Disturbing Huckabee Position

[tellner]

When it comes to weird religious beliefs I live a grass house and shouldn't stow thrones. And I believe that a person's religious beliefs should inform his opinions including the political ones.

Pick your jaws up off the floor Don and Cruentus

I'm also convinced that the official mixture of religion with State authority is bad for religion and bad for the nation. And it can turn fatally bad in a heartbeat. Politics is messy and untidy. It deals with human desires and interests which are often opposed to each other even in the same person. Everyone understands this. For the most part we can live with this. I believe this and want that. You believe something else and want another thing. We can hammer it out as human beings and find something we both can live with.

When you start inserting Eternal Verities and Undeniable Truth into government things take a sharp turn in a very bad direction. All of a sudden it's not just about you and me trying to get through the day and deal with problems. The Big Guy has His thumb on the scales. There can't be any compromise because that's compromising Good, which is Evil. There can't be any argument. It's blasphemy. The Church can't act as a voice of conscience against the State because the Church is the State.

The Hugenots, the Albigensians, the Taliban, the Saudis, the Egyptian Copts, the Irish Church (the one before Catholicism took over), the Maranos and Conversos, Galileo, Scopes, Cotton Mather, Torquemada, the Nestorians, the Yezidi and many more can speak as witnesses variously for the prosecution or defense.

When the United States had its first and so far only Constitutional Convention there was some debate about the role that religion and Divine Providence should have in running the new nation. The results of that discussion are apparent. There is no mention of any deity. There is no invocation. One Amendment mentions religion, but only by refusing to permit a State Church. On sentence in the document mentions religious values but only to say that no test of them shall ever be used as a condition of public trust. The Framers had various religious faiths or lacked them entirely, but they were wise enough to understand that embedding them into public life was a grave mistake.

That is why I was very concerned when Mike Huckabee said that he wanted to make the Constitution a religious document:

"[Some of my opponents] do not want to change the Constitution, but 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,"

The fundamental tenet of science is to question and test. If the evidence contradicts your pet belief the belief must be changed or abandoned. Mike Huckabee will have none of this. This is a man who believes that every bump in the polls is a direct gift from the Almighty and that it proves he is G-d's Annointed. He can't be swayed by mere facts because what he believes in must be true. Make that - Truth. Or as he puts it:

"Science changes with every generation and with new discoveries, and God doesn't, so I'll stick with God if the two are in conflict."

This crosses over from "disturbing" to "moderately terrifying".

It's a shame. Huckabee is a very interesting candidate. He's the first Republican in a time with a hint of economic populism rather than the usual "let them eat cake". He takes the longer view on things like energy independence and our industrial base. But he is a a folksy, engaging theocrat who stands against the fundamental principles on which our country was founded. If elected he'd be the first preacher since (I think) Garfield to occupy the White House. I'm praying that he won't.

 

[Big Don]

Like it or not, this country was founded, primarily with Christian morals, a return to those morals is a good idea. Those morals, by the way are fairly universal.

 

[michaeledward]

Like it or not, this country was founded, primarily with Christian morals, a return to those morals is a good idea. Those morals, by the way are fairly universal.

If the morals are "fairly universal", then why do you claim them for 'Christians'? Did these "fairly universal" morals exist before the life of the person referred to as Jesus? If so, why have they been usurped by followers of a faith?

Incidentally, the nation was founded on the morality of 'The Enlightenment', not 'Christianity'.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Like it or not, this country was founded, primarily with Christian morals, a return to those morals is a good idea. Those morals, by the way are fairly universal.

Actually the country was founded on puritanical ideals, but that is not really the issue, Also it is the most puritanical (and religious) nation of all that are considered world powers but again not really the issue.

I have no problem with morality but I have a big problem with attempting to make the constitution a religious document. This country also has a lot of different religions in it, unlike many, so we make the constitution a religions document, whose religion to what flavor of western religion should it, be. Catholic, Baptist, Episcopalian, Born Again. Etc what?

We point to Muslim nations and call them religious fanatics and yet we want to make the constitution a religions document, a bit of a contradiction in the making there in my opinion.

Not to mention the constitution was written by men for a nation it was not written by followers of god for faith.

Sorry it is not a religious document and although I do actually think religion is a good thing I honestly believe we REALLY need to get over ourselves and face the fact that everybody is not America and everybody is not a Christian nor, no matter how much we want might to help them see the light (much like they did during the Spanish inquisition) many are perfectly happy much the way they are and can’t quite figure out why we care so much about them.

I think mixing politics with religion can be a very dangerous thing, or at least it has proven that way in the past just about everyplace that it ever happened. And we currently argue along party lines (another thing I have little use for) throw in religion and now you have Protestant Democrats arguing against Catholic Democrats who really can't stand the Episcopalian Republicans but that’s ok they all agree that they can't stand the agnostic Independent party who really can't stand those damn atheist republican bastards

 

[Andrew Green]

and with the enlightment was a belief that religion and reason where opposed to one another. If a religious movement had something to do with the founding principals it was likely as much Deism as Christianity.

I'd say it would be rather odd to claim a country was founded on Christian principles when many of those credited for founding it rejected many of the core idea of Christianity.

 

[Empty Hands]

Like it or not, this country was founded, primarily with Christian morals, a return to those morals is a good idea.

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

From the Treaty of Tripoli, ratified by the Senate in a unanimous vote, and signed by President John Adams (a devout Christian) in 1797.

 

[tellner]

No Don, the United States Constitution and form of government were not founded on "Christian principles" or "Christian morals" in any sense of the word. The fundamental law is explicitly a-gnostic. The founders themselves were frequently on record against the intrusion of religion into government. They were positively allergic to the idea of any form of theocracy. Churchmen of the time were aghast (cf. the President of Yale) that the Republic they founded made no mention of G-d.

Furthermore, it was fundamentally antithetical to "traditional" Christianity in its form and outlook. Up until that time the Sovereign ruled as the Lord's representative. The Great Chain of Being ran G-d -> King -> Nobility -> free men -> women -> animals. The United States was a radical departure from that from the beginning. There were not titles. There was no nobility. There was no king. The government derived its powers from the people not its legitimacy from the Church's representative.

Huckabee wants to undo all of that. He wants to impose his religion on everyone. And if you think all Christians are more or less alike, open a history book that isn't written by a Dominionist or Reconstructionist or unreconstructed Calvinist. One of the chief reasons the Founders were against an Established Church of any sort was the chaos and horrendous bloodshed that disagreements about that had caused among Western European Protestants let alone Catholics and Protestants.

 

[ArmorOfGod]

When it comes to weird religious beliefs I live a grass house and shouldn't stow thrones.

Was that tongue in cheek, or badly typed?
;-)

AoG

 

[tellner]

Yes

 

[shesulsa]

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

From the Treaty of Tripoli, ratified by the Senate in a unanimous vote, and signed by President John Adams (a devout Christian) in 1797.

:bow:

 

[Cruentus]

This crosses over from "disturbing" to "moderately terrifying".

I admit, this looks really bad. And I am not happy about this at all, because he was (maybe still is) my favorite candidate.

That said... he has some splainin' to do, and until that happens I will reserve my judgement.

The reason I will give him the benefit of the doubt for the moment is because..

#1 his audience was at a Baptist Church in Warren Michigan, where Christian beliefs would obviously be an appropriate topic.
#2 What exactly does he mean by "change the constitution"? He needs to clarify exactly what he is talking about here. This could mean nothing, or something huge. How he explains this statement would make all the difference.
#3 He has specifically said on numerous occasions statements basically saying that he would protect our individual freedoms to choose our beliefs, that he isn't going to try to make the government more "Christian," and so forth. This one statement is not consistant with numerous other statements that he has made.
#4. There is nothing in his record as governor to indicate that he would try to "Christianize" the government.

So, I think it is a bit hasty to sit here and say, based on one quote, that "He wants to impose his religion on everyone." This stoops to the equivalent of those saying "Obama must support militant muslim extremism" because he didn't properly salute the flag on one occasion, his middle name is Heussein, and so forth.

I think the smart thing to do would be to get him to clarify the statement first before we make our judgements...

I will be looking forward to hearing his explination for this.

 

[Doc_Jude]

Like it or not, this country was founded, primarily with Christian morals, a return to those morals is a good idea. Those morals, by the way are fairly universal.

So, they're just morals then, huh?

Huckabee's out of the running for me now, not even an option. The selection is narrowing down...

We point to Muslim nations and call them religious fanatics and yet we want to make the constitution a religions document, a bit of a contradiction in the making there in my opinion.

"we"??? That's a stretch. Unless you're in the Huckabee camp.

& Empty Hands called it right, beat me to it.

 

[Big Don]

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

From the Treaty of Tripoli, ratified by the Senate in a unanimous vote, and signed by President John Adams (a devout Christian) in 1797.

I did not say, or infer that the country was founded as a Christian nation. Only that the PRIMARY source of the morals where Christian in origin.

Actually the country was founded on puritanical ideals

Really? The Puritans were followers of the Greek Pantheon then? Oh no, they were CHRISTIANS. The basis of the common morals of the majority of Western countries are from the Hebrew/Christian traditions.

Gee for deists the founding father's statements sure strayed from the definition:
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]de·ism [d ìzz m ] noun rational belief in God: a belief in God based on reason rather than revelation, and involving the view that God has set the universe in motion but does not interfere with how it runs.
[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]George Washington:

[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"I am sure that never was a people, who had more reason to acknowledge a Divine interposition in their affairs than those of the Unites States…"

Benjamin Franklin's statement:

[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] "The longer I live, sir, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men." [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

directly contradicts the deist notion that [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]God has set the universe in motion but does not interfere with how it runs.
[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Here's another quote from John Adams:

[/FONT][FONT=ARIAL, HEVETICA][SIZE=-1][FONT=GEORGIA, TIMES NEW ROMAN][SIZE=+2][FONT=ARIAL, HELVETICA][SIZE=-1]The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were. . . . the general principles of Christianity. . . . I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature.[/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

But, what would he know?
[/FONT]

 

[shesulsa]

I think it stands to reason that people who were raised by a religious state and in whose time religion was of an import such as it is not today, that they would draw on basic tenets generally agreed upon as being fair.

For instance we could point to The Mayflower Compact and The Magna Carta - in truth, ALL political documentation is dedicated to the service of God - it's what was done.

HOWEVER ...

The official dedication of the document or the service and intent of the authors of our core documents for our nation ARE ABSENT THESE INTRODUCTIONS AND DEDICATIONS.

THIS was truly remarkable in its time and placed us on a path in the pursuit of happiness. And ... well, any religious person who's honest will tell you that religion is not necessarily a path to happiness. Salvation perhaps ... but even that's questionable.

 

[michaeledward]

I admit, this looks really bad. And I am not happy about this at all, because he was (maybe still is) my favorite candidate.

That said... he has some splainin' to do, and until that happens I will reserve my judgement.
.

Ham-handed attempts have been made, and analyzed already.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/01/16/draft-huckabee-tries-to-laugh-off-theocon-remarks/

Colmes: When you make statements like that, changing the Constitution in keeping with your God.
​

Huckabee: On two things. The context is two things. Human life amendment, which I support and which has been in the Republican platform since 1980. And by the way, Fred Thompson doesn’t support it, nor does John McCain. And yet it’s part of our platform and it’s a very important part of our platform to say that human life is something we’re going to stand for. And the second thing is traditional marriage. So those are the two areas in which I’m talking about. I’m not suggesting that we re-write the constitution to reflect tithing or Sunday school attendance. I want to make that very clear.
​

Now, I am a bit fuzzy on my Bible studies ....

What is the bible's position on the Human Life Amendment?
What is the bible's position on Marriage?

I don't know anything from the bible which deals with terminating pregnancy, and a woman's ability to have her medical care private.

But, on the latter, I seem to recall, 'What God has joined, let no man put apart'. And there is the whole 'Women, be submissive to your husbands' language.

I'm not certain his explanation on his desire to change the Constitution to be the Word of the Living God is going to help him.

 

[Cruentus]

Ham-handed attempts have been made, and analyzed already.

heh... :uhohh:

Well, I will say that is what I figured. That he was refering to having a new amendment when he said "changing the constitution." This is not as big a deal as it sounds, but when his quote made it sound like he was going to alter the 1st amendment or something, which is obviously not the case.

I don't think abortion should be illegal, and I do think that same-sex couples should have all the legal rights of hetrosexual couples, but have been willing to overlook his stance on abortion and gay marriage for a couple of reasons.

#1., his fair tax plan sidesteps the gay marriage issue in regards to taxes, because everyone will have the same tax benefits regardless of the kind of marriage. The other rights he was going to give to the states, which is the way it is now.

#2. Abortion rights he was also going to leave up to the states. The numbers show (I have posted this before) that only 2 states in the union would restrict abortion. This is not a big issue in my opinion.

#3. These are fringe issues that the president has little power to change. Look at all the "pro-life, anti-gay" presidents we have had so far. Abortion rights are no different today because of it. The people who have the power to do something about these issues really lies more in the hands of the legislative and judicial branch.

Now, I am out of time because I have a busy schedule right now. So please be patient if you want me to clarify anything...

I'm not certain his explanation on his desire to change the Constitution to be the Word of the Living God is going to help him.

Unfortunatily, I totally agree with you. I think that this will hurt him a lot more in the long run, even if he gets a few evangelical votes in the short run. Hell, I was an avid supporter, and I don't like his quote one bit.

Ah... we'll see. I want to hear for myself more as to what he has to say.

 

[Cruentus]

One last thing: we need to be clear here that he isn't talking about "Christianizing the government." His libertarian views luckily would prevent him from going there.

He isn't talking about making anything illegal. What he is really talking about is giving the states the right to decide on the abortion and gay marriage issue, and not legislating it though the federal government.

That opens us up to have a great discussion, and possibly a new thread on State vs. Fed. legislation, and if the abortion or gay marriage issue should be legislated (albeit protected or not) through the states or the federal government. That would be a great discussion, as I am not even sure where I stand on this issue exactly...

 

[Xue Sheng]

"we"??? That's a stretch. Unless you're in the Huckabee camp.

Or in the Bush camp or if you take the view that a whole lot of uninformed Americans have.

 

[michaeledward]

One last thing: we need to be clear here that he isn't talking about "Christianizing the government." His libertarian views luckily would prevent him from going there.

He isn't talking about making anything illegal. What he is really talking about is giving the states the right to decide on the abortion and gay marriage issue, and not legislating it though the federal government.

That opens us up to have a great discussion, and possibly a new thread on State vs. Fed. legislation, and if the abortion or gay marriage issue should be legislated (albeit protected or not) through the states or the federal government. That would be a great discussion, as I am not even sure where I stand on this issue exactly...

Actually, he is talking about altering the Constitution. The Constitution is the foundation of the highest law in the land. If he calls for altering the Constitution with a 'human life amendment', he is most definately talking about making abortion illegal. If he calls for 'traditional marriage' being altered to the word of a living God, he is talking about making divorce illegal.

If one follows the logic chain of his statements; he is absolutely not taking a 'libertarian' or 'states rights' or 'vote with your feet' position. He talking about altering the Constitution. I believe the 10th Amendment tells us the provisions covered by the Constitution can not be taken by the the States.

 

[Doc_Jude]

Or in the Bush camp or if you take the view that a whole lot of uninformed Americans have.

Anyone that would even conceive of the possibility of changing the Constitution from a document of government into some kind of religious document doesn't even grasp the concept of "Separation of Church and State".

There should be a damn test before you're allowed to vote, I swear...