Huckabee supposedly said last night at a campaign event in Michigan that the Constitution should be amended to ban both abortion and gay marriage to keep it in line with God.
Said Huck: "And that's what we need to do, is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards."
I didn't know it was an either-or, as in either we have to change the Constitution to get in line with what some people think are God's laws, or we have to change God's laws. What a bunch of ridiculous nonsense.
God's laws are perfectly fine the way they are, though there remains some disgreement about what they are. For example, while many people think abortion violates the law that thou shalt not kill, many of these same people think war does not.
Nevertheless, there is no reason that the Constitution must be in line with God's laws, whatever they really are. The Constitution is a secular document, not a religious document. I suspect Huck has never read it and is one of the millions of dolts in this country who mistakenly think God or the commandments are invoked in the Constitution.
If he did say this, Huckabee's candidacy has to be crushed. Bush with his coded language and fake religiosity was bad enough - this guy is certifiable. Amending the Constitution for religious reasons is one of the most dangerous things I can think of.
Showing posts with label Huckabee. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Huckabee. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Returning to the Dark Ages
I really, really don't like having the negative view of organized religion that I have these days.
I'm not talking about faith, or spirituality, or one's search for meaning in the universe, or even the sincere practice of a faith that encourages one to love one's enemies and care for one's neighbor.
I'm talking about the many negative manifestations of organized religion today in this country and around the world, manifestations that are self-righteous, arrogant, petty, hateful, and even deadly.
We are all familiar with the self-righteous ramblings of radical Muslims, and their call for jihad against the West, as well as their unconscionable acts, but should we not also be appalled by the Christians and Jews among us who are war's biggest cheerleaders and torture's apologists?
And what are we to think of the Catholic Church scandal involving the molestation of children by priests, and the multiple scandals in evangelical churches involving secret homosexual affairs by ministers even as they rail against homosexuality? The hypocrisy, of course, is stunning.
And now, religion has entered the presidential race in full force.
The Republican Party has been showing great deference to the evangelical community for years now, even as its leaders like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell insist Americans brought 9/11 on themselves, but the presence of a Mormon in the Republican field has made the specter of religion in politics even more absurd, if not dangerous.
Today, for instance, candidate Mike Huckabee, soft voiced, dewey eyed, dimple cheeked minister, with the name reminiscent of that beloved urchin created by Mark Twain, asked if rival Mitt Romney didn't believe Satan was the brother of Jesus. Though he later apologized and acted as if he meant no harm, the horrible word was out: Mitt Romney believes Satan and Jesus are in the same family. Now this is, to the best of my understanding, part of the rather convoluted dogma of Mormons, but how different is it really than believing that Lucifer was once the brightest and most important of all the angels, which is what Christians believe? It isn't all that different. Both are part of the complex narratives each religion tells. (Some of the things I was taught in Catholic school were real doozies, but let's not go there.) However, the very fact that Huckabee would bring this up, knowing how it would inflame Evangelical Christians, shows just how viscious he can be, and how dogmatic he knows many Americans to be, when it comes to religion.
At first, it seemed the republicans might embrace the Mormon Mitt Romney as an acceptable candidate, mostly because Rudy Giuliani was pro-choice and didn't hate gays, and no other candidate seemed capable of beating the democrats. He seemed nice enough, his looks were Reaganesque, and he was a white guy, but that religion thing just wouldn't go away. Apparently a group of evangelical home schooling parents in Iowa who couldn't stomach a Romney presidency began supporting Huckabee big time, and his candidacy has taken off. Now that it seems he can win, the evangelicals are flocking to support him, because, after all, it doesn't matter to them who might have the best economic or foreign policies or who might be the best leader, it only matters what one's religious beliefs are.
This, of course, is why our founders wanted to keep church and state separate, and why they said there must be no religious test for candidates for public office. They wanted to protect us from the kind of nonsense that ensues when we begin judging candidates on the basis of the church they attend and the religious dogma they embrace.
I thought we had gotten over this when Kennedy was elected president and proved that his religion had nothing to do with his presidential decision making. Fears of the pope sending orders to Kennedy, of course, were never realized and Kennedy is revered today by both Protestants and Catholics. But something has changed today. We seem to be in a big hurry to return to the Dark Ages when faith trumped reason, and religious affiliation was somehow proof of one's character and worthiness.
We should all remember how all of that turned out. The Crusades and the Inquisition, the two bloody and vicious historical events that pitted groups of believers against other groups of believers, are permanent blights on Christianity. Huckabee's attack (and other attacks circulating on the internet) may not be of the same severity as the attacks of the Inquisition, but they are in the same tradition.
Fortunately, the Dark Ages gave way to the Age of Reason and the Enlightenment, which is what inspired our founders to create this nation and to separate church from state.
Now, it seems, some in the Republican Party want to join church with state again, not formally of course, at least not yet, but informally, through whispering political campaigns, and slipping "innocent" questions about someone's faith into an interview, or as Romney did, implying that atheists and agnostics are simply not good Americans, or as others are doing, using Barack Obama's ancestry to imply he might be a "secret Muslim."
When it comes right down to it, the problem is dogma, i.e. beliefs that are held as absolute, mostly because some "prophet" or group of anonymous writers or preachers declare them to be the truth. Most dogmas contain truly unbelievable things to those who don't share the faith. Not being a Mormon or a Muslim, the belief in the "revelations" to Joseph Smith and Muhammad seem far fetched to me, but then as a Catholic, I have to admit that the teachings about guardian angels, Limbo, Purgatory, and indulgences are pretty out there as well. And the evangelical belief that the earth is only 6000 years old and that someday the good will be "raptured" up into heaven leaving behind their beloved family members, not to mention their clothes, is pure fiction to me. But it doesn't matter what I think or what anyone thinks about one's own or another's religion as long as it doesn't force its way into our politics.
In this country that was founded by wise and enlightened men, who professed many different faiths, there should be no need to debate our religious beliefs. All of us have some nutty teachings in our religions, at least nutty to those outside. So what? We are free to believe what we want about God and spiritual things in this country, and that is what makes us such a great nation. So why do we want to blow it by getting all worked up about what one group believes vs. another group? Do we want to divide the nation even more than it is already divided?
A focus on the religious beliefs of the candidates is simply a distraction from the things that do matter in this presidential campaign, like the war in Iraq, health care, poverty, the shrinking middle class, the environment and global warming, the need to find alternative sources of fuel, the population explosion that threatens to deplete the earth's resources, AIDS, the housing crisis, and so on. I want to hear about those things, not about the candidate's prayer habits or his religion's dogma. Have we forgotten so soon that Saint Ronny of California, the Republican patron saint, and Blessed Nancy, his wife, rarely attended church and brought astrologers into the White House? Perhaps in today's climate, Saint Ronny would have had to drop out before the second debate.
These attacks on people for their religious beliefs are part of the dark side of organized religion, and they both anger and terrify me. Not only does this intolerance divide us from each other, it ensures the ignorance and laziness of certain citizens when it comes to governance and voting. It is much easier to vote for a candidate on the basis of one issue, such as gay marriage or abortion, than to do the hard work of finding out all the policy positions of the candidate and the broad direction in which he or she wants to take the country. And it is much easier to simply believe God will guide the nation and anoint the leader, and then whisper his choice to you through your minister, than it is to educate yourself as a citizen.
It can't be said often enough that we are electing a president, not a saint, a theologian, or a holy man. We should be looking for courage and wisdom and maturity and stability and the ability to remain steadfast when trouble comes. We know that the pressures on any president are enormous. If prayer gives the president courage and strength to endure, terrific! If he gets his courage and wisdom from some other source, who cares? His religion, or even his lack of faith, should not matter. What should matter is his competence, his trustworthiness, and his vision for this country we all claim to love.
What shouldn't matter is whether he believes Lucifer was an angel or the brother of Jesus.
I'm not talking about faith, or spirituality, or one's search for meaning in the universe, or even the sincere practice of a faith that encourages one to love one's enemies and care for one's neighbor.
I'm talking about the many negative manifestations of organized religion today in this country and around the world, manifestations that are self-righteous, arrogant, petty, hateful, and even deadly.
We are all familiar with the self-righteous ramblings of radical Muslims, and their call for jihad against the West, as well as their unconscionable acts, but should we not also be appalled by the Christians and Jews among us who are war's biggest cheerleaders and torture's apologists?
And what are we to think of the Catholic Church scandal involving the molestation of children by priests, and the multiple scandals in evangelical churches involving secret homosexual affairs by ministers even as they rail against homosexuality? The hypocrisy, of course, is stunning.
And now, religion has entered the presidential race in full force.
The Republican Party has been showing great deference to the evangelical community for years now, even as its leaders like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell insist Americans brought 9/11 on themselves, but the presence of a Mormon in the Republican field has made the specter of religion in politics even more absurd, if not dangerous.
Today, for instance, candidate Mike Huckabee, soft voiced, dewey eyed, dimple cheeked minister, with the name reminiscent of that beloved urchin created by Mark Twain, asked if rival Mitt Romney didn't believe Satan was the brother of Jesus. Though he later apologized and acted as if he meant no harm, the horrible word was out: Mitt Romney believes Satan and Jesus are in the same family. Now this is, to the best of my understanding, part of the rather convoluted dogma of Mormons, but how different is it really than believing that Lucifer was once the brightest and most important of all the angels, which is what Christians believe? It isn't all that different. Both are part of the complex narratives each religion tells. (Some of the things I was taught in Catholic school were real doozies, but let's not go there.) However, the very fact that Huckabee would bring this up, knowing how it would inflame Evangelical Christians, shows just how viscious he can be, and how dogmatic he knows many Americans to be, when it comes to religion.
At first, it seemed the republicans might embrace the Mormon Mitt Romney as an acceptable candidate, mostly because Rudy Giuliani was pro-choice and didn't hate gays, and no other candidate seemed capable of beating the democrats. He seemed nice enough, his looks were Reaganesque, and he was a white guy, but that religion thing just wouldn't go away. Apparently a group of evangelical home schooling parents in Iowa who couldn't stomach a Romney presidency began supporting Huckabee big time, and his candidacy has taken off. Now that it seems he can win, the evangelicals are flocking to support him, because, after all, it doesn't matter to them who might have the best economic or foreign policies or who might be the best leader, it only matters what one's religious beliefs are.
This, of course, is why our founders wanted to keep church and state separate, and why they said there must be no religious test for candidates for public office. They wanted to protect us from the kind of nonsense that ensues when we begin judging candidates on the basis of the church they attend and the religious dogma they embrace.
I thought we had gotten over this when Kennedy was elected president and proved that his religion had nothing to do with his presidential decision making. Fears of the pope sending orders to Kennedy, of course, were never realized and Kennedy is revered today by both Protestants and Catholics. But something has changed today. We seem to be in a big hurry to return to the Dark Ages when faith trumped reason, and religious affiliation was somehow proof of one's character and worthiness.
We should all remember how all of that turned out. The Crusades and the Inquisition, the two bloody and vicious historical events that pitted groups of believers against other groups of believers, are permanent blights on Christianity. Huckabee's attack (and other attacks circulating on the internet) may not be of the same severity as the attacks of the Inquisition, but they are in the same tradition.
Fortunately, the Dark Ages gave way to the Age of Reason and the Enlightenment, which is what inspired our founders to create this nation and to separate church from state.
Now, it seems, some in the Republican Party want to join church with state again, not formally of course, at least not yet, but informally, through whispering political campaigns, and slipping "innocent" questions about someone's faith into an interview, or as Romney did, implying that atheists and agnostics are simply not good Americans, or as others are doing, using Barack Obama's ancestry to imply he might be a "secret Muslim."
When it comes right down to it, the problem is dogma, i.e. beliefs that are held as absolute, mostly because some "prophet" or group of anonymous writers or preachers declare them to be the truth. Most dogmas contain truly unbelievable things to those who don't share the faith. Not being a Mormon or a Muslim, the belief in the "revelations" to Joseph Smith and Muhammad seem far fetched to me, but then as a Catholic, I have to admit that the teachings about guardian angels, Limbo, Purgatory, and indulgences are pretty out there as well. And the evangelical belief that the earth is only 6000 years old and that someday the good will be "raptured" up into heaven leaving behind their beloved family members, not to mention their clothes, is pure fiction to me. But it doesn't matter what I think or what anyone thinks about one's own or another's religion as long as it doesn't force its way into our politics.
In this country that was founded by wise and enlightened men, who professed many different faiths, there should be no need to debate our religious beliefs. All of us have some nutty teachings in our religions, at least nutty to those outside. So what? We are free to believe what we want about God and spiritual things in this country, and that is what makes us such a great nation. So why do we want to blow it by getting all worked up about what one group believes vs. another group? Do we want to divide the nation even more than it is already divided?
A focus on the religious beliefs of the candidates is simply a distraction from the things that do matter in this presidential campaign, like the war in Iraq, health care, poverty, the shrinking middle class, the environment and global warming, the need to find alternative sources of fuel, the population explosion that threatens to deplete the earth's resources, AIDS, the housing crisis, and so on. I want to hear about those things, not about the candidate's prayer habits or his religion's dogma. Have we forgotten so soon that Saint Ronny of California, the Republican patron saint, and Blessed Nancy, his wife, rarely attended church and brought astrologers into the White House? Perhaps in today's climate, Saint Ronny would have had to drop out before the second debate.
These attacks on people for their religious beliefs are part of the dark side of organized religion, and they both anger and terrify me. Not only does this intolerance divide us from each other, it ensures the ignorance and laziness of certain citizens when it comes to governance and voting. It is much easier to vote for a candidate on the basis of one issue, such as gay marriage or abortion, than to do the hard work of finding out all the policy positions of the candidate and the broad direction in which he or she wants to take the country. And it is much easier to simply believe God will guide the nation and anoint the leader, and then whisper his choice to you through your minister, than it is to educate yourself as a citizen.
It can't be said often enough that we are electing a president, not a saint, a theologian, or a holy man. We should be looking for courage and wisdom and maturity and stability and the ability to remain steadfast when trouble comes. We know that the pressures on any president are enormous. If prayer gives the president courage and strength to endure, terrific! If he gets his courage and wisdom from some other source, who cares? His religion, or even his lack of faith, should not matter. What should matter is his competence, his trustworthiness, and his vision for this country we all claim to love.
What shouldn't matter is whether he believes Lucifer was an angel or the brother of Jesus.
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Minister, Mormon, Muslim?
Mitt Romney gave his "don't disqualify me because I'm a Mormon" speech today, trying to fend off Mike Huckabee's surge among evangelical Christians. He spoke some moving words about religious freedom and tried to convince listeners that people of faith are all alike (until he talked about Muslims later in the speech). But he indicated that the president should be a man of faith, and should represent all people of faith in America. What he did not say is that the president represents all people in America, period. In fact, for blatant political reasons, he attacked people who profess no religion. He said:
"We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion. But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism. They are wrong."
In this deliberate slap at atheists, agnostics, and also people of faith who believe in a much clearer separation of church and state than most of the republican candidates, Romney is saying it is important to have religion in politics, and those who wish to have less religion in politics are somehow less worthy as Americans.
Romney also referred to the founders' determination not to have a religious test for candidates for public office, but instead of agreeing with them, Romney was basically implying that there is a test, and he has passed it. By saying a president must be a person of faith, Romney was instituting his own test, which would exclude atheists and agnostics as viable candidates for the presidency.
What Romney, and many in the Republican Party don't seem to grasp is that it is possible to consider oneself a member of a religious faith, or a very spiritual person with no specific religious affiliation, and still desire a secular society. There is no secular "religion" that I know of, but there is a desire on the part of some of us, including some with deep religious faith, to keep religion out of politics, because when you don't keep religion out of politics you get two things: insisting God has anointed you as candidate, or using religion as a weapon against an opponent.
The current religious test that many evangelicals seem determined to administer is one that says one must be an evangelical Christian to be president. This is why Romney, a Mormon, felt he had to give this speech today. It is also why you hear ordained Baptist minister Mike Huckabee saying, in response to a question about what accounts for his rise in the polls, that it was God responding to all the people praying for his candidacy. "It is the same power," he said, "that helped a little boy with two fish and five loaves feed a crowd of 500 people."
When politics and religion get all mixed up together you get this kind of response. You get Mike Huckabee in 2007 implying that God wants his candidacy to succeed, and you have George W. Bush in 1998 saying he believed God was calling him to be president.
At the same time, you have slanderous emails saying Barack Obama, a devout Christian, is a secret Muslim, who is hiding his real faith and who is a tool of al Qaeda who will help them destroy America from within. Anyone who has followed the candidacy of Barack Obama knows this to be absurd, but if you mix politics and religion, (and in this case paranoid fears of terrorism) and if you set up an informal religious test for the presidency, then all you have to do to succeed in getting yourself or your candidate elected is to prove you meet the test and your opponents do not.
Huckabee, like Bush before him, is sending signals to evangelicals that he passes the test, while Romney and Obama are faced with an uphill climb just to prove they are worthy. Romney, a Mormon, must prove Mormonism isn't that different from Christianity, while Obama, a Christian, must prove that he did not adopt his father's Muslim faith.
If we really honored the intent of the founders to disavow any religious test for public office, they wouldn't even be in that position, and those who are attacking them wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
I do not believe what the Mormons believe, and as an outsider I view some of their beliefs as more like science fiction, but I also don't think Mitt Romney would bring his religious beliefs into the presidency, nor allow leaders of the Mormon Church to tell him what to do. I know Barack Obama is not a Muslim, and having a Muslim father (who left the family when he was a baby) and having lived in a Muslim country for a few years doesn't make him one. And I also don't think Obama would allow his Christian pastor to influence his decisions as president.
There are many things worse than promoting a secular society where people are free to practice any religion they want even as they keep it out of politics and government. One of them is ending up with George W. Bush as president. The others are voting for candidates because they profess the "right" religion, or demonizing them in the name of religion.
"We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion. But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism. They are wrong."
In this deliberate slap at atheists, agnostics, and also people of faith who believe in a much clearer separation of church and state than most of the republican candidates, Romney is saying it is important to have religion in politics, and those who wish to have less religion in politics are somehow less worthy as Americans.
Romney also referred to the founders' determination not to have a religious test for candidates for public office, but instead of agreeing with them, Romney was basically implying that there is a test, and he has passed it. By saying a president must be a person of faith, Romney was instituting his own test, which would exclude atheists and agnostics as viable candidates for the presidency.
What Romney, and many in the Republican Party don't seem to grasp is that it is possible to consider oneself a member of a religious faith, or a very spiritual person with no specific religious affiliation, and still desire a secular society. There is no secular "religion" that I know of, but there is a desire on the part of some of us, including some with deep religious faith, to keep religion out of politics, because when you don't keep religion out of politics you get two things: insisting God has anointed you as candidate, or using religion as a weapon against an opponent.
The current religious test that many evangelicals seem determined to administer is one that says one must be an evangelical Christian to be president. This is why Romney, a Mormon, felt he had to give this speech today. It is also why you hear ordained Baptist minister Mike Huckabee saying, in response to a question about what accounts for his rise in the polls, that it was God responding to all the people praying for his candidacy. "It is the same power," he said, "that helped a little boy with two fish and five loaves feed a crowd of 500 people."
When politics and religion get all mixed up together you get this kind of response. You get Mike Huckabee in 2007 implying that God wants his candidacy to succeed, and you have George W. Bush in 1998 saying he believed God was calling him to be president.
At the same time, you have slanderous emails saying Barack Obama, a devout Christian, is a secret Muslim, who is hiding his real faith and who is a tool of al Qaeda who will help them destroy America from within. Anyone who has followed the candidacy of Barack Obama knows this to be absurd, but if you mix politics and religion, (and in this case paranoid fears of terrorism) and if you set up an informal religious test for the presidency, then all you have to do to succeed in getting yourself or your candidate elected is to prove you meet the test and your opponents do not.
Huckabee, like Bush before him, is sending signals to evangelicals that he passes the test, while Romney and Obama are faced with an uphill climb just to prove they are worthy. Romney, a Mormon, must prove Mormonism isn't that different from Christianity, while Obama, a Christian, must prove that he did not adopt his father's Muslim faith.
If we really honored the intent of the founders to disavow any religious test for public office, they wouldn't even be in that position, and those who are attacking them wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
I do not believe what the Mormons believe, and as an outsider I view some of their beliefs as more like science fiction, but I also don't think Mitt Romney would bring his religious beliefs into the presidency, nor allow leaders of the Mormon Church to tell him what to do. I know Barack Obama is not a Muslim, and having a Muslim father (who left the family when he was a baby) and having lived in a Muslim country for a few years doesn't make him one. And I also don't think Obama would allow his Christian pastor to influence his decisions as president.
There are many things worse than promoting a secular society where people are free to practice any religion they want even as they keep it out of politics and government. One of them is ending up with George W. Bush as president. The others are voting for candidates because they profess the "right" religion, or demonizing them in the name of religion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)