A Progressive Theo-Political Blog Bringing You The Best and Worst of Baptist Life.

Tuesday, January 15, 2008

Mike Huckabee's Faith-Based Constitution

According to MSNBC, presidential Mike Huckabee has called for amendments to the Constitution for the explicit purpose of making it more acceptable to God.

From MSNBC
with a hat tip to BJC's Blog from the Capital:
"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 amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than trying 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." - Mike Huckabee, January 14, 2008


This is quite scary. Huck wants to start making changes to the United States Constitution, a secular document that serves as the foundation for our system of government, based on what he believes to be God's standards. Whatever happened to pluralism? We do live in a pluralistic society. Whatever happened to serving the common good? I'm a little amazed Huck was actually that open and honest with his intentions. Wow.

It seems the former Southern Baptist pastor has forgotten his pledge on Meet the Press:

“The key issue of real faith is that it never can be forced on someone. And never would I want to use the government institutions to impose mine or anybody else’s faith or to restrict.”

So, Huck won't use government institutions to impose his faith on his fellow Americans. Yet, he's calling for a renovation of the Constitution to reflect God's standards?

Greg Boyd, a popular theologian, author and pastor, has a few questions for Huck. Here he is:
Now, I can't help but wonder what this sincere man means when he says he wants to "Amend the constitution to fit God's standards." The crowd apparently knew, for they cheered wildly. But I'm just not that bright. Does it mean Huckabee wants to jettison the whole "inalienable right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" deal -- because that certainly is nowhere to be found in the book of "God's Standards" (the Bible). Quite the opposite actually.

Maybe it means that Huckabee wants to lose the whole "all men are created equal" clause, since that's not in the book of "God's Standards" either. Conversely, acceptance of slavery and women being treated like property runs pretty much throughout the whole book of "God's standards." Is this what Huckabee means in calling for us to amend the constitution?

Labels:

15 Comments:

Blogger CB Scott said...

VOTE HUCKABEE, FIGHT ABORTION.

cb

7:06 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Soooo...does sanctity of life ONLY apply to abortion?

If not...I'll vote for someone else.

8:18 AM

 
Blogger CB Scott said...

Anony, None Thinker,

Of course not is the only answer to such a silly question.

Yet, abortion is the major issue before this nation.

Huckabee does have the strongest biblical worldview of all persons running.

Therefore, to elect him to the "Big Chair" is our greatest hope of ending abortion in our lifetime.

if I have to pay higher taxes due to his lacking of ability in domestic and foreign affiars so be it. I am willing to make the sacrifice to stop the murder of children in this country.

How about you, Anony? .....Or have you "thought" about it very much?

cb

8:53 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

cb...

Clever!

I'm sure abortion is the major issue before this nation in YOUR eyes. And for that matter, it's probably a pretty important issue to most people.

But abortion isn't the definitive issue facing America according to several polls.

Also, I'm afraid you'll have to further explain your reasoning for claiming that Huck has the strongest biblical worldview of all persons running. You're entitled to your opinion, but you need to back up a claim like that; there are some people who probably disagree.

You may be right in that Huck is the greatest hope in ending legalized abortion in this field of candidates. However, after having a Republican controlled congress for many years and a Bush in the White House for 8 years and with abortion still legal, why should we think it will be any different with Huck?

You have a strong opinion against abortion and would be willing to do anything to end it. That's admirable. But it's important to remember that sanctity of life applies to all situations where God's children are being killed. Those of us who don't vote for Huck care about human life, too. Personally speaking, I think a person that does have a great knowledge of foreign affairs and policy could help the current state of the world TREMENDOUSLY and hence stop the murdering of children here and everywhere.

I have "thought" about these things a little, but I obviously don't have the corner on knowledge and truth like you do, cb.

10:34 AM

 
Blogger CB Scott said...

Clever Anony,

You said "abortion is not the definitive issue facing America according to several polls."

True. You are right. Therefore, we need to change the thinking of people being polled. If Huckabee is in the "Big Chair" maybe we can.

As for "a Republican controlled congress" and "Bush for 8 years" is concerned.....well,......
this is not about Republicans or about the Bush family, the elders or the younger. It is about abortion.

I did not say you did not care about the sanctity of human life. That is a "straw-man" that has no foundation relating to what I have said. I have already answered your question relating to that subject as a whole. I said our chances to end legalized abortion in our lifetime may be better with Huckabee as President.

As for me having the "corner on knowledge and truth" I must say I do not have it or I might be a better candidate than Huckabee. What I am is "right" about abortion. I have that much knowledge and truth and in this matter it is enough to be right without having the "corner on knowledge and truth."

Anony, I am not really clever, but I thank you for the compliment. Frankly, I don't have to be clever if I am right.

I am not right about everything, but I am right about abortion being the greatest issue before this nation. I am right in saying Huckabee is the best chance we have to end abortion in our lifetime among all who have their hats in the ring without regard to party affiliation.

Now, you think about that real hard, Anony. And if you are going to ask me any more questions which will take this much space to answer you should at least give me your name. If you can't do it here, my email is, cb5512@charter.net. I will never betray your privacy in sharing it.

cb

2:42 PM

 
Blogger Big Daddy Weave said...

CB wrote: "As for "a Republican controlled congress" and "Bush for 8 years" is concerned.....well,......
this is not about Republicans or about the Bush family, the elders or the younger. It is about abortion."

That's hardly an argument. Forget the tag Republican. But Reagan failed in what 1982? to amend the Constitution. Pro-Life politicians who have pledged their desire to overturn Roe have been in power for much of the last 35 years since SCOTUS handed down their controversial decision. What have they done on the abortion front? They've failed miserably.

We live in a Democracy. We have no dictator. No reputable scholar or political pundit will tell you that Huckabee's proposed abortion amendment has absolutely no chance of being passed. It ain't happening. First, the majority of Americans do not support overturning Roe. They support restrictions on abortion and over 30 states have restrictions on abortion. But they do not wish to see Roe overturned. Second, Americans aren't overly fond of tinkering with that sacred foundational document, the United States Constitution. For example, the MAJORITY of Americans oppose gay marriage. But the Federal Marriage Amendment to ban gay marriage made little headway in Congress - in a Republican controlled Congress. Huckabee just doesn't have the power or the support of his potential constituents to push through an abortion amendment.

The only hope that Huck has of overturning Roe is through Supreme Court nominations. But that's no sure thing. Roe is considered settled law by many conservatives. Getting an anti-Roe nominee confirmed and then getting a Supreme Court to take up a test case and overturn Roe seems like a long shot. There is no room for error in that process. Like I said, it's been 35 years and Roe has yet to be overturned - why now and why would a Huckabee nominee make a difference?

Like I've said at your blog - many of us are committed to supporting candidates and policies that would decrease the abortion rate drastically. In fact, many evangelicals see fighting Roe as a waste of time. There are other ways to lower the abortion rate. And even if Roe were overturned - it would only kick things back to the state. And the majority of the states would legalize abortion in some form if that were to happen. If overturning Roe is THE issue - I don't think one necessarily has to vote for Huckabee. There are other choices. Now, if one wants to lower the abortion rate through various governmental programs and economic policies then the list of options for president gets much larger. After all, there are different means to reach the same end goal....

3:23 PM

 
Blogger CB Scott said...

Big Daddy,

1982 is the right year, but it was REagan's Supreme Court appointments who "crawfished" on the abortion issue.

Huckabee should and does hold the strongest biblical worldview.

Therefore, I support him. Big Daddy, abortion can be stopped in this nation.

I tell you if Hillary Rodham Clinton were to say she would fight to stop abortion in this nation and Huckabee was not in the picture I would vote for her.

I would also buy many weapons on the black-market so she could not get them when she sent her people for them. :-)

cb

4:00 PM

 
Blogger Michael Westmoreland-White, Ph.D. said...

I, as a pro-choice liberal, have argued with pro-life friends that they should try to amend the Constitution instead of packing the courts--because, if they are successful they won't have damaged a whole range of settled law like they do with court packing. (Of course, it is easier to pack the courts than to ratify a Constitutional amendment. I think this would be defeated.)

But Huckabee is scary not because he wants to outlaw abortion and gay marriage--lots of GOP conservatives do. But because he is a theocrat. He doesn't want to give secular or natural law reasons for his views that non-Christians, or even Christians who disagree like me, can follow and perhaps be persuaded. No, he wants to impose his view of "God's Law" on all of us. No thanks. No Christian Taliban for me, thanks.

12:39 PM

 
Blogger CB Scott said...

Micheal,

Let us move away from the topic of this thread for a moment.

I know your wife is in a Christian ministry. I do not remember the nature.

I know your friend , and mine, Big Daddy, is a Christian by his profession. I have no reason on this earth not to believe him even though we do disagree on some things.

Now, to my point......You said; "I am a pro-choice liberal".....

You did not say you were a pro-choice liberal "Christian."

My question is; Are you in a grace relationship with Christ wherein you know you are a child of God because of the salvic work of Christ in His atonement for your sin in His death, burial and resurrection?

Michael, this is not a judgement question in any way. It is a question relating to your being a Christ-Follower.

I have several friends who are Christ-Followers, yet they are theological or political (or both) liberals.

Michael, have you been born again in the manner as prescribed in the New Testament as witnessed to and made known by the orthodox doctrine of soteriology?

cb

3:27 PM

 
Blogger Michael Westmoreland-White, Ph.D. said...

CB,
I find your question insulting. I said, "even Christians who disagree like me" thereby identifying myself as a Christian--as I have repeatedly on this blog and on the two I run. I DEFINE "Christian," as do most Christians, as one who has responded to the saving grace of God in repentance and faith and activive discipleship. To interrogate me further, rather than accepting my word for this is to be suspicious of a brother in Christ.

I find that totally unacceptable.

11:11 AM

 
Blogger CB Scott said...

Michael,

I have only looked at you profile and that was some time back. I have not read any of your post in a very long time, if ever.

My only reading of what you write is on this blog of the Big Daddy Weave.

Therefore, you should not be that insulted.


Furthermore, if it is insulting to you for someone to ask you about your salvation in the way of which I did, it might be a good idea to make sure you have actually received grace in the first place.

Frankly, I would appreciate the fact that someone cared enough to ask.

cb

11:29 AM

 
Anonymous Michael Westmoreland-White said...

I will not respond to anyone who questions my salvation. I will qualify my "liberal pro-choice" comment. I was writing quickly.

I find the abortion issue to be one of the most troubling moral issues. I have struggled for clarity since my teens on this and have "flip-flopped" twice. I find the Bible silent on the issue, despite it's positive attitude toward children and childbearing. The closest verse to anything on the question (in Exodus) clearly values unborn life, but values the mother's life higher.

I think most abortions are immoral--especially for reasons of convenience. But I think that abortions for extreme physical birth defects (of the type that usually result in infant death, e.g., shattered x syndrome, Tay Sachs, the rare case where only a brain stem and no brain develops, etc.), for rape or incest, may be a "lesser of evils." They are incredibly difficult decisions which should be left to the pregnant woman and her doctor.

I also support better family planning and other proactive measures to reduce the number of abortions. Life is a biological question--it clearly begins at conception. Personhood is a metaphysical question that cannot be decided biologically. When does human personhood begin or end? That is not clear. And so, I oppose laws that would impose someone else's metaphysics on the whole population.

Huckabee is not "pro-life," but anti-abortion. He is pro-capital punishment (and has attacked Romney for not executing anyone when Gov. of Mass.--even though Mass. has no death penalty!), pro-torture, anti-Muslim, and pro-war. He is a very dangerous person who seems not to be because of his likeable manner and his economic populism.

He is one scary dude.

12:40 PM

 
Blogger CB Scott said...

Michael,

I did not question your salvation. I asked you if you were a Christian due to the way you worded your comment. There is a great difference and you know it.

You are acting like a child, showing little Christian maturity.

Have you never asked a person if they were in a salvic relationship with Christ? If not, you are not following Christ as He commanded n the Great Commission.

If you have a problem with me asking you the question I did take it up with Jesus. It is His commission under which I work.

cb

3:58 PM

 
Blogger shadrach said...

Does everyone here actually agree with Greg Boyd? Personally, I find his remarks rediculous.

We as Christians should all be affirming the Divine, universal nature of God's Word. To accept pluralism as banning governing by God's Law is rediculous.

So Huckabee wants to help us align our interpretation of the Constitution with the original source of it's ideas. What is wrong with that? The Bible and the US Constitution are the original two bodies of law that present the idea of judging each person based only on their 'merit.'

I think that sounds like a good idea whether I care for huckabee or not.

9:51 AM

 
Blogger Michael Westmoreland-White, Ph.D. said...

The Constitution is NOT based on the Bible in any real sense. It grew out of the Enlightenment. The Framers drew on many sources--Greek philosophers, Iriquois political processes, John Locke, etc. Unlike the Declaration of Independence, there is no mention of God or a Creator in the Constitution. Article 1 forbids any religious test for public office and the First Amendment not only protects the free exercise of (any) religion, but forbids making ANY law that even RESPECTS or comes close to an establishment of religion.

3:03 PM

 

Post a Comment

<< Home

 
eXTReMe Tracker