Huckobama

(Compare this to the former governor of Arkansas who enraged Secular America when he suggested that we amend the Constitution to God’s standards)

duh. obama has not called for changes to the constitution based on the bible.

BIG difference.

i guess as an atheist supporter of obama, i'm not too worried about being mollycoddled.

Clinton,Obama,McCain are all bought and paid for corporate stooges who will say whatever the group they are talking to want to hear,Huckabe really would try to make america into a theocracy

Obviously there is a difference between expressing a personal statement of faith (even if I personally such things to be irrational) and advocating amendment of the Constitution to turn the country into a theocracy. Saying that our "values" should be reflected in our government is not offensive to me since I know that the values Obama is talking about are ones that I as an atheist can share with many believers. Things like access to health care, and not torturing people, stuff like that.

In fact, it is a favorite tactic of the radical right to argue that because atheists don't believe in their Baby Jesus that we are in favor of child sacrifice and fascism and communism and Hitler and socialized medicine and free sex and the Mexicanization of America and islamofacscism and Burkas all at the same time. Listen a little more closely to the Huckster. It's all in there!

As for McCain, he will cover all these topics in one speech and then deny it all the next day and you guys will call it Straight Talk.

God ia concept by which we measure our pain.

Nice try Jacques, but you're missing the point.
As a non-believer, I can see clearly the difference between Obama's statements and Huckabee's. Obama is talking about his faith and faith in general in personal terms. Nowhere, in any of the quotes you bring up, does he say anything about government. He speaks of people, but not of politics.
Huckabee said he wanted to change the Constitution to be in line with god's word. That is a direct statement; saying that he wants his religious views to actually change the founding document of our system of government.
Apples and oranges my friend, and that's why there is no controversy.

I have never commented here before. I only found this article via another site that linked to it. But I feel inspired to echo and add to some earlier comments.

What a ridiculous thesis this article advances!

The obvious difference between Huckabee and Obama, as others have noted, is that Huckabee has genuinely advanced theocracy, while Obama merely talks about his personal faith. (Whether he is genuine or pandering is another subject altogether.)

I am an atheist. I have no problem voting for a person of faith if s/he shares my political viewpoints. There are plenty of people of faith who believe in the separation of church and state, who do not seek to embed their faith into the law or enforce their faith on me. Likewise, there are plenty of people of faith who will represent my political interests, and vote for the policies in which I believe.

Why, precisely, should only secular people be alarmed by Obama's words? His words are unmistakably Christian. By the logic of this article, shouldn't Jews, Hindus, Muslims and any other non-Christian be alarmed by Obama's public expression of his Christian faith? And would the author of this piece fear me if I ran for office merely because I am an atheist? Even if I agreed with his political viewpoints? Does the author justify the fear so many expressed about Kieth Elison, who is the first Muslim in Congress?

The tenor of the article suggests that no one can, in good conscience, vote for someone who does not share her personal religious beliefs. That is not just silly; it's terrifying. I shudder to think what our country would be like if everyone really thought that way.

I don't know when Obama started ramping up his God talk but it could have something to do with the emails I'm getting claiming he's a "dirty little Muslim."

I don't like his God talk. I don't like anyone's God talk unless they're talking to me one on one about their personal, private, intimate beliefs.

"Admit it, Secular America. If Mike Huckabee had said something like this on the campaign trail you’d be locking and loading faster than you could hum John Lennon’s lyric “Imagine all the people, Living life in peace”"

Huge strawman. Admit it, you don't know what the h*ll you're talking about.

not too bad for an eeeeeevil "Muslim" hey? maybe you're just jealous your fat idiot Hagee didn't say it first.

but hey....it's a sad thing when you have to pander to the delusional masses that suffer from the same affliction to get votes. Obama knows this. it's like your hand has to be stamped with stupidity to get in, but that's always been american society. the slow descent into fascist decay and madness celebrates it's cult of stupidity....check that...it DEMANDS that you conform to the cult of idiots and then celebrates those "champions" that descend to it's depths.

oh by the way.....don't ever pretend to know where Canada is. (let alone Manitoba)

Idiot!

I mean, hey. Not to put too fine a point on it, buthehas a better civil rights record than Hillary, particularly as involves my particular litle tushie, not to mention other issues of some import.

He could be a card-carrying Pastafarian with a side order of marinara, for all I care, as long as I get a recognizable America out of the deal, for once.

Seriously.

The difference, Mr Berlinerblau, is that Senator Obama can talk about his own faith without it being about excluding others or in support of policies based on unreason.

His faith neither breaks my arm nor picks my pocket.

Nor threatens my person.

The difference between him and Huckabee is that, contrary to conservative defamation of liberals, it's not actually about how Christian someoneone is, ...it's about how American they'll be.

He may have his devout Christianness, but he's never let that make him support denying my civil rights cause some Christians feel I'm less human when I'm with another woman than otherwise.

He may have his devout Christianness, but he doesn't use it to make me a second class citizen or an outlaw because I pray to other Gods.

Unlike Huckabee, he can say 'Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' without tripping over the last bit and saying something else.

In short, no, liberals and secularists aren't hypocites, and it's *not* about whether or not someone has certain beliefs:

It's about what they do and propose to do.

Not only do I support Senator Obama on the basis of his record and promises and stated values, but I intend to *hold him to them.*

And, frankly, he's a dude I suspect would actually listen. With respect.

Yeah, there's a difference, Mr. Berlinerblau.

And it's not actually the religion.

Who knew.

Why would that be? I don't care if Obama talks to Jesus when he insists that I do too, then I'll be offended.

After WW3, Huckabee would be the President of the States. By that time there would be no more liberal states coz God has wiped them off the earth already.

I suggest that he keeps on trying till that day happens coz it's coming soon.

I'm not yet sure if your one of those Jewish atheists or a believing Jew. But in this post you do not seem to know the difference between secularism and atheism, a common and dangerous confusion. You use the terms "non-believer" and "Secular America" interchangeably.

You write first:
"Admit it, Secular America. If Mike Huckabee had said something like this on the campaign trail you’d be locking and loading faster than you could hum John Lennon’s lyric “Imagine all the people, Living life in peace”:

"And during the course of that sermon, I was introduced to someone named Jesus Christ. I learned that my sins could be redeemed and that if I placed my trust in Christ, He could set me on the path to eternal life.""

Later you replace Secular America with "nonbelievers and Church-State separatists" and wonder why:

"These pious musings have not aroused as much as a peep of protest from nonbelievers and Church-State separatists. (Compare this to the former governor of Arkansas who enraged Secular America when he suggested that we amend the Constitution to God’s standards)."

They don't compare. What you don't seem to grasp is that Obama is both a believer and a secularist. Believing in God, even in Jesus, doesn't preclude one from being a secularist and supporting separation of Church and state. And, in fact, because Obama has said other things we can know he is a secularist. For example, this speech, the "Call to Renewal Keynote Address":

"... they need to understand the critical role that the separation of church and state has played in preserving not only our democracy, but the robustness of our religious practice. That during our founding, it was not the atheists or the civil libertarians who were the most effective champions of this separation; it was the persecuted religious minorities, Baptists like John Leland, who were most concerned that any state-sponsored religion might hinder their ability to practice their faith."

"Moreover, given the increasing diversity of America’s population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers."

"And even if we did have only Christians within our borders, who’s Christianity would we teach in the schools? James Dobson’s, or Al Sharpton’s? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Levitacus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount – a passage so radical that it’s doubtful that our Defense Department would survive its application?"

"This brings me to my second point. Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all."

That speech clearly defines Obama as a secularist if not a non-believer. And, yes, if Huckabee had said what you quoted from Obama then that would add to my negative feelings about Huckabee. That's because Huckabee also said:

"I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution," Huckabee told a Michigan audience on Monday. "But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that's what we need to do -- 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."

Claiming that the constitution must reflect God's standards is clearly the view of someone who doesn't even grasp the concept of separation of church and state much less believe in it.

This doesn't mean that I do not find some of what Obama says disturbing, but I find it disturbing as an atheist, not a secularist.

But even here my worries about Obama's sanity would be eased if some journalist would ask him this question: "You have said that you think God has a plan for his people and that it’s a plan He’s left to us to fulfill. Do you really know God's plans?"

If he answers "yes," then worry. If he answers "no," you can worry much less. Thinking you know God's plans is what makes Farrakhan, Hagee, Huckabee, Bush and bin Laden dangerous nutjobs.

If others have already said this, then it'll be said again. There's a pretty big difference between the way Obama and Huckabee present their faith in their respective campaigns. Huckabee plans on trying to implement elements of his faith as policy, if not downright, institutionally. Obama does not so intend. As a person of "none of the above" persuasion, I'll take Obama every time.

The whole piece depends on a stupid conflation of Democrat=liberal=secular=anti-religion.

And that's just stupid.

I have Christian friends who believe that the message of Jesus Christ, of love, tolerance, distinction of what is Caesar's/God's, is most consistent with liberal progressive values.

Why is that hard to understand?

Perhaps there hasn't been a peep from liberal secularists like myself because we do see a difference between a candidate expression religious convictions and a candidate saying those religious convictions should be made into the law of the land by amending the constitution to include them. I have no problem with a political leader having any religious beliefs, be they Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Mormon, etc. My problem is when they try to force those beliefs upon me with the rule of law.

Jacques - Can you point out the part of Obama's speech where he said he would amend the constitution to fall in line with "God's law?"

I can't find that part.

(The world must look weird without shades of grey.)

a very interesting forum, however perhaps Talmud over the OT (the First Covenant) has had its day in the sun among our fellow participants who are of Jewish heritage and/or religion.

back to the related theme:
It is sad that cotton candy obama has gotten the media attention that he has.

I think results from the contempt that the media ( The 4rth Estate as they like to think of themselves) has for the everyday american voter, and not as if the everyday american hasnt him or herself brought contempt on themselves. back to God and the theme here.

The founders didnt want a national religion like they'd seen plunder europe among other atrocities that that institutionalized paganism did to the people and their lives. At the very least the founders wanted man to have life liberty, (ability to own property/)pursuit of happiness. I figure many of the founders believed in God although whether they knew HIM or not was another matter.

But back to huckabee and obama, as I said, in listening to both, huckabee is confusion and it says in the Bible, "God is not the author of confusion'. In the OT, the Babylon was a site of confusion and in time after the Jews after carried away to there, eventually were able to leave behind confusion and the corruption of it.

Obama is a put up job. Virtually nothing genuine about him. He is expedient and i have said before, although not in this forum that expedient people are easily manipulated by their fears.

That is not the Lord; that is not from the Lord. There is nothing about expedience that is Godly. The Lord Himself was not expedient; quite the contrary.

So for these men to tow any line and think it is God, represents God, serves Him or is worthy of the whitehouse is not of God and is delusion on their part.

The founders would roll over in their graves if they were able to hear what all of this is today in the Republic they'd hoped to have left us but is quite dead at this point.

"And that’s something that may make it hard for secularists to live their lives in peace."

I usually love your articles....but come on - stop being so dang sensitive. Smart politicians appeal to different groups - Obama is trying to appeal to Christians (and seems earnest about it) as well as secularists. What on earth is so surprising about that?

This might be the most simplistic, tedious and just plain ridiculous commentary I've read in awhile. And given the general competition in the media, that's a prize you have to earn. Well done! You've managed to say very little in a lot of words.

Dear Jacques,

Our Constitution protects all of the beliefs of all of the people in this country, and says that the government cannot mandate one religious belief (that there is a God, that Jesus was saved) over another (that there is no God, that Jesus was a man).

Best of all, our Constitution allows any office holder (the President, for example) to hold any beliefs he or she wishes (ie, Sen. Obama can believe in the power of prayer and the importance of Jesus).

But our Constitution does not allow anyone to put their own beliefs into the government (ie, Mike Huckabee can't tell my children that they should believe in Jesus as he does, or never have abortions because his religion forbids that).

I'm happy that all the candidates are religious, and fully support their right to worship and believe whatever they wish. But they are not invited to impose their religious beliefs on me.

Dear Mr. Berlinerblau:

Allow me (a humble secular Architect)to help you, an acclaimed University Professor, understand the important distinction, which you highlight, and hyperlink even:

"Compare this to the former governor of Arkansas who enraged Secular America when he suggested that we amend the Constitution to God’s standards"

Yes, yes, Governor Huckabee has mentioned only abortion and gay marriage. But it sure sounded like he leaves himself an out on limitations. Amending the Constitution to 'God's Standards' (Whatever that means: Keeping kosher? No spitting on the Sabath?) is a far cry from "pious musings".

I have no problem whatsoever with politicians informing their conduct and policies with their religious faiths. What I do object to is the idea that those of a particular faith find it within the scope of political power to impose those religious beliefs on the rest of us, particularly by writ of Law.

I am sure, Mr. Associate Professor, that you can understand this important distinction. My guess is that you actually take issue with a Liberal that speaks of his faith. Let's face it, Liberals are all just Godless heathens, without exception. Right?

As a secular person who has read the Bible, I actually wish there was a little more Sermon on the Mount and a little less Armegeddon in our public discourse. Conservative insistance that they hold the Monopoly on Morals and Values has shut out Liberals of good faith, and ultimatly has debased issues of spirituality. Politics has soiled religion more than religion has lifted up politics.

And I promise, if Obama suggests that we "amend the Constitution to God's Standards", he will lose my support.

Donald Holtz
Los Angeles, CA

It amazes me that there can be 200+ comments, and only a handful (Sam, Poole, Harvey, apologies to those I've missed) who get the point (and Jacques isn't one of them). We don't need to speculate about the difference between Obama and Huckabee. Obama has clearly, articulately and forcefully written that his faith is to be kept out of his politics in the sense that he cannot ask anyone else to accept his position on anything unless he can persuade using reason, not religion. End of discussion.

Mr. Berlinerblau:

If you wrote this piece in good faith, you very much need to learn what a FALSE PARALLEL is. If on the other hand you wrote this piece in bad faith, please stop writing for the news media.

The false parallel, in case you had not already noticed it, is that you attempted to draw a parallel between Huckabee's statement, which involved PUBLIC POLICY and RELIGION-BASED AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUION and Barack Obama's statements, which involved...neither.

But I wouldn't feel bad about not be able to recognize false parallels; 90% of Post editors and writers also cannot do that, including the editor who approved your piece for publication.

Seriously, this is absolute drivel. Does the author honestly think that the fact that Obama uses the Bible and his faith as inspiration to pursue progressive policies is a threat to Church/State separation?

And can't Newsweek do any better than to publish shoddy "analysis" like this?

Oh my.

Is it possible that a professor would be unable to differentiate between A)a politican who respects and even shares the faith of Christians, and makes no secret of that; and B) a politician who wants to change the constitution to accord with his own beliefs?

No, it is not possible.

Therefore, what do we have? We have a professor at a respected university who is knowingly putting forward a false argument. There is a word for that.

You don't get it, Jack. Secularists don't have a problem with people being religious. They disagree with the spiritual beliefs, to be sure, but few would "lock and load," as you so pleasantly put it, against a candidate who expressed religious beliefs for that reason alone. It is religious rhetoric that paints secularists as bad Americans, or that is coupled with regressive social policies that so angers the secularist, and with good reason.

It seems Jacques Berlinerblau has succumbed to the right-wing talking point that all Democrats are secular, and all secular people are hostile to people of faith. Berlinerblau is not alone: heck, the mainstream media (including the WaPo) commonly repeat the lie that all Christians are evangelical Republicans happy to follow the will of James Dobson.

No matter how much evidence there is that American Christians are a diverse group of people with a diverse set of issues and political beliefs, you keep getting it wrong. You keep assuming that Christian = Republican, Democrat = God hater.

Wake up. The problem is with you, not us.l

Dude -

The reason why we don't get upset when Barack Obama talks about his Christianity is that HE DOESN'T WANT TO CONVERT US OR OUR GOVERNMENT TO CHRISTIANITY.

See, its OK with us if people are Christian. Or Muslim. Or Buddhist. Or Jewish.

Myself, I'm a Christian and quite devout in my faith. But I could care less if other people are, since my faith is between me and God and not me and my President.

But Huckabee still worries me because he did say he wanted to change the Constitution to be more in line with the Bible. He is a Christian who believes literally in the Bible, while I am a Christian who believes in the Bible as parable.

So the reason why we have a problem with Huckabee is not that he is a Christian, but that we disagree the way he wants to use power to change and influence our government. And the reason we DON'T have a problem with Obama's Christianity is that we agree the way he wants to use power to change and influence our government.

It's not hard to understand.

"...his insistence that “our values should be expressed not just through our families, our communities, and our churches, but through our government.” That’s the new Faith-and-Values friendly liberalism of the 2008 Democratic Party in 2008. And that’s something that may make it hard for secularists to live their lives in peace."

The implication is that secularists don't have values. That is not just insulting and offensive but incredibly obtuse. Here's a news flash: Secularists share most of the same values as Christians, Jews, etc. and will be very happy to see these shared values (honesty, integrity, service to others, fairness, equality under the law, etc.) expressed through our government.

To get an idea of just how offensive this article is, just substitute "Jew" for "secularist."

Do you truly see no meaningful difference between a description of a candidate's personal faith journey and an insistence that we should amend the Constitution to make it consistent with a candidate's religious beliefs? Because if you don't see the difference, then you have no business writing about this subject. Obama spoke about "our" values -- that is, values common to U.S. culture. Those values included (or used to) a rejection of torture and a rejection of the use of military force in pursuit of empire. For me, these values are rooted in my Christian faith, but they are (or were) AMERICAN values. I have no problem with a President who finds the roots of his values in religious faith, just as I have no problem with one who finds them in humanism or any other philosophy, as long as I agree with those values. A candidate who believes that we must establish a theocracy, on the other hand, scares the daylights out of me.

I've just finished reading all 200 comments and while there are a fair share of liberal idiots, there seems to be even MORE right wing crazies, some of whom think Russia doesn't have Christianity, some whom are just living in fear of liberal boogeymen, but most just spout the same mindless nonsense.

Christians can be both liberal or conservative, I don't recall Christ declaring for one party or the other. The Bible is missing some important texts (Book of Encoh anyone?) and which version is more correct King James, the New American Standard, the original Greek or Aramaic? Do we follow only some Old Testament laws (not Commandments) and sell unruly daughters to slavery? or just those that selectively that fit our religious or political agendas.

It's plain to see that even within Christianity, there are differing interpetation and debate about dogma.

This silly notion that seems to prevail over conservatives, is that they alone know what's good and right. They alone want to define God and patriotism. For some reason they cannot hold two separate ideas in their head.

Someone can be a Christian AND liberal. People can also criticize this country and NOT hate it.

I am a dedicated Christian, there is a world of difference between being a religious person and trying to mold a secular country into the image of your religion. You apparently don't get the distinction.

Obama is a religious person.

Huckabee thinks it's the job of Government to prop up religion.

I ardently favor separation of church and state BECAUSE I'm a Christian. Mixing Church and State poisons BOTH of them.

What a dumb article. We secularists don't care if you believe in or talk about your religion in a non-governmental setting. We believe in freedom of religion. We would care if you a politician wants to use government preferentially regarding any religion. Nothing Obama has said indicated he would do so. He was talking to religious leaders, so no problem. It would be a problem for secularists if he was talking in the Senate or the White House, but this speech did not violate the First Amendment. On the other hand, Huckabee has explicitly said he wants government and law to be based on his religion. Huckabee: "And thats what we need to do is amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than trying 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."

Anyone who does not notice that there is no equivalency between Huckabee's statements and Obama's statements in terms of its impact on seperation of Church and State ain't awake yet and needs another cup of coffee. Please notice what happened in England when it was proposed that "God's Law", known in the Muslin world as Sharia, be instituted in parts of England. Saying, essentially, I believe in God and God helps those who help themselves is a way of explaining oneself. It is in no way the same as saying, let us amend the fundamental laws of our land to reflect MY religious belief. See the difference?

Was America Founded as a Christian Nation ???

Not by way of our great Constitution, but it is INSTRUCTIVE to note that of the original 13 Colonies, 12 had compulsory religion. Only Rogues Island [original spelling] did not.

Most interestingly, our Constitution did not disallow official state religions, it only precluded them from becoming a NATIONAL religion.

I don't why you'd imagine that "Secular America" is ever surprised when all major candidates from each party confirms their religious faith. Every major candidate for each party in our lifetime has done so.

This obligatory religious posturing is irksome, to be sure, but not at all comparable to the sort of efforts Huckabee makes to inject religion into politics and policy.

You cite Huckabee seeking to AMEND THE CONSTITUTION, for goodness' sake. Surely you understand there's a world of difference between that and the standard "of course i'm a believer" boilerplate?

The idea that "secular" people are blinded by partisan affiliation so much that we missed Obama's Christian rhetoric, and that if we "knew the truth" about our candidate that it would crush our hopes and leave us destitute, does not bear up to any kind of critical examination.

The fact is that there is a wide range of reaction from people of a more anti-theistic bent, from those who do reject Obama to people, like myself, who accept him with reservations, to those who think it isn't particularly relevant. The idea that there is one kind of secular voter is as stupid as the idea that there is one kind of religious voter. Similarly, the idea that all of us secular people get ourselves so blinded by the religious rhetoric that we can't see very distinct differences between the kinds of policies that the candidates use that rhetoric to espouse is insulting to our intelligence.

In cadence and content, Obama's style owes much to the speeches of Martin Luther King, and I hope you can understand that many secular, liberal people didn't mind his use of religious imagery in calling for equality and justice at all either.

So those who aren't Christians (and oh, yes, Jews) are 'godless'?
Wow.
I have news for you, Professor: it is entirely possible for a person to have a strong spiritual life and not be a Christian (or, oh yes, a Jew.)
And it is also entirely possible for a person to be a devout Christian or a Jew and be secular.
You are laying claim to ground you have no right to.

God has voted and God's vote counted. Seems God does not favor the one with the middle name Hussein. But then, how sure can we be that was God and not Devil voting? God is on one side and Devil on the other, of that we can be sure and little else.

Hagee hugged McCain. The Devil made him do that.

The phone rang at 3AM. Hello. Yeah, hello, Devil here...

Tammy tell me true. Who do you want to answer the phone when the Devil calls in the middle of the night? Before you answer remember, "the goblins will get you if you don't watch out."

Maybe it's not the economy after all? It's stupid for sure whatever it is. One out of two isn't bad but it's not a passing grade.

If you can't tell the difference between Obama's references to his religious faith, and Romney's and Huckabee's attacks on secularists, you aren't nearly as qualified to write about these subjects as your bio claims.

This is just silly. I'm an atheist, and I understand that there are a lot of religious people out there, all over the political spectrum. The reason Senator Obama's remarks don't bother me is because they don't cross the line (which Governor Huckabee proudly crosses) of wanting to make his religious beliefs into national law. Clear enough?

This is just silly. I'm an atheist, and I understand that there are a lot of religious people out there, all over the political spectrum. The reason Senator Obama's remarks don't bother me is because they don't cross the line (which Governor Huckabee proudly crosses) of wanting to make his religious beliefs into national law. Clear enough?

You can't tell the difference between Obama's comments and wanting to amend the constitution to match the bible? Does the Post have any standards left these days?

Oh Please. I don't believe in any of the god-related fairy tales and I don't care what Obama says on the matter, or Huckabee for that matter. It is an uninteresting topic, sort of like discussions about which superhero is cooler, Batman or Superman.

I'm not a fan of Huck or Obama or Jebus X, himself. But I think there's a big difference between professions of personal faith and a professed desire to rewrite the Constitution to bring it into line with some wacky interpretation of the bible.

Agreed USA was not founded as a Christian nation. Actually, because there was little democratic or individual rights experience from Europe at the time, they borrowed a fair amount from the Iroquois Nations.

Were the Iroquois Christian? Not so much.

Mr PHONY got a buttkicking last night, even silly liberals are getting wise to his drivel. (Insert your question here, any question)-and the answer? HOPE, CHANGE. What a load of BS.

Uh, what the heck is a "secularist?" Is that some sort of new slur to be wielded against people who believe in the Constitution and its separation of church and state?

"These pious musings have not aroused as much as a peep of protest from nonbelievers and Church-State separatists."

Wait just a minute. Modifying the Constitution is A DIFFERENT THING than giving a speech to religious people. Giving a speech to religious people does not force a religion on anyone. It's a discussion of faith.

Secularists, including our founding (secular) fathers, are not opposed to any discussion of faith.

Really, this assertion Mr. Berlinerblau is just dumb. I'm not saying he is, but his assertion sure is. And that's generous. The alternative explanation is that he is being deliberately deceptive.

The Washington Post is completely useless. Even my parrot won't crap on it anymore.

Huckabee want's to build a theocracy. Obama wants to keep a wall between church and state. They are at opposite ends of the political spectrum.

They don't become identical because Obama goes to church on Sundays.

You show an astounding lack of awareness of the variety of Christians in the country, as well as a complete lack of understanding about the concerns of those you call "secularists".

Not a good combination for the "On Faith" columnist.

Er, no, America was not founded as a Christian nation. This is probably the biggest lie the religious fanatics spread. Look in the Constitution--you know, that document that codified the intentions of the Founding Fathers of this nation. The only time religion is mentioned isn't even in the main body of the code. It's in an amendment. The first one. That thing about freedom of religion (which, yes, means freedom FROM religion, too). Hardly the sign of founding a nation on any religious belief. If the holy men had been in charge, the deity would have been an integral part of the document from the beginning and referenced throughout. Didn't happen.

Nice try.

Jacques wrote : "Why do secularists hiss when Huckabee preaches but purr when Obama preaches?"

After knowing that all these presidential candidates profess to be Christians, why are you still in America and not live in places where Christ is not worshiped like Russia or North Korea?

True Christians protect the Jews and you're an idiot not to know that. Without Christian America, Jews will have no place to live in peace coz even Israel would not exist.

To Andrea Psoras:

Don't worry, Frodo will destroy the ring... oh wait different fantasy!

There's a big difference. Obama expresses his faith which he has a right to do.

Huckabee talks about "taking the nation back for Christ" and overthrowing the Constitution for his twisted necon verstion of "God's standards"

There is a big difference in expressing one's faith and trying to jam it down everyone else's throat.

It might have something to do with Huckabee's desire to change the constitution to the liking of fundamentalist thinking. Somehow that doesn't fit in well with a democracy and one based on freedom of religion. Get real and stop reinterpreting what "secularists" or whatever name you want to call those people who don't buy into the myths of religions; christian, muslim, etc. After all it seems to me these fundamentalists have a cafeteria approach to the teachings of the bible, esp. the ten commandments. Ex. they come down heavily on coveting the neighbor's wife but killing? that's OK. Death penalty, sure. Invading another country and killing its citizens? that's OK also.
Look for other red meat you can toss out to the gullibles.

There is a difference in Obama and Huckabee in that while both use the rhetoric of God and country, Obama, unlike Huckabee, doesn't suggest constitutional ammendments to make the country more Christian... There is nothing wrong with invoking religious references if one believes in them. There is something wrong in trying to incorporate certain religious choices into laws and government.

I think this is the breakdown for secularists.

Republican Christians are hypocrites, which is bad.

Democrat Christians don't really mean it, which is okay.

Well, one definiton of being secularist is keeping religion out of the political arena. Wouldn't that be the difference between the two candidates?

The real reason that Obama's comments don't raise our ire is that he's not talking about amending the constitution, or imposing his beliefs on everyone else, while Huckabee is. It has very little to do with "entwining" secularism with liberal politics. To take some points from your piece in sequence:

It's a mistake to broadly equate "secularists" with "atheists." Most of us are probably Deists of some strain, just believe firmly in keeping the Church as an organization from dictating our behavior through Government auspices.

Truth is, most of America are believers of one flavor or another. We don't want to forbid them from their beliefs, only keep them from forbidding us ours. Obama's uniting message is not threatening in the way that amending the Constitution to be in line with Christian "morals" gives me the heebie-jeebies.

If there is a God, and He has a plan, then moral/ethical secularists clearly would have a role to play in that plan. Since a central tenet of the Bible is the exercise of free will, we will just have to play that part in our own way.

"Expressing values through our government" is in no way the same as "imposing religion through our government." I share the vast majority of the values of the Christian population. Expressing the idea that we should treat others as we wish to be treated through our government sounds like a great idea to me. I just wish that more Christians (and Jews, for that matter) would follow this central tenet of their religion themselves.

The real reason that Obama's comments don't raise our ire is that he's not talking about amending the constitution, or imposing his beliefs on everyone else, while Huckabee is. It has very little to do with "entwining" secularism with liberal politics. To take some points from your piece in sequence:

It's a mistake to broadly equate "secularists" with "atheists." Most of us are probably Deists of some strain, just believe firmly in keeping the Church as an organization from dictating our behavior through Government auspices.

Truth is, most of America are believers of one flavor or another. We don't want to forbid them from their beliefs, only keep them from forbidding us ours. Obama's uniting message is not threatening in the way that amending the Constitution to be in line with Christian "morals" gives me the heebie-jeebies.

If there is a God, and He has a plan, then moral/ethical secularists clearly would have a role to play in that plan. Since a central tenet of the Bible is the exercise of free will, we will just have to play that part in our own way.

"Expressing values through our government" is in no way the same as "imposing religion through our government." I share the vast majority of the values of the Christian population. Expressing the idea that we should treat others as we wish to be treated through our government sounds like a great idea to me. I just wish that more Christians (and Jews, for that matter) would follow this central tenet of their religion themselves.

The answer here is very simple: mutual respect. Obama's faith preaches tolerance; Huckabee's--despite the image championed by Huckabee himself--is tolerant only with conditions and requirements, and ultimately, in practice, is tolerant only of prejudice and hate.

It is a basic tenet in Obama's (and my) denomination that God speaks to us individually, that whatever communion there is between God and human is individual in every sense of the word, that your understanding of and with God may not be the same as mine. My statement of my faith, therefore, does not require that you conform to my thinking, as Huckabee's does. A secularist can live with that and respect it.

Does everyone forget what this country was founded on? christianity!! Your dang right thats what I want the religion of my country to be!

Thanks for pointing this out. This atheist and secularist (yes, they are different) is completely creeped out by the explicit use of religion by Senator Obama.

I actually do have a problem with Obama occasionally wearing his religion on his sleeve. But I'm less concerned about it coming from him than I would be from the average Republican candidate for a very simple reason -- the Republican right has as 20+ year track record of trying to jam their version of religion down everyone's throats and in not hesitating to use the country's legal system to do it. Obama's occasional preachiness is annoying, but I never worry that he will try to whip the rest of into his religious line at gunpoint. (Gunpoint is, after all, the way laws are enforced.)

"Are you really concerned that Huckabee will amend the constitution? "

No. The issue is his desire to do so and his justification for doing so. He's not even trying to present secular arguments for amendments against abortion and gay marriage. He's simply claiming that his amendments come from God. It's reasonable to expect someone who makes that claim to push for other "God's standards" amendments like mandatory school prayer.

There are varying degrees of secularism, some want religion completely removed from the public square, however most simply want religon seperated from policy and public/government institutions.

While there are definately some who do not want a canidate to mention religion at all in public, most secularists understand that religion is an important part of many peoples lives, indeed, many secularists are religious themselves.

What they resent is when religion becomes not just part of the politicians persona, but when they actively try to intergrate their religion with their policy. An easy example being the one you mentioned; Huckabee wanting to have the constitution updated to "God's standards". And yes, it does make secularists uncomfortable when religion is used to justify policy decisions. But generally not as a narrative to a politicians life.

I will concede once a politican has crossed the line that secularists percieve them to have their policy too influenced by religion, than any instance of mentioning religion gets increased scrutiny. However that is more to do with human nature, than any quirk or hypocrisy on the part of secularists - once we label something as "bad" or "wrong" we percieve any action remotely similiar by that individual also as bad.

Huckabee, and Bush are both perceived to have their policy be too influenced by their religion, and hence any mention of religion makes secularists cringe. While Obama has not crossed that line however if he did, I can guarentee he would face similiar treatment.

Your error, as for most conservatives, is in think that liberals and progressives are godless. We are not! We're just not so arrogantly certain about who God is or what God wants.

Religious liberals don't deny scientific consensus in favor of antiquated interpretations of old testament narrative. We don't interpret biblical teachings in ways that demonize wide swaths of people who don't agree with us.

Most importantly, religious liberals and progressives do not desire to re-make the U.S. into an official Christian nation...

THAT is why Mr. Obama can say those kinds of things and Mr. Huckabee cannot.

anything that assures us that Obama isn't muslim will make people purr. also America, jsut watch our cheesy commercials and hollywood PC, liberal movies, always allow for Black Christianity as an accepted norm but see white male Christianity as hypocritical and self-righteous. the secular liberals of hollywood have designated it as so. it is acceptable in hollywood that a white man be a catholic -- this is in case frank rich wants to throw in his bing crosby defense. we know that Huckabee is the real thing. but we also know that obama can talk all the talk to please everybody and everything to where after a while he may as well be a muslim. his wife seems to hate america enough.

Yonkers, New York
05 March 2008

Somebody is imagining things when he says that seclarists hiss when Huckabee speaks and purrs when Obama orates.

That simply is not true.

Secularists happen to be intelligent people who participate seriously and rationally in their nation's political process.

They respect Mr. Huckabee in the same way they respect Barack Obama.

It could very well be true however that some Christian evangelicals are rhapsodic whenever Mr. Huckabee tells his audiences that he believes in every word of the (Christian) bible, etcetera, etcetera.

If they ever attend Barack Obama's rallies, Christian evangelicals give him the respect that he deserves. Probably a few of them get seduced and mesmerized by Mr. Obama's soaring oratory--which is what happens to the young and the disaffected who attend Mr. Obama's rallies religiously.

Mariano Patalinjug
MarPatalinjug@aol.com

People! Take a step back, exhale, and smile! We should ALL be relieved that no matter WHO the next President is of this country, be it an old man, an annoying woman, or black American, we are ALL guaranteed a leader better than the one that's been in the White House for the last 8 years.

Secondly, all politicians come into this race with some degree of unclean hands. Hillary is no better, McCain is no younger, and Obama's intentions are as misleading and suspicious as Huckabee's.

The biggest threat to the stability and well-being of this world is our own country: USA. We are our own worst enemy. In the last 8 years, our credibility as a nation -- beginning with the President, to the FBI, CIA -- has turned into a joke to other countries of the world.

We have our work cut out for us: there is a separation of church and state for a REASON. This country's creation and foundation was built on that principle, that's why it's in the Constitution. That's why the founders of this country left Europe in the first place. Don't depreciate our potential by these ridiculous and judgmental religious debates.

It's a shame that Democrats and Republicans are waiving their fingers at each other over these ridiculous rants that accomplish nothing more then wasting oxygen over issues that are not relevant to the resurrection of our country's credibility.

Jacques Berlinerblau --- You can do better than this. The only thing you are achieving by proposing your rancid Huckabee - Obama comparison is reminding us how quickly this nation's downfall mirrors the Holy Roman Empire's.

Are you for real? The reason is simple - Obama is tolerant of other religions/cultures. Wackos like Huckabee think they are the chosen ones regardless of any lipservice he gives to other ideas. I can say all the stupid religious stuff I want as long as I don't force it on others. Forcing it on others is, almost, the definition of evangelical christian america.

If you'll excuse me it's the after effects of from the civil rights movement but the GOP also shares a great deal of the blame. They wanted to hold onto the Republican South but they also alienated minorities in their 'white America'. Moke Huckabee is perceived as a resident of this land and will always receive a cold shoulder outside of it. The Scopes Monkey Trial took place nearly eighty years ago and evangelists still can't deal with the expanse or the complexity of God's creation. It reminds me of a scene in All The President's Men when the source reprimands Redford, "If I had told you the entire story in the beginning you would have called me crazy!"

At 1:15am I posted commentary referencing Father Meier's views on Miracle & Magic regarding The Historical Jesus.

Perhaps it is fair to also reference John Dominic Crossan's views as he expressed them in his treatise, THE HISTORICAL JESUS -- The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant, (1991), Harper San Francisco.

These can be found at Chapter 13 -- Magic & Meal at Pp. 305/306, et. seq.; p. 320, et. seq. and with respect to 'the nature miracles,' Chapter 15 -- Resurrection and Authority at P. 395, et. seq.

....Magic and religion can be mutually distinguished, in the ancient world, or in the modern one, by political and prescriptive definitions, but not by substantive, descriptive or neutral descriptions. Religion is official and approved magic; magic is unofficial and unapproved religion. MORE SIMPLY: 'WE' PRACTICE RELIGION, 'THEY' PRACTICE MAGIC. The question is not whether magicians are for or against official religion. Their very existence, totally apart from such intentions, is a challenge to its validity and exclusivity. Thus, for example, as we have seen, great Jewish magicians such as Honi the Circle Maker or Hania ben Dosa had to be carefully sanitized in terms of prayer and study before they were acceptable to the growing hegemony of the rabbinical tradition. .... Elijah, Elisha, Honi & Hanina, were magicians, and so was Jesus of Nazareth. at Pp. 305

Magic is the art that makes people who practice it feel better rather than worse, that provided the illusion of security to the insecure, the feeling of help to the helpless, and the comfort of hope to the hopeless. ... Of course it is all deception. But who can endure naked reality, especially when there is no easy way to avoid it. That is why magic has worked and continues to work, no matter what the evidence may be. ... Magic makes an unmanageable life manageable for those who believe in it and a profession profitable for those who practice the art. at Pp. 306.

MEDICINE -- is a method of diagnosis of human ailments and a prescription for them based on a combination of theory about and observation of the body, its functions and malfunctions.

MIRACLE -- embodies the claim that healing can be accomplished through appeal to, and subsequent action by the gods, either directly or thru a chosen intermediary agent.

MAGIC -- is a technique, thru word or act, by which a desired end is achieved, whether that end lies in the solution to the seeker's problem or in damage to the enemy, who has caused the problem. In other words, 'if the technique is effective of itself in overcoming a hostile force, then the action is magical. If it is viewed as the intervention of the god or goddess, then it is miraculous. If it is a facilitating of the natural function of the body, then it is medical.

And on and on we go abra-kadabra, et. al, etc.

I am sick of religion as a criteria for public office. The fact that I know which church Obama attends makes me like him less - not because of the church affiliation, but because he insists on telling me! Clinton may or may not attend Sunday worship - I don't know and don't want to know. Obama denies being a Muslim as though he is denying being some sort of deviant: he doesn't say, no, I'm not but so what: he says "no" as though he's being cleared of some sort of crime.

I'm a civic activist who left a religion and I don't want the choice of a new one listed on my ballot.

I'm sure I won't be the first, but let me add my voice to the number of atheists who are upset that Obama uses religion as a tool for his election, and who have raised more than a peep among their friends.

"...that we will be discussing for months if he wins big tonight. One is that God has a plan—a plan that is apparently centered on America..."
By "we" I assume you mean that you will be discussing God's plan for America, since that isn't at all what Obama said. He spoke of God's people, which for a lot of us means human beings, not solely Christians. Secularists (the slur of choice for the religious in America now that humanist, liberal or heathen have become passe) didn't shriek because Huckabee spoke of his religion, but because he spoke of it as a replacement for the Constitution, a compact which governs all of us and the protections of which a certain sort of Christian (his) are happy to avail themselves of...and just as happy to deny others.
As for Obama's "fleeting nod," compared to what? Romney's plea for tolerance, providing your Judeo-Christian? Huckabee's Christian caliphate?

Mr. Berlinerblau looks very serious. Mr. Berlinerblua's looks are the deepest part of this article. Is it that Mr. Berlinerblau gets paid to think? Is this an example of thinking that one gets paid for?

Do you know what a jam sandwich is? When you don't have anything to put in the sandwich you jam two pieces of bread together and eat that. Some people call it a nuthin burger. This article is a nuthin burger.

Peterson, 03/08

"This absence of outrage"

What a BS nonsense assertion.

What garbage.

I DO NOT want to hear godbaggery from any candidate, whether on "my" side or not.

I do not "purr" when Obama, Clinton, or any other Democrat spouts their Christian claptrap.

I wish the candidates, and, well, you would stick to substantive issues and leave your stupid sky fairy fantasies where they belong - safe behind the closed and locked doors of religious institutions - and I do mean institutions.

It is no coincidence Barak Obama chose a passage from Jeremiah in a letter to the exiled... the book of Jeremiah was scribed, as was probably the letter, by Baruch, one of the few Godly men at the time, son of Abinoam, one of the judges of Israel.

Barak = Blessed; Baruch = Blessed

God spoke the word through Jeremiah, then used Baruch as the secondary messenger. Is Obama intimating that he is also a secondary messenger of God?

The answer to your question -- why no one complains when Senator Obama refers to spiritual matters -- is contained in your own article.

Governor Huckabee has proposed amending the Constitution to include God -- the Southern Baptist God, that is -- to ban abortion, and to ban same gender marriage.

Senator Obama has not used his faith to bludgeon people. That's the difference.

The premise of this article is just silly: if Barack Obama (or any other Democrat or Liberal or left-leaning politician) ran on a platform that called for personal religious beliefs to be enacted as Federal (and even Constitutional) law, there would obviously be an outcry from the same people who have criticized Huckabee (not to mention GW Bush, Pat Robertson, Gary Bauer and every other right wing fundamentalist who yearns for a theocratic American government).

The reason Obama's expressions of faith and Huckabee's are treated differently is NOT the (R) or (D) that appears after their names, but whether the candidate in question believes in imposing their faith on fellow citizens who hold different beliefs. That is where political ideology matters -- we liberals believe in a multiplicity of viewpoints as both a boon to democracy (where the best policy will hopefully emerge from the free exchange of ideas an open society offers) and as a necessary component of individual self-expression. Liberals don't hate religion -- no matter how many times Conservatives employ that charge, it simply isn't true -- we only fear State-sanctioned (and mandated) religious orthodoxy. Unlike Conservatives, we aren't frightened when we find that others hold different beliefs -- we only get scared when the power of the U.S. Government is deployed to coerce adherence to those beliefs.

Can omniscient God, who
Knows the future, find
The omnipotence to
Change His future mind?

Other than that I have no strong feelings either way

The probable reason is, the church under white people has been completly discredited, haggered et al, have all been caught with their bible bashing pants down, taking drugs and if not having affirs with other women, with other men.

For those interested in the miracles of Jesus, especially from the perspective of the Historical Jesus, I would recommend John P. Meier's THE HISTORICAL JESUS -- RETHINKING THE HISTORICAL JESUS -- Volume Two: Mentor, Message and Miracles (1994), Doubleday Anchor Bible Reference Library.

The entire last 1/3rd of this volume from Chapters 17-23 address the miracles of Jesus.

Chapter 17 addresses briefly the issue of miracle and the modern mind, at least from the perspective of many educated people in the Western world today.

Chapter 18 addresses the issue of miracle in the ancient world, including the distinctions as seen by the author, but not by Morton Smith, David Aune or John Dominic Crossan, between miricle and magic.

Chapter 19 addresses the miracles of Jesus that are recounted in the Four Gospels.

In Chapters 20, 21, 22 & 23 the author addresses in turn Jesus' miracles of exorcism, healing bodily afflictions, raising the dead and finally what Meier calls the 'grab bag' of the so-called 'nature miracles,' a category that he personally rejects. By applying the criteria of historicity to the decisions addressing especially the later category, the results are sometimes surprising and not always what Meier would have even expected or wanted. In that regard, most of the so-called 'nature miracles' seem to stem from the early Christian church, with the possible exception of the story of Jesus feeding the multitude, which may actually reflect a special meal Jesus held during his short ministry.

As to the distinction between 'magic' and 'miracle,' often 'what the other guys do is called magic, but what Christians do is called 'miracle.'

Nevertheless, that practical distinction does not carry weight with Meier who would note the following distinctions between magic & miracle:

MAGIC -- At the one end of the religious spectrum, magic, same would be characterized by the elements of (1) automatic power possessed by a magician, (2) in virtue of secret formulas and rituals, with (3) the resultant coercion of the divine powers by humans, (4) in search of quick solutions to practical problems. Also, magic is usually marked by (5) a spirit of individualism or entrepreneurship as opposed to a perduring community of faith.

MIRICLE -- At the other end of the religious spectrum, miracle belongs in general to a context of (1) faith in a personal God to whose will one submits one's own will in prayer, (2) a perduring community of belief and (3) a public manifestation of God's power, (4) that is not dependent on a set ritual or formula.

In Meier's view, magic and miracle are ideal types at 2 ends of the spectrum; concrete cases will often 'float' somewhere in between.

Secular conservative view

There is nothing "EVIL" in believing in god as long as one does not attempt to tamper with constitution to make non-believers a LESSER creed.

What's alarms liberal secularists is not the Jesus stuff or the meatless biblical bones thrown to the gluttonous subset of evangelicals who will beg. Trouble with Huck is he (a) he doesn't believe in evolution (b) believes in biblical creationism (c) wants to draw a mustache on our most sacred text, the US Constitution (d)he pardoned/tried to pardon several rapist murderers because they found God in prison and what they did wasn't that bad, he implied. (e) when asked by the press he blamed the pardon on Clinton. WaPo's Fact Checker determined Huck lied about Bill's role which was actually to PROTEST the pardon (f) his signature was on a gratuitous full page ad in the NYT declaring women subservient. (g) he explained that the ad was meant for Southern Baptists' eyes only, never mind they have a newsletter for that sort of thing and aren't likely to read the NYT, a Northern liberal, um, rag. (h) his chosen church split from the national Baptists to protest of its abolitionist activism and opposition to slavery, which Huck's church favored until long after it was illegal, same as it supported American apartheid. It goes without saying, Barack does not have a similar record.

Tell me, all of you secularists who think huckabee seeks to impose his religion on everyone in sight. You do recognize that he was a governor of a state in this country? Tell me, even among his detractors, has there been one complaint of him imposing his relious beliefs on anyone in Arkansas? He has a decade long track record-so where is the evidence? I am an urban catholic, but not active, and therefore a cultist according to many southern baptists, but Huckabee doesn't scare me. Matter of fact, I think I am a secularist too, as I don't like the government telling me how much I can drink, what time and place I can engage in vice, or how much I have to give to the poor. I am not a morals voter, but I can appreciate Huckabee for his measured views on Taxes and infrastructure spending. What I find scary is that so-called secularists would rather elect a nearly empty resume on expensive paper than people who have actual experience doing this kind of work. I will not vote for Obama because he hasn't earned the right to occupy the office. Kibbutzing with Rezko doesn't qualify him either.

There is also this:

http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=1297

What really is scary is that a secular liberals religion is the government. All of the "hope" and "dependence" is in a BIG government that will take care of everything. That's how Hitler came to power with his charisma and promise of solving their problems through a government in which they gave away their freedoms. I thought Americans in this day were too enlightened to fall for this fools gold.

Being Jewish, you don't appreciate the nuances of the debate, do you?

The New Testament quotes the Lord as saying "my kingdom is not of this world" although He more than likely meant there, the nature of man and man's society. As a result, it's contrary to Him that He would run for president.

I found Barak Obama's 'witness' insincere and of an insincere spirit, disingenuous. I'd heard on NPR some call him pandering and when I also heard on that same broadcast how a he'd sucked up to the black pastors in the Chicago area, it definitely confirmed my assessment that he's ambitious and a part of the same soft money machine that I have despised that has bought and sold more public servants, regulation and legislation, than honesty and integrity.

Huckaby sounded like a brainwashed idiot, convoluted and inane.

I was one of Senator McCain's delegates from New York in the 2000 Republican National Convention. Although since the onset I vigorously had and have opposed the 2 hot wars in the middle east, the huge 'national security' operation at this point abusing america into a control-surveillance society, and found that where our public servants take their oath of office to uphold the Constitution, while ignorantly supporting non-tariffed (ie, 'free') trade which violates Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution, at this point I have separated from supporting any candidate that in their actions and ignorant words oppose the Constitution and engage or support war actions harming the balance of the world, plundering the american people and selling the debt to our 'competitors' such as the PRC.

Anyone who really KNOWS the LORD would discern of what spirit these men are or what is driving them. It is not the Holy Spirit.

The world needs the Lord. He is seated at the right hand of the Father and the power of HIs victory over sin and death will transend into this realm and here too and with us -those who have true relationship with HIm, defeats sin and death in us and will in this natural realm - conquering the 'world'.

Remember the Beast sits on 7 hills and has 10 heads. It is in its time of rest, completed its work and dominates from its position, also generally controlling the reasoning and thought. What are 'consumers'? What is the medical system that experiments on people and gets a pass? Discern the utter corruption of such sociopathy. Likewise what about all the religious confusion?

Because the power of God is greater, it only is through the Lord that the Beast and the Beast system is defeated.

It is really pretty simple. Huckabee wants to make the Constitution conform to scripture. Obama doesn't. It doesn't bother me that Obama is a Christian; it does bother me that Huckabee is the Christian equivalent of Osama.

Huckabee is a theocrat, Obama isn't.
I don't know what else Obama is, I really don't understand the attraction, but I know of the two of these men I'd rather have the unknown Obama than the known evil Huckabee would force on us all.

Now that McCain is hugging Hagee in public, we can see his visit the Falwell a couple of years ago wasn't just republican politicking ... it was real.

Now people like me don't have a choice anymore. I can't vote for the democrat, I won't vote for the republican. Looks like another fine election cycle for us where all we get is the lesser of evils.

Fabulous.

Born-again ANYTHING scares me. What do you say to a person who knows he/she is right and you are right only if you agree with them?!!!

Obama, not being a cleric, is arguably permitted what some might deny to Huckabee.

Either way, neither seems to advocate the Historical Jesus as gradually revealed to the world in the last 50 years. That Jesus seems to have had MANY SPECIFIC miracles assigned to Him by the early Christian church, that have no historical connection to the Jesus of His time period.

By way of example, the historicity of the stories of the Magi and of the flight into and return from Egypt are highly questionable. [See: A MARGINAL JEW -- Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Vol. 1, (1991), John P. Meier, Anchor Bible Reference Library. Likewise seriously questionable are most if not all of the 'nature miracles,' performed by Jesus in the Bible.

One would not therefore expect Obama, whose faith references ARGUABLY target primarily the African-American traditional 'Christian' churches to address these issues, where the Jesus of Faith survives intact to this very day, as opposed to the Historical Jesus. Huckabee probably would not do well to address the Historical Jesus any more than would Obama.

One religion is exclusive the other inclusive--Obama's religious views are the opposite of Huckabees intolerant and, in my view, destructive religion.

Why did Democrats cheer for Stalin? Because they are stupid and evil. I've talked to Obama supporters and they all have low IQs, drink Starbucks, and shop at the Gap. He wins the dumb broad vote hands down.

What insupportable tripe by Berlinerblau.

Obama's wholly American professions of faith vs. an out-and-out theocrat like the Ayatollah Huckabee?

Absurd.

Jacques Berlinerblau equates Barack Obama's profession of his faith with Mike Huckabee calling for ammending the Constitution to "God's standards." I am astounded that this is the low level of intellectual honesty tolerated at Georgetown University. For an intelligent discussion of the place of religion in Government I recommend the Adams-Jeffereson correspondence.

I think it's because while he does say those things, he doesn't say them every 30 seconds.

Speaking only for myself, the difference between Governor Huckabee's God and Senator Obama's God is pretty clear.

Governor Huckabee looks at me and my 30+ years of a loving, committed, monogamous relationship that in all meaningful ways is indistinguishable from his own marriage and sees instead an "aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle". His "god" is a plumber, and his moral code is a plumber's manual. It's a childlike and insulting view of God and of His creation.

Senator Obama looks at the way society hurls terms of abuse like that at me and remembers the Sermon on the Mount. He remembers that God is love, and he recognizes that society has a solemn duty to treat my partner and me fairly, regardless of the incredible animus hurled at us by those proclaiming us the enemy of their god.

It's a stark difference. One of the two is a decent and caring man.

The other doesn't care that his "theology" injures innocent people.

One view is of God. The other is not.

It's not even close.

That Barack Obama referred to prayer and to "God's plan" when speaking to an audience of Latino Evangelical and Catholic clerics is hardly surprising. And I don't mean that Obama is simply telling people what they want to hear--it's not all gamesmanship. That he normally doesn't use such rhetoric means that he is quite comfortable observing a separation of church and state and in fact does observe it. Mr. Berlinerblau's article is pointedly disingenuous. Tell me this: how hard did you have to scour Barack Obama's speeches to find this kind of reference to religion? Compare this to the ubiquity of Mike Huckabee's religious rhetoric. That's why there's no peep of protest against Obama: he has respect for those to whom he's speaking.

obama is a constitutional law scholar who clearly understands and believes in the separation of church and state. He doesn't make the dangerous claim that America is "Christian nation"--he knows that is not true and never was. He believes that people of faith must stand on reason and common, secular principles when they bring their passion to public life, and not just announce to atheists and non-Christians what God told them needs to be done. Obama believes in evolution. Not all Christians are alike. Obama is no kind of threat to secularists, and Huckabee clearly is--so I don't buy the argument that secularism is just liberalism--there are plenty of conservatives here in New England, for example, who like their conservatism economic not social--and don't like Huckabee either.

"Why do secularists hiss when Huckabee preaches but purr when Obama preaches?" you ask?

Because Huckabee wants to codify his medieval superstitions into our Constitution, that he may force the entirety of a pluralistic society, one that was once arguably the most advanced on earth, to live by them involuntarily.

That, sir, tends to irritate the dickens out of anyone with two wits to rub together. How would you react if a Muslim candidate proposed changing the Constitution to match Sharia law? You'd bust a blood vessel.

This article is patently dishonest. It ascribes a hostility to the the religious by the non-religious that is false. I'm an staunch Atheist and I have no problem with people being religious on their own time. I don't have a problem with the President being religious. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" The only time I have a problem with a Public Official's religious beliefs is when those beliefs cause policy that is religiously motivated. Case in point: Evolution. You can believe that God put us here all you want, but to attempt to insert God into a science class is unacceptable. To claim that God aided your decision to invade another country is unacceptable. To claim that God hates gays is unacceptable. All these things are unacceptable, but that doesn't mean that the non-religious reject all candidates whom Believe. As an Atheist, most of my venom is reserved for so-called "Religious Right," the most unholy of alliances that is neither religious or right, merely hateful and weakminded, so weak in their faith that they seek to have Government impose religious dogma; masking their fear and Xenophobia as religion and family values.

That's easy.
Obama is not going to tell me who to sleep with, try to control my reproductive rights, theologize my school board, send my kids off to fight atrocious wars in the name of his God, starve out the poor and the disenfranchised while mouthing pious platitudes,
ask me to pray instead of insist upon universal health care... shall I go on?
Obama is SANE. Right wing political bible thumpers are NUTS.
And I'm a Christian.

It's an easy answer for me. Obama's a New Testament, "God is Love" kind of Christian and Huckabee is a fire-breathing-you're-all-sinners-and-are-going-to-hell, Old Testament type. It's two very different approaches that are as different as night and day.

Obama's God wants us to be better people. Huckabee's wants obedience because we are born evil and sinful.

So, I mean, which sounds better to you?

I was just told too many comments had been submitted from me in a short period of time, and therefore, my comment on the above article wasn't accepted. Something wrong with your computer. I've submitted as many as two comments in the distant past -- and maybe I've submitted none at all. Who's in charge over there?

This article makes an interesting point but misses the main one. Huckabee wants to increase the pressure on the State to adhere to his church's teachings. In his own state (Arkansas) he has even stopped the teaching of evolution, as if Genesis has something scientific to say about the origins of the physical universe. Can you imagine Obama approving of that? No, because he believes in the separation of Church and State.

This article, though much more rational, reminds me of that old closet right-winger Max Lerner's article asserting (while Reagan was running against Carter) that Carter was always dragging in religion. In terms of law, as opposed to innocent reference, it was Reagan, not Carter, who tried to unite Church and State. Reagan's side pandered to the Christian Right, and that side still does.

I'd like to see some sourcing for Mr. Berlinerblau's quote from Sen. Obama that “our values should be expressed not just through our families, our communities, and our churches, but through our government.” When I ran a search for it, this essay was the only hit I got.

What we need in the USA is 16-24 years of liberal secular humanism....you can call humanism religion if you want, as long as the liberal secular part is included.

If Obama plays his cards right that's exactly what we'll have. Fundamentalists will be dead and gone at the end of his two terms, and his equally liberal running mate will forge ahead for another 8 year term - now who is that mystery person??

McCain will select Huckabee as his running mate and they'll go down in the richly deserved flames of their own hubris and hyprocrisy.

Constitutionality will be re-instated and human decency and intelligence will finally prevail across our fair land, after far too many years of republican right-wing evangelically tainted and character-challenged pseudo-government for the rich and privilaged.

I think the best part in the near term is the prospect of actually seeing some real brainpower residing in the Oval Office for a change - the neocon nightmare is almost over.

All power to the people!!

Oh, come on! Politics isn't about what you believe, -it is about convincing as many people as you can, just before election day, that you believe something of what THEY believe.

Obama uses Bible verses, but then has no problem putting a baby with arms, legs and a beating heart right down a garbage disposal.....But it is alright, God is in control, and will one day blow away the chaff of politics and human government like so much dust... then we will see what each person really believed.

Jeffrey Caplin:

You're confusing non-believer with aler-believer. Have you reviewed http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul yet? That's the sort of thing secularism is made of. You know about the 12 commandments?

0. No kingdom of any kind shall be established.
1. I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not worship talking balls of fire.
3...
.
.
11. Thou shalt not believe thy own lies.

The many commenters who have complained that Obama talks about "change" but never says what he's actually for, might be interested to know of the existence of something called "The Internet." There, you can go to Obama's "Web Site" and see exactly what he proposes. And then maybe you can object to an actual policy of his, instead of the standard conservative logic of just calling something "liberal" or "leftist" rather than addressing its actual merits.

homesower:

It's not what Huckabee could do but what he would do if he could and the notion of moving him closer to doing it. Try saying I'm going to establish a communist dictatorship or Nazi regime if elected. We know that wouldn't happen but why give anyone that's in favor of it the time of day. Maybe a good swift boot in the seat of the pants?

Goodbye Huck and hello president McCain for Obama has made that silly mistake, even though we know he doesn't mean it, [wink]. We know he doesn't mean it because he's said so to the Canadians and Mexicans and Viet Namese and the Japanese and, well, anyone who "has ears to hear."

What's sad is that Obama will win the nomination and be easier to beat than McGovern. I hate dull elections. Don't you?

Homesower:

It is a very legitimate concern. Huckabee would likely be unable to rewrite the Constitution, BUT would have new, unchecked "unitary" powers to act in accordance with his stated intentions to create a theocracy.

That he is enough of a rube to think he can rewrite the Constitution is amusing: That he would use his powers of office to ruthlessly promote his particular brand of religion is both likely and frightening.

I think, Mr. Berlinerblau, that you are confusing "secularist" with "non-believer"; the two are not always one in the same. I am Christian, but am one of the many (as a recent poll has shown) not beholden to any organized faith. As well, I understand that, when it comes to governing in the United States, the Constitution takes precendent over any particular religion's belief or outlook. It is fine and good when a person of faith in government allows their faith, when appropriate, to drive policy. There are tenets of Christianity, at its high level, that dovetail with American values. We all used to learn these in civics class as children: tolerance, decency, equality etc. Non-secularists, I think, want a model of government where one specific Christian outlook, such as Evangelical Christianity, or Catholicism, drives policy — even if it means altering the Constitution. The difference between Senator Obama and someone like Governor Huckabee isn't "what" (Christianity) it's "how" (allowing faith to supercede the Constitution).

Are you really concerned that Huckabee will amend the constitution? He could only do that through means already established so it would require a groundswell of support for those amendments to pass. He is not going to get anything passed that's not popular and also appealing to a significant chunk of democratic state legislators.

If you otherwise support Huckabee, don't let the constitution comment stop you. If you don't care for him, find some real reason to oppose him

Many here have said this with much more elegance, but: Huckabee intends to rewrite the Constitution to align with his concept of a "living god". This article was inane.

Obama's religious toned rhetoric is not a call to change the country's constitution. Trying to compare Huck's comment to Obama's musings is foolish at best. No one in the secular community had anything of substance to say regarding the religious musings from Huck until he suggested rewriting the Constitution. That was the issue not the religious messages.

Are you really concerned that Huckabee will amend the constitution? He could only do that through means already established so it would require a groundswell of support for those amendments to pass. He is not going to get anything passed that's not popular and also appealing to a significant chunk of democratic state legislators.

If you otherwise support Huckabee, don't let the constitution comment stop you. If you don't care for him, find some real reason to oppose him

The reason secularists dont bat an eyelash when ANY democrat bursts forth in religious speech is because they KNOW like most evangelicals that such theological BANTAR is given with forked tongue syndrome. They know that the DNC candidates, whoever they are will aid the secular agenda rather than hinder it. The Obama's and the Hillary's like Satan appear as "angel's of light" but when their theology hits the political arena it smells of anti-biblical barb-Q. As long as the DNC links itself closely to the LGBT community and promotes the pro-choice Sanger eugenic philosophical bigotry that launched the movement and is still the thinking vehicle that lurks behind the excuses for the extermination of infants ahem embryos. So as long as the Obamas ignorantly support these two excuses for moral autonomy and accountability secularists know Obama's bantar is just that bantar but the Huckabees mean what they say and will clash with their actions not just verbal rhetoric that sounds "God-Lovin."

Sincerely,
Agustin Astacio
Im a Lutheran pastoral assistant Missorui synod that is.

To Huckafan:

Secular does not equal atheist. It is very unlikely that the Founding Fathers were atheists (few were, openly at least, at that time) however they did believe in secular government. The First Amendment is pretty clear evidence of that. Huckabee wants to alter the Constitution in such a way as to violate not just any Amendment but the FIRST Amendment... the one so important to the Founding Fathers that they listed it first. Freedom OF religion also means freedom FROM religion. Religion did not make this country great. Hard work, innovation and freedom do not belong to the religious right. What religious group landed a man on the moon? What religious group built ENIAC (the first computer... and my grandfather was an engineer on that project). What religious group developed the Polio vaccine? What atheist group started the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition or the Salem Witch Trials. What atheist group invaded Iraq, and tortured prisoners in Gitmo or secret CIA prisons (the religious right elected Bush so don't try to disown him now)?

“[S]hake off all the fears of servile prejudices
under which weak minds are servilely crouched.
Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal
every fact, every opinion.
Question with boldness even the existence of a god
because, if there be one, he must more approve of the
homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear…"
- Thomas Jefferson

Typical of leftists that they support dictatorships over democracies. Israel has been remarkably restrained to the terrorist attacks. I can only imagine the outcry that would come if mexico was launching missiles into el paso and people were blowing up women and children along the border. These same effete liberals would probably say it was america 's fault. The democratic party is home to america haters. Scratch a lefty and you will find a traitor to liberty.

Angela...Your comments are so ridiculuous that I'll look beyond your bizarre usage of grammar and point out something that should be examined a little further. You state, "Also, not sure how many bible believing true Christians believe abortion is ok." Obviously abortion is antithetical to most (maybe all) Christian traditions. What is wrong with Huckabee's stance is that he wants to force this Christian belief into the framework of our country. You can believe whatever you want. That life starts at conception is NOT a belief that is shared by all of America. That Christian teachings and ethics are the only way to live a moral life and to achieve a spiritual existence in this world or the next--this too is not something everyone believes. We should therefore not be putting laws into our constitution based on a specific faith, however true they claim to be. A constitutional law on the basis of Christianity seems to me to be a throwback to the days of Kings and Queens and enforced theology.

By the way:
We are a melting pot, if you don't like it, move to Germany they are overtly protestant (meaning post reformation) Christian and you won't have to deal many other creeds or even ethnicities.