Has FOX News accidentally called him Osama yet?

Quote from: StuartHas FOX News accidentally called him Osama yet?

Does running video of Ted Kennedy making that mistake count?

ADDED: Of course CNN has already made that mistake, too.  They don't call CNN the Clinton News Network for nothing.

Quote from: John MorrowYeah.  Go Obama...

You might find this interesting, too.  (This is probably closer to what people here are looking for.)

A guy can have faith and still lead without being enslaved by it.

Obama has been very clear that he is a man of faith, yet will not allow his governance of the country be slaved to it.  He votes what he thinks is right, not by what his faith TELLS him to vote.

Thats how I've been reading most of his statements about it, the times its been brought up to him.

Quote from: HackmastergeneralA guy can have faith and still lead without being enslaved by it.

Absolutely.  And as I said, I think the second link reflects more of that kind of thinking.  But the sentiments reflected in that pamphlet are exactly the sort of thing that would set off red-flag warnings if a Republican said them.

Quote from: HackmastergeneralThats how I've been reading most of his statements about it, the times its been brought up to him.

Well, that's part of my point.  How people read and how seriously they take the statements made by a candidate play a big role in how they view the candidate.

Quote from: John MorrowBut the sentiments reflected in that pamphlet are exactly the sort of thing that would set off red-flag warnings if a Republican said them.

You mean if a Republican who was an ordained Southern Baptist minister said them?  Stay on target, John.

!i!

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaYou mean if a Republican who was an ordained Southern Baptist minister said them?  Stay on target, John.

Bush isn't an ordained Southern Baptist minister and people have similar concerns.  Look at the bigger picture.

Do you think that being ordained disqualifies a person from the Presidency?

You can't really keep church and state separate if your President is an ordained minister.

Here Down Under our now-departed PM appointed an Anglican archbishop as Governor-General. It was very controversial, simply because of the doctrine of separation of church and state; he may resign as a minister, but he keeps all his connections and contacts. He became the first GG ever who was asked to resign. It turned out he'd helped in a cover-up of ministers under him molesting children in their parish.

Of course if you don't believe in separation of church and state, then you can have no objection to an ordained minister as President. Hell, why not go the whole hog? Make like Iran - abolish the Senate as a state's house, replace them all with ordained ministers who can check that all measures passed by the Lower House are okay by God.

Quote from: John MorrowBush isn't an ordained Southern Baptist minister and people have similar concerns.  Look at the bigger picture.

The bigger picture.  That being the over-weening tendency for Republican candidates and officials to claim Christian virtue as their right to hold office and author legislation?  It's not the sole domain of the Republican party, no, but they do preside forth on the issue, don't they?

QuoteDo you think that being ordained disqualifies a person from the Presidency?

Potentially, yes.  Don't you see the potential conflict of interest?

!i!

Quote from: Kyle AaronYou can't really keep church and state separate if your President is an ordained minister.

Why not?  And why didn't I hear the same complaints when the ordained Reverend Al Sharpton and the ordained Reverend Jesse Jackson ran for President?

Please note that I'm not advocating Huckabee (I don't want him to win the Republican nomination) and do believe that retaining a secular government is important.  My issue is with the idea that ordination disqualifies someone from being President.

Quote from: Kyle AaronHere Down Under our now-departed PM appointed an Anglican archbishop as Governor-General. It was very controversial, simply because of the doctrine of separation of church and state; he may resign as a minister, but he keeps all his connections and contacts. He became the first GG ever who was asked to resign. It turned out he'd helped in a cover-up of ministers under him molesting children in their parish.

Well, unless it turns out that Huckabee was covering up the molestation of children (and there is some controversy over his paroling of a convicted rapist), that aspect is irrelevant.  And while I'd agree that serving in a leadership role in a church and government at the same time is an issue (e.g., being an archbishop), the Baptist church isn't organized like that, nor is it a state religion anywhere, like the Anglican Church is.  But consider that the Anglican Church is the state religion of the UK and somehow they manage to avoid turning into a theocracy like Iran.  And plenty of supposedly more enlightened and secular Western nations fund religious schools and institutions without inviting in the Inquisition.  The complete separation of church and state and utter sanitation of religion from government is hardly necessary to preserve secular government.

Quote from: Kyle AaronOf course if you don't believe in separation of church and state, then you can have no objection to an ordained minister as President. Hell, why not go the whole hog? Make like Iran - abolish the Senate as a state's house, replace them all with ordained ministers who can check that all measures passed by the Lower House are okay by God.

I believe that government should be secular.  But I also believe that the free practice of religion (which is guaranteed by the US Constitution) and not having a religious test to hold government offices (which is also guaranteed by the US Constitution) are very important, too.  And if you are so frightened of any contact between religion and government that you insist on absolute sanitization of religion from the public sector, you wind up trampling those other very important principles in the process.  The purpose of a secular government is not to disenfranchise religious people, but that's exactly what absolute separation of church and state zealotry seems to try to do.

Quote from: John MorrowWhy not?  And why didn't I hear the same complaints when the ordained Reverend Al Sharpton and the ordained Reverend Jesse Jackson ran for President?

Because you weren't listening hard enough?  Please, you're just being disingenuous now.  Neither Jackson nor Sharpton ever reached the level of popularity or effective legitimacy as a candidate that Huckabee has, and I'm sure you're aware of that.  Had they managed to do so, then you may very well have heard a dust-up over their religious status.

!i!

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaThe bigger picture.  That being the over-weening tendency for Republican candidates and officials to claim Christian virtue as their right to hold office and author legislation?  It's not the sole domain of the Republican party, no, but they do preside forth on the issue, don't they?

Some do.  Others don't.  But is claiming "Christian virtue as their right to hold office and author legislation" really any worse than any of the other virtues upon which a politician claims their right to hold office?  Is it really any worse than Hillary crying and saying, "And I couldn't do it if I just didn't passionately believe it was the right thing to do."?

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaPotentially, yes.  Don't you see the potential conflict of interest?

Every candidate could fall victim of a potential conflict of interest.  Should white people not vote for Barak Obama for the Presidency because his race might create a conflict of interest for him if he were to become President?  Is worrying about potential conflicts of interest really something that we want to use to exclude candidates from office out of hand?

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaBecause you weren't listening hard enough?

I'd be happy to look at contemporary quotes proving me wrong.  Do you have any?

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaPlease, you're just being disingenuous now.  Neither Jackson nor Sharpton ever reached the level of popularity or effective legitimacy as a candidate that Huckabee has, and I'm sure you're aware of that.

Sharpton, true.  Jackson, not true.  Jesse Jackson was once a very popular and serious candicate for the Presidency.  Or did you forget that Jesse Jackson won 5 primaries and caucuses in 1984 and 7 primaries and 4 caucuses in 1988 and had 962 delegates (23%) going in to the 1988 DNC convention?  As Wikipedia puts it, "Briefly, after he won 55% of the vote in the Michigan Democratic caucus, he was considered the frontrunner for the nomination, as he surpassed all the other candidates in total number of pledged delegates."  That's better than Huckabee has done so far (he's only won Iowa and has failed to deliver since) and he has a long way to go before he wins the nomination, which I seriously doubt he will.  So who is being disingenuous now?

Oh, and let's not forget that he ran that well in 1988 four years after his Mel Gibsonesque "Hymietown" remark.

No, no double standard at work here.  Move on...

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaHad they managed to do so, then you may very well have heard a dust-up over their religious status.

Jesse Jackson won primaries and I don't remember any dust-up.  I'll happily consider any examples you'd like to offer and am particularly interested in critiques from mainstream commentators who are currently questioning Huckabee.

Quote from: John MorrowEvery candidate could fall victim of a potential conflict of interest.

Yes, they could.  And every candidate should be judged on his or her potential conflicts of interest.  This is Huckabee's.

!i!

Quote from: John Morrow

Quote from: John MorrowJesse Jackson was once a very popular and serious candicate for the Presidency.  Or did you forget that Jesse Jackson won 5 primaries and caucuses in 1984 and 7 primaries and 4 caucuses in 1988 and had 962 delegates (23%) going in to the 1988 DNC convention?  

...

So who is being disingenuous now?

Well, you still.  Jackson was influential, yes, but not a serious contender.  But you'll turn a blind eye to the fact that history clearly established that fact.  And please don't go quoting Wikipedia.

QuoteI'll happily consider any examples you'd like to offer and am particularly interested in critiques from mainstream commentators who are currently questioning Huckabee.

Ah, here we are.  Contemporary, mainstream commentators who are questioning both Huckabee currently and Jackson historically.  You do enjoy stacking the deck, don't you?

Quote from: John MorrowWhy not?  

I believe church and state ought to be separate, that's why. I'm not going to explain that in detail anymore than I'd explain why the judiciary and legislature ought to be separate, it's just a defining axiom of "democracy". If you're not comfortable with democracy, fine by me.

QuoteAnd why didn't I hear the same complaints when the ordained Reverend Al Sharpton and the ordained Reverend Jesse Jackson ran for President?

I dunno, I wasn't on the internet then. I have no idea if they were criticised or not, or if not, why. I wouldn't vote for them here.

QuoteWell, unless it turns out that Huckabee was covering up the molestation of children (and there is some controversy over his paroling of a convicted rapist), that aspect is irrelevant.  

It's relevant in that it when we tried an ordained minister as our head of state, he brought quite some baggage with him. That ought to serve as a caution for you lot.

QuoteAnd while I'd agree that serving in a leadership role in a church and government at the same time is an issue (e.g., being an archbishop), the Baptist church isn't organized like that, nor is it a state religion anywhere, like the Anglican Church is.  

It's not a state religion in our country, since we have none - like the US. The situation's analogous, then, between us having an ordained minister as Governor-General, and you lot having one as a President. It's bringing an ordained minister to head of state position in a country whose constitution allows for no establishment of religion, and which therefore can be said to hold to a principle of separation of church and state.

QuoteBut consider that the Anglican Church is the state religion of the UK and somehow they manage to avoid turning into a theocracy like Iran.

Yes, they do. However, while their head of state is also the head of the Anglican Church, their head of state does not at any time actually exercise her powers except on the advice of the Prime Minister (for political stuff) or the Archbishop of Cantebury (for Anglican stuff). The last time the British head of state vetoed legislation from the legislature was about 1707. When was the last time the US head of state vetoed legislation?

Likewise, our Governor-General is officially in charge of the armed forces of the country. But in no case has he (it's always a "he") ever issued orders except on the advice of the Prime Minister. In 1975 when the Governor-General dismissed Whitlam as Prime Minister and Whitlam contemplated simply refusing to go and trying to dismiss the GG, both the GG and the PM asked the military what they'd do if ordered to arrest one or the other. The four heads replied that they would take the case to the High Court to see what they said, what was legal. Of course by the time the case was decided political events would have proceeded without them, which is what they most wanted.

The separation of powers and church and state are less important when the person they're mixed in does not ever exercise any powers. It's when they exercise those powers that the separation becomes important. Had the GG or PM called out the army and they responded, I have no doubt that we'd since then have rethought the position of the GG as head of the military. But in the end nothing was decided so it didn't matter.

QuoteThe complete separation of church and state and utter sanitation of religion from government is hardly necessary to preserve secular government.

I never said it was. These discussions would be much simpler if you'd address only what the person said, rather than some imagined argument they made, or some nonsense some other idiot said years ago in some other discussion you had.

Again, there's a difference between funding a religious school, having an official state religion, and having an ordained minister as head of state. Separation has degrees. A couple may be "separated" but still have sex from time to time; another couple may be "separated", be on other sides of the world and not even have each-others' addresses. When I speak of "separation of church and state, and separation of powers", that does not mean I am speaking of complete separation. You are confusing separation and alienation.

Consider the military. The government funds the military, members of the military vote, and there are even military Reserve officers in the various state and federal parliaments. But no full-time soldier may be elected to parliament, nor may they wear their uniform in parliament, and serving full-time officers, soldiers, sailors and airmen are prohibited from making public political comments, and part-time ones while in uniform. In this way the military is largely kept out of political affairs, as it should be in a democracy.

Likewise, in a good and healthy democracy, religion. Both religion and the military should participate in a democracy, but they should not determine things in a democracy.

Quote[...] I also believe that the free practice of religion (which is guaranteed by the US Constitution) and not having a religious test to hold government offices (which is also guaranteed by the US Constitution) are very important, too.

I would not have a religious test to hold government offices. But I would have a test by position. It's long been a principle of parliamentary government that to become a candidate for MP, Senator, etc, you should not hold an office of profit under the Crown. To stand for election you must resign that position, and divest yourself of any shares, etc. We could have a similar principle for religious offices. This would in no way impinge on the person's personal exercise of their religion, only on their leadership in the religion.

But whatever the various laws you choose, it is unwise for the people to vote for an ordained minister as their head of state, just as it was unwise for our PM to appoint one as Governor-General. His doing that eroded the prestige and position of the Governor-General, and contributed strongly to a growing apathy and cynicism about public affairs. It harmed our democracy.