11/22/2008--Henry Olsen, a Vice President of the American Enterprise Institute, wrote a column for the Wall Street Journal last January, after Mike Huckabee’s victory in the Iowa caucuses, that argued that Huckabee was trying to create a new kind of political movement along the lines of the Christian Democratic tradition in Europe. Huckabee’s populist economics combined with his Christian identification suggested, said Olsen, a “pro-faith” “pro-government” position that would be a challenge to the more secular, private property oriented Reagan wing of the Republican Party.
Now, while the Republicans are trying to figure out what comes next, Huckabee is back with a new book, "Do the Right Thing: Inside the Movement That's Bringing Common Sense Back to America", which judging by his appearance on NPR last week, represents his position in this Republican Party debate.
Huckabee’s position is probably out-of-touch politically at the moment, since our economic crisis is dominating everything. But that should not rule him out, since Ronald Reagan was also out of touch for awhile. The wheel may turn back to the questions that Huckabee is raising.
Undoubtedly some would say that creating a Christian Party of any kind violates constitutional principles of the separation of church and state. [Notice I don’t say it would be unconstitutional, since it plainly would not be that]. It is probably true that political division along religious lines would be anathema to the framers of our Constitution. So, let’s consider the constitutional principles that might be involved.
One fundamental constitutional principle seems to me to be that votes for a candidate should not be cast on the basis of identity. Of course voters violate this principle all the time, but just as President-elect Obama would be the first to say that African-Americans voters should not have voted for him because he is black, Huckabee would agree that voters who are Christian should only vote for him if their interpretations of the Gospel yield the same policies for public life that his interpretation does. He would agree that Christians should not vote for him just because he is a Christian. It is true that some of those policies touch on faith, such as literal expressions of faith in the public square. But, unless a display of the Ten Commandments on public property is itself ruled unconstitutional by the courts, having such displays there is just another policy. We can see plainly that Huckabee is not running on Christian identity because if offered support by “values conservatives” who are Jewish, Muslim, or secular, Huckabee would welcome them on principle—and not cynically.
This latter observation suggests that the legitimacy of voting for a substantive proposition, including Proposition 8 in California, does not usually depend on the motivation for the vote. The fact that Huckabee claims his policies are supported by the Gospel is not itself a ground to assert that his project violates constitutional principles.
Why then does Huckabee often use the visual symbols of Christianity? I suggest it is not to make a pitch to Christians. It is a different shorthand. It is a quite specific and well-understood shorthand for a collection of otherwise perfectly constitutional policies. I don’t agree with much that Huckabee proposes, but his kind of faith electioneering threatens no constitutional principle.
Welcome
There is a man in America who was taken to church as a child. When he went to a local college Sam spent most of his time with friends, studying, playing games and with nice girls. When holidays came around he went to church with his parents where he liked the preacher's stories but Sam did not believe the parts that insisted that God was the all powerful.
When he took his first job as an accountant Sam was able to live in a nice house and enjoy life around town with his friends. He became engaged to a woman he loved and they had plans for a secure life. As time went on Sam made plans for getting a better job and living a better life.
He moved with his family to a new city where there was a well paying job. When Sam was alone he occasionally had feelings of depression and loneliness even though he loved his family and they loved him. He tried many things like taking his family on vacations and spending more time entertaining his friends but the uplifting benefits of these things would fade quickly.
Sam was very protective of what he had and was very sad when his first child went off to a university. His children visited on occasion, he moved to better jobs and bought nice things to live with. Until the day Sam died he worked to get that better life that America had promised but there was always more that was needed.
****************
Now there is another man in America who was also taken to church as a child. When he went to a local college Pat spent most of his time with friends, studying, playing games and with nice girls. When holidays came around he went to church with his parents where he liked the preacher's stories but Pat did not believe the parts that insisted that God was the all powerful.
When he took his first job as an accountant Pat was able to live in a nice house and enjoy life around town with his friends. He became engaged to a woman he loved and they had plans for an abundant life. As time went on Pat made plans for ensuring that his family would have what they needed.
He moved a few times between jobs looking for one that would pay the bills and was a fulfilling place to work. When Pat was alone he thought about who he was and what the right way was to raise a family. He took his family on vacations, entertained friends and reminded himself constantly that he was lucky to have these things he loved.
Pat had high hopes for his children and encouraged them to take risks while being conscious to do the right thing. He and his wife stayed in the same house and his children came back to visit on occasion. Until the day Pat died he pursued a good life, he love America for providing him the opportunities he had and was fulfilled with his life.
The difference between Sam and Pat is not some psychological difference; it is that Pat believed that there was a universal good within a world of randomness and Sam believed that relationships and objects could make his life good. Sam was a Secularist, Pat was a Hallowed Secularist.
This blog will track the progress of a new way of life in this society, a way of life that may come to be known as Hallowed Secularism. In the short run, I will be writing a book that describes this way of life, at least as I see its future. But in the longer run, others will decide the future of Hallowed Secularism by living it.
A group of self-announced atheists, such as Christopher Hitchens, is currently trying to push secularism toward atheism and away from religion. But secularism need not be atheism. The secularist rejects many things the religious person holds dear: a traditional God, life after death, miracles and so forth. But the secularist can still have a conception of God or Godhead. The secularist may see a deep pattern in history and may feel a profound connection to all that is. Secularism can be holy. You and I will live that possibility.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment