"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever."--Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson was a deist and did not subscribe to Christian orthodoxy. He did, however, believe in a higher power, God, a supreme being.
you MF you sound intelligent enough to know that you are taking his comments out of the context that was intended by mike. Why would you want to be so intentional dishonest. You are an ass!
What is to take out of context?? He said that he wants to chang the constitution to fits God's Standards. What possible context does one say this other then the one being discussed??? By this statement he is admitting that our country was not founded on Christianity. If it was there would be no need to change the constitution.
And who said that the Constitution was based on Christianity? The framers of our Constitution believed in God. They did not want to force anyone to believe a particular way.
"It is impossible to rightly govern without God and the Bible" - George Washington
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other" -John Adams
My opinion is that there would never have been an infidel, if there had never been a priest. The artificial structures they have built on the the purest of all moral systems, for the purpose of deriving from it pence and power, revolt those who think for themselves, and who read in that system only what is really there. --Thomas Jefferson
"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government."--James Madison
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; - Treaty of Tripoli
And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a Virgin Mary, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.... But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away all this artificial scaffolding.- Thomas Jefferson
Well before you make a judment you must see this video "from minute 01:10 - 02:00"
watch?v=prQ9wDjTn9Y
In this video Mike Huckabee said "The statement doesn't mean rewrite the constitution NOT AT ALL... He also said that the statement was made in a context of human life amended and traditional marriage...(More details at the video)
we'll let him put that stuff in the constitution as soon as he puts in the parts about the poor inheriting the earth, loving thy neighbor, feeding the hungry, and thou shalt not kill.
What does the number of Americans that believe in God have to do with this? This is about the separation of church and state not "legislation by polls". You retards that want to marry church and state are suicidal maniacs that have no idea what the ramifications are. I wish there was a way that you could have it your way but leave the rest of us out of it but that is not possible. As long as state endorsed religion is shoved in our face, we will shove our rights and opinions back into your face.
Well before you make a judment you must see this video "from minute 01:10 - 02:00"
watch?v=prQ9wDjTn9Y
In this video Mike Huckabee said "The statement doesn't mean rewrite the constitution NOT AT ALL... He also said that the statement was made in a context of human life amended and traditional marriage...(More details at the video)
Well before you make a judment you must see this video "from minute 01:10 - 02:00"
watch?v=prQ9wDjTn9Y
In this video Mike Huckabee said "The statement doesn't mean rewrite the constitution NOT AT ALL... He also said that the statement was made in a context of human life amended and traditional marriage...(More details at the video)
"What we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards." To do that you have to rewrite the Constitution. All Mike Huckabee is doing is telling you he's willing to contradict himself. Slippery politician.
I'm afraid with comments such as that, Huckabee wont stand a chance. In a country that goes from having Andy Griffith, as one of the top TV shows to Desperate housewives.
Whether you believe in God or not, we can all agree that men in general are corrupt. Hence the reasons why: wars are made over oil, communism only works in theory and our government is split into three separate branches. Why then, should the constitution be made under the laws of corrupt men?
Seriously, though - considering how difficult it is to amend the Constitution (ratification of any amendment being in the hands of the people, via each State) - how dangerous is Huckabee? It's highly unlikely that the proposed changes would ever see the light of day.
We still don't want to even give him that chance. The evangelical population is extremely crafty when it comes to orginizing and carrying out plans. Don't think for a minute that they won't pull the same stunts to get something like this in effect.
Protestant Churches broke off of the Catholic church during the reformation. Christians were wanting free of Kings and Popes, so they could have religious freedom. Now we are seeing the ecunimical movement with groups like Pat Robertson and Skull and Bones.
SCARY!!!!!!!! That is like fundamentalists anywhere saying we will lead a holy war against america! YOU people better wake up to what this asshole is being used for. He is advised by the CFR and will be used to put more "fake" christianity into your brains and churches. God help us!
oh ya, so he just wants to change two little old parts of the constituiton. Who cares that its the very document that this nation was founded on? I mean fuck gays and 15 year old moms!
Lots of things have been changed in the Constitution since this country was founded. For example, slavery has been abolished, alcohol has been made illegal and legal again, and so on. You act like the Constitution is a static document, which it isn't.
Yeah, so who cares if he wants to transform the American democracy into a theocratic institution run by Christian ayatollahs, right?
I mean, it's not like Mike Huckabee has said that he wants to take everyone with AIDS and round them up into internment camps... ooops.... actually, he did say something like that.
Like I said many times already, he does NOT want to transform our country into a theocratic state. You're pulling the "Christian ayatollahs" thing out of your butt. He was referring to two things he wants to change, and he was explaining that his views come from his faith. If he was an athiest and still wanted to change the Constitution in those 2 ways, you wouldn't call him a theocrat.
Religious freedom means individual choice not church telling state to do such and such. Pray this way or kill the evil religions that we don't like. The abortion and gay issues are excuses to sell theocracy.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Huckabee never once mentions killing people who aren't Christians. Nice try. Religious freedom means an individual can freely exercise their faith without worrying about being discriminated against. Also, that a person can derive their personal/political/moral beliefs from their religion and make decisions based on those beliefs (despite their origins in religion).
I wasn't necessarily advocating for Huckabee to be elected, so don't bother bringing up other topics that you can bash him on. I was simply stating that people labeling him as a theocrat is ridiculous. Just because someone's political views derive from their religious beliefs (and they publically say that) does not make them a theocrat.
No, somebody saying they want to rewrite the Constitution to fit God's standards is simply an opinion. And taken in context with everything else that Huckabee has said, it is absolutely not theocracy.
If there is a "context" in which rewriting the Constitution to turn some religion's dogmas into laws, thereby forcing others to abide by the articles of that religion by law, is NOT theocracy, then please present one because I am all ears.
The context is that Huckabee was referring to 2 things: the Human Life Amendment and traditional marriage. He wasn't referring to anything else. He has said in response to accusations that he does NOT want to start a theocracy.
Blending church and state is known as inquisition. You can read the Book of Daniel and it will explain it very clearly how the church leaders have laws passed against God's people.
My point is, religious people's views about politics (and the world in general) are typically derived from their religion's teachings. In saying that a person can't believe what they believe because it incorporates an element of religion, you are inhibiting that person's right to free speech and freedom of religion.
That "context" does not change anything. It doesn't matter if you pass two such laws or two thousand. To set the precedent that the Constitution can be changed to make religious beliefs into laws goes against every basic principle our nation stands for.
And I'm so sick of hearing evangelicals use the word "marriage". This isn't about marriage, it's about gays and everyone knows it.
Except that Huckabee's personal convictions are derived from his religious beliefs. There are TONS of other polticians that are the same way (and it's legal, because people are allowed to come up with their own ideas derived from wherever they want). The fact that Huck's personal/political views are the same as some religious doctrines doesn't go "against every basic principle our nation stands for."
"fact that Huck's personal/political views are the same as some religious doctrines..."
The same as some religious doctrines?! They are BASED on religious doctrines. Talk about spin! You make it sound as if Huckabee's personal convictions just happen to line up with "God's", instead of being based upon them as he clearly says. It's exactly this kind of disrespect for the truth that causes people to resent you evangelicals.
Uh, not spin...fact. Nice job picking out one sentence of mine to analyze and condemn. If you look at any of my other billion posts on this page, you'll see that I say many times how Huckabee's personal/political views are based on/derived from his religious beliefs/doctrines. There are no lies here. In saying so, YOU are lying. And if this is why evangelicals are represented poorly, then I feel pretty good...and actually pity you!
Every eighth-grade school child knows why it's wrong to pass laws based on religious beliefs and why our Constitution and our founders explicitly forbade it. Every child knows what's wrong with a President appointing himself to instruct the people on what is or is not "in line with God's standards". What part of this did your school fail to go over?
I learned about the freedoms of speech and religion in eighth grade. These two freedoms are allowed to overlap. Saying that people can't make public decisions based on the moral standards and personal beliefs that derive from their religion is ludicrous. In fact, it sounds a lot like Communism.
I guess you're calling Thomas Jefferson a communist then, because as he said, "The legitimate powers of government extend to only such acts as are injurious to others." In other words, if you want to ban something, you have to ban it because it is injurious to others. That's what secularism means. You can't pass laws for religious reasons.
Oh, so I guess it would be okay then to add the Human Life Amendment to the Constitution, because I'm pretty sure murdering defenseless babies is injurious to them! Also, like I've said already, many people's political views are directly tied to their religious beliefs. Policing who can and can't say something because of where they get their ideas is wrong.
"...many people's political views are directly tied to their religious beliefs."
Well, sucks to be them. Because in this country we don't make laws based on religion. If your political views are "directly tied" to your religious beliefs, then you're missing the whole point of religious freedom.
'If your political views are "directly tied" to you religious beliefs,' then you are practicing religious freedom, not "missing the whole point of" it.
"'If your political views are "directly tied" to you religious beliefs,' then you are practicing religious freedom,"
No, because religious freedom applies to everyone, not just to you! You're not "practicing religious freedom" by passing laws that restrict the religious freedom of others. No one has the right to do that!
Like I said, if this were a secular movement and was motivated by secular reasons for banning gay marriages (or as you prefer to relabel it, "upholding traditional marriage"), then it would be legal. But to ban anything for religious reasons is forbidden. You can't impose your religion on others.
Let me put it to you this way: The Lutheran Church is already appointing bishops who are in openly gay relationships, and any day now they're going to start performing marriages for same-sex couples. Now, if President Huckabee chooses to intervene and say they can't do this because it's not in line with God's standards, that is very obviously a violation of religious freedom. President Huckabee has no right to enforce "God's standards" by law. That's just the way it works.
That's where we're different... you say that a personal or political belief derived from religious doctrine IS religion. I say that that's a person's right to freedom of religion and freedom of speech... that their ideas are valid no matter where they came from.
I suppose you think that a Christian Congress who decided to make a law based on the first commandment, "Thou shall have no other gods before me," thereby outlawing all other religions, would simply be practicing their freedom of religion?
Freedom of religion does not extend to passing laws of a religious nature, because doing so infringes upon the freedom of religion of others. We all have to play by the same rules and that means hands off the government.
I didn't hear him say that? God's Standards?? Depending on your God that could mean anything. Does he want the ten commandments in the constituion?? What exactly are God's standards.
Yes, it would be okay to ban abortion for secular reasons ("abortion is murder"). It would not be okay to ban abortion for religious reasons ("God says abortion is wrong"). Again, don't you see the difference? If you can pass laws because of what you think God says in his book, then true freedom of religion does not exist.
Can't YOU see that the two are often inseparable? Sure, you can say "abortion is murder," and that's a valid point. But why is murder wrong in the first place? Christians would say because God gave us a commandment against it.
The reason we ban murder is not because of God's commandments. The reason we ban murder is because if we lived in a society where murder was permissible, everyone would be dead. We have a valid, secular reason for banning murder that has nothing to do with religion. If you can show there is a secular need for a law, you can pass it. But you can't pass laws based on religion.
I'm just saying that Christians do and don't do certain things because they feel that they're following a higher authority. I know you can't pass laws based on religion, but you CAN pass laws based on people's ideas of things, and if those ideas are influenced or directly tied to their faith, they're allowed to declare it publically.
But they're not. If people's political ideas are directly based on their religion, they are not allowed to transform them into laws. Laws cannot be based on religion. You need a legitimate secular reason to pass a law, not a religious reason.
And actually, the fight to uphold traditional marriage IS about marriage. It's an institution that God created and intended to be a specific way. Are gay people a part of this debate? Of course they are...that's obvious.
It's not about marriage. The very same Republican lawmakers and conservative religious groups who advocate "marriage" now were advocating "sodomy laws" forty years ago, trying to make gay sex itself a crime that would land you in jail. It's only since those laws were repealed that it's been about marriage, because that's the last right gays have yet to claim.
Think what you want. For me personally, and every other conservative/Republican I've talked to...it's about marriage. If gays or anyone else wants to go off and practice sodomy... that's their business.
Exodus 21:10: "If a man has more than one wife, he must not deprive the first wife of food, clothes, or sex."
If God created marriage and intended it to be a specific way, then you and Mike Huckabee are way out of line with it because marriage in ancient Israel was polygamous. Monogamous marriage was something we got from the Romans.
Good thing you quoted the Old Testament, otherwise I might be worried. In my church, when we study the O.T., we look at it as having "Old Testament truths for a New Testament reality." Basically, there are many key commandments in the O.T. that we should follow, but there are obvious cultural differences between then and now that render the literal interpretation of many O.T. verses as obsolete in our contemporary lives.
Jesus never said anything in the NT to indicate that God did not allow polygamous marriage anymore. It was always the standard practice for the ancient Jews, so to say God created marriage to be monogamous is just weird. Monogamy comes from the pagan Greek and Roman tradition, not from Judaism or Christianity.
This is another reason why it appears to me, and to other non-evangelicals, that this whole thing is not about marraige but about gays. There is no basis for monogamous marriage in the Bible. There is a lot of homophobia though. So putting 2+2 together, the whole "marriage" movement looks like a cover for simple anti-gay hysteria.
Monogamous marriage is a law in our society...and as you claim, not because of any Christian doctrine. But marriage IS laid out as between a man and a woman in the Bible, so by following that as well as our country's laws, you get the idea of a monogamous, man-and-wife marriage.
Man, you're just not hearing me. You cannot pass a law based on what the Bible says! It doesn't make any difference whether the Bible describes marriage as between a man or a woman. You cannot force others to adhere to the tenets of your religion!
No, but you CAN pass a law based on what the PEOPLE say. And if those people have a religious background and their political and personal views are influenced (to any degree) by their religion, you can't say their opinions are crap.
"You can't pass a law based on what the Bible says? Really? Who made that law?"
John Adams authored it, based on a Virginia statue written by Thomas Jefferson. It's called the First Amendment. It says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
Honestly, were you homeschooled? You should have learned something in school about freedom of religion being in the Constitution and what happens when someone transforms religion into law.
Were talking about an Amendment to the Constitution, not just a law not to kill you father. From the movie Tommy Boy "Did you eat paint chips when you were a child?"
Also, a person has freedom of religion for a reason. In Huck's case, his personal/moral/political beliefs derive from his faith. Even if he didn't say the bit about aligning the Constitution with God's standards, he (and other Christian politicians) will act on their (religion-based) personal beliefs, and that's allowed.
If the Constitution is attacked to force a religion on the United States then yes that is a theocracy. Trouble interpreting the dictionary? It makes sense that, understanding the Constitution and Bilbe could also be difficult for you. Basically the Constitution is about the individual's fundamental rights and freedoms. The Constitution is protection from bad government.
It looks like you're the one having problems interpreting the dictionary. The Constitution guarantees every individual freedom of religion. Huckabee's personal/moral/political beliefs derive from his religious beliefs (like every other religious person in America). He (and others) make public/political decisions based on their individual beliefs all the time. That's what Huck is doing here.
If you want to belong to a hate religion you already have that right without some boasting politician attacking gays and the Constitution and the mothers of unborn children. The way to prevent gays and abortion is beyond Huckabees coprehension.
Christianity is not a hate religion. The only hate surrounding it is generated by the hypocritical intolerance of liberals (and others). Also, Huckabee isn't attacking gays, the Constitution, or mothers of unborn children. He is trying to preserve the traditionality of a vital institution (marriage) and protect defenseless unborn babies from being murdered.
He would probably say change the Constitution in the name of saving unborn children and maintaining the traditionality of a vital and long-standing institution.
This is not about abortion and it's not about marriage. The whole point of America is religious freedom. That means you can't change the Constitution to force others to abide by your religious beliefs, period. If the Lutheran Church wants to start performing marriages for same-sex couples, no American President can step in and tell them that they're out of line with God and that therefore they are to be banned. This is a democracy, not a theocracy.
My problem with what you're saying is that there are a lot of non-religious people who want to make these same changes. What do you say to them? 'You can't change the Constitution to force others to abide by your beliefs...?' Well, the majority of items in the Constitution were ideas and beliefs from people's heads, and we live by THOSE! Also, people who derive their political ideas from their religious beliefs should not be persecuted when they act on those ideas. That's what you're doing.
"My problem with what you're saying is that there are a lot of non-religious people who want to make these same changes. What do you say to them?"
If people want to ban gay marriages for some secular reason, then that would be legal. Banning them because they're not in line with "God's standards" is not. Can't you see the difference?
"...people who derive their political ideas from their religious beliefs should not be persecuted when they act on those ideas."
Except that we don't pass laws based on religious beliefs in a free society! Get that through your head.
And you have no right to claim to be "persecuted" just because we don't let you transform your religious beliefs into law. NO ONE has that right, because no one has the right to take away the rights of others to religious freedom.
Except that half the people in America believe what they believe because of their religion!! Get THAT through your head. You can't tell a person what and what not to believe. And Christians are being persecuted by being called intolerant practitioners of a hate-religion. "No one has the right to take away the rights of others to religious freedom." Interesting... because that's what you're trying to do here, saying that people with religious-based ideas can't act on them.
"... people in America believe what they believe because of their religion!!"
And they are free to do so. However, if the only reason you believe something is wrong is because of your religion, then you have no basis to ban it. Sorry but that's just the way it works. The Supreme Court has said this as has every other court in the United States--a law must have a secular purpose to be valid. Laws based on religion are not allowed because they inherently take away the freedom of others.
If you believe X should be banned because it causes cancer, then you have a valid, legal basis to ban it by law. If you believe X should be banned because it violates the rules of your religion, and you can't produce any better reason than that, then you have no basis to ban it because it would take away the religious freedom of others who do not believe what you believe.
How would banning X because it causes cancer take away the religious freedom of others? Maybe if X was reading your Bible or going to church...but I doubt that could be possible. At any rate, Republicans can and have produced "better" reasons than solely religious ones to pass things into law.
Like I told you originally, this is not about abortion, marriage, or any other social issue, it's about religious freedom. The Constitution is not going to be amended according to the standards of any god, be that Vishnu, Allah, or Jesus. This is a free society, not some kind of reverse Taliban.
And like I told YOU originally, Huckabee is practicing freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Tons of Americans believe what they believe because it derives from their religious doctrines. That's allowed.
"Tons of Americans believe what they believe because it derives from their religious doctrines. That's allowed."
It's not allowed to pass laws that derive from religious doctrines, sorry, and it never will be. If you want to ban something because of a legitimate, secular reason, that's one thing. Banning it because of what God says is a completely different matter and the Constitution explicitly forbids you from doing it.
It IS allowed to pass laws that derive from people's beliefs. If those beliefs come from a religious doctrine, that's freedom of religion and freedom of speech.
"It IS allowed to pass laws that derive from people's beliefs."
NOT their religious beliefs!
Laws cannot be based on religion! That is the whole basis for religious freedom. Sorry but people don't have the ability to pass whatever laws they like. There are very specific things they cannot do. They cannot pass laws that restrict the press, they cannot pass laws that restrict speech, and they cannot pass laws that are based on religion. It just isn't allowed.
Yeah, I know they can't restrict those things. That's obvious. But who is to determine what people are allowed to speak? What kind of system would you propose to weed out every person that has a personal/political view based on ANY religious idea?
I don't propose any changes. The system we already have works well enough. We have a separation of church and state. It's the fundamentalist crowd, such as Huckabee, who want to change the Constitution. I think it's fine the way it is.
You can believe what you want, just keep it away from me. You only have a problem with gay marriage because of religious reasons, not political. This is a violation of the 1st ammendment. You are forcing other people to not get married because of your religious belief.
I have a problem with gay marriage because of religious AND personal reasons. You can't tell me that my personal views on something are invalid because they don't form to your conception of what is or is not "logical" or "secular."
I never said that your views invalid. How does somebody being allowed to get married affect your life and your views. You can think what you want, but by making it law your pushing your religious beliefs on other peoples lives. Other people who don't affect you.
Exactly... it's time to stop the phobia and biasness and let adults all adults get equal rights! People need to mind their business and let people enjoy their own happiness as long as it's not harming other's, what's wrong with that?
No, that's just the way you THINK it works. But if I must play at your game, there are secular books out about how gay marriage should not be allowed and how abortion is wrong. And I'm fairly sure that Huckabee would never try to pass a law using religious rhetoric. By the way, there are plenty of current laws that "take away the freedom of others."
That's how I, and Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams, and the Supreme Court think it works, yes.
And I happen to be against abortion myself. Christopher Hitchens calls it an "abomination". But that doesn't mean you can ban it or anything else because it's not "in line with God's standards". What is or is not in line with God's standards is no business of the government to determine.
You're right about this much: "What is or is not in line with God's standards is no business of the government to determine." I agree. But I also think that the American people decide if something should be changed in our country. And if those people's ideas come from their religion, who am I to say that their voices aren't valid?
You have to show us why X is wrong, without referencing what Vishnu or Allah or God thinks about it, because if it comes down to that, then it's just your own private religious opinion and you have no right to force others who have different opinions to adhere to it.
Alright, but like I said, regarding traditional marriage and abortion, there are valid reasons given (without mentioning God) for why these issues should be addressed and changed.
If there are valid reasons for banning abortion that don't have anything to do with religion, then you can ban abortion based on those reasons. But I think it's pretty clear from anyone who listens to Mike Huckabee that the primary reason he's against these things is because they're not in line with what he considers to be God's standards.
Yeah, or maybe he's just playing to the evangelical crowd. Who knows? Even if his ideas for something ARE based on "God's standards," he has a right to express it.
He does have the right to express it!! This is protected under the first Ammendment which also gives me the right to call him a crazy fundamentalist Christian Fascist for saying something so retarded.
They don't decide it for religious reasons, they decide it for personal reasons. If those reasons came from their religion or anything else, that's their right.
"They don't decide it for religious reasons, they decide it for personal reasons. If those reasons came from their religion or anything else, that's their right."
Okay, let's deconstruct this statement:
1. They don't pass laws for religious reasons.
2. They pass laws for personal reasons.
3. Those personal reasons came from their religion.
Excuse me? If their personal reasons came from their religion, then they are RELIGIOUS REASONS and laws cannot be passed for religions reasons.
You're excused. You can't police what people can and cannot think! Who are you to determine if a person's personal beliefs come from a religion anyway? What if a person who doesn't practice any religion thinks a certain way, but at one point in his life he was influenced by something that Gandhi said... UH OH! His desire for peace came from Hinduism... no voice for you.
I don't have to determine whether Huckabee's motivations are religious. He says so himself. He says, "Let's change the Constitution so it's in line with God's standards". I just say, "No."
You can't police peoples decisions on sexual partners either!! Why can't Christians just worship their sky daddy and leave the rest of us the F alone??
Exactly. Huckabee and the rest of you right-wing nut jobs are the ones who want to ammend to the constitution to legislate sexual preferences. Let people do what they want as long as there not harming anybody. Two guys kissing and getting married has not effect on your life.
I agree. Let people live how they choose. But keep it off the senate and congress table. The billions spent on homosexual diseases does affect me. 71% of AIDS victims are homosexual. 18% are iv drug users and 11% were either born with it, transfused, or something else. Not to mention the host of conditions caused by "gay bowel" syndrome. Hardly ideal. And what about bisexuals? Strive for the ideal, not appease personal whims. Time and money can be better spent.
Just because you believe something doesn't make it true. That's called magical thinking. Cross your fingers and chant some words, and wish, and if your wish comes true that verifies in your mind what you did has power. Maybe you are right and maybe you are wrong, but that is between you and God.
I don't know who you're talking to and what you're talking about. The only thing I understand in your post is that "just because you believe something doesn't make it true." Yep...that's obvious. But people are allowed to believe and think whatever they want. That's the beauty of America.
The only "intolerance" that comes out of the liberal side is that we don't tolerate other people destroying our Constitution.
You say you don't hate gays, but actions speak louder than words. You obviously feel there's something wrong with them if you think they can't make good spouses or parents, but you can. If it's not hatred, then it's something equally contemptible.
You're far off. Liberals tolerate everyone and everything, except Christianity. They see it (as you just demonstrated) as a hate-filled religion. And personally, I say I don't hate gays because I don't. I DO think the homosexual lifestyle is a sin (because that's what the Bible tells us), but I hate the sin, not the sinner. Also, I (and other conservatives) don't disagree with gay marriage b/c we think gays can't be good spouses or good parents...just so you know.
You're a little mixed up on the meaning of intolerance. Personally I do believe that you evangelicals are part of a hate-filled religion. But I would not try to rewrite the Constitution to endorse that belief. THAT would be intolerance.
As you said, we liberal-minded people tolerate everything except you, because the only thing we should not tolerate is intolerance such as you represent.
The thing is, if a person is simply following the tenets of their religion, that's their right and you shouldn't discriminate against them for it. Because the Bible teaches that the homosexual lifestyle is a sin, and because most Christians believe that, you discriminate against US saying that we're intolerant bigots, when in reality, we don't hate gays, we're just following our religious doctrine.
"The thing is, if a person is simply following the tenets of their religion, that's their right and you shouldn't discriminate against them for it."
That is exactly my point. Discriminating against them is what you do when you pass a law based on the tenets of your religion. NOT allowing them to discriminate against others is not a form of discrimination in and of itself. When evangelicals stop discriminating against others, perhaps others will be nicer toward them.
If the tenets of your religion require you to turn your religious beliefs into law, then it is discrimination. There's no getting around it. Why don't you just leave the government out of it? Follow your religion, and let other people follow theirs.
Huckabee (stop turning him into a cute pet by calling him Huck) has every right as a citizen to believe what he wants to believe and to say what he wants to say. But when he becomes president, his job is to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. He just told us all that he wants to assault and gut the Constitution.
I'm not "turning him into a cute pet by calling him Huck"... I'm calling him that to save characters in my post. I find it ironic that you tell me what not to say, but right after that you talk about how citizens have every right "to believe what he wants." Interesting.
As for the president, I agree with you that "his job is to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution." But Huckabee wasn't saying he "wants to assault and gut the Constitution." He was saying that he wants to change 2 things (one of which has been on the Republican platform for over 20 years, might I add). The Constitution isn't a static document. It needs to be changed sometimes.
"But Huckabee wasn't saying he "wants to assault and gut the Constitution." He was saying that he wants to change 2 things"
No, this was a broad statement. He won't stop at those two issues. But you're missing the point again because this is not about either of those issues, it's about FREEDOM OF RELIGION. You can't pass laws based on religion in a free society! Don't you get it? Muslims are not allowed to pass laws to make their religious beliefs into laws, and neither are Christians.
Maybe he WILL stop at those two issues. How do you know? And again, he is practicing FREEDOM OF RELIGION and FREEDOM OF SPEECH. If a Muslim has political and personal views about something because it derives from their religion, so be it. Let them run for office, and if the people like his/her message, they'll get voted in!
What is so ironical regarding both the gays and the pro life agendas, is the hypocrisy! For instance a lot of the people seeking favor through attacks on the gays, are later busted in sting operations doing gay behaviors. People convincing through the media that welfare is bankrupting the system. How do they expect 15 year old mom's to not want to have an abortion, when welfare isn't enough?
Ha... what's your definition of "a lot"? There have definitely been SOME cases of hypocritcal gay behavior with politicians, but "a lot"? I don't think so. And regarding your comments about the 15 year old mom... if she can't afford to raise the baby, there's this great thing in America that we call adoption.
It appears you think politics should be more concerned with prosecuting the bad people than in makeing the world a better place. I don't agree with gay behavior or abortion, but I don't have time to worry about what gays do, and taking food away from children and their mothers is not Christian. It is crazy.
Did I say I wanted to take food away from children and their mothers? No! If anything, I would want to help them! You are assuming a lot...including your claim that I care more about "prosecuting the bad people than in making the world a better place." Personally, I think saving unborn children from being murdered IS making the world a better place.
Whether or not abortion and gay is legal or illegal is what you are concerned with, and most people agree it is wrong, even the perpetrators if they were honest with themselves. However, laws agaist those behaviors will not stop those behaviors, but rather force them to be sneekier. True Christianity believes it is best to change people's heart by example. Not hypocrisy that Huckabee is about.
No example by a heterosexual Christian is going to convice a homosexual couple that they don't want to get married. And you know what? Laws against murder don't stop murders, but it's still a law! Laws against drunk driving don't stop drunk drivers, but it's still a law. And if someone can supposedly only make a law based on secular reasoning, then that will force Christians and other religious people "to be sneakier" when presenting their political ideas.
Maybe you should just consider more practical reasons to respect church-state separation here:
Every year the percentage of the US that is religious shrinks, and the percentage that is nonreligious grows. Christianity will fall below 69% of the population this year. You'll live to see it shrink to a minority. How do you expect Christians to be treated then? It depends on how they treat others now.
Being gay is wrong?? Outside of the bible thumpers reasoning, there is not logical reason to say that homosexuality is wrong?? It only has an effect on society because of Christian idiocy! Yea, I have the right to my opinion that Christianity and religion are stupid and roadblocks to improving society. This is not discriminatory or bigoted. This is based on the merit of your beliefs. Eh, killing Iraqis is ok, but don't let men hold hands.
Huckabee wasn't saying that he wanted to establish a state religion. He was referring to two things that he wants to work on regarding the Constitution: 1. the Human Life Amendment and 2. traditional marriage. Nice job misconstruing his message though. And by the way, there are no "high priests" in the baptist church.
1 & 2 are just the first steps. Do you really think that nothing more will follow? Of course he couldn't turn the country into a theocracy overnight, but he can certainly start the ball rolling. It wouldn't take much.
I honestly think that nothing more will follow after "1 & 2" (if 1 and 2 are even ever accomplished). And I disagree with your comment that "It wouldn't take much" to "start the ball rolling"
it is clear people...religion should not have a place in politics....otherwise you get what our founding fathers fought agains...a church state.
DadoPennsylvania 1 year ago
"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever."--Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson was a deist and did not subscribe to Christian orthodoxy. He did, however, believe in a higher power, God, a supreme being.
ziglet53 3 years ago
Your point? What does that have to do with Gay Marriage and Abortion?
RationalSchema 3 years ago
i believe in the constitution.. but i believe the word of the living God is more powerful than the constitution.
Donnydepp789 3 years ago
you MF you sound intelligent enough to know that you are taking his comments out of the context that was intended by mike. Why would you want to be so intentional dishonest. You are an ass!
cumileo 4 years ago
What is to take out of context?? He said that he wants to chang the constitution to fits God's Standards. What possible context does one say this other then the one being discussed??? By this statement he is admitting that our country was not founded on Christianity. If it was there would be no need to change the constitution.
RationalSchema 4 years ago
Point well taken
BeatBuddy 3 years ago
And who said that the Constitution was based on Christianity? The framers of our Constitution believed in God. They did not want to force anyone to believe a particular way.
"It is impossible to rightly govern without God and the Bible" - George Washington
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other" -John Adams
Do your homework.
ziglet53 3 years ago
My opinion is that there would never have been an infidel, if there had never been a priest. The artificial structures they have built on the the purest of all moral systems, for the purpose of deriving from it pence and power, revolt those who think for themselves, and who read in that system only what is really there. --Thomas Jefferson
RationalSchema 3 years ago
"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government."--James Madison
ziglet53 3 years ago
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; - Treaty of Tripoli
And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a Virgin Mary, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.... But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away all this artificial scaffolding.- Thomas Jefferson
RationalSchema 3 years ago 2
I toally agree with this man! that's why our fore fathers left england because relgion.
inuki09 4 years ago
what a fascist
elea1885 4 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Well before you make a judment you must see this video "from minute 01:10 - 02:00"
watch?v=prQ9wDjTn9Y
In this video Mike Huckabee said "The statement doesn't mean rewrite the constitution NOT AT ALL... He also said that the statement was made in a context of human life amended and traditional marriage...(More details at the video)
CodyIzHere 4 years ago
are you just posting this on every huckbee videos you've find?
inuki09 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Good video! Thanks! *****
Shultzgti 4 years ago
I agree patriciaoday
dani4fani 4 years ago
It's obvious IN CONTEXT he meant the Human Life Amendment and the Marriage Amendment. That's it.
patriciaoday 4 years ago
Yeah, but its a slippery slope. Soon he might bring back stoning of Gays. If you agree with that,humanity has left you behind.
pos777 4 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
we'll let him put that stuff in the constitution as soon as he puts in the parts about the poor inheriting the earth, loving thy neighbor, feeding the hungry, and thou shalt not kill.
mirthstudios 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"His God in Your Constitution." You mean the same God 90% of Americans believe in?
yadamatrix 4 years ago
"You mean the same God 90% of Americans believe in?"
Actually, if you're talking about the Christian god, only 69% of Americans believe in him.
And that 69% does not get to take away the religious liberty of the rest of us by making us all adhere to their religious doctrines by law.
frellthat 4 years ago 3
It is about 75% and they all have different interpretations of what that GOD wants. 90%. They must have done that pole in Kansas.
RationalSchema 4 years ago
God is a title. Why don't you call your mythological god by name from now on. You worship Yahweh. Start calling him by name.
jonrp05 4 years ago
Or even YHWH! God was too holy to even say his name with the vowels in.
pos777 4 years ago
What does the number of Americans that believe in God have to do with this? This is about the separation of church and state not "legislation by polls". You retards that want to marry church and state are suicidal maniacs that have no idea what the ramifications are. I wish there was a way that you could have it your way but leave the rest of us out of it but that is not possible. As long as state endorsed religion is shoved in our face, we will shove our rights and opinions back into your face.
Shultzgti 4 years ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
Well before you make a judment you must see this video "from minute 01:10 - 02:00"
watch?v=prQ9wDjTn9Y
In this video Mike Huckabee said "The statement doesn't mean rewrite the constitution NOT AT ALL... He also said that the statement was made in a context of human life amended and traditional marriage...(More details at the video)
perfumouni 4 years ago
Sounds like back peddling to me.
RationalSchema 4 years ago
Hey Huckabee!! It's 2008 not 1308!!
RationalSchema 4 years ago
At least he won't be screaming in anguish in 2608.
yadamatrix 4 years ago
What??
RationalSchema 4 years ago 2
Well before you make a judment you must see this video "from minute 01:10 - 02:00"
watch?v=prQ9wDjTn9Y
In this video Mike Huckabee said "The statement doesn't mean rewrite the constitution NOT AT ALL... He also said that the statement was made in a context of human life amended and traditional marriage...(More details at the video)
perfumouni 4 years ago
EXACTLY!! That's what I've been trying to tell these people. They're stubborn and don't respond to reason. Glad you do!
napavalleyharvest 4 years ago
"What we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards." To do that you have to rewrite the Constitution. All Mike Huckabee is doing is telling you he's willing to contradict himself. Slippery politician.
irregularjim 4 years ago
He wasn't contradicting himself, he was clarifying the context of what he was talking about.
napavalleyharvest 4 years ago
I'm afraid with comments such as that, Huckabee wont stand a chance. In a country that goes from having Andy Griffith, as one of the top TV shows to Desperate housewives.
Hey you do the math.
lrdrandolf 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Whether you believe in God or not, we can all agree that men in general are corrupt. Hence the reasons why: wars are made over oil, communism only works in theory and our government is split into three separate branches. Why then, should the constitution be made under the laws of corrupt men?
jestevens44 4 years ago
He's mad!! He's Crazy!!
He will be send to HELL !!
jtlytle 4 years ago
Seriously, though - considering how difficult it is to amend the Constitution (ratification of any amendment being in the hands of the people, via each State) - how dangerous is Huckabee? It's highly unlikely that the proposed changes would ever see the light of day.
SwingboyBrett 4 years ago
We still don't want to even give him that chance. The evangelical population is extremely crafty when it comes to orginizing and carrying out plans. Don't think for a minute that they won't pull the same stunts to get something like this in effect.
shonkey 4 years ago 2
Protestant Churches broke off of the Catholic church during the reformation. Christians were wanting free of Kings and Popes, so they could have religious freedom. Now we are seeing the ecunimical movement with groups like Pat Robertson and Skull and Bones.
dennisservaes 4 years ago
Even more dangerous than George W. Bush.
nyprogressive 4 years ago
Ayatola Huckabee; Chistian Taliban Leader.
dogstar7 4 years ago 3
SCARY!!!!!!!! That is like fundamentalists anywhere saying we will lead a holy war against america! YOU people better wake up to what this asshole is being used for. He is advised by the CFR and will be used to put more "fake" christianity into your brains and churches. God help us!
marcusjansen239369 4 years ago 3
oh ya, so he just wants to change two little old parts of the constituiton. Who cares that its the very document that this nation was founded on? I mean fuck gays and 15 year old moms!
cleanyournose 4 years ago
Lots of things have been changed in the Constitution since this country was founded. For example, slavery has been abolished, alcohol has been made illegal and legal again, and so on. You act like the Constitution is a static document, which it isn't.
napavalleyharvest 4 years ago
Yeah, so who cares if he wants to transform the American democracy into a theocratic institution run by Christian ayatollahs, right?
I mean, it's not like Mike Huckabee has said that he wants to take everyone with AIDS and round them up into internment camps... ooops.... actually, he did say something like that.
nyprogressive 4 years ago
Like I said many times already, he does NOT want to transform our country into a theocratic state. You're pulling the "Christian ayatollahs" thing out of your butt. He was referring to two things he wants to change, and he was explaining that his views come from his faith. If he was an athiest and still wanted to change the Constitution in those 2 ways, you wouldn't call him a theocrat.
napavalleyharvest 4 years ago
Religious freedom means individual choice not church telling state to do such and such. Pray this way or kill the evil religions that we don't like. The abortion and gay issues are excuses to sell theocracy.
dennisservaes 4 years ago
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Huckabee never once mentions killing people who aren't Christians. Nice try. Religious freedom means an individual can freely exercise their faith without worrying about being discriminated against. Also, that a person can derive their personal/political/moral beliefs from their religion and make decisions based on those beliefs (despite their origins in religion).
napavalleyharvest 4 years ago
I wasn't necessarily advocating for Huckabee to be elected, so don't bother bringing up other topics that you can bash him on. I was simply stating that people labeling him as a theocrat is ridiculous. Just because someone's political views derive from their religious beliefs (and they publically say that) does not make them a theocrat.
napavalleyharvest 4 years ago
Somebody saying they want to rewrite the Constitution to fit God's standards isn't theocracy, huh? Very interesting notion. Verrrry interesting.
irregularjim 4 years ago
No, somebody saying they want to rewrite the Constitution to fit God's standards is simply an opinion. And taken in context with everything else that Huckabee has said, it is absolutely not theocracy.
napavalleyharvest 4 years ago
If there is a "context" in which rewriting the Constitution to turn some religion's dogmas into laws, thereby forcing others to abide by the articles of that religion by law, is NOT theocracy, then please present one because I am all ears.
frellthat 4 years ago
The context is that Huckabee was referring to 2 things: the Human Life Amendment and traditional marriage. He wasn't referring to anything else. He has said in response to accusations that he does NOT want to start a theocracy.
napavalleyharvest 4 years ago
Blending church and state is known as inquisition. You can read the Book of Daniel and it will explain it very clearly how the church leaders have laws passed against God's people.
dennisservaes 4 years ago
My point is, religious people's views about politics (and the world in general) are typically derived from their religion's teachings. In saying that a person can't believe what they believe because it incorporates an element of religion, you are inhibiting that person's right to free speech and freedom of religion.
napavalleyharvest 4 years ago
That "context" does not change anything. It doesn't matter if you pass two such laws or two thousand. To set the precedent that the Constitution can be changed to make religious beliefs into laws goes against every basic principle our nation stands for.
And I'm so sick of hearing evangelicals use the word "marriage". This isn't about marriage, it's about gays and everyone knows it.
frellthat 4 years ago
Except that Huckabee's personal convictions are derived from his religious beliefs. There are TONS of other polticians that are the same way (and it's legal, because people are allowed to come up with their own ideas derived from wherever they want). The fact that Huck's personal/political views are the same as some religious doctrines doesn't go "against every basic principle our nation stands for."
napavalleyharvest 4 years ago
"fact that Huck's personal/political views are the same as some religious doctrines..."
The same as some religious doctrines?! They are BASED on religious doctrines. Talk about spin! You make it sound as if Huckabee's personal convictions just happen to line up with "God's", instead of being based upon them as he clearly says. It's exactly this kind of disrespect for the truth that causes people to resent you evangelicals.
quiIl 4 years ago
Uh, not spin...fact. Nice job picking out one sentence of mine to analyze and condemn. If you look at any of my other billion posts on this page, you'll see that I say many times how Huckabee's personal/political views are based on/derived from his religious beliefs/doctrines. There are no lies here. In saying so, YOU are lying. And if this is why evangelicals are represented poorly, then I feel pretty good...and actually pity you!
napavalleyharvest 4 years ago
Every eighth-grade school child knows why it's wrong to pass laws based on religious beliefs and why our Constitution and our founders explicitly forbade it. Every child knows what's wrong with a President appointing himself to instruct the people on what is or is not "in line with God's standards". What part of this did your school fail to go over?
quiIl 4 years ago
I learned about the freedoms of speech and religion in eighth grade. These two freedoms are allowed to overlap. Saying that people can't make public decisions based on the moral standards and personal beliefs that derive from their religion is ludicrous. In fact, it sounds a lot like Communism.
napavalleyharvest 4 years ago
Communism - LOL.
I guess you're calling Thomas Jefferson a communist then, because as he said, "The legitimate powers of government extend to only such acts as are injurious to others." In other words, if you want to ban something, you have to ban it because it is injurious to others. That's what secularism means. You can't pass laws for religious reasons.
quiIl 4 years ago
Oh, so I guess it would be okay then to add the Human Life Amendment to the Constitution, because I'm pretty sure murdering defenseless babies is injurious to them! Also, like I've said already, many people's political views are directly tied to their religious beliefs. Policing who can and can't say something because of where they get their ideas is wrong.
napavalleyharvest 4 years ago
"...many people's political views are directly tied to their religious beliefs."
Well, sucks to be them. Because in this country we don't make laws based on religion. If your political views are "directly tied" to your religious beliefs, then you're missing the whole point of religious freedom.
quiIl 4 years ago
'If your political views are "directly tied" to you religious beliefs,' then you are practicing religious freedom, not "missing the whole point of" it.
napavalleyharvest 4 years ago
"'If your political views are "directly tied" to you religious beliefs,' then you are practicing religious freedom,"
No, because religious freedom applies to everyone, not just to you! You're not "practicing religious freedom" by passing laws that restrict the religious freedom of others. No one has the right to do that!
quiIl 4 years ago
I guess I don't see how banning abortion (and even upholding traditional marriage) is restricting the religious freedom of others.
napavalleyharvest 4 years ago
Like I said, if this were a secular movement and was motivated by secular reasons for banning gay marriages (or as you prefer to relabel it, "upholding traditional marriage"), then it would be legal. But to ban anything for religious reasons is forbidden. You can't impose your religion on others.
quiIl 4 years ago
Let me put it to you this way: The Lutheran Church is already appointing bishops who are in openly gay relationships, and any day now they're going to start performing marriages for same-sex couples. Now, if President Huckabee chooses to intervene and say they can't do this because it's not in line with God's standards, that is very obviously a violation of religious freedom. President Huckabee has no right to enforce "God's standards" by law. That's just the way it works.
quiIl 4 years ago
I'm pretty sure "President Huckabee" wouldn't intervene with the excuse that "it falls below God's standards." He would have some other reason.
napavalleyharvest 4 years ago
Yes, he would probably make some shit up. But anyone who's heard these speeches would probably agree with me that the real reason was religious.
quiIl 4 years ago
Think what you want. Apparently you're the go-to person for determining what is logically "secular" and what isn't.
napavalleyharvest 4 years ago
That's where we're different... you say that a personal or political belief derived from religious doctrine IS religion. I say that that's a person's right to freedom of religion and freedom of speech... that their ideas are valid no matter where they came from.
napavalleyharvest 4 years ago
I suppose you think that a Christian Congress who decided to make a law based on the first commandment, "Thou shall have no other gods before me," thereby outlawing all other religions, would simply be practicing their freedom of religion?
Freedom of religion does not extend to passing laws of a religious nature, because doing so infringes upon the freedom of religion of others. We all have to play by the same rules and that means hands off the government.
quiIl 4 years ago
I didn't hear him say that? God's Standards?? Depending on your God that could mean anything. Does he want the ten commandments in the constituion?? What exactly are God's standards.
RationalSchema 4 years ago
Yes, it would be okay to ban abortion for secular reasons ("abortion is murder"). It would not be okay to ban abortion for religious reasons ("God says abortion is wrong"). Again, don't you see the difference? If you can pass laws because of what you think God says in his book, then true freedom of religion does not exist.
quiIl 4 years ago
You get it! I love thinkers.
dennisservaes 4 years ago
Can't YOU see that the two are often inseparable? Sure, you can say "abortion is murder," and that's a valid point. But why is murder wrong in the first place? Christians would say because God gave us a commandment against it.
napavalleyharvest 4 years ago
The reason we ban murder is not because of God's commandments. The reason we ban murder is because if we lived in a society where murder was permissible, everyone would be dead. We have a valid, secular reason for banning murder that has nothing to do with religion. If you can show there is a secular need for a law, you can pass it. But you can't pass laws based on religion.
quiIl 4 years ago
I'm just saying that Christians do and don't do certain things because they feel that they're following a higher authority. I know you can't pass laws based on religion, but you CAN pass laws based on people's ideas of things, and if those ideas are influenced or directly tied to their faith, they're allowed to declare it publically.
napavalleyharvest 4 years ago
But they're not. If people's political ideas are directly based on their religion, they are not allowed to transform them into laws. Laws cannot be based on religion. You need a legitimate secular reason to pass a law, not a religious reason.
quiIl 4 years ago
And actually, the fight to uphold traditional marriage IS about marriage. It's an institution that God created and intended to be a specific way. Are gay people a part of this debate? Of course they are...that's obvious.
napavalleyharvest 4 years ago
It's not about marriage. The very same Republican lawmakers and conservative religious groups who advocate "marriage" now were advocating "sodomy laws" forty years ago, trying to make gay sex itself a crime that would land you in jail. It's only since those laws were repealed that it's been about marriage, because that's the last right gays have yet to claim.
quiIl 4 years ago
Think what you want. For me personally, and every other conservative/Republican I've talked to...it's about marriage. If gays or anyone else wants to go off and practice sodomy... that's their business.
napavalleyharvest 4 years ago
And by the way, read your Bible:
Exodus 21:10: "If a man has more than one wife, he must not deprive the first wife of food, clothes, or sex."
If God created marriage and intended it to be a specific way, then you and Mike Huckabee are way out of line with it because marriage in ancient Israel was polygamous. Monogamous marriage was something we got from the Romans.
quiIl 4 years ago
Good thing you quoted the Old Testament, otherwise I might be worried. In my church, when we study the O.T., we look at it as having "Old Testament truths for a New Testament reality." Basically, there are many key commandments in the O.T. that we should follow, but there are obvious cultural differences between then and now that render the literal interpretation of many O.T. verses as obsolete in our contemporary lives.
napavalleyharvest 4 years ago
Jesus never said anything in the NT to indicate that God did not allow polygamous marriage anymore. It was always the standard practice for the ancient Jews, so to say God created marriage to be monogamous is just weird. Monogamy comes from the pagan Greek and Roman tradition, not from Judaism or Christianity.
quiIl 4 years ago
This is another reason why it appears to me, and to other non-evangelicals, that this whole thing is not about marraige but about gays. There is no basis for monogamous marriage in the Bible. There is a lot of homophobia though. So putting 2+2 together, the whole "marriage" movement looks like a cover for simple anti-gay hysteria.
quiIl 4 years ago
Monogamous marriage is a law in our society...and as you claim, not because of any Christian doctrine. But marriage IS laid out as between a man and a woman in the Bible, so by following that as well as our country's laws, you get the idea of a monogamous, man-and-wife marriage.
napavalleyharvest 4 years ago
Man, you're just not hearing me. You cannot pass a law based on what the Bible says! It doesn't make any difference whether the Bible describes marriage as between a man or a woman. You cannot force others to adhere to the tenets of your religion!
quiIl 4 years ago
No, but you CAN pass a law based on what the PEOPLE say. And if those people have a religious background and their political and personal views are influenced (to any degree) by their religion, you can't say their opinions are crap.
napavalleyharvest 4 years ago
"No, but you CAN pass a law based on what the PEOPLE say."
NOT if that law is unconstitutional. And if it's based on religion, it is.
quiIl 4 years ago
You can't pass a law based on what the Bible says? Really? Who made that law?
yadamatrix 4 years ago
"You can't pass a law based on what the Bible says? Really? Who made that law?"
John Adams authored it, based on a Virginia statue written by Thomas Jefferson. It's called the First Amendment. It says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
Honestly, were you homeschooled? You should have learned something in school about freedom of religion being in the Constitution and what happens when someone transforms religion into law.
frellthat 4 years ago 3
Were talking about an Amendment to the Constitution, not just a law not to kill you father. From the movie Tommy Boy "Did you eat paint chips when you were a child?"
RationalSchema 4 years ago
By the way, I never actually said "God created marriage to be monogamous." I said He created marriage to be between a man and a woman.
napavalleyharvest 4 years ago
Also, a person has freedom of religion for a reason. In Huck's case, his personal/moral/political beliefs derive from his faith. Even if he didn't say the bit about aligning the Constitution with God's standards, he (and other Christian politicians) will act on their (religion-based) personal beliefs, and that's allowed.
napavalleyharvest 4 years ago
It is unfortunate that so many nit wits declare themselves to be good Christians and raw on wars and evil in the name of God.
dennisservaes 4 years ago
If the Constitution is attacked to force a religion on the United States then yes that is a theocracy. Trouble interpreting the dictionary? It makes sense that, understanding the Constitution and Bilbe could also be difficult for you. Basically the Constitution is about the individual's fundamental rights and freedoms. The Constitution is protection from bad government.
dennisservaes 4 years ago 2
It looks like you're the one having problems interpreting the dictionary. The Constitution guarantees every individual freedom of religion. Huckabee's personal/moral/political beliefs derive from his religious beliefs (like every other religious person in America). He (and others) make public/political decisions based on their individual beliefs all the time. That's what Huck is doing here.
napavalleyharvest 4 years ago
If you want to belong to a hate religion you already have that right without some boasting politician attacking gays and the Constitution and the mothers of unborn children. The way to prevent gays and abortion is beyond Huckabees coprehension.
dennisservaes 4 years ago
Christianity is not a hate religion. The only hate surrounding it is generated by the hypocritical intolerance of liberals (and others). Also, Huckabee isn't attacking gays, the Constitution, or mothers of unborn children. He is trying to preserve the traditionality of a vital institution (marriage) and protect defenseless unborn babies from being murdered.
napavalleyharvest 4 years ago
We heard what Huckabee said. Change the Constitution in the name of abortion and gays.
dennisservaes 4 years ago
He would probably say change the Constitution in the name of saving unborn children and maintaining the traditionality of a vital and long-standing institution.
napavalleyharvest 4 years ago
This is not about abortion and it's not about marriage. The whole point of America is religious freedom. That means you can't change the Constitution to force others to abide by your religious beliefs, period. If the Lutheran Church wants to start performing marriages for same-sex couples, no American President can step in and tell them that they're out of line with God and that therefore they are to be banned. This is a democracy, not a theocracy.
frellthat 4 years ago
My problem with what you're saying is that there are a lot of non-religious people who want to make these same changes. What do you say to them? 'You can't change the Constitution to force others to abide by your beliefs...?' Well, the majority of items in the Constitution were ideas and beliefs from people's heads, and we live by THOSE! Also, people who derive their political ideas from their religious beliefs should not be persecuted when they act on those ideas. That's what you're doing.
napavalleyharvest 4 years ago
"My problem with what you're saying is that there are a lot of non-religious people who want to make these same changes. What do you say to them?"
If people want to ban gay marriages for some secular reason, then that would be legal. Banning them because they're not in line with "God's standards" is not. Can't you see the difference?
quiIl 4 years ago
"...people who derive their political ideas from their religious beliefs should not be persecuted when they act on those ideas."
Except that we don't pass laws based on religious beliefs in a free society! Get that through your head.
And you have no right to claim to be "persecuted" just because we don't let you transform your religious beliefs into law. NO ONE has that right, because no one has the right to take away the rights of others to religious freedom.
quiIl 4 years ago
Except that half the people in America believe what they believe because of their religion!! Get THAT through your head. You can't tell a person what and what not to believe. And Christians are being persecuted by being called intolerant practitioners of a hate-religion. "No one has the right to take away the rights of others to religious freedom." Interesting... because that's what you're trying to do here, saying that people with religious-based ideas can't act on them.
napavalleyharvest 4 years ago
"... people in America believe what they believe because of their religion!!"
And they are free to do so. However, if the only reason you believe something is wrong is because of your religion, then you have no basis to ban it. Sorry but that's just the way it works. The Supreme Court has said this as has every other court in the United States--a law must have a secular purpose to be valid. Laws based on religion are not allowed because they inherently take away the freedom of others.
quiIl 4 years ago
If you believe X should be banned because it causes cancer, then you have a valid, legal basis to ban it by law. If you believe X should be banned because it violates the rules of your religion, and you can't produce any better reason than that, then you have no basis to ban it because it would take away the religious freedom of others who do not believe what you believe.
quiIl 4 years ago
Exactly! Very good.
dennisservaes 4 years ago
How would banning X because it causes cancer take away the religious freedom of others? Maybe if X was reading your Bible or going to church...but I doubt that could be possible. At any rate, Republicans can and have produced "better" reasons than solely religious ones to pass things into law.
napavalleyharvest 4 years ago
Like I told you originally, this is not about abortion, marriage, or any other social issue, it's about religious freedom. The Constitution is not going to be amended according to the standards of any god, be that Vishnu, Allah, or Jesus. This is a free society, not some kind of reverse Taliban.
quiIl 4 years ago
And like I told YOU originally, Huckabee is practicing freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Tons of Americans believe what they believe because it derives from their religious doctrines. That's allowed.
napavalleyharvest 4 years ago
"Tons of Americans believe what they believe because it derives from their religious doctrines. That's allowed."
It's not allowed to pass laws that derive from religious doctrines, sorry, and it never will be. If you want to ban something because of a legitimate, secular reason, that's one thing. Banning it because of what God says is a completely different matter and the Constitution explicitly forbids you from doing it.
quiIl 4 years ago
It IS allowed to pass laws that derive from people's beliefs. If those beliefs come from a religious doctrine, that's freedom of religion and freedom of speech.
napavalleyharvest 4 years ago
"It IS allowed to pass laws that derive from people's beliefs."
NOT their religious beliefs!
Laws cannot be based on religion! That is the whole basis for religious freedom. Sorry but people don't have the ability to pass whatever laws they like. There are very specific things they cannot do. They cannot pass laws that restrict the press, they cannot pass laws that restrict speech, and they cannot pass laws that are based on religion. It just isn't allowed.
quiIl 4 years ago
Yeah, I know they can't restrict those things. That's obvious. But who is to determine what people are allowed to speak? What kind of system would you propose to weed out every person that has a personal/political view based on ANY religious idea?
napavalleyharvest 4 years ago
I don't propose any changes. The system we already have works well enough. We have a separation of church and state. It's the fundamentalist crowd, such as Huckabee, who want to change the Constitution. I think it's fine the way it is.
quiIl 4 years ago
You can believe what you want, just keep it away from me. You only have a problem with gay marriage because of religious reasons, not political. This is a violation of the 1st ammendment. You are forcing other people to not get married because of your religious belief.
RationalSchema 4 years ago
I have a problem with gay marriage because of religious AND personal reasons. You can't tell me that my personal views on something are invalid because they don't form to your conception of what is or is not "logical" or "secular."
napavalleyharvest 4 years ago
I never said that your views invalid. How does somebody being allowed to get married affect your life and your views. You can think what you want, but by making it law your pushing your religious beliefs on other peoples lives. Other people who don't affect you.
RationalSchema 4 years ago 2
Exactly... it's time to stop the phobia and biasness and let adults all adults get equal rights! People need to mind their business and let people enjoy their own happiness as long as it's not harming other's, what's wrong with that?
Cwm368 4 years ago
No, that's just the way you THINK it works. But if I must play at your game, there are secular books out about how gay marriage should not be allowed and how abortion is wrong. And I'm fairly sure that Huckabee would never try to pass a law using religious rhetoric. By the way, there are plenty of current laws that "take away the freedom of others."
napavalleyharvest 4 years ago
"No, that's just the way you THINK it works."
That's how I, and Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams, and the Supreme Court think it works, yes.
And I happen to be against abortion myself. Christopher Hitchens calls it an "abomination". But that doesn't mean you can ban it or anything else because it's not "in line with God's standards". What is or is not in line with God's standards is no business of the government to determine.
quiIl 4 years ago
You're right about this much: "What is or is not in line with God's standards is no business of the government to determine." I agree. But I also think that the American people decide if something should be changed in our country. And if those people's ideas come from their religion, who am I to say that their voices aren't valid?
napavalleyharvest 4 years ago
It doesn't matter what the American people decide. If they decide it for religious reasons, it can't be made into law.
quiIl 4 years ago
You have to show us why X is wrong, without referencing what Vishnu or Allah or God thinks about it, because if it comes down to that, then it's just your own private religious opinion and you have no right to force others who have different opinions to adhere to it.
quiIl 4 years ago
Alright, but like I said, regarding traditional marriage and abortion, there are valid reasons given (without mentioning God) for why these issues should be addressed and changed.
napavalleyharvest 4 years ago
If there are valid reasons for banning abortion that don't have anything to do with religion, then you can ban abortion based on those reasons. But I think it's pretty clear from anyone who listens to Mike Huckabee that the primary reason he's against these things is because they're not in line with what he considers to be God's standards.
quiIl 4 years ago
Yeah, or maybe he's just playing to the evangelical crowd. Who knows? Even if his ideas for something ARE based on "God's standards," he has a right to express it.
napavalleyharvest 4 years ago 2
He does have the right to express it!! This is protected under the first Ammendment which also gives me the right to call him a crazy fundamentalist Christian Fascist for saying something so retarded.
RationalSchema 4 years ago
They don't decide it for religious reasons, they decide it for personal reasons. If those reasons came from their religion or anything else, that's their right.
napavalleyharvest 4 years ago
"They don't decide it for religious reasons, they decide it for personal reasons. If those reasons came from their religion or anything else, that's their right."
Okay, let's deconstruct this statement:
1. They don't pass laws for religious reasons.
2. They pass laws for personal reasons.
3. Those personal reasons came from their religion.
Excuse me? If their personal reasons came from their religion, then they are RELIGIOUS REASONS and laws cannot be passed for religions reasons.
quiIl 4 years ago
You're excused. You can't police what people can and cannot think! Who are you to determine if a person's personal beliefs come from a religion anyway? What if a person who doesn't practice any religion thinks a certain way, but at one point in his life he was influenced by something that Gandhi said... UH OH! His desire for peace came from Hinduism... no voice for you.
napavalleyharvest 4 years ago
I don't have to determine whether Huckabee's motivations are religious. He says so himself. He says, "Let's change the Constitution so it's in line with God's standards". I just say, "No."
quiIl 4 years ago
You can't police peoples decisions on sexual partners either!! Why can't Christians just worship their sky daddy and leave the rest of us the F alone??
RationalSchema 4 years ago
So keep your sexual preferences out of our government. The government has better things to do.
ziglet53 3 years ago
Exactly. Huckabee and the rest of you right-wing nut jobs are the ones who want to ammend to the constitution to legislate sexual preferences. Let people do what they want as long as there not harming anybody. Two guys kissing and getting married has not effect on your life.
RationalSchema 3 years ago 2
I agree. Let people live how they choose. But keep it off the senate and congress table. The billions spent on homosexual diseases does affect me. 71% of AIDS victims are homosexual. 18% are iv drug users and 11% were either born with it, transfused, or something else. Not to mention the host of conditions caused by "gay bowel" syndrome. Hardly ideal. And what about bisexuals? Strive for the ideal, not appease personal whims. Time and money can be better spent.
ziglet53 3 years ago
Just because you believe something doesn't make it true. That's called magical thinking. Cross your fingers and chant some words, and wish, and if your wish comes true that verifies in your mind what you did has power. Maybe you are right and maybe you are wrong, but that is between you and God.
dennisservaes 4 years ago
I don't know who you're talking to and what you're talking about. The only thing I understand in your post is that "just because you believe something doesn't make it true." Yep...that's obvious. But people are allowed to believe and think whatever they want. That's the beauty of America.
napavalleyharvest 4 years ago
The only "intolerance" that comes out of the liberal side is that we don't tolerate other people destroying our Constitution.
You say you don't hate gays, but actions speak louder than words. You obviously feel there's something wrong with them if you think they can't make good spouses or parents, but you can. If it's not hatred, then it's something equally contemptible.
You guys have lost. Just get over it.
quiIl 4 years ago
You're far off. Liberals tolerate everyone and everything, except Christianity. They see it (as you just demonstrated) as a hate-filled religion. And personally, I say I don't hate gays because I don't. I DO think the homosexual lifestyle is a sin (because that's what the Bible tells us), but I hate the sin, not the sinner. Also, I (and other conservatives) don't disagree with gay marriage b/c we think gays can't be good spouses or good parents...just so you know.
napavalleyharvest 4 years ago
You're a little mixed up on the meaning of intolerance. Personally I do believe that you evangelicals are part of a hate-filled religion. But I would not try to rewrite the Constitution to endorse that belief. THAT would be intolerance.
As you said, we liberal-minded people tolerate everything except you, because the only thing we should not tolerate is intolerance such as you represent.
quiIl 4 years ago
The thing is, if a person is simply following the tenets of their religion, that's their right and you shouldn't discriminate against them for it. Because the Bible teaches that the homosexual lifestyle is a sin, and because most Christians believe that, you discriminate against US saying that we're intolerant bigots, when in reality, we don't hate gays, we're just following our religious doctrine.
napavalleyharvest 4 years ago
"The thing is, if a person is simply following the tenets of their religion, that's their right and you shouldn't discriminate against them for it."
That is exactly my point. Discriminating against them is what you do when you pass a law based on the tenets of your religion. NOT allowing them to discriminate against others is not a form of discrimination in and of itself. When evangelicals stop discriminating against others, perhaps others will be nicer toward them.
quiIl 4 years ago
Evangelicals are following the tenets of their religion. You call it discrimination, we call it obedience.
napavalleyharvest 4 years ago
If the tenets of your religion require you to turn your religious beliefs into law, then it is discrimination. There's no getting around it. Why don't you just leave the government out of it? Follow your religion, and let other people follow theirs.
quiIl 4 years ago 2
I also call it blind conformity, blind idiocy, and not using your brain.
RationalSchema 4 years ago
Huckabee (stop turning him into a cute pet by calling him Huck) has every right as a citizen to believe what he wants to believe and to say what he wants to say. But when he becomes president, his job is to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. He just told us all that he wants to assault and gut the Constitution.
irregularjim 4 years ago
I'm not "turning him into a cute pet by calling him Huck"... I'm calling him that to save characters in my post. I find it ironic that you tell me what not to say, but right after that you talk about how citizens have every right "to believe what he wants." Interesting.
napavalleyharvest 4 years ago
As for the president, I agree with you that "his job is to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution." But Huckabee wasn't saying he "wants to assault and gut the Constitution." He was saying that he wants to change 2 things (one of which has been on the Republican platform for over 20 years, might I add). The Constitution isn't a static document. It needs to be changed sometimes.
napavalleyharvest 4 years ago
"But Huckabee wasn't saying he "wants to assault and gut the Constitution." He was saying that he wants to change 2 things"
No, this was a broad statement. He won't stop at those two issues. But you're missing the point again because this is not about either of those issues, it's about FREEDOM OF RELIGION. You can't pass laws based on religion in a free society! Don't you get it? Muslims are not allowed to pass laws to make their religious beliefs into laws, and neither are Christians.
quiIl 4 years ago
Maybe he WILL stop at those two issues. How do you know? And again, he is practicing FREEDOM OF RELIGION and FREEDOM OF SPEECH. If a Muslim has political and personal views about something because it derives from their religion, so be it. Let them run for office, and if the people like his/her message, they'll get voted in!
napavalleyharvest 4 years ago
What is so ironical regarding both the gays and the pro life agendas, is the hypocrisy! For instance a lot of the people seeking favor through attacks on the gays, are later busted in sting operations doing gay behaviors. People convincing through the media that welfare is bankrupting the system. How do they expect 15 year old mom's to not want to have an abortion, when welfare isn't enough?
dennisservaes 4 years ago
Ha... what's your definition of "a lot"? There have definitely been SOME cases of hypocritcal gay behavior with politicians, but "a lot"? I don't think so. And regarding your comments about the 15 year old mom... if she can't afford to raise the baby, there's this great thing in America that we call adoption.
napavalleyharvest 4 years ago
It appears you think politics should be more concerned with prosecuting the bad people than in makeing the world a better place. I don't agree with gay behavior or abortion, but I don't have time to worry about what gays do, and taking food away from children and their mothers is not Christian. It is crazy.
dennisservaes 4 years ago
Did I say I wanted to take food away from children and their mothers? No! If anything, I would want to help them! You are assuming a lot...including your claim that I care more about "prosecuting the bad people than in making the world a better place." Personally, I think saving unborn children from being murdered IS making the world a better place.
napavalleyharvest 4 years ago
Whether or not abortion and gay is legal or illegal is what you are concerned with, and most people agree it is wrong, even the perpetrators if they were honest with themselves. However, laws agaist those behaviors will not stop those behaviors, but rather force them to be sneekier. True Christianity believes it is best to change people's heart by example. Not hypocrisy that Huckabee is about.
dennisservaes 4 years ago
No example by a heterosexual Christian is going to convice a homosexual couple that they don't want to get married. And you know what? Laws against murder don't stop murders, but it's still a law! Laws against drunk driving don't stop drunk drivers, but it's still a law. And if someone can supposedly only make a law based on secular reasoning, then that will force Christians and other religious people "to be sneakier" when presenting their political ideas.
napavalleyharvest 4 years ago
Maybe you should just consider more practical reasons to respect church-state separation here:
Every year the percentage of the US that is religious shrinks, and the percentage that is nonreligious grows. Christianity will fall below 69% of the population this year. You'll live to see it shrink to a minority. How do you expect Christians to be treated then? It depends on how they treat others now.
frellthat 4 years ago
I will treat them like human beings and try to get them to use their frontal lobes.
RationalSchema 4 years ago
Being gay is wrong?? Outside of the bible thumpers reasoning, there is not logical reason to say that homosexuality is wrong?? It only has an effect on society because of Christian idiocy! Yea, I have the right to my opinion that Christianity and religion are stupid and roadblocks to improving society. This is not discriminatory or bigoted. This is based on the merit of your beliefs. Eh, killing Iraqis is ok, but don't let men hold hands.
RationalSchema 4 years ago 2
I don't think it is the hand holding he is concerned about.
blanchfield137 4 years ago
Yup, he is afraid that they will poison the minds of American Yutes!
RationalSchema 4 years ago
Huckabee wasn't saying that he wanted to establish a state religion. He was referring to two things that he wants to work on regarding the Constitution: 1. the Human Life Amendment and 2. traditional marriage. Nice job misconstruing his message though. And by the way, there are no "high priests" in the baptist church.
napavalleyharvest 4 years ago
1 & 2 are just the first steps. Do you really think that nothing more will follow? Of course he couldn't turn the country into a theocracy overnight, but he can certainly start the ball rolling. It wouldn't take much.
samuel006 4 years ago 3
I honestly think that nothing more will follow after "1 & 2" (if 1 and 2 are even ever accomplished). And I disagree with your comment that "It wouldn't take much" to "start the ball rolling"