Slouching Toward Theocracy?

Disturbing. Very, very disturbing.

"[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,"{...}

Can you guess who said it? Yes, that's right. It's the Huckajesus.

Ace sez:

I don't have much of a problem with religion-based policy impulses. All of our impulses come from somewhere, after all, and I don't see why a religious person's core beliefs should affect his worldview less than my own secularist/humanist worldview. The left's insistence that only secular beliefs should impel policy stances is inconsistent but convenient in that it would, if accepted, lead to a secularist-only public polity.

However, I prefer such prescriptions to be couched in secularist terms. There are numerous reasons to be pro-life or pro-traditional-marriage that don't have much to do with religion. It's not deceptive, I don't think, to argue in terms of sound policy, without mention of God, even if, at root, it is a belief in God's will that ultimately leads one to embrace those non-religious rationales for one's positions.

I have little doubt that most pro-lifers believe as they do because God, they think, and not 18th century Jeffersonian political thinking, supports the pro-life position. And yet when arguing about this I strongly prefer arguments which do not explicitly invoke an appeal to the ultimate authority, God Himself. {...}

I don't know that I could say it much better than that. While I'm absolutely sure Huckabee was pandering to some Evangelical Christian group in terms of passing a human life amendment and one defining marriage as only between a man and a woman, think about what he said for a moment in broader terms of what he claims to believe in. It's been well established that as Governor of Arkansas, he signed a statement at a Baptist convention in the late-90's stating that women should be submissive to their husbands. So, taking this statement into account, is he now going to try to repeal the nineteenth amendment, which gave women the right to vote? It's a logical jump, even though it may sound (and admittedly is) farfetched?

Like Ace, I don't have any issues with people getting their morality from whatever religion they choose to practice. Religion, for whatever else it might be, is simply a morality delivery system. That's nothing new in the scheme of things, but anyone who tries to argue that this sort of crap is what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote the Constitution has lost it entirely. You can try and argue otherwise, but the history is clear: the Founding Fathers might have been Christian and had their morals developed by their respective religions, but they also sure as hell knew what a divisive thing religion could be, and hence they said, in effect, no state religion in this country...ever. Huckabee seems to want to ignore that bit. He seems to be stating that religious morality is the only type of morality that should inform public policy, ergo the only person who can safely, and morally, guide public policy is someone of staunch religious beliefs. Like, perhaps, a former Baptist minister?

I am sick and tired of this crap. When did "secular" become such a dirty word, eh? I don't find it wholly incompatible that you can be a religious person, yet be for a secular government as well. Why do so many people think otherwise, and in Huckabee's case, seem to think that the only way to go is to create a de facto theocracy? What is the matter with wanting to keep your church out of my government, and vice versa? This country was founded on the principle of religious freedom. It was also founded on the principle that there would be no state sponsored religion---even of the de facto variety. You can argue that a return to God would do this country some good, but I would simply challenge you to try and shove that genie back in is bottle. It's not going to happen. This is where we are at in the early 21st Century. Deal with it. Go to church if you want. I don't have an issue with it. I don't have an issue with your morality, either. But when people argue that the only person that can lead this country out of the pit of moral decrepitude it finds itself in is an ex-minister of a religion I don't much care for, you can be pretty sure I'm going to vote for the other guy.

After all, I already have found my religious savior---and I don't need Him in the oval office.

Posted by Kathy at January 15, 2008 05:48 PM | TrackBack