Huck, the Constitution and "God's standards"

Rod, there is no double standard here. What there is belongs in the same category with nations who have laws against Christian missionaries, or who otherwise condone violence against them: proof that Christians want to impose their Bible on society with the force of secular law.

I agree, it's very unlikely. I agree that there will be paranoia in the streets (well, a few streets). But I'm very confused that you don't call it what it really is: an extremely stupid (from a political consultant's POV) faux pas.

Any politician who is against abortion and gay marriage already has a well-worn path to expressing that opposition, and it has nothing to do with making US law conform to "God's standards".

The establishment clause is not (just) a barrier against theocracy. It is a protection against religious tyranny. The 18th century British monarchy and the other countries from which the American colonies were populated were not theocracies, but they surely were tyrannies based on religion (amongst other things). Huckabee's words and phrasing would have been very familiar to the founders.

Here I think the usual double-standard doesn't really apply; if Obama used the same language in support of an amendment supporting gay and lesbian equal rights there'd be the same uproar. Particularly since the constitution being in conflict with God's standards is kinda the whole point of important parts of it.

I agree that context seems to show [I haven't seen a full transcript, just paraphrases of earlier quotes] it's in reference to abortion and gay marriage, though.

and this makes me want to vote for Huckabee, why? we see Islamic theocracies in action and i don't believe, for one moment, that they, Huckabee and his religous cronies, wouldn't be just as tyranical. I hope that Americans will wake up and see the problems. If one thinks Bushes Presidency created issues, Huckabees' will push it over the edge. I, for one, don't need to be saved to his faith, religion or his understanding of God. I realize that my comments seem harsh but i truly believe that Huckabee would be the worst thing for this country.

"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.""

What Huckabee failed to observe is that up until about a year ago, he didn't believe this himself. Let's take a walk through Huckabee's opinion on amending the Constitution toward a life position.

He lobbied in 1995 for a change in the Republican platform toward a "states' rights" position and called for to end to the party platform plank that called for an amendment.

Huckabee said,

"The issue divides strongly committed pro-life and pro-choice Republicans but is not a central issue to most other Republicans. A possible platform revision long under discussion would say the Republican Party, 'unlike the Democratic Party, does not stand for abortion on demand and is basically a pro-life party.' In the spirit of federalism, the proposed GOP revision also would replace the abortion amendment with a statement saying the issue should be left up to the individual state legislatures to deal with as each sees fit. 'That's exactly what we have looked for, and if it's left up to the states, more of them are going to put some restrictions on abortion,' Arkansas Lt. Gov. Mike Huckabee said in an interview after appearing on a conference panel yesterday." (Ralph Z. Hallow, "Conservatives Hold Fire On Abortion," Washington Times, 2/12/95)"

And if that's too far back for you to take seriously, he told the same thing last year (2006) to John Hawkins in an interview, "[I] think Roe v. Wade is based on a real stretch of Constitutional application -- that somehow there is a greater privacy issue in the abortion concern -- than there is a human life issue -- and that the federal government should be making that decision as opposed to states making that decision. So, I've never felt that it was a legitimate manner in which to address this and, first of all, it should be left to the states, the 10th Amendment, but secondly, to somehow believe that the taking of an innocent, unborn human life is about privacy and not about that unborn life is ludicrous."

Ironically, Huckabee's own website says, ""I support and have always supported passage of a constitutional amendment to protect the right to life. My convictions regarding the sanctity of life have always been clear and consistent, without equivocation or wavering."

How does Huckabee define "always?" It's fine that he switched positions if that's what he now believes, but his criticism of other candidates who still believe this is a bit much. Especially, since it appears that his conversion to the Constitutional amendment was politically driven by a presidential bid and a change allows him to distinguish himself from the other pro-life candidates as he did in this quote.

So it appears at one time, Huckabee was okay with and lobbied for something that clearly conflicted with "God's standard."

Amen Rod.

"10 most corrupt politicians of 2007 by Judicial Watch"
Depends on who owns Judicial Watch.

And Hey what about the Michigan Primary Results???

I just got off a McCain conference call to NH supporters at about 6. He's now in S.C. and it sounded like he thinks it might be Mitt in MI.
"Mitt's ties to MI have no doubt been impactful."-JMCCain So we shall see.
But . . . "We're up by 10 points in South Carolina."

Romeny makes me much more nervous. In his Michigan victory speech(which was simply awful in every way), he comes out to Elvis' "A Little Less Conversation". There are 3 possbilities, all bad;either he has no idea that the song is about a guy, tired of his lover's unending discussions, now looks to have sex with his lady friend in promiscous circumstances ; or someone running his campaign is trying to tell him to not blather on like a Chatty Kathy doll(which didn't happen; please, PLEASE TELL ME HE WILL JUST STOP AND GO AWAY!); or no one in the dolt-filled Romney campaign has any idea who Elvis Presley is.

What ever you can say about Huckabee, he doesn't make that mistake.

Rod,

I wonder, Rod, if you would be so calm about this if a Muslim candidate were to suggest amending the Constitution to outlaw alcohol and revoke women's suffrage. After all, I am sure he would suggest that this would bring the Constitution into agreement with his view of God.

Face it, Rod. You are quite happy with a politician turning this country into a theocracy as long as it is someone from your religion.

I have to say that I am glad someone has the cherries to stand up for what they believe even if it will cost them votes.That alone makes me want him in office.How many times have we heard runners flip-flop on issues just to please the crowd they are currently in front of? To many.We need someone in office to stand up for morals and God,don't you think this country is liberal enough?!?When 13 year old girls get pregnant and 11 year old kids with guns and a history of violence are the popular ones in school I say it's time for a change.This is not what God had in mind.How can we keep printing things like"In God We Trust" on our money when it's clear that is not really true of our goverment?So way to go Huckabee!!! Keep up the good work and may the Lord give you strength

No, Dawnie, that's not what theocracy is. Theocracy is the placement of governmental authority in the hands of a church. We don't do that in this country. We elect our government, and we do it by allowing each person one vote and asking only that he or she cast it according to the dictates of his or her conscience. From there, we place no restrictions on how people form their consciences. If they want to base their judgments on the Bible, the Koran, or the New York Times, it's entirely up to them. We have a free market of ideas and whichever ones prove to be most persuasive will be reflected in the laws of the land. Likewise, if there is regional variation in religious and philosophical perspectives, that variation will manifest itself in the democratic process as well. For example, if there are more atheists in Oregon than in Utah, we should expect the laws of Oregon to be in closer alignment with an atheistic social ethic, just as we would expect the laws of Utah to be in closer alignment with a Mormon social ethic. That's exactly how it should be.

Spunky, I don't see a problem with the shifts in position that you're talking about. It is perfectly reasonable to acknowledge that the Constitution, as written, places the issue of abortion in the hands of the states (the lie that is Roe v. Wade notwithstanding), while supporting an amendment that would shift this authority to the federal government. It is also reasonable to adopt an incremental strategy of change that is focused on a series of short-term goals, each of which is achievable at a given point in time. Perhaps, Huckabee senses that public sentiment on abortion has changed, such that the time may be right for discussion of a constitutional amendment, whereas it might not have been right before.

What Huckabee said was Baptist-speak for what to Catholics is the natural law. All Huckabee is saying is that the laws of this country should reflect moral truth as it exists in the created order. Everyone who believes in law believes that it should reflect, broadly, their own idea of moral truth. No one is indifferent to whether or not the law permits men to hold slaves, or to kill their neighbor with impunity. That we have laws against those things means that a majority of people in this democracy believe that slave-holding and murder are morally wrong. Whether you believe they are wrong because God says so or because you simply happen to believe that, you cannot empirically prove your moral conclusions are correct. You are expecting the law to conform to a set of subjective principles. You are essentially no different from Huckabee in this regard.

What is gods stance on voting? Does the bible endorse democracy?

Doubt it, He gets upset when you conduct a census.

I'm not sure I disagree, exactly, with Huckabee, but I certainly wish he had not said it. These sorts of statements give ammunition to the Huckabee haters out there and tend to get recirculated forever via the Internet.

As a practical matter, I don't see much chance that a President Huckabee could martial the necessary support to change the Constitution. There are significant hurdles in the way for very good reasons.

Joe said, "Perhaps, Huckabee senses that public sentiment on abortion has changed, such that the time may be right for discussion of a constitutional amendment, whereas it might not have been right before."

Perhaps that is true. But for his website to say that he ALWAYS supported the amendment is wrong. He didn't. And for him to say that he always supported it is a lie.

And since we're speculating on why he changed his position, I'm more inclined to believe that Michael Farris (Homeschool Legal Defense Association founder) who is a senior unpaid advisor to Huckabee has caused his change to an amendment. I spoke to a representative of HSLDA who cited the Huckabee's support of the life amendment as one strong reason for the endorsement.

But in any case, seeing trends and switching positions are acceptable it's just that Huckabee refuses to acknowledge that he switched his position and instead purports to have ALWAYS supported the amendment. That's just not true.

"Run for your lives, it's a theocrat!"

Rod, we've been telling you that for months now.

"All Huckabee is saying is that the laws of this country should reflect moral truth as it exists in the created order."

Wrong, Rod. What Huck is saying is that the laws of the U.S. should reflect HIS "moral truths" as they exist in the Baptist School of Theology. Much, much different that moral truths in all of created order, methinks.

You even seem to admit as much when you say, "Everyone who believes in law believes that it should reflect, broadly, their OWN idea of moral truth." If everyone can have their OWN idea of moral truth, why does Huck's superced mine? Or any other citizen's? And why should they be imposed into laws governing othres who do not share them? inquiring minds wanna know.

"you cannot empirically prove your moral conclusions are correct"

Nor can Huckabee. Nor Romney. Nor any other would-be theocrat-cum-President. QED, and all that.

I agree with aaron: "He said in very clear language that he wants to subordinate our secular constitution to his narrow, extreme, sectarian view of God and this is ok why?"

Joseph,

"What if a group of secularists managed to ban together and through the democratic process completely expel God from government and the public square"

I'd say, "Hip, hip HOORAY!!!" especially considering there's supposed to be freedom of religion in America. Not everyone believes in God, let alone the SAME "God" (and nevermind the same teachings, or the same interpretation of Scriptures).

Secularism is a belief that we can still administer the affairs of a country if we extend tolerance and impartiality toward those who do not share our beliefs. Theocracy (Huckabee style, anyway) says "Let's impose OUR beliefs on the whole country and to he11 with those who believe otherwise.

I like what Franklin Evans had to say: "The establishment clause is ... a protection against religious tyranny." A much needed one, I'd say.

strech,

"if Obama used the same language in support of an amendment supporting gay and lesbian equal rights there'd be the same uproar"

But WHY? Why the "uproar"? For that matter, why should an "amendment" even BE necessary to give gay citizens "equal rights"? Aren't they already supposed to HAVE them? Aren't "ALL men (and presumably women too) created equal" anymore?

"I, for one, don't need to be saved to his faith, religion or his understanding of God. I realize that my comments seem harsh but i truly believe that Huckabee would be the worst thing for this country."

Ron, your coments are in no way "harsh"; they ring true. NO ONE "needs" to - or for that matter, SHOULD - be "saved" to another's "faith, religion or ... understanding of God". Not in a country that touts freedom of religion, anyway.

Andrea,

"I'm not sure I disagree, exactly, with Huckabee, but I certainly wish he had not said it."

Would you rather he harbored these 'thoughts' in his head sothat America doesn't REALLY know what a potential President might actually DO once in office? Methinks that's 'ostrich' thinking.

I can only hope that the loony right wingers in the GOP have their say and get Huckabee nominated. I would dearly LOVE to see him on the ballot this fall. It will insure that not only will the Democrats win the White House by a landslide that makes Nixon-McGovern look close, but it will likely provide sufficient coat-tails to insure a filibuster-proof majority for the Democrats in the Senate.

In other words, it will drive a very long and solid stake through the heart of the GOP. The war will be on, and the party will split completely.

"What you say may turn out to be true; and I understand your frustration. I plan to vote Democratic this year, and I really don't want my candidate to plan on exacting revenge on Republicans for the past eight years. I'm looking for someone to help build a few bridges to Republican moderates and, together, roll up their sleeves and get to work on repairing the damage of the past eight years."

I don't think that the Democrats will be the one insuring a Democratic majority. I think that the GOP will implode from within, with the fiscal conservatives and the social conservatives going to serious war over the future direction of the party.

Huckabee is the "perfect" social conservative candidate. The social conservatives have been carrying water for the GOP for nearly 20 years, and they feel that this is their time to have one of their own in the catbird seat. The fiscal conservatives are doing everything in their power to try to stop this because they know that such a candidate cannot win on the national level. To put it simply, Huckabee would be buried against any Democrat. The Greens might even finish higher than Huckabee would if he were the GOP nominee.

IF that happens, the social conservatives would finally have shoved in their face the facts that David Kuo wrote about in his book, and they would likely leave the party, probably camping in the Constitution Party or some other variant thereof. The fiscal conservatives would be left with the remnant of the GOP, which would be powerless to organize at the grassroots level for years. Remember, it is the social conservatives with their church networking that moves the party at the local level, not the fiscal conservatives. With the religious right gone from the party the GOP would be dead, as dead as a red-shirt on a Star Trek away team.

The ONLY way that the GOP keeps anything resembling a majority is to keep the fiscal and social conservatives in the house together. And the only way that happens is if McCain wins the nomination. The social conservatives will not support Romney, and the fiscal conservatives will not support Huckabee.

All the Democrats need to do is stand aside and watch the GOP fall apart.

It seems to me that Huckabee is making the same mistake that is often made by Jim Wallis. It's fine for Christian faith, Muslim faith, Jewish faith, etc., to inform the actions we take in public life, but when it comes to making laws that affect everyone, we have to give reasons for those laws that are not based on our particular religion.

Saying "it's God's standards" as if that settled any question whatsoever is ridiculous. God may or may not exist. Political life at some point has to be based on majority views that respect the rights of minorities, otherwise that life is tyranny.

No republican is going to get rid of abortion or gay marriage (in the federal constitution). After all, what would they use as leverage in their elections?

Rod, you may think this candidate believes the same way you do but you are sooooo wrong. Baptists do NOT believe anyone gets to heaven unless they have been "born-again". They do NOT believe Catholics/Mormons/Methodists, etc. are going my friend. I suggest you research born-again Baptist beliefs. They might hem & haw if you ask them about it, but I was a member of that denomination so I know what I am talking about.

"Rod, you may think this candidate believes the same way you do but you are sooooo wrong. Baptists do NOT believe anyone gets to heaven unless they have been "born-again". They do NOT believe Catholics/Mormons/Methodists, etc. are going my friend. I suggest you research born-again Baptist beliefs. They might hem & haw if you ask them about it, but I was a member of that denomination so I know what I am talking about."

Perhaps Rod should visit a local Zondervan Bookstore and look at the "Cults" section. There he would find books "proving" how Catholics, Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, Episcopalians, Methodists, and Jews (those who do not accept Christ, at least) are all bound for hell according to the Bible.

Maybe he should read the "Facts" series by John Ankerberg, or Walter Martin's books on cults.

I think the fact that Rod is missing this important factor in Baptist theological underpinnings is ample demonstration of how poorly Rod has researched Huckabee.

HUH??? What happened to my post???

RE-P, if we can't use the law impose our moral beliefs on others, what exactly are our laws supposed to do? We don't pass laws because everyone agrees on moral issues; we do it precisely because there are those who disagree with us. I would be perfectly content to live in a world where stealing was legal if everyone agreed that it was immoral. Unfortunately, there are those who think it's alright and that's why we need laws against it.

The first Amendment is for Freedom of speech. The Third Commandment is "Thou Shall Not Take the Lord's name in vain"... Do you see what I'm getting at?

The Old Testament advocates death for those who commit blasphemy. This would be in direct conflict with the first Amendment, no? If you truly believe in black and white then you should not be attempting to come up with some twisted logic to get around this most serious conflict with the word of God. Anyone who advocates for bringing the constitution in line with religion and the ten commandments is against Free Speech and therefore Un-American, period.

joe,

"if we can't use the law impose our moral beliefs on others, what exactly are our laws supposed to do"

Thanks first of all for actually admitting that this is, indeed, a push to "impose our moral beliefs on others".

To answer your question, laws are to ensure peace and order. I assure you that my marriage has caused disruption to neither.

"We don't pass laws because everyone agrees on moral issues; we do it precisely because there are those who disagree with us. I would be perfectly content to live in a world where stealing was legal if everyone agreed that it was immoral. Unfortunately, there are those who think it's alright and that's why we need laws against it."

Sorry but I don't 'get' your 'argument'. Apparently Franklin Evans does and he did a much better job of refuting it.

Though why you would be "perfectly content to live in a world where stealing was legal" escapes me. The morality/immorality of stealing aside, it causes HARM to the victim. I guess maybe it's HARM that we should regulate, instead of morality. My marriage does NOT cause anyone HARM.

And actually, I really don't think "there are those who think it's [stealing is] alright". I suspect they KNOW it's NOT "alright", but that they also think they can get away with it, DESPITE the harm it causes.

R E-P, sorry I missed your posting on the faith-based initiatives. My familiarity with that program is pretty limited, but based on my understanding of it, I would not characterize it as theocratic.

For many years, the federal government has awarded a wide variety of grants to private individuals and organizations in order to advance various public interests. However, I would not characterize grant recipients as holding governmental authority. That authority rests with the granting agencies, which often place very strict terms on the use of public funds. Those agencies are ultimately accountable to the people, not to the church.

Joe, thank you for offering that clarification. You touched on all the major points, and I can certainly appreciate that you have a vested interest in some aspects and not others. Your honesty is refreshing.

The notion that inequality must necessarily be relevant to any given issue is perhaps the most difficult to grasp. I have a bit more than a vested interest in taxation inequality, having been at various times an unmarried father of one, then a married father of (eventually) three; a provider of service and expert advice in a limited area of corporate taxation; and a property owner. I understand the phenomenon of inequality very well, and at the risk of seeming arrogant better than most.

The founders fought a revolution in large part because of an issue of inequality. Then, after the failed attempt at federal governance with the Articles of Confederation, they embarked on a unique experiment: an explicit definition of inequality, and a series of statements either justifying it or defining it as unacceptable, and why. Congress was a direct result of that, being inequal in favor of size (House) and inequal in ignoring size (Senate). The bicameral parliament was a deliberate attempt to balance inequalities. They established an inequal form of government (democracy and rule by majority) balanced by the definition of individual rights that were superior to the will of the majority in some respects.

Balance is the benchmark. All issues are weighed on that scale. The genius of the founders was not in the solutions they brought to their contemporary problems, but in their creating a mechanism that would find solutions to problems they could not imagine.