Huckabee's Mischief

Anon:

I would first like to say that your comment seems off topic to the discussion at hand. But I will briefly respond.

First, "Compulsion and restriction" is not the same as telling someone about something. I can tell you where to get some food, but I shouldn't shove it down your throat.

Secondly, the quote simply says "God wants us to come to faith..." It doesn't make claims to a specific religious tradition. Captain Cook (an odd example, but I will go with it) met many people who practiced many faiths. If they were practicing them freely and voluntarily, perhaps they were pleasing to God.
As far as what Brent Walker said, this statement could be true. But returning to my original point, Rev. Walker wasn't talking about evangelism or universalism versus an exclusive Gospel, he was talking about religious liberty in the United States as guaranteed by the Constitution.

It just occurred to me that maybe you are making a different point all together. Perhaps you are a Christian and you are saying that SINCE people in other countries don't come to the Christian faith without being told, we should not have religious liberty because we need people to be told how to properly worship God. In that case, it’s very Inquisitorial of you.

"I believe God wants us to come to faith freely and voluntarily — without compulsion or restriction."

If this is true, why are there no documented cases of humankind coming to faith without the benefit(?) of being proselytized?

For example, during Captain James Cook's voyages of discovery across the Pacific in the 1700s, none of the peoples he encountered had knowledge of the God of Abraham. Why not?

Rev. Marshall:

The only place I know of currently where there are more than two in the marriage party is within a particularly religious sect in Southern Utah.

My gay cousin, his significant other, my gay co-worker physician with his significant other--I don't see them as a threat to "family values." Both couples are involved with raising a child (adopted) and are very much contributing members of society. I expect they've contributed to society's "betterment" as equally as you have. Why a consitutional amendment proposal to disrupt their existance? What threat are they to you?

GaryD
I'm beginning to wonder, I'd love for you to support your statements with statistics that are verifiable. It's getting harder and harder to take you at your word. "Overwhelming majority...???"

Anonymous let me correct a few things for you. The point of my post was that Jesus, the Christ, the Only begotten Son of God, was not some sort of super pacifist. Nor was he in favor of violent revolutions.

When he asked the disciples if they had any swords among them the answer was two. His response was, in the vernacular, that'll do. This would have been sufficient only for the disciples to protect themselves from thugs and brigands but certainly not enough to over throw the Roman government. But it would also imply that he not only understood that those swords might have to be used but that those using them might well have to kill someone with them.

Oh cool. Now we've got the violent Jesus Christians and the nonviolent Jesus Christians. It gets better all the time. LOL I think the the violent Jesus Christians will have the upper hand in the government takeover.

Mr. Stephens why then did Christ, in Luke, ask the disciples if they had any swords among them and when told yes why did he not tell them to get rid of those things? Was it not Christ who made a whip and drove the money changers from the temple?

Where anyone gets the idea that Christ was a nonviolent person is beyond me.

Longtime Baptist:

Real easy. Lies that cause people to believe are moral. If elected Huck can do like all before him, lie about "upholding and defending the constitution."

The Bible on which he puts his hand is the word of Devil anyhow, Lucifer the biggest Devil of them all. All politicians have guardian devils, (little tykes) that whisper in their ears and help them when they need to tell a little lie or two don't they? The one with the smartest guardian devil wins, only if he's righteous of course.

I'd wager that Clinton crowd has some pretty smart devils on their side, at least one on each shoulder. Don't you expect? All this worrying about Huck and Mitt and the rest of them constitution abolishers is academic anyhow.

Anybody been thrown out of your church for voting Democrat lately? The Devil Lucifer has the righteous on His side.

When enough good Baptist etc are in hell Lucifer can raise another army and attack God again. He almost won last time but he didn't have "pride of the Marines" Lt. Pat Robertson who will be there sooner or later. Right now Pat is busy recruiting for Lucifer, blasphemes, says Lucifer, the crispy critter in the burning bush, the one Moses made the deal with is God.

It's my understanding that there room in hell for at least 86% of Americans that all blaspheme by thinking of the being in the burning when they utter, "under God" while reciting the pledge. Is there any wonder why things are as they are today, emergency and huge rate reductions by the Fed, government mailing everybody a check...? America honors the biggest Devil of them all by calling Him God and thus blasphemes, committing the only deadly sin, blasphemy every time the pledge is recited.

Ignorance of God is no excuse.

Refreshing analysis for a Baptist. None of the examples of law cited, however, are uniquely Judeo-Christian.

The President of the Southern Baptist Convention declared publicly that he would "...kill or die for my family, kill or die for my country, and kill or die for God."

Jesus never killed anyone, neither did he advocate killing anyone, nor did he sanction killing anyone. He had the power, even on the cross, to annihilate mankind, yet he laid down his life rather than kill in humble obedience to the will of God. He commanded his disciples to follow his example.

Physician, heal thyself.

The phrase 'an establishment of religion means the government can't tell you when, where, and how to build you church building it says nothing about creating a whole knew religion.

Rev. William L. Marshall:

Should we pass a law saying that "the Constitution is open to re-definition" as one or more neochristian(s)desire?

How would Huckabee be sworn in as president if elected. He can't swear to "uphold and defend" a document he regards as incomplete and/or in error. He can't even cross his fingers behind his back with one hand raised and the other on the Bible.

After the debate last night I'm convinced that Huckabee is as good a candidate as any of the others. And, he's much better than any of the rest for "Saturday Night Live" except for Ron Paul maybe.

The question I have is about the instigator, did Huck volunteer or was he volunteered to make the ridiculous statement about amending the constitution? I blame no candidate for seeking support wherever s/he can find it. I include Mr Bush on that point. If I was running I would be so righteous in all the right places no one would recognize me.

If anyone is to blame it's the blasphemers better known as evangelicals. Either we take the vote away from them or expect they will be courted. I can't help but notice that no one has really done anything they, the evangelicals want yet even though they get promised every election -a great source of humor for me.

Just a reminder, ( http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul ) the supernatural being in the burning bush has been identified and "IT" wasn't God. Blaspheme all you please. The soul you lose will be your own. Count me out but don't be surprised when candidates for high office say they're with you.

Churchill said he would Allie himself with Devil to beat Hitler. He welcomed the Godless communist Soviets to join in the fight on his side. It's a matter of the fierceness of the enemy at the gate. Think how bad it will be if those immoral Democrats reoccupy the white house and simply realize you're already allied with the biggest Devil of them all, Lucifer.

If that had been God in the burning bush there wouldn't even be a Democrat party, no doubt.

Blasphemers and evangelicals are synonyms you know.

Vanessa:

When Huck talks about "changing the Constitution to be more in line with the word of God," he's treading Establishment ground.

I understand that he opposes abortion and same-sex marriage. But if he wants to amend the Constitution regarding these matters, it needs to be because there is a valid secualr reason for doing so, not because the deity he worships thinks it's icky.

Since there is no universal consensus on when the soul enters the body, or even on whether the soul exists, you can't make a Constutional amendment based on the idea that destroying a non-sentient blastocyst is the equivalent of blowing an infant's head off in its crib.
Even late-term abortions up to the point of delivery are sometimes valid. Despite a textbook-perfect pregnancy, my delivery went haywire, and my daughter and I both almost died. If it had come to the point where my doctor could only save one of us, I believe that I should have the right to instruct her to save me, even if it meant killing the baby in the process. I thank the gods that it did not come to that.
She's a teenager now, and there is no law that says I must risk my life to save hers if she is in danger. I would do so, but if the law doesn't mandate that I do so after she is born, why should it mandate that I do so before she was born, or even as she was being born?

As for same-sex marriage, I have yet to see even one logical reason to not allow it. The main reason I hear is that marriage is supposed to be for the production and rearing of children. When we met, my husband was sterile and I was in the early stages of menopause. We couldn't make a baby if the fate of the free world rested on our spawn. Furthermore, he has never had any desire to be a parent, and I had no desire for more children after my daughter. No one at the clerk of courts's office asked about our fertility or if we had plans to adopt. All they asked for was picture ID and exact cash. Despite the fact that we have no childern together, nor will we ever, we have the same legal rights regarding each other that married couples with children do.
Some same-sex couples are rearing children. Why should those children not have access to the same benefits by virtue of legal recognition of their parents' relationship that children of straight couples do? And it doesn't matter that the same-sex couple didn't produce the child from their own DNA's. Children in step-families have the same legal rights by virtue of their parents' marriages as those whose biological parents are married to each other.

Lepidopteryx - "Any time you speak of wanting to change the Constitution to make it more closely align with a particular scripture, you're talking about Establishment." Says who? Context is not important to understanding what someone said!?!

In that case, I condemn your views for "wanting to change the Constitution to make it more closely align with a particular scripture" - your own words. How dare you push your narrow-minded ideology on the rest of us?

Perhaps Josh H. has endowed you with special abilities to understand the hearts and motivations of men. He understands what Mike Huckabee can and cannot comprehend and is authoritative enough to declare that a 16 year Governor of a secular state is really a "fundamentalist."

Reactionary non-arguments completely separated from the facts as they can be known - when did this become the standard for debate?

All should know that first of all Mike is not talking about changing the constitution to enforce any of God's laws. That could not be further from the truth. This was taken out of context regarding his stand on right to life and the institution of marriage.

Mike even did not want to run the entire Baptist Org. Which Floyd now controls. His primary reason for not really going after it, was because he has said on many occasions, he is not the person to tell anyone how to be a Christian. He says he is only responsible for his actions.

That hardly sounds like someone trying to change our country to his God laws.

Finally, as for keeping God out of the gov. Whether people like it or not, everything we do is based on the teachings of Christ. The knowledge of this is represented on our money, in our pledge and in several historical archives from our founders and former leaders.

Mike does not believe that his faith should be forced on anyone else and he would run this country on his political convictions, which any candidate will.

All of the arguments Dr. Walker makes here are accurate and valid. However, Gov. Huckabee will not understand or even hear much of what Dr. Walker or other like him have said or debated. The problem is Gov. Huckabee's mind set or point of view. His process for understanding government and the presence of God in the world is based on a form of literalism. He can't comprehend how a nation can pass laws, or fails to pass laws, which disagree directly or indirectly with his interpretation of God's Law and not "change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view." The two are directly connected for him. Like many fundamentalists, he has never truly understood what it means to have a clear separation of church and state. I base that ascertain on this statement and other from his campaign. His mind set is still stuck in pre-secular state government philosophy.

I'm very disappointed to read that Gov. Huckabee said this statement, and he's probably lost my vote for good. Suggesting an Amendment undermines the First Amendment as much as changing and creating gun laws undermines the Second Amendment. We must remember that our Constitution was only ratified with the Bill of Rights and not with out them.

Nothing Dr. Walker wrote here convinced me that way, he's merely stating the facts. I read this article because I like Gov. Huckabee, but his own words have worked against him.

The context of Huck's statement is really not important. Any time you speak of wanting to change the Constitution to make it more closely align with a particular scripture, you're talking about Establishment.

If Huck had been a practitioner of a faith other than Christianity, and had said that he wanted to make the Constitution more in line with the word of God, Christians would be up in arms about the idea of our government pandering to [insert non-Christian faith here]. And yet so many Christians don't understand why such statment upsets us non-Christians.

Ken P. Did you not yourself write "we need . . . 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."? YOU are like the Taliban!

Of course, it would be unfair of me to claim this from your statement. Yes, you did write those words - the record proves it - but context makes it obvious that your full intention is not what I construed it to be.

Likewise, when viewed in the context of the speech Huckabee made, his comments relate to a certain public policy position he holds. To rip them out of context and twist them to mean something far beyond what was intended is a function of political spin, nothing more.

Are you suggesting that simply because a person has religious reasons for supporting a public policy that the policy in question becomes invalid? My religion explicitly commands me not to murder. Should murder now be legal since one religion has specific teachings regarding the practice? Religious abolitionists were instrumental in establishing the philosophical basis for the 13th Amendment. They did this through specifically religious arguments. Shall we repeal it?

If people do not like Huckabee's policy positions, fine - they should debate them and disagree all they want. But to take his words out of context, twist them beyond all intended meaning, compare him to the Taliban, and oppose him simply because some of his positions are informed by his religion is unwarranted and bigoted. Your Heinlein quote equally describes anti-religion secularists.

The majority of people in this country would overwhelmingly vote in an admendment to ban gay marriage nearly the same majority would vote to permit civil unions. The Difference? Marriage is seen by the overwhelming majority as a religious ceremony rather than a civil ceremony. Please note while the constitution states you are perfectly free to pursue happiness it possesses no guarantor that you will ever catch it.

Sorry about the repetition of the quoate for Heinlein. I should have previewed my message before posting.

Brian, are you saying Huckabee did not say "we need . . . 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."? If you are, you best go back and look at the records! Whether that is an attempt to establish a "Southern Baptist Theocracy" is open to speculation and opinion!

If we pass such an amendment, where will it end? Do we amend the constitution to mandate all citizens to "tithe" to their particular church or do we just let the government collect and distribute that "tithe" to the selected group that satisfies majority opinion?

I have to agree with Randall Fields that amending the Constitution to embody "God's standard" is precisely what the Taliban would want if they had their way in American politics. I also must agree with It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so, and will follow it by suppressing opposition, subverting all education to seize early the minds of the young, and by killing, locking up, or driving underground all heretics: -Robert A. Heinlein, "It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so, and will follow it by suppressing opposition, subverting all education to seize early the minds of the young, and by killing, locking up, or driving underground all heretics". Sad to say, Christian groups are guilty of the above, just the same as any other religious body.

Brian: An analysis of our civil liberties protected by the Constitution and its amendments is not conclusive as to the entire scope of all freedom. Indeed, the "truths we hold self-evident: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" acknowledge the existence of rights and liberties outside of those explicitly protected. A law that proscribes certain behavior that is not explicitly protected by the Constitution does not mean that no liberties are restricted. For example, a law banning married couples from purchasing contraception was struck as violating the right to privacy. Privacy is one of several rights not enumerated in the Constitution but acknowledged by just about everyone to deserve Constitutional protection. Reaching this conclusion does not require circular argument as you suggest.

One is free to seek historic clarity, but even finding such clarity fails to address the present questions at hand. "Original intent" is largely an academic discussion and certainly not the only jursiprudence in town. We should look to the past for guidance. We must not slavishly follow the positions taken 225 years ago when attempting to craft answers to current questions of civil society.

No one has actually propose amending the Constitution to turn America into a Southern Baptist theocracy, including Huckabee.

He made no mention whatsoever about establishing any version of theology or belief system as the law of the land. He in no way proposed forcing the conversion of anyone. He never advocated making his faith the only version of faith in America or preserving a particular view of faith. I wonder if any of you even know what he actually said and the context in which he said it.

Rev. Walker obviously knows what Huckabee said and the context, for he refers to the context before spinning wildly off into an argument that has nothing to do with Huckabee's actual comments. What is his real purpose in doing so?

As for the idea that upholding the traditional definition of marriage somehow "reduces" people's civil liberties - this is begging the question. One side has the same right to attempt to clarify the historic understanding at the legal level as the other has to challenge it.

http://blog.lestourgeon.us/2008/01/the-constitution-and-gods-standards/

Rev. Marshall: Should we pass a law saying that only two people of seperate gender may marry? In either hypothetical, decent people certainly disagree, but those who share a view do not do so for the same reasons. Like it or not, religious doctrine, commands, scruples (call it what you want) are among several of the justifications claimed by the respective apologists.

The Constitution is not a text to preserve a particular religion any more than it was created to support a view justified only on the basis of religious belief. While your views on the many issues concerning non-traditional marriage may be founded in your religious faith, such a faith finds its authority outside of our own answers to normative questions. We do not speak for God and cannot broad brush social issues under the rubric of of His name.

The Consitution and all subordinate laws serve our society throughout its diversty. Amending the federal Consitution to _reduce_ the civil liberties of the citizens is without precedent and, arguably, inconsistent with the nature of our federalist system and the Constitutional Convention. I do suppose that the amendment process could result in a vote by the citizens to surrender their rights, but even the act of campaigning for such a proposed amendment seems contrary to how we are instructed to value human freedom. Our history reveals that every generation to find its contemporary villains. History teaches to view such devaluing of a class or category of people with more than a skeptic eye.

My favorite bumper sticker of the week: "Oppose gay marriage? Don't marry one."

Randall Fields: Always precede fringe with IDIOT when referring to the religious.

Rev. Walker is right. Rev. Huckabee is obviously pandering to the extreme right-wing fringe of religious fundamentalism in the United States. I hope that no one in their right mind would seriously propose amending the Constitution to turn America into a Southern Baptist theocracy, but you never can tell. Rev. Huckabee needs to be reminded that amending the Constitution to embody "God's standard" is precisely what the Taliban would want if they had their way in American politics.

A brilliant analysis of Mr. Huckabee's tragic effort to make his faith the only interpretation of faith in America. Brer' Huckabee, a good man in many ways, has come down with a doggone terrible case of denominational amnesia. He has forgotten his Baptist unbringing, his Baptist heritage, and his Baptist ancestors, those wonderful people who suffered at the hands of Christians who wanted to impose their faith on others. I have read that Mr. Huckabee attended Southwestern Seminary in Ft. Worth, Texas. If so, he never had a course in Baptist history. And if he did, I can assure you that W. W. Barnes, Robert A. Baker, and W. R. Estep, all marvelous Baptist historians at that school, are all turning over in their graves and puking straight up!!!
Brent Walker keeps getting smarter and smarter, more and more prophetic, and more and more Baptist!!

Mr. Walker:
Should we pass a law saying that "marraige is between any two individuals or three individuals" as one or more free person(s)desire?

Mischief? Boy can one agree with that.

God only evicted Adam and Eve from Eden.
God only banished Cain for murdering his brother.
God only struck the builders of Babble with a confusion of tongues.
And Jesus saved the adulteress.

But those who said Lucifer was God were cast into, "a sea of fire" that is the fire that burns but does not consume to burn forever and ever. That's hell.

Did Huck mean this false God, http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul the one that Moses made the deal with? We know Huck and 86% of Americans mean that false God when they recite the pledge and thereby commit the same sin as the fallen angels, blasphemy. Blasphemy is the only "deadly" sin isn't it -the only one God will not forgive.

Pay attention: Jesus was fathered by the supernatural being in the burning bush, the one that forgave all those sins. Does Lucifer have the power to forgive blasphemy? Does the real God forgive sins Lucifer forgives -are repentant sinners really forgiven by the real God? What are sins in the eyes of the real God? How can we know?

Which God's standards is Huck saying he'll implement -make the law of the land? Is the public entitled to know before they vote?

Mischief is hardly sufficient to describe blasphemy. Don't you think?

AMEN, AMEN. Finally a Christian with their head on straight. I always wonder why Christians are taught that electing officials is a time to SHOW what we believe. Of course we all desire trustworthy people to lead us and decide what direction our country should pursue, however, to make election time their big opportunity to make God's commandments the law is not really in line with Christ's ways. Obedience despite social pressures is the "straight and narrow" path. If Christ wanted it any other way He would have taken over the government in Jerusalem and pressured the people into hearing his words. This was not his way. Romneys speach on Faith in America, which was touted by James Dobson, is spot on regarding how religion has played a role and should continue to play its role without supporting any one group, believers or non-believers.

Amen! I was less than impressed by Mr. Huckabee right from the start, as he was making far too much of his faith. I need to know what politicians plan to do about the issues facing the country and how they intend to abide by the Constitution. For Huckabee to even consider for a moment such an idea as this demonstrates he has no concept of the proper role of religion in the public arena.