What's sauce for the Huck...

Read Obama's speech. He called for unity, for empathy, for tolerance, for forgivness, for self-reflection, and for the need to work together. Not once did he call for the need to align the Constituton of the United States to his particular view of what is the law of God. Rod, do you really not see the differance?

Here's my theory, Rod: White liberals think of the religion of American blacks as part of their cultural fabric that serves an important emotional and politically galvanizing purpose that advances certain liberal causes. For this reason, it is not thought of as a serious threat to the liberal hegemony; this is why the deep ethical (and perhaps criminal) lapses of ministers such as the Rev. Jesse Jackson and the Rev. Al Sharpton do not result in the charge of "hypocrisy," a label that is only applied to be clergy who really don't believe the principles they preach. In the case of these two gentlemen, they never preached against the vices in which they engaged and about which they never repented or sought forgiveness. Since white liberals and the MSM do not think of these men as theologically serious individuals, their clownish religiosity is tolerated in the same way as Liberace's flamboyance was thought of as a necessary, though annoying, ornament through which one had to view his talent.

You are, of course, talking about Obama, a man who one can't help but admire. The fact that he seems truly shocked at Bill Clinton's difficulty with veracity speaks well of Obama's willingness to initially think the best of others before making a negative judgment. In this sense, he obeys the Pauline call to "believe all things." Nevertheless, his use of Scripture, in this case, seems Lincolnian. He takes an historical narrative and lifts from it an abstract principle and then applies it to his audience in a way that is uplifting and hopeful. This homiletic method does not depend on the veracity of the narrative or whether it speaks to a contemporary issue over which citizens strongly disagree (e.g., abortion, same-sex marriage, pacifism, redistribution of wealth). For this reason, and coupled with his commitment to social liberalism, Obama avoids the problems that Huckabee faced when he mentioned the "law of God" being reflected in the Constitution.

Maybe what offends some about Huckabee's quoting Bible stories is that he actually believes them. They are more to him than grounding current events with historical context. They are living, and need to be seen as more than just history. They shape and inform how he believes he ought to live. I suppose the line is crossed for some when he uses them as a guide to how we ought to live and govern ourselves. Those offended - don't vote for him, fair enough. No need to cast stones (so to speak).

PaulPfaff: "I suppose the line is crossed for some when he uses them as a guide to how we ought to live and govern ourselves. Those offended - don't vote for him, fair enough. No need to cast stones (so to speak)."

Paul, we have already seen what can happen to our nation when we have a President who believes that God directs his actions. President Bush has been quoted as saying that God's words came to him to attack Iraq and Afghanistan to make Israel safer.

Will President Huckabee likewise heed the words of God coming to him to take this country off into another direction, one that numerous advisors would counsel him to avoid doing?

When you believe that God directs your actions it is really difficult for you to be persuaded that you might be wrong. Again, I go to the example of President Bush, who consistently refuses to listen to opposing voices among his own advisors because he has made his mind up. Is God talking to him? Is he seeing his path laid out before him in God's Word?

If President Huckabee were to come into the White House situation room and tell his military advisers that God had told him to bomb Iran, how could they persuade him that is a bad idea from a military standpoint?

That is the problem, Paul. When God is on your side anyone who questions your actions is working against God.

A leader leads, and various leaders use various means by which to decide a course of action. And when a leader makes a decision of what action to take, there are always going to be advisors who are against it, if they are more than yes-men. The leader will get the pros and cons of any given situation, I would hope, as best as his advisors can give.

One way for making decisions when it comes down to your decision, is to reflect upon the faith guiding principles one has, and that includes prayer and getting a sense of what God would guide one to do. But that he asked for God to guide him, and feels he has received an answer, does not mean he refused to listen or take into consideration opposite views.

And the primary stated reason that Bush has given for freeing Iraq from Hussain's rule is that he has constantly violated UN resolutions for years with no one calling him on it. Given the intelligence he had, though in retrospect we know some of it was flawed or inaccurate, that the likelihood of WMD were likely there or in process of being obtained, and his apparent attempts at hiding such info from inspectors on numerous occasions, gave adequate concern that he had to be dealt with.

Now, there are a lot of opinions on whether we should have gone into Iraq or not, but my point here is only that it is conceivable that the evidence he had at the time was grave enough that he had to make a choice, a decision, one that could have far reaching ramifications either way he went. If Saddam did have any WMD and lobbed a nuke onto Israel and started WW3, people would be criticizing Bush because he had the info, didn't "connect the dots" and didn't act when he could have prevented it, much like the criticism of the FBI and CIA with 9/11. A person of faith, any faith, would attempt to get a sense of what God thought was best. Then, a leader makes a decision and leads. But because he asked God what to do and feels he received a sense of that, in no way means he just ignored all the evidence for and against it.

And reading situations where Huck has governed in AR I get the sense that Huck would definitely depend upon his faith to inform him, but would listen to advisors and the pros and cons of a situation. I think it is silly to believe that either he or Bush would ignore all the people they have gathered around them and just sit in the office praying till they hear words from heaven on what to do, then go do it whatever the cost or irrationality of it.

And there is no way Huck can institute a theocracy without overthrowing the government. He believes Biblical principles, like the 10 commandments upon which much of our law has a basis in, should be defining. He relates that to the two amendments he is for. But all he can do is suggest them. The congress would have to approve them, then the states would have to vote on them. Theocracy is when a king, dictator, etc., governs the country and is also the head of a religious order, like it was in England long ago (to some degree) and can impose religious views upon their subjects.

The president, as we should all know from government class, cannot create laws. He can only propose them to the Congress. Congress creates the laws. Congress would have to become a theocratic institution, and that isn't going to happen. I don't care if we elected Benny Hinn as president, we wouldn't be a theocracy.

Huck, all by himself, cannot impose religion on the country, not unless he orders the armed forces, and they do it, to shut down congress and the courts and make himself dictator of the country. A possible scenario I'll grant, but a highly unlikely one.

People of faith have lead this nation on many occasions, starting with Washington and down through history. This is nothing new or different. But be glad he is being who he is, and not trying to hide his faith. At least with him, you know what you're getting, and can make a decision on whether to vote for him with that info in hand. If a person who seeks God's guidance on decisions they must make along with the info they have bothers you, then don't vote for him. I think most voters appreciate that aspect.

Timothy Copple: "And there is no way Huck can institute a theocracy without overthrowing the government. He believes Biblical principles, like the 10 commandments upon which much of our law has a basis in, should be defining. He relates that to the two amendments he is for. But all he can do is suggest them. The congress would have to approve them, then the states would have to vote on them. Theocracy is when a king, dictator, etc., governs the country and is also the head of a religious order, like it was in England long ago (to some degree) and can impose religious views upon their subjects."

Did any of you watch the 60 Minutes special "The Age of Warming" Sunday? According to one of the scientists they interviewed for that show, the Bush administration is exercising very strict control over the reports that come from the NASA climate research office. Clearly it is being done for political reasons in an attempt to soften the message about climate change.

This is an example of what can be done by a President. In this instance important information is being withheld from the American public, and time is being lost that could be used in reversing some of the human input factors into global warming.

The expenditure of the monies appropriated by the Legislature is under the complete control of the executive. The Legislature cannot, short of impeaching the President, force him/her to execute any of their laws.

What might God tell a President not to do with regards to a bill promoting sex education or helping to stop the spread of AIDS?

The media hasn't recoiled in horror because some candidates are more equal than others.And you know which ones. Calvin Butts endorsed Hillary-no biggie. Mrs. Obama spent the better part of December begging noted hairshirt Christian ascetic-mystic Al Sharpton to endorse her beloved. But if Edward Eagan endorsed anyone(and I'm not sure anyone would want his endorsement, but I digress), it would be met with MSM howls that this was the end of the perpetual brick wall between church and state.I'd note the Constitution merely says there will be no establishment of religion, but the wall imagery suits the MSM when they so choose, a very consistent standard. To recap-when candidates and who agree with the MSM invoke religion, it's just dandy; those who don't agree with the MSM do so they are destroying that oh-so-important wall they have invented and therefore must be villified.

Paul Pfaff,

"Maybe what offends some about Huckabee's quoting Bible stories is that he actually believes them."

It doesn't offend me to hear Huck "quoting Bible stories", nor Obama for that matter,

It DOES offend me that Huck would change the Constitution to align it with his own particular beliefs, which kinda destroys the concept of freedom of religion in America, doesn't it?

Besides, you make it sound as if Obama DOESN'T "actually believe them". What makes you think that?

"And there is no way Huck can institute a theocracy without overthrowing the government."

Hey, Bush came pretty close, Timothy.

"The people who freaked mostly about Huckabee using 'God stuff' were, in fact, people on the right, not people on the left. I've said that before."

Then you were wrong, DavidTC. I am on the "left" and I totally freaked (and still do) whenever the Huckster opened/opens his mouth and all that 'God talk' comes tumbling out. America is NOT a theocracy (yet).

There is no double standard. There is a single standard: "White evangelical = bad; black [or other nonwhite] Christian = tolerable."
It has been said that the only criticism-free religious communities in America are the Jewish, and the African American Christian. Good for them, glad they could pull it off; but can't the rest of us avoid the MSM sneers also?

When is the "God told me to invade Iraq" lie ever going to go away? Do people eally believe that or is it some secret dog whistle the left uses to reinforce the idea that Christianity is a harmful, scary force?

Erin:

You are just the Grim Reaper these days ...

You didn't have a personality switch with Donny, did you? He's said a few (a few) nice things in your more normal spirit recently.

Jeff Feagles: "When is the "God told me to invade Iraq" lie ever going to go away? Do people eally believe that or is it some secret dog whistle the left uses to reinforce the idea that Christianity is a harmful, scary force?"

We've been told by numerous Christian leaders that President Bush was "God's man of the hour" throughout his administration. President Bush has been very open about his religious faith, and his prayer life.

Why do you find it incredulous that God would speak to him and tell him to invade Iraq? Do you believe that the leaders who came out of that 2003 meeting with him were lying when they recounted what they heard the President say? Do you believe that President Bush said it and was lying?

Or do you not believe that God could speak to a leader of the US?

what part of "Barack is not calling for a theocracy" do you not understand?

In response to DS049's post at the top:

Romney has not spoken in any churches (other than MAYBE his own, which is doubtful given his current schedule) during his campaign. If you talk to Mormons, one thing they all (or at least most) agree on is POLITICS DON'T BELONG IN CHURCH. We are not allowed to use our churches for ANY political purposes (other than a polling place.) Not even during the week. Not even if someone who's not a member asks just to use the building at an off-time.

I would be extremely uncomfortable if Romney (or any of the candidates for that matter) showed up at my church and spoke during the Sunday service, even if it were allowed. And I've heard of no reports of him speaking in other churches during the campaign. I'm sure I would have noticed if there had been any.

Jeff Feagles: "Can you give me a single cite of the president saying "God told me to invade Iraq"? Something that isn't hearsay?"

Well, the remark is quite consistent with other claims Bush has made (and hasn't refuted afterwards).

- In an interview with USA Today (2APR2003) Commerce Secretary Don Evans said that President Bush believes he was called by God to lead the nation at this time.

- A quote from a NY Times story of 17OCT2004 has former Reagan advisor Bruce Bartlett saying that Bush believes he is on a mission from God.

- At the 2004 GOP convention, Governor Pataki introduced President Bush, saying that he was "one of those men God and fate somehow lead to the fore in times of challenge."

- James Robison, quoted by Stephen Mansfield in "The Faith of George W. Bush, said that the President told him, "I've heard the call. I believe God wants me to run for President."

- In the same book Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention said that Bush told him in a meeting, "I believe that God wants me to be president, but if that doesn't happen, it's OK."

- World Magazine quoted Tim Goeglein, called a White House Official, as saying, "I think President Bush is God's man at this hour, and I say this with a great sense of humility."

- Bob Woodward in his book "Plan of Attack" quoted President Bush's answer to a question of whether he consulted with his father, former President George H.W. Bush, before going to war with Iraq. George W. answered, "There is a higher father that I appeal to."

None of these statements have been refuted. As to the remarks made in the 2003 meeting with Arab officials, three of them in separate interviews on separate dates said that Bush's words were that God led him to invade Afghanistan and Iraq.

Are not these words in line with someone who believes that he had a mission from God or that God called him to be President?

President Bush, through his press secretary, denied he said this. But then this is the same President who told us that Iraq was an imminent threat, that there were weapons of mass destruction, and that he would fire anyone involved in the Plame scandal.

Jeff Feagles: "This lie is something people use to mock his faith. Much like you are attempting to do in your response to me."

Mock his faith? Jeff, if we somehow ended up with a Muslim President and he came to the public saying that Allah had told him to invade...Israel, would you accept it? Would you mock his faith and suggest that it wasn't really Allah or God speaking?

Jeff, do you really want a President who believes he is led by someone or something who speaks only to him?

As a religious liberal, I have no problem with either Huckabee's or Obama's religious rhetoric (so far). Before George W. Bush, I would have had no problem with anybody's religious rhetoric. But, it appears to me that President Bush used perceived Divine guidance as a substitute for rational decision making, looking at available facts/data, and planning for all contingencies. (Example: the failure to plan for the occupation of Iraq- "no need to plan, God has it all arranged").

I believe it's dangerous and irresponsible for a president to depend on his (or her) personal miracle and use that as an excuse to skip analysis and planning.

It's very clear that Obama is very analytical, and that he uses his faith to point the way, not as a substitute for thinking. I'm not equally sure about Huckabee. (For example, he has threatened military action against Iran but had never heard of the National Intelligence Estimate that indicated they may have supended their nuclear program.)

"I think the simple truth is that no one freaks out over Obama's use of Scripture because it's widely recognized that he quite likely doesn't believe a word of it."

My what a mean-spirited thing to say.