L’AFP est-elle fiable? Présentation de Mike Huckabee par elle aujourd’hui

  A vrai dire, je me demande de temps en temps si l’AFP a toute la fiabilité nécessaire. En effet, lisant cette dépêche de l’AFP citée plus bas, je me suis sentie extrêmement inquiète que les Américains soient nombreux à vouloir comme président un fanatique aussi stupide Et puis je suis allée voir l’article directement sur Beliefnet.com, et je n’y ai pas vu exactement la même bêtise, quoique je me sente très éloignée des thèses du candidat républicain en question. En particulier je pense avec Spinoza que l’on ne peut compter sur les particuliers pour être assez généreux par charité pour permettre aux pauvres de survivre, et que donc seul l’Etat peut être assez généreux, car il peut aussi forcer les particuliers à payer assez d’impôts pour pouvoir remédier à la pauvreté. Mais dans le passage souligné en bleu dans l’interview de Mike Huckabee, on voit qu’il espère justement que les particuliers seront assez généreux pour dispenser le gouvernement d’intervenir. Je signale au passage que dans la Somme théologique Saint Thomas d’Aquin justifie le vol par nécessité par l’insuffisance de la charité, qui rappelons-le selon les chrétiens n’est pas un devoir mais un élan du coeur, ce qui interdit de la rendre obigatoire par une loi. 

vendredi 18 janvier 2008 – 10h56 heure de Paris

Voici maintenant les passages de l’interview auquels se réfère la dépêche de l’AFP: on peut y voir que sur l’avortement il dit surtout qu’il est favorable à une loi fédérale sur ce sujet, au lieu de laisser chaque Etat décider. Sur le mariage il dit que pour lui avant de changer les lois sur le mariage il faut savoir ce que veut dire le mot « mariage », en écorchant au passage son adversaire mormon puisque les mormons acceptent la polygamie masculine comme mariage authentique. Bien sûr on pout lui dire que peut-être le mot mariage peut vouloir dire plusieurs choses, et qu’il y a justement toute une histoire du mariage polygame, que les Francs avaient une sorte de « mariage temporaire », que dans certaines tribus indiennes le chaman a le droit de se prendre un mari plutôt qu’une femme, etc. Et on peut ajouter d’ailleurs que dans beaucoup de mythologies il y a des unions entre des hommes et des bêtes divinisées ou héroïsées. Il n’en reste pas moins que l’on peut comprendre que quelqu’un pose le problème de la signification du mot « mariage » dans un texte de loi.

« There’s something interesting going on now in the evangelical world – there’s a conversation going on about what the agenda ought to be that seems broader. There was a little bit of a sense that the religious conservative leadership, while emphasizing important things like abortion and family, had neglected issues like poverty and the environment. Do you think that’s true?

I’ve said that, that I’ve felt like as Christians and particularly even as Republicans, we needed to address issues that touched the broader perspective, and that included disease, hunger, poverty, homelessness, the environment. And it’s not a matter that we’re going to become left-wingers. I don’t think that at all. I think taking care of the earth is a matter of stewardship. It’s not about global warming, it’s about stewardship and responsibility. Things like hunger and homelessness. And it’s not about having a government program, it’s about simply reminding each of us as individual citizens that this is an area of our own responsibility. At my own church… our church is very, very engaged in everything from dealing with hunger, poverty, and we reach out to a lot of people. We don’t ask the government to do it. We do it ourselves as a church. It’s part of our ministry. The only reason the government would get involved would be that the other social institutions – primarily the family the church the neighborhood – failed. If the family or church does its own work and does it well, then there’s no reason for government to ever get into these things at all. The ideal is that they wouldn’t, that they’ll do a lousy job of it generally.[…]One of the comments you’ve made that’s getting a lot of discussion in the press is the point you made in the last day or so that we might need to amend the Constitution to have it apply more to God’s standards. Do you want to elaborate on that? In particular the question of people who might hear that and think, “Well, that’s a conversation stopper,” people who might agree with you on policy but feel that the constitution is secular document and should be driven by secular concerns rather than aligning it with God’s word.

Well, I probably said it awkwardly, but the point I was trying to make– and I’ve said it better in the past – is that people sometimes say we shouldn’t have a human life amendment or a marriage amendment because the Constitution is far too sacred to change, and my point is, the Constitution was created as a document that could be changed. That’s the genius of it. The Bible, however, was not created to be amended and altered with each passing culture. If we have a definition of marriage, that we don’t change that definition, that we affirm that definition. And that the sanctity of human life is not just a religious issue. It’s an issue that goes to the very heart of our civilization of all people being equal, endowed by their creator with alienable rights of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That was the point. The Bible was not written to be amended. The Constitution was. Without amendments to the Constitution, women couldn’t vote, African-Americans wouldn’t be considered people. We have had to historically go back and to clarify, because there’ve been injustices made because the Constitution wasn’t as clear as it needed to be, and that’s the point.[…] 

Is it your goal to bring the Constitution into strict conformity with the Bible? Some people would consider that a kind of dangerous undertaking, particularly given the variety of biblical interpretations.

Well, I don’t think that’s a radical view to say we’re going to affirm marriage. I think the radical view is to say that we’re going to change the definition of marriage so that it can mean two men, two women, a man and three women, a man and a child, a man and animal. Again, once we change the definition, the door is open to change it again. I think the radical position is to make a change in what’s been historic.

 Do you think that on issues other than marriage and the life of the unborn that the Constitution should be brought into conformity with the Bible, which is what that quote seemed to suggest?

No, I was specifically talking about those two issues. Those were the only two issues I spoke about in the speech, and that was the point. I’m not suggesting that we say, “Okay, the Bible says you should tithe, so now in the Constitution we’re going to amend it to say everyone tithes.” Those were the two issues that I felt like are talked about in the political realm. I support both the human rights amendment and a marriage amendment, and the reason that I do is because I think we need to codify in our Constitution that which has been acceptable and accepted view of what life and what marriage means. Frankly, if it weren’t being challenged, it wouldn’t be necessary. But it is being challenged. Now you have states that are passing same-sex marriage laws or civil union laws. And you also have states that not only practice abortion, but if Roe v. Wade is overturned, we haven’t won the battle. All we’ve done is now we’ve created the logic of the Civil War, which says that the right to the human life is geographical, not moral. I think that’s very problematic. That’s why I think that people like Fred Thompson are dead wrong when he says just leave that up to the states. Well, that’s again the logic of the Civil War – that slavery could be okay in Georgia but not okay in Massachusetts. Obviously we’d today say, “Well, that’s nonsense. Slavery is wrong, period.” It can’t be right somewhere and wrong somewhere else. Same with abortion.” […]

Source: revue on line beliefnet.com