When Mike Huckabee threw the Good Book at the Constitution, he committed the single most egregious Faith and Values’ blunder of the 2008 campaign.
» Back to full entry
» Back to full entry




Featured Comments
All these messages! I see 2 main themes: Some Christians think that America should be a Christian nation, and lots of Americans think a Christian theocracy under Huckabee would be a bad thing.
In the years that I attended churches, I learned two important lessons: there is an enormous difference between faith in God and faith in scripture; and fundamentalist Christianity, the army of those whose faith is in scripture, is the vilest kind of blasphemy.
I am a political independent, not a liberal, and I have voted for Republicans when I thought they represented the better choice. But I do not want America led by a blasphemer. Individually, religion and politics have a tendency to descend into sliminess; the miscegenous marriage of religion and politics spawns monsters of particular sliminess. After 7 years of the worst president in our history -- a man who purports to be led by God -- I think America should have learned its lesson about politicians who make loud religious noises.
January 19, 2008 8:41 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 19, 2008 08:41
I'm no Constitutional lawyer but when Huckabee says:
"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."
Isn't he saying that he wants to amend the Constitution, for instance on abortion, to put in a religiously based law? This certainly would put the amendment in direct contradiction with the Establishment Clause. There are many religions which do not have a problem with abortion, and this would certainly favor particular ones over others.
I think that the percentage of Americans ready to ditch the Establishment Clause, given how central it is to our existence as a nation, would be pretty small. An ad that made this point would not be an attack ad, but a reality check, and if it wouldn't be devastating, then I'm really out of touch with my own country.
January 19, 2008 1:32 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 19, 2008 01:32
If (and it's a very big IF) Huckabee grasps two key points: the meaning of God, and the source of the Bible (which is ultimately the same source of all religions), then I must say that he is on target in his comments. He is saying that the constitution has an inferior place relative to the tenets of religion, or the "word of the living God" as he puts it. When he says we can't change "God's standards", I take it to mean that we can't change the laws of nature, which one would like to think are reflected in the beliefs and practice of people adhering to a particular faith. Of course, the religion that Huckabee is referring to -- modern Christianity -- has lost much of its original substance. The deep principles that gave rise to Christianity 2000 years ago have been twisted and confused into shallow, meaningless creeds over the centuries, and few Christians today really "get it" anymore. Few really get where Jesus the man-God was coming from. Same holds true for many other modern religions. Note, however, that the surviving indigenous traditions -- those few that have preserved some of their original authenticity -- do in fact reflect a more profound and more natural guide for individual life on the planet. Indigenous "laws" derive from the infinite, the transcendental source of life. Our man-made laws, however much they are revered, are subservient and derivative relative to those natural laws. Does Huckabee really grasp this, or is he simply spouting hollow Christian dogma? Maybe someone who knows him better can tell us.
Al Gabis
Fairfield, Iowa
January 18, 2008 4:08 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 18, 2008 16:08
It is actually rather savvy to shift marriage and abortion to constitutional issues. It throws red meat to partisans and lets the rest of us know that compromise is in the offing. You cannot unilaterally amend the Constitution - you have to compromise to do so.
The rest of the field is actually scarier, since they advocate going after "activist" judges and their jurisdiction, which would erode compromise and end judicial review of majority action. Now that is scary.
When Huckabee compares abortion to slavery, he is stating that a states rights solution is a bad idea. Not only does it erode the American nation but it cannot work, since people will travel to other states for abortion services (just as they travel to other counties now).
If Huckabee were saying he wanted a judicial solution, I would not be supporting him.
January 18, 2008 11:04 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 18, 2008 11:04