Huck: We Need To Amend The Constitution, Bring It In Line With God
At a Michigan campaign event last night, Mike Huckabee gave an interesting reason for why he wants to amend the Constitution to ban both abortion and gay marriage: Otherwise, the Constitution would be in conflict with God.
Huckabee first observed that some of his opponents don't want to amend the Constitution on both of these topics. "But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God," Huckabee said. "And that's what we need to do, is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards."
Comments (134)
Andrew wrote on January 15, 2008 1:17 PM:Wow. This guy needs to get nominated. There is no way a guy with this quote on his resume gets elected in 2008.
Michael A wrote on January 15, 2008 1:19 PM:Oh, my God. Did he really say that? Give me a break.
Anonymous wrote on January 15, 2008 1:20 PM:A little unclear on the concept of the Constitution.
Keith wrote on January 15, 2008 1:21 PM:So he's advocating a Theocracy? Wow. Seriously, this isn't from the Onion?
vena wrote on January 15, 2008 1:21 PM:WTF? This scares me quite frankly. Separation of church and state means nothing anymore. BTW, people change the word of the living God all the time to suit their needs, Huckabee is so full of it.
Steaming Pile wrote on January 15, 2008 1:24 PM:I wonder, was Huck listening to God when he let that rapist loose on the streets?
On the Clock wrote on January 15, 2008 1:25 PM:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
So, Huck is running on amending the First Amendment?
Well, I guess we can't criticize the guy for lacking chutzpah.
Anonymous wrote on January 15, 2008 1:25 PM:Okay, how much more reason do we need to stop the infighting, make reasoned arguments for the candidate we support sans vitriol but STAND TOGETHER as a party for whomever the nominee is? I respect each of our opinions as to why your respective candidate is the best person for the job, but would anyone of them say this??????????
jackinthebox4 wrote on January 15, 2008 1:28 PM:also, for amendment.
peanut butter should be stored in the refrigerator, only.
no three on one match, that's worth an amendment.
I'm still agnostic regarding this alleged "Constitution."
Ethan Q wrote on January 15, 2008 1:35 PM:You gotta admit, though, the Republican party really deserves Huckabee!
zbrunch wrote on January 15, 2008 1:36 PM:sounds like Taliban talk to me...next will there be an amendment to force us to pray on sundays?
Go Ron Paul,
Freedom for all!
Just what we need. Another religious evangelical nutjob in the White House who wants to undo our Constitution and dictate and enforce his own religious beliefs on all American citizens of every religion and belief set no matter how much they might disagree and differ with his. Our founding fathers experienced religious persecution first-hand. They knew and understood why religion and a government that represents ALL the people cannot force religious beliefs on a democratic society of mulitiple and differing cultures, teachings, beliefs and traditions. Someone would always be left out. Someone would always be oppressed. Someone would always fight for their right to worship as they choose to. And somone would be persecuted for believing differently than their neighbors. It would be a recipt for another Crusade! This guy is a snake oil saleman trying to get elected, and the religious nutjobs of our society are his dupes and enablers. Their is nothing Christian about exploiting religion for personal ambition. That's precisely what Mr. Huckabee is attempting to do, and he should be condemned for his efforts.
drubs wrote on January 15, 2008 1:40 PM:My only regret is that Henry Louis Mencken is no longer alive. Can you imagine the field day he would have with this? I hope and pray Huck is the nominee.
osage wrote on January 15, 2008 1:40 PM:Just what we need. Another religious evangelical nutjob in the White House who wants to undo our Constitution and dictate and enforce his own religious beliefs on all American citizens of every religion and belief set no matter how much they might disagree and differ with his. Our founding fathers experienced religious persecution first-hand. They knew and understood why religion and a government that represents ALL the people cannot force religious beliefs on a democratic society of mulitiple and differing cultures, teachings, beliefs and traditions. Someone would always be left out. Someone would always be oppressed. Someone would always fight for their right to worship as they choose to. And somone would be persecuted for believing differently than their neighbors. It would be a recipt for another Crusade! This guy is a snake oil saleman trying to get elected, and the religious nutjobs of our society are his dupes and enablers. Their is nothing Christian about exploiting religion for personal ambition. That's precisely what Mr. Huckabee is attempting to do, and he should be condemned for his efforts.
tbhull wrote on January 15, 2008 1:41 PM:Would someone ask Huckabee if an exception to the no abortion amendment would allow abortion of a gay fetus?
tbhull wrote on January 15, 2008 1:42 PM:Prohibition (18th) was he only amendment to take away rights; otherwise, the Constitution grants rights.
Oreo wrote on January 15, 2008 1:43 PM:Next thing you know Huck will be saying that not boiling a goat in it's mothers milk should be added to the Constitution.
it's in Deuteronomy 14 so it should be added to the Constitution too. Hell.. maybe we should just make an amendment that includes the entire Bible?
Oreo wrote on January 15, 2008 1:43 PM:
Biblical incorporation? This would make the damn thing too long.
grover_rover wrote on January 15, 2008 1:45 PM:Haha...nutcase.
Good thing a constitutional amendment is impossible to pass without very broad support! (something that these kinds of people always fail to mention when pandering to the pro-life, anti-gay-happiness crowd)
drubs wrote on January 15, 2008 1:45 PM:If huck had advocated for Kosher food laws he never would have won Iowa. Mmmmmmmmmmmmmm Bacon..................
Orwell's Intuition wrote on January 15, 2008 1:50 PM:The bolder he gets, the more fanatical his speech becomes. If you think The Huckster won't be pushing for a draft to create an Army of God's Warriors to cover the globe and rid this Earth of "infidels," think again!
This is the man who covered up his son's brutal killing of a defenseless stray dog. This is the man who intervened to set free an imprisoned rapist who then went on to rape and kill two defenseless women.
This man is the face of the hard evangelical right. Hideous, isn't it?
broadsword wrote on January 15, 2008 1:51 PM:
I have an idea for the Governor; take your religion...and CRAM IT, churchie.
OK, sounds good to me.
Right after making adultery and divorce illegal (with punishment).
jroyale wrote on January 15, 2008 1:55 PM:Prohibition (18th) was he only amendment to take away rights; otherwise, the Constitution grants rights.
Personally, the way I see it is the Constitution recognizes and protects some of our rights.
I just got of the phone with Jesus and He says "Tell huck to Stop trying to make Me look crazy" Will some one pass the message along if they see huck? Thanks. When I asked JC why He doesn't send the message Himself He said " Oh I stopped talking to the right years ago, they just ignored me".
blah wrote on January 15, 2008 1:57 PM:tbhull wrote: "Prohibition (18th) was he only amendment to take away rights; otherwise, the Constitution grants rights."
I agree with your sentiment as it regards this particular issue. However, it should be noted that the Constitution does not GRANT rights. People HAVE rights. The Constitution merely lists some of them.
Even the Constitution itself says so, in the Ninth Amendment:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
The Constitution is not a document that the government uses to give rights to people. It's exactly the opposite: a document that the people use to grant the government powers.
I'm sorry if it seems like I'm nitpicking, but this genuinely seems like an important distinction to me. And in fact, it was important enough to the Founding Fathers that many of them completely refused to include a Bill of Rights AT ALL unless it contained something like the Ninth Amendment.
Ferruge wrote on January 15, 2008 2:03 PM:Rest assured, it is not a nitpick to point out the essential distinction between "granting" rights and "guaranteeing" them. The document itself is not the source of our freedoms - those are our birthright. The document is there to ensure that the government does not impinge upon them, and in fact will serve to protect them.
That's no nitpick. That's a fundamental philosophical difference, something that the current batch of Repulicans in power these days have regrettably forgotten, or are actively ignoring.
Charles wrote on January 15, 2008 2:05 PM:Ah, so we are NOT a Christian nation. Glad that has been clarified.
jeffgee wrote on January 15, 2008 2:07 PM:God, save us from your cheerleaders.
Anonymous wrote on January 15, 2008 2:08 PM:blah wrote on January 15, 2008 1:57 PM:
Ferruge wrote on January 15, 2008 2:03 PM:
Agreed.
Anonymous wrote on January 15, 2008 2:09 PM:Michael A wrote on January 15, 2008 1:19 PM:
Oh, my God. Did he really say that? Give me a break.
Your God, and Huckabee's God, probably disagree.
Someone needs to ask him (in front of cameras and microphones) what the difference would be between his version of a 'Christian nation' and any country which uses Islamic law.
I'm having a little trouble telling the difference.
norbert wrote on January 15, 2008 2:13 PM:Go, Go, Huckabee. Makes you wish he'd get the nomination and then get this shit out in the open, instead of Bush types whose real agenda is enrichment of oil companies etc. (and give a wink to the fundamentalists to get elected). Then we could have rational human adults argue in favour of the Constitution and its Enlightenment principles and snap a lot of the country out of its complacency in permitting these freaks to get as far as they have. A huge swath of even evil McCain/Giuliani/Romney supporters would, if push came to shove, abandon the Republican ship.
drubs wrote on January 15, 2008 2:14 PM:I am having a change of heart; usury laws may not be a bad thing.
rights n powers wrote on January 15, 2008 2:16 PM:blah is wrong and wrong ...
Governments have NO rights and should NEVER have rights. Rights are protections against the collective use of power by government or the individual use of power by people not effectively constrained by government. Rights are held by individuals.
Although the constitution refers to natural rights, this notion is an outdated magical notion that could easily be used to justify racism or the superiority of any single group over another or many others. There are no natural rights. Rights are positive, that is produced by collective agreement. The constitution is our collective agreement that produces our individual rights which are protection against the POWERS of government. Government has powers, which are, from the point of view of those who exercise them, far better than rights. Government has no rights.
On the other hand, the 9th amendment says, in effect, that our failure to enumerate rights that we tend to rely on in cultural practice doesn't eliminate them. They still exist. It is government's POWERS are limited to those we enumerated. Of course, the Supreme Court has a spotty history of honoring the 9th amendment. We tend to approve of this honor-in-the-breech when we like the outcome.
Would be nice to keep all this in mind when dealing with this rights talk.
freaktown wrote on January 15, 2008 2:18 PM:if you want to change the constitution to ban those things, you could make an argument to do that without envoking "God". but you can't cite "God's standards" as a reason, and you certainly cant cite it as your ONLY reason.
This was either the most obvious pander ever, or he really believes it. Either possibility should have voters worried.
And i really don't see how voters, even religious one, can take a man seriously who obviously doesn't respect the fact that HIS god isn't the ONLY god in america...
Anonymous wrote on January 15, 2008 2:19 PM:Please PLEASE let this guy be the GOP nominee.
I think this is one thing all Dems can agree on.
blah wrote on January 15, 2008 2:21 PM:"blah is wrong and wrong ...
Governments have NO rights and should NEVER have rights."
What are you talking about?
When you tell me where I said that governments have rights, we'll continue this conversation.
In the meantime, I suggest that you read what I wrote.
Greg Greene wrote on January 15, 2008 2:22 PM:So: Richard Cohen gets insiders talking about Obama's religious views via at least two degrees of separation. Meanwhile, Huckabee lays this heretical -- in the lower-case 'r' republican sense -- turd on the table, attributable directly to his religious views.
Double standards, much?
Anonymous wrote on January 15, 2008 2:22 PM:Both of you stop, its boring neither will take yes for an answer
blah wrote on January 15, 2008 2:24 PM:Anonymous, are you referring to me and "rights n powers"?
I'm not arguing with him. He seems to be under the impression that I said exactly the opposite of what I said.
Anonymous wrote on January 15, 2008 2:28 PM:You are both very smart and care a lot now let it go.
cb wrote on January 15, 2008 2:28 PM:No, he's right. We must amend the Constitution immediately to conform with these Biblical prescriptions:
"If a man lies with a woman during her sickness and uncovers her nakedness, he has discovered her flow, and she has uncovered the flow of her blood. Both of them shall be cut off from her people." (Leviticus 20:18) -- to be the 28th Amendment
"...do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear material woven of two kinds of material." (Leviticus 19:19) -- to be the 29th Amendment
"Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard." (Leviticus 19:27) -- to be the 30th Amendment
"But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an abomination to you." (Leviticus 11:10)
"They (shellfish) shall be an abomination to you; you shall not eat their flesh, but you shall regard their carcasses as an abomination." (Leviticus 11:11)
"Whatever in the water does not have fins or scales; that shall be an abomination to you." (Leviticus 11:12) -- to be the 31st Amendment, whether the Red Lobster likes it or not. He who eats seafood buffet shall be put to death, for it is an abomination!
Finally, we have some leaders who are talking sense.
Let what go?
I'm sorry that you're bored, but except for my one post explaining to him that he's laboring under a false impression of what I said, everything I've posted regarding this has been because YOU have been posting about it, commanding me what to do.
YOU let go of it.
drubs wrote on January 15, 2008 2:32 PM:I once ate the langoste rouge out of curiosity. Judging from the patrons I saw there you may be on to something.
bfranky wrote on January 15, 2008 2:33 PM:The world Huckabee wants is depicted in "The Department of Homeland Decency: Decency Rules and Regulations Manual," a political satire that shows you how to be a good, decent, obedient Homelander. How to make sure you completely destroyed your Dixie Chicks' CDs. How to do "it" decently without perversions. How to tell if your neighbor needs to be reported (one way: They ride a bike to a unitarian church). Check it out. It's available everywhere.
Anonymous wrote on January 15, 2008 2:34 PM:Wow Blah wow. I consider it let go of. I hear they need you to wheel an overhead projector into homeroom.
Ekim wrote on January 15, 2008 2:34 PM:Nehemiah Scudder!
blah wrote on January 15, 2008 2:36 PM:You're posting something to say that you let go of it?
And in that post, you insult the other party?
You seriously need to reconsider your understanding of "let go of it".
fred wrote on January 15, 2008 2:36 PM:The Constitution is just a theory.
drubs wrote on January 15, 2008 2:37 PM:I raise you one Berzelius Windrip.
Anonymous wrote on January 15, 2008 2:38 PM:you win friend
Anonymous wrote on January 15, 2008 2:38 PM:And still you post.
Anonymous wrote on January 15, 2008 2:39 PM:I know what is wrong with me?
Melinda wrote on January 15, 2008 2:39 PM:Oh please oh please oh please let him be the republican candidate! If Bush left any doubt what a bunch of nutjobs they are, this guy should convince those on the fence.
KFB wrote on January 15, 2008 2:40 PM:Huck may be a nutcase but he gets plenty of coverage in the media even while running way behind.
Edwards could ride a Harley through town while bucknaked and nobody would write about it.
drubs wrote on January 15, 2008 2:42 PM:You make a good point, it seems that huck is (was?) the press darling on the right.
J.Quiroz wrote on January 15, 2008 2:44 PM:So I guess we'll be having no more war.
cervantes wrote on January 15, 2008 2:44 PM:You know what? The Bible actually doesn't say one word about abortion -- not one single word, anywhere, New Testament or Old. It does, however, say that we have to stone people to death who gather sticks on the Sabbath. I definitely think that should be in the constitution.
norbert wrote on January 15, 2008 2:55 PM:re: KFB above. Yeah, I was actually thinking Edwards should schedule a press conference and 'leak' that there will be something salacious, like he will admit to affair rumours, and then turn around and use it to lambaste the press when they show up for not covering him or his platform. And really let fly. Maybe even some profanity to make sure it gets on the news. Over at C&L they posted a poll recently saying 96% wish the press would do its job and reports ISSUES. People are angry. I feel physically ill how there has more chatter about who said what about LBJ/MLK than, say Iraq/economic policy because the press wants to promote Hilary vs. Obama popularity contest.
Suzn wrote on January 15, 2008 2:59 PM:Would someone ask Mr. Huckabee how America decides which "God's standards" we encode in our Constitution. He of course sees only the Southern Baptist selective literal biblical law (throw out the ones like about slavery is good and kill your child for disobedience; keep the ones that control people you don't like). But hey, we could borrow some Taliban stuff and use the Koran to get in line with "God's" standards. It works so well in Afghanistan. Or maybe Jewish law... it's the basis of both the Moslem & Christian & God doesn't have any new "chosen people". Hmmm but what about all those Eastern religions, their God has "standards" too. And Native American religion, actually shouldn't they be considered paramount since they originate in America? Could be the Founding Fathers knew what they were doing with that separation of church and state stuff. (Oh and please God, let Huck get nominated! Pride [hubris]goeth before a fall)
RobbyLove wrote on January 15, 2008 3:06 PM:Game...Set...Match.
Bye bye Huckleberry.
Richard Boothe wrote on January 15, 2008 3:13 PM:Apparently Mr. Huckabee has forgotten the foundation of his own religion. This statement and mentality is one that practices forced indoctrination rather than what the essence of religion is. In all religions (Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Mormonism, Buddhism, Judaism,etc...), those faithful are trusted to make the right choices in accordance with the wishes of the given deity. Those of the Christian Religion have the Bible for example, which is there guide. In NO way is Mr. Huckabee statement in alignment with those of the founding fathers, the constitution, OR THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. All Democrats, I apologize for the ignorance that seems to be running rampant in my party and it's candidates (with the exception of one dark horse contender). I'm only 24 years of age, and I'm disgusted with the lost philosophy of a once great vision for this party.
Brianm0122 wrote on January 15, 2008 3:20 PM:Here it comes the Baptist Sharia!
Pretty please with sugar on top let him be the GOP nominee!!!
The guy is bat-shit crazy, but he will still pick up Mississippi and Alabama.
Having to put up with the bible on days that don't start with Su...That'd be bad for bidness!!!! Even Texans aren't gonna put up with that crap!
Steve wrote on January 15, 2008 3:30 PM:Yup. a loon.
No shortage of flat Earthers.
Pax, Steve
Greetings to all! Bulletin! This just in. God's Law is the highest law of all, above all man-made law. That being said, Mr. Huckabee is a wolf-in-sheep's clothing. Here's a press release we recently issued re: Mr. H:
Mike Huckabee, From Biblical/Constitutional Perspective, Is Still Clueless, A Double-Minded Man
Recovering Republican John Lofton, Editor of TheAmericanView.com and co-host of “The American View” radio show with the Constitution Party’s 2004 Presidential candidate Michael Anthony Peroutka, has issued the following statement:
Mike Huckabee has said that he is a “Christian Leader.” But, as a Presidential candidate, he is not leading as a Christian. He has given no explicitly Biblical answers to any question. In fact, on numerous issues, he has run away from his professed Biblical faith sounding, operationally, de facto, like an atheist, like just another politician.
If you will listen to The American View radio show
137 http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=967,
you will hear Mr. Huckabee: Refusing to defend the Christian faith and running away from his having once said that America must be taken back for Christ; saying he would have no problem appointing atheists to positions in his administration (what would an oath mean to such an unbeliever?).
In addition, he refuses to support and say what God says about homosexuality; he opposes criminal penalties for women who murder their children by abortion; and, of course, there’s that unbelievably stupid and dishonest press conference where he said he had done an anti-Romney but decided not to show it – and then he showed it to the press corps so they could see what he wasn’t going to show! Then, after supposedly spiking his anti-Romney ad, he appeared on network TV making some of the same charges that were in the ad he, alledgedly, killed!
Arghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
Christians, above all others, should speak honestly and plainly letting their yeas be yea, their nays be nay (Matthew 5:37, James 5:12) lest the cause of Christ be disgraced and ridiculed. But, alas, Mr. Huckabee is not such a plain, honest speaker.
In many ways, without exaggerating, it could be said that he is a political cuttlefish who, when confronted with direct quotes re: things he actually said, squirts cloud-after-cloud of obfuscating verbal ink all over his questioner the result being that many times one forgets the question he was being asked – that being, of course, his intention. Cuttlefish, incidentally, have been called the chameleons of the sea because of their remarkable ability to rapidly alter their skin color at will.
If you’d like to interview John Lofton, you may reach him by calling: 301-873-4612; 410-760-8885; or by email: JLof@aol.com.
All you Cathlicks and Jews are toast !!
..
Oh, sorry, I was (once) a Cathlick.
Better go fix that, quick.
Josh thinks that Mitt would be the best pinata as the Republican nominee, but I disagree: any electorate that re-elected(?) Bush for a second term would overlook the "finer" points of his inconsistencies and go for the pretty boy. Give me Huck instead. There's a candidate waiting to get whacked with a big stick.
TheraP wrote on January 15, 2008 3:35 PM:Well for starters, since the bible is not in agreement with itself, why don't we start there?
For example there are two stories of creation... not in agreement.
There are many laws, dietary laws, purity laws, that we're not going to enshrine in the Constitution. Then what about biblical punishments? I suppose if we go for stoning then torture is ok too? Even though Jesus said, let he who is without sin cast the first stone. So, now that suggests torture would not be ok.
I honestly think the Constitution is more logically coherent and in agreement with itself than is the bible.
And the next thing you know, science will have to agree with the bible and so on. Then medicine. OH boy!
If it is so voted the Flying Spaghetti Monster would graciously accept being enshrined in the Constitution.
gene wrote on January 15, 2008 3:40 PM:This may be an aside, but is he talking about government being banned from recognizing a gay marriage or churches being banned from performing gay marriages - or both? If he is proposing either of the last two, doesn't he also have to remove the prohibition in the first amendment on laws limiting the exercise of religion?
Gregor wrote on January 15, 2008 3:49 PM:Ding Ding Ding. Thankyou Mike Huckabee for admitting that you (and people who believe as you do )truly, fundamentally do not comprehend the core principle of the American experiment.
Again, thanks for broadcasting it!
nogo war wrote on January 15, 2008 3:58 PM:I Love the smell of irony in the morning!
This is the clarion call for Republican evangelicals. (There are Democratic evangelicals that are too often overlooked and are beyond this crap)
This is the Call for those that have the booklet saying the Grand Canyon is 6,000 years old. This is the Call for Creationists. This is the Call for the Southern Baptist Convention. This is the Call for the belly of the beast in Colorado Springs, Co.
This is the Call to those whom home school to give their children a Christain education. This is...a little karmanic manna....
Here a Call I can dance to
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=272T8hZUqcs
Did he bring the Arkansas constitution into biblical agreement or not?
Because if this guy has failed to produce before, he will fail to produce again.
And if so.... the fundies should know they would be electing a guy who failed god already.
corinne wrote on January 15, 2008 4:00 PM:What Huckabee meant was "Baptist standards" since, y'know, he doesn't regard Catholics as Christians.
sheerahkahn wrote on January 15, 2008 4:09 PM:"But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God," Huckabee said. "And that's what we need to do, is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards."
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what I call pandering to the Dominionist movement in the AEI, and the evangelical churches.
joe wrote on January 15, 2008 4:12 PM:for all the protectionist worry about marriage, why target gay people who want to participate in the institution?
a constitutional ban on divorce is much more consistent with a desire to protect marriage than a constitutional ban on marriage, gay or not....
bizarre stuff going on here. an american taliban....
nogo war wrote on January 15, 2008 4:17 PM:Someone who understood the role of religion
in our nation..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b80Bsw0UG-U
O Lord, please, gimme the preacher, nominate the preacher. Let the "moderate" Southern Baptist Party candidate run, let the GOP reap what it hath sewn. Lord, we might break sixty points in the general if Your candidate takes the dive for the Republicans; either the preacher, or the vacuum cleaner salesman guy, with the preacher-hair. Either one. They both clearly want to rewrite Madison's work with a Bible (or something) in the other hand; this cracks people up in the ROA (Rest Of America).
What hath God wrought?
Lois
[Ex-SBC]
For more background on Mike Huckabee the dangerous extremist and radical reactionary, see:
- "Top 10 Moments in Mike Huckabee's Extremism."
- "10 More Moments in Mike Huckabee's Extremism."
wow. would Huckabee be serving the country or God? This guy cannot become president. www.WhytheDemocratsWillWinIn2008.com
johnnydoughey wrote on January 15, 2008 4:32 PM:Of course, we will also need to amend the Constitution so other of God's standards are meant, such as arrogance, lying, judging, smoking, drinking, fornication, not praying endlessly, coveting, worshipping other idols, including money.... etc.
Apparently, we have another leader who believes in playing God...
missmarple wrote on January 15, 2008 4:40 PM:Huckabees topic and his religious point of view clearly dovetails that of the pastor of First Baptist North Spartanburg, Donald Wilton, who has written a book on the afterlife and getting into to heaven.
Wilton also believes that Jesus subsumes the Constitution of the United States. Here's what he said at the Sourthen Baptist Convention just a year and a half ago:
Wilton delivered the annual convention sermon soon after Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice spoke to the assembly. He told the Southern Baptist gathering he greatly admired Rice, but he also reminded them they owed ultimate allegiance to God alone.
"I'm going to submit to you that as believers in Christ Jesus, we are not even of America," Wilton said. "We march according to a different drumbeat. Ours is not the Constitution of America; ours is the constitution of the Almighty God."
Does Mike Huckabee believe the same things as Donald Wilton?
Looks like he's halfway there!
Jeff wrote on January 15, 2008 4:42 PM:Alright, we all know this guy is a zealot, but he’s not stupid, he has to know that by going on the air and expressing these beliefs he is alienating large segments of the population and probably killing any real shot he has of becoming president. By looking at the polls he has to realize that just the Evangelical vote won’t get him to the White House. So let’s give him some credit- he’s standing by his beliefs, isn’t that what we politicians to do?
I'm confused, I thought Republicans did not care about the Constitution. After all, it's just a g*dd*mn piece of paper. Bush has been shredding it for years. Why bother amending it??
Thomas wrote on January 15, 2008 5:07 PM:Anyone who tries to make the case that abortion is acceptable -- google image "aborted fetus" and see how that makes you feel. Anyone who supports abortion should be disqualified to lead this country, a country founded in Christianity. The constitution was supposed to protect the church from the state, not protect the state from the church. The separation of church and state is not a constitutional principle, but something that was pulled out of someone's rear end because Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to a Baptist church.
Thomas wrote on January 15, 2008 5:12 PM:Check this out baby killers.
Thomas wrote on January 15, 2008 5:14 PM:http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=aborted+fetus&gbv=2
sunsin wrote on January 15, 2008 5:19 PM:Prohibition (18th) was he only amendment to take away rights; otherwise, the Constitution grants rights.
Actually, it doesn't. It merely makes explicit the assumed "natural" rights that all have by birth. The Ninth Amendment is perfectly clear on the matter, no matter what asshats like Bork say. The people, who are continually maturing politically, are not yet fully aware of all their rights. That doesn't mean they don't have them and won't set them in stone when they reach a certain stage.
sunsin wrote on January 15, 2008 5:20 PM:You can find all sorts of images of Iraqis dead at US hands, too. Does that make the Iraq war wrong?
{crickets chirping}
(For the record, I think the Iraq war's wrong, but not because of the graphics that it generates.)
Thomas wrote on January 15, 2008 5:32 PM:Sunsin: Great analogy comparing soldiers who are in the kill or be killed business to babies who have done what wrong? That line of logic is an ad hominem, the practice of taking something totally unrelated and trying to make a horrible point.
(Is that crickets I hear)
Do you have any kids? (dumb question, you paid someone to chop them up or suck out their brains prior to birth) I have 4 and the thought of a barbaric practice of abortion makes me sick. You are an idiot and I can't believe your vote counts the same as mine.
gary porch wrote on January 15, 2008 5:40 PM:Would Huck be in favor of an amendment banning divorce?
Can he clarify whether his abortion amendment includes any contraceptives now approved by the FDA?
Should an amendment also be added for death by stoning?
The list is endless.
shut up thomas wrote on January 15, 2008 5:43 PM:Thomas, women are just icky in general, and you should begone from us. Sit and ponder the grossness that is woman.
@KFB: Edwards could ride a Harley through town while bucknaked and nobody would write about it.
This I would pay to see.
Onslow Memling wrote on January 15, 2008 5:48 PM:What would Thomas Paine say?
http://thememlingindex.com/thomas_paine_anti_christianity_quotes.html
Andy O wrote on January 15, 2008 6:06 PM:How about if we sponsor our own constitutional amendments requiring a) turn the other cheek as national policy, b) throwing the money changers out of churches and televised "temples," c) no rich men allowed in heaven, unless they can first pass a camel through an eye of a needle.
Tony wrote on January 15, 2008 6:08 PM:"But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God."
I have to disagree with this statement. Given the diversity of religions around the world, it seems to be easier to change the word of the living God. But then, I'm not a theologian or anything.
JamesOtis wrote on January 15, 2008 6:10 PM:Thomas, you are thinking about the Roger Williams heresy (separate church from state to protect the church) That went out with predestination (oh, sorry, you may still believe). Jefferson, and his sidekick Madison (yes, the Bill of Rights guy), were worried about the church slogging-up the government.
By the way, does anyone have film of the candidate's statement?
tperran wrote on January 15, 2008 6:11 PM:Hey Thomas, I don't know any candidates who "support" abortion though, if you go on their track records, your buddy George W. supports it much more than Bill Clinton ever did since abortions actually decreased during the Clinton years and they have increased since "Duh-bya" was installed. Regarding yur ignorant statement that the United States was founded in Christianity, consider this quotation from James Madison, who was considered the author of the Constitution: "[I]t is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties....Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects?".
Thomas wrote on January 15, 2008 6:14 PM:Do any of you fools know what it takes to change the constitution anyway? It isn't like a president can just mark through it with a sharpee. Even if the Huckster was for a change, the reason there has been so few of them is proof that it aint that easy.
For all of you in favor of abortion, print off some of the pictures linked above and put them in your wallet. I feel sorry for those of you who have justified that behavior. Your lives must really suck.
JamesOtis wrote on January 15, 2008 6:16 PM:Now Thomas, you have missed the point. You can believe whatever you want. You live in America. Rejoice.
tfatha wrote on January 15, 2008 6:35 PM:Shellfish! Anyone that has read the Old Testament knows that eating shellfish is unclean. Dammit, WHY don't we as a GOD FEARING nation address the shellfish problem in Our Constitution?!?
tperran wrote on January 15, 2008 6:37 PM:Yes Thomas, YOU can believe anything YOU want and you have the right to shout it from the rooftops, but don't think for one minute that you have the right to codify YOUR superstitions into OUR Constitution. America was founded by people who were fleeing religious persecution. That's why the Founding Fathers saw to it that they erected a WALL between church and state. That wall needs to be respected for the sake of all Americans regardless of their faith.
nogo war wrote on January 15, 2008 6:38 PM:Thomas...
so you, as a man want to FORCE a woman to carry a pregnancy full term?
As you have no problem dealing with a womans reproductive system..
How about this..
Will you outlaw menstruation? You do know what happens during that process right?
"If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament."
TEL wrote on January 15, 2008 6:43 PM:nogo:
I don't usually click links where the content of the link isn't specified, but I did click on yours. Very appropriate!
For anyone who is interested, it's an excerpt from a 1967 MLK sermon about the Vietnam war, why he disagreed with the war, and why he had decided to speak out publicly about it.
Powkat wrote on January 15, 2008 6:45 PM:Jeff - no, he just hasn't realized that he is not a 2 percenter anymore and he didn't know that he'd be taped. He's been spouting this crap in churches since he announced. This is just the first time he got caught doing it.
Cyril wrote on January 15, 2008 6:46 PM:....Oh bloody hell...what are things coming to?
The Grand Panjandrum wrote on January 15, 2008 6:54 PM:"But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God," Huckabee said. "And that's what we need to do, is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards."
I am particularly fond of this lovely bit of common sense dieting advice:
Leviticus 11:20-22--All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you. There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper.
(Ssshhhh! Don't tell anyone that no insect has four legs.)
Of course this sound recommendation to just stay tuned is very moving and smart salesmanship:
Matthew 16:27-28--For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done. I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.
Who knew? There's a mysterious group of 2000+ year old Christians sitting around waiting for a Jewish carpenter to crawl out of a crypt and save them from the evils of sin.
I left out all the jolly good times one can be justified in having by killing adulteress women, homosexuals and other nefarious and sinful characters. But that could be saved for another time when we all need our spirits lifted.
Dayamn! Where do I sign up? Sorry Flying Spaghetti Monster, but you just aren't nearly as much fun as this Yahweh fella seems to be.
NH Dem wrote on January 15, 2008 6:57 PM:I've always defended Huckabee as being a lot saner, safer, smarter and better than he's caricatured as being, but.... wow.
I'd still take him over Giuliani, though. No doubt about that.
Anonymous wrote on January 15, 2008 7:20 PM:Oh, change the Constitution to God's law? Whose god would that be? And whose interpretation of that god? Literal? Metaphorical? Symbolic? Poetic? Literary?
If literal, then we'd have to amend the Constitution to punish people who work on Saturdays with death. We'd have to amend the Constitution to punish children with death when they talk back to their parents. Or, if a woman commits adultery, the state would have to kill her. Or, if people wore the wrong fabric, or ate the wrong things: Death by the state. Or, when a person had the temerity to look back at a genocide that god had just inflicted on four cities on the plain, the state would kill that person. Worship a different god? Death. Dance around a golden calf? Death. Don't accept Jesus as your savior? Death. And, not just any old death. Eternal torment and torture in hell.
Yep. Just what America needs. Change the Constitution to reflect the bizarre idea that ancient Levantine myths are actually factual, that a collection of fables, fairy tales and tribal legends should be read as reality and history, and that we should, as a nation, treat those myths and legends as a guide for making laws 3000 years later.
Oh, and the fact that following "God's law" would result in literally millions of Americans being killed by the state.
Huckabee is a very, very dangerous candidate.
SteveC wrote on January 15, 2008 7:59 PM:I used to think Christians weren't all morons, but the Christians won that argument and finally convinced me that they are all morons.
Christians are exasperating, they're like giant children, not smart enough to even be taught.
Mister, Mister, Mister Ken wrote on January 15, 2008 8:04 PM:... and our main man Milt notes that Huck's too liberal for the Republican nomination.
thac0 wrote on January 15, 2008 8:44 PM:I blame his running mate... Stephen Colbert.
TBR wrote on January 15, 2008 9:38 PM:Huck needs to READ the Constitution before he tries to amend it. If he had read it he would know that his statement is completely UNCONSTITUTIONAL - - EVER HEARD OF FREEDOM OF RELIGION HUCK?
YY wrote on January 15, 2008 9:46 PM:The greatest thing we can learn from God is his almighty views on the intricacies of constitutional law.
Thomas wrote on January 15, 2008 11:17 PM:This is actually kind of fun. I don't live around people as stupid as this to engage in such an unfriendly debate. We typically share our views and listen to each point and then comment based on what we decide based on the evidence. I provide a link to photographs of abortions and yet no one comments about that. Are you all too chicken to actually view them for what they are worth? Forget the debate about the majority of the 50 million abortions performed in the last 35 years. The democrat candidates all agree that a ban on late term abortions should be overturned. Don't you realize that these little babies could easily be in any of our homes in as little as 12 weeks? This isn't about controlling "womens reproduction" as some may suggest. The reproduction part has happened and now an entire person is being mutilated because after 6 months some stupid person gets cold feet. Check out the photos before you comment so I can be sure that the fools I am debating are totally OK with the notion of innocent dead babies. This isn't a political viewpoint or stance, this is real flesh and blood. And the same idiots that get so upset about saving baby seals and "scruffy's law" are the same bozos who think it is OK to kill a baby! What is the difference between what I linked to and killing a baby that is asleep in the hospital minutes after delivery?
I don't have a problem with some of the social care that Dems tout. I think the government spends too much money on programs for everyone. No one is responsible for me but me. If I end up sleeping in a gutter it is my own fault. Sure there are exceptions and we should take care of those, but the lazy-- no way.
Also, if you are on government assistance, you shouldn't be allowed to vote. Talk about buying votes. The "rich" pay, by far, more taxes than the majority of the country. History has proven time and time again that cutting taxes spurs the economy forward. Only and idiot votes for someone who "promises to raise taxes".
Bj wrote on January 15, 2008 11:31 PM:Huckabee, use that head on your shoulders to think, man.
mike wrote on January 16, 2008 12:51 AM:A constitutional amendment to define marriage would resemble one religion's view of marriage more than another's. For example, as happened in the Mormon cases, polygamy was defined out, monogamy was defined into state definitions of marriage and the USSCT backed up the states' action in these cases.
The only way to avoid this would be not to allow the states to regulate marriage so that they would not have to define it and run afoul of establishment of one religion's view of marriage over another's.
So a Constitutional amendment could actually bar state regulation of marriage while allowing regulation of other non-marriage specific behaviors normally used to rationalize marriage regulation. This way, neither gay political forces or religious groups with moral codes excluding gay marriage could force the other's constituencies into financing the other's cause.
As for a Constitutional Amendment banning abortion, I don't think it would be a ban, but it would be a granting of a right to life to unborn human life with the sense that degrees of development, dependence and use are illegitimate criteria for deciding who lives or dies.
elliottness wrote on January 16, 2008 1:08 AM:Thomas
You amaze me. I assume you must be joking, but that is the optimist in me.
"I don't live around people as stupid as this to engage in such an unfriendly debate."
Evidently you do not live around anyone... as you do not realize that you are not even being debated with.
Wow man.
Good luck with all that. Try Little Green Footballs... they might like your style.
Elliott
Thomas wrote on January 16, 2008 1:35 AM:tperran wrote on January 15, 2008 6:11 PM:
Hey Thomas, I don't know any candidates who "support" abortion though, if you go on their track records, your buddy George W. supports it much more than Bill Clinton...
Seriously? Clinton vetoed the partial birth abortion bill banning that practice. Bush signed the bill. I have some property I would like to sell you tperran!
Elliot: I appreciate the fact that your reponse to me, ie debate, is so devoid of any ideas. You prove the point very well that in the world of ideas and substance, Dems lose every time. If you are ever in LA, look me up and we can discuss over a beer. I am more than happy to put my point of view on the line. You didn't even have anything to say except you didn't like what I said... Amaze people is what I do.
Cuchulain wrote on January 16, 2008 2:02 AM:Thomas,
I'm guessing you're for the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Is that the case? If you are, please explain how your head doesn't explode under the pressure of such a massive contradiction. Against abortion, but for a totally unnecessary war that has killed hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings, including babies, pregnant women, children, etc. etc.
Also, I'm guessing you're against contraception, planned parenthood, easy access to condoms and sex ed. I'm guessing you think all of that is wrong. If so, I'm surprised your head doesn't explode under the pressure of massive contradictions and irrationality. Cuz, contraception, by definition, prevents pregnancy, which obviously negates the need for abortions.
Righties seem far more interested in controlling sexuality than actually preventing unwanted pregnancies. They seem far more interested in controlling who can have sex, when and where, rather than preventing the need for abortions in the first place. If they really really wanted to reduce abortions in America, they'd be out on every street corner handing out condoms by the boatload, pushing for better sex ed in school, and doing everything possible to make sure kids have safe sex that prevents unwanted pregnancies.
Show me someone who wants to teach abstinence instead of promoting safe sex and easy access to contraception and I'll show you a phony "pro-lifer". What you've got instead is a puritanical control freak.
homas wrote on January 16, 2008 2:54 AM:The Republican Taliban Candidate
dragonlover wrote on January 16, 2008 6:48 AM:Ok, sure. One questions. Which god?
Thomas wrote on January 16, 2008 8:05 AM:Cuchulain, not against contraception. Just against abortion as a means of contraception. Do you have any kids?
Do you realize you won the ultimate game of Russian Roulette when your parents actually allowed you to develop? You had a 25-35% chance of not making the cut depending on how old you are.
I encourage all democrats especially to practice contraception religiously.
Official A wrote on January 16, 2008 9:10 AM:"Okay, how much more reason do we need to stop the infighting, make reasoned arguments for the candidate we support sans vitriol but STAND TOGETHER as a party for whomever the nominee is?"
Okay, but...
The operative question is, apart from Dennis Kucinich and the departed Chris Dodd, which of the Democratic candidates has said unequivocally that he/she will place a high priority of preserving and defending (or, more to the point, restoring) the Constitution? It's not even on their radar screen as far as I can tell. I think it's the most important issue there is or ever could be, but nobody's talking about it.
The candidate who is willing to seriously curb presidential power run amok is the one who deserves to be elected.
kohoutek wrote on January 16, 2008 9:46 AM:Thomas: You're unintentionally presenting a great case for abortion.
kohoutek wrote on January 16, 2008 9:48 AM:Oh, and I do have children. I'm just grateful you're not one of them.
kohoutek wrote on January 16, 2008 9:58 AM:What really is evidenced by strident Christians looking to legislate their "faith" is their distinct lack of it.
They're frightened when they see people living free, using the minds "god gave them," without being struck down by lightning bolts.
And they're so afraid there's no actual final accounting, so unwilling to leave judgment in the hands of god that they want to just go ahead and rule and judge for him/her/it in the here and now.
As far as abortion goes: No one is actually "pro-abortion."
What people are pro about is the legal precedent of a woman, or any human being, being in ultimate control of her own physical self, rather than the government. Abortion is between and woman and god, not between a woman and the government. This is actually a rather conservative position: self-determination.
Rev. Debra Haffner wrote on January 16, 2008 4:16 PM:Huckabee: "I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that's what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines with some contemporary view of how we treat each other and how we treat the family."
There are so many things wrong with this statement that I hardly know where to start. In case it somehow missed you, he's talking about constitutional amendments banning abortion and defining marriage. But, what I want to know is how Mr. Huckabee thinks he speaks for all Americans in his understandings of God's standards. Maybe Mr. Huckabee doesn't know that the Bible doesn't explicitly address abortion at all, and that religions (and people of faith) differ on the question of when human life begins. Maybe Mr. Huckabee doesn't know that the Bible doesn't speak to adult same sex committed consensual relationships as we understand them today.
USpace wrote on January 17, 2008 1:08 AM:Huckabee wants to have adulterers, homosexuals and rape victims stoned to death. He also wants to make alcohol and music videos illegal, and make women 2nd class citizens and to take all girls out of school.
Oops, my bad, that's another 'religion'.
Hey, anybody but the PIAPS!
if you’re MAD
punish your country
VOTE for Hillary
http://absurdthoughtsaboutgod.blogspot.com/
.
This "debate" is pretty meanigless in the context of the article don't you think? Seperation of Church and State is indeed reflected directly in the constitution: The first amendment to the US Constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" This is very explicit that the government is not able to legislate for or against any religion. So to make and amendment to add the Christian God's ideals is a moot point. Can't happen (legally) and Huckster is just a bafoon. I mean we all know that anyway.
USC Trojans wrote on January 19, 2008 6:52 PM:Huckabee has told South Carolina voters that he supports the confederate flag and supports South Carolina flying the confederate flag. Does that mean that he supports slavery, racism, and the southern United States suceeding from the northern United States. How does he get away with saying these things. He has so many radical beliefs. He has supports a quarantine of people with AIDS (reguardless of how they contracted it or if they are little kids), criticizes people for their religious beliefs, claims to be the new Christian leader, wants to ammend the constitution to what he thinks God's will is, and now supports the confederate flag. I don't know how he is still one of the main contenders for the republican presidential primary. I just hope people see him for who he really is. A minister running for President with radical beliefs.
Christina Robinson wrote on January 22, 2008 1:08 AM:Oh Great Spirit and Heavenly Father,
Forgive us for using the freedom you have given us to bash others and to foster hatred and indifference and perpetuate the status quo, or even worse, advocate regression. Please protect us all from idiots like this and prevent them all from being elected. Merciful Lord, deliver the world from people who claim your name misuse Your word to perpetuate evil. Open our eyes to walk in love and peace and to see what is right. Do not let us not follow in the ways of wickedness such as this.
In the name of the Savior,
Amen
Doubter5 wrote on January 23, 2008 9:35 AM:Ok.. Where will it stop? Do we bring slavery back? Kill gays? Stone unruly children? Make working on Sunday illegal?
And if he is elected president, who's going to decide what part of the bible we adopt into the constitution? Huckabee? The Republican Party? The general Public? Will the Supreme Court have to start interpreting the Bible now?
And what will happen to Atheists, Muslims, Buddhists, etc.?
see my vids on YouTube...
