Huckabee: Let’s amend the Constitution to bring it in line with “God’s standards”
posted at 10:29 am on January 15, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
Big government plus religious demagoguery — it’s two classic Huck soundbites rolled into one. He could have said “let’s bring it in line with moral standards” or just said what he means, i.e. “let’s ban abortion and gay marriage nationwide.” But there’s no identity politics in that phrasing, is there? For “God’s standards,” it takes more of a “Christian leader,” shall we say. Read this post if you missed it yesterday and see again why the analogy to senior citizens is so bogus.
Neither one of these amendments has a prayer of passing, of course, which makes his whole appeal here essentially dishonest. Oh well. Just win, baby.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
SECOND LOOK AT DEAD CATS!
(Unless of course it’s a kitler. Which, to the uninitiated, is a cat that looks like Hitler.)
ReubenJCogburn on January 15, 2008 at 12:15 PM
I suppose one of “God’s standards” would be to eliminate our political borders. We’d also have to do away with the concept of U.S. citizenship, since we’re all “God’s children” (as the Huckster likes to remind us), and therefore every person on the planet would have the inalienable right to live and work in the U.S.
It’s going to get awfully crowded in “God’s country.”
AZCoyote on January 15, 2008 at 12:16 PM
Wow, about 50 posts just disappeared. Magic!
Akzed on January 15, 2008 at 12:17 PM
Wow…. just… wow…
We got a Power Hungry RINO named Rudi…
We got a guy who destoyed political free speech and made it so IF YOUR RICH, you have a big edge on running named McVain.
We got a guy who belongs to a black bigoted church and was partly raised in an Islamic household…
We got a woman whose only qualification for the Whitehouse is that she was married to one of the most corrupt politicians who was ever President…
We got another RINO who is part of another pretty out there religion (and yes, it does matter).
We got a whacko isolationist who, like a stopped clock is right about twice a day…
We got us a BILLIONAIRE who, because McCain is an idiot, may buy into the election…
And we got ONE guy talking about real issues, but his campaign is so bad he has no chance…
And we got a Religious guy who wants to rewrite the Constitution to make it in line with HIS beliefs…
Wow… just… wow… I thought the LAST election was bad…
Romeo13 on January 15, 2008 at 12:18 PM
cool off. the comments paginate.
jummy on January 15, 2008 at 12:19 PM
That’s what they are. I argued with Christians all the time about GW prior to the 2000 election because they all felt that his being born again, delivered from alcoholism, etc. were enough reasons to vote for him. It didn’t matter to them that he was barely literate and a failure in almost everything he did.
I’d remind them (as I still do) that Martin Luther said he’d rather be ruled by a wise Muslim than a stupid Christian. This from the greatest Christian since Augustine.
Drum on January 15, 2008 at 12:20 PM
The evidence is clear. Huckabee is clearly the last cylon model.
phronesis on January 15, 2008 at 12:22 PM
I wonder what Huckabee’s position on alcohol is. It would be a nice questions to ask, considering he’s so heaven bent on bringing the constitution into line with God’s standards. :-)
Dusty on January 15, 2008 at 12:25 PM
Drum on January 15, 2008 at 12:20 PM
Wow. I thought you were a troll, but now I see that you’re just really, really stupid. I stand corrected.
Bugler on January 15, 2008 at 12:30 PM
That’s apocryphal, actually. If you have the primary source please send it. Also, some might argue that Aquinas was the greatest since Augustine, and if elected, I will enshrine that opinion in the Constitution!
Akzed on January 15, 2008 at 12:30 PM
And where do we find the Golden Rule?
Akzed on January 15, 2008 at 12:34 PM
Well, I’m sorry that the war didn’t work out according to plan, but unfortunately they never do. The only thing you have to decide is if you want to win.
I wonder if the Iraqis would rather have a shot at freedom and prosperity, or have Saddam back. If you think they’d rather be free then it comes with a cost. But then, so does acquiesence under the yoke of tyranny.
Leonidas Hoplite on January 15, 2008 at 12:37 PM
I’m surprised anyone, much less Christians, bothered to argue any subject with someone as intelligent as you.
Dusty on January 15, 2008 at 12:37 PM
i guess not.
jummy on January 15, 2008 at 12:38 PM
The two aren’t mutually excusive. I will give him credit for having the patience to hide here for so long just waiting for Huck to explain what he has in store for us.
a capella on January 15, 2008 at 12:42 PM
excusive = exclusive
a capella on January 15, 2008 at 12:42 PM
I’m with you there. Pretentious and condescending doesn’t begin to describe that guy.
thejackal on January 15, 2008 at 12:46 PM
You’re right. I’ve never looked into its veracity in any depth until now, and after trying to find someone trustworthy who’s commented on it, I happened upon this (see below) from Richard John Neuhouse, whose magazine, First Things, whose magazine I’ve read for decades (I was a charter subscriber back in my youth).
So, in light of this, I offer my own: I would rather be ruled by a wise atheist than a stupid Christian.
From First Things, The Public Square, January 1997:
• I’ve been trying to put it to rest for years, but this cat has nine times nine lives. She appears again in another incarnation in an interview that Jeff Greenfield did with Ralph Reed of the Christian Coalition. Greenfield asks whether one can derive from Christian faith a set of public policy specifics. Reed: “I guess my argument on that would be what Martin Luther said, which is: I would rather be operated on by a Turkish surgeon than a Christian butcher.” The usual form of it is, “I would rather be ruled by a wise Turk than by a stupid Christian.” I had used it for years in speeches and writing until I was challenged. My curiosity piqued, I launched an inquiry that ended up involving scholars and librarians both here and in Europe, only to discover that Luther never said it. It fits Luther’s “twofold kingdom” approach to civil governance, and he said much of the same purport, but please take this as yet another effort to put it to rest.
Drum on January 15, 2008 at 12:48 PM
So when Christ was taken captive and he prevented the disciples from using the sword for self-defense, was that because one shouldn’t defend oneself against evil, or, was it because it was His time to be crucified?
Hint: the wrong answer will result with me in never responding to your comments, ever.
Mcguyver on January 15, 2008 at 12:49 PM
Why don’t you just convert to Islam you #ucking retard as they do it that way already.
MB4 on January 15, 2008 at 12:53 PM
You’re baiting me, so I will defer to C. S. Lewis:
Everywhere.
Drum on January 15, 2008 at 12:54 PM
SECOND LOOK AT INSURRECTION!
MB4 on January 15, 2008 at 12:57 PM
Paul told his disciples to submit to Nero and his administration (Ro. 13), who “bear ont the sword in vain.” Christianity is not a revolution, it is like leaven that slowly influences its environment.
And don’t forget, Jesus told His disciples to buy swords – in defiance of Roman laws that prevented the Jews from carrying them. He didn’t tell Peter to throw away his sword, but to sheathe it – in defiance of Roman law.
I hope Mcguyver approves.
Akzed on January 15, 2008 at 12:57 PM
http://scottyfreeball.com/rappymcrapperson/Fight%20The%20Gorlax/08%20Tlyobpd.mp3
jummy on January 15, 2008 at 12:58 PM
It ain’t in Darwin or Marx, dood. (I was just reading Neuhaus this morning, btw.)
Akzed on January 15, 2008 at 12:59 PM
Is America Christ? No. Thus, it should be defended from threats of evil.
Drum on January 15, 2008 at 1:03 PM
Oh, there are forms of it, whether or not they knew it and recognized it. God will not be mocked nor denied.
Drum on January 15, 2008 at 1:05 PM
I’ve decided to vote for the dead cat as well.
Griz on January 15, 2008 at 1:06 PM
Now what God’s standard is he talking about The Baptists No Drinking, no Gambling?
How do you say to the Muslims that they cannot have Sharia when this joker is making comments like this.
GatewayMac on January 15, 2008 at 1:06 PM
Pandering fool. So he basically wants to UNDO the constitution. He wants to embed theocracy in it…FOOL. This country is FOUNDED on the ability to choose who/whether to worship at all. If Christians can make the constitution Christian-based, then what will happen if Christianity becomes the minority? Then another religion could be written into the constitution.
This ALONE should disqualify him from serious consideration as the nominee.
Full disclosure: I have bet my life that Jesus was who he said he was, and for me the commitment is eternal. Huck doesn’t play to me.
JustTruth101 on January 15, 2008 at 1:06 PM
And I should have added, “or cared to acknowledge it.”
Drum on January 15, 2008 at 1:08 PM
That’s vague enough to sail an aircraft carrier through.
Leonidas Hoplite on January 15, 2008 at 1:10 PM
Well, what do you want? This is a blog commentary.
But, as simply as possible, and notwithstanding Pastor Wurmbrand’s claim that Marx was a Satanist, I would say that there is something of the golden rule (or the tao, as Lewis put it) in Marx’s concern for economic justice. Now, obviously Marx was wrong on most counts, but he saw the right problems, and he saw it clearer than many others who, alas, claimed the light of Christ as their guide.
Drum on January 15, 2008 at 1:19 PM
O.K. But your fave candidate thinks we should use the golden rule when relating to the enemy.
Ooooh my bad.. he flipflopped to saying that “they’re going to see a heavy boot coming down on them” and then at the last debate he said “they’ll see the gates of hell opening up for them”.
What gives?
Oh…. don’t respond.
Huckabee is an aberration, a lie, a huskster, in short:
Mcguyver on January 15, 2008 at 1:20 PM
Faced with a choice between McCain & Huck, it’ll be pretty easy to pick McCain. McCain may only harm the conservative cause, Huck will harm both the conservative cause & Christianity.
Security Mom on January 15, 2008 at 1:25 PM
SECOND LOOK AT THE CYLON GOD!
Seriously though, glad I’m not the only one who thought that!
the goddess anna on January 15, 2008 at 1:26 PM
He’s not my favorite candidate. But Huck did say that didn’t he? I had forgotten about that. Jeez, then clearly he has not thought through the implications. For his foreign policy stand is business as usual: more war, more conquest, more selling out America.
Drum on January 15, 2008 at 1:26 PM
Marx saw the right problems? Like capital was oppressing labor by extracting its surplus value and that this would impoverish labor until it revolted and overthrew the capitalists? Btwn this and the “immoral war” comment there is more than sufficient evidence to conclude that you are a lefty troll.
phronesis on January 15, 2008 at 1:30 PM
Second look at kicking the man out of the party.
CABE on January 15, 2008 at 1:33 PM
there have been proposals for making “Life starts at conception” a constitutional amendment.
Hunter and Paul both have had bills to make it a law, but it needs to be a Constitutional amendment, because a Law would be overturned most likely due to the part of constitutionl that says “all born in”
jp on January 15, 2008 at 1:35 PM
bingo, they are brainwashed and think we went to war with an innocent nation and other ignorant claims. He’s a paultard and like paultards are brainwashed by the Moveon.org left.
jp on January 15, 2008 at 1:37 PM
Doesn’t he mean “back” into line?
I will vote for anyone wishing to do that. Of course, only a Republican would, and you can’t trust most of them to do the right thing anymore.
Hening on January 15, 2008 at 1:37 PM
And here’s to you, Reverend Huckabee
Jesus loves you more than you will know
(Wo wo wo)
God bless you, please Reverend Huckabee
Heaven holds a place for those who pray
(Hey hey hey – hey hey hey)
We’d like to know a little bit more about the changes you would make for our files
We’d like to help you help yourself to control everything in our lives
Look around you, all you see are sympathetic eyes
Put whatever you want in the Constitution to make it more like what you do at home
And here’s to you, Reverend Huckabee
Jesus loves you more than you will know
(Wo wo wo)
God bless you, please Reverend Huckabee
Heaven holds a place for those who pray
(Hey hey hey – hey hey hey)
Hide your church speaking fees in a hiding place where no one ever goes
Put them in your back yard where your son has buried all those dogs
It’s a little secret, just the Huckabees’s affair
Most of all you’ve got to hide it from the flock
Coo coo ca choo, Reverend Huckabee
Jesus loves you more than you will know
(Wo wo wo)
God bless you, please Reverend Huckabee
Heaven holds a place for those who pray
(Hey hey hey – hey hey hey)
Sitting on your sofa come this Tuesday night
Watching the Michigan returns come in
Laugh about it, cry about it
When you’ve got to choose
Ev’ry which way you look at it you lose
Where have you gone, Barry Goldwater?
Conservatives turn their longing eyes to you
(Woo woo woo)
What’s that you say, Reverend Huckabee
‘Mr Conservative’ you have driven far away?
(Hey hey hey – hey hey hey)
MB4 on January 15, 2008 at 1:40 PM
IslamismHuckabee-ism: Group of ideologies inIslamchristianity that want to use theSharialaw of Christ to its full extent, meaning that secular forms of governments and institutions are considered foreign to a trueMuslimchristian society.–
Thanks to Mike Huckabee for potentially screwing the Republican party for generations to come.
CABE on January 15, 2008 at 1:42 PM
CABE on January 15, 2008 at 1:42 PM
Not yet, folks just need to open they’re eyes…
Fred08.com
Go Fred!!
stlpatriot on January 15, 2008 at 1:45 PM
er thier
stlpatriot on January 15, 2008 at 1:45 PM
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0471793329/104-1830027-7007920?camp=1789&link%5Fcode=xm2&n=283155
jummy on January 15, 2008 at 1:48 PM
“According to GOD’S RULES, the following are unclean and are NOT to be eaten. So Don’t. : No swimming creature that do not have both fins and scales. No invertebrates – caterpillars and such, no good, can’t eat those…”
– Firesign Theatre, 1971
mojo on January 15, 2008 at 1:58 PM
Huckabee, in a “senior moment”, thinks he is running for King George’s old job.
A staffer quickly swept him into a private room before he started referring to America as “the colonies”…
landlines on January 15, 2008 at 1:59 PM
Jesus was not a politician. Altruism is a personal philosophy. The government is incapable of altruism, because it cannot be self-sacrificial. Every government action is carried out through force. Every homeless shelter or that is built by the government exists because the government took up arms (or threatened to take up arms) against individuals and deprived them of their property. Benevolent governmental actions are always necessarily bought at the price of malevolent government action: the trampling of the rights of the individual. So what would Jesus do? Would Jesus advocate that the government, which only exists to protect the rights of the individual, take up arms against those individuals and deprive them of their rightful property? Is that God’s standard? To pillage? To coerce?
And as far as homosexuals go, would Jesus advocate that they be punished by the government for not fitting the nuclear family mold? Would he advocate that homosexuals have fewer rights protected than are protected for heterosexuals?
Huckabee’s statement here is shocking in its anti-Americanism. It stands against everything that this country was founded on, and everything that made it great.
Mark Jaquith on January 15, 2008 at 2:02 PM
Not only are there good reasons to vote for a dead cat over Huckabee, there are many uses for them as well!
Disclaimer: That comment got me thinking about how I loved that old book!
SkinnerVic on January 15, 2008 at 2:02 PM
Huck, if you want to amend the constitution, why not start with…
Redefine “Public use” the supreme idiots don’t understand that overcomplicated term. (see Kelo decision)
Redefine “unabridged speech” the supreme idiots don’t understand that overcomplicated term. (see McCain-Feingold)
Introduce an amendment that mandates a balanced federal budget starting the fiscal year after it’s passed.
Redefine “birthright citizenship” since the founders and us Americans don’t think that kids of invaders should become citizens of this country.
I’m pretty sure that the American people will get behind all of those.
You’re not fooling anybody with the rhetoric.
orlandocajun on January 15, 2008 at 2:04 PM
Excellent post.
Drum on January 15, 2008 at 2:10 PM
Huck thinks God is communicating to him via his alphabet soup.
CABE on January 15, 2008 at 2:11 PM
I have to take issue with this, however. In civil society, the family is prior to the individual. And here is where I think libertarianism leaves off and becomes unable to deal with the world as it is, leaving only conservatism or liberal ideology. It is liberal ideology that is at present running the Bush administration, ruining America. It can only fail leaving a wake of disaster.
Drum on January 15, 2008 at 2:19 PM
Most people don’t know the obscure “lost verse” to this song:
Huck is dangerous and he sucks as much as McCain on illegal immigration.
(Woo woo woo)
etc.
fred5678 on January 15, 2008 at 2:28 PM
Absolutely correct!
JustTruth101 on January 15, 2008 at 2:29 PM
Huck is as scary as this trailer.
fred5678 on January 15, 2008 at 2:34 PM
Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t that Br’er Huckabee at the last debate complaining that he doesn’t understand why he gets all the religious questions??
Levy on January 15, 2008 at 2:40 PM
It is liberal ideology that is at present running the Bush administration, ruining America. It can only fail leaving a wake of disaster.
What is liberal ideology these days? As far as I can tell it involves throwing money at a problem, pretending terrorism isn’t a problem, and blaming the worlds ills on western non-progressives. Is there more?
Defense Guy on January 15, 2008 at 2:41 PM
HUCKABEE-NEJAD
Shirotayama on January 15, 2008 at 3:01 PM
I think we’re now pretty much advocates for separation of Huck and State!!!
landlines on January 15, 2008 at 3:04 PM
Seconded. The man is a Christian (maybe) Huey Long.
If Fred! slays the Huckabeast in South Carolina, will AP endorse him out of gratitude?
John_Locke on January 15, 2008 at 3:09 PM
What a despicable turd Huckabee is.
Centerfire on January 15, 2008 at 3:09 PM
I consider myself a devote Christan, and what I think Huck is doing is exploit evangelicals for political purposes.
Christ said, “Render onto Cesar what is Cesar’s and render onto God what is God’s.”
Captain America on January 15, 2008 at 3:12 PM
Terrorism is a problem. Liberals acknowledge this. It’s how they fight it (or not) that matters.
Liberalism sees the world in basically the same way (now that HotAir has posted a couple things regarding it) that Scientology does: a playground where one can “create new realities” (as Tom Cruise put it) as one sees fit.
How fun! Except when those new realities fail to jive with tradition, religion, family, tribe, history, sin, hatred, and a million other contingencies one runs into in the real world.
GW fell for the liberal idea that “the yearning for liberty beats in the heart of every human being.” Moreover, he also fell for the radical liberal idea that tyranny can be wiped from the face of the planet. George, meet Karl.
Drum on January 15, 2008 at 3:20 PM
A typical retort from one who is so much less “dogmatic” and “tolerant” than Governor Huckabee.
I oppose the candidacy of Governor Huckabee based on his RP-like views of America’s foreign policy and his JE-like pursuit of “populism”. He seeks to raid my wallet for the benefit of others, and blame “American Unilateralism” for Radical Islamic Terrorists.
However, as a Christian, he has as much right to run for office as any Politically Correct demographic candidate…is there now a “Darwinist litmus test”, or a “Commitment to Secularism” pledge to run for the Republican nomination for President? I wasn’t aware of one.
A politician speaking of God in the public square…oh the horror of it, please…he’s doing what politicians do, appealing to a constituency that he believes will help him realize his political goals. These folks are registered voters who have every right to go to the polls and vote for Huck’ if they so choose, there won’t be any “final solution” to stop them in time, get over it.
CZ52GUY on January 15, 2008 at 3:27 PM
Funny coincidence that this is currently lined up right next to the Ezra Levant video…..
TBinSTL on January 15, 2008 at 3:42 PM
I fail to see the relevant comparison. Canada creates an HRC (whose Constitutionality within their system of government appears dubious at best) which has toppled to the far left and seeks to persecute an editor for publishing cartoons offensive to some Muslims.
Huckabee proposes that the traditional definition of marriage be codified in the Constitution by following the specified process for amending the document. Similarly, he seeks to end the senseless murder of millions of human beings by following the rule of law to achieve the ends that he and his supporters seek.
Help me understand the equivalence here that leads to the assertion of irony…
CZ52GUY on January 15, 2008 at 3:48 PM
hey, where are the loudmouth, bible-thumping togh-guys in this thread?
this thread should be 600 comments long by now with the theocrats pushing every one else around and explaining how the insufficiently theocratic are unconservative rinos.
where are you tough guys?
jummy on January 15, 2008 at 3:49 PM
Man, I was all set to make some sort of sneering atheist comment, but it seems like everyone here is as turned off by Huck’s “God’s standards” pandering as I am.
Anyone for a round of “Kum Ba Yah?” :)
Enrique on January 15, 2008 at 3:50 PM
Indeed. SECOND LOOK AT DARK AGE(S)!
I’m desperately looking for Sir PB, in all his incarnations, especially of late. Is he in heaven or is he in hell? I know. I trust. I wait. There must be hope. This political season is killing me.
Entelechy on January 15, 2008 at 3:55 PM
Bring it on. The venom of the Secular “Right” toward Christians is revolting. AP and his posse of “enlightened intellectuals” are no better than the RP nuts in my view.
I oppose Huckabee because of his policy views, but I don’t subscribe to the mythical church and state separation as the left has defined it and the secular right has allied itself.
Jefferson wrote to a group of Baptists who sought relief from Congregationalists who were the official religion of at least two states at the time. He sent them a nice note (which was never codified into the Constitution) and the following Sunday, attended church services in the Capital Building (again, oh the horror of it).
I don’t deny the Secular Right their voice. I despise their arrogance and hypocrisy. Secularism (most recently in the form of Marxism) has as much to answer for us corrupt theocracy. Any claim of ideological superiority by the Secular Right is dubious…and for those who claim to have come from green goo, my sympathies.
CZ52GUY on January 15, 2008 at 3:58 PM
Sorry, AP, but you are not telling the truth. The oldest trick is the book is to say “X cannot happen” to discourage those who want X to happen. The vast majority of Americans are opposed to same-sex pseudo-marriage. The only way to protect marriage from meddling justices is a constitutional amendment. And no, this is not an “evangelical idea” – ask Dennis Prager.
corona on January 15, 2008 at 3:59 PM
Bush couldn’t get it through with a Republican controlled House and Senate. Huckster sure as hell ain’t going to get it passed with the Dems controlling both chambers.
Hollowpoint on January 15, 2008 at 4:04 PM
Blame Huckster. When a candidate campaigns on a neo-theocratic platform, there’s going to be a backlash.
Hollowpoint on January 15, 2008 at 4:05 PM
A Constitutional Convention could bypass that hurdle. Not an easy task (and a recipe for disaster in my humble opinion), but a more plausible scenario for the initial step.
Ratification of either by 75% of the states would be an awful tall order.
CZ52GUY on January 15, 2008 at 4:08 PM
Huckabee is the Clinton’s friend now?
Mcguyver on January 15, 2008 at 4:09 PM
Amendment 28 (Also known as The Huckabee Act)
1. After one year from the ratification of this article, kissing one’s spouse or significant other in the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof is hereby prohibited because it could lead to dancing.
2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation and window peeping.
3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.
Akzed on January 15, 2008 at 4:09 PM
I am more likely to believe a lot of people are using this as a chance to bash Christians that they already dislike in the first place…if you want to go after the man for pandering thats fine and if you want to go after him because of his policies thats also fine…however “Christians are ruining the party” and the “hick” comments seem to come from people who already have issues with people of faith to begin with…may I also remind people here that Bryan is one of those “Bible thumping hicks”.
EnochCain on January 15, 2008 at 4:09 PM
I’m more of a traditional conservative who believes in personal opportunity and responsibility. The venom of the Secular Right preceded Huckabee’s candidacy by a wide margin.
I appreciate you making my point though…the “Huckabee made me do it” argument is an excellent example of Secular Right hypocrisy and points to the illegitimacy of their claims to true conservatism.
CZ52GUY on January 15, 2008 at 4:10 PM
Go dead cats go. Huck you are a disgrace and a real danger to this country
thmcbb on January 15, 2008 at 4:21 PM
So… disagreeing with Huck (or you) on this matter makes one a part of the secular right? You wanna repeal the test oath clause? Would you ban episcopal churches or non-episcopal churches’ members from holding office? Of what?
Huck can advocate anything he wants. I hope all the candidates advocate for their innermost hopes and dreams so that we can judge them accordingly. But Huck wants to ban smoking. Is that the feds’ job? He’s a health crusader who lost 100 lbs. Is he going to take away my bratwursts as well as my Macanudos? Is that the president’s job?
We don’t need constitutional amendments to end abortion and bugger “marriage,” we need reasonable judges who will make reasonable decisions.
Akzed on January 15, 2008 at 4:22 PM
BS call…Marriage is a legal contract…this isn’t about Sodomy laws and such. I could give a rat’s posterior what you do in private as a consenting adult with other consenting adults.
What many of us resent is the imposition of an extra-Constitutional re-definition of marriage.
Similarly, the abortion issue involves a dead body when their done scrambling the brains. A jury can weigh evidence and make a determination of guilt or innocence in an adversarial courtroom setting where the accused is given the benefit of the doubt coming into the trial. The prosecution has to prove the case.
Casting the Huckabee amendment proposals as invasion of privacy theocratic tyranny is intellectually dishonest.
Next…
CZ52GUY on January 15, 2008 at 4:23 PM
Huckabee has made the impossible ‘marriage’ harmonious.
Entelechy on January 15, 2008 at 4:23 PM
I did nothing of the kind, and you addressed none of my points, genius. I’ll reduce my questions to once: Do you want the president and congress to determine what I may smoke, drink, or eat?
Akzed on January 15, 2008 at 4:26 PM
Hardly an attempt at “theocracy.” Did he pander? Absolutely! Does he mean anything more than ban abortion and gay marriage? No!
Chill, people.
HYTEAndy on January 15, 2008 at 4:29 PM
Way over the top. Not a shred of truth in anything you have said here.
Wise Golden on January 15, 2008 at 4:32 PM
I submit that within the AP Posse, there is a new test oath clause that “I do appropriately affirm Darwinism and promise not to say the “g-word” in private”…it has other clauses, but I won’t bore you with the details…they’re well documented on the Wayback Machine ANY TIME a politician invokes God outside the boundaries of AP’s world view.
I certainly would not ban office holders of any denomination or without denomination. That’s my point…I’m a traditional conservative who believes in personal opportunity and responsibility. I judge candidates by their character but won’t disqualify them because they don’t hold identical views regarding the Almighty, the origin of the universe, etc. A dangerous standard is being set by the Secular Right that one must adhere to Darwinism, perpetuate the myth of Separation of Church & State as defined by the Marxist elite, and keep any discussion of faith quiet so as not to offend their sensitive ears.
I too find Huck’s “Nanny State” views offensive. I don’t see a federal smoking ban as being appropriate, nor do I want Huck or his minions counting my intake of Trans Fats.
I think one way or another, marriage will end up as a Constitutional question. It’s not practical in the 21st century USA to be married in one state, but not another. Massachusetts has tried to bypass the amendment process by claiming that gay marriage is a Constitutionally protected activity. Give it a few years, a 14th amendment claim will be made by someone married in Mass’, or another state which may similarly recognize gay marriage in the future when the couple moves and seeks recognition of their union.
Similarly with abortion…either a human fetus is an entity entitled to Constitutional protection or not. A federalized view of this is impractical at this time in our history.
No disagreement that judges who interpret vs. legislate is preferable, but advocacy analysis is pervasive in ‘08…even with the passage of the proposed amendments…50 years hence, judicial legislation could easily undo what was done, no matter how clear the language.
CZ52GUY on January 15, 2008 at 4:35 PM
CZ52GUY:
“…and “tolerant” than…”
you’re not arguing with the left here, so spare us. your use of the sneer-quoted term indicates that you have a grown-up and reletavist point of view on “tollerance”. liberals may demand tollera nce for all sorts, you might observe, excluding christians, for whom they reserve rancor. we get it. it’s as trite as it is true. and your mirrored assertion of the principle – that your faith must be tollerated at the expense of gays and others quietly enjoying their rights as both citizens of the individual states and the united states – reveals you to be a hipicrit. get over yourself.
“…less “dogmatic” and …”
calling huckabee out as a turd is hardly an epistemological challenge, so your sneer-quoting of the word “dogma” was a non sequitur. a revealing one.
essentially, your point of view is that an attack on one is an attack on all, yourself included. your faith included. you’ve already entered this thing pledged to argue in defence of huckabee’s christianist anti-americanism and wherever that leads, even if it leads to pull out similarly trite tropes about “atheism” being a “religion” in much the same way that deranged lefties argue that bush and bin laden are quivalent figures.
so, not only is calling him “dogmatic” nonsensical, it’s extremely self-concious of you.
it also renders hollow your subsequent declaration against him as a candidate for reasons completely beside the point being discussed in discussing the matter of huckabee openly exhorting an audience of evangelical suppporters to help him exert some sort of christian force against the constitution and pervert it into some analogue of sharia law. hollow, because nobody asked you to vote for him or not vote for him. in fact, nobody invited you into the conversation at all. you entered the discussiion on your own accord to defend huckabee as a christian with what we might now assume are all-too-typpical christian ambitions to pervert our nation and its founding documents to something like clerical rule.
“However, as a Christian, he has as much right to run for office as any Politically Correct demographic candidate”
strawman.
“…is there now a “Darwinist litmus test”…”
no. there has been for some time a christianist litmus test.
that aside, is it acceptable for a candidate’s faith convictions to extend to belief in the young-earth, super-evolution or other creationist pseudioscience?
no.
“A politician speaking of God in the public square…oh the horror of it…”
a particularly cheap strawman. in neither of the comments you’ve left as of this posting, did you address what huckkabee said. instead you offer up cheap emotional blackmail like this…
“…there won’t be any “final solution” to stop them in time…”
oh. right. because anyone offended by a call by a fake conservative, real theocrat to sacrifice our constitution to their sky-fetish is a “nazi” out to exterminate them, just like the nazis did to the jews.
with the help of christians, by the way. perhaps you’d be quick to draw a distinction there; “catholics” you’d say, who are after all in the view of much of the evangelical community, the “whore of babylon”.
how “tollerant”. how free from “dogmatism”.
see how much of a twit you sound like?
i have one question to ask you, which i don’t expect you to answer in good faith or honestly, but it is, nonetheless, the relevant question:
what is it about sharia law which offends your first principles?
jummy on January 15, 2008 at 4:35 PM
Patience grasshopper, read 4:35PM
CZ52GUY on January 15, 2008 at 4:36 PM
Does the secular right include Mormons and Catholics? A lot of Huck’s supporters don’t seem too fond of those groups. A few commentators here have suggested it is a legimate concern that electing a Mormon would give LDS legitimacy and put souls in jeopardy and thus shouldn’t be done. Meanwhile Huck himself is just fine speaking at church headed by a known anti-catholic bigot. And then Huck tells us that he wants to alter the constitution to “God’s values.” So it seems to me that the Hucksters intend to set-up a religious test for office that only an evangelical can pass and then use the state to coerce the rest of us based soley on their beliefs and revealation. This is unacceptable to anyone that believes in liberty and pluralism and it is most certainly anti-American.
phronesis on January 15, 2008 at 4:39 PM
It’s amazing when adherents to the political philosophy that promotes the preservation of the constitution, and the elimination of judicial activism, actually promoting the myth of “the separation of church and state”. The constitution says no such thing. It does say that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof “. It was by judicial fiat that this got turned into a license to prohibit freedom of religion by the state. (And please note how freedom of religion was listed before freedom of speech, the press, assembly and petition.)
I have no issue with promoting the use of the ballot box to vote in representatives of like mind into the government to push for one’s agenda. The fact that some would yell “theocracy” just because that agenda has religious morals as its basis shows how the liberals have already won by repeating falsehoods about what the constitution “really means”, and those who should know better can’t see it.
It is the eroding of this right to religion by judicial activism that is causing Huckabee to gain in popularity among evangelicals by saying “bring the constitution in line with God’s standards”. All this talk equating Christianity with jihad-ism is nonsense. Huck is talking about using the political process (amending the constitution to prevent judicial tampering), which is exactly what conservatives are supposed to promote.
Now I don’t support Huckabee. I don’t like using Christ as a campaign slogan. But all this talk is like someone complaining that the lion attached him when he didn’t stop kicking the sleeping lion, even after the lion roared a few times. Kick evangelicals enough times with the name calling, demeaning slurs and remarks, don’t be surprised by the backlash. (And be glad that there is a difference between christians who use the political process, and some other religions of peace that use force.)
AverageJoe on January 15, 2008 at 4:47 PM
It’s always fun to play with the Secular Right…
…your rambling responses are difficult to follow but I’ll do my best.
You addressed Huckabee’s proposed amendments by calling him solid waste yet submit that you offer the more holistic position against him than I for his right and that of his supporters to pursue Constitutional relief to their perceived grievance his more “tollerant”…oops, I think you meant tolerant.
That you and others on the Secular Right find it so easy to deny the Judeo-Christian influences within our Constitution and whose greatest fear seems to be “those wacko fundamentalists are going to take away all my porn” is “revealing”.
Re: Addressing Huckabee’s comments, if you read the vowels and consonants of my posts you find me supportive of his right to say them, suggesting that he’s pandering to a constituency, and asserting that I’m not nearly as alarmed as my opponents on the Secular Right that he had the “audacity” to say them out loud in public.
I oppose Sharia in the USA not because it is generally Theocratic or uniquely Muslim but because I believe that Sharia would necessarily impose itself in an extra-Constitutional way.
For the record, I do not consider you solid waste for expressing your views. You have every right to speak your mind AS DO I, and Michelle posted an opportunity to register for comments which I claim as my “invitation” to participate in the dialogue.
CZ52GUY on January 15, 2008 at 4:49 PM
Huckledoodoo passes another crackpot comment.
Religionists scare the living daylights out of me. Where are all of the Christians speak against this liberal wacko?
All we are hearing are idiot religionists supporters.
saved on January 15, 2008 at 4:51 PM
Not wanting federalism stomped all over by Mike Huchabee doesn’t make me a secular Darwinist. Believing with the founders that the federal government should not be in the religion business does not make me a Marxist.
As for the “myth” of church/state separation, I do not believe that “congress” in the 1st Amendment equates to school board, city supervisors, or state legislature. I want the feds to have a little power as possible. I don’t care if the prez is a Baptist or (please God, no) an adherent of the WCF, I want him to have as little power as the Constitution allows, no more.
How’s that make me a Marxist Darwinist Secularist?
Akzed on January 15, 2008 at 4:51 PM
Sorry about the typo…
Where are all of the Christians? Why are they not speaking out against this liberal wacko?
saved on January 15, 2008 at 4:52 PM
I do not consider members of other faiths Secular. Secular by definition would be the absence of faith and more onerously as society as “evolved” in the USA, the insistence in the absence of faith or any mention thereof.
I’m not aware of an evangelical litmus test present within the Huckabee amendments as postulated at the outset by AP. It seems to some, the very existence of evangelicals and a candidate who “comes out of the closet” as a “flaming evangelical” is equivalent to a “legislative mandate” that a version of “Protestant Sharia is coming”.
I don’t see it that way…I have no problem with the green goo crowd existing, and would simply ask reciprocal recognition…a “two state” solution if you will.
CZ52GUY on January 15, 2008 at 4:53 PM
I reference arguments made by many and the never ending drumb beat of AP posting anything he can to pander to the SR. Your personal views belong to you and I believe you have EVERY RIGHT TO THEM!! Descartes famously said, “I think, therefore I am”.
The individual has the unconstrained power to make up their own mind, to evaluate alternative positions, to draw conclusions and to act on those conclusions.
That right I believe to be God-given vs. goo-given. None-the-less, my objection is not so much that folks object to Huckabee, or to evangelicals, or to express their concerns about a big-government Nanny State (of whatever ideology) seeking to enslave them.
What I do strongly object to, is that many on the SR venomously express their contempt that the religious right exists.
A challenge was issued for a “tough guy” from the RR to come in and stand his ground.
I did, now I have a date with a beautiful young lady.
Keep Safe,
CZ52′
CZ52GUY on January 15, 2008 at 5:00 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »