Religious freedom in the U.S.A.

On James Madison's birthday, a fascinating op/ed on his view of so-called "separation of church and state": Madison and Religious Freedom - WSJ.com

Madison and his evangelical allies had a completely different concept. They wanted to promote religion. They just believed that the best way to promote religion was for government to leave it alone.

This basic approach has made America one of the most religiously free and religiously vibrant nations in the world.

Indeed.

Demagoguery (not) made easy

In this intriguing op/ed from Bill Kristol (about how "social conservatives" can do more than simply protest for the next for years) is this salient point:

And the selection of Rick Warren may turn out to have significance beyond short-term political maneuvering. One can see this from the hysteria on the left and among gay activists. They sense that Obama isn't willing to sign on to their campaign to delegitimize, to cast out beyond the pale of polite society, anyone who opposes same-sex marriage--and in particular, anyone (like Warren) who supported Proposition 8 in California, the initiative that overturned the California Supreme Court's legalization of same-sex marriage.

On the other hand, Sean Braisted is really struggling to reconcile Obama's choice for Inauguration Invocator in Chief with Obama's "inclusive" campaign for president. Nashville for the 21st Century: To Invocate or Not To Invocate, That Is The Question.

But Sean mistakenly equates Obama's seeming tolerance of Warren's views on homosexual acts with hypothetical tolerance of, say, opposition to religious intermarriage. As commenter Goldnl notes, many Jews disagree with "religious intermarriage," and whereas homosexual acts are named as sin in the Bible, religious intermarriage is merely labeled as unwise.

But Sean also mistakenly asserts that Obama's exclusion of Jeremiah Wright way back when disproves that the Warren Decision is evidence of Obama's inclusiveness when it comes to filling invocation slots. Sean is in the clear minority in believing that conscientious opposition to homosexual "marriage" is the same as Wright's racist theology. As Kristol points out,

The left senses that the invitation to Rick Warren is a blow to their effort to establish a soft tyranny of "correct" opinion, to enforce society-wide political orthodoxy, on social issues. They're right. This isn't the time for conservatives to snipe at Obama's motives. It's time to welcome him into the American mainstream, to salute the president-elect's progress from Reverends Wright to Warren.

Vote your values! (and here's what they are)

Listening to Steve Gill in the car this a.m. I was intrigued to hear him assert that Californians didn't vote based on issues because a majority rejected homosexual marriage while a majority also supported Barack Obama. I think Steve is ignoring the reality that opposition to homosexuality can be an important issue to many voters (e.g., Blacks) even if it isn't the most important or decisive issue to said voters. Not to mention we shouldn't forget that both Obama and Biden repeatedly (and incredibly) claimed to be opposed to "gay marriage" during this campaign.

That being said, Jonah Goldberg has a salient op/ed today about the "Achilles heel" of Liberalism--that is non-pocketbook issues.

Behold the cultural contradictions of progressivism.

Barack Obama’s victory was a huge win for self-described progressives. Arguably the most liberal presidential nominee in American history, Obama has given some very old ideas an aura of new coolness. Congrats on all that. Hope it works out for you.
. . . .
But something interesting happened on Election Day that didn’t get much attention. Bans on gay marriage were on ballots in several states, and they all won. In fact, gay marriage bans have ultimately passed in all 30 of the states in which they were on the ballot.
. . . .
In other words, Obama had some major un-progressive coattails. The tidal wave of black and Hispanic voters who came out to support Obama voted in enormous numbers against what most white liberals consider to be the foremost civil rights issue of the day.

Put aside the substance of the gay marriage debate; what’s fascinating is how these returns expose the underlying weakness, or at least vulnerability, of progressivism.

Goldberg goes on to emphasize a point that I often think of as an inherent weakness of the Democratic Party (inherent inasmuch as the Democratic Party is based on Liberalism): that the Dems are a coalition party rather than a consensus party like the GOP.

In all candor, I'd posit that coalition politics--much moreso than consensus politics, contributes to the ugly, focus-groupish, sausage-making reputation and reality of contemporary politics. As Goldberg might say . . . good luck with that.

Christian American's perspective

Losing an election is not fun if you care about public policy, and especially if you've devoted any significant time or effort in the election. My friend, David Hall, was a candidate for state senate in Tennessee's 20th District, and as a volunteer with his campaign, I felt his loss much more than any of the Federal races--I can hardly conceive of how much loos his loving and tireless campaign staff (his wife and kids) are feeling, though.

All that being said, this insightful essay from John Piper provides what I think is the definitive word on how Christians (especially those in America, given our unequaled level of democracy) should view politics. Whether you win or lose and election.

Let Christians Vote As Though They Were Not Voting
October 22, 2008
By John Piper

Voting is like marrying and crying and laughing and buying. We should do it, but only as if we were not doing it. That’s because “the present form of this world is passing away” and, in God’s eyes, “the time has grown very short.” Here’s the way Paul puts it:

The appointed time has grown very short. From now on, let those who have wives live as though they had none, and those who mourn as though they were not mourning, and those who rejoice as though they were not rejoicing, and those who buy as though they had no goods, and those who deal with the world as though they had no dealings with it. For the present form of this world is passing away. (1 Corinthians 7:29-31)

Let’s take these one at a time and compare them to voting.

1. “Let those who have wives live as though they had none.”
This doesn’t mean move out of the house, don’t have sex, and don’t call Honey. Earlier in this chapter Paul says, “The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights” (1 Corinthians 7:3). He also says to love her the way Christ loved the church, leading and providing and protecting (Ephesians 5:25-30). It means this: Marriage is momentary. It’s over at death, and there is no marriage in the resurrection. Wives and husbands are second priorities, not first. Christ is first. Marriage is for making much of him.
It means: If she is exquisitely desirable, beware of desiring her more than Christ. And if she is deeply disappointing, beware of being hurt too much. This is temporary—only a brief lifetime. Then comes the never-disappointing life which is life indeed.
So it is with voting. We should do it. But only as if we were not doing it. Its outcomes do not give us the greatest joy when they go our way, and they do not demoralize us when they don’t. Political life is for making much of Christ whether the world falls apart or holds together.

2. “Let those who mourn [do so] as though they were not mourning.”
Christians mourn with real, deep, painful mourning, especially over losses—loss of those we love, loss of health, loss of a dream. These losses hurt. We cry when we are hurt. But we cry as though not crying. We mourn knowing we have not lost something so valuable we cannot rejoice in our mourning. Our losses do not incapacitate us. They do not blind us to the possibility of a fruitful future serving Christ. The Lord gives and takes away. But he remains blessed. And we remain hopeful in our mourning.
So it is with voting. There are losses. We mourn. But not as those who have no hope. We vote and we lose, or we vote and we win. In either case, we win or lose as if we were not winning or losing. Our expectations and frustrations are modest. The best this world can offer is short and small. The worst it can offer has been predicted in the book of Revelation. And no vote will hold it back. In the short run, Christians lose (Revelation 13:7). In the long run, we win (21:4).

3. “Let those who rejoice [do so] as though they were not rejoicing.”
Christians rejoice in health (James 5:13) and in sickness (James 1:2). There are a thousand good and perfect things that come down from God that call forth the feeling of happiness. Beautiful weather. Good friends who want to spend time with us. Delicious food and someone to share it with. A successful plan. A person helped by our efforts.
But none of these good and beautiful things can satisfy our soul. Even the best cannot replace what we were made for, namely, the full experience of the risen Christ (John 17:24). Even fellowship with him here is not the final and best gift. There is more of him to have after we die (Philippians 1:21-23)—and even more after the resurrection. The best experiences here are foretastes. The best sights of glory are through a mirror dimly. The joy that rises from these previews does not and should not rise to the level of the hope of glory. These pleasures will one day be as though they were not. So we rejoice remembering this joy is a foretaste, and will be replaced by a vastly better joy.
So it is with voting. There are joys. The very act of voting is a joyful statement that we are not under a tyrant. And there may be happy victories. But the best government we get is a foreshadowing. Peace and justice are approximated now. They will be perfect when Christ comes. So our joy is modest. Our triumphs are short-lived—and shot through with imperfection. So we vote as though not voting.

4. “Let those who buy [do so] as though they had no goods.”
Let Christians keep on buying while this age lasts. Christianity is not withdrawal from business. We are involved, but as though not involved. Business simply does not have the weight in our hearts that it has for many. All our getting and all our having in this world is getting and having things that are not ultimately important. Our car, our house, our books, our computers, our heirlooms—we possess them with a loose grip. If they are taken away, we say that in a sense we did not have them. We are not here to possess. We are here to lay up treasures in heaven.
This world matters. But it is not ultimate. It is the stage for living in such a way to show that this world is not our God, but that Christ is our God. It is the stage for using the world to show that Christ is more precious than the world.
So it is with voting. We do not withdraw. We are involved—but as if not involved. Politics does not have ultimate weight for us. It is one more stage for acting out the truth that Christ, and not politics, is supreme.

5. “Let those who deal with the world [do so] as though they had no dealings with it.”
Christians should deal with the world. This world is here to be used. Dealt with. There is no avoiding it. Not to deal with it is to deal with it that way. Not to weed your garden is to cultivate a weedy garden. Not to wear a coat in Minnesota is to freeze—to deal with the cold that way. Not to stop when the light is red is to spend your money on fines or hospital bills and deal with the world that way. We must deal with the world.
But as we deal with it, we don’t give it our fullest attention. We don’t ascribe to the world the greatest status. There are unseen things that are vastly more precious than the world. We use the world without offering it our whole soul. We may work with all our might when dealing with the world, but the full passions of our heart will be attached to something higher—Godward purposes. We use the world, but not as an end in itself. It is a means. We deal with the world in order to make much of Christ.
So it is with voting. We deal with the system. We deal with the news. We deal with the candidates. We deal with the issues. But we deal with it all as if not dealing with it. It does not have our fullest attention. It is not the great thing in our lives. Christ is. And Christ will be ruling over his people with perfect supremacy no matter who is elected and no matter what government stands or falls. So we vote as though not voting.
By all means vote. But remember: “The world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever” (1 John 2:17).
Voting with you, as though not voting,
Pastor John

Dems do religion

This AP profile of the person in charge of the 2008 Democratic Convention, Leah Daughtry, nicely showcases the role religion will play in this year's presidential election. Daughtry is an ordained minister, is no religious wallflower (she "carries a Bible in her purse"), was raised to believe Black Liberation Theology (BLT) (though noone thought to ask her if she subscribes to BLT), and splendidly--not to mention boldly, juggles her moral relativism and her religion.

Leah Daughtry has married faith and politics, holding positions in the Clinton-era Labor Department, working on the 1992 Democratic National Convention and heading her party's outreach to faith groups, Faith In Action. And she continues to lead her own House of the Lord Church of 20 or 30 people in Washington, D.C.

Daughtry considers it all "ministry - a way to give of yourself." Several of her party's positions, though, put her at odds with most evangelical Christians. That includes her support for abortion rights.

"Theologically, we believe that in the greatest decision of our entire lives - whether to follow God or not - God allows us to choose," she said. "If God is big enough to allow that choice, then who are we to dictate choices to other people? Your choices have consequences, but you should be allowed to make those choices."

(emphasis added) Which begs a couple questions: what does the Bible (like the one in Daughtry's purse) say about Big ol' God's opinion of when we do make the wrong choice? And what "choices" should we as a society not give people the freedom to make with impunity? Maybe the rest of the article can shed light on the subject.

Daughtry credited the party for changing the way it talks about abortion - "not just in terms of a woman's right to make her own health-care choices, but also in terms of society's responsibility to make sure women have the resources that they need to make appropriate decisions."

(emphasis added) Yeah; another way of saying that is, "the right to make society shoulder the blame and consequences for choices people make." Boy, I like this new way that Democrats are "talk[] about" issues.

And noted "liberal evangelical author and pastor member of the Democratic platform committee," Tony Campolo, is asked to expound on this new way of discussing the issue of abortion:

Campolo . . . said he and others hope to move the party toward stronger advocacy for reducing the number of abortions.

He declined to discuss specific proposals, but he mentioned ensuring that pregnant women are able to go on maternity leave without fear of losing their jobs, and making day care more accessible.

(emphasis added) Okay, first objective: Family and Medical Leave Act (passed in 1993!), check! Second objective: a little dicey, because a lot of taxpayers disagree that society owes it to underwrite others' choices to work rather than care for their child. I guess it's the charitable thing to do, though. WWJD and all.

But is the message resonating as much as Dems hope?

Daughtry believes the party already is making inroads with evangelical voters, particularly young ones sympathetic to Democratic positions on poverty and the environment.

But a survey released last week called that into question. Despite Obama's robust religious outreach, only about one-quarter of white evangelicals support him, according to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life - about the same number that supported Democrat John Kerry at this juncture four years ago.

As for those worried that Democrats are acting like Republicans when it comes to religion, Daughtry said: "The difference between us and the Republicans is, one, we don't claim a monopoly on God. We don't try to be dogmatic about this or make it a litmus test. For us, values come from different places."

(emphasis added) Glad we got that cleared up. The Republican message is flawed because even a fool realizes that "values" may come from different places but they're all equally valid. And even God doesn't claim a monopoly on truth.

You know, what other reason than racism could there be for white evangelicals not supporting Obama?


Also at tennesseefree.com

Obama and legitimate religious talk

I expected derisive statements or articles from the Left about the Dobson-attacks-Obama "story" from last week, but it caught my eye to see an op/ed by a Peter Wehner entitled, "I am a conservative evangelical, and even I am offended by James Dobson's dishonest critique of Barack Obama's theology." The so-called MSM is all too eager to provide a platform to this ankle-biter for "speaking (Liberal) truth to (Conservative) power," but Dobson's criticism is right--even if undiplomatic.

Wehner describes how,

Dobson criticized Sen. Barack Obama, accusing him of "deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit ... his own confused theology," of having a "fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution" and of appealing to the "lowest common denominator of morality."

Wehner may be "offended" that Dobson wasn't wowed by a Democrat Presidential candidate mentioning God in public, and Wehner can legitimately argue that Religious Conservatives need to cheer on religious-talking Liberals if we want to them to keep on "making the public square more hospitable for people of faith." But if they're sincere, they won't need my encouragement, right?

And, sure, if you give Obama the benefit of the doubt (or, should I say, if you ignore most everything else he has said about issues bearing on the subject and ignore the implications of most of his other policy prescriptions), you might resent Dobson's chiding of Obama. But I--like Dobson, think what Obama said was simply flowery, religiously-tolerant-sounding mumbo jumbo. I'm just not feeling that Spartan Spirit because Obama seems more interested in curtailing what constitutes legitimate political speech than in expanding the category.

While I choose not to rely on Biblical text or supernatural premises when attempting to persuade others to my particular policy preference, that is a choice I make in the interest of effectiveness, not because to do otherwise would be immoral or unethical. (Speaking of which, you hear a lot more "preaching" and moralizing from Democrat candidates than Republican candidates.)

In sum, Obama is conveniently defining legitimate faith-related-political speech as speech that is persuasive to those with non-faith-related presuppositions. But Obama's definition gives others the power to veto or chill my views simply by demanding that--in order to legitimately bring religious expression into the public policy debate, I have to appeal to the values or presuppositions of the secular Left.

Obama is a master at framing arguments, at doling out left-handed compliments, at statements that communicate all the right things while communicating nothing. So even though it could be a positive development that God is referenced at some point prior to the "God Bless America" line in Democrat speeches, I perceive this is more about manipulation (to those "clingers") and "neutralizing" a Republican issue than it is about putting out the welcome mat for Religious expression in the public square.

Nice try.

Please pardon me for not sitting up in my seat for a sermon--from a Rev. Wright congregant, about how faith intersects with public policy.

Picking a McMate--please, not Crist.

As discussion of McCain's VP choice begins in earnest, one name that keeps surfacing is that of Florida Gov. Charlie Crist. Please, no.

He's squishy or weak on abortion (here).

He's weak on almost everything else. Read this damning article from National Review.

The interesting thing from reading Crist's bio is that he seems to be substanceless, though a consummate campaigner. Oh, and he's got a great tan. Regrettably, those qualities can get you elected to a lot of public offices these days. But they don't qualify a person for second in command of my party.

Meanwhile, The Boston Globe discusses some of the reasons that Bobby Jindal is an appealing choice to much of the GOP "base." The article gets a lot of things right, but in the same way that much of the MSM (and even some Old Guard Republicans) didn't "get" Ronald Reagan, some folks fail to appreciate the natural "charisma" found in the principled person, and in the happy warrior.

Meanwhile, back at Obama's church . . .

Sorry, but unlike some folks, we don't talk politics at my Evangelical church:

Wright's Trumpet magazine reported last year [Father Michael] Pfleger "manages to weave into the midday homily at Trinity … his deep and abiding dislike for President George W. Bush. And with this mostly African-American congregation, Pfleger is in good company."

According to a profile of Pfleger in Trumpet, the pastor "counts the mighty as close confidants and friends," specifically Wright, Farrakhan and Obama.

And thanks to the reporting of WorldNetDaily we're aware of what they believe at Obama's church.

McCain and same-sex marriage

Uh, explain to me again why we don't need federal legislation/action on the homosexual marriage issue? From the St. Joseph (Mo.) News-Press, "Same-sex breakup perplexes courts":

"A lesbian married in Massachusetts has filed for an annulment from her partner in a Buchanan County (Mo.) court, creating a legal challenge in a state that overwhelming[ly] voted four years ago that marriage is only between a man and a woman."

If John McCain expects Conservatives (heck, non-Liberals given the success of Marriage Protection Amendments across the country) to back him in November, he had better make clear his intentions on this issue.

Enclave Mike kicking butt and taking names

Wow. "S-town Mike" at the Enclave Blog is having none of the Tennessean's non-judgmental story about businessmen . . . purporting to be followers of Jesus . . . who go to a religious event at a church located in ritzy Brentwood . . . and who--Mike presumes, hypocritically ignore certain Biblical principles. According to Mike's interpretation of a Bible verse he cites, wealthy people can't get into heaven. Mike calls the group (CEO, for Christian Executive Officer) "the Brentwood Baptist CEO Rationalization Fellowship."

Mike, I don't know you, but I do know that simply by virtue of living in America you are "wealthy" compared to something like 90% of the world's population. Rationalize that.

And Happy day after Easter, btw.

What is the big deal with Reverend Wright?

Many folks (mainly Democrats supporting Barack Obama for president) are eager to see the Rev. Wright story in the rear-view mirror. I, on the other hand, don't care about guarding Obama's political image, so I think it is worthwhile to answer the question, What is the big deal with Reverend Wright?

First, it certainly matters what is being taught at the church that a candidate attends. Especially if the candidate has been attending the church for 20 years, and especially if the candidate has emphasized the impact that said church has had on his/her life.

Second, Wright was certainly the heart, soul and voice of the church he pastored. And I think it is pretty clear that Wright (as well as Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago) adheres to Black Liberation Theology. So it is worthwhile--heck, it is essential in considering this matter, to ascertain what BLT is.

Here is what seems to be a good article about Black Liberation Theology. To non-Christians a consideration of BLT may seem like inside baseball. To secularists taking any person's religious views too seriously--unless that person is a Religious Conservative, of course ;)--might seem like a waste of time. Oh well. I kind of believe that a person's worldview is very important--especially if a person claims to have carefully chosen his worldview.

Huckabee 2008, indeed

Here's a compelling op/ed about a viable campaign for Mike Huckabee in this two thousand and eighth year of our Lord (Libs, don't freak out, that's just an expression, not code for "theocracy") . . . challenging incumbent Mark Pryor for the U.S. Senate Seat.(Phil Kerpen on "Mike Huckabee for Senate"). From the article:

"In contrast to the drama unfolding in the Democratic presidential race, the Republican contest has been reduced to one mild amusement: What is Mike Huckabee doing? He has already established himself as a brilliant natural campaigner with a strong base of support within the party. He will be a GOP force in years to come, and just may make another run for the White House. But for 2008 he has been mathematically eliminated, his quip about miracles notwithstanding. So why continue? If he really wants to serve his country and his party, while consolidating support for the long-term and advancing his policy ideas, Mike Huckabee should step out of the presidential contest immediately and put his energy into a run for the United States Senate."

This recommendation resonates with me because, even assuming the GOP failed to pick a nominee in the first round of voting at the Convention, I'm not convinced that Huckabee would be "the Conservative choice" (as Huckabee is asserting) of the GOP's delegates.

Why? I think much of the resistance to Huckabee--from day one, was his Evangelicalness. Simply put, I believe a majority of GOP stalwarts are plenty happy to have Religious Conservatives in the fold, they (the stalwarts) just aren't interested in a Religious Conservative playing Alpha. That's fine, but it really bothers me when the contempt for Huckabee (or similar Religious Conservatives) is cloaked in "fiscal conservative" or "corruption watchdog" smears. Huckabee was no worse on either of these counts than any of the other GOP candidates this cycle . . . he just wasn't. Now whether he would have been the best GOP nominee or not is another question, but his record did not warrant the special targeting of Club for Growth, unless you factor in his so-called "social conservatism."

All that being said, Huckabee isn't likely to be the candidate of choice of a majority of GOP establishment types, so I don't think that he would emerge from a brokered convention as the nominee. There's just too much "history" (from this particular primary) and too much resistance to his Social Conservatism (in general) for Romney delegates or McCain delegates to jump to Huckabee's ship. So, I say why not force the Democrats to at least defend Pryor's seat and at best start down the path to someday becoming the third sitting U.S. Senator to successfully run for the White House?

Charles Barkley judging judgmental people

This is rich. Though I'm not sure it matters what Charles Barkley thinks (about anything, even basketball), Wolf Blitzer interviewed him recently about a variety of political issues: (Breitbart.tv » "NBA Great Charles Barkley Calls Conservatives ‘Fake Christians’").

fake christians
by luvnews

A couple things . . .

. . . about my "huge" post on Dobson's endorsement of Huckabee.

Some are asserting (okay, everyone who's commenting on the matter is asserting) that my post about James Dobson's endorsement of Mike Huckabee is over-stated or I-don't-know-what-all. It's rather unremarkable to say that it is "huge," for a couple of reasons.

1. James Dobson is an important leader among Evangelical Christians. "William" may not care what he thinks, "Southern Beale" may not care what he thinks, Adam Kleinheider may not care what he thinks, but none of them are Evangelical Christians from what I've ever seen them write. That being said, Dobson's clout is only significant (for the purposes of my "huge" assertion) in the context of thing two, below.

2. This endorsement is a demonstration that at least one bloc of voters--Religious Conservatives, may be planning to "not go gentle into that good night." There is loads of speculation that Huckabee is angling for a VP slot. Maybe; only a handful of people know.

But part of the dynamic here is that while Romney, Dubya et al are urging that Republicans get behind the presumptive GOP nominee, some Conservatives have concluded that a McCain-led GOP (and presidency) may not exactly be a "good night" at all. Ann Coulter is a prominent example. And while Coulter doesn't speak for the Religious Right, neither does Rush or Hannity. Dobson is another story, and what Dobson is saying is "let's keep on fighting." That's huge, and more of a story than the pre-Super Dooper Tuesday Campaign-for-Hillary threat by mistress of hyperbole Ann Coulter.

Dobson endorsement of Huckabee is huge

Although people like Mitt Romney are now arguing that it is time to unite behind John McCain for the GOP nomination, news today (here) that James Dobson has given his personal endorsement to former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee demonstrates that at least some Religious Conservatives plan to contend for the steering wheel of the GOP. This is interesting because it throws down the gauntlet for the many Evangelical Republicans who have yet to cast a ballot. This is huge.

Though Dobson stated earlier in the week that he did not intend to support a McCain candidacy,* endorsing Huckabee is a whole 'nother level of fuel for the "Not McCain" movement. I don't think that people like Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity or Laura Ingraham are likely to rally around Huckabee, but I don't think that matters many people who fit into the "Religious Conservative" category. If nothing else, this can perhaps motivate McCain to pay attention to the largest single voting bloc in the GOP. This is huge.










*In a letter released on the Laura Ingraham show, Dobson wrote:

"I am deeply disappointed the Republican Party seems poised to select a nominee who did not support a Constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage, voted for embryonic stem-cell research to kill nascent human beings, opposed tax cuts that ended the marriage penalty, has little regard for freedom of speech, organized the Gang of 14 to preserve filibusters in judicial hearings, and has a legendary temper and often uses foul and obscene language.

"I am convinced Sen. McCain is not a conservative, and in fact, has gone out of his way to stick his thumb in the eyes of those who are. He has sounded at times more like a member of the other party. McCain actually considered leaving the GOP caucus in 2001, and approached John Kerry about being Kerry’s running mate in 2004. McCain also said publicly that Hillary Clinton would make a good president. Given these and many other concerns, a spoonful of sugar does NOT make the medicine go down. I cannot, and will not, vote for Sen. John McCain, as a matter of conscience.

"But what a sad and melancholy decision this is for me and many other conservatives. Should Sen. McCain capture the nomination as many assume, I believe this general election will offer the worst choices for president in my lifetime. I certainly can't vote for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama based on their virulently anti-family policy positions. If these are the nominees in November, I simply will not cast a ballot for president for the first time in my life. These decisions are my personal views and do not represent the organization with which I am affiliated. They do reflect my deeply held convictions about the institution of the family, about moral and spiritual beliefs, and about the welfare of our country." (emphasis added)

This is huge.

Did Romney choose homosexual marriage in Massachusetts?

I have heard arguments recently that Mitt Romney chose same-sex or homosexual marriage while serving as Governor of Massachusetts. Reading a court opinion--much less interpreting one, is not as easy as mischaracterizing one.

Here is a sound legal analysis of what happened in the aftermath of the Massachusetts' Supreme Court's opinion that their state constitution protected "marriage" for homosexual couples.

As others have said, Romney's decision arguably averted a Roy Moore-like confrontation over rule of law.

Picking a candidate

Party politics are fascinating to me. Why? Because of the organic/complex process by which people pick a candidate. You could call it "messy."

And the process for special interest groups is almost as messy. I've commented extensively on the Club for Growth and its extraordinary opposition to a single candidate--Huckabee, early in the GOP primaries.

And today I've gotten several emails noting Fred Thompson's endorsement by pro-life organizations in Wyoming and New Hampshire. This follows the November endorsement of Thompson by the National Right to Life Committee.

In November, the largest factor in the process was Giuliani's perceived front-runner status, and the importance of folks-for-whom-Giuliani-was-not-acceptable (for policy or other reasons) coalescing behind another candidate so as to deny Giuliani the nomination. For Social Conservatives (wary of Romney's reliability and averse to McCain) Thompson seemed like the best bet at the time, and the NRLC even said at the time that he was the most electable candidate. And "single issue" organizations are rarely "single issue" inasmuch as they have to consider the issue of whether a candidate could ever be in a position to influence policy.

Well, today the landscape is different. Huckabee, once viewed by Social Conservatives as a hopeless underdog, is well-positioned to get the nomination, and his record is plainly, demonstrably more "Pro-life" than that of any of the other credible candidates. There is more information available about him and his record at this juncture, but the same can be said of all the candidates (and I'd submit that the information is not as cut and dried as many pretend).

So, "single-issue" Social Conservative organizations, by choosing someone these groups either (a) are more interested in other issues on which Huckabee is purportedly "weak": immigration and spending or (b) are concerned that Huckabee cannot win in a general election or (c) view Huckabee as too independent of them (read: less dependent on their endorsement). Or it could be a combination of these factors . . . see how complicated this is?

I'd say that emphasizes the respect and charitableness with which we should treat others' good-faith conclusions in a primary race.

Romney's Federalism

Alex Harris has an enlightening post about recent statements by Mitt Romney concerning ENDA--the so-called "Employment Non-Discrimination Act," which generally refers to a Federal effort to include "actual or perceived" sexual "orientation" as a protected characteristic in employment law. Here's the article at race42008.com

Russert asked Romney if he still supported ENDA. Romney replied that he did support them at the state level. He said that implementing such laws “makes sense.”

Mitt, how could you? You’ve shown that you understand the problem conservatives have with these laws. You said that your own experience in Massachusetts showed you that those laws at the state level are bad news. Two days later you express your support.

I’m sorry, but if that is what Romney said – and the transcript and the video (see 2:34) show that it is – I cannot see how conservatives can trust him to be strong in standing against the homosexual agenda, I just can’t. I’ve been part of this battle in my own state, and this is serious.

If you are a Romney supporter, I ask you to not simply brush this off or just attack me for supporting Huckabee. I know our guys are in a fierce fight in Iowa, but like so many of us have said, this race is about the issues. Coming from a guy who wants to support the Republican nominee and who wants to like Romney, I’m asking you to take an honest look at what I’ve shared. This is something voters have to consider.

For the record, Romney would be a fine nominee, but this information makes me wonder about his change in position on a variety of "social" issues, i.e., abortion, homosexual marriage, etc. I am alert to the kind of Federalism espoused by people like George Wallace; that is, Federalism that some use as a shield/distraction from suspect or squishy positions on controversial positions . . . like whether American apartheid was something within the purview of the Federal Constitution.

I fully appreciate the Federalist position, and I can appreciate the arguments from supporters of some GOP candidates--Thompson and McCain come to mind, that their respective candidate is more Conservative because said candidate acknowledges that there are limits on the power of the Federal government. But my conclusion that sexual proclivities or attractions are not immutable characteristics is rooted in my worldview, and Romney (in this particular context) seems to want Religious Conservatives to perceive that he shares (or has adopted) their worldview on a host of issues. I'm not sure that is an accurate perception.

A matter of perspective

An op/ed in The American Spectator discusses the assertion by some that Religious Leftwinger Jim Wallis is like a modern-day prophet. From the article's conclusion:

"THE LAST 40 YEARS that Wallis recalls only as 'wilderness' are remembered by most Americans as a recovery time from the chaos of the 1960s. Beyond the civil rights movement and the space program, it's hard for non-activists to recall most of that decade as historically anything more than a disturbing era of social disintegration.

Hardly wandering in the wilderness since then, America over the last 40 years has increased in population by 50 percent, become wealthier, healthier, cleaner, safer, less racist, and even more of a cultural and racial melting pot. After the ignominies of the Vietnam era, America went on to win the Cold War, largely end the impending threat of superpower nuclear conflict.

Now America presides fairly benevolently over a world that, with major exceptions, is far friendlier to American principles than 40 years ago. Good riddance to Leonid Brezhnev, Mao Tse-tung, Ho Chi Minh, Joseph Tito, Gamal Nasser, and the countless radical activists in the 1960s who romanticized those tyrants.

Sadly, the legacies of the 1960s that still survive today are unrestricted abortion, widespread illegitimacy, broken families, pervasive divorce and absent fathers, all of which originated in the collapse of sexual mores and in the expansion of the federal welfare state that the 1960s unabashedly celebrated. Wallis rarely addresses these issues,, except to recommend an even greater welfare dosage of the Great Society.

Still, even these pathologies show some small signs of receding. And today's world, and today's America is far better than in 1968, thanks to the continued vitality of American democracy and of America's religious life.

A true prophet would recognize that."

Mealy-mouthed Huckabee

One of the things I've been hearing--in light of Romney's "Faith in America" speech, is criticism of Mike Huckabee's answers of late to the question, "Do you think that Mormons are Christians?"

Here's a typical example, from a Time Mag. blog, Huckabee Stirs the Mormon Issue. For the record, I like Huckabee, probably more than any of the other candidates. And one reason I like him is plain ol' affinity--I perceive that more than any other candidate, he shares my worldview. And while I'd say that he more "mature" in the faith than me in a variety of ways, I don't think he is "right" on every issue of public policy. A single interpretation of the Christian Scriptures (or even "spiritual truth," generally) can have many different applications.

All that being said, I want to defend Huckabee on accusations that he is being mealy-mouthed or "stirring it up" in his answers about Christianity and Mormonism. Take this quote for example:

CBSNews.com: ‘Do you believe that Mormonism is a legitimate form of Christianity?’

Gov. Huckabee: ‘You know, Mormonism is a faith that people adhere
to. And I think people ought to respect anybody’s faith. I am not all
that familiar with the intricate details. I have enough trouble keeping
up with my own faith. So, I do not spend lots of time trying to
evaluate somebody else’s.’

CBSNews.com: ‘But do you think they’re real Christians?’

Gov. Huckabee: ‘Once again, I am not going to try to judge. That is
for them to determine whether they accept Jesus Christ as the only
revelation of God on Earth. And, if they do, then that is how a person
is a Christian, not by the label they wear, but by the position they
take on the role and the personhood of Christ.’

This might be difficult for non-Christians to understand, which is understandable :), but Evangelicals don't use the term "Christian"--especially in the context of the above Huckabee quote, to mean "moral" or "not Jewish" or "not Muslim" or "American" or "like me." Huckabee gives the Biblical definition of "being a Christian." Given the difficult-to-discern-about-others nature of "belief" and given the imprecision with which many people use religious terms, it is difficult to know where someone stands in relation to the Biblical definition of "being a Christian," but if the shoe fits, where it.

"Stirring it up" would have been giving a categorical statement that "no Mormons" or "all Mormons" believe such and such. But providing one's understanding of the Biblical definition of "being a Christian"--coupled with declining to judge an entire group of people, is what I call "tact." Anyone with half a brain can appreciate how valuable that is in a religiously diverse, tolerant society. Gee, sorry if Huckabee's answers don't provide the saucy soundbite you folks in the MSM (and some folks supporting other candidates) are looking for.