tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1258838024725016120.post2431065059296321682..comments2008-01-25T10:26:31.011-08:00DesignExcellantenoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1258838024725016120.post-56430260731201830292008-01-25T10:26:00.000-08:002008-01-25T10:26:00.000-08:00Uh Ken, Jesus probably enough wouldn't vote for a flip-flopping cult member like Mitt Romney!<BR/><BR/>But His brother (according to LDS fantasy . . .er . . . theology) might.<BR/><BR/>More importantly, Romney and the Romney-ites have grossly distorted the "no religious test" provision of the Constitution. The "no religious test" provision of Article VI, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution clearly does not prohibit individual voters evaluating a candidate's intellect, personal moral values and even religious beliefs in the private calculus on whom to vote for. Nor does it prevent any candidate from responding in candor and honesty as to questions on matters of faith. It simply prohibits the government from establishing a formal "religious test.<BR/><BR/>Given, however, the poor state of civics education in this country and the constant anti-debate paeans to a lazy, empty-headed, politically-correct "tolerance," Romney's message undoubtedly resonates with many in the electorate.<BR/><BR/>To the extent that a candidate's religion and personal piety (e.g. "applied religion") provide windows into the intellect, public and personal values, motivations, philosophy, opinions and beliefs of a candidate, they are clearly relevant in the private calculus on whom to vote for. <BR/>Although the law does have a didactic ("teaching") function --which is a timeless, fundamental principle wholly lost on generations of social libertarians-- the secularists and “toleration fascists” derive the wrong lessons from the Constitution. Freedom of conscience is firmly enshrined in the FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE of the First Amendment. Read properly in its historic context, this fundamental liberty contemplates a robust, public discussion and consideration of "faith-based" questions, even in political campaigns. <BR/>Voters must always retain the liberty to exercise the civic responsibility of selecting candidates on criteria consistent with their personal values. Consistent adherence to these fundamental principles of liberty inherently implicate the consideration of religious values, opinions and beliefs. Far from the rigid, formal, sectarian, government-directed "religious test" banned in the Constitution, this free market of ideas is at the heart of what the Constitution protects.Speedzzterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03969827121403834979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1258838024725016120.post-85804855868311654212008-01-21T11:08:00.000-08:002008-01-21T11:08:00.000-08:00HWJV, How Would Jesus Vote?<BR/><BR/>Huckabee abhors, abominates, loathes, can't stand, contemns, curses, deprecates, derides, despises, detests, disapproves, disdains, disfavors, disparages, objects to, recoils from, scorns, shudders at, shuns, spurns, is sickened by, feels disgust for, and generally HATES Romney. And Huckabee is a Christian?<BR/><BR/>"Why?" you may ask. Simply because Romney, as a Mormon bishop, did not take payment for his services to his church. <BR/><BR/>You see, evangelical pastors rely on their churches as their source of income. Many are good, moral people whom, I believe, earnestly minister to their respective flocks. Yet, it is also their livelihood. Mormons do not pay their leaders and, doctrine aside, Baptist Huckabee has a problem with that. Too, the rapid growth and retention rates of the Mormon Church in the South, coupled with it’s superlative welfare system have only added grief to the southern evangelical leadership. <BR/><BR/>Of course, Paragraph 3, Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution reads, “. . . all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but NO RELIGIOUS TEST shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”<BR/><BR/>Well, so much for the Constitution. On the campaign trail to the 2008 presidential election, religious bigotry has reared its ugly head. Never mind that one would be hard pressed to find a more humble, clean-living, patriotic, law-abiding and civic-minded group of people than a Mormon congregation. Never mind that the church’s name is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Never mind that two major articles of their faith are: “We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost“, and “We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may. “<BR/><BR/>Yeah, when Huckabee was a preacher, he was a "Southern Baptist" preacher. But his resume, for political reasons, just reads "Baptist." Southern Baptists are so named because they split from Northern Baptist over the slave issue during the early 19th century. Oh, sure - both Baptist conventions now claim that the differences between northern and southern Baptists would have brought separation eventually, even if there had been no slavery-abolition issue.<BR/><BR/>But none of that gets Huckabee off the hook. He started the anti-Mormon rhetoric in this election and now wants to call "foul" when religion works against him.<BR/><BR/>Just pass the plate Preacher. You'll get your 30 pieces of silver - one way or another. Is this how Jesus wants evangelicals to act? HWJV, How Would Jesus Vote?Ken Howellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12544113077762447029noreply@blogger.com