Political candidates and their faith: Mike Huckabee and his feminist critics
- Jan 8, 2008 - 51
Article VI of the U.S. Constitution says, “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this constitution, but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States” (emphasis added).
Our Founding Fathers prohibited that a person be a person of any particular faith or of no faith to hold public office or public trust in the United States. Instead, we are to select public officials based upon their character, their public policy record, their policy positions, and their vision for our country.
In the famous speech delivered almost 50 years ago regarding his religious faith and his run for the White House, John F. Kennedy noted that while it was a Catholic who was the victim of suspicion in 1960, in other years it may be a Jew or a Quaker or a Unitarian or a Baptist who is targeted because of their faith.
Indeed, as Kennedy reminded the nation, it was the persecution of Baptists in 18th-century Virginia that inspired Thomas Jefferson and James Madison to pass the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom. In other words, discrimination against a person of any faith opens the door to discrimination against people of all faiths.
While Governor Romney has been criticized for his Mormon faith for some time, Governor Huckabee is the latest target. Huckabee has been criticized by feminist groups because while serving as governor of Arkansas, he and his wife endorsed statements, which appeared in USA Today and World magazine, affirming the Southern Baptist Convention’s confessional stance on the family.
In 1998, the Southern Baptist Convention added an article to its Baptist Faith and Message, the denomination’s confession of faith, addressing the family and marriage. At the time, the priests and priestesses of political correctness, those gurus who take it upon themselves to police what may and may not be said in American society, had a collective fit because the Southern Baptist Convention dared to say that a husband “is to love his wife as Christ loved the church” and a wife “is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband, even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ.”
You may recall that most newspaper and news magazine editorialists were in a dither as well, printing cartoons portraying Southern Baptists as modern-day Neanderthals, with their knuckles dragging the ground, outfitted in animal skins, and with clubs clutched in their hirsute hands.
I have a somewhat unique perspective on this because I was a member of the committee asked to draft the article on the family for the Convention’s consideration and approval in 1998. It is a very clear statement concerning what the Bible teaches about the family. The Convention’s elected messengers, from their local churches all across the nation, meeting that year, interestingly enough, in Salt Lake City, overwhelmingly adopted the article on “The Family” as Article XVIII of its confessional statement.
In support, numerous prominent Evangelical leaders from across the country endorsed a joint statement that asserted: “Southern Baptists, you are right. At a time when divorce is destroying the fabric of our society, you have taken a bold stand for the biblical principles for marriage and family life.” Now, nearly eight years later, these feminists are attacking Mike Huckabee, labeling him as anti-feminist and anti-woman because he signed this statement in support of the Baptist Faith and Message article on the family.
In his December 6, 2007, speech (which Time magazine suggested may be “Romney’s Kennedy moment”), Governor Romney told the assembled crowd at the George H. W. Bush Presidential Library, “A person who is running for political office should not be the chief spokesperson for his faith or his denomination in public life.”
If I had been advising Governor Romney, I would have told him to say, “Look, if you want to know what the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes, call Salt Lake City. If you want to know what my values are, what my beliefs are, and how they influence my life, my character, my public service, my policies and my vision for America, call my office or go to my campaign’s Web site.”
If I were Mike Huckabee, I would say, “Listen, we don’t have a religious test for office. I am a Southern Baptist and I subscribe to the Southern Baptist Convention’s confession of faith. If you want to know what Southern Baptists believe, call a local Southern Baptist pastor or read the Baptist Faith and Message. If you want to know what my policy positions are, call my office or go to my Web site.”
Then I would challenge my feminist critics by saying, “You have no right to accuse me of being anti-woman, for exercising my constitutionally protected right to free expression of my faith in stating what I believe about God’s plan for the family. Unless you can find evidence of anti-woman bias in my public policy statements or my record as governor of Arkansas (and you will not find such evidence), then you are engaging in anti-religious bigotry by attacking me for expressing my beliefs about how husbands and wives ought to fulfill their roles in the voluntary relationship called marriage by some and holy matrimony by me.”
Just as then-Senator Kennedy spent virtually no time defending Catholicism, but rather the right of a Catholic to run for the presidency, Governor Huckabee and Governor Romney should not spend time defending the religious beliefs of their respective faiths. Instead, as Kennedy did before them, they should affirm their right to run and to be judged on their records and their vision for the country’s future.
To ask Governor Huckabee or Governor Romney to explain and to defend the details of their personal faith IS a de facto religious test for office, and that is unconstitutional—and un-American. Mike Huckabee has said that he is a person of faith, that his faith defines him. That means his faith impacts his life, shapes his character, and guides him as he faces the crises and issues of life.
How his faith has molded his character, life, and vision is fair game in political debate. The precise theological affirmations of his personal faith, however, are not proper subjects for debate, analysis, or scrutiny as a candidate in a presidential campaign.
We have no religious test for office in this country. We don’t judge candidates on their faith or their lack of faith; we judge them on how their faith or their lack of faith impacts their lives, character, conscience, public policy positions, and their vision for the country’s future.
While discussing this subject, a reporter asked me a provocative question: “Would you apply similar tests to the candidacy of a radical Islamist?”
“Yes, I would,” I responded. “I would not reject someone who was a follower of radical Islam because they were a follower of radical Islam; I would reject that person as a candidate for office because his radical Islamic faith impacts his character by telling him it is all right to kill people who disagree with him under certain circumstances. I would reject him because his faith gives him a vision for America as an Islamic republic that would stifle dissent, deny religious freedom, and make everyone who is not a Muslim a second-class citizen. So I wouldn’t be rejecting a Muslim based upon his radical Islamic faith, I would be rejecting him because of how his faith impacts his character, conscience, life, and public policy positions.”
That is the way our Founding Fathers envisioned it to be, and that is the way it should be.
This article was adapted from a December 22, 2007, broadcast of Salem Communications’ Richard Land Live! Program.
Further Learning
Learn more about: Faith, Citizenship, Church and State, National, Religious Liberty
51 comments (post your own) feed
1 On Jan 9th, 2008, at 9:48am, Jeff Box wrote:
An excellent article that hits the nail on the head. I like the phrase “how his faith impacts...” Many politicians have a stated faith but it has no impact on who they are or what they do.
Keep up the good work.
2 On Jan 10th, 2008, at 4:56am, david fletcher wrote:
SBC does have a bias against women. How else would explain the fate the teacher , who held a doctorate, at Southwestern Seminary who was fired becaused she could not “teach “ men. the insides in the convention fought Jimmy cartet and caused him to leave the convention. Bill Clinton is not considered a saved person by the power elite in the SBC
270 640 5808 I am SBC but the free thinking and polictical examtional you suggest is limited the chosed few not the poor. Which the democrates party has been for. Basily one can not be a pastor and a Democrate outin the open and be SBC!
3 On Jan 10th, 2008, at 10:58am, Mike West wrote:
Well said in defending the US Constitution, promoting the legacy of an adulterous President, & enhancing the likely hood of a Mormon President. Sadly, you mentioned nothing about our Lord and His will in these matters. What does He say?
Far more important than the election of a temporal civil leader is the faithfulness of spiritual leaders in the promotion of God’s words which are relevant and applicable to our current political problems. Unfortunately, leaders like Dr Land, Dr Dobson, Chuck Colson … have left their flocks floundering in a wilderness of confusion and indecision. They should have banded together early in the process and anointed a leader based on scriptures like Exodus 18:21 of how to choose a leader. Of course that would have taken a huge leap of faith versus sitting safely on the sidelines waiting to see who survives the process. Revival will never come until we all commit to praying for these gentlemen to return focus on “what saith the scriptures?”
4 On Jan 11th, 2008, at 9:59am, Steve Mitchell wrote:
The intent of the Constitution in the “no religious test” issue was to prevent the government from mandating that citizens running for political office belong to a particular religious group. This is very different from individual citizens taking a close look at a candidate’s religious beliefs before casting their ballot. Would I not vote for someone simply because he was a radical Muslim? Absolutely! At the same time, is it fair game for the press to question Mr. Huckabee (whom I support, by the way) for public statements he has made regarding his religious beliefs? Absolutely! As Christians, we shouldn’t expect that we will not face opposition for our beliefs. Instead, as we answer these questions with a gentle spirit, remembering that “a gentle answer turns away wrath” (Proverbs 15:1), we have a chance to share the love of Jesus with many who would never darken the doors of our churches. Mr. Huckabee does an excellent job of this, in my opinion.
5 On Jan 12th, 2008, at 1:54am, Rev. David Hammock wrote:
January 12,2008,
In reviewing every inaugural speech of every President beginning with Washington, we see a reference to God and a deference to God, the Almighty, the Creator, Divine Providence or a Supreme Being, which is the recognition and reliance upon power beyond that of mere mortal creation.
Democracy in the USA was never intended to relegate Christianity to a position of inferiority or powerlessness. To the contrary, reliance upon God was seen as “normal”, “ordinary” and nothing for the country to see as politically “incorrect.”
We’re told in Scripture that “All nations that forget God shall be turned into hell.” Why should God be reviewed through someone’s denominational position or website? I find that a bit cowardly. God doesn’t have to take a back seat to political campaigns.
Rev. David Hammock
President & CEO
Revivals For America
5804 Coffey Street
Raleigh NC 27604-8661 USA
6 On Jan 12th, 2008, at 6:05am, Neal Jurney wrote:
Thank you for this article. It’s unfortunate that we don’t hear more of this even on FoX News. I believe that it is good not to have a religious test. Our forefathers were very wise to write the constitution in this manner. Therefore I believe that I have the right to vote for the candidate for office whose vision, values, morality, and the other qualities mentioned in this article best line up with mine. Even President George W. Bush has not let his strong faith in Jesus Christ determine his public vision and policy. Rather he has worked deligently for the betterment of all Americans and for justice and peace around the world.
Thank you
7 On Jan 14th, 2008, at 11:40am, John Carosella wrote:
Rev. Hammock,
You seem to equate reference to God in our founding documents and inaugural speeches to a reference to Jesus or a Christian God. But notably absent from these documents is any specific reference to any specific form of God. Please be careful...our founding fathers cared greatly about the free exercise of conscience. While many were indeed Christian, they took pains to carefully and deliberately separate their own religious world-view from our founding documents.
God can be perceived in many forms, and our country protects and encourages that diversity. We must not ever assert the contrary.
Regards,
John Carosella
Ex. Producer,
ARTICLE VI: Faith. Politics. America
http://www.Article6theMovie.com
8 On Jan 14th, 2008, at 7:19pm, David Hammock wrote:
January 14, 2008
Thank you Mr. Carosella.
Can you prove from our founding father’s articles, letters, journals, public statements, inaugural speeches, and published works, that the “God” they referred to was “NOT” the “God” of Christianity? If you can, I would certainly like to participate in this discovery.
If the presentation of God is merely rhetorical, or political, then what do you do with good and evil? Aren’t we talking about a “Politically Correct” God? Hypocrisy isn’t new in politics, but you’re not suggesting that our founding fathers merely put on their “God-face” when public, are you?
Rev. David Hammock
President & CEO
Revivals For America
http://www.myspace.com/revivalsforamerica
9 On Jan 14th, 2008, at 7:28pm, David Hammock wrote:
Mr.Carosella,
If God is impersonal, then why bother to protect an impersonal God, who can’t possibly have any impact on anyone including himself?
If God is personal, then unless He/She is dysfunctional, would not inquiry into the nature of such a God be logical, if anything related to that which we call “Religion” is even relevant to our rights in the first place?
Were the founding fathers alluding to a vague, mystical, foggy “concept” as “God” to simply make the people feel better, more comfortable, or keep them under control every now and then?
What’s your basis of absolute certainty re: our founding fathers’ concepts of God?
Thanks.
David Hammock
10 On Jan 17th, 2008, at 2:02pm, Mike West wrote:
Well defended Rev Hammock. It’s too bad Dr Land or his assistants could not participate in this discussion. It appears they have the same thoughts as Mr. Carossella.
In their final individual judgment, how will they defend denying the Lord full jurisdiction in every possible aspect of this life? How will they defend their toleration of the enemies of Christ including false religions like Mormonism? I seriously doubt God’s going to consider or give a rip about what they thought article VI of the US Constitution said or did not say. Bottom line, our Kingdom Citizenship overrides our US Citizenship.
“We the people” are the Caesar of the day, and we too must decide like Herod & Pilate what are we going to do with this man named Jesus? Either we defend Him and His rights at the ballot box based on inspired scriptures like Exodus 18:21 OR we rely on a imperfect document written by men alone and simply go the way that seems right, which leads to destruction for our beloved country.
11 On Jan 17th, 2008, at 10:22pm, David Hammock wrote:
Beginning with the Magna Carta, Christopher Columbus’ journals, the MayFlower Compact(1620), The New England Confederation (1643), the Constitutions of all 50 states, founding documents of more than 125+ colleges and universities, numerous acts of Congress and the President, court decisions(see The Church of the Holy Trinity vs. US(1892), it is clear that our founding fathers envisioned a nation to be built upon a belief in a “Christian” God. What we’ve become is a whole different matter. To suggest that the framers of the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution had someone else in mind, would be nothing more than a seduction of the hearts, minds, character and convictions of the entire nation. I think Hitler pulled that number. Didn’t Hitler do that? I’ll have to have cold, hard evidence to believe in a different God.
David Hammock
http://www.myspace.com/revivals4america
12 On Jan 18th, 2008, at 12:32pm, Neal Jurney wrote:
I too firmly believe that America was founded as a Christian nation. Just look at the daily news for the evil that is in the world and in our own country. Words can not even express my disbelief of someone throwing a little baby 30 feet off of a bridge which was just reported from Hawaii.
How have we come so far from The Shelter of His Loving Arms?
2ch 7:14 If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land. It is us, the christians, the church who have failed. Wake up Christians and get tuned in and involved
13 On Jan 18th, 2008, at 5:22pm, Mike Moore wrote:
Thank you Dr. Land, for your clear cut approach upon the doctrine of freedom of religion within the credentials of a candidate for the presidency of these United States. Thank you also for your excellent and accurate illustration from history citing President Kennedy’s memorable speech at the gathering of minister’s in Texas. Nothing more could be added to this issue than you have stated.
Until He comes,
God bless,
Mike Moore
Pastor, Morris Chapel Baptist Church
Morris Chapel, TN
14 On Jan 21st, 2008, at 9:42am, David Hammock wrote:
I don’t believe that we can draw absolute conclusions from a person’s public policy record, stands on the issues, character, or vision and yet be certain they are most suitable for public office.
A person must be rooted in the right soil, have an achievable vision and critically important, have a plan of execution that is workable to accomplish anything. Track records reveal a tiny picture, but not the whole picture.
How do we make a good choice? Individual’s are a composite of belief systems, values, convictions, thoughts, emotions, desires, motivations, hopes, dreams, experiences and the influence of others. We make judgments based on our perceptions, observations, interpretations, expectations and inner senses about others. Sometimes you can judge a book by its cover and you’re right. We’ve been wrong before with other political candidate’s books...when it was too late.
Rev. David Hammock
http://www.myspace.com/revivals4america
15 On Jan 21st, 2008, at 9:51am, David Hammock wrote:
In the midst of political debate for public office in the US, people wave their flags, their faith, their finances, their fortitude and the country’s future. If the truth be known, when it comes time to vote, most Americans vote with their wallet, whether they are willing to admit it or not.
Looking at how America spends its dollars privately and publicly tells you what drives America. If it really is FAITH...then, “show me the money.”
Rev. David Hammock
http://www.myspace.com/revivals4america
16 On Jan 21st, 2008, at 12:36pm, Mike West wrote:
Woe to Preachers like Mike Moore and Dr Land who spend their time rightly dividing the doctrines found in documents written by mere men of dust! If you are truly ministers of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, then perform the duties of your office before the Lord and rightly divide the Word of God pertaining to this subject matter! Is the Maker of the Universe silent here? Where are the scriptures to support your position? I challenge you to read this article based on actual Words of God. http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/ballot_box/biblical_standards_for_choosin.aspx
Our founding fathers who were extremely loyal followers of the one and only King of Kings, simply never envisioned a future time where civil leaders and most importantly church leaders would ever stop asking “Where is the Lord in this matter?” see Jeremiah 2:8. Real Truth can only be found in God’s Words not simply by impressive human logic and reasoning found so often in dominating personality types.
17 On Jan 21st, 2008, at 9:30pm, David Hammock wrote:
I find it interesting that during Jesus’ earthly “campaign” to reveal the truth of His authority as the promised “Messiah,” He did not ask anyone to go check with the Scribes and Pharisees. Jesus did not ask anyone to go verify His positions on the issues with Rome, or Herod. I don’t recall the Word of God stating that Jesus said: “You can verify my character with the High Priests( in His case, Caiaphas).
Had Jesus been born 30 years ago in the USA, I wonder if He would say, “By the way...have you checked out my website at http://www.jewishcarpenter.com where you can find out where I stand on things?” Do you think Jesus would say,” You can also call my assistants(I have 12),” or “You can read my Blogs in “The Jerusalem Post? I’m also doing my best not to offend the hedonists, the pagans, the Romans and certainly not all who serve in the temple.
Think about it!
Rev. David Hammock
http://www.myspace.com/revivals4america
18 On Jan 25th, 2008, at 10:13am, Mike West wrote:
Well the results are coming in and it’s no surprise, the Christian voting block of brothers and sisters is split between several candidates. Unity of the children of God will always come from the living scriptures revealing the Father’s will, not from past quotes of an immoral dead president and his sly sales pitch which snookered past Christians into voting against their consciences. Even in the blatant unfaithfulness and unaccountability of today’s Christian leaders, it’s very comforting to know with certainty that God can and will rise into power whoever He chooses and by whatever means necessary.
19 On Jan 25th, 2008, at 12:41pm, d fletcher wrote:
Mr. Huckabee is SBC and many student loans in SBC Schools are federal Sallie May loans and used by poor females , where is the justice? The web site http://www.studentloansjustice.org problem.htm points out the vicious and predatory effects of these loans when in default or bankruptcy. Homelessness , putting off children, suicide by the sick. Some barrow 10.000 and paying back 250,000. Losing your job or license if one can not pay. The SBC colleges offers these loans and the school put the money in there pockets . The collection companies on students loans debt have the powers of a mobster. Usury, Proverbs. 28.8 teaches usury is condemned the Senator Clinton is addressing in meeting with students and victims of the lack of relief . Her presidential adds speak of predatory student loans . What does Mr. Huckabee think of the wind fall profits of Sallie May and owning the corrupt collection companies? Mr. Huckabee does your faith teach that this unjust usury is right.
20 On Jan 25th, 2008, at 12:43pm, Mike Moore wrote:
In response to post #16 On Jan 21st, 2008
Dearest Brother West,
Thank you indeed for your gracious compliment in your post, listing me side by side with Dr. Land. If you knew me, you would know that I am not in league with a man of such spirituality, scholarship or aptitude as is Dr. Land.
I also thank you for your posts, they have educated me immensly on this subject.
I leave you with this one thought: It is difficult at best for us as Christians to be involved in the political process of an ungodly society. At the end of the day, all that will matter is where we are with Jesus Christ. This is our priority, to remain true to our Savior in all that we do and say, and to be availabe to all to minister Christ.
God bless you my dear brother.Until He comes,
Mike Moore
21 On Jan 29th, 2008, at 1:20am, David Hammock wrote:
Mr. Moore,
Since it is “difficult at best for us as Christians to be involved in the political process...” suppose we just tell the 71% of professing Christians(50.5% Protestants & 20.5% Catholics)who “ARE” registered to vote, to not go to the polls, and alert the 7.1% of Atheists, the 10% of the non-religious, the 12.3% of other categories to simply show up at the polls, since it is “difficult at best.” Is that what you want the next generation to believe? We were bred into the Kingdom of God for victory, NOT DEFEAT.
My friend, you do not speak for me or the American majority who must be challenged to do the right thing.
We are to render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s. Control of this nation does not belong to Caesar. Sweeping things under the rug, and a illusion of humility will not please the God of heaven; I assure you.
Rev. David Hammock
http://www.myspace.com/revivalsforamerica
22 On Jan 29th, 2008, at 1:39am, David Hammock wrote:
Mr. Moore,
I suppose the difficulty, as you describe it, we as Christians have had in the political process, started somewhere. What do you believe is the point of origin?
Maybe it started in 1969, when Buzz Aldrin, while 240,000 miles away on the Moon would not pray the prayer that sold in 2007 for $176,000 because he was “AFRAID” of the repercussions what Madelyn Murray O’Hare might do.
We as Christians have stood by and watched prayer removed from school in ‘63; Roe v. Wade’s consequences permit 50,000 babies to be another Holocaust and our tax dollars pay for satanists to practice witchcraft on military bases.
“The only thing necessary for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing."(Aaron Burr)
Maybe we just “profess” to be a Christian nation because it is too difficult to do otherwise. That is the logical conclusion of this thought process.
Rev. David Hammock
http://www.myspace.com/revivalsforamerica
23 On Jan 29th, 2008, at 9:17am, David Hammock wrote:
First, 50 million babies have been aborted since Roe v. Wade, not 50,000. My Apologies.
Mr. Moore,
It is quite clear that the framers of the Constitution knew what Romans 13 and the Bible indicate: that government is not meant to be neutral here on earth, but a ministry of God, our Creator who is in control, and implements His eternal plans through history. Our nation’s fathers did not retreat from “difficulty” in their responsibilities in society or politics. Civil government was not turned over to evil, and it was “intended” to be based on TRUTH. They understood that Christianity, freedom and virtue are all meant to function together and that freedom will be short-lived apart from virtue among ourselves and those who represent us. Our government was so designed to reflect this.
Rev. David Hammock
President & CEO
Revivals For America
http://www.myspace.com/revivalsforamerica
24 On Jan 29th, 2008, at 11:29am, Mike West wrote:
Brother Moore,
I thank you for your prompt & thoughtful response. It’s apparent that you have a humble heart & willingness to change according to the scriptures. With this open attitude in mind, I would agree with you that you are not currently in the same league as Dr Land. Like you I respect Dr Land for his scholarly abilities and have listened to many hours of his daily radio program and I support him thru my tithes. However, his deafening silence & lack of responses to the numerous posts & charges against him on this crucial topic is scripturally unaccounted for & noteworthy. I’m sure he’s a busy man, but aren’t we all? Surely, he has someone in his camp who could lay out some scriptures to defend his actions.
We must all continually, as Matthew Henry put it, “submit to the baptism of repentance, the great gospel duty, for the remission of sins, the great gospel privilege.”
Mike West
25 On Jan 29th, 2008, at 6:53pm, Mike Moore wrote:
Rev. Hammock,
I agree with every issue to which you speak. We most certainly should be involved with our political process. I make reference to the spirit in which we do so. Certainly you do agree that our relationship with Jesus Christ, even during a political campaign is of most importance. I have been the victim of a bad competitive spirit during political campaigns, did it save one baby from abortion? No. Did it make prayer legal in one school? No. I am simply making appeal to the most important issue here, stand for right, go to the polls and vote, exercise your religious freedoms, but do not compromise your fellowship with Jesus Christ in the process.
Until He comes,
Our Lord’s richest blessings,
Rev. Mike Moore
Pastor, Morris Chapel Baptist Church
Morris Chapel, TN.
26 On Jan 30th, 2008, at 8:53pm, David Hammock wrote:
Rev. Moore,
Thanks for your response. I agree 100% with what you say about the “spirit” in which we conduct our lives. God loves the whole world. We both know and understand that very clearly. I appreciate your boldness and genuineness.
I’m not talking about being “competitive.” We are called to be agents of Holy change. We are not called to squabble for the scraps from ANY politician’s table.
We should not wait until election time to confront morality. When at the judgment seat of Christ, whether we were an overcomer or not will have to be answered. The kingdom is taken, when the “violent” take it by force. This is Biblical. That is born in the Spirit, reaped in the Spirit and the evidence also occurs in the natural.
“A church that has lost it’s legitimacy will ULTIMATELY lose it’s power.” (George W. Bush, 9-12-02)
Rev. David Hammock
Founder & President
Revivals For America
27 On Feb 3rd, 2008, at 9:50pm, David Hammock wrote:
It is interesting that at every US election time, we become so attentive to the “religious” beliefs of presidential candidates. Sometimes we’re doing nothing more than trying to split theological “hairs” so that we can declare ourselves a Christian Separatist, and justify the soon coming of Jesus Christ, without “occupying” until he comes. Sometimes the children of darkness are wiser than the children of light and we wonder why. I hope we are as vigilant about ourselves, our families, churches and communities as we are someone we constantly criticize, yet offer nothing more than our taxes and demand that we should have the US government revolve ALL of it’s efforts around our petty whims.
“This nation and its people, Unified with a faithful God, allows no place for tyranny, oppression or complacency.”
“In freedom, there is hope for today, a lighthouse for tomorrow, and the promise of truth, justice and love.”
From “Hope Arises in the Midst of Tragedy.”
David Hammock
28 On Feb 4th, 2008, at 11:08pm, Ashley Burr wrote:
I am not trying to enter the religious debates going on in the commentary here, I just wanted to leave a comment about the actual post. I think it is a great article and straight to the point of the matter concerning all candidates for president. The only problem occurs when the candidates themselves proclaim themselves to be on God’s errand in their quest for the presidency. Mike Huckabee did that, creepily I might add, on more than one occasion. All conservatives want a religious president, someone who has enough integrity to stick up for what they believe in. But we don’t want someone to presume that God has called them to serve in some official religious capacity as the president of the free world...not yet anyway. That is one of the ways Mike Huckabee went wrong. He projected the will of God onto his candidacy and that turned many of us off.
29 On Feb 5th, 2008, at 10:44am, David Hammock wrote:
2-6-08
Mr. Burr,
I think if you read the full content of the various posts, you will find that different aspects of Dr, Land’s article are addressed. You use the words “all” and “we” to describe “conservatives.” Could you please define those in terms of the current 21st century meanings, or do you refer to something else? Also, you do not speak for all conservatives; so what makes your point any more legitimate than Mike Huckabee’s? How can you gauge Mike Huckabee’s “going wrong” on the standards of the “all and we” that you profess to speak for? God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, the Word of God, and the true body of Christ never have been into being “religious” either. Neither am I. Millions of Americans, who profess “conservatism” don’t profess being “religious.” I do believe Caiaphas was “religious” wasn’t he?
30 On Feb 5th, 2008, at 10:53am, Mike West wrote:
Thanks Mr. Burr for indirectly contributing to our so called religious debate. You help prove the point that Dr Land’s non scriptural position appeals more to people who identify themselves as “Conservatives” than as “Christians”. While his bulldog stance may turn some people ON, fervent followers of Jesus Christ who are striving in faithfulness to do the will of our Father in heaven are turned OFF, BIG TIME! All Christians whether they are running for office or not are to be on mission from God to prove His perfect will in all circumstances of their lives. After all, our personal opinions are temporary at best; God’s opinion will last for all eternity. When Christians act out of faithfulness to God’s Word, they win an eternal victory even when the world of pundits says they lost. Godspeed to unashamed candidates like my brother in Christ, Mike Huckabee.
For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?
Mark 8:36
31 On Feb 5th, 2008, at 11:10am, David Hammock wrote:
Dr. Land,
Regarding Article VI of our Constitution: The writers, in 1787, knew all too well of our country’s recent departure from an environment of religious imposition. They are not suggesting that a potential leader be non-religious, anti-God, or anti-Christian anymore than they are suggesting the leader must be from a particular political party. Just because rain is critical to agricultural growth, doesn’t mean rain is the “established” nutrient. Others are needed. The framers were not suggesting that the establishment clause meant the elimination of the influence of God upon any aspect of government. Do you really believe that they thought “God” could be “compartmentalized” in America? Other American documents overwhelmingly suggest you are in error.
Rev. David Hammock
President
Revivals For America
32 On Feb 5th, 2008, at 11:24am, David Hammock wrote:
Dr. Land,
You state that “we are to select public officials based upon...?” What document tells how “we are” to vote? Just how many people in the USA, do you really believe, when jobs are lost, illegal immigration is ignored, social security benefits are threatened, retirement benefits are questionable, health care is overwhelmingly inflated along with gas prices “REALLY” do what you suggest? I’m NOT stating I do this. I’m simply an observer of human behavior. In a crisis, people think of themselves. America has been so self-focused for decades, that I believe her soul “grieves” because of an identity she sacrificed for a false identity. In reality, we are a bi-product of our own political, economic, spiritual, financial, economic, familial and educational dysfunction. After all...we wouldn’t want God to be involved, now would we?
33 On Feb 6th, 2008, at 11:39am, Ashley Burr wrote:
First of all, David Hammock, it’s Mrs. Burr. Secondly, I don’t profess to speak for all conservatives. Mike Huckabee SHOULD LEARN to speak for all conservatives if he wants to be president-that’s the difference. I said “we” in a general sense, speaking generally, because generally conservatives are religious and would also generally prefer that their president espouse religious values and/or practices. But Mike Huckabee (and any other religious person who runs for president) has to understand that making the assertion that God sent him to be the president of the United States freaks people who are not particularly religious but nonetheless conservative out. I never said that Mike Huckabee couldn’t be on the Lord’s errand if he was President; any president, I agree with Mike West, should do his best to follow the will of God. But the United States is not a church congregation. You have to appeal to all people if you really want to lead the country.
34 On Feb 6th, 2008, at 11:44am, Ashley wrote:
Telling non-religious conservatives that you think God is guiding your campaign in the sense that he wants you and only you to be president is not the best way to appeal to everyone you need votes from. I like Mike Huckabee-a whole lot better than John McCain. I think he would be a good president; I’m only saying he made a few strategic errors if he wanted to gain the support of more than just Southern Baptists.
35 On Feb 6th, 2008, at 1:13pm, David Hammock wrote:
Hello Mrs.Burr:
Thank you for joining in. It’s great to hear the opinions of women. Mrs. Burr, thank you for clarifying to other readers your thoughts on conservatism. There are many who identify themselves as “born-again” Christians but consider themselves “liberal,” due to extreme, right-wing, ultra-fundamentalist, conservatism. False images and ineffective or over-bearing role models, I’m sure have contributed to this. Do I make sense? This is NOT my view. You have 40- 50% of those professing to be Christians in the USA who “don’t know” if they are “born-again.” I personally don’t know how anyone can think such. If you’re born-again..you know it. Contrastingly..the terms conservative, liberal and moderate become relative to some, depending on what is at stake. For me...the Bible is my road map. I agree with you that the lives of 305 million Americans, and those whose lives they touch are what’s at stake, not to mention God’s heart.
36 On Feb 6th, 2008, at 1:20pm, David Hammock wrote:
Thanks for your comments Ashley. Strategically...I agree with you. I believe Mike Huckabee possibly made a mistake.
Only God and Mike really know, “IF” God truly “IS” guiding Mike’s campaign. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness have to be worked out with “fear and trembling” no matter what side of the issues you find yourself. I’m curious. If I may be so bold; how would you suggest Mike gain the support of “more than” Southern Baptists?
David Hammock
http://www.myspace.com/revivals4america and
http://www.myspace.com/revivalsforamerica
37 On Feb 6th, 2008, at 1:30pm, David Hammock wrote:
Mrs. Burr,
How would a presidential candidate appeal to America’s cocaine users?(I’m not a consumer, but the US is the largest consumer in the world). How would a presidential candidate appeal to public safety personnel all across America? President George W. Bush approved 6.9 billion in 2005, and Congress appropriated 65 million. How would a candidate appeal to the rising segment that will be retirement age (which will hit 31 million+ by 2022), who fear the collapse of an indebted, ineffective Social Security system? How would he appeal to the masses who have no health care? How will the candidate appeal to those who are “pro-choice” and I am “pro-life.?” How would such a candidate appeal to members of organized crime? You did say “all people,” including illegal immigrants which some number as high as 15-20 million in the USA, right?
38 On Feb 6th, 2008, at 3:30pm, Ashley Burr wrote:
Well if I knew then I would run for president. I suppose I can’t speak in general terms because you are very good at getting to the heart of my semantic implications, however unintentional they may be...I meant all conservatives; I suppose it would be naive to think he could appeal to every American. But I actually think he was starting to do a great job.
39 On Feb 6th, 2008, at 3:38pm, Ashley Burr wrote:
He was talking well about taxes; I like his idea of the fair tax. Pro life: Maybe it’s time to consider the notion that even though conservative (moderates, born agains, right wing-whatever) people are typically pro-life, perhaps this is a matter that should not be discussed on the federal level, but instead left up to the states where they are better able to determine the demographic will of the people. Then we don’t have to fight about it anymore. Frankly, cocaine users probably don’t vote, so it would probably be a wasted effort of campaigning.
40 On Feb 6th, 2008, at 3:44pm, Ashley Burr wrote:
Privatize health care completely; let the free market, not the government, specialize in insuring the uninsurable. For that matter, get rid of social security and privatize that too. I think Huckabee is on the right track to a lot of things by suggesting we get rid of the IRS. If he had more time, I think he could prove to a lot of people that he is not just a preacher who wants to preach to America but that he also has some significant ideas about changing the country. And he would do it with a smile and sense of humor. I just can’t stand John McCain. I voted for Romney but I wish that either Romney or Huckabee could figure out how to block McCain’s nomination, or run as an independent.
41 On Feb 7th, 2008, at 11:58am, David Hammock wrote:
To the Burr family:
When the demographic will of the people is contrary to the eternal will of the Father, then what? What biblical responsibility will the church bear, “if” we privatize and what “cross” will the church take up and follow Christ with? Historically, the church was far more “active” in numerous areas of life than globally and statistically it appears to be today. Remember “ALL” the people? Many are “more than Southern Baptist”, (I’m non-denominational and Southern Baptist). Private industry has demonstrated no evidence in indefinitely sustaining the health care interests of America. Private industry is in business to create money, not benevolence. Congratulate the FDA, CDC, AMA,private interest lobbyists, pharmaceutical cos. and others on that one. Just where are the Christians? Do you know how long and how many $ it takes to get “ONE” drug approved by the US government?
Rev. David Hammock
42 On Feb 7th, 2008, at 12:07pm, David Hammock wrote:
In the spirit of our founding fathers, we have too much government. Things stopped working right long ago.How much government is enough and how much is too little? The debate has been going on for centuries.The church, private industry and government will continue to do battle. We wrestle not against flesh and blood. The depravity of man will continue to emerge revealing greed, power, pride, arrogance and elitism apart from holy discipleship. Statistically and otherwise, man continues to believe he is the source of his own “salvation.” Psychologically, spiritually, emotionally and in other areas of American life, we have proven to be a wreck. Apart from the changes of man’s heart....nothing really changes.
Rev. David Hammock
43 On Feb 7th, 2008, at 12:17pm, David Hammock wrote:
Previous governmental excuses and mistakes are no comfort for the present. The expectation that God will fix what man will not exercise his free will as a moral agent to change, that man has already been given the power to change is fruitless. When government doesn’t work, the “PEOPLE” must be willing, and accept the cost and responsibility to change it. Until we agree with God, there will always be inner, marital, familial, social, emotional, psychological, spiritual, economic and political conflict. We can change laws and not enforce them which is ridiculous. We can profess Christ, yet not possess Christ which is even more ridiculous.
We can believe in something and do nothing and do nothing, which is profoundly absurd. “Apart from me,
you can do NOTHING.” (John 15:5)
Rev. David Hammock
44 On Feb 7th, 2008, at 4:00pm, Ashley Burr wrote:
Yeah, I’m not really sure who that sermon was addressed to because it certainly wasn’t in response to my last comment. Now you are the one making vague references. And I am pretty sure that you proved my point of privatization: the government [is lousy] at it so let the private sector take care of it. The “church” as you put it, is in this case, part of the private sector. Churches always step in where the programs that are instituted fail. And while I believe the private sector would do a far cry better job than the government in health care, social security,etc. I am also very thankful that I belong to a church which will gladly step in when the private sector isn’t good enough.
45 On Feb 8th, 2008, at 3:57pm, David Hammock wrote:
Ashley,
I’m glad your church would be able to help where needed. The average church size in America is under 200 people. Many churches have less than 10% of the people who tithe, much less be able to do “additional things.” Perhaps your church should share just how they would take care of you, with other churches, so others who may need help in the future would know what to do and those able to help might “catch the vision.” This forum is open to all that read. It isn’t about me and it isn’t about you. Can you show me just which part of the private sector has done anything to hold “down” the costs of health care? The private hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, and other “private sector” people that I know of have done little or nothing. Could you please state your sources of information. It seems a little vague. I’m not suggesting I have a solution.
46 On Feb 11th, 2008, at 3:21pm, Ashley Burr wrote:
Well then maybe you should join my church :). We have the best welfare system known to mankind and we jump on any emergency disaster the moment it happens with regional resources; Missionaries around the country, and world, jump into aid at a moment’s notice. We have bishop’s storehouses, funded by tithing and fast offerings, for every congregation where needy members can “grocery shop” and obtain life necessities while they learn how to take care of themselves. Tithing is a commandment, not a nice gesture and active members pay it knowing they will be blessed both directly and indirectly for doing so. The geographic assignment of our congregation makes it incredibly convenient to pool resources when one or any of us needs help for any reason.
47 On Feb 11th, 2008, at 3:28pm, Ashley Burr wrote:
I am not saying I have a solution either...if I did I would run for Pres. However, as a woman who is in a period of transition (husband is in dental school, I am a stay at home freelancing mother) that needs extra resources, I will be the first to tell you that the government is TERRIBLE at getting help to people. My medi-cal petition case has been tied up in red tape for six months now. My only point is that private industry does a better job than government. I’m very surprised that you think otherwise as a Huckabee supporter.
48 On Feb 12th, 2008, at 9:47am, Sulyn Wilkins wrote:
We appreciate all the discussion surrounding this particular article; however, we would like to ask our constituents to please stay on the original topic as much as possible. Thank you for your help in this area. Staff
49 On Feb 12th, 2008, at 10:30am, David Hammock wrote:
To quote one president, “Let me make one thing perfectly clear”: I AM NOT A SUPPORTER OF MIKE HUCKABEE! 2nd, Americans seem to make up their own rules and push the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and countless other decisions beyond a “reasonable doubt” when it comes to common sense decision making. 3rdly, we elect Supreme Court judges who can serve for life and decide to do just about whatever they please. 4th, we impeach a former president who thinks we’re stupid enough to believe he can’t keep his fly zipped, and we’re foolish enough to let him “remain” in office and do nothing. 5th, when the cost of electing high-risk presidents becomes more painful than electing a decisive, intelligent visionary, who happens to have a heart and a brain, let me know. Then maybe America will figure out that “gay” doesn’t mean “homosexual.” But that would be too easy. By the way, just how would a radical vs. a not-so-radical president define “marriage?” Please tell us Dr. Land.
50 On Feb 14th, 2008, at 9:59pm, David Hammock wrote:
I am posting a correction for my previous entry. On February 12, 2008, in point 4, it should read “we impeached a president who thought we were stupid enough to believe he “COULD” keep his fly zipped and we were foolish enough to let him “remain” in office and do nothing.”
I find it all very interesting that we live in times when we don’t believe a fetus is a human being( 18% of evangelical Christians are “Pro” choice); 50% of Christians don’t believe Jesus lived a sinless life; homosexual and lesbian lifestyles are considered viable alternatives even by some professing to be Christians, and people are waiting for politicians spending millions of dollars to be elected to define marriage. God have mercy on the USA!
51 On Feb 21st, 2008, at 10:31pm, Greg A wrote:
>>> “Then I would challenge my feminist critics by saying, “You have no right to accuse me of being anti-woman, for exercising my constitutionally protected right to free expression....”
I’m pretty sure they are not criticizing you for speaking—they are criticising you for the content of your speech!
This week, in Pakistan, the voting public rejected the conservative religious parties. Of course, the conservatives respond by saying, “You voted against me because I’m a Muslim.”
No. They they voted against them because their radical extremist interpretation of Islam makes them unsuitable for public office.
The US needs to make the same calculation for Huckabee.