Or, “Why Religion And Politics Don’t Mix”
So what does the introductory scene from Conan the Barbarian have to do with the race for 2008? Well, aside from being super-cool, it illustrates a very important point about human government in our 21st Century Western society, and one that some of our GOP presidential candidates, and their supporters at the grassroots level, seem to have forgotten.
It has been said that the modern-day GOP consists of two wings: the right and the far-right. That old yarn certainly seems to hold true among some of today’s religious and social conservatives, who are currently engaged in an intra-movement spat over two presidential candidates, one of whom believes freedom necessitates a god and another who proclaims that there is no god but God. In one corner, we have Gov. Romney, who recently had this to say about the relationship between religion and liberty:
Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.
According to Gov. Romney, there can be no freedom without religion. Never mind the fact that men are born free, only to see their freedom taken away by other men, some using the cloth as justification. But no matter. I suppose that means that, as president, Romney would see it as his duty to preserve freedom by using the state to protect religion from the natural social and cultural changes that are yielding a more rational, secular society — with atheists, agnostics, and the generally areligious transformed into second-class citizens. I can hardly wait. But in an ironic twist of fate, even this message is too mushy for today’s true-believers. For, in the other corner, stands a man who advocates not just a government that favors religion, but one that is based on a specific sect of a specific religion. Check out this Huck quote on those rascally gays:
I believe to try to legitimize that which is inherently illegitimate would be a disgraceful act of government. I feel homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural and sinful lifestyle, and we now know it can pose a dangerous public health risk.
According to Huckabee, the federal government of the United States should be based on a very specific measure of legitimacy that, in the aforementioned instance, adjudicates homosexuality as sinful. And what sort of measure of legitimacy is that? Why, the orthodoxy of fundamentalist Protestantism, of course! Huckabee, you see, thinks Romney’s religionist/secularist dichotomy is for sissies. With Huck, it’s the evangelicals against everyone else. With Romney, we get a government that favors religion over non-religion. With Huckabee, we get a government that favors one specific religion over all the others.
I have to admit that I am engaging in a healthy, but not inappropriate, bit of Schadenfreude in this instance, given that, for the past 18 months, I’ve been a lone voice crying in the wilderness, warning of the dangers of inviting vast numbers of new voters into politics via a sectarian agenda. The transformation of Mitt Romney from a Northeastern, corporatist, empirical Republican that I might have voted for into the favorite son of all of the Santorumite Catholics over at NRO is a testament to the sloppiness of Rovian politics. And the elevation of a religious liberal with a theology degree to near-frontrunner status in the race for the Republican presidential nomination is the icing on the cake that Rove has so poorly constructed. I can only hope that the Romney/Huckabee steel cage match topples the Potemkin village, as Huckabee supporters come to realize that political conservatism is not the governmental arm of evangelical Christianity and as Romney supporters get a glimpse of the slippery slope of a faith-based politics.
But what culture warriors in both the Romney and Huckabee camps need to learn is that human government is much like the “secret of steel” referenced in the Conan clip at the beginning of the post. For millennia, man has attempted to base his government on the will and wisdom of extra-natural authorities. Prophets ascended to mountaintops and descended with the alleged will of an omnipotent deity. Kings and emperors claimed divine authority over their people. But the United States government is based on none of that. Instead, our government is based on a specific set of rights enumerated in our Constitution. And that Constitution, that Bill of Rights, was crafted by men. Not gods. Not prophets. Just men. For the Founders, in their wisdom, knew that no government in this world could we trust. Not potentates. Not princes. Not priests. But the Bill of Rights — this we can trust. Perhaps it’s time for the elements of the Republican base that created the Romney/Huckabee battle for Iowa to come to the same realization that the Founders did after observing the failure of the church/state hybrids of the Old World. True, human government is inherently fallible. But it’s all we’ve got. Despite what some folks seem to believe, no one has a direct line to an omnipotent, omniscient being who can prevent us from making our own mistakes as we progress as a society. Instead, we have to rely on our experience, our rationality, and our reason as we attempt to govern ourselves, always with the humble realization that we are ultimately just men.
December 13th, 2007 at 10:13 pm
DaveG,
You’re messed up, man…really messed up…
December 13th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
What would the governor of California think of this post, given that he is featured at the top?
December 13th, 2007 at 10:21 pm
Thulsa Doom ‘08!
December 13th, 2007 at 10:21 pm
Correction: given that his breakthrough film is featured at the top, although he is not in the clip DaveG uses, per se…
December 13th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
Aethiesm is a religion (set of beliefs) just like any other religion. This would be like posting an article promoting any other religion. Come can we please get over the religion thing and move on!?
December 13th, 2007 at 10:23 pm
“According to Gov. Romney, there can be no freedom without religion. Never mind the fact that men are born free, only to see their freedom taken away by other men, some using the cloth as justification. But no matter. I suppose that means that, as president, Romney would see it as his duty to preserve freedom by using the state to protect religion from the natural social and cultural changes that are yielding a more rational, secular society — with atheists, agnostics, and the generally areligious transformed into second-class citizens.”
You know, without a recognition of a higher power, that creates man and gives them the “freedom” you say they are born with, government becomes the highest and most powerful authority. One of the driving forces behind protect the freedom of men is that recognition that we answer to a power higher than some “dear leader”.
I’m respected you in the past Dave, I’ve thought that you were overly-negative at point, but I’ve respected you as an informed political mind. I take all that back. You’ve come out as a real anti-religous jackass in this post.
December 13th, 2007 at 10:25 pm
You know, without a recognition of a higher power, that creates man and gives them the “freedom†you say they are born with, government becomes the highest and most powerful authority. One of the driving forces behind protect the freedom of men is that recognition that we answer to a power higher than some “dear leaderâ€. I’m respected you in the past Dave, I’ve thought that you were overly-negative at point, but I’ve respected you as an informed political mind. I take all that back. You’ve come out as a real anti-religous jackass in this post.
Get it, Dave? If you’re not religious, not only does he disagree with you, but you are no longer informed. Plus, you’re a jackass. And negative.
December 13th, 2007 at 10:28 pm
another thing, you talk about “the slippery slope of a faith-based politics.”, but you seem to forget that there is another slippery slope in the opposite direction.
You might say that having morals and values as a basis for laws leads to theocracy, but completely removing god and morality from public life leads to forcing religion and religious people behind locked doors. I think the USSR and Communist China have/had some experience in that department.
December 13th, 2007 at 10:29 pm
“I didn’t get into politics because I thought government had a better answer. I got into politics because I knew government didn’t have the real answers, that the real answers lie in accepting Jesus Christ into our lives.”
“I’m often asked why taxes are so high and government is so big. It’s because the faith we have in local churches has become so small. If we’d been doing what we should have — giving a dime from every dollar to help the widows, the orphans and the poor — we now wouldn’t be giving nearly 50 cents of every dollar to a government that’s doing … what we should have been doing all along.”
-Mike Huckabee, Pastor in Chief
December 13th, 2007 at 10:30 pm
“And negative.”
That comes from his “the sky is falling” posts earlier this year, not from this post.
December 13th, 2007 at 10:30 pm
Didn’t realize that wanting to keep religion and government separate was anti-religious jackassery.
Men are born free, slaves only to the limits that nature puts on them. Governments are man-made inventions that take freedom away from men. But without government there is anarchy, which results in the strong enslaving the weak. Therefore, the goal of government should be to ensure the freedom of each individual by only interfering when one individual’s freedom runs into the freedom of another individual. This is the basis for a rights-based, small-l liberal society. And it does not necessitate religion by any means.
December 13th, 2007 at 10:33 pm
You might say that having morals and values as a basis for laws leads to theocracy, but completely removing god and morality from public life leads to forcing religion and religious people behind locked doors. I think the USSR and Communist China have/had some experience in that department.
Oh, God. Please get out of this party! I’m going to go crazy! I can’t stay in this party if you people keep running it! Huckabee or Romney? I’m outta here! I can’t take you people — telling me that I have no morals, that my type of thinking (rationality) led to the USSR (it didn’t: the USSR is not an example of what happens to society when it becomes too rational.)
WE DON’T WANT TO PUT YOU BEHIND LOCKED DOORS. WE JUST DON’T WANT YOU TO LEGISLATE THE BIBLE (or the parts of it that you like, anyway).
December 13th, 2007 at 10:34 pm
Can someone please tell me why there is a article promoting the religion of Atheism on the front page? You have every right to be an Atheist but please this isn’t the site to promote your faith.
December 13th, 2007 at 10:34 pm
“With Romney, we get a government that favors religion over non-religion.”
How do you figure that? More like, you get a government that doesn’t favor the non-religious over the religious. You get a government that represents all people, not just those with contempt for religion. You get a government where values are a priority, rather than an afterthought.
December 13th, 2007 at 10:34 pm
“I suppose that means that, as president, Romney would see it as his duty to preserve freedom by using the state to protect religion from the natural social and cultural changes that are yielding a more rational, secular society — with atheists, agnostics, and the generally areligious transformed into second-class citizens.”
What an absurd characterization of Romney’s speech. His speech was on faith; it wasn’t on a lack of faith, and we’ve advanced to a sad state indeed when political requires that you include atheists in any discussion, no matter how unrelated. The “Freedom Requires Religion” line was an extension of a philosophical concept with a long lineage, and which has been advanced by the deeply faithful and mildly spiritual alike.
“But the United States government is based on none of that. Instead, our government is based on a specific set of rights enumerated in our Constitution. And that Constitution, that Bill of Rights, was crafted by men. Not gods. Not prophets. Just men. For the Founders, in their wisdom, knew that no government in this world could we trust. Not potentates. Not princes. Not priests. But the Bill of Rights — this we can trust.”
A poor rewrite of history. The Constitution is not based on “a specific set of rights”. The founders only reluctantly included a Bill of Rights, and they certainly never thought it was central to the document. The constitution is about the powers and structure of government. It’s a legal document, and a good one, but it’s not some airy “reason churning” factory of secularism.
This post reminds me a bit of something I said at the beginning of the Huckaboom; if I have one side of the party demanding complete secularism, empiricism, and materialism both in government and life, and the other side offering a soft left traditionalism, I’ll reject the false dichotomy and go take a nap. I neither think government should be based on religious convictions, nor hostile to them; and I think an America that fails to acknowledge it’s debt to faith, is an America not of men, but of small men. Governor Romney spoke of this eloquently and graciously, and I think your attempt to turn him into an extremist does you no credit.
December 13th, 2007 at 10:34 pm
“And that Constitution, that Bill of Rights, was crafted by men. Not gods. Not prophets. Just men.”
I think those great men who crafted our constitution were inspired to do so. Until that point, men have attempted countless times to form many types of governments. Something happened at this time with these men, our founders, which started in motion the greatest nation upon the face of the Earth.
DaveG, God can work through men in many – many ways. In fact, these men themselves acknowledged the hand of God as the giver of all things thus naming certain right “inalienable” in the Bill of Rights. Our founding forefathers acknowledged the role of God in their very own dealings. Why should we diminish their acknowledgments now?
Of course they were all “just men.” That should not diminish what God has achieved by way of these lowly, humble, “just men” as you put it.
December 13th, 2007 at 10:34 pm
“Didn’t realize that wanting to keep religion and government separate was anti-religious jackassery.”
How do you think it would have gone over with our founding fathers if you told them that nothing in government should be influenced by faith or morals?
December 13th, 2007 at 10:38 pm
A closer scrutiny of Mitt’s faith speech reveals that you have taken his remarks out of context and applied the freedom/religion on a personal level, when in fact, Mitt said “In John Adams’ words: ‘We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion… Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people.’ He then continued with the “Freedom requires religion” in the larger context (i.e. the ‘government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion), and not saying that someone who is not religions is never free – that is a leap in logic to come to that conclusion given the context of his speech. Unfortunately that point seems to have been lost with you based on your post.
I think your conclusion from Huckabee’s 1992(?) backgrounder is a little harsh. I’d have preferred you to make the argument for a limited role of religion due to Huckabee’s misuse of his clemency power so long as the prisoner found Christ while in jail. That is an argument that can easily be made and corroborated and that Huckabee actually acted upon. The earlier remark was 15 years ago – a lot has changed in this nation with respect to gays and aids.. just sayin…
December 13th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
Good to have you back, TLG.
The fundamentalists around here have been enjoying your absence.
December 13th, 2007 at 10:40 pm
Oh, and great post as usual DaveG.
You are easily the most articulate (and correct) poster on this website.
December 13th, 2007 at 10:41 pm
Believe me . . . Romney and his supporters are not “relishing” this religious fracture. Romney has tried to downplay his religious affiliation from day one (without disowning or distancing himself from it).
After Huck proclaimed himself “CHRISTIAN LEADER” in IA and SC ads (notice he didn’t use that one in NH) and the Iowa Evangelicals (pastors and their flocks) started to support “one of us[them]” as the key credential for POTUS Romney realized that much of that wing of the GOP needed some sense talked into them.
Thus “THE Speech.”
You pick a philosophical nit-picking argument against one line of Romney’s speech (he was extrapolating off of a quote by John Adams. Full context of the quote:
“There are some who may feel that religion is not a matter to be seriously considered in the context of the weighty threats that face us. If so, they are at odds with the nation’s founders, for they, when our nation faced its greatest peril, sought the blessings of the Creator. And further, they discovered the essential connection between the survival of a free land and the protection of religious freedom. In John Adams’ words: ‘We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion… Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people.’
“Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.
Name to me one successful free nation that does/did not emphasize or embrace religion. Even Marx saw it’s utility as an “opiate for the masses.”
As Romney has explained since “THE Speech” he was clarifying John Adam’s argument . . . that freedom without a moral/religious context is anarchy and is freedom no longer. It’s a pretty convincing argument.
However, again I do not like to see what this race is turning into. Romney and the LDS church have not been criticizing other religions or the faith/faiths of other candidates. This whole embarrassing side-show is the making of “The Man from Hope 2.0″ and his supporters.
But DaveG . . . if you’re correct and this so-called “religious war” is utterly self-defeating, then why are Romney’s and Huck’s national poll numbers going up over the last 2 weeks instead of down?
December 13th, 2007 at 10:41 pm
Regarding the “no freedom without religion†portion of Romney’s speech that has gotten some people all riled up, if you can imagine a country that has the freedoms we enjoy without religion, we’ll good for you. I can’t. To try and claim that people of faith have had nothing to do with the freedoms we enjoy is completely crazy.
I know some people are always going to be angry about that line, but they were probably angry to begin with and they’re missing the whole point of Romney’s speech. They can’t see the forest for the trees.
December 13th, 2007 at 10:43 pm
Steve,
This post simply calls for government and religion to be kept separate. I’m not sure how that constitutes a promotion of atheism.
December 13th, 2007 at 10:45 pm
You know, TLG, DaveG, and probably others,
you all seem to run in fear of a slide toward theocracy, but you seem to deny even the possible existence of a slide in the other direction.
You are blinded by you dislike of faith and those who practice it.
December 13th, 2007 at 10:47 pm
#16 I think it borders on blasphemy to attribute a constitution to God, a flawed constitution at that. If indeed the writers of the constitution felt it divinely inspired I would think they would have paid homage in the document. They did not
December 13th, 2007 at 10:49 pm
DaveG – Here’s the Rosetta stone in deciphering Mitt’s speech. Whenever he mentioned ‘faith’ or ‘God’, please substite those references with “experience, rationality, and reason”. I think with that small substitution, you’ll be able to appreciate Mitt’s argument in a way that is more understandable.
December 13th, 2007 at 10:49 pm
This post is horrible and those that try and say Romney or Huckabee is unqualified because of their religious beliefs are ignorant.
December 13th, 2007 at 10:49 pm
DaveG,
Would it really cramp your philosophical waxing to leave behind all the straw men regarding Romney’s oppression of non-believers? I constantly find your writing to be excellent in style, and plagued by imaginary enemies.
December 13th, 2007 at 10:50 pm
“This post simply calls for government and religion to be kept separate. I’m not sure how that constitutes a promotion of atheism.”
I’ll tell you how this could be viewed as a “promotion of atheism,”
- By refusing to acknowledged the role that religion did play an extremely important role with our founding fathers as they crafted the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence.
DaveG, it sounds to me that your post is a bit guilty of that.
- Misinterpreting “separation of church and state” incorrectly to the extent that one thinks any reference of God or religion in any public setting is unconstitutional.
This is what many secular progressives attempt.
December 13th, 2007 at 10:50 pm
Homosexuality tears down the family and is not natural. It has destroyed cultures in the past and if we allow it to creep into ours it will destroy us.
December 13th, 2007 at 10:51 pm
Larry Craig has joined us apparently.
December 13th, 2007 at 10:53 pm
#23 Dave – you are saying leave god out of government period. The last time I checked thats a “doctrine” of aetheism. THe whole premise of the movie clip and article was atheistic and promoted several atheistc doctrines.
I have a good idea. LEts all start posting our religious beleifs and forget polotics. Who cares about policy polotics when we can all debate the finer nuances of all our religious beliefs. We’ll start with this post on aethism, then baptists then mormons…. That will be real productive!
December 13th, 2007 at 10:54 pm
You know, firstly, you might want to re-write your post, because I don’t care what your intentions are, you come off as highly anti-religious in the first part of it.
Secondly, faith and government have to be mixed, simply because everyday, politicians have to decide on what to support and which path to take. It is impossible that in an overwealmingly religious nation, that those decisions are not going to be made, at least in part, based on a persons morals and belief in right and wrong – and, for most, that comes from their religion.
December 13th, 2007 at 10:56 pm
I just think DaveG is re-writing history here, just as those who claim that the founders created a “Christian” nation are re-writing history. Our government was neither created as an entirely secular institution, nor as a government dominated by Christian orthodoxy. Our founders viewed society and government as imbued with deep moral, spiritual, and religious components. Blackstone’s commentaries mentions God 3 times in the first chapter of the first book alone, and mentions religion or religious another dozen+ times. Sometimes, in deeply meaningful moral contexts.
“Natural persons are such as the God of nature formed us : artificial are such as created and devised by human laws for the purposes of society and government”
“This natural liberty consists properly in a power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, unless by the law of nature : being a right inherent in a us by birth, and one of the gifts of God to man at his creation, when he endued him with the faculty of freewill.”
“LIFE is the immediate gift of God, a right inherent by nature in every individual ; and it begins in contemplation of law as soon as an infant is able to stir in the mother’s womb.”
December 13th, 2007 at 10:58 pm
DaveG,
So if our rights come from “men, just men,” then can’t men take them away?
I’ve never gotten past the idea that without God, you just have nihilism, no matter how one tries to dress it up to look conventionally moral and livable.
December 13th, 2007 at 10:59 pm
Mitt Romney’s speech is completely un-assailable. I’m not surprised that many liberal atheists have attempted to find fault with “the speech.” – As if atheism and non-religiosity is germane to a speech titled “Faith in America.”
But I’m very surprised that such a speech would be assailed by those who call themselves “Republicans.” Look, a person may not like Romney – fine.. A person may not agree with Romney’s positions on taxes etc.. – fine. But any reasonable person should be content with Romney’s “Faith in America” speech.
December 13th, 2007 at 10:59 pm
Great, great post Dave. All along I’ve felt if Romney had run as I suspect he really is (socially moderate, fiscal conservative, foreign policy conservative) I would have supported him. Instead he jettisoned all his previous positions to recreate himself as the darling of the SoCons. Well, he made that bed – talking about how, “We need a President of faith” “Let’s put In God We Trust on the front of our money!” and other lame attempts to pander to SoCons. Guess what? They aren’t as dumb as Mitt thinks. Most of them see right through his bald attempt to reinvent himself, and instead have chosen the real thing, Huckabee. Who is a ridiculous candidate for President, but at least honest about his past and who he is.
December 13th, 2007 at 11:00 pm
“Homosexuality tears down the family and is not natural. It has destroyed cultures in the past and if we allow it to creep into ours it will destroy us.”
Senator Craig — or is that Congressman Foley — you are free to come out of the closet whenever you’re ready.
December 13th, 2007 at 11:00 pm
Matthew,
You are smart!
“This post reminds me a bit of something I said at the beginning of the Huckaboom; if I have one side of the party demanding complete secularism, empiricism, and materialism both in government and life, and the other side offering a soft left traditionalism, I’ll reject the false dichotomy and go take a nap. I neither think government should be based on religious convictions, nor hostile to them; and I think an America that fails to acknowledge it’s debt to faith, is an America not of men, but of small men. Governor Romney spoke of this eloquently and graciously, and I think your attempt to turn him into an extremist does you no credit.”
That was brilliant.
December 13th, 2007 at 11:03 pm
“You know, firstly, you might want to re-write your post, because I don’t care what your intentions are, you come off as highly anti-religious in the first part of it.”
Wait a second, wait a second: are you saying that he needs to change his viewpoint to suit your wants? You don’t want to debate him — you want to censor him!
What if I say that you need to change your posts because they’re highly anti-secularism and they offend me? Do you have some sort of emotional or cognitive problem where you can’t see things from the point of view of another person?
December 13th, 2007 at 11:03 pm
Well, I’ve got to get to bed, but I will say this on Romney:
Some here claim that Romney has made a “false conversion” to “pander” to social conservatives, but I have to say that, considering his religion, his dedicated marraige, his large family, and his obviously respect and love for those things, that, if any position he has held was fake, it would be the pro-abortion position he had in 1994.
That said, I simply believe that Romeny was once pro-abortion, and now is not.
December 13th, 2007 at 11:05 pm
Great, great post Dave. All along I’ve felt if Romney had run as I suspect he really is (socially moderate, fiscal conservative, foreign policy conservative) I would have supported him. Instead he jettisoned all his previous positions to recreate himself as the darling of the SoCons. Well, he made that bed – talking about how, “We need a President of faith†“Let’s put In God We Trust on the front of our money!†and other lame attempts to pander to SoCons. Guess what? They aren’t as dumb as Mitt thinks. Most of them see right through his bald attempt to reinvent himself, and instead have chosen the real thing, Huckabee. Who is a ridiculous candidate for President, but at least honest about his past and who he is.
He couldn’t have run like that. This is only reasonable in hindsight. Rudy Giuliani is all of those things. Mitt can’t beat Rudy one-on-one. He had to fill a void. He could not have anticipated Huckabee or even Thompson.
December 13th, 2007 at 11:05 pm
“Wait a second, wait a second: are you saying that he needs to change his viewpoint to suit your wants?”
No, I’m saying that if all he is doing is making a call to keep religion away from politics, and that if he is not really opposed to religion, then he needs to re-write his post, because his writing comes off as much more extreme.
December 13th, 2007 at 11:05 pm
#37 – ““Let’s put In God We Trust on the front of our money!â€
(As I pull a dollar out of my wallet)
Yep, In God We Trust was already on my money. I don’t think Mitt was introducing that concept to us for the first time.
December 13th, 2007 at 11:09 pm
No, I’m saying that if all he is doing is making a call to keep religion away from politics, and that if he is not really opposed to religion, then he needs to re-write his post, because his writing comes off as much more extreme.
No, that doesn’t mean that he needs to re-write it. It means that you need to ask him for clarification. “Coming off” in a certain way based on arbitrary distinctions does not merit a “re-write.”
December 13th, 2007 at 11:11 pm
“He couldn’t have run like that. This is only reasonable in hindsight. Rudy Giuliani is all of those things.”
TLG, Rudy Giuliani is no social-moderate. He is a social-liberal. I’m sure Rudy appears socially moderate from the perspective of many extreme social radicals..
December 13th, 2007 at 11:13 pm
I have a question, what candidates do those agreeing with the article support? I didn’t know we had any candidates that thought like those above. Do we?
December 13th, 2007 at 11:15 pm
“Romney would see it as his duty to preserve freedom by using the state to protect religion from the natural social and cultural changes that are yielding a more rational, secular society — with atheists, agnostics, and the generally areligious transformed into second-class citizens.”
Okay that’s a nicely written piece of hyperbole if I ever saw one – except I don’t think you meant it as hyperbole. In what way do you think Mitt’s going to transform Atheists and Agnostics into second class citizens. If you want to throw out such sweeping claims please give some examples.
I agree with Matt that you oversimplify the development of the constitution. Surely in a nation of religous people – religion had some influence on the founders. Aparently the country was religous enough so that Jefferson felt the need to put a reference to God in the declaration of independence. It seems strange to suggest to think that somehow in a nation that prompted a declaration of independence that mentioned God at its foundation we would see absolutely no influence of Christianity on the Founders. We have been a culture where before governmental meetings we start with prayer. I don’t believe that this Nation was ever marked by the militant secularism you see people like you try to bring us too.
December 13th, 2007 at 11:16 pm
God has given us free agency to do with our lives as we will. Where this is not the case, it’s not the fault of God, but rather of men. In America, for the most part, we are free to develop our talents, skills, and knowledge sets as we see fit. We are also free to destroy ourselves. Some of us are engaged in politics for the express purpose of extending this sphere of liberty and to hold the line against incursions on the liberties we currently have at our disposal. But even after all we can do, our right to this freedom was granted by a benevolent Father in Heaven. When we turn our back on Him individually we begin the process of self-destruction. When a society does it, it simply follows many previous societies into the realm of historical footnotes. Fortunately, America is not on that path…and I give credit to both Romney and Huckabee for striving to keep us from it.
December 13th, 2007 at 11:17 pm
“No, I’m saying that if all he is doing is making a call to keep religion away from politics, and that if he is not really opposed to religion, then he needs to re-write his post, because his writing comes off as much more extreme.”
I don’t think he needs to re-write it; his opinion is what it is. But, I would classify it as “out of the mainstream” at the least. DaveG wrote a similar post a little over a month ago, and it was really a big factor in my drift away from Rudy; I’m sure he wouldn’t like to hear that, but he’s such an able writer, that I pay a lot of attention to his pieces. And he was talking about some sort of great post-Enlightment world Rudy was going to usher in, and it occurred to me just what was at stake; that if the Republican party could turn so strongly religious in 20 years, Rudy might actually manage to usher in just the sort of thing DaveG suggested. Which horrified me, and I haven’t been firmly in his camp at any time since.
December 13th, 2007 at 11:18 pm
I get a little sick of hearing about Romney’s marriage and children. I don’t know and don’t really care if they have been faithful. It is his public life and decisions that determine his fitness for office.
December 13th, 2007 at 11:20 pm
Too much to comment on here, so I’ll try to sum up my thoughts.
1) It is true that the pro-Enlightenment folks and the Christian nation folks both like to think that their camp was more heavily represented among the Founders. But even if both camps were present, the fact remains that we have the Constitution that we have, and it’s worked out pretty well since its implementation.
2) John Adams and others did support religion as a mechanism to maintain an objective morality among the populace. But I think that this view is outdated. If one believes a religion is true, then they should certainly embrace it, but to put forth a religion that one believes is untrue simply to keep the peace seems even too cynical for my sensibilities. There are other objective moralities, such as those detailed by Ayn Rand, that don’t necessitate religion.
3) It’s interesting to see normally reasonable folks go apoplectic over the simple suggestion that government shouldn’t promote or endorse or be based on religion. I would expect this sort of outrage if it was suggested that government should discourage or persecute religion. But I never said anything of the sort, nor would I support such policies. Freedom is the key concept here. And a government that is rights-based and empirical. The fact that so many intelligent, reasonable people go crazy over my suggestion is a bit unsettling and confusing.
4) To the commenter who asked why men couldn’t simply take freedom away if it comes from men alone: freedom comes from nature. You’re born with it. It constitutes all of the abilities you have, which are limited only by the laws of nature (gravity, etc). But without the rule of law, those freedoms are meaningless because the strong dominate the weak. The rule of law allows the state to step in when one individual’s freedom runs into that of another. So the premise of the question was faulty. Freedom doesn’t come from men. Men are born free.
December 13th, 2007 at 11:20 pm
http://catholicsforhuckabee.blogspot.com/2007/12/romney-goon-matt-drudge-tries-to-smear.html
December 13th, 2007 at 11:24 pm
Freedom comes from God. Even the secularist Declaration of Independence says so. And another thing, morality (i.e. opposition to abortion) doesn’t “come from religion” as all-knowing wise men like DaveG say. It comes from natural law which is ingrained in the hearts of everyone.
December 13th, 2007 at 11:26 pm
The country-clubbers can cry all they want but Huckabee ain’t going away.
December 13th, 2007 at 11:27 pm
“Freedom comes from God.”
Nonsensical and unprovable.
December 13th, 2007 at 11:27 pm
Apparently, Mike Huckabee will be announcing tomorrow that a couple of parole board witnesses in the Dumond case are supporting him and are indicating that he had nothing to do with their decision. I have heard that this will be the announcement he makes tomorrow. It may end the Dumond story for Huckabee.
December 13th, 2007 at 11:28 pm
I asked before, but does Huckabee have a degree from an accredited university?
December 13th, 2007 at 11:28 pm
Social conservatives like Huckabee are not the crazy religious freaks that the media and certain people on this site make them out to be.
War, wasteful spending, and torture have had their day.
It’s time for change…
December 13th, 2007 at 11:29 pm
People who don’t believe in a God are the ones who carry the burden of proof, Feltcher.
December 13th, 2007 at 11:29 pm
Matthew:
Now I’m going to have to search the archives of R408 until I find that post that so impacted you! You weren’t around last spring, when I wrote a post satirizing the fears of some of the folks around here, portraying myself as Rudy’s Grand Inquisitor, just waiting for him to be elected so I could go about inquiring. Murphy says I have imaginary enemies. I think we all do, to some extent. Most non-religious folks aren’t secretly planning to shut down churches. And most religious folks aren’t constantly trying to figure out how to bring back Prohibition. I think both sides are probably a bit paranoid these days, I’m just not sure why.
December 13th, 2007 at 11:30 pm
Our rights have to come from somewhere. We don’t just win them when we suddenly sprout forward out of nothing.
December 13th, 2007 at 11:31 pm
“Mike Huckabee will be announcing tomorrow that a couple of parole board witnesses in the Dumond case are supporting him and are indicating that he had nothing to do with their decision.”
HUGH mistake. He can’t win this argument, he supported letting him free, and actually wanted to pardon him. Doing this will only bring more attention to that fact.
December 13th, 2007 at 11:33 pm
Distorting reality won’t kill Huckabee, bjalder. People are sick of Romney’s smears against Huckabee which show a campaign in true panic mode.
December 13th, 2007 at 11:33 pm
The thing is this country was founded in a enviroment that allowed Religion to flourish. It was founded in an enviroment where people had the political power. And they were allowed to make decisions on whatever basis they wanted – there is nothing in the constitution that says ” No decision regarding politics may be made if it is based on religous conviction”. That statement is not found in the constitution and to me it doesn’t even seem like that sentiment is found in our country except for the secularists among us. Therefore, this nation was not founded on strict secularism, it was founded allowing for pluralism, if your Mormon, than Mormonism can influence the Nation’s policy if Hindu than Hinduism will influence public policy. Now, the constitution says that Congress shall not recognize an establishment of religion, but it does not prohibit individual congressmen from basing their decision on a religous conviction. So this country was not founded in an enviroment of strict secularism (where the only decision allowed were secular ones) it was founded in a pluralistic enviroment with Secularists and religionists all given an equal voice as their numbers required.
Dave G. you seem to want the government to follow strict secularism, where people whose world view is shaped by their religion are excluded. Here’s a list of countries that made sure to exclude any religous view from their government: China, Vietnam, North Korea, Cuba, former USSR…
December 13th, 2007 at 11:33 pm
If Romney’s campaign was going as planned he’d have much better things to do than try and mudball Huckabee.
December 13th, 2007 at 11:33 pm
I heard that this was the announcement from somebody who swears they know. Personally, I think there is a good chance that he announces an endorsement – not from God necessarily, but maybe from some other figure. Maybe the Christian Science Monitor.
December 13th, 2007 at 11:34 pm
“Nonsensical and unprovable.”
Funny. I thought stating that freedom comes from “nature” was a good one. That must be the same nature that just evolved out of thin air without a creator or any being with superior intelligence.
Nonsensical and unprovable? Ridiculous! prove that things did not happen that way.
December 13th, 2007 at 11:34 pm
Peter,
I agree, as the Declaration says, that we are endowed with certain inalienable rights. But that is not the end of the story. We needed a government to secure those rights. My argument would be that unsecured rights are really not rights at all.
December 13th, 2007 at 11:36 pm
If I’m a criminal without a lawyer, should I be treated any differently than if I had an attorney?
December 13th, 2007 at 11:37 pm
Peter,
Get off the cool-aide. Romney is not mud-balling anyone here, in fact it was Hucabee who apologized to Romney for “mud-balling” recently – not the other way around..
Do us a favor and read post #21 by Jeff Fuller.
December 13th, 2007 at 11:37 pm
Just because a government helps secure rights, it doesn’t mean that they magically vanish when there’s not a government.
December 13th, 2007 at 11:38 pm
“You have the right to an attorney. If you can not afford one, one will be provided to you.”
December 13th, 2007 at 11:38 pm
DaveG,
1.) I’m an originalist so, as a constitutional matter, I’m not really persuaded by the “things are working out okay” defense. That said, I think we’ve generally come pretty close to the proper balance between government and religion.
2.) Fair enough.
3.) If I was one of those folks, I probably got apoplectic because you seemed somewhat apoplectic. I don’t think the statement that Romney would “relegate atheists and agnostics to second class citizenship” can be taken seriously. It’s seemingly conjured out of whole cloth. Your rhetoric on Huckabee, as much as I dislike him, also seems over the top.
4.) I have nothing in particular to say to this. Obviously I’m going to disagree to an extent, given my religious principles, but I’m not particularly bothered by anything here.
December 13th, 2007 at 11:39 pm
Romney’s campaign was the one who brought up religion in the first place so it would become a landmine for his newly-surging opponent.
Great idea, I must say.
December 13th, 2007 at 11:41 pm
See, you acknowledge that a person has rights, and if he doesn’t have someone to help him protect those rights, you offer the help TO him, you don’t just say “Oh well, pal, tough luck!”
December 13th, 2007 at 11:41 pm
And its very considerate for you to refer to your guy for cues, cwpete.
December 13th, 2007 at 11:43 pm
Yes, rights granted and guaranteed by the state. If the state disappears . . .
December 13th, 2007 at 11:43 pm
DaveG,
If I recall, it was a fairly quick response to a quote from Rudy Giuliani’s speech at the federalist society. I didn’t particularly disagree with the quote, but I remember feeling like you were gushing about a potential post-Enlightenment utopia, and I was fairly uncomfortable at the thought.
December 13th, 2007 at 11:43 pm
anyone else here Huckabee say that his faith has been talked about more than any other candidate running. ARE YOU SERIOUS? Come on, even TLG, Metro, and others would have to agree that Mitt’s mormonism has been written about and discussed A LOT MORE than anyone else running by a mile. Sorry Huck.
Peter, Romney didnt bring up religion. He rarely if ever does. Now it does get brought up and he isnt ashamed of his faith, but he never brings up “Hucks christian beliefs” because he has said before that ones faith has no baring on ones candidacy.
December 13th, 2007 at 11:43 pm
JeffFuller,
In all due respect, before the Huckabee surge, Romney was explicitly trying to play into favor with the religious right. The first few months of the summer and early fall were all about the man of faith. Romney was actively seeking the religious rights support, and I’m happy to see that he seemed to have learned his lesson, after they apparently stabbed him in the back.
December 13th, 2007 at 11:44 pm
Peter,
You must be joking with #75. Romney’s campaign acknowledged that his faith would be his largest hurdle. Those of us who have been around long enough recognized that over a year ago before he even announced.
Religion was not an issue till a certain somebody started running as the “Christian” candidate. Then the same somebody deliberately misrepresented a part of his faith so outlandishly by suggesting that Romney believes that Satan & Christs are brothers on equal playing ground. Then that same somebody had to apologize.
What has Romney done? Just give that terrific “Faith in America” speech which was so well received and lauded my most all who’ve read it. Huckabee compelled Romney to give that speech. Mike forced Romney’s hand. I’m glad that he did. It is all cleared up by now.
December 13th, 2007 at 11:45 pm
“Distorting reality won’t kill Huckabee, bjalder. People are sick of Romney’s smears against Huckabee which show a campaign in true panic mode.â€
I don’t think Romney has “smeared†Huckabee, no matter what way you try and spin Huckabee’s involvement in releasing Dumond, he was for it. He tried to pardon Dumond. His own past advisor portrayed the meeting as the board trying to convince Huckabee not to pardon Dumond, rather than Huckabee trying to convince them to release him on parole. If that’s true, then it’s much worse. Regardless though, it’s undeniable that Huckabee wanted to pardon Dumond. It’s also undeniable that Huckabee did tons of clemencies. That’s the real issue here, not just this one case, but his whole catch and release philosophy that angered Arkansas voters.
And again, continuing to debate over what exact roll Huckabee played in releasing Dumond, does hurt him. He should admit that he wanted to pardon him, admit that he either thought there was some problem with the case, or admit that he felt Dumond was reformed. Admit that he was wrong in this case, and hope people don’t look deeper into his clemency record.
Is there anybody who agrees with the number of clemencies Huckabee performed?
December 13th, 2007 at 11:46 pm
And DaveG,
“Santorumites” at the NRO? For a while, you seemed to be advocating the whole NRO approach to the race. The whole pragmatist argument of developing a “new” type of conservative, and leaving the past behind the party.
December 13th, 2007 at 11:46 pm
“Romney’s campaign was the one who brought up religion in the first place so it would become a landmine for his newly-surging opponent.”
STUPIDEST THING SAID ALL NIGHT. Are you suggesting he went to IA, home to bible thumping evangelicals and said, “hi, Im a mormon, lets talk about faith, and Jesus, and God.”
He might talk about ones values, but not ones faith. Period. In the speech, he said things like “anybody who prays to God will have a friend in me”. Does that sound like someone who is provoking a religious war. Are you really that ignorant?
December 13th, 2007 at 11:48 pm
#85 – That’s great Husky.
December 13th, 2007 at 11:48 pm
Tommy:
“Romney was explicitly trying to play into favor with the religious right. ”
True, but the same could be said of all candidates. Even Rudy pandered to the right with his re-awakenings on things such as gun control etc.. Why should Romney be taken to task for this? After all, Romney is a man of faith as most social conservatives are..
December 13th, 2007 at 11:50 pm
cwpete,
Ahh… Fred Thompson: “I don’t dance to anybody’s tune.”- In referal to James Dobson, after Dobson dissed him for not caving in and supporting the FMA.
Be careful with generalizations on that.
December 13th, 2007 at 11:50 pm
#85, that’d be like Huckabee going to Salt Lake City to speak at an anti-Mormon themed conference. Oh wait, he did that already.
December 13th, 2007 at 11:51 pm
and, at the time, I thought Romney did go overboard with the namechecking of James Dobson…
December 13th, 2007 at 11:51 pm
Tommy:
I am in favor of developing a new type of conservative, but I’ve never felt that NRO has cornered the market on the precise formula for that. NRO is a mixed bag, to be sure. I enjoy most of the writers over there, though I find that only Derb and Stuttaford are truly my kinds of conservatives. But as a longtime reader, it’s pretty clear that there are lots of orthodox Catholics over at NRO, and there is a high correlation between those folks and NRO Romney supporters.
December 13th, 2007 at 11:51 pm
Huckabee loving, evangelical Christians want this campaign to be about Mormon vs Baptist, and true Christianity vs a cult because if it were about issues like taxes, immigration, and 1033 pardons and commutations they would lose. So they get their bible out, and some silly book like “what Mormons really believe” and head to the blogs and media (as Huck did with the NYT article) trying to discredit Mormonism. They get that Romney isnt ashamed to be mormon, is an active member and lives his religion, so the only way to discredit him is to discredit his faith.
Pretty weak really.
December 13th, 2007 at 11:52 pm
Tommy,
You know I respect FDT. I don’t fault him for things like that and I also don’t think others should either.
However, this is politics. Just like the lottery, you can’t win if you don’t play – and that means pandering..
December 13th, 2007 at 11:52 pm
TLG, Rudy Giuliani is no social-moderate. He is a social-liberal. I’m sure Rudy appears socially moderate from the perspective of many extreme social radicals..
- Cut off funding to a museum featuring anti-religious art
- Fought against pornography in NYC
- Wants to appoint strict constructionist judges, making him functionally pro-life
- Opposes gay marriage; supports domestic partnerships. Spoke favorably of a FMA if judges start imposing gay marriage.
He’s liberal on…guns. And it’s dubious as to whether he supports publicly-funded abortions or whether that was some weird slip.
But at the very least, those things qualify him as a social moderate. He’s no so-con, but he’s at least a social moderate.
December 13th, 2007 at 11:52 pm
Man is only born free in some idealistic world that doesn’t exist. You seem to imply that man has the right to be free because he is naturally free, but who’s to say that man taking rights away from man isn’t also nature. Afterall according to the evolutionary theory we are part of nature. So if our morality is based on nature than we are left with a circular morality, because whatever man does can be claimed to be nature. What about us being born in a certain state means we should have rights? I don’t understand how you can say man is born of free, man is born totally dependent upon his familly for support and therefore on society. This society where man can have no needs from society and therefore no obligations to society is a figment of libertarians’ imagination. Man is born totally dependent on other men and usually reamains so to a lesser extent through the rest of his life.
December 13th, 2007 at 11:54 pm
Who doesn’t want to “appoint strict constructionist judges”.
December 13th, 2007 at 11:55 pm
OK TLG,
I’ll give you the first two but not the last two. Those last two positions are new since his campaign for the Republican nomination. I’m not buying those just yet.
December 13th, 2007 at 11:56 pm
#88 – I really like freds polotics but infortunatley he looks 80ish, he thinks or talks too slow(i can’t figure out which)and his wife could be his grand-daughter.
December 13th, 2007 at 11:56 pm
cwpete, Rudy has ALWAYS opposed gay marriage.
December 13th, 2007 at 11:56 pm
bjalder — You. Aren’t you in the camp that’s angry at Rudy over the line-item veto?
December 13th, 2007 at 11:57 pm
DaveG,
Good points. I like Peter Robinson, Byron York, Jonah Goldberg, Kudlow and Levin, and a few more. There are quite a few there I don’t pay much attention to either. Interestingly, I have found myself becoming a big fan of Kristol this cycle (maybe that has to do with the fact that he favors my type of candidates).
December 13th, 2007 at 11:58 pm
Romney led thousands of Mormons in the 90’s as a lay mormon leader, but that creditial never made it into his advertising. Its because it really doesnt matter. Romney doesnt care if Bob Jones and others dont like his church, because he isnt on a mission trying to win converts to it anymore. Does he tell voters about his family values? Sure! Many see it as a unique strength in his campaign just as Rudy with 9/11. But he hasnt made this campaign about his faith, but about his values. I dont think Huck has made this about his faith as much as Huck koolaide drinkers who dont like Mormonism have. As Kavon said today when some Huck lover sought to defend his candidate by pulling out D&C (Mormon scripture), he correctly stated that bigotted Huck fans arent doing your candidate any favors.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Its interesting that we have troops in harms way and they hardly ever get mentioned in the campaign. Our economy is teetering and merits no attention beyond generalities. But whether Jesus and Satan are brothers has been all over the news. Voters are going to walk away from a party that is so out of touch with reality.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:00 am
#100 I think it shows he’s not really as fiscally conservative as he claims to be. To me it seems he looked for ways to get money from outside his city rather than cutting spending. Not just on this one occasion, where he went to court to protect his pork, but when he taxed commuters, and I think there was something else that showed the same pattern.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:02 am
“I really like freds polotics but infortunatley he looks 80ish, he thinks or talks too slow(i can’t figure out which)and his wife could be his grand-daughter.”
I agree with that, I like FDT positions generally, but he looks 93, doesnt have the stamina, determination, and organization of Romney or Rudy. He strikes me as too much like Bush too, having character, but way to much folksyness. I wonder if FDT pull off the miracle of all miracles, caught fire, and won a ton of states by Feb 5, am I the only one that wonders if we will see him go home and take a nap till mid summer again?
December 14th, 2007 at 12:02 am
TLG, number one and two are somewhat important, but that’s not really what going to motivate me in a presidential election. What art is shown in NYC muesuem isn’t really a pressing issue for me. On number three, he made a great speech to Fed Soc, that might convince me to vote for him, though I certainly don’t think I would in the primary as I think the other candidates are also probably good on judges (not that it matters I live in Nebraska) if I could trust Rudy and if he hadn’t said he thinks Roe staying law would be okay, it would be easier for me to vote for him the general right now I’m up in the air on the issue.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:02 am
#100 I think it shows he’s not really as fiscally conservative as he claims to be. To me it seems he looked for ways to get money from outside his city rather than cutting spending. Not just on this one occasion, where he went to court to protect his pork, but when he taxed commuters, and I think there was something else that showed the same pattern.
Okay, that’s fine. But just don’t say that you’re in favor of strict constructionism.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:03 am
Jonah Goldberg and Lowry are the only NRO writers I pay much attention to.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:03 am
TLG, number one and two are somewhat important, but that’s not really what going to motivate me in a presidential election. What art is shown in NYC muesuem isn’t really a pressing issue for me. On number three, he made a great speech to Fed Soc, that might convince me to vote for him, though I certainly don’t think I would in the primary as I think the other candidates are also probably good on judges (not that it matters I live in Nebraska) if I could trust Rudy and if he hadn’t said he thinks Roe staying law would be okay, it would be easier for me to vote for him the general right now I’m up in the air on the issue.
Okay, that’s nice. Then say that he’s too liberal on issues that you care about. But don’t paint him as a “social liberal” when he’s not. Others may find his record on those issues compelling, and you’re smearing him when you say that he’s a “social liberal” when he has clearly demonstrated that he is, overall, not.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:05 am
“Romney led thousands of Mormons in the 90’s as a lay Mormon leader, but that credential never made it into his advertising. It’s because it really doesn’t matter.â€
Husky, I don’t completely agree. I like the idea that Romney and Huckabee have been in positions where they’ve had to deal with various people and their personal problems. So that much I like, but you could get the same type of experience from a lot of places. With Huckabee though, sometimes I fear that he’s become a pastor gone wild, with his clemencies. Though, I don’t know if his pastor experience has anything to do with his clemencies as governor.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:06 am
Im wondering…
I work from 7-5 each day, and have my family I spend time with at night. I usually spend a few hours at night, and any alone free time at work on this site. But I am amazed at how many people are on here every hour of every day. Fights will go on till 2,3,4am or later. How do you guys find the time to do it. I wish I could but I need to sleep, work, stay married, etc?
December 14th, 2007 at 12:07 am
Too much like Bush? That’s absurd. Two totally different people. One was a senator, one was a governor. One came from the working class, one came from privilidge. ONe was a dedicateed student of federalism, and one was a compassionate conservative… Bush was “a reformer with results”, Thompson campaigns on first principles and lesser government.
In his Charlie Rose interview, Thompson wouldn’t even call Bush a conservative when he was asked.
No similarities, except for the accent.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:07 am
The writing is on the wall. Huck went up as a result of his surge in Iowa, and when he loses, Iowa will be his Waterloo. Perceived momentum caused his rise, and his loss will trigger a paradigm shift. Romney will regain momentum and start a string of victories. Somebody said earlier that nobody knows how January will go, and I don’t either…..but that’s my prediction, based on everything that’s currently in the public domain.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:08 am
I’m in high school. I’ve got an excuse.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:08 am
Mitt was asked about this on H & C last night:
COLMES: You said you believe in religious freedom. You said any person who has knelt in prayer to the almighty has a friend and ally in you. Do they have a friend and ally in you if they’re not a believer, if they’re agnostic, if they’re struggling with their faith, if they’re not believers in Jesus Christ, if they’ve fallen into any of those, if they’re atheists, for example, do they also have a friend in Mitt Romney?
ROMNEY: Of course they do, and the first part of that sentence you read was to indicate just that. It says anybody who believes in religious liberty. And that’s true of a person who’s an atheist or a non-believer or someone who’s a very devout believer.
In addition, anybody who has knelt in prayer has a friend in me. So yes, I — my — my love of the American people encompasses all of our people, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity.
You can’t — you can’t be the president of the United States, recognizing the need to call on the goodwill of the people of the United States, without recognizing that you have to unite people, and you have to hope that you can get the prayers of all the people of our country.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:08 am
Er, that was in reply to #111.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:11 am
bjalder 26… I agree that Huck and Romneys experience as leaders of their church is valuable to them, but I dont think its worthy of a resume of a Presidential candidate. Being a religious leader gave them some executive experience, but Romney Harvard Degrees (both of them), his 25 years in business, the olympics, being Governor, those are really the things that make him a fine candidate.
I agree though that Huck can sometimes appear as a pastor gone wild. Referring to spending his campaign funds as feeding the 5000, saying your surge/lead is from God, and to pretend to not know mormonism and ask a baiting question about its precepts, tells me that he is running more as a Baptist minister than as Governor.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:11 am
107 I wouldn’t say I’m in favor of strict contructionism. I’m in favor of Originalism, Strict Contructionism seems like a loose term that can be used to mean whatever people want it to mean. That’s why I was extremely impressed when Rudy actually endorsed Originalism by name in Fed Soc speech, and he actually gave specific examples of what that Originalism meant. He said what I wish all the other candidates would say. If only he hadn’t implied that he think precedents can trump original intent.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:15 am
“Okay, that’s fine. But just don’t say that you’re in favor of strict constructionism.â€
Sorry, that’s just a absurd comment. My previous point was that everybody will claim that they’ll appoint “strict constructionistsâ€, even Hillary. What is a “strict constructionist†to them is a different story. When a guy talks up Ruth Bader Ginsberg, fights to increase gun control laws, believes in Roe vs. Wade while considering himself a “strict constructionist†then he’s on shaky ground speaking to social conservatives about judicial nominations.
My other point was that his “fight against the line item vetoâ€, was really a fight for pork, which as a side effect eliminated the line-item-veto.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:17 am
Okay, that’s nice. Then say that he’s too liberal on issues that you care about. But don’t paint him as a “social liberal†when he’s not. Others may find his record on those issues compelling, and you’re smearing him when you say that he’s a “social liberal†when he has clearly demonstrated that he is, overall, not.
I’m not sure I’ve said Rudy was a Social liberal. Political labels are subective and relative and a lot of times there big oversimplifications. However, I would say that at least his former position tended to being socially liberal – against PBA ban, in favor of public funding of abortion, Pro Roe, Pro Civil unions or whatever he calls it. I would actually say that Rudy’s a moderate Social liberal, hes not hard core but I wouldn’t say hes centrist either.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:17 am
“I don’t think its worthy of a resume of a Presidential candidate. Being a religious leader gave them some executive experienceâ€
I guess we do completely agree then. I look at it as a part of his narrative, though the story about the Bain employee’s missing daughter is more telling of his character.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:20 am
Like I said Tommy, I agree with his positions usually, but to many americans he will appear like Bush. The “red pickup tour” is Bush like. The accent is only a part of it. Sadly, Thompson had to remind his audience that he was done with his stump speech and it was okay to clap. That told me what I needed about Thompson. Like Bush, who many admire for his character and some of his positions, he hasnt effectively communicated the war, Katrina, the economy, stem cell research breakthough, you name it. His approval rating is more because of his ineffective communication with Americans. Thompson is like Bush in that regard I think.
Also, Dems hate Bush for the vacations and his ranch and call it lazy, etc. Fred kept the country waiting from March till mid December when he decided to win a debate and spend a bunch of time in IA. He should have done that months and months ago but he didnt.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:24 am
Jeff Fuller, #21: “Name to me one successful free nation that does/did not emphasize or embrace religion. Even Marx saw it’s utility as an “opiate for the masses.—
I point you all again to this little gem by the Pew Research Center:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_impo.htm
This quite CLEARLY demonstrates that the most religious nations on this planet are the least likely to be “free” in the small-l liberal democracy sense of the word. The least religious are the most likely to be “free.”
The U.S. stands in the middle of this dichotomy. It’s not surprising then that there is such tension in our society between the religious and the a-religious.
The U.S. is in the bottom middle of the pack with Mexico at 59 and 57, respectively.
EVERY country above the U.S. is what could fairly be considered a 2nd or 3rd world country. Virtually all of them are in South America, Africa, the Middle East. None in Europe or developed Asia. Among them, only India I think qualifies as a modern, developed democracy.
The entire developed world, including the rest of the G8, fall in the 10’s-30’s range.
Quite clearly, freedom does not literally require religion. It’s not surprising that there is backlash, given the political and philosophical underpinnings of Mitt’s poorly-worded statement.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:25 am
DaveG, once again, we think pretty much exactly alike. You must be a very smart man!
December 14th, 2007 at 12:26 am
I think sometimes we really miss the forest from the trees. I think the real discussion we will have on this campaign (by about March and every time after that) will be Rudy’s failed (as I see it) campaign strategy to not spend more time and resources in IA and NH. Huck or Mitt seem certain to finish 1-2 in IA, and Mitt is ahead by a mile in NH, and McCain is tied for 2nd. Yet Rudy and his followers are disillusioned into believe this year is different and that the country wont care that Mitt or Huck won NH or IA (or both for Mitt perhaps) because 3 weeks later Rudy will continue to be competitive. Its already December and Mitt and Huck are stealing all the oxygen in the room. Rudy is fading nationally and not leading any early state (I think). Am I the only person who sees this for what it is, a historically horrible campaign strategy.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:32 am
Preemptively, before anyone says that if Mitt loses IA, he will surely lose NH. I would agree with that statement if the following WERE NOT TRUE:
1. Rudy and McCain might well finish 4th and 5th in IA with single digits, giving them no bounce
2. There isnt 50% of the electorate in NH that are evangelical, his only base, to draw a win from
3. Getting 1st or 2nd in IA, Mitt will have a better media day that Rudy or McCain
4. Mitt is the most organized, and from neighboring MA
5. Early voting has already begun and Mitt is 12%-19% ahead (depending on which poll you use)
Early voting will matter, and will come at a time when the most organized campaign has a 15% point lead. That will matter.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:53 am
[...] my mouth to Charles Krauthammer’s ears: Mitt Romney declares, “Freedom and religion endure [...]
December 14th, 2007 at 1:14 am
Look what I missed. Great job, Dave!
Michael Lawrence, GREAT link from the religious tolerance site!!!!!
December 14th, 2007 at 8:16 am
@Jared at 11PM
Yes, Jared, that was kinda my point. I know we have “In God We Trust” on our money. And don’t worry, I am not one of Romney’s evil secularist bogeymen; I think it is fine there. But Romney spent a portion of his speech here in Michigan this fall outlining his grand vision of MOVING “In God We Trust” to its rightful place, on the FRONT of bills. (It is already on the front of most coins).
Thank God that a bold visionary like Mitt has a solution for America’s ills! God is no doubt quite PO’d about his second class status on the BACK of bills! And I’m sure that putting God front and center will restore America’s moral fiber! I mean, how could criminals and drug dealers go about their shady practices, when they see that we’ve put “In God We Trust” on the FRONT of our bills! (Not to mention that redesigning the money would cost a pretty penny, something conservatives were supposed to care about, once upon a time…)
December 14th, 2007 at 10:58 am
Excellent posting, DaveG, excellent. The intense reaction that you have generated here tends to prove your points. The GOP and what used to be the limited-government “conservative movement” are essentially being torn apart by Sectarian agendas. Over time, this will lead to some kind of partisan reorganization. Just how and to what end remains to be seen.