spiderman2 said:

As I told you, these secularists are dumb. You have to teach them real hard so they understand things.

Actually, the anti-abortion law is not needed if all the people here are smart. It wasn't included in the constitution before coz most people in that era were smart.
---------------------------------------------------
Have you ever studied the history of abortion? it goes back in written history to 500BC. It obviously existed then, so certainly before then as well.

An 1870 survey of women in Berlin (then a very cosmopolitan city of Europe) found that 70% had terminated a pregnancy by various means. When asked how, one said she bought a potent from a magazine & took it; another used a piece of sharpened wood; another got up on furniture & jumped off over & over. No doctors.

Women have always practiced abortion, by many means. It is sad & infuriating that the radicals of the far right have hijacked this very important & common private procedure for a power-grabbing scheme today.

If that doesn't "teach" you, notice that the Old Testament talked about penalties to a man if he caused a woman to lose a child, but they never talked about penalties to a woman for ending her own pregnancy. I think wise men recognize that if a woman does not want a child, perhaps it's best she not have it. But it is recognized as her personal decision.

Death of life, any kind of life, is always momentous. Deaths of soldiers in an unjust war, deaths of children at the hands of adults, death by suicide from hopelessness, all of these are worthy of being opposed. But telling a woman what to do with her own body is tantamount to forcing young men to go fight & possibly die for a cause they do not believe in. That didn't work in Vietnam, it almost destroyed this country in the 1960's, and it will devastate us again if people like Huckabee are allowed to hijack abortion for political gain.

The Professor quoted The Candidate as saying the following:

I have opponents in this race who 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 so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other and how we treat the family.

The Professor and many of the blog respondents seem threatened by this assertion of The Candidate. Why? Didn't the signers of The Constitution incorporate an amendment process into The Constitution? The signers weren't threatened by the possibility of amending The Constitution. At least, not threatened enough to eliminate the amendment process.

Some of the representatives at The Constitutional Convention represented a constiuency that did feel threatened by the possibility of slavery being outlawed through the amendment process, but they didn't win the day. The signers voted to allow The Constitution to be amended.

A statement by The Candidate that suggests amending The Constitution isn't an attack on The Constitution. The amendment process is part of The Constitution.

As for using Jesus' standards (as recorded by the writers of The Gospel) as a plumb-line for judging whether parts of The Constitution should be amended, the signers of The Constitution were of a similar sentiment. Among the signers, there wouldn't have been much disagreement with The Candidate's statement about amending The Constitution to better conform to The Word of God. Of course, there might have been discomfort with some of the ramifications of how that might have effected personal, econimic behavior.

Even today, it's the perceptions about personal ramifications of particular amendments that lead to discomfort with what is being suggested by The Candidate.

Those who are uncomfortable with The Candidate won't support him. Those who are more comfortable with him than with other candidates will support him.

Either way, let's not pretend that suggesting amendments based on certain religious beliefs is an attack on The Constitution.

Michael,
Read Wonders for Oyarsa's post regarding man's law versus God's law. I think it will help you a little bit more to understand the viewpoint that I am coming from. It is fine to have man's law, but unless it is based upon God's law, we will be in a sad state as a country! (Look at any other country that does not have God as its core). Also, I was not trying to "preach" at you, merely state the obvious of the moral state of this country. I think, or at least hope anyone can see the downward spiral that we are in!

You only need to see how little right-to-lifers get worked up over the daily destruction of embryos at fertility clinics to see where their morality is. These same right-to-lifers want to toss mothers in jail if they damage their fetus. The difference? Right-to-lifers forcing a mother by law to carry an embryo costs them nothing but if they were to rescue frozen embryos they would have to pay about $25/embryo/month to keep them frozen since they cannot (yet) force them into a woman's womb. So the horrible deaths by thawing of frozen embryos is ignored while mothers will be tossed in jail for a miscarriage. Their morality is directed by economics, not God, not goodness, not conviction. Where are the collection plates to pay for keeping frozen embryos frozen and thus alive?

Again, if the consequences of this amendment were understood no one would vote for it. If the right-to-lifers had to pay to save every embryo-person, they would quickly withdraw the amendment. They are all talk, no useful action. Their morality is not moral or consistent.

Oh, and getting back to the subject, this is why Huckabee is talking about God being more important than the Constitution, because the right-to-lifers are planning to attack the Constitutions of GA, CO and the USA this fall with this constitutional amendment. His statement made perfect sense if you are a one-dimensional right-to-life thinker, just the people he is hoping to get votes from. From Huckabee's point of view, it is not a blunder but instead a brilliant strategy since if he gets the evangelicals behind him he is a perfect choice for a republican VP since no other candidate is getting that demographic.

Spiderman2: where did you get Jesus dying on Wednesday from? for believers, he rose on the third day, Friday being day one, Saturday being day two (as in the "next" day), and Sunday being the third day. glad to help you out on that one.

Spiderman2: where did you get Jesus dying on Wednesday from? for believers, he rose on the third day, Friday being day one, Saturday being day two (as in the "next" day), and Sunday being the third day. glad to help you out on that one.

Dear Fate -

Thanks for the additional post.

Funny how present-day fundie Xians want to impose their one-dimensional thinking on everyone else, including other Xian sects, non-Xian religions and the a-religious. Jewish law holds that a fetus is only a "potential life" until the baby's head exits the birth canal, at which point it becomes a full person. Even the early church had the concept of "ensoulment," where a fetus didn't receive its soul for up to 90 days after conception.

Both current Jewish law and early church teachings were much more liberal than the current crop of anti-rights crowd in allowing abortions.

The anti-women's-rights crowd proves over and over that their position has everything to do with politics, power and controlling others, and nothing at all to do with right and wrong.

Mr Mark wrote: "There's no need to limit the argument on abortion rights to the worst-case scenarios."

Well, maybe there are other arguments, but the current GA amendment makes an embryo a "person" with all the rights of any person who is born and alive. The possible scenarios I gave are just food for thought. There are many more that are far worse.

The point of course is that if you are carrying a "person" inside you and the law is out to make sure it is equal to everyone else, including you, various scenarios would place a mother in legal jeopardy. One I am sure would develop is the GA police forming task forces to investigate all miscarriages reported by medical personnel because if a embryo or fetus dies, it is no different than a person dying, and so must be investigated if the medical team suspects the miscarriage was caused by smoking, drinking, poor nurishment, etc, just as the GA police today will investigate a baby who has been brought to the emergency room with a broken arm.

There is a reason a woman has a right to have an abortion for any reason and that is that the embryo is not equal to the woman and what needs to be shown is the consequences of what an equal embryo would mean. The one-dimensional thinking by people like spiderman2 need such examples to provoke thought where little thought is evident or controlled by others.

Dear Fate -

While I appreciate your post above defending a woman's right to abortion, there's no need to pander to the ignorant by conjuring up scenarios where the woman seeking an abortion is the worst kind of person imaginable (alcoholic & pregnant) or is in the worst situation possible (pregnant and dying from cancer).

The LAW in this country is that a woman has the right to an abortion for whatever reason. While most people I know strongly disapprove of abortion being used as a method of belated birth control, the fact is that it's a woman's legal right to have an abortion for just such a reason if she so chooses.

There's a lot of things that I find distasteful that are well within the law. But the law is the law until it is changed.

There's no need to limit the argument on abortion rights to the worst-case scenarios. Besides, the rabid religionists don't allow for those either. You'd be better off arguing it as a pure right, rather than as a very conditional right as you have above.

"A normal person" recognizes that the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights created a completely secular government.

Citizens who support the Constitution are by defintion secularists and supporting the Constitution seems fairly normal to me!

spiderman2, your comparison of "secularists" versus "normal people" reminds me of other times when people who disagreed with an opinion were labeled and considered so different they required a label to signify they were not only different, but opposite in every way. They include nazis/jews, whites/slaves, muslims/infidels, indians/unclean, evangalicals/americans.

Maybe your view of God's perfection can explain: the appendix, one critical heart instead of two, and the fact that a human has exactly as many hairs on their body per square inch as a gorilla.

spiderman2 wrote: "A normal person would not think that way".

So spidy, how is a normal person to take this:

Georgia H.R. 536 states:
“Paramount right to life. (a) The rights of
every person shall be recognized, among
which in the first place is the inviolable right
of every innocent human being to life. The
right to life is the paramount and most
fundamental right of a person.
(b) With respect to the fundamental and
inalienable rights of all persons guaranteed
in this Constitution, the word 'person' applies
to all human beings, irrespective of age,
race, sex, health, function, or condition of
dependency, including unborn children at
every state of their biological development,
including fertilization.”

Now, consider a woman with a uterine cancer and is pregnant. An operation to remove her uterus will kill the embryo. Killing the embryo will be as much a crime as killing a living, breathing person since it equates the two, even if it is to save the life of the mother since no law allows the killing of one person to save another. So what happens if this amendment is passed? Me being a normal person KNOWs that the mother's life will be left in God's hands while she carries the fetus to term, if she lives that long. She also will be denied any chemotherapy or radiation since that would endanger the embryo. Do you disagree and if so why?

Consider a woman who is an alcoholic and is pregnant. The child is born with a rare condition that has been linked to alcohol consumption during pregnancy. How is this different than a mother who drinks and beats her child until the child is physically and mentally abused? What would keep this woman out of jail? If so under what legal justification does this woman deserve any deference to a woman who beats children?

Another woman is racing to a hair appointment and is doing 90mph when she loses control and hits a tree. She is pregnant and severly injured. She is taken to the hospital and has a miscarriage. The doctors work hard to save the fetus but it is only 8 weeks old, and dies. If the "person" who died was her 8 year old child she could go to jail for reckless endangerment and negligent homicide. What keeps this woman out of jail in your "normal person" opinion?

Huckabee wants to make America a theocracy, like Iran. He and his evangelical supporters need to be stopped or America will be lost.

A normal person praises his Designer for giving him 2 ears to enable him to listen stereo phonic sound or music. One ear would only absorb a mono sound and it's not delightful to the ears.

A secularists would think two ears just accidentally protrude out of his head. He has no idea why it's there but blame it to pure accident. Why it didn't protrude on their forehead, they never gave it some thought.

A normal person gives credit to whom it is due (his Creator). A secularist gives credit to the word "incidental" or "random".

A normal person knows were he came from. A secularists don't know where he came from.

A normal person thinks he is normal. A secularist thinks that he is normal. That's where the trouble begins -- when an abnormal thinks he is normal.

These secularist people are very hard to cure coz they think they are normal. They think Huckabee is abnormal because he often gives credit to the Supreme Being who made him. These secularist don't know who to thank for. Thank you ACCIDENT ?

Poor Huckabee, everybody who's not normal in this country blame their abnormality to him. And they are very many.

A secularist would think "That means miscarriages could send you to jail since it would be considered infanticide. Poor prenatal care would be akin to child abuse."

A normal person would not think it that way.

That's where the trouble begins when abnormal people think their thoughts are normal.

A strange atticle since Hukabee's strategy is so plain and simple. Evangelicals are pushing for 2008 referendums in some states (GA, CO) and on the national level to pass Constitutional Amendments that would "Establish legal personhood from the moment of fertilization." That means miscarriages could send you to jail since it would be considered infanticide. Poor prenatal care would be akin to child abuse. In other words, an embryo's rights would supercede that of the mother's.

Huckabee knows about this Evangelical push even if Berlinerblau does not. What surprises me a little is that I knew about it and I'm as far from being an Evangelical as you can get. So this article is more about the lack of Berlinerblau's professional journalism than anything else.

Huckabee was just playing up to his evangelical base that considers the Constitution, America and Human Rights to be out of touch with God. So what is new about that? The real story is that Huckabee wants to be president of a United States he loathes. Why not ask Huckabee how much he hates America Berlinerblau? That would be a good story to track since Huckabee's words speak to a hate for America and its people, except those faithful whose votes he desperately wants.

I think Huckabee is terribly misunderstood on this note. I don't think he is really proposing anything substantially different than the man who said the following:

I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all." Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law.

"Many will be called but few will be chosen."

"Testifying to one's faith among and in front of the multitudes is a firm act of belief."

It is not to difficult to understand the former once the latter is so resoundingly rejected.

My goodness faith is about depth not shallow.
Character is about infatigueable endurance in faith and leadership not politics.

As one traverses the travail of the ages one finds faith enduring versus the multitude, not politics.

The Constitution is a personification of the faithful.

As pop culture and liberal relativeism depart from faith they depart from guiding principles like a ship at sea without a rudder casting about with no perceivable course to follow.

It does not stand. The guiding principles are lost.

A society in decay or decadence does not stand the travail of ages.

"The way that you wander is the way that you chose. A day that you terry is a day that you lose."

Thus, few will be chosen. . .

If we examine the Constitution, I think the only secular item there is allowing abortion. The rest are patterned after biblical doctrines. Even the separation of church of state was pushed by baptists to protect them from government interference.

Aside from abortion, what else in that document is secular? Am I missing something or am I just listening to dreamers ?

I don't know what troulbes me more, the fact that we have another bible thumping presidential canidate who's finding people to vote for his twisted, myopic views for America or the fact the this important news item has been religated to a small side column (no offence, Mr.Berlinerblau) in only major news organization in the U.S.

I realize that America needed to know that Hillary Clinton choated up and may or may not have, (the juries still out on that!) shed a tear. After all, that's big news....isn't it?

On the other hand, when a presidntial canidate openly states he thinks OUR CONSTITUTION should be changed so it meets up the thinking of a minority few, that hardly gets a blink from the press. Hey, don't you guys lean hard on that same secular document for protection in your line of work? Nice job.

A normal woman bears a child in her womb for 9 months. A secularist woman, usually 3 months only.

A normal man marries a woman. A secularist man marries a man.

A normal person believes somebody created him. A secularist person believes they are a result of an accident (whether a car accident, I don't know)

A normal person considers another person as his relative. A secularist person treats apes as their great grandpa.

A normal person thinks he is normal. A secularist thinks he is normal. That's where the trouble begins -- when an abnormal thinks he is normal.

These secularist people are very hard to cure coz they think they are normal. They think Huckabee is abnormal when they are the ones who are not normal. When did 3 months became normal to deliver a fetus?

Jerry:
You'll get the "too many messages" warning sometimes because of a system glitch that causes multiple posts, or if you doubleclick the "post" button.

The United States is currently engaged in a war with forces who believe exactly the way Huck does, except they march to a different scripture. Their interpretation of that scripture leaves no room for diversity, supresses women, leads to militancy, devalues life and puts the power of government into the hands of radical clerics. When confronted with why any mention of God was left out of the U.S. Constitution, John Adams replied simply, "We forgot." How fortunate for us they did; how awful it would be for Huck to change that.

Shemhazai, Jesus died on Wednesday and was buried in the wee hours of Thurday. 3 days after, which is on the wee hours of Sunday, He rose again. I hope that answers your question. Sorry if I thought you were just sarcastic.

Anon, we're on the same boat. You misread my post. Iam not for abortion.

Bill Mosby, on Judgment Day, we can't point fingers on anybody for our fault. All people who goes to hell can only blame themselves. It's important that we don't just trust our soul's future to anybody including priests or preachers. We should examine carefully all doctrines before believing them. Check this websites :

http://spidermean2.blogs.friendster.com/spiderman2/
http://www.religion.bravehost.com

What "rank & file" voters who are not living under the label of evangelical christian, but who are indeed of religious persuasion, what we will remember is that Huckabee is seeking to codify a theocracy. And that, dear friends, is our deepest fear - that this democracy which we all love, the moral foundation upon which it has been built, all of these will be not merely eroded, but vanquished in a political desire to be "God's Nation". For those of us who are believers who choose to think, to question, to study, the very concept of God's Nation is abhorrent - it reeks of crusades, of inquisitions, of pogroms, and the death of our nation. When men of any ilk begin to act as if they are "God's warriors" or "mouthpiece", I weep - for God has been usurped and man stands at the forefront.

Maybe he should become a priest, in which case, he should not run for the President of the U.S.

Um, if Jesus didn't die on Good Friday, when did he die? That's what just about every church I've come across has taught. How about, instead of calling us dumb, you actually say something that contributes to the conversation? If you think I'm wrong that, according to Christianity, Jesus died on Good Friday, then say when he died.

He says inconsistent things like this because he will say anything to make himslef look more "evangelical". But his thoughts on religion/politics are not well formed, and would not be even after 4 years of office, if he were to be elected.

If we ignore ignorant, oppressive, thoughtless, narrow minded people, will they all go away?

Huckabee claims that it's easier to change the Constitution than the words of the Bible.

King James and the many, many others who have created their own Biblical revisions might disagree, since they didn't need the approval of 3/4 of the State Legislatures to do so.

spiderman2 wrote: "Do these dumb people know that having sex makes them pregnant? Why have sex in the first place if you're not ready to take responsibility? Abortion is just a product of disorderly behavior and stupid mind."

Is this a Christian talking that taking responsibility for "having sex" is only required when it involves having to get an abortion?? Well, that leaves people off the hook who "use" other people for sexual gratification purposes and then "ditches" them afterwards.

Must be nice spidey to lay your ethics and Christian beliefs done when it "suits" your agenda/needs.

If my father and brother were still living and you used me for sexual gratification then acted like you didn't know me after you got what you wanted, they would hunt you down and kick your a*s. My dad was from the old school and treated women with respect and he raised my brother to do the same. I always felt safe with him, but I knew better then to talk back to him too.

In fact, anywhere I went my brother he protected me from hurt and harm. My brother was a real man, the kind a women now days would look at as a commodity. He never stopped treating women with respect, always opened the door for them/me and was always there if I called on him. God I miss him.

Say what you will about Huckabee but at least he is not embarrassed to make a confession that a woman should be treated with the respect listed in Eph. 5:22-29. One thing I have to say about pat, at least he waited to say good-bye and didn't leave me hanging; even though I have NO respect for him now knowing he is your patsy, pun intended.

Spiderman2-

"You can't blame anybody there [hell] who taught you false doctrines." Is that because there is no blame there, or because those who taught false doctrines are not there? Or what?

Who told you guys that I believe that Jesus died on a friday? You don't know much about Christianity that is why you always make wrong conclusion.

Too bad coz there are no excuses in Hell. You can't blame anybody there who taught you false doctrines.

Typical of secularists-- always hanging on the wrong info. Since when did they become right, anyway?

Idiot info makes people dumb.

Do they understand that statement? Naaa, of course they dont.

Shemhazai - to understand the crucifixion, you need to watch "Mr. Deity and the really big favor" – featuring the father, son and holy ghost -- Mr. Deity, Jesus and Larry
http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=Dzuxyq3ltls&mode=related&search

You won't regret it.

As I told you, these secularists are dumb. You have to teach them real hard so they understand things.

Actually, the anti-abortion law is not needed if all the people here are smart. It wasn't included in the constitution before coz most people in that era were smart.

Do these dumb people know that having sex makes them pregnant? Why have sex in the first place if you're not ready to take responsibility? Abortion is just a product of disorderly behavior and stupid mind. The U.S don't have much of these kind of people before that is why abortion was not much an issue before. But we're now living at a time where secularists are becoming many and the constitution has to deal with them properly.

The reason why communist states are very strict is because they have to suppress the stupidity among them. They are all atheists and all stupid. Without a strict law, they would crumble.

The same is happening with America. America doesn't need this anti-abortion law if only there are no secularists here like before. I just don't know where these people came from.

The choice is whether we put a strict law in the constitution or God will annihilate the secularists. But I already know the answer. The second one will prevail coz that is what's written in the Bible. God will annihilate the secularists and believe it.

The real issue here is Huckabee could be saving your life. Don't you get it? Naaa, of course you don't.

I don't see how Jesus died and then rose on the third day. You got Holy Thursday and the day of the Last Supper. He's crucified and died on Good Friday, seemingly in the afternoon with all that went on. Then there's Saturday and finally Easter morning. So, from death to rising, you have a day and a half. How is that three?

spiderman2

You have zero understanding of the point I was making, and please do not ascribe to me thoughts I did not write. BTW - you evidently are terrible at reading minds, as well as writing a congent thought. Ever considered being deprogrammed?

MATTINVA:

Jaccques did not miss the point. Your interpretation is stating the obvious. That is the subject of the discussion...duh. Your inappropriate interpretations of the
Constitution and its origin are incorrect. We are not based on god's law, rather man's. Your conclusions about the current state of "morals" is pejorative, and perhaps, a projection. Quit preaching and get an education.

he simply re-phrased the big issue from the 2004 election: amending the constitution to ban gay marriage. i'm not sure what the big deal is with what he recently said, as it doesn't sound any different than what was so popular in 2004 as a (winnable) political strategy at that time. he's more explicit with his intentions, but the intentions are the same.

If you ask them (secularists) about the history of the U.S., suddenly, the founders become secularists. If you would ask their ilk 200 years from now about Martin Luther Jr., there is no doubt they would also claim he's a secularist. But that wouldn't happen coz this generation is their last to preach lies. The bible had said it and the bible is a book that don't say things that's incidental. It says they will fry in Hell and it will happen. It says that Christ will rise again on the third day and it happened. It says that the U.S will rule the earth after the secularists here and abroad will be annihilated and it will happen.

Very plain and yet these secularists would break their heads just to understand it. The only word they understand is the word "incidental" which means "I don't know".

If you discuss with these secularists be forwarned that you are not talking to normal people. These people had so much respect with the word "incidental". They are the "I don't know" kind of people. But be careful coz just like their relatives in metal hospitals, they would suddenly know everything and as what Pam had said, "they had become intelligent that is why they don't believe in God." HAHAHA. That is really very funny. The same kind of laughter you'll get if you talk to mental patients.

If you ask them (secularists) about the history of the U.S., suddenly, the founders become secularists. If you would ask their ilk 200 years from now about Martin Luther Jr., there is no doubt they would also claim he's a secularist. But that wouldn't happen coz this generation is their last to preach lies. The bible had said it and the bible is a book that don't say things that's incidental. It says they will fry in Hell and it will happen. It says that Christ will rise again on the third day and it happened. It says that the U.S will rule the earth after the secularists here and abroad will be annihilated and it will happen.

Very plain and yet these secularists would break their heads just to understand it. The only word they understand is the word "incidental" which means "I don't know".

If you discuss with these secularists be forwarned that you are not talking to normal people. These people had so much respect with the word "incidental". They are the "I don't know" kind of people. But be careful coz just like their relatives in metal hospitals, they would suddenly know everything and as what Pam had said, "they had become intelligent that is why they don't believe in God. HAHAHA. That is really very funny. The same kind of laughter you'll get if you talk to mental patients.

Good reporting. I find it fightening to think he would be President. The harm he would do to this country. Intelligent design, religion, of course Christian (a coded word) and abortion, a criminal, punishable act, all in the Constitution. I hope voters are smart enough to see the consequences behind his rheteric. I do have to say I like his social programs, but I am not willing to sell the Constitution and my soul for them.

Jacques, you are incorrect. You have no connection with the subject of your article, or you would understand that you are wrong. Being a conservative Christian, I understand where Huckabee is coming from and understand what he was trying to say. He was not trying to be anti-American, or unpatriotic, rather he was trying to explain the downfall of morals that this country has, and how the constitution needs to be based upon God's word; how we were founded! Please try to understand your subject matter before writing an article about it.

Jacques, you are incorrect. You have no connection with the subject of your article, or you would understand that you are wrong. Being a conservative Christian, I understand where Huckabee is coming from and understand what he was trying to say. He was not trying to be anti-American, or unpatriotic, rather he was trying to explain the downfall of morals that this country has, and how the constitution needs to be based upon God's word; how we were founded! Please try to understand your subject matter before writing an article about it.

Bear in mind that most secularists here believe that 2+2 is not 4. How can we debate with such people whose brains are out of sync with reality. They also think that evolution is "incidental". Incidental is just another term for "I don't know".

Do these people know that? Naaa.

How did seeds become intelligent to produce fruits and flowers? Their answer would be incidental or "I don't know".

How did monkeys turn to humans? Their answer would be incidental or "I don't know".

You ask them about the bible and suddenly they know everything. Truly out of sync.No wonder they kill each other in Europe during two world wars. The third would involve much of the U.S because the idiocy had reached its shores.

i received a notice I had "submitted too many posts lately!
You had best do some checking on your past posts.
I just "joined" less than 6 months ago, and this is my SECOND!
What is your "limit" on posts? ONE a year??

Bush wasn't a REAL Christian.
Bush wasn't a REAL conservative.

The Christian Right put him into office twice. Fool me once, you're the fool. Fool me twice, I'm the fool.

Say what you will about Huckabee, but he has sense enough to know that if "take God out of this nation"....we're done for.
Hopefully he isn't another "great pretender" hoping to ride the backs of TRUE Christians into office. If so, he will be as big a failure as George W. Bush who did the SAME thing!
I have a view on politicians that my father told me as a lad and 75 years later it STILL holds true: "YOU CAN BE A POLITICIAN, OR YOU CAN BE A CHRISTIAN, BUT YOU CAN'T BE BOTH!"

Say what you will about Huckabee, but he has sense enough to know that if "take God out of this nation"....we're done for.
Hopefully he isn't another "great pretender" hoping to ride the backs of TRUE Christians into office. If so, he will be as big a failure as George W. Bush who did the SAME thing!
I have a view on politicians that my father told me as a lad and 75 years later it STILL holds true: "YOU CAN BE A POLITICIAN, OR YOU CAN BE A CHRISTIAN, BUT YOU CAN'T BE BOTH!"

Mr. Mark: Thanks for reminding me that Jacoby's book is in my "stack" waiting to be read. I may bring it to the top of the stack now.

Dear SAD FOR AMERICA'S 'DISCOURSE': -

I suggest you and others read Susan Jacoby's excellent book, "Freethinkers," which goes into the secular roots of this country in great detail.

Funny how you cite state constitutions that mention god and Xianity while failing to mention that that argument was LOST when the federal Constitution was debated and agreed upon. The people who wanted to put the name of Jesus in the Constitution and to aver that the authority and powers of the federal government were given by god were defeated by the Jeffersonians (I do appreciate your quoting George Mason. It gives one a perspective of the positions that were roundly debated in writing the Constitution, positions that were rejected by the majority. Mason in fact refused to sign the Constitution because it didn't contain a Bill of Rights.)

I did see that you made a point of citing the constitution of Massachusetts, where you write: "See especially Massachusetts, written after much debate several years after the end of the war. The original Mass Const requires that everyone be free to publicly worship as he saw fit, but explicitly bases the government's right to govern on the Bible and Christianity. As a matter of fact, it required the governor to be a Christian (of any stripe--that is the key) and even had modified oath that Quakers could take when entering office."

Interesting. I wonder why you don't bother mentioning that Massachusetts struck out all religious restrictions from its laws in 1833, including requiring the governor to swear an oath as a Xian? That wouldn't be telling a lie by omission, would it? (Source: Jacoby, Freethinkers, pg 32).

It doesn't serve your debating position when you commit such obvious errors in reportage, especially when there are plenty of people lurking here just waiting to set you straight.

Yes Angela B, the world would be so much better if they all believed in Christ. And by gum, it should be the President's job to convert the world. We should bomb every country that does not accept Christ as Lord and Savior and force everyone to convert or die.

That's right. Our armed forces shouldn't waste their time fighting the War against terror, it should be The Crusades 2008!

And Abu Garaib can become the place where the Inquisitions should take place.

The thing is, what scares me the most is that you probably find nothing wrong with anything I'm saying Angela B.

You're all for it.

You sense that certain kinds of Christian conservatives share Huckabee's aspirations to put the Constitution in place. Of course. Surely you've heard of Christian reconstructionists and dominionists. That is exactly what they intend.

Jeff P.: It would be interesting to see what the democratic candidates did if they were asked about their views on evolution. They (in particular Obama) have been doing more than their share of pandering to believers this election season. I am fairly sure they would all come out on the side of evolution, but they might have a difficult time getting that hand up since it is probably a question they don't have a canned, preprogrammed answer for.

Mr. Sal wrote:

"For those who don’t believe in God . . . may I recommend that you sincerely and genuinely ask God to reveal Himself to you and in time see if He doesn’t answer."

Well, that didn't work for Mother Teresa, and she tried a lot harder than I ever would.

She should have listened to her inner voice and admitted that God does not exist. Then, perhaps, she would have caused less harm by torturing people in her warehouses for the dying. She collected millions of dollars. She might have purchased some proper analgesics, contraceptives, and proper medical equipment, and hired qualified nurses, instead of letting all those people die in squalor.

"And if you don't, that's your prerogative no one is going to force you . . ."

Ah, I am sure you would force us if you could, Mr. Sal! But dag-nabbit they just won't let you torture atheists these days, will they? More's the pity, eh? You would save us from eternal suffering with a few days of wracking and burning at the stake.

". . . but you'll have only yourselves to blame when you stand before God...and one day, you will."

Nonsense. If God exists and he wants us to believe in him, he can give us enough evidence. He obviously doesn't want us to believe. He didn't even want Mother Teresa to believe.

Mr. Berlinerblau's point is well taken. I believe, though, that another segment of Mr. Huckabee's targeted constituency may be even more offput by his recent crude observation in South Carolina concerning the controversy over that state's flag:
"If somebody came to Arkansas and told us what to do with our flag, we'd tell 'em what to do with the pole, that's what we'd do."**
Every so often, a Christian gentleman's 'true' red, white and blue colors -- or stars and bars --shine through.

** Atlanta Journal-Constitution, January 20, 2008, E7.

Mr. Berlinerblau's point is well taken. I believe, though, that another segment of Mr. Huckabee's targeted constituency may be even more offput by his recent crude observation in South Carolina concerning the controversy over that state's flag:
"If somebody came to Arkansas and told us what to do with our flag, we'd tell 'em what to do with the pole, that's what we'd do."**
Every so often, a Christian gentleman's 'true' red, white and blue colors -- or stars and bars --shine through.

** Atlanta Journal-Constitution, January 20, 2008, E7.

Pam said, "The more educated we become, the larger the percentage of non-believers. The more you know, the harder it becomes to swallow fairy tales."

Pam, evolution is the biggest fairy tale and it's a fairy tale that's not funny and harmless. When Europe adopted it, they began exterminating themselves. The U.S was left unscathed because very few believe it that time. But not anymore. Americans will continue to be slaughtered around the world and in this mainland in the near future as long as it adopts the dumbest doctrine ever created.

No wonder I find it very hard to teach people here. The same hardship I would encounter if I would teach apes.

Even 2+2 is not 4 ? How did you all reached high school ? Are you all high in drugs?

DFC: I can't seem to forget Mitt Romney either, and his "religion" speech, as he courts the religious right.

By gosh, if he's putting it on his platform and wants us to see the importance he gives to religion and to the religious of this nation, then those issues should be debatable, talked about issues, "sensitivities" be damned.

The religious-right wants it to be an issue, then I say let it be an issue--we've had 7 years of a religious leader, so let's talk about the verifiable results--and the anticipation of a future with another potential primarily religious leader.

I'm still actually appauled that there were 3 Republican presidential candidates who raised their hands when Chris Matthews asked who didn't "believe" in evolution. Oh my gosh, what further damage could happen in the next 4 years with science-illiterate leadership... (Does anyone know what the Democratic candidates think about evolution?--)

Angels, thanks but no thanks. I'll take God on my terms, never on the terms inferred or demanded by any state. The wall between the two helped make America great.

I hope this is the end of Mike Huckabee being taken seriously as a presidential contender.