georgetownFaith_614x75.gif
Jacques Berlinerblau

The God Vote

Jacques Berlinerblau

Jacques Berlinerblau is associate Professor and Director of the Program for Jewish Civilization at the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University. Many years ago he received a doctorate in ancient Near Eastern Languages and Literature from New York University. Soon after, for reasons that he himself has never fully understood, he completed another doctorate in theoretical sociology from the New School for Social Research. Feeling sufficiently credentialed to write about and research any topic under the sun, his areas of interest include the Bible, its composition, its interpretation, and in particular the way that it has been dragooned into modern political discourse. To this end his new book is called "Thumpin' It: The Use and Abuse of the Bible in Today's Presidential Politics" (Westminster John Knox), described by First Things as "laugh-out-loud funny as well as astute." He also has published "The Secular Bible: Why Nonbelievers Must Take Religion Seriously" (Cambridge:2005). An earlier book, "Heresy in the University: The Black Athena Controversy and the Responsibilities of American Intellectuals" (Rutgers: 1999) probed the manner in which institutions of higher education handle scholarly dissent. He has written extensively in scholarly journals on the subject of heretics, intellectuals, secularism, and Jewish civilization. This confluence of interests accounts, to a great degree, for his fascination with modern Jewish-American literature. A life-long New Yorker, he has recently moved to Washington D.C. with his family and is beguiled by the strange traffic lights that count down the seconds until they finally change colors. Close.

The God Vote

Jacques Berlinerblau

Jacques Berlinerblau is program director and associate professor of Jewish Civilization at the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University. He is the author of the new book "Thumpin’ It: The Use and Abuse of the Bible in Today’s Presidential Politics" and "The Secular Bible: Why Nonbelievers Must Take Religion Seriously." The God Vote is a critical look at the religious rhetoric, activity and theology behind the 2008 presidential campaign. Full bio »

The God Vote | Georgetown/On Faith Archives | On Faith Archives | Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affairs | Georgetown


Huck to Constitution: Get Right With God

When Mike Huckabee threw the Good Book at the Constitution, he committed the single most egregious Faith and Values’ blunder of the 2008 campaign.

» Back to full entry

Featured Comments

Steve:

All these messages! I see 2 main themes: Some Christians think that America should be a Christian nation, and lots of Americans think a Christian theocracy under Huckabee would be a bad thing.

In the years that I attended churches, I learned two important lessons: there is an enormous difference between faith in God and faith in scripture; and fundamentalist Christianity, the army of those whose faith is in scripture, is the vilest kind of blasphemy.

I am a political independent, not a liberal, and I have voted for Republicans when I thought they represented the better choice. But I do not want America led by a blasphemer. Individually, religion and politics have a tendency to descend into sliminess; the miscegenous marriage of religion and politics spawns monsters of particular sliminess. After 7 years of the worst president in our history -- a man who purports to be led by God -- I think America should have learned its lesson about politicians who make loud religious noises.

Bill:

I'm no Constitutional lawyer but when Huckabee says:

"And that’s what we need to do — is to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than try to change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other and how we treat the family."

Isn't he saying that he wants to amend the Constitution, for instance on abortion, to put in a religiously based law? This certainly would put the amendment in direct contradiction with the Establishment Clause. There are many religions which do not have a problem with abortion, and this would certainly favor particular ones over others.

I think that the percentage of Americans ready to ditch the Establishment Clause, given how central it is to our existence as a nation, would be pretty small. An ad that made this point would not be an attack ad, but a reality check, and if it wouldn't be devastating, then I'm really out of touch with my own country.

If (and it's a very big IF) Huckabee grasps two key points: the meaning of God, and the source of the Bible (which is ultimately the same source of all religions), then I must say that he is on target in his comments. He is saying that the constitution has an inferior place relative to the tenets of religion, or the "word of the living God" as he puts it. When he says we can't change "God's standards", I take it to mean that we can't change the laws of nature, which one would like to think are reflected in the beliefs and practice of people adhering to a particular faith. Of course, the religion that Huckabee is referring to -- modern Christianity -- has lost much of its original substance. The deep principles that gave rise to Christianity 2000 years ago have been twisted and confused into shallow, meaningless creeds over the centuries, and few Christians today really "get it" anymore. Few really get where Jesus the man-God was coming from. Same holds true for many other modern religions. Note, however, that the surviving indigenous traditions -- those few that have preserved some of their original authenticity -- do in fact reflect a more profound and more natural guide for individual life on the planet. Indigenous "laws" derive from the infinite, the transcendental source of life. Our man-made laws, however much they are revered, are subservient and derivative relative to those natural laws. Does Huckabee really grasp this, or is he simply spouting hollow Christian dogma? Maybe someone who knows him better can tell us.
Al Gabis
Fairfield, Iowa

It is actually rather savvy to shift marriage and abortion to constitutional issues. It throws red meat to partisans and lets the rest of us know that compromise is in the offing. You cannot unilaterally amend the Constitution - you have to compromise to do so.

The rest of the field is actually scarier, since they advocate going after "activist" judges and their jurisdiction, which would erode compromise and end judicial review of majority action. Now that is scary.

When Huckabee compares abortion to slavery, he is stating that a states rights solution is a bad idea. Not only does it erode the American nation but it cannot work, since people will travel to other states for abortion services (just as they travel to other counties now).

If Huckabee were saying he wanted a judicial solution, I would not be supporting him.

Post a Comment

Please return to the All Comments page to join the discussion. The best comments will be featured on this page.

Top Local Global

On Faith is an interactive conversation on religion moderated by Newsweek Editor Jon Meacham and Sally Quinn of The Washington Post. It is produced jointly by Newsweek and washingtonpost.com, as is PostGlobal, a conversation on international affairs. Please send your comments, questions and suggestions for On Faith to David Waters, its producer.
> > > > > > > > > >