Arkansas Blog

Magnolia Man has an observation on one candidate's recent religion prounouncements -- Mike Huckabee. It follows:
The Bro. Huck's Miracle: Where else, Liberty University? He said that his wins are beyond the understanding of pundits- and are spiritual. 2 fishes and 5 loaves were converted into
political viability. 2 polyester suits and 5 ties were converted into fashion viability. 1 Mormon, 1 Catholic, and 1 lazy Protestant were converted into good poll numbers.

The last time the American people got stampeded into a religious presidency was: never. God is frantically trying to recover that lost call to the Bro. and tell him not to go too far -- that his reach has already exceeded his grasp and that he is about to give God a bad name. Turn Mrs. Bro. Huck and her high school classmates and church friends loose for a shopping spree in Target and let it all go.

But: God gets a busy signal. The Huckster is on the phone with Kenneth Copeland, who is getting instructions from Chuck Norris about how to choke the snake that Copeland is trying to convert by talking in tongues.

J.Brummett - "I prefer a political candidate who thinks for himself."

Freudian slip? (or negligee? : ) Is JB not on the HRC bandwagon?

Or is it just that old habits have not yet caught up to current conditions?

most likely the latter, but i think JB errs in criticizing Romney for his 'precise slicing/dicing' and 'nadia comenici'-like contortions. for it seems to me that simultaneously precise contortions and outright flip-flops are the order of the day in US politics, judging from recent poll numbers and fundraising. (not to mention, whointhehell remembers Nadia except for us 'oldtimers'?)

there are many diametrically opposed schisms in the US electorate (urban/rural, young/old, rich/poor, etc. including now male/female) that will again provide ample grist for 2008's election mill, but the fundamental (pardon the pun) battleground issue of the next 8 weeks is now the JFK question writ large.

'To what extent does/can/should a President's religious convictions determine his/her policies and actions?'

Even the DEM candidates have acknowledged the potency of this question and voting block, in so far, relatively minor ways.

In my estimation, the battle between regular church-goers and non-attendees (and including people of the book who prefer church/state not mix) will be front and center until after 5 Feb. and i would add that this battle contains within it a large concentration of the most politically active pro- and anti- Iraq war voters.

the 5 Jan debates between the Iowa caucus and the NH primary are going to be very interesting, but i suspect that whichever candidate/side of the question is most successful on 6 Feb, a large backlash will complicate both party's frontrunners for the balance of the primary season.

Robert Parham, a minister and Executive Director of the Baptist Center for Ethics, makes an important point in a Cox News Service column carried by the DoG this morning: The difference between Kennedy's problem and Romney's "is that Kennedy could affirm what many Baptists and conservative Protestants then claimed to affirm: the separation of church and state."

Our Arkansas pastor, however "avuncular," is downright dangerous in that he is willing to have rally around him religious zealots who think the government should be not separate from but an instrument of their faith and practices. Romney flunked because he accepted their framing of the issue and tried to meet the religious test they demanded. Among other things, he said our democratic government and liberty are derived from God (the same one from whom George III got his divine right to rule) and not to the consent of the governed.

I agree with Muleboy that this is "the fundamental...battleground issue of the next 8 weeks" -- and perhaps well beyond eight weeks. Religion-based government has always been disastrous for humankind; our Constitution's framers, aware of that, did not mention God in it. It may be that the struggle to keep government secular is one of the most important of our time.

The difference between Kennedy's problem and Romney's "is that Kennedy could affirm what many Baptists and conservative Protestants then claimed to affirm: the separation of church and state."

damn good catch, snap tyvm

though i do feel a bit stupid as parham's insight covers in one sentence what took me many paragraphs (and i had to work to cut mine down)

Sick and Tired of "Hearing" about Religion

by Stephen Rose | Dec 7 2007 - 4:43pm |

I hate to be so blunt, and am well aware of how some will interpret the title and opening comment, but nevertheless, there is no polite way to say it. I'm quite sick and tired of hearing about religion this, and religion that. Lately one hears a constant litany of religion, Jesus, and God etc., etc. on one side of the ocean, and religion, Mohammed and Allah etc., etc. from the other side, by people who under closer scrutiny sure don't appear to represent what they say so much as talk about it constantly. It's the old "do as I say, not as I do" syndrome, and it's getting quite wearisome.

This is particularly prevalent during the current presidential campaign in the United States. It seemed more relevant almost 50 years ago when John F. Kennedy had to tell the nation he was an American who happened to also be Catholic, but having to hear something similar in the first decade of the 21st Century by Mitt Romney is. well.a bit odd, like a giant step backwards. It might feel more natural if any of the people doing all this religious posturing actually appeared to be spiritually motivated; but as we move down the list of candidates it appears more like talk than walk. Also, is it just me, but do some of the candidates appear to be running more on a religious platform than one that actually informs us of their qualifications to run the country? We do have after all, a secular government protected by the Constitution.

Why do I so strongly object? Basically, although our nation is composed of people of many faiths and religious sects, I know this present rhetoric is mainly adopted to pander to individuals and groups based solely on their religious beliefs, and being passed off as "values." It is inherently implied in the use of such terms that the user will in some way be influenced by these values when in a position of government leadership. It's shocking just how many don't understand why religion doesn't belong in politics, and why, in fact, it's quite dangerous. Much of the present tension in the Middle East, for example, exists because of the presence of so many theocratic governments.

This type of thinking immediately brings two serious concerns to mind: 1) The constituency of just about any political leader in present day United States represents a multitude of religious diversity, reflecting many varied belief systems and values, and 2) Religious beliefs often carry with them the implicit judgment of absolute rightness, a concept that is quite dangerous in life, politics, leadership, and especially in foreign affairs, where diplomacy and compromise are the keys to success, harmony and peace. A government believing they are absolutely right, morally obligated to never compromise, and thinking anyone in disagreement must be wrong, is a disaster waiting to happen, both to its own citizens and the world in general. That should be obvious by now. I'm not going to list all the many examples of the results of such policies prevalent in today's world; the purpose of this piece is merely to state some obvious root causes, however apparently not obvious to so many.

Though the words "separation of church and state" don't appear in the Constitution there is a very good reason why Thomas Jefferson made reference to the need for "building a wall of separation between church and state" in a letter he wrote to the Danbury Baptists in 1802. In the First Amendment the Constitution does state, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The very need to clarify that no laws will be made respecting religion implies the need for freedom of religious diversity. It recognizes that such diversity already exists, and must be protected. The possibility that government might be subject to strong influence by any particular religious values is thus inherently acknowledged as being detrimental.

Consider this: How many belief systems aside from religions are so absolute in declaring what is right and wrong? In fact, many religions explicitly warn against any sort of compromise or variance from their "way." Some go as far as stating you will go to a Hell if you vary in any aspect. Others say you endanger yourself simply by hanging out with people that believe differently. Though I feel this is quite extreme, and contrary to how I perceive my own beliefs about life, I can fully comprehend why some feel they must believe their interpretation is the only true way and all others are damned. It's simply the nature of many religions to make themselves right and others wrong. It's a type of insurance policy guaranteeing their truth is "The Truth," while also justifying themselves and the lives they lead. Besides, one does not compromise when the laws and "Word" of God are concerned. The fact that they believe God is Absolute makes this understandable.

Thus I will concede that any individual or group has the inherent right, and often the necessity, to believe as they will, and practice their particular faith as they desire -- in the privacy of their own religious establishments, homes and lives. Jefferson concurred, believing, "that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship..." Of course he also adds, "that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions..."

There is a reason for those last few words. Our nation does not consist of a population only believing one way about nearly anything, nonetheless religion. It now has a population exceeding 300 million and consists of those practicing just about every religion imaginable. Many, in fact, don't believe in God. Some believe in God, but not religion, feeling that religion and spirituality don't necessarily equate. It probably doesn't matter who believes what, but it is important that the government respects what those people, as well as everyone else believes, and is willing and capable of compromising in a way they cannot.

There is no place for absolute right and wrong in a nation of free people. Though the majority may rule, this does not condone ignoring the inherent rights of all.

The great religious teachers have given us principles to live by, and did not intend for them to morph into constructs and icons that would ultimately limit the soul, instead of liberating it. Buddha taught that suffering stands in the way of happiness, and that the principle cause of suffering is attachment to desire. He attempted to teach others not to attach to the material, but rather "be in the world but not of it." We might be more familiar with the cliché about enjoying material things but not being owned or controlled by them. Jesus led by example, demonstrating how to "love one another," and "judge not lest thee be judged." Gandhi preached passive resistance, and said of himself, that he was Christian, Muslim and Hindu. He saw no real distinction between people, and certainly didn't think beliefs should separate them.

This is all common sense, and the kind of truth the heart (reflecting true self) recognizes. The mind, on the other hand, excels in taking simplicity and creating complexity. It sees right and wrong, white and black, good and evil, and revels in separateness, confusing it with independence. The heart knows we are all one at some ultimate level, linked by life and circumstance, and maybe purpose.

Perhaps it's time we learned to live by the real principles we've been taught, those that lead to the wisdom of self knowledge, and leave behind those remnants of our societal and archetypical childhood. Perchance we would benefit from moving forward and living our truths, rather than memorizing and proselytizing them until they lose all practical significance. The Golden Rule, basically the idea of treating others as you wish to be treated, is the wisdom that runs through most of the great world religions and spiritual teachings. Personally, I belief it says it all, and surmise this is the truth one finally discovers when they have reached the end of their long religious/spiritual search. It sure seems incomprehensible that the intended goal or expression of life is best demonstrated by fear, hatred, anger, violence, war and "my God is better than your God!"

I'd like to see the day when this becomes the message of our political leadership, and replaces the separation rhetoric necessitated by pandering to specific groups and individuals who have chosen to separate themselves from others. That will be the day when it is realized that if indeed there is a god, it is everyone's god, and requires nothing more than respecting ourselves and others as we would respect Him/Her/It." It will be the day when the human race, as a whole, graduates out of moral and ethical kindergarten, evolves into the levels of higher awareness, and perhaps enlightenment. Aren't we all ultimately just different acts in the same play?

my sympathies to Mr. Rose,

for despite... no, more so because of, his eloquent plea and argument,
i expect the next five years at least are going to be a living hell for him.

tyvm rlr, had to read that one twice.

I figure the chasvs of the world think I get a thrill from denying God and his boy Jesus. I don't. I'd much rather the subject of religion never came up. Notice I didn't say I wish religion would die....if you keep it to yourself, I don't care how many snakes you handle or if you think Jesus hovers over you making sure you don't bump into sharp corners. I honestly don't care.

If religion was kept in the church buildings where it belongs, I'd happily live my life 20 feet away from one of the largest churches in the state. Except for them tearing down 60+ houses in my neighborhood, I wish them no harm. They mow their grass and pick up their litter and since they've torn everything down, they don't even park in my yard any more.

But religion and men and women with a religious agenda have no place in our government. Ruling by the Bible or the Koran is plumb dangerous. There are over 4300 known kinds of religions in the world. There are 57 brands of Baptist alone. Just to get some kind of an idea.....these religious groups behave all the way from Quakers sitting in silence to people who strap bombs to their chests.

passage of time

We dropped off a kid at the Alma Performing Arts Center tonight to see a most excellent Annie Get Your Gun performed by the drama department of Alma High School. The rest of us went north of Alma to a most wonderful old catfish restaurant. To kill some time after we gorged, we decided to go down Fine Springs Road and look for the grave of Mitt Romney's great great grandfather Parley P. Pratt. Grandpa Parley had 12 wives. The ex husband of number 12 took exception to his woman being stolen and chased down Mormon Mitt's great great grandfather and kilt him dead 150 years ago. It was too bad it was too dark to find old dead Parley tonight....it would have been a good celebration of Mitt's recent speech.

I'll go one better than Huckabee, though I think they're nuts, I've never thought Mormons were anything but Christians. But remember Tony Alamo is a Christian too. Want Tony running your government? Nah.....me either. We've got too damn many problems these days to be wasting time talking about a candidate's beliefs in magic. Relegate religion back to a hobby and I'll never mention it again, the world will be a happier, safer place and maybe our government will govern faster and better and with tons less bullshit. Keep government out of religion and religion out of government!

Mark this: by the end of February, no matter the respective nominees this religion bullshit will matter little. We will be back to voting like Americans have voted for 70 years, with our pocketbooks. By Feburary Bernanke will have done all he can to save a dollar-disaster. Amongst all this religiosity being tossed around by dumbasses inthe MSM, there is a crisis going on. Two days ago the Arabs announced they will be trading oil NOT in dollars but in other currencies.

By July-Sept health care and jobs will be ruling this campaign and Huck's "Fair Tax" bullshit will be displayed for what it will exactly due to low-middle income people, rip them a new one.

God may be "in" today but tomorrow it will be my god, money, that rules the debate.
.