Huckleberry and the Will of God

On January 1, 1802, Thomas Jefferson addressed the following words to the Danbury Baptist association in Connecticut.

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.”

On January 14, 2008, Mike Huckabee addressed the following words to a group of Christians in Michigan.

Separation of church and state has become a hot button phrase for many conservatives because of its frequent abuse by the ACLU to thwart the free expression of religion, rather than to protect it. This has driven some conservatives to deny that the first amendment actually establishes a separation of church and state, but Thomas Jefferson was pretty clear about that. So let me clarify that my opinion on this question is based on Thomas Jefferson’s interpretation, not the ACLU’s. (One can twist any precept beyond sense or recognition, but that doesn’t mean the original precept was unsound.)

I revere the principles on which this nation was founded, which define this nation and make this nation great. Those principles were profoundly influenced by the Judeo-Christian heritage of the culture in which our nation was conceived and brought forth. But I would not revere those principles less if had they originated from some other source. They stand on their own, and their merit is intrinsic. We do not need to amend the Constitution to insert God into it.

The reason the founding fathers believed it was important to separate church and state is because there is nothing more personal than one’s relationship with God, and it is nobody else’s business, least of all the government’s. Different religions, and even different denominations within the same religion, interpret God’s will differently. It is not the role of government to be the arbiter of the will of God, but rather to protect the rights and liberties of its citizens. The inherent danger of making the state an instrument of enforcing any interpretation of God’s will is that you end up with Shari’a, rather than representative government. As an inveterate American, I prefer representative government.

Bookmark/Rate this post: Digg it add to Stumble It!

Mrs. Clinton Lets it All Hang Out

Franky, I’m not crazy about any of the candidates, but I guess I could settle for any of the remaining Republicans — except Huckabee. I just don’t get what the Huckabites see in him.

If Iowa were representative of the rest of the country, and the race came down to Huckleberry vs. Obama, I think I’d have to abstain. Obama’s got the cute factor going for him, with his unpretentious boyish charisma. But, as far as issues go, he ranks even lower than Mrs. Clinton and Fluffy on my scorecard. If this were a personality contest, he’d have it all sewed up. And that’s a problem. Because, for a lot of people, it is a personality contest. Obama may just carry the Democratic party because he really is a likeable guy, while Mrs. Clinton is an excruciating itch (and you can spell that with either a w or a b, depending on your PCQ*).

I thought it was very enlightening to watch Mrs. Clinton in this debate.

She comes across as, not only imperious and belligerant, but bitterly incredulous that the other candidates are too benighted to recognize her manifest right to be the next president of the United States. How dare those pipsqueaks have the unmitigated gall to run against her?!

Did anybody else notice she used the word “I” 13 times in a one minute, six second clip? How megalomaniacal does one have to be to refer to themselves every five seconds? — Yes, Mrs. Clinton, it really is all about you, isn’t it? After all, you had to put up with all those years of playing first lady to one of the world’s most pre-eminent playboys, when you knew you could do a better job if only you could get out from under his shadow. Who knows, maybe you were even the one making policy all those years while he was otherwise occupied with his [ahem] “hobby.” After all the humiliations you suffered, it just wouldn’t be fair if you didn’t get your just desserts, would it? So America owes you the presidency! I understand, Mrs. Clinton. Really, I do. (But I’d rather I didn’t, thank you…)

* Policital Correctness Quotient

Rate this post: Digg it add to Stumble It!
Published in: on January 6, 2008 at 9:57 pm  Comments (1)  
Tags: , , , , , , ,