FeedsWhy Mike Huckabee is Bad for America
Mike Huckabee is out of touch with mainstream America.
In case you haven't noticed, Huckabee, the former Governor of Arkansas, is rising in the polls as Giuliani and Romney falter, all while spending pennies on the dollar in comparison. But how long can his rise last, and just what is behind this "dark horse"? I'm going to break down a few of his highly-visible policies, ones that he isn't hiding away and that he wants America to know. As a result, I hope to begin to show just why a Huckabee Presidency would be wrong for America.
Let's stop at the issues page of his campaign site. He talks of many policies; to his credit, he isn't afraid to engage the issues. But, in engaging the issues, he demonstrates how out-of-step he is.
The A-1, top-of-the-line issue for Huckabee is "faith in politics." As the candidate of the unsure religious right, it makes sense. Huckabee isn't shy about his faith, as he writes:
My faith is my life - it defines me. My faith doesn't influence my decisions, it drives them. For example, when it comes to the environment, I believe in being a good steward of the earth. I don't separate my faith from my personal and professional lives.
Faith is important. Unfortunately for Huckabee, so is separation of Church and State, which is laid out in the Constitution. At the same time, he notes in the expanded section on faith that "we should share and debate our faith, but never seek to impose it." I find this distinction somewhat hypocritical. I appreciate that he says he would not impose his faith upon the Nation at-large, but the fact that he says that his faith "drives" his decisions seems to speak against this principle. If his policy is driven by his faith, it would seem to me that there is a melding of his Church and his State. That he wraps this ideal in his humble package shouldn't sway anyone. That he so openly admits his willingness to base legislation and policy decisions (read professional) based on personal faith worries me.
I'm religious, and I have faith. I am a Unitarian. But I will never legislate my beliefs onto others. True, I gain understanding from them, but I also respect our Constitution and how it lays out the governance of our Nation. As I'll continue to show later, it's more than mere guidance for Huckabee.
Moving tangentially and as a demonstration of the above, the next section in Huckabee's platform is the hot-button "sanctity of life," wherein he indicates:
I support and have always supported passage of a constitutional amendment to protect the right to life. My convictions regarding the sanctity of life have always been clear and consistent, without equivocation or wavering. I believe that Roe v. Wade should be over-turned.What I accomplished as Governor proves that there is a lot more that a pro-life President can do than wait for a Supreme Court vacancy, and I will do everything I can to promote a pro-life agenda and pass pro-life legislation. If I'm saddled with a Democrat Congress, I'll veto any pro-abortion legislation they pass. I will staff all relevant positions with pro-life appointees. I will use the Bully Pulpit to change hearts and minds, to move this country from a culture of death to a culture of life. I have no desire to throw women in jail, I just want us to stop throwing babies in the garbage.
There are no doubts about it. For Huckabee, if we support a woman's right to choose, we support a "culture of death" that throws babies in the garbage and need to have our hearts and minds changed. As a starting point, I resent the implication that those of us who support choice are murdering sorts who, fundamentally, need re-coding and amorally devalue life. Beyond appointing justices who will continue to set back choice and women's rights for decades, a Huckabee presidency will attempt to push people into adopting his religious position.
For me, this entry in his platform goes hand-in-hand with the first; he uses his religion not as mere guideline, but as an active policy that must be passed for the good of our nation. Such all-or-nothing politics where he's a moral beacon and we must heed his light is dangerous. Plus, considering the rest of America's problems, it seems that his insistence on putting faith and abortion before all other policy points indicate the nature of a Huckabee presidency: he will push his faith politics first, and all else afterwards.
Moving on, Huckabee's health care platform is a dichotomy of decent thoughts and perplexing leaps:
The health care system in this country is irrevocably broken, in part because it is only a "health care" system, not a "health" system. We don't need universal health care mandated by federal edict or funded through ever-higher taxes. We do need to get serious about preventive health care instead of chasing more and more dollars to treat chronic disease, which currently gobbles up 80% of our health care costs, and yet is often avoidable. The result is that we'll be able to deliver better care where and when it's needed.I advocate policies that will encourage the private sector to seek innovative ways to bring down costs and improve the free market for health care services. We have to change a system that happily pays $30,000 for a diabetic to have his foot amputated, but won't pay for the shoes that would save his foot.
I'm always amazed at people who are willing to say our system is "broken" but only want to put band-aids on the problem. If a system is broken, you fix it-- you don't patch together a temporary solution that only punts the problem onto the next President. Sure, I appreciate how Huckabee prominently notes the need for increased preventative care, but it's all a joke if not packaged with a serious reform of our health care system. If the system is broken, fix it!
Asking a system that is awash in money to fix itself is a losing game. The market is good at sorting a few things out; health care is not one of them. Our government needs to step in and do the right thing for healthcare. A Huckabee presidency will not do that.
How about our money? Well, if you don't ever want to pay normal taxes, maybe Huckabee's your guy:
I'd like you to join me at the best "Going Out of Business" sale I can imagine - one held by the Internal Revenue Service. Am I running for president to shut down the federal government? Not exactly. But I am running to completely eliminate all federal income and payroll taxes. And do I mean all - personal federal, corporate federal, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, self-employment.Our current progressive tax system penalizes us for working harder and becoming more successful. As we climb the ladder, the government lurks on each rung, hungry for a bigger bite out of our earnings. The FairTax is also progressive, but it doesn't punish the American dream of success, or the old-fashioned virtues of hard work and thrift, it rewards and encourages them. The FairTax isn't intended to raise any more or less money for the federal government to spend - it is revenue neutral.
Did you get that? He wants to eliminate normal taxes for a consumption tax. Sure, the current system is somewhat nefarious, but it's a hell of a lot better than people just not paying regular taxes. Hey, I know the "T"-word is something dirty for people. Damn the tax man, who comes every year to take our hard-earned money. But taxes exist for a reason. They allow us to fund our government. Huckabee also notes how we need to decrease spending, but (and we'll get to this), if we won't end the war, where will that money come from? Fewer taxes, expensive war? Say good-bye to lots of social programs and whole chunks of government. Either that, or a government shutdown if the Democrats are still in Congress. But perhaps that's what Huckabee wants. He's just another member of the "government doesn't work" group of the Republican party. If he's elected, he might just get to continue his predecessor's work in showing just how right that can be.
Taxes are a touchy topic. While I won't advocate for European-like levels, I also understand that we need some amount of taxes. And eliminating taxes for the wealthy in certain segments is a recipe for fiscal disaster. It isn't crushing to the American dream to pay your share if you're wealthy. You've lived the dream, or you're living the dream. You're still wealthy. You're just paying your fair share, like those under you. I can only imagine how the disparity between the rich and the poor would increase under such a system.
Next on the Huckabee platform is "Marriage." We still haven't reached the war yet, but we might as well have a third dose of faith and politics. First pure "faith," then the ever-prominent "sanctity of life," and now a defense of traditional marriage values:
I support and have always supported passage of a federal constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman. As President, I will fight for passage of this amendment. My personal belief is that marriage is between one man and one woman, for life.[M]arriage does matter, I would add that nothing in our society matters more. Our true strength doesn't come from our military or our gross national product, it comes from our families. What's the point of keeping the terrorists at bay in the Middle East if we can't keep decline and decadence at bay here at home?
While Massachusetts was allowing homosexuals to marry, I got a constitutional amendment passed in Arkansas in 2002 defining marriage as between one man and one woman. I got Arkansas to become only the third state to adopt "covenant" marriage. My wife Janet and I upgraded our vows on Valentine's Day, 2005. Today, many churches in Arkansas will perform only covenant marriages, so I'm hoping we'll see a decline in our divorce rates.
Gay marriage, like taxes, is touchy. I personally support gay marriage. But I can understand why people wouldn't. But, what I don't understand, is the ongoing willingness to continue to legislate based on faith and attempts to use it is a disgusting, hateful wedge issue. I mean, I guess I understand it politically, but it still sickens me. According to people in Huckabee's position, the bible says "one man, one woman"; and so they legislate. Indeed, our National strength does not come from our hard work or other values; it comes from the sanctity of our marriage. I'll let you ponder that idea while noting his use of the term "decadence" and everything else that's good and defining about America and its people.
Again, I'll let Huckabee have his values as long as he doesn't attempt to unconstitutionally bridge the gulf between Church and State. But he's noted that there is no separation between Church and State for him. For Mike Huckabee, it's more important to protect America from "decadence" than it is to come up with a solution to end the war (which he doesn't want to do, but we'll get to that). Fighting terrorists is one thing, but keeping the sanctity of marriage safe is in a different league. I don't think it's a stretch to say this is way out of line and simply shameful in light of the sacrifice (and deaths) our men and women in uniform face across the world in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Next, I'd like to touch on Huckabee's immigration policy. It's very long compared to his other points, but I'd like to center on his summary:
I will take our country back for those who belong here. No open borders, no amnesty, no sanctuary, no false Social Security numbers, no driver's licenses for illegals.
It's language like this which simply disgusts me. Taking our country back for "those who belong here." And who precisely is that? While we need to ensure that our borders aren't floodgates and illegal immigrants are just that, illegal, demonizing a whole populace who comes to America with a prayer for a better life is out of line. America was founded on immigration, on the ability of people to come and try to make our home their home. We're all descendants of immigrants, and we need to remember that as we form an immigration policy moving forward. While the path to citizenship solution proposed in Congress wasn't ideal, I find it far more appealing than kicking everyone out who has come here to work for a dream.
But, again, I go back to Huckabee's language. It's all about entitlement. America is for those who "belong here." While I know it references illegal/legal status, to me it smacks of xenophobia and anti-immigration fervor; America is for a certain few, and all others can get out. With the GOP losing the Iraq War argument and lots of other issues, they've been turning to immigration as a way to rally hatred (as they did with gay marriage in 2004). I don't think talk like this will stand up to the scrutiny of the general public, who wants a comprehensive policy but doesn't want to demonize the poor souls who simply want a better life for their families. We've all been there, after all; or at least some of us have.
And, finally, on the 11th item of his policy platform we reach Iraq. The quintessential quagmire to end all quagmires, it is the dilemma of our time. Huckabee agrees:
Iraq is a battle in our generational, ideological war on terror. General Petraeus and our troops are giving their all to provide a window of opportunity for the Iraq government to succeed, while the Democrats are running for the exit doors.Setting a timetable for withdrawal is a mistake. This country has never declared war until "a week from Wednesday," we have always declared war until victory.
I am focused on winning. Withdrawal would have serious strategic consequences for us and horrific humanitarian consequences for the Iraqis.
It's the standard Republican, George W. Bush talking point. This is our generational war, our World War II. It's us versus them, our Christian nation versus the Islamofacists in the struggle to end all struggles. According to Huckabee, our Democratic leaders in Congress should give a blank check to continue a perpetual war, no accountability required. Our men and women must stay there until we "win" and the region stabilizes. Or something like that. This is more of the same, a policy of failure that the American people have rejected.
I'd like to take this opportunity to segway into something dangerous-- Huckabee's platform on the War on Terror itself:
I believe that we are currently engaged in a world war. Radical Islamic fascists have declared war on our country and our way of life. They have sworn to annihilate each of us who believe in a free society, all in the name of a perversion of religion and an impersonal god. We go to great extremes to save lives, they go to great extremes to take them. This war is not a conventional war, and these terrorists are not a conventional enemy. I will fight the war on terror with the intensity and single-mindedness that it deserves.
Huckabee wants World War Three. Indeed, to him, we're already in it. Accordingly, a Huckabee Presidency will govern as if we're in a World War. The Islamic fascists hate our way of life, and he'll fight it with "intensity" and "single-mindedness." Doing anything with "single-mindedness" is terrifying to me, especially when it's war. If I read that correctly, Huckabee would want to preemptively strike at Iran and any other Country that looks at us the wrong way with its Islamic eyes. He will attempt to drag us, undiplomatic and with tunnel-vision, into any conflict that "threatens" our way of life. It all comes back to his faith: he views this Islamic extremism as a "perversion of religion" and will fight with intensity to ensure our Christian nation perseveres. Under Huckabee, I can imagine scenarios where countless men and women will die for his vision. Although he claims that he will fight the war "smart, using all our political, economic, diplomatic, and intelligence weapons as well as our military might," I simply cannot trust a man who lauds "single-mindedness" as a positive characteristic in approaching a defining struggle of our age. I doubt Huckabee's agility in balancing a situation where he's already made his decisions.
And, interestingly, he dodges the question of torture by not referencing it throughout his position papers. While he is deeply religious, so is our current President. Based on his heated rhetoric and the present political environment, I wouldn't put a pushing of the status quo on torture passed him.
And, finally, I'd like to touch on something Huckabee calls "Vertical Politics." For Huckabee, it is as follows:
Everywhere I go on the campaign trail, I meet voters with a real thirst for a healthy discussion of the issues. Ultimately, people don't care whether an issue comes from the left or the right. What they want to talk about are ideas that lift America up and make us better. It's what I call "Vertical Politics" and it is why we felt it was so important to set a "Vertical Day" aside to focus on the issues.
This is a nice sentiment. People do have a thirst for discussion, and want to feel their opinions matter. But I worry that this is purely lip service on the part of Mike Huckabee. As I've described above, he seems a man who knows his positions, who in "single-mindedness" moves forward to do what's right. In that light, I doubt his ability to take the opinions of others, especially those who strongly disagree with his positions. Hell, he's said that he intends to use his Bully Pulpit to change the hearts and minds of those who disagree with his position on the "sanctity of life." Who's to say that he won't do the same on every other position? I am skeptical.
In short, Huckabee seems like a nice guy and has a compelling story. He is personable, has the courage of his convictions, and doesn't flip-flop like Giuliani and Romney. The problem with that, however, is that he's just like our current President; I get the feeling that he believes what he believes, and that's the end of the story. I laud him for being extremely open about faith. As I said earlier, faith is important. But considering the separation of Church and State and considering the importance of being able to thoughtfully synthesize positions for the benefit of all of America, and considering the other policy positions I've reviewed, I assert that Huckabee is wrong for America and that a Huckabee Presidency would be extremely damaging to our nation. He's just out of touch.
Thanks for tolerating this long entry. I don't usually go so negative for this long, but I just feel that his record should be opened up to public scrutiny as he gains an eerie momentum across the nation. In that light, what are your thoughts on Mike Huckabee and his candidacy?
Stumble It!We use Markdown to style our comments. **This is bolded.** *This is italic.* [This is a link](url)
For more options,
try reading the
wikipedia article or the
official style guide.
Comments
Comments from site editors have a darker background than comments from everybody else.With enemies like you, Huckabee may not need friends ;)
We use Markdown to style our comments. **This is bolded.** *This is italic.* [This is a link](url)
For more options, try reading the wikipedia article or the official style guide.
Please do explain.
We use Markdown to style our comments. **This is bolded.** *This is italic.* [This is a link](url)
For more options, try reading the wikipedia article or the official style guide.
Sure. What I mean is that, even though I find their reasons against gay marriage antiquated and often illogical, and even though I'll say "you're wrong" to their arguments while offering counter-arguments, I understand (if not condone) their argument.
They don't support it for a few reasons, and I understand what they've said-- even though I strongly disagree. They've got it set in their minds that it's wrong and counter-indicated with their belief system; and, even though I'll try to convince them otherwise using my arguments, it'll take a lot of hard work to change their minds.
But that's work I'm willing to do, because equality is important. And I believe this is one of the prominent equality-based fights of our time. I don't think I said it quite as clearly as I wanted to, so thank you for asking for clarification.
We use Markdown to style our comments. **This is bolded.** *This is italic.* [This is a link](url)
For more options, try reading the wikipedia article or the official style guide.
I don't understand how reasonable people can claim, as you do, that acting in public life on the basis of one's faith is somehow forcing one's religion on others. On what basis is one supposed to act? Was Martin Luther King, Jr., supposed to shut up about civil rights because his views were motivated by Christian faith? Should William Wilberforce have recused himself from the campaign against slavery because he believed slavery was contrary to Christian morality? People only make this kind of argument against political positions with which they disagree. It's simply an unfair way of smearing political opponents who happen to have religious views. It turns "separation of church and state" into a penalty for religious believers, which completely perverts the concept.
Gov. Huckabee has shown a clear understanding of separation of church and state, in refusing for instance to comment on Gov. Romney's Mormonism by pointing out that he wasn't running for the presidency of a theological school! That is what separation of church and state is about. Those conservative Christians who rule Romney out because he is a Mormon are indeed showing a lack of respect for the principle of disestablishment, but so are those who attack Huckabee for his conservative evangelicalism. If you don't like the policies you think he will enact as a conservative evangelical, fine. Criticize those by explaining how they are bad for the country. And even if some of your positions are influenced by your Unitarianism, that's OK!
Edwin
We use Markdown to style our comments. **This is bolded.** *This is italic.* [This is a link](url)
For more options, try reading the wikipedia article or the official style guide.
By no means do I seek to penalize religious believers for their beliefs. Indeed, many of our most admirable leaders and heroes have found religion to be a helpful guide. As Obama has said (and I paraphrase), faith is essential. I was simply asserting I have doubts over the Governor's ability to not legislate his faith in an aggressive way onto others. From the Iraq War to his positions on abortion and gay marraige, he's not merely using his beliefs as a guide; instead, they are purely his policy. This might not be terrible in certain circumstances, but I again lean on how he references "single-mindedness" in his policy on the war on terror. Can he be independent enough from his beliefs to account for the opinions of others and find any reasonable middle-ground? I have my doubts.
As for going after his policies, that's exactly what I was attempting to do. I talk significantly about many other aspects of his platform, alongside his faith. But when he doesn't separate his faith and professional lives, when his faith is his policy, then it's fair game for criticism.
We use Markdown to style our comments. **This is bolded.** *This is italic.* [This is a link](url)
For more options, try reading the wikipedia article or the official style guide.
There's a difference between using your faith's morality to inform your political opinions and imposing a law for no other reason than it is against your religious beliefs. There is no strictly moral reason to oppose gay marriage. There is no public health reason to oppose gay marriage. There is not even a social reason to oppose gay marriage. Only a reliance on religious texts can possibly lead to such a perverse moral stance.
We use Markdown to style our comments. **This is bolded.** *This is italic.* [This is a link](url)
For more options, try reading the wikipedia article or the official style guide.
If you look into the details of the FairTax you would realize it is a progressive tax system that saves time and money. It is fair for all income levels and will help the US economy tremendously. It takes 10 minutes to understand fully.
We use Markdown to style our comments. **This is bolded.** *This is italic.* [This is a link](url)
For more options, try reading the wikipedia article or the official style guide.
The FairTax seems progressive, until you realize that the richest people in this country don't spend very much of their income. A middle-class family that barely makes it from paycheck to paycheck (a common occurrence in the Bay Area and elsewhere), would be taxed a greater percent of their income than a very rich family that invests a large portion of its income. The system also does not tax corporate income that is not eventually paid in wages and spent - a large amount of current corporate income tax.
Another fundamental problem is that the rebate amount is based on the federal poverty line, which is completely meaningless in much of the country. Some places will be far better off, because of low costs of living, while people who are below what is essentially the regional poverty level will be paying taxes, because they are technically above the federal poverty level.
Finally, there's the issue of trusting the government to handle monthly rebate checks for every single citizen and resident alien. The IRS is barely able to handle annual rebate checks. I agree that the system needs to change, but trying to force an inherently regressive tax like sales tax into a progressive tax is like trying to shove a square peg in a round hole.
We use Markdown to style our comments. **This is bolded.** *This is italic.* [This is a link](url)
For more options, try reading the wikipedia article or the official style guide.
You sir, are out of touch. America is in a mess, no morals and crumbling from within. You obviously haven't a miniscule understanding of the Fair Tax. It will provide more revenue and is truly fair to all. I could go on and on but I feel sure it would be a waste of breath.
We use Markdown to style our comments. **This is bolded.** *This is italic.* [This is a link](url)
For more options, try reading the wikipedia article or the official style guide.
hehe, you're cute.
We use Markdown to style our comments. **This is bolded.** *This is italic.* [This is a link](url)
For more options, try reading the wikipedia article or the official style guide.
It's so quaint how you think it's the government's responsibility to make sure we're moral.
We use Markdown to style our comments. **This is bolded.** *This is italic.* [This is a link](url)
For more options, try reading the wikipedia article or the official style guide.
I really need the help, after all...
We use Markdown to style our comments. **This is bolded.** *This is italic.* [This is a link](url)
For more options, try reading the wikipedia article or the official style guide.
The writer is not "out of touch." The writer makes very valid points. If you are not up for change, then leave the country. Don't be the pot calling the kettle black unless you're ready to support your statements with a long list of proven facts. Most people in this country do not stand for the extremist ideology that Mike Huckabee lives by, and we are tired of the Constitution being stepped on (or discriminatory changes being made to it.)
We use Markdown to style our comments. **This is bolded.** *This is italic.* [This is a link](url)
For more options, try reading the wikipedia article or the official style guide.
All I know is that Huckabee freed a rapist guy from prison because he was his friend's friend. Add to that - that rapist guy killed 2 women again after being released...As simple as that. His Christian face is just a drama.
We use Markdown to style our comments. **This is bolded.** *This is italic.* [This is a link](url)
For more options, try reading the wikipedia article or the official style guide.
Dear Ben,
You might like to familiarize yourself with Kissinger's "Diplomacy", Dinesh D'Souza's "The War at Home" and plug yourself into economics. You blatantly state that the income of the federal government would drop. A user tax would keep pace with the consumption of the rich as their lifestyle is driven by consumption and luxury items. Those who buy the basic necessities are rewarded by fewer taxes. The Islamic Extremist you speak of are not angry at conservative Christians, but the liberals who have invaded the Middle East and beyond with social service organizations that impress liberal values (explained in the non-American born Dinesh D'Souza's book). If you had an inkling of understanding of Wilsonian Democracy or Realpolitik (covered in Kissinger's outline of Western Diplomacy) you would understand that the war in Iraq serves both; and the Presidents who have responded least to social pressure have been those that have prevailed. Our fall from preponderance in the world is fast approaching as China has GDP increases of 10% a year, but this is not bad in and of itself. The question is, how many democracies will be in place when we have no power to unilaterally change the world and will our status of illegals be like Germany's and become a suffocating burden on our social welfare system. If you understand European diplomacy it is a strategic move on their part, one which they have done multiple times in the past, to withdraw from Iraq and conserve their energy. I am not a fan of Huckabee, but I am less a fan of your ignorance and bold, unfounded opinions. These are statements of passionate superficiality and are the mark of one who needs concrete reading not of the soap opera variety portrayed in the news.
In conclusion main stream America is out of touch with reality and if they wish to continue in their quality of living there are adjustments that must be made. I for one am serving in Iraq and do not fight what my fate may be as a volunteer here. It is a sad state that when there are no casualties in Iraq the news in silent of our progresses...Who belongs here...those who have registered, as those in Ellis Island did so long ago, into our system. By the way...we're doing well here and for those of you who send care packages...we appreciate them SO much.
We use Markdown to style our comments. **This is bolded.** *This is italic.* [This is a link](url)
For more options, try reading the wikipedia article or the official style guide.
You fail to note that those who buy the basic necessities spend much larger percentages of their incomes than those who spend lavishly, and yet save or invest even more. The President's Advisory Panel for Federal Tax Reform in fact concluded "Families with the top 10 percent of cash incomes would benefit substantially from the retail sales tax. Their tax burden would fall by 5.3 percentage points – from 70.8 percent to 65.5 percent. Middle-income Americans, however, would bear more of the federal tax burden. A typical married couple at the bottom 25th percentile of the income distribution earns $39,300 per year and would pay $5,625 dollars in federal taxes in 2006. Under the retail sales tax with a Prebate, the same family would pay $7,997 in net federal taxes after the Prebate of $6,694, resulting in a tax increase of $2,372, or 42 percent."
Rather than baselessly blaming the current antipathy to the United States on "liberal values" being impressed by "social welfare groups", you should consider the reasons the terrorists have stated for their war against America. When asked why he declared a jihad against the US, bin Laden said in an interview:
We have no reason to have military in the Middle East and our bases in Saudi Arabia are the main reason Al-qaeda was even formed. Leaving Saudi Arabia (along with Iraq and Afghanistan) is the right thing to do, from a moral perspective, from an internal security perspective, and from a spending perspective. If one were to actually follow Realpolitik, we would not be in there in the first place. It is neither practical nor beneficial to attempt by force to get the Arab peninsula's cooperation.
All arguments aside, I truly appreciate your service.
We use Markdown to style our comments. **This is bolded.** *This is italic.* [This is a link](url)
For more options, try reading the wikipedia article or the official style guide.
I believe that this article is quite ridiculous. To insult him for having positions that most Americans agree with is absurd.
And as for the Fair Tax, read the book and actually have an understanding about it before you criticize it. I'm not telling you to like it, but know more than what you read off of blogs online.
That’s it, thanks for reading.
Andy www.kabliga.com
We use Markdown to style our comments. **This is bolded.** *This is italic.* [This is a link](url)
For more options, try reading the wikipedia article or the official style guide.
I found your article interesting right up you wrote"Faith is important. Unfortunately for Huckabee, so is separation of Church and State, which is laid out in the Constitution. "
Sorry...the separation of church and state is not in the constitution. The first amendment says " congress shall makes no law with respect to the establishment of religion or restricting the free exercise thereof"
So...if Huckabee runs for Congress and then wants to pass a law establishing a national religion...then maybe you should write another article. Until then....maybe you should try reading the constitution before using to support your nutty ideas.
We use Markdown to style our comments. **This is bolded.** *This is italic.* [This is a link](url)
For more options, try reading the wikipedia article or the official style guide.
Separation of church and state is a convenient way to paraphrase the general principle that government should and may not endorse a religious viewpoint. This does not merely prohibit, in the way in which you imply, "establishing a national religion," but, as the Supreme Court has interpreted the establishment clause time and again, prohibits preferential treatment of one religion over another, i.e. imposing Christian values on a substantially unchristian nation. There must be a rational, non-religious reason to enact a particular law. That isn't to say that his values shouldn't guide him. It would be impossible to separate them really. However, the scary thing about Huckabee is that it all begins and ends with his faith.
We use Markdown to style our comments. **This is bolded.** *This is italic.* [This is a link](url)
For more options, try reading the wikipedia article or the official style guide.
Just like to add, there is no official separation of church and state, if you'd kindly direct me to the exact location that would be good.
Although, my religion is what my morals are based on, so I believe my religion is hard to keep out of my beliefs. You know, really everyones beliefs reflect their religion, or at least view of it.
We use Markdown to style our comments. **This is bolded.** *This is italic.* [This is a link](url)
For more options, try reading the wikipedia article or the official style guide.
That's the fun about interpretation, especially of the First Amendment's clauses.
We use Markdown to style our comments. **This is bolded.** *This is italic.* [This is a link](url)
For more options, try reading the wikipedia article or the official style guide.
Ben-
Awesome article. I live in Arkansas and lived here while Huckabee was here. The only good thing that came out of his reign was Arkansas jumped from 49th in the nation to 41st in the nation (give or take a spot or two) in education. He only did that because our Supreme Court said he HAD to.
Huckabee is running for Preacher and Chief. He is a nice man, but no President. I saw him twice speak in Arkansas and it was on abortion and gay marriage (this was in 04 and 05). He is a master at avoiding tough questions. I am a proud member of Christian Left, and Huckabee's policies scare me because I believe his faith will "drive him" to implement these far right ideas and push people away from the compassion that Christians are supposed to show (like, lets love our neighbors, gay or not. Novel idea huh?) I was also disgusted with him "babies in the garbage" quote because he makes it sound like abortion is an easy thing for a woman to go through, where's the compassion? Not in Iraq or the middle class, I can tell you that.
Keep up the good work.
We use Markdown to style our comments. **This is bolded.** *This is italic.* [This is a link](url)
For more options, try reading the wikipedia article or the official style guide.
Stephen, thanks for the kind words. I, too, have found some relief in faith. The Unitarian church I belonged to in L.A. before I moved back here was a crucial part of my life. But you're right: Huckabee would be getting away from the love-thy-neighbor mentality in a lot of his regressive positions...
We use Markdown to style our comments. **This is bolded.** *This is italic.* [This is a link](url)
For more options, try reading the wikipedia article or the official style guide.