As I recall, the same was said of at least Reagan (support from Falwell and the "Moral Marjority"), Bush 41 (support from Ralph Reed and the Christian Coalition), and Bush 43 (his own evangelicalism and his faith-based initiative plan). JFK had to defend himself against that accusation as well that the pope would run the White House. In the intervening time America has become more secular as a society. I think whoever is in office can cave to pressure from the congress and/or the people influencing the congress and the president. I don't think a breakdown of the separation between church and state is dependent on the president in office as much as it is the whims of the political pressure. Look at how far we have swung from the "patriotism" following 9/11 to the state of political opinion today. Just a few events can change a lot of things.

Abe Lincoln suspended habeas corpus in a time of war for the sake of national security. There have been other times where questions of constitutional application have been brought to bear in wartime. "Emergencies" sometimes create "exceptional" situations.

...and this is precisely my concern.  Here's a man that spent a portion of his life as a minister -- now, my history isn't all that good, but I don't recall any former presidents with this on his resume'.  If political whims call for an abandonment of separation of church and state, this man, from what I have seen, would be all to happy to welcome it.

Now, Huckabee is not of sole concern on this issue.  A good number of candidates on both side are courting "christianity."

I understand your point. From what I can tell there hasn't been a president who was a minister (Woodrow Wilson's father was a Presbyterian minister and theologian). Huckabee, however, was a Baptist minister who was associated with the Southern Baptist Convention. According to their basic beliefs they believe "church and state should be separate. The state owes to every church protection and full freedom in the pursuit of its spiritual ends. …A free church in a free state is the Christian ideal."

There are other denominations that are explicitly in favor of the union of church and state, but the Southern Baptists have been some of the strongest proponents of religious liberty. It appears that some of that historical stance, however, has been waning according to the Associated Baptist Press.

Jimmy Carter was openly religious, and was said to have been the first evangelical president. He was Southern Baptist, but has since renounced his affiliation with the convention.

For a list of the religious affiliations of presidents, here is a website.

We'll see who the Republicans end up nominating.

It appears that James Garfield (Mar. 4, 1881-Sept. 19, 1881), according to Wikipedia, was the first and only U.S. president to be a minister. According to another website he preached and held revival meetings early in his adult life. Virtualology.com describes him as a "preacher".

Fascinating.  I got more than I expected when I posted my thoughts.  Thanks for the well researched feedback.

You know, the questions of what role a Christian should play in politics has been an increasingly important one to me.  I've never voted before, because I never felt that there was a good choice.  This time, Ron Paul has really caught my eye, and I've gone so far as to actually spend a bit of money to support him.  But the question is, how much time and effort should a Christian put into government when at hand is the much more important work of spreading the gospel.  It seems that there is a balance to be found.  Perhaps I've been on either side of it, and just havn't found it yet.

Anyway, sounds like you've put some time into researching this stuff.  What's your take?

A Christian's involvement in politics is a perrenial hot topic, as you seem to be aware of. I think there is an inherent danger when we mix up the goals that each seeks to accomplish. If we try to acheive "heaven on earth", and try to use the political process to accomplish "good", then I think we have our priorities mixed up. The political process cannot change people's hearts and desires, only the Holy Spirit is able to accomplish that (Ezk. 36:26; Jer. 13:23).

I see the role of the government to punish evil actions (Rom. 13:1-5). The difficulty comes when we try to determine what evil actions are. This is where the government is limited to actions between one person and another. My freedom ends where yours begins. Life, liberty, and property seem to be three areas, in my opinion, in which the government can have a say. As the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights state, these are inalienable rights (though the Declaration says "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", the fifth amendment has this list).

I think it is important for a Christian to be aware of what is going on in the political process, and be aware of the issues at work in the nation in which they live. Especially in the United States, if one decides to vote, thiere is an inherent responsibility to be aware of the issues in play and vote according to what one things will be best for the country. I'm not opposed to having Christians in political office, if they live according to Christian principles like honesty, integrity, patience, meekness. If, however, they try to impose their personal religious beliefs with regard to God through the process of law, then is when there is a problem. There can be honest, patient, and meek atheists, Muslims, and Hindus (Rom. 2:14-15), a Christian, however, has a personal obligation to God first, and apart from the government a call to witness and spread the gospel (Mt. 28:18-20).

I think the separation of church and state is that the church should not try to use the state to accomlish its goals, like spreading the gospel or making people do good actions; nor should the state use the church to accomplish its ends like "rehabilitate" criminals, or spread propaganda and gain support for its activities. I think at times church and state are trying to accomplish similar ends, and I think the loss of freedoms that we see incrementally taking place is a result of the loss of authority of the church. People need authority in their lives to limit their actions, and if people don't act according to their consciences and allow others' freedoms, then the state steps in and imposes itself because people aren't governing themselves. It is the progression towards "Big Brother", where the government tries to control people's attitudes and motivations because people aren't doing it themselves. If the general population willingly submits itself to God through conversion, associates with fellow believers through the church, and acts accordingly, then there can be limited governmental intervention and limited governmental intrusion on people's individual lives.

I think the loss of the separation of church and state is on its way, similar to how it happened in ancient Rome, because the government is going to become exasperated that it cannot solve the problems of people's "misbehavior" and the general populace is going to demand that something be done to solve the problem. It will likely be that there will be a recognition that religion is a way to control people's actions and so there will be an attempt to impose religious beliefs. The problem, once again, is that you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. It is only through the power of the Holy Spirit that people's actions are changed, not by forced attendance at a religious ceremony. This is why I don't think it matters who is in office, the attempted end result will be the same and even Marx, an avowed atheist, referred to religion as the opiate of the masses. He thought religion should be done away with because it lulled people into an acceptance of the status quo, but he still recognizes the power of religion. In ancient Rome, Constantine wasn't wholly committed to being a Christian, but he found it politically expedient to profess to be so.

To answer your question, I think a Christian's first responsibiilty is to God, and to follow Him. Second comes family, which tends to lead to an awareness of what things in society affect one's family. Putting faith in politics to solve spiritual problems and condemning or arguing with those of a different political persuasion I think is where politics can go to far. Everyone is entitled to their political view as they have studied it, but just as I want someone to respect my views, I shouldn't attempt to impose my views on someone else.

Expecting politics to be friendly to one's personal belief system is where I think the United States has created an exception to the history of the world. At most times in history, if someone's belief system differed from the mainstream or generally accepted way of thought they were persecuted and ostracized, this is still true in many parts of the world today. We have been blessed and at the same time kind of spoiled here in the United States.

Great thoughts.  Thanks you.

My brother said to me one time, "Let's just vote for candidate X, and then the wrold will end sooner and Jesus will come!"  He was joking, but it is a bit tempting do this.  We don't do it, because it would be irresponsible.