserved.
Published: Friday, January 25, 2008
Last modified: Friday, January 25, 2008
The views expressed in this
article are those of Kishi only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Kishi is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
What I find most disappointing about Huckabee is that he gave up his (supposedly) God-given calling to Christian ministry and evangelism in the Church to become just another wheeling and dealing advocate for the State. I would think that helping people get their ETERNAL affairs in proper order through the Church would matter a lot more than anything you could do to improve one's purely TEMPORAL affairs through the State, so moving from working for the Church to working for the State seems like a demotion.
If Huckabee truly wants to want a make a difference in the world with his Christian faith at the forefront at that effort, then it would be much more productive for him to return to the Church and work to affect change through it and with those voluntarily associated with it rather than through the State which is characterized by force and coercion. And, I say that as a ultra-conservative Christian who believes that Christianity does not require the State's approval or financial backing in order to flourish in a society.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2008-01-28 10:52:58
As long as there are political divides, there will also be religious interpretations of those divides. As Jefferson wrote in his Bill Establishing Religious Freedom, "...to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical...." I think Jefferson was right.
I agree, Walt. Freedom of religion is what protects rational believers and nonbelievers from irrational believers and nonbelievers. It may allow these irrationals to thrive, but it protects us from each other.
This is going to be difficult for me to do, but here goes...
Huck makes a good point!
Ouch, that was hard to say, but IMO it is true. He says something which is not politically correct but it is something that many people feel yet don't know how to practise.
What kind of Religion is it that can be taken on and off like a coat? So when I go into this office I wear this coat, when I go to a different office I take the coat off. If a person can take their religion on and off like a coat then it's not much of a religion now is it? IMO a religion like that is no different than a social club.
What about members of the CFR? Do we expect them to take their CFR coat off when going into public service? If you don't agree with the philosophy of the CFR then don't elect its members into politcal offices. I assume many people would agree with that statement, but do you feel differently in regards to religion? Why?
We constantly hear it said that when it comes to politics we should ignore the person's religion. I say that's a big pile of PC bull crap. Do you ignore the fact that a politician is a member of the CFR? Do you think it will have no effect on their thought and actions? Every organization the politician is a member of may have some effect on their thought and actions - why ignore it?
This whole thing about "church and state" has been blown so far out of proportion that all we have left is political correctness - no logic, no reason, no common sense.
I admire Huck on this one point, but the only candidate truly running on a common sense platform is Ron Paul.
That’s a good point you make as regards religion, in that it can’t be put on or off like a coat or some such. It wouldn’t be a real religion otherwise.
The reason I feel differently about religion, though, is that it’s more than a philosophical system. If somebody subscribes to a philosophical point of view, it’s a simple matter of disagreeing with the guy. You subscribe to a religion, though, and everything changes. Religion dictates not only your philosophy, but also your morality, what you are accountable to, and what is justifiable. It does all of that.
Now, if this were a constitutionally Christian nation, I’d be down with the Huck. Really. As it is, though, it simply happens to be a nation with a lot of Christians in it. And by and large, sure, they’d probably be okay with a Theocrat, but what about the people of other religions who live here too? The President’s responsibility is to protect their rights as well, by upholding the Constitution, which doesn’t dictate anything as regards religion.
And sure, maybe he’d consider it his religious duty to ensure the free will of the people to make up their own darn minds. And maybe he’d consider it his religious duty to convert us all to his way of thinking. This can go either way, realistically. But given his comments as regards the Constitution, and given the recent movement to evangelize the military into a Christian force, I’m really, really worried that it’ll be the latter.
I mean, face it. If Huck was a bat-eating, blood-orgy Satanist, you’d definitely want him to put aside his religion for the office, wouldn’t you?
Now, I’m not saying we should ignore a President’s stance on religion. What I’m saying is that the ideal stance is nonpartisan, in which s/he will not allow popular religious sentiment to dictate what would be right or wrong action.
By the way, I'm glad you're enjoying my posts. I do try, really.
You also said: "I mean, face it. If Huck was a bat-eating, blood-orgy Satanist, you’d definitely want him to put aside his religion for the office, wouldn’t you?"
LOL! ROFLMAO!
Actually, I had rather he just be himself and not try to hide who he really is. If he is really a Satanist then I don't think he can simply forget all that when he walks into his office. So I had rather he be honest with us initially - so we will know not to vote for him!
However... I think the chefs at the whitehouse might enjoy the challenge of creating new recipes...
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
2008 Kishi, all rights reserved.