Huckabee:'TAKE THIS NATION BACK FOR CHRIST'

[The_cavalierman]

It merely states that the gov won't sponsor or deny religion. It doesn't remove them from anything.

Our government is trying to cut back on sponsorship of christianity and christians are crying about persecution although they have lost no rights.

The government works best free of religious pressure and influence and Huckabee represents everything wrong with religion and politics.

[Predicto]

If I read you right, your stance is that there is seperation since jurisprudence has said so, not the constitution?

No, you did not read me right.

My stance is that there is separation because the words of the Constitution lend themselves to that interpretation and ALSO have been interpreted that way by the people that our system entrusts with the interpreting.

Unfortunely your wrong. Just because people believe there is separtion doesn't mean it's so. The constitution does not state there is seperation of church and state, no matter how you slice it, it just isn't there.

Unfortunately, I'm right. The word "separation" is not there. The concept of separation is implied in there.

[Predicto]

and this is intended to to do what?? Explain to me the seperation?? It didn't. There isn't any. It is you reading into it. It merely states that the gov won't sponsor or deny religion. It doesn't remove them from anything.

If you read it again it basically tells the american people that the government will not legislate in such a way to make laws pro or con in regards to religion.

an example would be the govn can't make a law saying that once a year we will celebrate Jesus day. And they also can't make a law saying christians can't worship in church on sunday.

anything beyond that, is reading into it.

You act as though YOUR interpretation is undisputable. It is not. Not only is it easily disputed, it is also not the law. It is wishful thinking.

[techboy]

Our government is trying to cut back on sponsorship of christianity and christians are crying about persecution although they have lost no rights.

The government works best free of religious pressure and influence and Huckabee represents everything wrong with religion and politics.

Look, I'm not a Huckabee supporter. I'm one of those Ron Paul loonies. I'm confused, though. What position has Huckabee actually taken to make you say this? Because if it's what you think you read in the article in the first post, I'd suggest you read it again and analyze who he's talking to, in what capacity, and what his message is.

[JMS]

and this is intended to to do what?? Explain to me the seperation?? It didn't. There isn't any. It is you reading into it. It merely states that the gov won't sponsor or deny religion. It doesn't remove them from anything.

Well the key term there being sponsor. If you provide a medium for the expression of religous ideas you are sponsoring religion. At least that's the argument.

If you read it again it basically tells the american people that the government will not legislate in such a way to make laws pro or con in regards to religion.

an example would be the govn can't make a law saying that once a year we will celebrate Jesus day. And they also can't make a law saying christians can't worship in church on sunday.

anything beyond that, is reading into it.

Well I think you are reading into it. Pass No Law doesn't say no law on dogma. No law on celebrations. No laws on worship.

The major point being the founding fathers were not anti religion. They were pro religion although they didn't agree on religion. They believed the best way to promote religion was to keep the government out of the religion game. Any type of deluting of this provision by so called religion advocates is short sited.

[JMS]

Look, I'm not a Huckabee supporter. I'm one of those Ron Paul loonies. I'm confused, though. What position has Huckabee actually taken to make you say this? Because if it's what you think you read in the article in the first post, I'd suggest you read it again and analyze who he's talking to, in what capacity, and what his message is.

Well he specifically said it in the article. But he said it long before he decided to run for President.

[JMS]

No, you did not read me right.

My stance is that there is separation because the words of the Constitution lend themselves to that interpretation and ALSO have been interpreted that way by the people that our system entrusts with the interpreting.

Jefferson who penned the first Ammendment to the Constitution also wrote the Virginia state constitution which has a similar provision, removing the Government from the religion game.

SEC. 16. That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.

[Zguy28]

Well he specifically said it in the article. But he said it long before he decided to run for President.

I've made similar remarks to his when speaking to other Christians. It doesn't mean I want the USA to be a theocracy.

[JMS]

I've made similar remarks to his when speaking to other Christians. It doesn't mean I want the USA to be a theocracy.

This article just came out this week. I thought this was a recent speach when I originally posted it. I agree this speach given years before he ran for President can't be taken in the same light as if it was given last week by Huckabee.

I don't think this speach is very damaging to Huckabee's campagne. He's quickly becoming a front runner in the Republcan party and based on viewing his last R-Presidential debate; He's a polished professional serious candidate.

Who ever runs from the Dem side is going to have to do more than just show up to take this race. That's my opinion.. The opinion of somebody who has already decided he's voting Democrat for the next decade.

If I can stand it.

[techboy]

Well he specifically said it in the article. But he said it long before he decided to run for President.

No, he didn't say "it" in the article, if by "it" you mean a comingling of Church and State.

Huckabee was speaking very specifically as a Baptist Minister, to other Baptist Ministers, about what Christians should do, so that the government doesn't have to. He wasn't calling for any kind of government action at all.

In fact, if anything, he was calling for greater seperation of Church and State, because he was suggesting that Christians should fulfill their proper role so that government doesn't have to get into those areas.

[JMS]

No, he didn't say "it" in the article, if by "it" you mean a comingling of Church and State.

The title of the article and the title of the thread is Huckabee's statement..

""I hope we answer the alarm clock and take this nation back for Christ."

Huckabee was speaking very specifically as a Baptist Minister, to other Baptist Ministers, about what Christians should do, so that the government doesn't have to. He wasn't calling for any kind of government action at all.

Again he wasn't calling for government action. He was saying that Christians himself specifically should get involved in government to take it back for Christ. To make it an extension of their religion, I intuit.

Anyway, As Zguy28 has already said. It's one thing to say this in front of a religous assemble speaking generally. It's an entirely a different thing to say this in a tight Presidential race while you are questioning the suitablility of your oponent based upon his religion. Huckabee did the former, not the latter.

[DGreenistheBest]

You know, he was probably just saying "take this nation back for Christ's sake!" and the sound just cut out at the end for some reason. This thread is probably 8 pages of a simple misunderstanding.

[techboy]

He was saying that Christians himself specifically should get involved in government to take it back for Christ.

Where does he say that Christians should get involved in government?

Everything he says in the article seems geared towards the idea that government is a poor substitute for what is needed, which is private action by committed Christians.

Huckabee said ungiving individuals are responsible for higher taxes.

"I'm often asked why taxes are so high and government is so big. It's because the faith we have in local churches has become so small. If we'd been doing what we should have -- giving a dime from every dollar to help the widows, the orphans and the poor -- we now wouldn't be giving nearly 50 cents of every dollar to a government that's doing ... what we should have been doing all along."

Huckabee also explained why he left pastoring for politics.

"I didn't get into politics because I thought government had a better answer. I got into politics because I knew government didn't have the real answers, that the real answers lie in accepting Jesus Christ into our lives."

He compared his entry into politics to "getting inside the dragon's belly," adding, "There's not one thing we can do in those marbled halls and domed capitols that can equal what's done when Jesus touches the lives of a sinner."

The most basic unit of government is not the city council, quorum court or state legislature, Huckabee said. "It is Mom and Dad raising kids and teaching them respect for authority, others and God."

Just because he got into government doesn't mean he's advocating that others do.

People are reading things in that just aren't there, at least that I can see.

[ATV]

Vote Huckabee, because he's not a weirdo, crook, or a Mormon....

http://www.crooksandliars.com/category/open-thread/

[81artmonk]

Our government is trying to cut back on sponsorship of christianity and christians are crying about persecution although they have lost no rights.

The government works best free of religious pressure and influence and Huckabee represents everything wrong with religion and politics.

I'm interested in finding out these cut backs christians are getting?? What about the pressure and influence of the AARP, or the NRA or the UAW?? Would you condemn them also?? Or is it just christians you are worried about??

[81artmonk]

No, you did not read me right.

My stance is that there is separation because the words of the Constitution lend themselves to that interpretation and ALSO have been interpreted that way by the people that our system entrusts with the interpreting.

Unfortunately, I'm right. The word "separation" is not there. The concept of separation is implied in there.

Seems funny how that interpret thingy get handy with seperation of church and state, but when it comes to gun control it is what is says.

Interpreting what it means and what it acually says are two different things. Those whom you side with as having interpreted it to mean seperation aren't right either.

This reminds me of when I was a kid, my dad told me not to ride my bike int he street. he found me on the other side of the street riding my bike and called for me to come there.

"didn't I tell you not to ride your bike in the street" he said. I replied "I wasn't"

Point here is, his words were specific and I intrepreted them to mean something that wasn't there. Or manipulated them in order to fit my needs.

There is no, never will be, never has been serperation of church and state, implied, suggested or otherwise. Merely guidelines to which the government and religion are to coexsist.

You're seeing things that just aren't there.

[81artmonk]

Well the key term there being sponsor. If you provide a medium for the expression of religous ideas you are sponsoring religion. At least that's the argument.

Well I think you are reading into it. Pass No Law doesn't say no law on dogma. No law on celebrations. No laws on worship.

The major point being the founding fathers were not anti religion. They were pro religion although they didn't agree on religion. They believed the best way to promote religion was to keep the government out of the religion game. Any type of deluting of this provision by so called religion advocates is short sited.

If you want to get into details, it was intended to prevent any state sponsored religion. They had just left a ruling party in which forced state religion was endorsed by the government and that's why they left.

[techboy]

81artmonk, you don't seem to understand the concept of Common Law, which is a foundation of our governmental system. I linked to the Wikipedia article for a general overview, but the upshot of it is that judicial precedent helps to form our legal system.

I'm a libertarian and a strict constructionist of the Constitution, but it's impossible to deny the necessity of this. The Constitution couldn't possibly cover every situation in detail, so our judicial system fills in the blanks (hopefully within the constraints of what is written).

For instance, let's take the prohibition against "cruel and unusual" punishment. What is cruel? What is unusual? By necessity, courts must make precedent.

In the same fashion the 1st Ammendment is pretty bare bones, but 200+ years of judicial precedent has established that there is a Constitutional seperation of Church and State. Only the extent of that seperation remains to be debated.

Sorry.

[81artmonk]

81artmonk, you don't seem to understand the concept of Common Law, which is a foundation of our governmental system. I linked to the Wikipedia article for a general overview, but the upshot of it is that judicial precedent helps to form our legal system.

I'm a libertarian and a strict constructionist of the Constitution, but it's impossible to deny the necessity of this. The Constitution couldn't possibly cover every situation in detail, so our judicial system fills in the blanks (hopefully within the constraints of what is written).

For instance, let's take the prohibition against "cruel and unusual" punishment. What is cruel? What is unusual? By necessity, courts must make precedent.

In the same fashion the 1st Ammendment is pretty bare bones, but 200+ years of judicial precedent has established that there is a Constitutional seperation of Church and State. Only the extent of that seperation remains to be debated.

Sorry.

This debate has boiled down to the old, which came first, the chicken or the egg.

You are sort of making my point, that the judicals have made the seperation idea stick into society. My intial point is the constitution doesn't have it, the seperation is something that others have made up based on what they think.

I could argue too that just becuase those who set judicial precedent have said it's so doesn't make them right.

I could say the the right to bear arms according to the constitution only holds up to the militia and doesn't apply today. But the NRA would argue that point.