Helping Obama be Successful

OK, so the two big questions here are these:
How does one measures success?
Do we want success?

There has been much discussion over whether those who oppose out new President's collectivist ideology should wish him success. I strongly oppose the collectivist and immoral ideologies to which Barack Obama has attached himself, from his pro-abortion stance to the radical agenda of forcing mainstream acceptance of homosexual practices to his obvious socialist collectivist agenda.

However, I want to see him be extremely successful. But instead of success at achieving his personal agenda, I want him to be successful in fulfilling his oath of office.

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. - United States Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 8

Basically, by taking this oath of office, President Barack Obama has formally stated that, for the next four years, his success will be measured by how well he faithfully executes the Office of President of the United States, including being absolutely committed to the preservation, protection and defence of the Constitution of the United States. Those well versed in the Constitution should immediately realize this Oath puts Obama (the President) very much at odds with Obama the collectivist and promoter of a practice that takes from unborn children the very life that the Declaration of Independence says is an inalienable right given by the Creator.

According to the Oath President Obama took to assume his office; to be successful, he must act in accordance with the Constitution and against the goals of nearly every one of his supporters who helped him get elected. I wish him much success in that endeavor, and first of all success in realizing what being "successful" now requires of him.

I call on all Americans to help our President succeed, through respectfully encouraging him to follow the Constitution, through politely offering suggestion to him and to all our elected officials, and by offering Prayer to Almighty God that he and all of our leaders be granted the wisdom to see how they truly should lead this "One Nation Under God", and the courage to do so; that our nation not perish, as nations are prone to do when they decide to turn their backs on their duty and push aside the hand of Divine Providence.

I personally have three main areas in which I would like to see our new President be successful:

1. To realize that the unborn are human beings, whose life is a gift of God that no-one can justly rip away as a matter of convenience; and on that basis to end the nightmare of abortion-on-demand that has so savaged and degraded our Nation.
2. To realize that homosexual practices are a stain on our culture and that they should be discouraged, rather than forcing acceptance. I would also suggest we need to not stop there in seeking to rebuild strong families, but to reverse our casual attitudes about sex and marriage in general.
3. From an economic standpoint, I believe the best thing we could do right now is enact the FairTax. I also believe President Obama is in a unique position to convince both those Americans previously uninformed about this marvelous plan to unfetter economic productivity, and to convince those in Congress (some of whom will have to be dragged kicking and screaming into adopting this plan that would eliminate the vast majority of the symbiotic relationships between paid lobbyists and lawmakers) that they had better get to some real change and get rid of the IRS!
   

No Law Respecting An Establishment of Religion

I've seen a few express concern over the religious affiliation or connection of one or more of the Republican Presidential candidates. These have mainly focused on Mitt Romney's Mormon faith, or the fact that Mike Huckabee was a Baptist minister, before he became Governor of Arkansas.

One example is the recent "push poll" that apparently seeks to make voters uneasy about Romney on the basis of particular beliefs, apparently held by the Mormon church. While I think it not only more appropriate, but a better strategy, to question the sincerity of Romney's recently reacquired pro-life stance, I find it absolutely despicable to attempt what the First Amendment was expressly crafted to avoid. That is in using differences between particular "establishment[s] of religion" to fight for political control along "sectarian" lines.

A more rational example is an apparently genuine question of concern by Robert Roach; which he entered as a comment on one of the "What Leadership Looks Like" Blog post at www.MikeHuckabee.com. Part of Robert's comment was; "I strongly believe in the separation of church and state. To that effect, I am somewhat offended by the level of 'religious' comments on the Huckabee site. I would like to believe that as "Americans" the majority of you support the Governor, not as 'Christians.' "

In an attempt to assuage the concerns of those who might share Robert's concerns, I offer the following:
I understand your concern and I share your concern over the intermingling of government and religion. The phrase you quote; "separation of church and state"; while actually part of a Thomas Jefferson letter to the Danbury Baptists rather than part of the Constitution, is often used to describe this concern.

You may be surprised to learn that much of the "Christian" enthusiasm you see here is a result of sharing your concern rather than a desire for a "national church" of some kind. In my case, at least, it comes from a real desire to return to a Constitutional relationship between religion and government, which has the government looking favorably upon religious speech and practice in general, but never selecting or promoting a specific religious faction.

Too often in recent times, has the phrase "no law respecting an establishment of religion" been misconstrued to mean the government should be disrespectful toward religion and religious expression. In the words of Joseph Story (an early supreme court Justice) from his multi-volume commentary on the US Constitution, in his section on the Bill of Rights:

"§ 1871. The real object of the amendment was, not to countenance, much less to advance Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment, which should give to an hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government.It thus cut off the means of religious persecution, (the vice and pest of former ages,) and of the subversion of the rights of conscience in matters of religion, which had been trampled upon almost from the days of the Apostles to the present age."

A full reading of Justice Story's section on the First Amendment explains that the same wording that prevents a specific Christian sect from becoming an arm of the National Government, also ensures citizens are free to follow non-Christian religions, or no religion; without governmental interference and with equal protection under the law. (this would of course not apply to supposedly religious practice involving things like "honor-killing", polygamy, "child-marriage", etc)

The first amendment has all to do with preventing the government from running a church, and nothing to do with preventing religiously minded citizens from using the moral values grounded in Christianity (or any other religion) from becoming active participants in the political process.

I only ask to be allowed to work for laws that recognize values such as the sanctity of life and the importance of marriage (as per traditional definition), without being silenced by a militantly-secular court; on the false grounds that since those values are part of Christianity, such laws are an establishment of religion; And further that I that must be silent about my faith or be found guilty of a hate crime, simply for speaking peacefully.

Unless I'm very much mistaken, thats all most of the very vocal "Christians" want too. Sure, I'd like to peacefully persuade others to believe as I do; but only by sharing the Bible with those willing to listen and NEVER by the force of government. Not only would that not be American, it wouldn't be Christian! Furthermore, and no disrespect intended, I'm certainly NOT supporting Mike Huckabee for national preacher. But I do share the pro-life, and pro-family positions he says are rooted in his faith, and which are are rooted in mine.

Though there are many other planks of the Huckabee platform that would already make him my favorite choice as President, I'll readily admit that it's these common views on "faith based issues" that make him my only choice for President. Again, it's not because we are of the same Christian "sect" (to those who focus on religious divisions, we would definitely not be seen as such). It's because we share the same goals on issues.

Please also see my earlier post:
Where Mike Huckabee is Wrong (but it's "Alright")