Big Lizards:Blog:Entry “Mike Huckabee for Minister in Chief?”

« Elitism In the Dextrosphere | Main | The Hewitt-Medved Steel Cage Death Match »

January 15, 2008

Mike Huckabee for Minister in Chief?

Hatched by Dafydd

I hardly know what to make of this, other than the obvious. Has any serious presidential candidate ever spent an entire campaign day preaching the gospel from the pulpit? And can there be any explanation more benign than that Mike Huckabee is simply trying to turn out more ardent, Christian tribalists -- willing to overlook any policy disagreements they may have, just so they can vote for a Baptist minister?

Republican Mike Huckabee spoke from the pulpit Sunday, not as a politician but as the preacher he used to be, delivering a sermon on how merely being good isn't enough to get into heaven....

As in Iowa, where he won the Jan. 3 caucuses, Huckabee is rousing pastors to marshal their flocks for him. He pitches himself as someone who not only shares their views against abortion and gay marriage but who actually comes from their ranks.

Huckabee supporters keep telling me that their guy isn't trying to appeal to evangelical Christians on an "identity" basis. But I can't hardly turn around without more evidence that Huckabee is doing exactly that: Vote for me because I'm an evangelical Southern Baptist... just like you!

More from the AP story:

In South Carolina, Huckabee didn't ask for votes or discuss the campaign, but senior pastor Michael S. Hamlet encouraged the congregation to vote according to how they try to live their lives, by the principles of Bible scripture.

"I'm going to tell you something, when you go vote, you ought to follow those principles," Hamlet said.

But Huckabee did wade into politics Sunday evening in Michigan, telling members of the Apostolic Church of Auburn Hills about his opposition to abortion and gay marriage, and expressing his concern about job losses in the state. He played bass guitar in the praise band and, before he spoke, the organist played a few notes of "Hail to the Chief."

Huckabee's shoestring campaign has relied on pastors to encourage their flocks to vote.

Besides pulpit Sunday, here's today's example:

"[Some of my opponents] do not want to change the Constitution, but I believe it's a lot easier to change the constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, 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," Huckabee said, referring to the need for a constitutional human life amendment and an amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

There are a number of good secular reasons to consider a constitutional amendment protecting traditional marriage and banning abortion:

One can believe, as I, that traditional two-person, male-female marriage is one of the pillars supporting Western civilization; kicking it out may bring the whole edifice crumbling down;

One can believe, as I don't, that a zygote is a human person from the moment of conception, so abortion is essentially murder.

Neither of these arguments requires a religious context; both are purely secular... as government should always be. I agree with the very religious Dennis Prager: We should have a religious society but a secular government.

But Huckabee eschews the strong secular arguments in favor of the purely religious ones: We must amend the Constitution in order to bring it into line with "God's standards." Well, whose God? Yours, mine, or that fellow's behind the tree? What is this but a naked appeal to voters with a strong evangelical-Christian identiy? Vote for me because I'm one of you.

Here are just a few of Huckabee's campaign arguments:

His proclamation that he's "the Christian candidate" in the race;

His (false) claim in a debate that he was the only candidate on the stage who had a theology degree (in fact, he doesn't);

His snarky "question" about Mormonism -- don't they believe that Jesus and the Devil are brothers? -- shorn of the explanatory context that Mormons believe this connection is only due to the fact that God created all other beings and creatures... hence all are in some sense "brothers and sisters," even when diametrically opposed to each other... as with Jesus and the Devil;

His day in church reminding the electorate that he's an ordained minister;

The constitutional-amendment comment about "God's standards" (Ayman Zawahiri could say exactly the same thing; that's how meaningless an argument it is).

And on and on. I think we have a pretty clear portrait of a one-note candidate: Vote for me, because I'm the Christian here. This makes me very uncomfortable, because I worry that if elected, Mike Huckabee would not govern by a clearly articulated set of conservative principles.

In fact, many of his positions, both foreign and domestic, are basically liberal; for example, his reference to our "arrogant" -- that is, interventionist -- foreign policy, and his nine-year criminal-pardon spree in Arkansas, issuing more than all neighboring states combined. Except on social issues, Mike Huckabee is at least as liberal as John McCain.

Instead of a firm set of principles, Huckabee would be guided by his own personal spiritual revelation on each issue, just like another former Southern governor who became president. And I don't mean that other feller from Arkansas.

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, January 15, 2008, at the time of 3:57 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/2715

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Mike Huckabee for Minister in Chief?:

» Submitted for Your Approval from Watcher of Weasels
First off... any spambots reading this should immediately go here, here, here, and here. Die spambots, die! And now... here are all the links submitted by members of the Watcher's Council for this week's vote. Council link... [Read More]

Tracked on January 23, 2008 12:01 AM

» Submitted 01/24/2008 from Soccer Dad
The new Watcher's Council nominations have been submitted. What Is "Freedom"? - The Colossus of Rhodey uses a recent viewing of a film version of 1984 to consider the anti-freedom implications of our heightened sensitivity about not being offensive. Th... [Read More]

Tracked on January 24, 2008 2:55 AM

Comments

The following hissed in response by: Seaberry

Well, at least he has now come out 'of-the-closet'...

The above hissed in response by: Seaberry at January 15, 2008 4:35 PM

The following hissed in response by: Chris

Well, that boy can go back in his closet as soon as the folks find out his record....;

MCCAIN URGES PAUSE ON NON-DEFENSE SPENDING INCREASES AND TAX CUTS

The above hissed in response by: Chris at January 15, 2008 4:55 PM

The following hissed in response by: Chris

Candidate Research - Know Who You're Voting For ( The Easy Way )
http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/entry/candidate_research_know_who_youre_voting_for/

The above hissed in response by: Chris at January 15, 2008 4:55 PM

The following hissed in response by: cdquarles

Dafydd,

What is a human zygote if it isn't a human person at the zygote stage of development? Abortion is homicide by definition. Just as there is the concept of justifiable homicide in other states of human development, there is one here too. Logically and morally, abortion is strictly justified where the life of the mother is at stake and delivery of the child cannot save both lives. Abortions in the cases of rape and incest are problematic and arguments for making these justifiable categories can be made.

That said, I agree with your conclusions; so this evangelical Baptist will not be voting for Huckabee in the primary 2/5/08 and will not vote for him if he is the Republican nominee.

The above hissed in response by: cdquarles at January 15, 2008 7:05 PM

The following hissed in response by: Eilish

I dislike candidates who assume that I cannot understand issues and must simply vote based on who I identify with most. As an evangelical, however, I don't identify with Huckabee. His persona is the reason many in the United States believe that evangelicals are anti-intellectual, ignorant hicks. Count me out.

The above hissed in response by: Eilish at January 15, 2008 9:25 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

CDQuarles:

What is a human zygote if it isn't a human person at the zygote stage of development?

It's genetically a human being -- that isn't a person yet. I'm not telling you that you can't define it as a person if you like; but legally and traditionally, it isn't. We don't treat it as such in this society, nor has any society of which I am aware.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh at January 16, 2008 12:12 AM

The following hissed in response by: cdquarles

Dafydd,

That, my friend, is exactly where the trouble lies. That is the same kind of thinking which said that chattel slaves were not legally persons and could be treated like domesticated animals, or worse. A zygote is a person, just as much a person as a born child. The law should, even though it doesn't yet, treat it so; precisely because it is logically and morally consistent to do so.

Hmm, no response to the justifiable homicide concept?

The above hissed in response by: cdquarles at January 16, 2008 5:19 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

CDQuarles:

The law should, even though it doesn't yet, treat it so; precisely because it is logically and morally consistent to do so.

It's equally logically and morally consistent to treat zygotes as non-persons until a particular stage in their development. Where we differ is not on the rules or inference or the conclusions... it's in the axioms.

The existence of a categorizing word like "person" implies that some things don't fall within that category. One of your axioms is that the category comprises all living, independent beings that are genetically human.

I have a view that is simultaneously more and less restrictive: I don't consider all human beings to be persons; and I don't insist that a person must be a human being.

On the former, besides zygotes, embryos, and foetuses prior to a particular point in their development, I also exclude from personhood human beings who are so disabled that they are no longer self-aware, so far as we can tell: anencephalic babies, former people who are now in an irreversible coma (determined by a PET scan, at the very least), and those so mentally retarded that they cannot perform any of the functions normally associated with persons -- they cannot make contact with the universe.

On the latter, I do believe there are other intelligent beings in this universe; and I do not discount the speculation that we could someday build an artificial intelligence that is as intelligent as we are today (we ourselves may be more intelligent by then).

For me, the determinative factor is self-awareness: I agree with atheist activist Philip Pullman's speculation that intelligence may be a necessary but not sufficient condition for self-awareness. (I don't agree with his atheism.) Self-awareness goes far beyond simple response to stimuli, extending to a recognition of oneself as an independent being observing the universe -- and oneself... "I am I, and I am not you; I am a unique being... and I can think about such things as this question."

I also believe that a functioning human cerebral cortex (or biological or electronic processor of at least similar size and function) is necessary for intelligence. Hence, those beings that do not have such -- ferns, clams, dogs, chimpanzees, porpoises, and human zygotes -- do not qualify as intelligent and are not self-aware, hence do not qualify as persons.

In practice, making such a determination may be difficult sometimes. In such situations, we should err on the side of caution. But this cannot be used as an excuse to treat obvious non-persons as persons, just on the off chance that an amoeba "really is" self-aware, and we just don't know it.

Similarly, a human zygote will, under normal circumstances, eventually become a person; so we should exercise caution in killing it. But I would leave that decision up to the parents... until such time as the zygote passes through various stages eventually to have a functioning neocortex. At which point, I would say it's a preborn baby... and it has its own rights and interests and cannot killed out of hand or for a trifle.

I equate self-awareness with the religious idea of a soul; I believe self-awareness survives bodily death, though of course this is simply faith on my part, not based on any science of which I am aware.

For me, the set of "persons" includes all physical beings who are self-aware, as we typically define the term. And my definition is every bit as consistent -- morally and logically -- as yours.

(We don't discuss your theory of "justifiable homicide" because we do not agree that the entity being killed is a person... a necessary precursor for any kind of homicide, justifiable or un-.)

You may disagree; it's a free market.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh at January 16, 2008 6:29 PM

The following hissed in response by: cdquarles

Dafydd,

Okay, so your point of demarcation is roughly 6 to 8 weeks gestation. That's a reasonable point to which I will agree, even if I find it too limiting :) .

The above hissed in response by: cdquarles at January 17, 2008 8:38 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

CDQuarles:

Somewhat longer than that; after formation, the cerebral cortex actually activates over a fairly short period of time, as I understand it (always subject to revision by future research). That appears to be about 26-28 weeks, according to PET scans.

This works out to just about six months into pregnancy... but it has nothing to do with "viability;" the problem with the Court's viability standard is that, as technology improves, that standard is met earlier and earlier.

My standard is based, as every standard should be, on the development of the zygote/embryo/foetus... whether that is "conception" (a developmental stage), "birth," or any milestone in between.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh at January 17, 2008 1:28 PM

The following hissed in response by: Laer

Dafydd: You know that I'm a conservative Christian who does not support Huckabee for myriad policy reasons. Your post, unfortunately, smacks of a lot of much-criticized writing about evangelicals being masses of lemmings, easily convinced, easily misled.

Look at the poll results and you'll see that a significant number of us flee from Huckabee. If we did everything our pastors told us to do, the Christian divorce rate wouldn't be about equal to the mainstream divorce rate, right? The same is true during campaigns.

I understand the wariness about interjecting religion (as opposed to morality) into politics, but in a sense, Huckabee's no different than Hillary wooing unions. Christians are his base, so he woos them. Besides, he's right: He is the only Christian GOP candidate (at least now). Rudy is Catholic, Mitt is Mormon and John is uncommitted. That doesn't make me want to vote for him, because all his opponents are morally principled.

Even though I'm just a born again Christian, I'm smart enough to figure this stuff out.

The above hissed in response by: Laer at January 24, 2008 8:34 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Laer:

Besides, he's right: He is the only Christian GOP candidate (at least now). Rudy is Catholic, Mitt is Mormon and John is uncommitted.

Laer, sit down, take a deep breath, and ponder how astonishingly bigotted this statement is.

Now, not only are Mormons not "Christians" -- neither are Catholics or Episcopalians: John McCain is "uncommitted" about being a "Christian," because he attends a Baptist church while still remaining an Episcopalian.

Ye flipping gods.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh at January 24, 2008 1:06 PM