Posted by Charity on October 16th, 2007

…no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. US Constitution

So this is what it has come to. In order be considered for the Office of President of the United States, we need to know not only if you believe in a creator god, but if you do, we also need to know specifically if you think creation was done in a literal six days or six periods of time. While we’re at it, did God speak creatures into existence or guide the evolutionary process?

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-BFEhkIujA]

I do not know if this guy would make a good president. I have not looked into his stance on the issues. I know; I am way behind. But I do know that theologically this is a great answer and one I wholeheartedly agree with, especially the last 40 seconds or so.

Of course that doesn’t mean he would make a good president. I, for one, have no religious test.

7 Responses to “The New Religious Test”

  1. I’ve been thinking about this for a couple of days, and I’ve finally had time to digest my thinking into a couple of points:

    First, don’t you think that only someone who isn’t a biblical inerrantist could consider this a theologically great answer? I don’t know much about his or your religious views, but there are plenty of conservative Republicans who are also biblical absolutists, and maybe they’ll like his ducking of this question, maybe they won’t.

    Second, it is disingenuous for him to suggest that he isn’t designing eighth-grade science curricula, when government does design school curricula, and it is Republicans in Kansas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and other places who are trying to gut science curricula.

    Finally, it may have been subtle, but it seemed like a vicious dig at Democrats when he said that if you want a candidate who believes there is no god there are plenty of candidates to choose from. As a matter of fact, there is no prominent politician who believes there is no god (unless you count Tom Lantos), and since the R’s are wrapping themselves in god and parading the Bible as their favorite book, this is clearly a dishonest attack on Democrats as being godless atheists.

  2. As to your first point, I do not think this was ducking the question. The point he was trying to make in his answer, and why I think it was such a great answer, is that the specifics of how God created us do not matter, what matters is that we are “the unique creations of a God who knows us and loves us, and who created us for His own purpose.”

    I am what you would probably describe as a “biblical inerrantist” and I do think it was a great answer theologically, so there you have it.

    As to the second point, I do not think that was disingenuous, just a bit idealistic. The Federal government shouldn’t have anything to do with school curricula. (They shouldn’t be involved in education at all, but that is a different post altogether.)

    As to your final point, I think this was an “attack,” as you call it, on some of the other GOP candidates, as well.

    There is a difference between someone who will pay religion lip-service and someone who is willing to come right out an say that they do not believe in evolution, but rather in a creator God.

    I find it interesting that you said, “this is clearly a dishonest attack on Democrats as being godless atheists.” I am shocked that you would consider this an insult.

  3. There’s a difference between an attack and an insult. I don’t consider a statement that someone is an atheist an insult. On the other hand, since polls show that the most despised minority group in the country is atheists, it is clearly an attack.

    Plus, it’s obviously dishonest. There is no candidate for president of either party who believes there is no god (not even Kucinich, I don’t think). He undoubtedly knows this, so he’s lying when he says there are plenty of atheists to vote for. Unless, of course, he thinks that unless you believe exactly what he believes, and show it in exactly the way he shows it, that you are an atheist.

  4. Ouch! The stupid is making my head hurt!

  5. He undoubtedly knows this, so he’s lying when he says there are plenty of atheists to vote for. Unless, of course, he thinks that unless you believe exactly what he believes, and show it in exactly the way he shows it, that you are an atheist.

    He does not say that there are plenty of atheists to vote for. He says there are plenty of candidates that do not believe in God.

    There is a difference between a god, god, and God. Just as there is a difference between a man, a man named Jack, and you.

    He is saying that he believes in the God of the Bible, the God who literally created each one of us for his purpose, however he did that creating (in literal days or ages).

    Obviously, I capitalized the “God” in his statement, but I am pretty sure that was what he was saying.

    That’s not the same as saying that everyone else is an atheist, because that is something else entirely. That is a belief that no god exists.

    I also want to point out that in this specific context (which is the only one I can speak to because I have not followed this guy), he was put on the defensive with an out of line (in my view) question. He did not bring this up as an attack.

  6. Okay, Charity, I get it. He’s not saying they don’t believe in God, he’s just saying they don’t believe in God. Two very different things. Thanks for clarifying that.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Dumb All Over: Mike Huckabee | Five Before Chaos