Rusted Sky

>>Huckabee? Well, we could (and have) done worse.>>

Are you sure? Looking at his positions, he's closer to Clinton than to any Republican ideals.
He wants to govern with Christian ideals - that means, he wants to make Christian laws. There's a real problem with this, both from the standpoint of fiscal responsibility and moral responsibility. Making laws that require "moral" behavior removes that behavior from the category of "moral". The fiscal is obvious - the Christian ideal is communism (small c). Enforcing it by law makes it Communism.
Religion establishes ideal behavior for men to aspire to, the law establishes the lowest standard of behavior a society will tolerate. Combine them in one and you have intolerant disaster waiting to happen. Christian sharia is no better than muslim sharia. Well, maybe a bit...but it's still unacceptable. Both morally and legally.

"He wants to govern with Christian ideals - that means, he wants to make Christian laws."

Um, the President, unless I'm wrong, doesn't make the law - that's for Congress.

Bush is a pretty strong Christian, I understand, and for all the screaming from the Left about him preparing to impose a complete and stringent theocracy here in the US, I've noticed there's been no mass coertion into Christianity or any other religion. So, unless and until he says he's going to impose a theocratic state, I'm not going to worry about that.

Re fiscial behavior... We have a big damn monolithic juggernaut in our current economic system and tax code. Any President trying to change that to Communism large C or small c will find it very difficult to shift. I don't see it as a danger - I see far more potential for an economy-wrecking transition from what we've got to some 'ideal' system that a 'progressive' democratic President and Congress might dream up. We get Hillary in office and Congress dances to her 'soak the rich' tune, I predict a recession in a year, a depression in three. Huckabee, I believe, won't screw around with what works.

Re religion and law - that, I don't think I'll argue with you about. You seem a bit, um, passionate about that, and that tends to raise my hackles a bit. So we'll agree to disagree on a lot of that.

The only statement you made I'll contest at this time is the following - Making laws that require "moral" behavior removes that behavior from the category of "moral".

I do not beat my child. There are laws against it, but those laws do not figure into the equation - I was brought up in ways that precluded violent discipline. Is such restraint 'moral' behavior? If so, then I practice moral behavior, whether it is validated by law or not.

It is against the law to go out and randomly murder people. Does that law take away from my moral obligation to not do such an act, or reinforce it? Is it somehow LESS moral to NOT go out and murder because there are laws against it? I'm pretty sure that's not what you're implying, but it's what I'm reading into your statement.

Morality may have a base in law and custom, and is most decidedly not a constant. To take one rather extreme moral 'swing' - it was, at one time, exceedingly moral in India to burn the widow in suttee when the husband died. The British changed that custom when they had control of the country.

I would worry much more about an intolerant disaster from the left than the right. And I don't see a 'Christian Shari'a' pending at all.

J.

>>the President, unless I'm wrong, doesn't make the law - that's for Congress.>>

True...but if you have a Democratic congress which leans heavily towards socialism, and a president who finds that taking from the rich and giving to the poor is a good thing, socialism - which is atheistic government enforced Christian idealism - will be the result.

>>We get Hillary in office and Congress dances to her 'soak the rich' tune, I predict a recession in a year, a depression in three. Huckabee, I believe, won't screw around with what works.>>

From my above statement, you can see that I disagree with you.

>>So we'll agree to disagree on a lot of that.>>

Hmmm. Where is your disagreement? You say my statement (or my strong feelings about it) raise your hackles...why?

>>Is such restraint 'moral' behavior?>>

There are two terms that make for further discussion here - "moral" and "ethical".
I consider "moral" to fall within the purvue of religion..."right" and "wrong", as opposed to legal and illegal. The reason I say that making something illegal removes it from being moral or immoral is because it removes the choice factor. I think that we have free will, and the choices we make make us moral or immoral. If we have no choice, we may be legal, but we aren't moral.

>>Morality may have a base in law and custom>>

Here's a point that the ACLU loves to mix...just because a law is in accordance with religious precepts does not make it a religious law. It's also true that our laws are based on Judeo-Christian morality, hence our culture is also Judeo-Christian. What are the options here? Yes you can be non-religious, even atheistic and still behave in a manner that is acceptable to the Judeo-Christian ethic - that's generally what atheists mean when they say that atheists can be "moral" people. The fact is, though, that the definition of "good" is determined by J-C ethics - if you remove them, what then are your standards of "good" and "evil"

You mention suttee...don't you think it was considered "good" in the Indian culture? Don't you think that the Indians considered the British immoral for preventing a woman from performing her duty? How long do you suppose it took - in generations - for that particular idea of "moral" behavior to be suppressed, and the J-C ideal to prevail?
Islam considers it moral and a religious duty to kill women/girls who dishonor their family. This doesn't fit with your "random" murder, but is it any more acceptable because it isn't random?

In this case, Christian sharia is not really possible except from an economic standpoint - but that's unacceptable to me also. I consider it a moral act to give to charity. If the government takes money from me to give to the impoverished with the threat of jail if I don't give them that money, it is no lonter a moral act, imo.
True Christian sharia would include laws against abortion and gay marriage - that just ain't going to happen! The only area where the left and Christianity are in full agreement is in the economic field

Suek:

True...but if you have a Democratic congress which leans heavily towards socialism, and a president who finds that taking from the rich and giving to the poor is a good thing, socialism - which is atheistic government enforced Christian idealism - will be the result.

As I've said before - there's a good, solid inertia in our governmental system that damps out wild swings over time. Prohibition is a good example - after decades of pushing, the Temperance folk got what they wanted, and so did the people... illegally at first, then legally.

But it took decades to get Prohibition passed in the first place.

Christian/economic shari'a isn't likely. For one thing - the Dems aren't likely to work with any Republican, whether he's nominally socialist or not. Second, I think it unlikely a hard-right candidate will make it all the way through the process. We thought a 'godly' man would be a good thing in Jimmy Carter - and he's arguably the least effective President in the latter half of the 20th Century.

Re ethics, Christianity, right and wrong - what I've managed to work out for myself seems to function adequately. I wouldn't care to see what I believe turned into law, because I don't believe in forcing my own beliefs and feelings on others. That way lies frustration and madness.

(That said - it may be time to do a post on my ethics. Just to let folks know where I'm at...)

J.

>>I wouldn't care to see what I believe turned into law, because I don't believe in forcing my own beliefs and feelings on others.>>

Unfortunately, others are not as tolerant...and that's on _both_ sides of the divide!