January 3, 2008

Unto Caesar

Hatched by Dave Ross

There are good reasons why the United States has never elected a minister, priest, rabbi, imam or other religious leader as president of the United States.

While there is actually no "separation of church and state" in the U.S. Constitution (that was a phrase Thomas Jefferson used in correspondence and which secularists jumped on gleefully a century or more later), keeping religion out of the deliberations of government is actually a pretty good idea.

While the Constitution limits itself to saying that there will be "no establishment of religion," Jesus himself in the New Testament provided a pretty good common sense way to delineate the relationship of church and state: "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and unto God that which is God’s."

I really don’t want someone in the White House who answers to a higher authority than the U.S. Constitution. Who knows? Maybe that means I don’t want the current occupant in the White House.

It certainly means that I don’t want a former or current minister of the gospel in the Oval Office, except as a spiritual adviser. Yes, I’m talking about former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, a candidate for the Republican nomination.

When the great decisions are being made, I don’t mind public officials consulting their hearts and their Bibles, but I draw the line at someone saying, "The United States cannot do this because the Bible says not to."

When January comes around I don’t want the Sermon on the Mount, I want the State of the Union. I want the bully pulpit, not an actual pulpit.

Since the number one concern of ministers is moral rectitude and inspiring men to live above their lowly natures, it really doesn’t do to have a minister as a political official whose duty might require him to order the deaths of thousands, or even one person, because that is required to secure the safety of America’s citizens.

No "turning the other cheek," please. That is for individuals, not nations. Governments do not, or should not, allow criminals to get away with murder, even though the New Testament might imply that individuals should do that very thing.

At the same time it is sometimes the duty of a president to do things that might be regarded as in a moral gray area. I fully expect and require the president to lie when it is necessary. Not to me the voter, necessarily, and certainly not because the president has done something naughty and wants to get away with it. But I do think that it is sometimes necessary for a president to lie to protect the lives of soldiers or agents who might be in mortal danger. It is naive to believe otherwise.

Could a minister in good conscience do that?

Huckabee is of that strain of politicians, of whom there are a lot this year, who ask us to vote for them because of what they are, rather than what they have done. We are asked to vote for McCain because he was prisoner of war for five years. We are asked to vote for Hillary because she was the president’s wife for eight years, but more to the point, because she IS a woman. Huckabee says we should vote for him because he is an evangelical Christian and a Southern Baptist.

Well, I was raised a Southern Baptist and know and like lots of them. But that doesn’t qualify any of them to be president, necessarily.

I’ve always resisted the idea that I should vote for someone because he is "part of a group," even if it’s my group. We should have no other "group" except Americans. I especially abhor the argument that a group cannot be represented by anyone other than a member of their group. Many evangelicals are apparently taking that position this year -- and while it may mean that they will take over the Republican party for a spell, it probably also means that they will ultimately be represented by their worst nightmare.

Interestingly enough, Barack Obama doesn’t seem to be signaling that voters, particularly black voters, should vote for him because he is a member of the "black group." He is the first black man to run for president not as a black man, but simply as a man with ideas and accomplishments of his own, independent of his race. He is, let it be said, a bit preachy.

There is also a very good reason for the 22nd Amendment, although until recently I haven’t bought the reasoning. But the more I see Bill Clinton panting (I almost wrote "demeaning himself," but that’s an impossibility) to get into the White House again, the more I see the wisdom of limiting presidents to two terms.

Whether Clinton -- who is [accused of being] a rapist and is without doubt a serial liar -- would be president, or it would actually be his wife, her election would, in effect, abrogate the 22nd Amendment.

And if they get away with it, does anyone have any doubts that perhaps a dozen or 16 years from now we’ll see a geriatric Bill and Hillary campaigning for Chelsea, who will be able to claim all that experience because, as First Daughter (twice) she was in the same building when President Clinton (whichever one of them) made those world-changing decisions?

[The edit in brackets is by Dafydd, not by Dave Ross, and purely for reasons of liability, not because I think Dave is wrong.]

Hatched by Dave Ross on this day, January 3, 2008, at the time of 3:35 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/2683

Comments

The following hissed in response by: Rovin

"Huckabee says we should vote for him because he is an evangelical Christian and a Southern Baptist."

Dave, your dichotomy of this statement begs for a clarification. The fact that Huckabee is an evangelical Christian is far from the sole reason the electorate should consider him for POTUS.

Framing Huckabee as some one who would have to lie to preform his duties is disinginuous and too conclusive to "advise" otherwise. Although Reagan not a Baptist minister, he was a devout Christain. That did not prevent him from administering his duties as a president.

If you intend to frame everything so "black and white" over the religon issue, please consider that Christians also take into account much more than what a Baptist minister has to offer as a potential leader of the free world. This is not Huckabees only asset.

The above hissed in response by: Rovin [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 3, 2008 6:33 PM

The following hissed in response by: cdquarles

Rovin,

That is the point. We have had plenty of devout Christian officeholders, including the office of The President of the United States of America. We have not, to my knowledge, had a minister hold this particular office.

My reading of my Bible tells me that a true, called of G-d, minister must renounce this world. He is to sell all of his goods, quit his worldly work, and do nothing but study the Word, preach the Word, live the way the Word tells us, and to be supported solely by the Church, leaving the mundane business of the church to the deacons of the church. IOW a true minister of G-d never does regular commercial work and particularly is not doing government work. His life is dedicated to the spiritual world and assisting the rest of us in our own quest to know and see G-d. I believe that a true, called to preach minister would never seek power in this world by holding a government office. He cannot serve two masters.

I am a believer, and to my mind this is one of the failings of Baptists. Baptists are for the most part congregational in organization. The local church hires the minister. Many churches cannot or will not support the minister in the Biblical manner I have discussed above. Since the minister is human, and his congregation will not meet its obligation, the minister finds himself doing regular work. I do not know all of the details of Gov. Huckabee's ministerial history, but I can see where he lost sight of the true prize if his experience was anything similar to what I've seen.

The above hissed in response by: cdquarles [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 3, 2008 7:20 PM

The following hissed in response by: Eilish

Dave, though as an evangelical Christian I could quibble with many of your theological points and I do disagree with your generalizations about evangelicals, I totally agree that Huckabee is not the best candidate for Americans, whatever your religious persuasion.

I also dislike this "personality politics" of focusing almost solely on what the candidates have done personally and taking away the focus from record, vision and experience.

As a Christian, I know who my Saviour is. I don't need to look for him in a president. I just want the best person for the job.

The above hissed in response by: Eilish [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 3, 2008 9:42 PM

The following hissed in response by: Daga More

good post, and i agree with most of it, but i did not think that Alan Keyes of Maryland, ran as a "Black Man" this might be a mistake on my part, but i dont think so.

The above hissed in response by: Daga More [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 3, 2008 11:43 PM

The following hissed in response by: loboinok

"There are good reasons why the United States has never elected a minister..."

Garfield was a minister.

James A. Garfield (1831-81) was an attorney, minister, educator, soldier, and the twentieth President of the United States. He experienced a dramatic conversion to Christianity in his youth while working on the Ohio canal and was later licensed as a minister in the Christian Church. He studied at Geauga Seminary in Ohio (1849); graduated from Williams College (1856); became a Professor of Ancient Languages and Literature in Hiram College, Ohio (1856); was President of Hiram College (1857-61); elected a U. S. Senator (1859); admitted to the bar (1860); entered the Union side in the Civil War as Lieutenant-Colonel (1861); won a victory at Middle Creek and gained the rank of Brigadier-General (1862); promoted to Major-General (1863) and then resigned; member of the U. S. House of Representatives (1863-80); elected the twentieth President of the United States (1880). Garfield was shot by an assassin at the Washington railroad station en route for a northern trip (1881) and died 81 days later.

I believe there were a few others, if you want to do the search.


"Since the number one concern of ministers is moral rectitude and inspiring men to live above their lowly natures, it really doesn’t do to have a minister as a political official whose duty might require him to order the deaths of thousands, or even one person, because that is required to secure the safety of America’s citizens."

Maybe this will clear your thinking a little...maybe not.

Should Christians - Or Ministers - Run For Office?

The fact that Huckabee was a minister should not hinder his being President...the fact that he is attempting it as a "conservative" when in-fact he is a liberal, should.

The above hissed in response by: loboinok [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 4, 2008 12:58 AM

The following hissed in response by: hunter

The number one concern of a minister is to guide his or her flock to Christ.
I am no friend of Huck's, but I do think you should not confuse someone having been a minister with other roles they undertake.
That said, I think a Huckabee nomination assures a democrat victory this November.

The above hissed in response by: hunter [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 4, 2008 5:23 AM

The following hissed in response by: Seaberry

Guess I must be a Bigot, because I will vote against anyone who is or was one of the Abrahamic religions clergy, i.e. Mullah, Pastor, Rabbi, etc. If someone wants to believe in one of them, then fine; however, spreading anyone of those religions’s doctrines and practices through leadership, teaching, and preaching roles makes me question both their mental capacity and intent.

Christianity and Islam both have a history of forcing their religions down-the-throats of others, and I don’t care to see that history repeated here in America.

Thomas Paine didn’t cover Islam and the koran, in his book The Age of Reason, but he certainly covered the bible’s OT and NT…

The above hissed in response by: Seaberry [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 4, 2008 6:09 AM

The following hissed in response by: David M

The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 01/04/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.

The above hissed in response by: David M [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 4, 2008 7:50 AM

The following hissed in response by: Rhymes With Right

I hate to tell you this, my friend, but the US HAS, in fact, elected a minister to the presidency. That individual was James A. Garfield, who was a minister in what eventually became the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ).

The above hissed in response by: Rhymes With Right [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 4, 2008 2:46 PM

The following hissed in response by: hunter

Seaberry -
Yes, you are a bigot. And an offensive ignorant one, at that.

The above hissed in response by: hunter [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 4, 2008 3:22 PM

The following hissed in response by: Seaberry

And an offensive ignorant one, at that.

That's also what they said about Thomas Paine...

The above hissed in response by: Seaberry [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 4, 2008 4:39 PM

The following hissed in response by: loboinok

That's also what they said about Thomas Paine...

And they were right...


"Paine later published his Age of Reason, which infuriated many of the Founding Fathers. John Adams wrote, “The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity, let the Blackguard [scoundrel, rogue] Paine say what he will.” Samuel Adams wrote Paine a stiff rebuke, telling him, “[W]hen I heard you had turned your mind to a defence of infidelity, I felt myself much astonished and more grieved that you had attempted a measure so injurious to the feelings and so repugnant to the true interest of so great a part of the citizens of the United States.

Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration, wrote to his friend and signer of the Constitution John Dickinson that Paine's Age of Reason was “absurd and impious”; Charles Carroll, a signer of the Declaration, described Paine's work as “blasphemous writings against the Christian religion”; John Witherspoon said that Paine was “ignorant of human nature as well as an enemy to the Christian faith”; and Elias Boudinot, President of Congress, even published the Age of Revelation—a full-length rebuttal to Paine's work. Patrick Henry, too, wrote a refutation of Paine's work which he described as “the puny efforts of Paine.”
When William Paterson, signer of the Constitution and a Justice on the U. S. Supreme Court, learned that some Americans seemed to agree with Paine's work, he thundered, “Infatuated Americans, why renounce your country, your religion, and your God?” Zephaniah Swift, author of America's first law book, noted, “He has the impudence and effrontery [shameless boldness] to address to the citizens of the United States of America a paltry performance which is intended to shake their faith in the religion of their fathers.” John Jay, an author of the Federalist Papers and the original Chief-Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court, was comforted by the fact that Christianity would prevail despite Paine's attack,“I have long been of the opinion that the evidence of the truth of Christianity requires only to be carefully examined to produce conviction in candid minds.” In fact, Paine's views caused such vehement public opposition that he spent his last years in New York as “an outcast” in “social ostracism” and was buried in a farm field because no American cemetery would accept his remains."

IIRC, his remains were later exhumed and while being transported to Europe, were lost at sea.

The above hissed in response by: loboinok [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 4, 2008 8:17 PM

The following hissed in response by: hunter

Seaberry,
If you are comparing yourself to Paine, you are not only ignorant, but delusional as well.

The above hissed in response by: hunter [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 4, 2008 10:40 PM

The following hissed in response by: Goyo Marquez

Well It's my understanding that Romney was both a Bishop and Stake President in the LDS Church. A stake president has been compared to a Bishop in the catholic church.

Why do I get the feeling that Dave Ross will go all Emily Litella on us rather that suggest that Romney should be disqualified from the Presidency because of his past service in the Mormon Church.

Could you please again explain why evangelicals shouldn't feel that opposition to Huckabee, who did after all serve for 11 years as Governor of Arkansas, isn't based on anti-evangelical bigotry?

Greg Marquez
goyomarquez@earthlink.net


The above hissed in response by: Goyo Marquez [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 4, 2008 10:46 PM

The following hissed in response by: hunter

Greg,
My opposition to Huckabee is that I do not like his policies. I think he is soft on immigration reform and border security. I think he is very naive on foreign policy and weak on the war. I think he is naive as well on the economy. I can be persuaded otherwise, but I see little so far that does so.

The above hissed in response by: hunter [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 5, 2008 7:33 AM

The following hissed in response by: Seaberry

hunter & loboinok,

Yes, Christians hated Thomas Paine, “Maligned” his character, and “execrated, shunned and abhorred” him. No, I am not “comparing” myself to Paine.

Here are a couple of reasons why i don’t trust Mike Huckabee…

Faith and Politics:

My faith is my life - it defines me. My faith doesn't influence my decisions, it drives them.

This “faith” that Huckabee speaks of is basically built upon the bible that he reads and teaches. He is clearly mixing Religion and Politics in this race (two topics that should “never be discussed at the dinner table” – wink), which is fine by me (to a point); however, the position of President of the United States is a powerful one, and much of that power includes being the Commander in Chief of our Military. Mike Huckabee is using Christianity in order to gain the position of President of the United States, and I don’t trust him for doing so.

Thomas Paine, in The Age of Reason, using the bible’s own words proved that that it was not the “word of God”, i.e. that it has too many discrepancies in it to be so. For example, in CHAPTER II - THE NEW TESTAMENT, he points out the following discrepancies that are found in the Gospels:

1) Genealogy of Jesus.
2) Immaculate Conception.
3) Story of Herod.
4) Inscription on the cross.
5) Time of crucifixion.
6) Crucifixion.
7) The Resurrection.
8) Appearance after Resurrection.
9) Ascension

Before I could ever support Huckabee, since he is the one who has brought religion into this Presidential race, he would first have to explain the nine discrepancies listed above…so to speak.

The above hissed in response by: Seaberry [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 5, 2008 11:10 AM

The following hissed in response by: hunter

Seaberry,
Only a dimbulb confuses religious dogma with political position.
Every President we have had, from G Washington to GW Bush has been an adherent to the religious tenets you confuse with politics.
Huckabee is not the first candidate to speak of his religion. He will not be the last.
Thomas Paine brought on himself the disrepute of history. You bring on yourself well earned derision be insisting that the list of naive theological conundrums has anything at all to do with this race.
If you want to learn about the theology of Christianity and how it deals with those and the many other apparent inconsistencies and contradictions, I suggest you do it outside of politics.
We do not have religious tests for our public leaders precisely to prevent wankers like you from excercising your bigoted intolerance.


The above hissed in response by: hunter [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 5, 2008 1:47 PM

The following hissed in response by: Seaberry

hunter,

Your continued name-calling doesn't deserve a response, but I shall give you one anyway:

Only a dimbulb confuses religious dogma with political position.

Exactly my point about Huckabee! He promotes his “religious dogma” as if it was the proper credentials for the office of President.

Thomas Paine brought on himself the disrepute of history.

He presented the facts…dared anyone to try and show them wrong. When no one was able to prove the facts wrong, he was attacked for even bringing those facts up, i.e. they attacked the messenger and ignored the message.

We do not have religious tests for our public leaders..

Not everyone requires such a test of our public leaders, but many Christians do. Heck, look at Romney, his religion has been brought up many times, and by Huckabee at least once. Could a Jew win the Presidency? Could a Muslim, Buddhist, or Hindu win the Presidency? Remember the uproar when a Hindu chaplain delivered the opening prayer at the “start of session of the U.S. Senate”?

The above hissed in response by: Seaberry [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 5, 2008 3:13 PM

The following hissed in response by: hunter

Seaberry,
And to repeat, I don't support Huckabee.
I have listened closely to him in several interviews and he has not *once* fallen on theology to support his stand or to claim authority on a position or to claim experience or authority to be President.
You are simply being dishonest in your assertion.
Paine did not present *facts* he published his opinions, and his opinions were rejected.
Individuals are still free to vote for leaders they feel most comfortable with - even Christians, much to your apparent disappointment. That is not a religious test.
What you propose, not allowing anyone who has been a clergy in a specific branch of religion to serve in government, is a religious test.
The internet is full of petty posers, who whine about ad hom and freedom, even as they engage in personal attacks and use infantile rationalizations just like yours to justify restricting the freedom of others.
You are just a mediocre example of this.

The above hissed in response by: hunter [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 6, 2008 8:43 AM

The following hissed in response by: Seaberry

hunter,

Paine did not present *facts* he published his opinions, and his opinions were rejected.

He used the bible's own words...to point out the discrepancies in it, e.g. the 9 discrepancies between the Gospels that I listed above. Those 9 discrepancies are facts that are found in the Gospels, not his "opinion", and are only a few of the discrepancies he listed. How could the bible be the "word of God", if the Gospels can't even agree on what happened? Have you read Paine's The Age of Reason?

What you propose, not allowing anyone who has been a clergy in a specific branch of religion to serve in government, is a religious test.

I didn't "propose" anything...merely said that I "will vote against anyone who is or was one of the Abrahamic religions clergy, i.e. Mullah, Pastor, Rabbi, etc."


The above hissed in response by: Seaberry [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 6, 2008 9:44 AM

The following hissed in response by: Eilish

Goyo, you asked why evangelicals should not see opposition to Huckabee as evangelical bigotry. While I am sure there are some opponents of Huckabee's out there who (like Seaberry) seem to oppose Huckabee solely for his religious beliefs, I am an evangelical who opposes him mainly because he is a government liberal who only has socially conservative policies.

I am a social conservative, but I believe that the primary function of a president is to be the chief executive of a limited government (along with military and judicial responsibilities.) Mike Huckabee's record shows that he is a big government executive and believes in more expansive powers for the state (and logically the federal) government.

While I would prefer a true conservative (socially and constitutionally) I could settle for a constitutional conservative with socially liberal values because their governance would necessarily be limited to the constitutional responsibilities and would not expand the scope of the federal government.

To be clear, I am supporting Fred Thompson for the nomination.

The above hissed in response by: Eilish [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 6, 2008 8:11 PM

The following hissed in response by: loboinok

Seaberry,

I forgot about you and just now come across the link in cleaning out some bookmarks.


"...however, the position of President of the United States is a powerful one, and much of that power includes being the Commander in Chief of our Military. Mike Huckabee is using Christianity in order to gain the position of President of the United States, and I don’t trust him for doing so."


You clearly are ignorant of our country's history. Try this for starters... Wallbuilders


"Before I could ever support Huckabee, since he is the one who has brought religion into this Presidential race, he would first have to explain the nine discrepancies listed above…so to speak."


I'm not trying to convince you to vote for Huckabee. Actually, I agree with both, hunter and Eilish, except I presently support Duncan Hunter and will probably end up supporting Thompson.

The "discrepancies" you referenced, were refuted in Paine's day up to the present.

Paine Relief

The above hissed in response by: loboinok [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 12, 2008 12:33 AM

Post a comment

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)


Remember me unto the end of days?


© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved