I’m not sure if this was the right thing to do, but Mitt Romney feels it necessary to give a speech that, while billed as one dealing with his Mormon faith, doesn’t really appear to deal with that specifically. From the news reports on those parts of the speech released so far, Romney sounds defensive.

Republican Mitt Romney declares in a speech being delivered Thursday that he shares “moral convictions” with Americans of all faiths, but should not have to explain his own religion just because he’s striving to become the first Mormon elected president.

“To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution. No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes president, he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths,” Romney said in remarks prepared for delivery at the George Bush Presidential Library and Museum.

Well, actually, explaining your religious views does not, in any way, violate the Constitution. Article 6 states:

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.

What I emphasized there is that one’s religion cannot be used to disqualify someone from running for or serving as President or any other office. We’re past that already; Romney has not been disqualified on account of his religion, and should he win the election he can serve.

Once someone is a candidate, however, questions about their values and views that are affected by their religious beliefs are completely fair game. How his religion, or lack thereof, informs his opinion on abortion, gay rights, tax policy and the like are certainly allowable questions. If there are any limits, they are limits of reasonableness; what is reasonable to understand about their religion that would be required to understand how they would govern. Mike Huckabee put it this way:

“I think it’s a matter of what his views are – whether they are consistent, whether they are authentic, just like mine are,” Huckabee told NBC’s “Today.””If I had actions that were completely opposite of my Christian faith, then I would think people would have reason to doubt if this part of my life, which is supposed to be so important, doesn’t influence me. Then they would have to question whether or not there are other areas of my life that lack that authenticity as well”.

Frankly, people are just as free to vote against someone because of their religion as they are to vote for them because they make a good impression on The Tonight Show, and neither is unconstitutional.

So the constitutional issue is completely off the table, but that seems to be one of the main points of Romney’s speech, and that sounds very defensive, which is not how you need to appear with less than a month before the Iowa caucuses. He does make some very good points regarding church-state separation that I wholeheartedly agree with. But his appeal to the Constitution to refrain from getting to detailed about his beliefs doesn’t come across well, and the speech may do more harm than good for his campaign.

Technorati Tags: Mitt Romney, Mormonism, Latter Day Saints, US Constitution, Article 6, Mike Huckabee, separation of church and state, religion, religious test

Shire Network News #110 has been released. This week we ask Hollywood comedian and political commentator Evan Sayet when tinseltown’s conservatives are finally going to stage a parade down Rodeo Drive.. We’ll also hear from Meryl Yourish what she thinks of the Great Teddy Bear Incident of 2007. Click here for the show notes, links, and ways to listen to the show; directly from the web site, by downloading the mp3 file, or by subscribing with your podcatcher of choice.

I did not submit a commentary for this week. But listen to it anyway. >grin<

Technorati Tags: Shire Network News, Evan Sayet, Meryl Yourish, Islam

OK, that’s a bit outlandish, but if you’re already Republican, Gallup suggests you are significantly better off mentally. (Well, at least you say you are.)

Republicans are significantly more likely than Democrats or independents to rate their mental health as excellent, according to data from the last four November Gallup Health and Healthcare polls. Fifty-eight percent of Republicans report having excellent mental health, compared to 43% of independents and 38% of Democrats.

And it’s not because Republicans are (supposedly) richer.

One could be quick to assume that these differences are based on the underlying demographic and socioeconomic patterns related to party identification in America today. A recent Gallup report (see “Strong Relationship Between Income and Mental Health” in Related Items) reviewed these mental health data more generally, and found that men, those with higher incomes, those with higher education levels, and whites are more likely than others to report excellent mental health. Some of these patterns describe characteristics of Republicans, of course.

But an analysis of the relationship between party identification and self-reported excellent mental health within various categories of age, gender, church attendance, income, education, and other variables shows that the basic pattern persists regardless of these characteristics. In other words, party identification appears to have an independent effect on mental health even when each of these is controlled for.

Now, as I’ve said many times in the past, I hate polls, especially ones where the respondents are asked about something that is outside their area of expertise. So I’m not sure how qualified most people are to gauge their mental health, but what this does tend to show is that Republican folks are generally more content with their lot, whatever lot it is.

This probably explains some of Arthur Brooks findings about how conservatives tend to be more charitable. Also note that according to Brooks, liberal-headed families make slightly more money on average that conservative-headed families, so it really isn’t a case of more money making you happy. And if you want to extend that correlation, religion is the single biggest predictor as to whether someone is charitable, and most of the religious are on the Right (hence the label). Someone might connect the dots to suggest that religion plays a positive role in mental health.

Or, perhaps, they already have.

Technorati Tags: mental health, religion, Republican, Democrat

Mike Huckabee, candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, says that states shouldn’t be given the chance to determine their own abortion views.

Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee rejects letting states decide whether to allow abortions, claiming the right to life is a moral issue not subject to multiple interpretations.

“It’s the logic of the Civil War,” Huckabee said Sunday, comparing abortion rights to slavery. “If morality is the point here, and if it’s right or wrong, not just a political question, then you can’t have 50 different versions of what’s right and what’s wrong.”

“For those of us for whom this is a moral question, you can’t simply have 50 different versions of what’s right,” he said in an interview on “Fox News Sunday.”

As much as I like Huckabee’s positions, I have to take issue with this. Government’s job is not to say what is right, but what is legal. Sometimes those two coincide, and sometimes they don’t.

I don’t believe that government should be the leading indicator of what’s right and wrong. It is very unfortunate that, for too many people, if it’s legal then it’s right. However, we can’t use that situation to then say that the government should pass laws against all that is immoral. This may sound funny to some, coming as it does from this evangelical Christian, but there are a couple of ideas at play here.

First is the idea that any set of rules made by men as to what is right and wrong is, by definition, going to be flawed. We can’t do it, and that’s taking on a job that God has exclusive rights to. Passing a low solely because it fits my moral code is, therefore, not a good idea. (Bear in mind that I’m emphasizing “solely”. We’ll come back to that.)

Second is the idea that my personal morality can inform what I want government to do. So based on my reading of the Bible, I may be against state-run gambling. My concern over taxing the foolish and government-sponsored co-dependence are moral stances, and they contribute to my opinion of laws regarding them. The Civil Rights laws of the 1960s were largely informed by a religious view of equality among people, equal in the sight of God. The laws were both morally right and a proper use of government in that they promoted liberty, equally, for all. For example, gambling promotes slavery to an addition.

So, while writing a pure moral code into a man-made document is doomed to fail, there is still a place for the Christian (and any religious person) in the creation of laws for the state or country. And while I appreciate Gov. Huckabee’s stance on the issue of abortion, I’m a little leery of him suggesting that the federal government should do it solely because it is right. That suggestion opens the door to abuses by more well-meaning politicians, and can result in less liberty as the government encroaches on the individual.

Now, having said all of that, I’m going to spin you in further circles and say that I do agree that the matter of abortion should be decided at the federal level. The reason is that protecting the right to life is a primary function of government, and without the right to life, no other rights can be enjoyed. Further, the Roe v Wade decision did nothing but muddy the waters as to what the Constitution really says about privacy. So yes, I think it should be overturned, and indeed I think abortion, as a matter of liberty, should be a matter of federal legislation.

But to do it because it is “right”, from a political standpoint, invites abuse. Government has a specific purpose and it should be used accordingly.

Technorati Tags: Mike Huckabee, abortion, gambling, church and state, morality, liberty

Gov. Sonny Perdue attended a prayer vigil last Tuesday that other state legislator attended.

While public prayer vigils might raise eyebrows in other parts of the nation, they are mostly shrugged off in the Bible Belt, where turning to the heavens for help is common and sometimes even politically expedient.

“Christianity has more of a place in the culture here than in some other region,” said Ray Van Neste, a professor of Christian studies at Union University in Jackson, Tenn. “And it’s only natural, in a way, for the public to pray for rain.”

But politicians, according to some on the Left, are not allowed to express religious convictions. (Those folks would have been very uncomfortable during our nation’s founding, that’s for sure.) The inappropriately names Atlanta Freethought Society doesn’t think those thoughts should be aired.

The loudest opposition to Perdue’s move has come from the Atlanta Freethought Society, a secular group that is expecting about a dozen of its 125 members to protest at the vigil.

“The governor can pray when he wants to,” said Ed Buckner, who is organizing the protest. “What he can’t do is lead prayers in the name of the people of Georgia.”

Because that impinges on their civil liberties…how, exactly? Does the AFS worry that God may get the wrong idea? The governor can pray when he wants to, except when those espousing “free” thought don’t think he should. Needless to say, the Founding Fathers (you remember them; the guys who wrote the Constitution that this protest is based on) would see things quite differently. The guys who created a chaplaincy for Congress and opened every session with a word of prayer welcomes religious expression in government.

Technorati Tags: Georgia, Sonny Perdue, drought, Christianity, Atlanta Freethought Society, church and state, Constitution, Ray Van Neste, Union University, Ed Buckner

Here’s an unexpected presidential endorsement.

Pat Robertson, one of the most influential figures in the social conservative movement, announced his support for Rudy Giuliani’s presidential bid this morning at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.
Pat Robertson

Robertson’s support was coveted by several of the leading Republican candidates and provides Giuliani with a major boost as the former New York City mayor seeks to convince social conservatives that, despite his positions on abortion and gay rights, he is an acceptable choice as the GOP nominee.

This endorsement serves a few purposes. First, it shows (yet again, for those who weren’t paying attention) that The Religious Right(tm) isn’t as monolithic as the media makes it out to be. There were those who said they’d stay home if Guliani was nominated, but this move by Robertson shows that it’s not quite the herd it’s been made out to be. Although, if you read the comments attached to the article, you’ll find a boatload of those for whom this realization has flown over their heads.

Secondly, as Chris Cillizza notes in the article, this will have a calming effect in the SoCon arena and among the buzz brokers who were predicting turmoil in the Republican ranks. It shows that, even if Guiliani is the nominee, his chances in the general election will not be hampered by political purists.

Robertson has indeed done his cause a favor by breaking yet another stereotype of the Christian Right. Whether or not everyone agrees with his choice for endorsement is beside the point. And then, when you think about it, it is the point.

Technorati Tags: Pat Robertson, Rudy Guliani, Republican, Religious Right, Christian Right

The movie, “The Golden Compass”, is essentially a moral compass that points south instead of north. As mentioned here before, author Philip Pullman, from who’s books “His Dark Materials” the movie comes from, is distinctly anti-religious. As such, the movie, while it is marketed to the same crowd as The Chronicles of Narnia, seeks to deconstruct religion in the eyes of the kids.

Not content with the subtleties of allegory, Pullman’s movie involved the church directly, and depicts it as willing to kidnap and experiment on children in trying to determine if a particular substance is actually Original Sin. He blurs the idea of a daemon as simply the human soul that manifests itself, in some of the universes in his story, as an animal that stays with the human. Ultimately, in the trilogy, the God figure is killed. Christians will immediately see the difference and the problem with one character’s goal of establishing a Republic of Heaven to rival God’s Kingdom of Heaven.

Even though it sounds like the anti-religious themes are being downplayed in the movie, the movie inevitably spurs book sales, which is where the real issues are. I would ask Christians not to put this movie on their holiday schedule. While the controversy will no doubt increase some ticket sales, I’m hoping that the dollars withheld by others will more than offset that.

(Information on this can be found at Wikipedia here and here. A review of the books from a Christian who really wanted to like it can be found at Journeyman. The original press release by the Catholic League can be found here.)

Technorati Tags: Philip Pullman, His Dark Materials, The Golden Compass, Christianity, The Catholic League

Shire Network News #108 has been released. This may be the last episode of SNN, at least for a while. This is from the website:

I’m afraid we have some bad news. For reasons which are detailed in the podcast, this is probably the final Shire Network News, certainly at least in it’s current format.

We seem to have gotten ourselves smack-dab in the middle of the Blog Civil War that’s going on, and we managed to get ourselves ripped apart by the gravitational forces. Yes, yes, we TRIED reversing the polarity through the deflector array, didn’t work.

In part, the reason why “Brian of London” and “Tom Paine” in Australia have come to truce and treaty and the parting of the ways is the subject of this weeks special and probably last feature interview.

It’s with Filip Dewinter, leader of the Valaams Belang, the Flemish nationalist party in Belgium. As many of you already know, there has been a great disturbance in the Blog recently over the counter-Jihad movement cooperating with the VB and other European parties with questionable antecedents, such as the Swedish Democrats.

Shire Network News was offered the chance to put the tough questions to the man himself. And so, like idiots, we did.

And then…well, listen for yourselves.

For myself, “Tom Paine”, now that we seem to be in the Blogosphere equivalent of the week that Fort Sumter was fired upon, I reckon on lighting out for the territories for a spell, I figure I’ll be back when this has all blown over. And I’m sure all of us wish Brian of London great success with his family in their new country.

And perhaps it might be worth remembering that there’s a real enemy out there, and it’s not each other, m’kay?

Click here for the show notes, links, and ways to listen to the show; directly from the web site, by downloading the mp3 file, or by subscribing with your podcatcher of choice.

Below is the text of what my commentary segment would have been. Just think; you won’t have the opportunity to hear me sing “Tie Me Kangaroo Down, Sport”. Consider yourselves fortunate.

UPDATE:  According to the site now, Tom Paine says that SNN isn’t going away, so you might yet hear this in an upcoming episode.

Hi, this is Doug Payton for Shire Network News, asking you to “Consider This!” The last time I did a Global Warming Update, it was for my very first contribution to Shire Network News back in April, so it’s about time for another one.The Nobel Committee says that, by raising awareness of global warming, the Prophet Al Gore (Peace Prize be unto Him) might have been instrumental in possibly stopping potential future conflicts over what may turn out to be scarcer resources. With that paper-thin connection to “peace”, they turned the Nobel Peace Prize into the Nobel “Leftist Accolade” Prize. Well, it may have already been that, if you consider that Gandhi of the Middle East, Yassar Arafat, was a recipient.

In any event, not everyone in the climate biz was thrilled to see the prize go to Al and the United Nations (which, incidentally, is a good name for a rock band…with apologies to Dave Barry). Dr. William Gray is a pioneer in the science of seasonal hurricane forecasts, and he’s called Gore’s film, “An Inconvenient Truth”, “ridiculous”.

Dr Gray, whose annual forecasts of the number of tropical storms and hurricanes are widely publicised, said a natural cycle of ocean water temperatures – related to the amount of salt in ocean water – was responsible for the global warming that he acknowledges has taken place.

However, he said, that same cycle meant a period of cooling would begin soon and last for several years.

“We’ll look back on all of this in 10 or 15 years and realise how foolish it was,” Dr Gray said.

OK, if we do realize how foolish it was, does that mean Al loses his prize? Nah, probably not. He’ll just say that all his “consciousness raising” fixed everything. Plus all the particulates from the exhaust of his private jets reflecting the sun. But if Dr. Gray is right, shouldn’t he get the Peace Prize for raising the consciousness about the natural cycles of the planet, thus keeping a whole bunch of global warming alarmists from fighting over who’s fault it was that they were wrong?

The next item pits one lefty special interest group against a few others. Greenpeace is suggesting to Australians that, in order to hold down methane emissions from cows, that Aussies eat more…kangaroo! Well, the vegetarians are already upset about cows, and PETA is sure to hate this, what with the “cutesy” factor of the roos. Think of all the brokenhearted children when a politically correct Christopher Robin starts eyeing Kanga, with a lean and hungry look in his eye. So now, let’s all sing the new anthem of Greenpeace.

Tie me kangaroo down, sport
Tie me kangaroo down
They taste better than cow, sport
Tie me kangaroo down

Finally, here’s the latest action by DARE. No, not the anti-drug group, the not-so-well-known “Democrats Against Renewable Energy”. Over the years, Ted Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and Walter Cronkite, among other liberal luminaries, have been campaigning against wind power. That’s right, they’re so concerned about the fishing and boating industries (what one might call “Big Fish”) that they’ve actively worked against wind farms 5 miles off the coast in…oh, yeah, Nantucket Sound. Well, there’s your explanation. Wind power is good, unless it’s within the sound of my Sound. And again, it’s one set of lefties against another. Such entertainment value!

All we need to do now is get Al Gore up there to Cape Cod and see how “peaceful” things get. Then we could just sit back, throw another roo on the barbie, and watch the sparks fly, which I suppose would just contribute to more global warming.

Consider that.

Technorati Tags: Shire Network News, global warming, environment, Islam, Nobel Peace Prize, Al Gore, Yassar Arafat, Dr. William Gray, Dave Barry, Greenpeace, kangaroos, wind farms, renewable energy, Nantucket Sound, Cape Cod, Tie Me Kangaroo Down Sport

One of the podcasts I listen to is Heading Right Radio with Ed Morrissey of “Captain’s Quarters”. He gets some great interviews, and last week (I’m behind in my podcast listening) he got Dinesh D’Souza and they talked about D’Souza’s book “What’s So Great About Christianity”. Fresh from his debate at King’s College with Christopher Hitchens, D’Souza covers a number of interesting topics from his book, including the truth about the Gallileo’s persecution, the limits of reason, why the recent increase in atheist apologetics, the supposed “war” between science and religion, thank-you letters to Portugese inquisitors, and other light topics. >grin<

Click here to listen to any of Captain Ed’s shows, and stick it in your podcatcher.

Technorati Tags: Ed Morrissey, Dinesh D’Souza, Christianity, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, atheism

Maimon Schwarzschild put up a thought-provoking post last week about charity in the world. It starts thusly:

The New York Times ran a front-page story recently about an elderly man who starved to death in Japan, having been denied help by the welfare bureaucracy. The man kept a diary as he died: heartbreaking to read. The Japanese welfare bureaucracy seems to have been notably heartless, and not only in this case. There are other, similar cases of starvation in the past year or two in Japan, according to the Times.

There is this brief throwaway in the lengthy Times story:

With no religious tradition of charity, Japan has few soup kitchens or other places for the indigent. Those that exist — run frequently by Christian missionaries from South Korea or Japan’s tiny Christian population — cater mostly to the homeless.

Say what you will about the “Abrahamic” religions – Judaism, Christianity, and Islam – can there be any doubt that they have brought an ethic of charity into a world that would otherwise be a crueler place?

The ancient, pagan world, for all its brilliance, was coldly cruel. The Hebrew Bible put enormous emphasis on charity, which was something radically new.

Some of the commenters have their own issues with Muslim charity (little at all, or only to other Muslims).

Maimon winds up with this thought to chew on.

If the Christian world is on its way to being post-Christian, will the tradition of Christian charity persist?

Or is the ethic of charity liable to go down with the faith that inspired it?

Technorati Tags: Maimon Schwarzschild, Abrahamic religions, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, paganism, charity