Huckabee (R Presidential Candidate) said today that the Constitution should be changed to reflect God's Word as reflected in the Christian Bible. I don't know what specifically he has in mind, but isn't he advocating the overthrow of our government?

The part about the Constitution may be reviewed, discussed, dissected or reformed, but his notion of "God's Word" could only apply to the New Testament portion of his Christian Bible. I have no idea what he really means by such statement. If it as you imply, in this post, I'd really like to know what exactly Huckabee thinks is so vastly superior about a Christian Constitution. In Judaism, the Tanakh, or more specifically the Torah permitted (commanded) setting up guidelines for governing, otherwise known as the Noachide laws that predated Christianity by thousands of years. Certainly in Israel and within Jewish communities worldwide we are permitted change, and if necessary because as Jews, we are a people, nation, ethnicity, and faith. But I can't imagine in the US that Huckabee could advocate a Christian coup of sorts or high-jack the government based solely on his view of the Christian Bible. If so, which is questionable until we get solid facts, this would be teetering on the level of Pat Robertson weird. I'll reserve making any more comments until I read about some details. Good question though.





Bobby

First I don't know he said it, I have not heard it officially and in political times there are more liies about canidates than truth.

But no, the if there is votes and if the Constitution is changed, there is no over throw, women could not vote at one point, that was changed,
So if this was to be the case, there would just need to be chnages made to the Constitiion and property voted on.

Huckabee (R Presidential Candidate) said today that the Constitution should be changed to reflect God's Word as reflected in the Christian Bible. I don't know what specifically he has in mind, but isn't he advocating the overthrow of our government?


From Yahoo news it does not appear he said that the constitution should reflex the word of God but he wanted to merely change it to ban gay marriage and abortion.

Here is a section from Yahoo news

In South Carolina, as he did in Michigan, Huckabee was expected to rally pastors to help turn out their flocks. He has called for constitutional amendments to ban abortion and gay marriage, noting that some of his rivals don't 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," he said Monday night in Warren, Mich. "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."

Fr_Chuck,


Here's a link:

Huck, the Constitution and 'God's standards' - First Read - msnbc.com (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/15/579265.aspx)


After reading the news commentary piece I didn't find anything that outlandish that Huckabee has mentioned that other Evangelical candidates haven't already said, implied, or suggested before. Although I disagree with parts of Christian theology in general, I have no problem with his desired expression to change the Constitution based on his views, or anyone else, including if the candidate was a lifelong Atheist for that matter. That's politics in an election year and we simply agree with candidate or not. As you mentioned earlier, at one time women could not vote. Personally to me the Constitution is an imperfect body of work.



Bobby

An amendment on banning abortion has been tried before. It went nowhere and would not succeed again . The founders made it specifically difficult to change the Constitution ,and really there is no need to. Roe v Wade was an unconstitutional decision and what really needs to be done is to appoint judges who understand that.

The Huckster is pandering to the evangelical base . He knows that there will be no constitutional amendments on either issue. Huckleberry is no different than any politician who uses who or what they can to gain something for themselves.

I'm not interested in electing Nehemiah Scudder. All he needs is Bill Clintoon's sex drive and he could be Elmer Gantry .

I like how in the USA, where you are supposedly free to believe any religion you want, that Huckabee wants to change the Constitution to reflect the beliefs of his God.

News Flash Huck: Your God isn't the only God that's loved and warshipped in the USA. This country was founded on separation of church and state. What gives you the right to put your beliefs ahead of everyone else's?

His damn religious views are going to blind this country.

I have no problem with his desired expression to change the Constitution based on his views, or anyone else, including if the candidate was a lifelong Atheist for that matter.
I'd like to know why.

I have a problem with it because it's not his constitution to change, and because this country is supposed to be separate from the church. That's how America was founded, remember? People left England because the Church of England was too closely tied to the government. It was so bad, that everyone was willing to risk death and uncertainty to cross the ocean to get to America, rather than spend another day living under England's rule.

Why some of you people see nothing wrong with this, I'll never know.

Huckabee (R Presidential Candidate) said today that the Constitution should be changed to reflect God's Word as reflected in the Christian Bible.[/QUOTE]

As others have noted he was referring specifically to abortion and same sex marriage. Ain't going to happen, but he sure spoke sweet music to the ears of many conservative evangelicals.


I don't know what specifically he has in mind, but isn't he advocating the overthrow of our government?

No, lol. Huckabee may very well have self-destructed with that remark.

EuRa . To a point I agree with you . If a Muslim candidate were saying such things then most of us would be rightly alarmed. The founders were predominantly Christian and openly sought God's guidance in writing it. There should be nothing the Huckster should desire to change.

He was talking amending it for 2 specific contentious issues that needs to be addressed .His statement is taken out of content by the poster of the discussion although I agree with the sentiment . An amendment to ban gay marriage or abortion is not going to happen But it makes his supported feel good to hear it.

Remember when everyone was afraid that Romney would be influenced by his religion? Well;the Huckster has turned into that candidate ;preaching from the pulpit during the campaign .

Quote:
I don't know what specifically he has in mind, but isn't he advocating the overthrow of our government?


No, lol. Huckabee may very well have self-destructed with that remark

Here's hoping. He is becoming the Ayatollah Hucktada al Sada

Here's hoping. He is becoming the Ayatollah Hucktada al Sada

LOL, Hucktada al Sada... :D

It should comfort some (you know who you are) to know I haven't thrown my support behind Hucktada. Yeah, I want my president to have faith in God but I'm not voting for a new pastor.

I'd like to know why.

I have a problem with it because it's not his constitution to change, and because this country is supposed to be seperate from the church. That's how America was founded, remember? People left England because the Church of England was too closely tied to the government. It was so bad, that everyone was willing to risk death and uncertainty to cross the ocean to get to America, rather than spend another day living under England's rule.

Why some of you people see nothing wrong with this, I'll never know.


"You people?" Did you mean US citizens? I don't know where your people are from, but for all my country's imperfections I'm still content living in the US.

You need to highlight the correct portion of the subject quoted; I'll do that now. I have no problem with his desired expression. In other words, freedom of expression! That's what I love about living in the United States. BTW historically speaking by far the majority of people that live in the States are immigrants or had family that migrated from other countries, not just England. We vote in politicians whom we like, or not. Besides most of them never get the chance to do what they promise during elections. Those that get the opportunity by being elected, by we the people, still have to deal with a checks and balance system. If in the US we started shutting people out from being able to express themselves, or reform that which may need amending, we would be back under the era of suppression of the Church of England. And I for one certainly don't want that!




Bobby

EuRa,

If all Americans are free to give their opinions, isn't Huckabee free to do the same? Even if you disagree with it? I'm not sure what Huckabee said or meant, but it seems to me that he has the same rights as anyone else. And that includes the right to advocate for a Constitutional Amendment on an issue that you disagree with. Don't like his opinion? Don't vote for him. But he gets his right to preach in favor of his version of G-d from the same place that you get your right to disagree with it... from the Constitution.

Chou,

No, I do not believe that Huckabee is advocating the overthrow of the government. What he is advocating is his trying to make his personal religious opinion into law via the estalished legal process of Constitutional Amendment. That is very different from advocating the overthrow of the government. And again, if you don't like his position, don't vote for him.

Personally, this is one area where you and I agree... Huckabee will not be getting my vote. But it's not because he is trying to overthrow anything. I just don't like his positions on the issues... including his Evangelistic positions calling for Constitutional Amendments. Keeping in mind that he has the right to advocate those positions however he wishes (wthin the bounds of the law), I don't agree with those positions, and I intend to vote against him and advocate against him.

It's called freedom of speech, people, and everyone has it... even those you disagree with.

Elliot

"You people?" Did you mean US citizens?! I don't know where your people are from, but for all my country's imperfections I'm still content living in the US.
I stated "this country" when I referred to the United States in 2 of my replies, but somehow you still managed to assume I wasn't American. Selective reading?


You need to highlight the correct portion of the subject quoted; I'll do that now. I have no problem with his desired expression. In other words, freedom of expression! That's what I love about living in the United States. BTW historically speaking by far the majority of people that live in the States are immigrants or had family that migrated from other countries, not just England. We vote in politicians whom we like, or not. Besides most of them never get the chance to do what they promise during elections. Those that get the opportunity by being elected, by we the people, still have to deal with a checks and balance system. If in the US we started shutting people out from being able to express themselves, or reform that which may need amending, we would be back under the era of suppression of the Church of England. And I for one certainly don't want that!
So your main point is that you have no problem with the fact that he has freedom of speech, and is excercising his rights? There's a difference between a general "desired expression" and a specific "desired expression that has direction". Besides, an expression is more of a feeling or thought. Huckabee wants to change the constitution to reflect his religious beliefs, which is more of a suggestion. I have every right to disagree. It appeared you agreed with his suggesion. Was I wrong?

You said:

I have no problem with his desired expression to change the Constitution based on his views
You might have been talking about Huckabee's freedom of speech, but the above indicates you wouldn't mind if the constitution were changed based on religious beliefs. The following further supports your statement:


Personally to me the Constitution is an imperfect body of work.
This would suggest that you support his idea to change the constitution based on his religious beliefs. Was I wrong? Do you agree or disagree? If you disagree, make it clear, because so far you have been vague.

I just heard a sound bite, and I was alarmed by the language and message. Thanks for finding the actual quote on Yahoo. Greatly appreciated.

EuRa,

If all Americans are free to give their opinions, isn't Huckabee free to do the same? Even if you disagree with it? I'm not sure what Huckabee said or meant, but it seems to me that he has the same rights as anyone else. And that includes the right to advocate for a Constitutional Amendment on an issue that you disagree with. Don't like his opinion? Don't vote for him. But he gets his right to preach in favor of his version of G-d from the same place that you get your right to disagree with it... from the Constitution.
Look what you did Bam. You've altered my response so much that other people don't understand what I'm saying.

I don't care if Huckabee said he wants it changed or not. I don't care if he said he wanted to change the constitution to include legalizing murder. Whatever he says is his choice. All I did was disagree with him. That's all I did. I disagree. He can say whatever he wants, but on the issue of changing the constitution to reflect his own personal beliefs, I disagree.

I stated "this country" when I refered to the United States in 2 of my replies, but somehow you still managed to assume I wasn't American. Selective reading?.


How ironic that you have selective typing skills. You must of meant, "our people." Although you typed, "you people."



So your main point is that you have no problem with the fact that he has freedom of speech, and is excercising his rights? There's a difference between a general "desired expression" and a specific "desired expression that has direction". Besides, an expression is more of a feeling or thought. Huckabee wants to change the constitution to reflect his religious beliefs, which is more of a suggestion. I have every right to disagree. It appeared you agreed with his suggesion. Was I wrong??.



In a word "YES." You're wrong. Actually I don't agree with the candidate on some issues, but we are not living in Nazi Germany, or under the suppression of the old Church of England, or rule of the Mafioso to permanently shut mouths here in the US. Trying to amend the Constitution is not so easily done, but the notion itself is not illegal.;)

Amending the Constitution (http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/blconstamend.htm)


You might have been talking about Huckabee's freedom of speech, but the above indicates you wouldn't mind if the constitution were changed based on religious beliefs. This would suggest that you support his idea to change the constitution based on his religious beliefs. Was I wrong? Do you agree or disagree? If you disagree, make it clear, because so far you have been vague.


Wrong again. It can be proposed for change under any ideology, not just a religious view. In fact I even mentioned not caring if the person was a lifelong Atheist; it's not relative. Vague? I've taken your Church of England idea and put it into context. Huckabee has done nothing illegal here; transparently clear.



Bobby

EuRa,

You said in one of your pior posts:


What gives you the right to put your beliefs ahead of everyone else's?


My response was a direct answer to that question. Huckabee has that right because the CONSTITUTION gives him that right. I happen to disagree with his stance as well. But that doesn't mean that he doesn't have the right to "put his God before everyone else's opinion" in his statements and to advocate for that position.

Unless I completely misunderstood your question (which seems pretty cut-and-dried to me) I think my response directly answers that question.

Elliot

EuRa,

You said in one of your pior posts:


What gives you the right to put your beliefs ahead of everyone elses?

My response was a direct answer to that question. Huckabee has that right because the CONSTITUTION gives him that right. I happen to disagree with his stance as well. But that doesn't mean that he doesn't have the right to "put his God before everyone else's opinion" in his statements and to advocate for that position.

Unless I completely misunderstood your question (which seems pretty cut-and-dried to me) I think my response directly answers that question.

Elliot
Nah you took it out of context.

Once again, I know that Huckabee has every right to voice his opinion. I know that. I agree with that.

But I don't like how he's coming off. If I were running for president, I wouldn't be up there touting my religious beliefs, and trying to tell everyone how I would attempt to change the constitution because of religion, thus making me look like an untouchable dictator.

I'm 27, and if I was running for President (yes I know you have to be 45, just bear with me) and said "everyone 27 and under dont have to pay taxes, and im going to ammend the constitution because thats in my religion", you don't think I wouldn't tick a few people off? Id have my supporters, but Id have people who wouldn't support me too. And since when did I come off as the spokesman for 27 year olds and under? What gives me the right to just go saying what I would do to the constitution, the USA's most precious document, just to amend something because of my own personal beliefs?

He doesn't want to change the constitution for the good of the American people. He wants to do it because he's selfish. He want's to incorporate his beliefs into government Those two don't mix. That's my problem.

No. I meant "you people". It's vague. It doesn't have to mean USA. In this instance, it meant all the people I considered to be idiots.


... ??? Are... are you stupid? Or are you just making things up? I disagreed with Huckabee, then asked if I was wrong to disagree. You said I was. How can an opinion be wrong? Or do you assume that I said "you can't change the constitution because you just can't"... because that's what it looks like you think I said, and I definitely didn't.


I'm not going to chastise your personal degrading comments, that's up to the moderator to chide you for childish behaviour here. I will, however, detail how you compromised any integrity you may have had for the embarrassment that you brought upon yourself.

You quoted me as having said: Originally Posted by BABRAM
"I have no problem with his desired expression to change the Constitution based on his views, or anyone else, including if the candidate was a lifelong Atheist for that matter."


Then you followed by asking me a question in the form of a statement:



I'd like to know why.

I have a problem with it because it's not his constitution to change, and because this country is supposed to be seperate from the church. That's how America was founded, remember? People left England because the Church of England was too closely tied to the government. It was so bad, that everyone was willing to risk death and uncertainty to cross the ocean to get to America, rather than spend another day living under England's rule.

Why some of you people see nothing wrong with this, I'll never know.


I answer it from several factual aspects: freedom of speech, historical context (after you brought up the Church of England), and then legalities.



.fkl;aej;gjagjrjopr&$^#@(YROUHFAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH

OK listen to me. Pay attention carefully. I never once said that the constitution can't be changed. I'm meerly saying that I disagree with his reasons for change. I've already stated that what.... 4-5 times now? An opinion can't be wrong. Not everyone will agree with me and I'm fine with that. That's the way it's supposed to be. How can an opinion be wrong? Leave it to you to twist my words around..


Son (or daughter), cussing at me doesn't make it right. You did this to yourself. I stated before that I don't agree with Huckabee on some issues.



I've already asked you once. Do you agree or disagree with Huckabees decision to changing the constitution? Do you like the fact that he wants to add abortion and gay marriage to the constitution? You've yet to answer me.


More than likely because I was to busy correcting your mistakes and catching you up to speed. Again I agree with his right to propose a Constitutional change. Personally on the issue of abortion I stand with Pro-Life advocates, with exception of rape or if the mother's life is in danger. There is no such thing as a "gay marriage," and never has been. What you are attempting to suggest is same sex unions, that of which I could careless about.




Lastly, why do you sign everyting at the end. "Bobby". We fukn know who wrote it, you're name is to the left of the message every time. The only other guy who I ever saw do that used the screen name "Beethoven", and he would do the same thing you do... -Beet. He always came off as a pompus , better than everyone personality. You're awefully close. Beets, is that you? I wouldn't doubt it..

BABRAM is my screen name, and my real given name is "Bobby." I attempt to accept everyone on a worthy respectable personal level. Why make enemies with complete strangers? Subjects that are posted on this board can be googled and that reflects on all of us. If "EuRa" is not on your birth certificate and you do not wish to confine your actual given name here, then that's up to you. I have no clue who it is using the screen name of ""Beethoven", nor do I care because it's not relative to the post or your behaviour which has become deplorable.



omg, everyone in the politics section does it. Elliot. Choux. Who are you people? Nobodies! Same as me! omg.


I personally know Elliot. Thank G-d he's is not like you. He's mature beyond your 27 years of adolescence. As for Choux (Mary) she may disagree with me at times (and passionately I might add), but she never once cussed at me personally.





Bobby

Mike Huckabee for President - Issues (http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_id=5)

This amounts to a government overthrow than does his expressed religious view.

To the government tax money is their god. :)

Actually he is telling people he wants to stop gay marriage and abortion because it is a very popular among conservative voters.

The US constitution has been adminded many times.

And it is really not his religion he is merely saying what many voters want to hear, that the US Constitution will be returned to say what many believe it should say or did say before our courts has watered it down

Bobby... do you even read what you write? None of it makes sense. Here's what went down in simple terms:

1) Someone stated how Huckabee wants to change the constitution to meet "God's Standard".
2) You danced around the topic, basically saying "I support free speech", which doesn't really say anything.
3) I called Huckabee an idiot. That's my opinion. Why would anyone suggest changing the Constitution to reflect his or her own personal beliefs, let alone someone running for President. It's going to hurt his campaign big time. I disagreed.
4) You went on to tell me "Dude, EuRa, the Constitution is change-able man.", and called my opiniong "wrong". AN OPINION IS WRONG? Now I see what I'm dealing with here. Besides, what you said I said wasn't what I said to begin with, so I corrected you... then re-corrected you... etc etc. You still don't seem to get it, I don't know maybe you are pretending to be stupid.
5) I asked if you agreed or disagreed that the Constitution should be changed to reflect his religious beliefs. You never answered. This is the closest to an answer, which isn't even an answer:


I agree with his right to propose a Constitutional change.
YOU AGREE WITH HIS RIGHT TO A PROPOSAL? WHO DOESN'T! WHAT KIND OF ANSWER IS THAT! You totally avoided my question. Danced around it, didn't answer it. I'm not asking if you agree to his right to a proposal, I'm asking if you agree with his proposal. Do I need to re-write it so even a little kid could understand?

Do you, Bobby, agree with Huckabee when he states we need to change or amend the Constitution to agree with "God's Standard"?

Stop changing my words. Stop trying to alter what I'm trying to say. You don't get it, you won't get it, so drop it. I disagree with Huckabee, that's all you need to know. I'll drop everything else just so it doesn't confuse you any more than it already has. The only question I have for you, is the same question I've had all along. And you've yet to answer it. Why not? Afraid to disagree with Huckabee? Or afraid to agree with me? Which is it?

Actually he is telling people he wants to stop gay marriage and abortion because it is a very popular amoung conservitive voters.

The US constitution has been adminded many times.

And it is really not his religion he is merley saying what many voters want to hear, that the US Constitution will be returned to say what many beleive it should say or did say before our courts has watered it down
Here's a direct quote from Huckabee:

"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 -- to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view."

He wants to change it because this is what the people want to hear? How come no other candidate is saying it then? I guess it's just a coincidence that he's a minister, right? Read the above quote. Sounds like the reasoning to me is to change the constitution to meet the requirements of his God. Well my God doesn't like that, and he's telling me to tell Huckabee and his supporters to piss off. That's what I'm doing.

I like how Huckabee put himself in charge of determining God's standards. Never mind the fact that the President of the United States must take an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

And never mind the fact that the Constitution he must protect includes the First Amendment, which explicitly states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Yeah, let's ignore all that and just go willy nilly on the Constitution just because he wants to. Smooth.

I just know the Constitution very well. Our founding fathers would throw Huckabee out the door if he was around during their days. They were religious men too, but they were smart enough to separate church and state. Huckabee should be hung just for suggesting to combine the two.

The bible is Gods rules and the constitution is set basically on it, and actually if the founding fathers saw what our Supreme Court has done with the rulings on it, they may have made George Washington a King instead, They would never had intended it to be abused to such an level that America has taken it.

They would never had allowed some of the issue Huckabee want "changed" like abortion, So one has to wonder if he is not really trying to make things more like the founding fathers had wanted.

The bible is Gods rules and the constitution is set basicly on it, and actually if the founding fathers saw what our Supreme Court has done with the rulings on it, they may have made George Washington a King instead, They would never had intended it to be abused to such an level that America has taken it.

They would never had allowed some of the issue Huckabee want "changed" like abortion, So one has to wonder if he is not really trying to make things more like the founding fathers had wanted.
How can you say they would never allow it... then say Huckabee is trying to make things the way they wanted it. Those are exact opposites, unless I'm reading you incorrectly.

And the Constitution wasn't based on the Bible. According to this government website that's sole purpose is to inform the American people about all official historical documents in our history:

NARA | The National Archives Experience (http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_history.html)

"Several of the ideas in the Constitution were new, and a large number of ideas were drawn from the literature of Republicanism in the United States, from the experiences of the 13 states, and from the British experience with mixed government. The most important influence from the European continent was from Montesquieu, who emphasized the need to have balanced forces pushing against each other to prevent tyranny. (This in itself reflects the influence of Polybius' 2nd century BC treatise on the checks and balances of the constitution of the Roman Republic.) John Locke is known to have been a major influence, and the due process clause of the United States Constitution was partly based on common law stretching back to the Magna Carta of 1215."

Nothing about the Bible is mentioned anywhere in that link. Go ahead, browse around. I've heard several Christians, even arguing with me in church, that this country was founded on the Bible. They claim it to be true, but it isn't. My cousin works for the Dept of the White House, and he knows more about all historical documents than anyone I know. He agrees with me, the Bible has nothing to do with the Constitution. If you can't believe the Government, or the direct words from the founding fathers on that website Fr_Chuck, then I guess you just choose to believe yourself without any proof, and there's nothing I can say about that.

EuRa- Please tell me you're impotent. I'm really starting to worry that you might have kids one day. You can either take correction like an adult or put me on your ignore list. But one thing you're not ever going to be able to do, no matter how big a temper-tantrum you throw is think that I have to drop it, because you said so. Son, you may act like punk, but you are not a dictator.

If what you espouse is an education than truly the standards have been lowered in the past 27 years. Not only do I read what I type, but so did Elliot, and apparently the moderators. You can bet your tuchus that I'd be first to challenge Huckabee, I even answered so in the very first reply to Choux's assumed posted question. Your questions were assumptions that had to be corrected. So far you're lucky that the moderator took the post to the discussion forum and didn't suspend you for poor behaviour.





Bobby

EuRa- Please tell me you're impotent. I'm really starting to worry that you might have kids one day. You can either take correction like an adult or put me on your ignore list. But one thing you're not ever going to be able to do, no matter how big a temper-tantrum you throw is think that I have to drop it, because you said so. Son, you may act like punk, but you are not a dictator.

If what you espouse is an education than truly the standards have been lowered in the past 27 years. Not only do I read what I type, but so did Elliot, and apparently the moderators. You can bet your tuchus that I'd be first to challenge Huckabee, I even answered so in the very first reply to Choux's assumed posted question. Your questions were assumptions that had to be corrected. So far you're lucky that the moderator took the post to the discussion forum and didn't suspend you for poor behaviour.

Bobby
Blah blah blah. Still didn't answer my question. 5-6 times I've asked now. All you can do is throw out some big words that never amount to anything close to an answer. I read your so-called "answer" in your first reply. All you did was answer by asking more questions. "I don't know what he means by such a statement" and "what makes Christian Constitution superior?"... huh? What do you mean "what does he mean?" He said what he meant on several news sites. Can't you figure that out? Who said his idea was superior! I never read that anywhere.

Some people (you) think about things too much. When you over think, you look beyond the main point of the discussion, and do what you're doing, which amounts to nothing.

This entire time, I've stated over and over why it's a bad idea. You know exactly where I stand and why. But where does BAM stand? Nobody knows.




Bobby's God

Also Bob, if this amendment exists in the Constitution (and let's assume you wrote it so that you can feel powerful):

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

And then someone who wants to be elected to office says this:

"I want to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards"

You're telling me you wouldn't be a little peeved? If you are American, shouldn't you love the Constitution and abide by it? If that's the case, why aren't you like me: upset that someone wants to bypass an Amendment of the Constitution, which was made to control people like Huckabee from turning this country into one too closely tied to religion.

I'm sorry Bobb-o, but the majority of problems in this world is due to religion. Jews and the Arabs fight each other. Hitler wanted to exterminate all Jews as well, thus creating WWII. There has been secular violence in Iraq and dozens of other countries for decades because of religion. The farther we are from religion, the better.

Obviously I answered the question on levels beyond your comprehension. What part of "I'd be the first to challenge Huckabee" do you not understand. I already went over the religious aspect in my original reply to Choux, then with you I answered to correct your misconceptions with several factual aspects: freedom of speech, historical context (after you brought up the Church of England), and then legalities.

What do you mean by "Bam's God?" Are you making a sarcastic threat about Judaism? That I have a faith in G-d? Does the fact that I'm Jewish have you wanting to load me up on a cattle car for the showers? I knew it was just matter of time before you showed your true colors.




Bobby

Huckabee (R Presidential Candidate) said today that the Constitution should be changed to reflect God's Word as reflected in the Christian Bible. I don't know what specifically he has in mind, but isn't he advocating the overthrow of our government?
I believe this is an example of that old saying, 'Just give him enough rope and he'll hang himself.'

All I know is that this comment and the comments of his campaign manager Ed Rollins about Reagan Conservativism being dead is all I need to know in my consideration about him. He is a Jimmy Carter "conservative ". His economic solutions are right out of the Democrat play book. His foreign policy essay in Foreign Affairs Magazine was rambling and incoherent. All he had to his credit was his social values .Shake, Rattle and Roil the Grand Ol' Coalition - New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/30/weekinreview/30kirkpatrick.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin)

But his statement crosses the line big time. If he is the nominee he will be the living personification of the false caricature that the Democrats tried to label onto President Bush .

first I don't know he said it, I have not heard it officially and in political times there are more liies about canidates than truth.

The Raw Story | Huckabee: Amend Constitution to be in 'God's standards' (http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Huckabee_Amend_Constitution_to_meet_Gods_0115.html )


"I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution," Huckabee told a Michigan audience on Monday. "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 -- to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view."
There is also a video on that page as well.

Hello:

He's saying he's going to change the Constitution. He's telling us about it beforehand. That gives us a fair picture of the man.

George Bush, however, changed our Constitution, and DIDN'T tell us about it beforehand. He even lies about it afterwards. That's worse! - a thousand times worse!!

excon

From a philosophical standpoint yes it would be easier to change the Constitution than the word of God .

I dispute his contention that the Constitution NEEDS to be changed so it's in God's standards .

The Huckster preached from the pulpit Sunday . The Associated Press: Huckabee Eschews Politics for Preaching (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jB892tzOUc1w708xuk49pzfZ3yyQD8U54FU80)
I would suggest he should decide what he wants to be ;President or Preacher .

Tom- Huckabee might not pull out of the campaign, but he'll never get the chance to carry out his rhetoric and promises. I suspect he's done by the end of next month, at least I'm hopeful. He doesn't have my support. He's pandering to Evangelical Republicans.


Bobby

Tom- Huckabee might not pull out of the campaign, but he'll never get the chance to cary out his rhetoric and promises. I suspect he's done by the end of next month, at least I'm hopeful. He doesn't have my support. He's pandering to Evangelical Republicans.

He isn't just pandering, he pretty much has them wrapped around his finger now. He's been running around the country preaching for a long time. In fact he preached at a Baptist church here (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/07/22/huckabee-fires-shot-at-frontrunners/) in July and convinced my oldest brother that he was the man - without discussing politics. Even as an evangelical that's what bothers me, how many people might be supporting him as pastor without regard as to what kind of president he would be.

that's what bothers me, how many people might be supporting him as pastor without regard as to what kind of president he would be.Hello Steve:

How many? All those people who think this is a Christian country. I think there's quite a few people who think that.

excon

"He's been running around the country preaching for a long time. In fact he preached at a Baptist church here... without discussing politics. Even as an evangelical that's what bothers me, how many people might be supporting him as pastor without regard as to what kind of president he would be."

There was Carter, Clinton, and now Huck. Even Gore tried this, but hell, he went to Harvard.

There was Carter, Clinton, and now Huck. Even Gore tried this, but hell, he went to Harvard.Carter, Clinton and Gore were pastors preaching in churches??

Carter, Clinton and Gore were pastors preaching in churches????
Oh yes; you didn't know? Dems can be pols and pastors and there are no church/state problems; those appear when you are GOP/pol; actually heard mention last night of Giuliani discussing his faith, and all eyebrows were suspiciously raised.

There was Carter, Clinton, and now Huck. Even Gore tried this, but hell, he went to Harvard.

Carter was a Sunday School teacher, and he was not a conservative evangelical. The Clintons and Gore strictly pandered, they don't actually speak the language... at least not believably.

"I don't feel no ways tired. I come too farrrrrr from where I started..."

and all eyebrows were suspiciously raised.Hello again, George:

Yeah, and I was one of 'em!

You'll have to pardon me if I look askance at all the Republicans (and even the Democrats) trying to out Christian each other. Frankly, I'm embarrassed by it.

Me? I believe the Constitution where it says that there shall be no religious test for president. Apparently these people are trying to pass a test that they're all making up.

I don't like it when people make up stuff about the Constitution, or disrespect what it says. If I were running for PRESIDENT of the most powerful nation in the world (where in my oath of office, I'm going to promise to faithfully uphold and defend the Constitution), and I was asked about MY religion, I would politely decline the invitation and cite the Constitution.

But, that's just me.

excon

Carter is most definitely an evangelical. Check this: frontline: the jesus factor: president and his faith: religion in the white house - then and now | PBS (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jesus/president/religion.html)

Why excon, you remind me of Ronald Reagan; so exemplary!

Hello again, George:

Yeah, and I was one of 'em!

You'll have to pardon me if I look askance at all the Republicans (and even the Democrats) trying to out Christian each other. Frankly, I’m embarrassed by it.

Me? I believe the Constitution where it says that there shall be no religious test for president. Apparently these people are trying to pass a test that they're all making up.

I don't like it when people make up stuff about the Constitution, or disrespect what it says. If I were running for PRESIDENT of the most powerful nation in the world, where in my oath of office, I'm going to promise to faithfully uphold the Constitution, and I was asked about MY religion, I would politely decline the invitation and cite the Constitution. But, that's just me.

excon

My friend, you will know the rubber has hit the road when Obama is visiting in Southern, black churches; the Democratic South Carolina primary is two weeks away?? Politics does make strange bedfellows.

Hello Steve:

How many?? All those people who think this is a Christian country. I think there's quite a few people who think that.

Yeah, but we aren't talking about all those people, just the 30-35 percent of the country (http://www.wheaton.edu/isae/defining_evangelicalism.html) that fit the bill of an evangelical. And among those, the ones that more than likely would vote Republican, and among that number those that support Huckabee without knowing much of anything about his politics.

My friend, you will know the rubber has hit the road when Obama is visiting in Southern, black churches;Hello again, George:

I'm sure he'll be a regular old black Elmer Gantry.

excon

Carter is most definitely an evangelical. Check this: frontline: the jesus factor: president and his faith: religion in the white house - then and now | PBS (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jesus/president/religion.html)

Carter is and was most definitely a liberal Baptist, in his politics and in his religion. He and Huckabee are miles apart in what I'm referring to.

Carter is most definitely an evangelical. Check this: frontline: the jesus factor: president and his faith: religion in the white house - then and now | PBS (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jesus/president/religion.html)From the article you quoted:

But Jimmy Carter comes out of an old Baptist tradition that very much respected, highlighted, revered the separation of church and state.I really don't care what he does on his own time, it's how he brings it, or not, to the office and effects change because of it.

Of course one issue not reallly mentioned, there is no "real" separation of church and state, the constitution only stops the government from passing a law that restricts the church ( although they do it all the time anyway) and it stops them from having a national religion.

At no time does it really say that churches can't have a say in the political process, it does not say that churches can't work for the election of people that will help make thins happen.

For example, the issue here was that he was against gay marriage and abortion. Now if his religiouis views allowed these and he wanted to make gay marriage legal because of his religioius views on it, then the same people against the one, would be all for the other.

Religion is only bad when it is against your moral lifestyle to most people complaining here.

Religion is only bad when it is against your moral lifestyle to most people complaining here.:rolleyes: