quote:"I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution," Huckabee told a Michigan audience on Monday. "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 -- to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view."
Now, part of me likes this comment, if only because he is essentially admitting that this isn't a Christian nation...because if it were, it wouldn't need changing.
But seriously, does he think this is going to win him more votes?
And we're left to guess about what he actually wants to change. One would think that, since it happens to contradict the 1st commandment, the 1st Amendment would be thrown out immediately if Huckabee had his way.
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
I'm not sure if you've seen Buffy, but dude, he's Caleb!
"What does God need with a [Constitution]?"
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
His views do worry me.
The fact that he is so charming scares the living daylights out of me.
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
Wow, what a psycho.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shanna: The fact that he is so charming scares the living daylights out of me.
My thoughts exactly.
Posted by adfectio (Member # 11070) on :
Even as a generally Republican Christian, That's scary.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
I share a lot of core values with Huckabee, but I too am concerned with how he would change the Constitution. In particular, how would he change the Second Amendment, and the Establishment clause? There is where the most danger lies. There is a widespread sentiment among Evangelicals that the Estabishment clause should be done away with or drastically changed, because they feel that it has too often been used against Christianity.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
His base I think will largely love something like that. But everyone on the left, everyone in the middle, and even the moderates in his own party I think will be turned off by that kind of talk (to say nothing of the fact that yeah, that scares me too).
I think he's getting far too caught up in the moment, and is spending too much time pandering to his base. I'd like to see him bring it back to something more reasonable, but after seeing that, I'm not sure I'd believe any moderating statement that he might make.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You know what? I respect the guy. I don't want him for President-I don't want him within a hundred heartbeats of the Presidency-but I like him. Not because I agree with his politics or think he would be a good President...but man, he comes off ten times more sincere, in my opinion, saying something like that than any of his rivals.
Much of that sentiment on my part is simply in contrast to other lily-livered gutless politicking and news reporting I see. Hello, Scarborough, is, "...some might find that statement very troubling," all you can say? Gimme a freaking break!
Own up to it, damnit! Someone say, "This is a terrible idea, and I can hardly object to it strongly enough. One man's interpretation of God's Law has no place in the US Constitution, nor even one religious group however numerous."
It would be nice to know what we're getting when we vote for other candidates to the extent we know what we're getting with Huckabee.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I think we need to remember that the president doesn't have the power to change the constitution. So even though I happen to think these latest statements of Huckabee's sound bat*#&% crazy, it's not like he can just automatically make the changes if he's elected. I honestly don't believe that that could happen, even if he is elected. I doubt he'd seriously try.
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
It doesn't matter if he COULD do it or not. If he thinks this is a good idea he really shouldn't be president.
Posted by Temposs (Member # 6032) on :
What are some things he would add to the constitution? I could imagine a wishlist. Let's see:
1) Establish a monogamous heterosexual definition of marriage.
2) Establish the definition of the beginning of life as occurring at conception, and abolish abortion.
3) Add an ammendment that just states the official pledge of allegiance.
4) Establish Christianity as the recognized historical foundation of the country, and as a corollary to not allow any laws banning religious expression in public institutions(thinking of 10 commandments in courtrooms, "in God we trust" on currency, etc).
That's all I've got for now. Anyone else can add on. I'm not against these policies necessarily, but they should be the venue of state laws. Our constitution should be kept as a promotion of freedom and a limitation of government, strictly.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: I think we need to remember that the president doesn't have the power to change the constitution. So even though I happen to think these latest statements of Huckabee's sound bat*#&% crazy, it's not like he can just automatically make the changes if he's elected. I honestly don't believe that that could happen, even if he is elected. I doubt he'd seriously try.
I've heard similar arguments for some of Ron Paul's ideas. Electing a person on the assumption that they will not accomplish their goals seems very risky.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
No, she's right. I've read a lot of hysteria about this already and I've just been poking around the Net for a few minutes on it.
It takes a lot to change the Constitution, certainly more than a potential President who wouldn't even approach a 2/3s victory (for example) could ever hope to achieve.
This statement is not a sign of the need to get whipped up that, "OMG the fundies are comin'! Hide your laws!"
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm not so certain that he couldn't get the gay marriage ban through. Look at how many states have passed a ban in the last five years, a state constitutional ban. If it managed to make it out of the Congress (probably a slim chance with a Democratic Congress), it certainly wouldn't be DOA, I think it'd sail through a couple dozen states.
The others I don't see having a chance, but that one isn't lost to reason, it might. If Bush has proved anything, it's that the Imperial Presidency is as powerful as we let it be. By that, I don't mean he could circumvent Constitutional amendment rules, but he could exert enormous pressure on Congress, threaten to logjam all their measures, veto all Democratic proposals, I don't know. Doubtful he'd do that either, but you never know. We have no idea as to what he would do, other than the fact that he's apparently a Christian first, and an American second, and that's not something I normally have a big problem with, but IS something I have a problem with in a President. We've already had one president for seven years that's shown disdain for the Founders, I don't want that for four more.
Posted by Tara (Member # 10030) on :
quote: Geist further noted of Huckabee that if "someone without his charm," said that, "he'd be dismissed as a crackpot, but he's Mike Huckabee and he's bascially the front-runner."
That's VERY scary...
EDIT: even though I don't think he actually is the front-runner...
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
I have problems with that link and the way this has been treated. To begin with, Huckabee was talking about a marriage ammendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Not widespread changes to the constitution like many have speculated. And in doing so, his quote "to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view" is in keeping with Christian beliefs. Too many people think that because we run our country as a democracy that christianity or any religion can be run the same way. As a christian I believe marriage is an institution created by God for a man and a woman. And I believe that's not changeable by a democratic vote. Because the last time I looked, God doesn't hold elections. Huckabee is talking about ammending the constitution to make legal marriage closer to the standards set forth by God.
The way this has been reacted to is typical. Find out what the dude is talking about. That source didn't bother to explain any of that or even include the full excerpt from his speech. The way it was quoted and presented was meant to be reactionary, and that's exactly the way many of you took it, and reacted without finding out what exactly he was talking about.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Tara-
He might as well be, and I think after South Carolina he will be, if only for a couple days. Nationally it's tight between him and McCain.
stihl -
quote:As a christian I believe marriage is an institution created by God for a man and a woman. And I believe that's not changeable by a democratic vote. Because the last time I looked, God doesn't hold elections. Huckabee is talking about ammending the constitution to make legal marriage closer to the standards set forth by God.
I think a lot of the clamor (certainly not all) would die down if civil unions between same sex couples were given all the legal benefits of a marriage but without the name. None of the secular benefits (survivor benefits, tax benefits, healthcare benefits and rights, etc) come from the Bible, they come from the State. I've never understood how Christians could justify denying secular rights for religious reasons. I'm 100% okay with not being able to legally call it a marriage, it's just word parsing anyway, but the legal rights weren't laid down by God, they were created by the US Government, and therefore should be accessible to every citizen of this country regardless of religion.
Putting an amendment in the Constitution to define marriage and specifically exclude civil unions from ever being possible not only establishes Christianity as a de facto national religion, it also specifically reserves special rights for Christians and forces Christian doctrine on all Americans regardless of their religion. In other words, it's anti-American.
I'm sorry, I know most if not all of you probably didn't want to actually open the debate here, so there's a sincere apology, but I think it needs to be said somewhere in response to Huckabee, and here's as good as any place.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I've never understood how Christians could justify denying secular rights for religious reasons. I'm 100% okay with not being able to legally call it a marriage, it's just word parsing anyway, but the legal rights weren't laid down by God, they were created by the US Government, and therefore should be accessible to every citizen of this country regardless of religion.
But its not just word parsing, its inherently polarizing. A better solution would be to eliminate state recognized marriage altogether. States would only offer civil unions and marriage would be up to churches (and would therefore be a purely religious symbol). If certain churches didn't want to wed gay couples then they wouldn't have to.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by Threads: I've heard similar arguments for some of Ron Paul's ideas. Electing a person on the assumption that they will not accomplish their goals seems very risky.
Please note that I'm not advocating electing him on the assumption that he won't accomplish his goals, or, indeed, at all. I find the idea of the man in the US presidency horrifying. But for other reasons. I'm just saying that people are over reacting to this clip.
If it is just about gay marriage, than yeah, he might be able to get it through. And that's also horrifying.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
Sorry. I didn't mean to imply that you supported him (you did call his statements "bat*#&% crazy" )
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I think a lot of the clamor (certainly not all) would die down if civil unions between same sex couples were given all the legal benefits of a marriage but without the name. None of the secular benefits (survivor benefits, tax benefits, healthcare benefits and rights, etc) come from the Bible, they come from the State. I've never understood how Christians could justify denying secular rights for religious reasons. I'm 100% okay with not being able to legally call it a marriage, it's just word parsing anyway, but the legal rights weren't laid down by God, they were created by the US Government, and therefore should be accessible to every citizen of this country regardless of religion.
Putting an amendment in the Constitution to define marriage and specifically exclude civil unions from ever being possible not only establishes Christianity as a de facto national religion, it also specifically reserves special rights for Christians and forces Christian doctrine on all Americans regardless of their religion. In other words, it's anti-American.
I'm sorry, I know most if not all of you probably didn't want to actually open the debate here, so there's a sincere apology, but I think it needs to be said somewhere in response to Huckabee, and here's as good as any place.
Extremely well said, Lyrhawn, thank you. I particularly feel the parts I bolded get overlooked and should be central to the debate.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Threads:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I've never understood how Christians could justify denying secular rights for religious reasons. I'm 100% okay with not being able to legally call it a marriage, it's just word parsing anyway, but the legal rights weren't laid down by God, they were created by the US Government, and therefore should be accessible to every citizen of this country regardless of religion.
But its not just word parsing, its inherently polarizing. A better solution would be to eliminate state recognized marriage altogether. States would only offer civil unions and marriage would be up to churches (and would therefore be a purely religious symbol). If certain churches didn't want to wed gay couples then they wouldn't have to.
I'm okay with that solution, in fact I think that's the best solution, I just don't ever see it happening.
What I meant by word parsing is that, though it wouldn't officially be called a marriage, it would be one. No one is going to stop a homosexual couple from referring to each other as husband and husband, and spouses, and saying they are married. And I'm okay with that for the same reasons I just argued the other side, in that, the government obviously can't force the clergy to recognize a gay marriage. In the same way that I don't think the church should be declaring ownership over secular rights, I don't think the government can confer religious titles on something they obviously don't agree with (and I think you agree with me there, I'm just explaining the full breadth of my position, so bear with me ).
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: "OMG the fundies are comin'! Hide your laws!"
A quick fix to...
quote:OMG the fundies are comin'! Hide ur lawz!"
...and we've got bumper sticker material!
Edit: in fact... Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I'm not so certain that he couldn't get the gay marriage ban through.
I wonder. I suspect that a large enough portion of the electorate would be behind it to make it possible, but at the same time, I imagine that the Republican party would be pretty loath to actually make this change to the Constitution. This issue has been too useful for them in whipping up fervor among those elements of their base that don't really have much in common, economically, with the "old guard" Republicans for them to be excited about throwing that particular tool away in one big bang.
I'm sure that there are some elected members of the party who are sincere in their beliefs, and would jump at the chance to do this, but I suspect that there are many more who are not, and would rather hold it in reserve to trot out as a proposed ammendment to individual state constitutions at a pace determined by political circumstance.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
And in doing so, his quote "to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view" is in keeping with Christian beliefs.
The sentiment might be, but the mechanics definitely are not. Not all Christians support breaking down the separation of Church and State, which this surely does.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Noemon -
Probably. I guess it depends. It Huckabee pushes for it regardless of what the leadership wants, then they're really in a bind. Voting against it will cost a lot of them their seats at home, and voting for it robs them of the issue and whips up the same fervor on the other side in the following election, which I imagine would cost them some seats. But that won't matter in the end I think because with a Democratic Congress, he can spout off all he wants now, then when it dies in committee, he can say he tried and still consider his campaign pledge fulfilled. He won't have to worry about Republicans choosing a side, Democrats will I have to imagine almost certainly unite against it and it'll die before it ever reaches a floor vote. That's certainly one of the advantages of having an opposition Congress though. You get to make a lot of promises you know can't be kept.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
What does he really mean when he says "God's standards?"
There are many ways that could go, not all of them bad, but I fully understand why a lot of people would take a knee-jerk reaction to this.
What's wrong with the current Constitution? How can it be in better compliance with God's standards?
Huckabee himself makes no mention of what he's really saying, and the reporters are drawing conclusions about church and state and talking about God.
For all we know he may be talking about another attempt to constitutionally define marriage as a bond between a man and a woman or something like that. I'm not quite certain he's really trying to change the Bill of Rights into the Ten Commandments.
If he is, he's lost me, but I think too many people are jumping to conclusions too soon. But if I don't hear specifics from him about what he means, my opinion of him may go down a couple of points.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:Putting an amendment in the Constitution to define marriage and specifically exclude civil unions from ever being possible not only establishes Christianity as a de facto national religion, it also specifically reserves special rights for Christians and forces Christian doctrine on all Americans regardless of their religion. In other words, it's anti-American.
You forget that Jews, Muslims, and Mormons also tend to believe marriage is between a man and a woman. Sure not all think that, but not all Christians do either. I don't think it is a uniquely Christian doctrine at all, any more than giving money to the poor is.
That said, I find Huckabee kind of weird as well.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Temposs: What are some things he would add to the constitution? I could imagine a wishlist. Let's see:
1) Establish a monogamous heterosexual definition of marriage.
2) Establish the definition of the beginning of life as occurring at conception, and abolish abortion.
3) Add an ammendment that just states the official pledge of allegiance.
4) Establish Christianity as the recognized historical foundation of the country, and as a corollary to not allow any laws banning religious expression in public institutions(thinking of 10 commandments in courtrooms, "in God we trust" on currency, etc).
That's all I've got for now. Anyone else can add on.
Can we also take things off that list? There is not a single thing on your list I wouldn't find highly offensive as a constitutional amendment.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
No kidding. There is not a single thing on that list that could support, and at least two are nothing but an imposition of a point of view with no point but declaring one group the winner of the country.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Temposs: What are some things he would add to the constitution? I could imagine a wishlist. Let's see:
1) Establish a monogamous heterosexual definition of marriage.
2) Establish the definition of the beginning of life as occurring at conception, and abolish abortion.
3) Add an ammendment that just states the official pledge of allegiance.
4) Establish Christianity as the recognized historical foundation of the country, and as a corollary to not allow any laws banning religious expression in public institutions(thinking of 10 commandments in courtrooms, "in God we trust" on currency, etc).
That's all I've got for now. Anyone else can add on.
How about:
5) We've always been at war with Eastasia.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shanna: His views do worry me.
The fact that he is so charming scares the living daylights out of me.
Amen!! When I heard him speak at one of the debates I was positively impressed, then I when I did some research on his stands I was deeply alarmed. There is nothing more dangerous in politics than a individual who is covering a detailed extremist stand with a charming, reasonable persona.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:It takes a lot to change the Constitution, certainly more than a potential President who wouldn't even approach a 2/3s victory (for example) could ever hope to achieve.
And if all the President could do was try to change the Constitution through a long process, this wouldn't be as scary. However, this is not an isolated statement limited to only a specific topic. It is rather an indication of a very scary viewpoint for someone who would have access to the power of the office of the President. There are innumerable ways that he could act on this desire that don't involve the specific issue he addresses here.
While governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee held up a disaster relief bill for a week because he objected to the term "acts of God" being applied to tornados. (Source)
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I agree with Rabbit. Huckabee is extremely charming, and I was really impressed by his stance on the environment. But I don't trust him to be able to keep religion and government separate.
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
"Amending the Constitution is Constitutional!"---Ron Paul
I think the four amendments on Temposs's list are bad ideas because a lot of people (even if a minority) would disregard them (and I don't agree with the changes they'd make); but if the Supreme Court says, say, that abortion is a Constitutional right, there isn't much you can do to ban it other than amending the Constitution.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Put me in the, "Initially intrigued with Huckabee after seeing his first debate performance, and now extremely alarmed by his views" camp.
As for *gasp* amending the constitution to conform with God's laws. That's fine once a 2/3rds majority of the country agrees on what God's laws are. Probably not gonna happen.
As for amending the constitution at all, I think it DOES need some fixing. There are a few particulars in the constitution that are not optimal, and the document is designed to be able to accommodate our needs. Of course we should be VERY careful about ammending, but it should be done.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: As for amending the constitution at all, I think it DOES need some fixing. There are a few particulars in the constitution that are not optimal, and the document is designed to be able to accommodate our needs. Of course we should be VERY careful about ammending, but it should be done.
What do you think should be changed?
Just curious, and not trying to start an argument, by the way. Nor am I saying that I wouldn't change a thing or two. Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
The first thing on my list for amending the constitution, would be eliminating the electoral college and moving to direct election of the President.
All the excuses for not making the change boil down to a defense of a fundamentally unjust, undemocratic system.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I'm not worried about amendments to the Constitution - if someone can get the overwhelming majority needed to get an amendment through the extensive ratification process, it probably deserves to be our highest law. I'd only really be worried if Huckabee skipped over the amendment process, and simply decided to ignore what the Constitution actually says in favor of his own "interpretation", in the way that Bush seems to favor doing.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
So long as Congress also passes laws mandating and standardizing the manner of presidential elections across the US -- specifically, the voting technology.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: As for amending the constitution at all, I think it DOES need some fixing. There are a few particulars in the constitution that are not optimal, and the document is designed to be able to accommodate our needs. Of course we should be VERY careful about ammending, but it should be done.
What do you think should be changed?
Just curious, and not trying to start an argument, by the way. Nor am I saying that I wouldn't change a thing or two.
I think several of it's sections were designed by founding fathers who did not have a knowledge of the future, no fault on them of course.
Like Rabbit said, some of these sections are defended purely because they ARE in the constitution not because they are correct.
I think the electoral college is definitely one of these sections.
I also think the 2nd amendment needs revising, I am not entirely certain what that revision should be but the nature of "arms" and the right to bear them are fundamentally different then they were when it was penned.
I also think the original 4 year presidential term when coupled with the later 2 term amendment limit makes for an ugly dynamic where presidents dare not do anything for 4 years, and only have 2 real years after reelection to be effective before they start focusing on their legacy.
I am toying around with the idea of making senatorial terms 4 years, and presidential terms 6 years but with a limit of one term for presidents and unlimited for senators.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: No kidding. There is not a single thing on that list that could support, and at least two are nothing but an imposition of a point of view with no point but declaring one group the winner of the country.
The only amendment on that list that I would support would actually undo the declaration of one group as the winner, and it would do so in a far more democratic manner than the way in which the current winners were declared.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Is Huckabee really that much scarier than Bush or Romney? In 1994, Romney wanted to abolish the Department of Education in the name of efficiency. He has since amended his position, but it's not like he was an idealistic kid in '94. Huckabee ran Arkansas for 12 years and the state still exists. It's not a state I'd move to, but Arkansas people like it. To me, those three are just big white guys with three different aspects of big white guy values, and as abhorrent as I find their political sensibilities, the Union can survive a Huckabee or Romney or even another 8 years of a Bush presidency.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The first thing on my list for amending the constitution, would be eliminating the electoral college and moving to direct election of the President.
The first thing I would do is give the District of Columbia one senator and representation in the House based on population.
If we are going to remove the electoral college, then I want the implementation of an electoral system that allows smaller groups to have a more meaningful say in the election. Probably something like a Condorcet method (pairwise analysis of voter preferences) or a ranged or approval voting method.
I'd also like the districting system (assuming we retain it) to be reformed, although not within the Constitution. One possibility would be proportional voting within each state for representatives, which would probably be done by the Constitution (either to mandate it or to allow it).
These are things I've been toying with, not things I've thought through entirely.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Irami:
Yes, I find Huckabee to be a worse candidate than Romney because I feel that Huckabee would be prone to undermining others' religious freedoms for the promotion of his own.
I feel that he would not be a good representative of American interests overseas.
I don't want the nation to just survive; I want it to thrive.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Many of you seem to be forgetting the second way the Constitution can be changed. Hold a Constitutional Convention. Gov. Huckabee and others who want to establish a heterosexual definition for marriage, a proposition which does have a lot of support throughout the country, could decide to go the con-con route rather than wait for the lengthy, time-consuming amendment process.
Here is the danger with having a con-con: THE ENTIRE CONSTITUTION is thrown open for revision at once. It could be entirely re-written. In the interest of getting one or two popular amendments done faster, by having a con-con we could throw the whole thing open to major revision, and whatever political and philosophical and religious views hold sway at that time, could determine the future shape of the American government and its laws. Even the Supreme Court could be done away with.
Any talk of changing the Constitution should set the klaxons blaring--this is really, really dangerous.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Oh yeah, that'll happen.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Javert, you are indulging in blind denial. You have no grounds for saying it is unlikely. It is possible, and there are many people who might be willing to go that route, to whom it would look desirable. Wishful thinking will not change that. Actively, intelligently opposing the idea, giving the warning of its inherent dangers, is what is called for.
Every so often I receive part of mass mailings that go out to Christians all over the country, urging that the Constitution be changed so the non-Establishment clause in the Second Amendment is done away with. There is great antagonism to the principle of "Separation of Church and State," by people largely uneducated in history who just do not understand its vital necessity. If the way to accomplish this were opened up, there would be immediate and enormous support.
Gov. Huckabee now looks like the kind of charismatic leader who could effectively help to open up the way to removing the separation of church and state. Never underestimate the power of one charismatic leader to bring about drastic change, especially when he has the "bully pulpit" of the Presidency.
[ January 16, 2008, 11:38 AM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
*poke* You seem to have all your memories...
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
It makes me feel safer, to hear that someone wants to amend the Constitution rather than pretend it says what he wants already. Think how difficult it is to amend the Constitution.
Any talk of changing the Constitution should frighten us? It's been changed 27 times already.
[ January 16, 2008, 11:45 AM: Message edited by: Qaz ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I agree with Rabbit. Huckabee is extremely charming, and I was really impressed by his stance on the environment.
Environment is just one example of why Huckabee scars. He's got all the right buzz words down and sounds great when he talks, but when you look at the details available from his campaign, the picture looks very different. I'm afraid his environmental policy could be another example of the double speak charactized by "Blue Skies" and other Bush administration innitiatives. Didn't Bush campaign in 2000 and "The environmental President" (or was that his father)?
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka:
quote:Putting an amendment in the Constitution to define marriage and specifically exclude civil unions from ever being possible not only establishes Christianity as a de facto national religion, it also specifically reserves special rights for Christians and forces Christian doctrine on all Americans regardless of their religion. In other words, it's anti-American.
You forget that Jews, Muslims, and Mormons also tend to believe marriage is between a man and a woman. Sure not all think that, but not all Christians do either. I don't think it is a uniquely Christian doctrine at all, any more than giving money to the poor is.
That said, I find Huckabee kind of weird as well.
As I've mentioned before, Hindus have no religious problem with homosexual marriage. So unless you're cool with the State denying Hindus the religious right to define marriage as they wish, you should be against the State defining marriage as between a man & a woman only. The Judeo-Christian God is not the only one recognized by citizens of this country.
I'm strongly in favor of marriage being defined by your religion, and civil unions being defined by the State. That's how it's done in some European countries (such as Germany), and it seems an excellent system.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
He doesn't just have the buzzwords down -- he has a great understanding of how to appeal to the 18-26 demo (the Chuck Norris ads were a stroke of brilliance, er, I mean evil genius). Which is precisely the group that's most likely to vote for the guy who's ads they like and least likely to realize that he's crazier than Courtney Love.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:urging that the Constitution be changed so the non-Establishment clause in the Second Amendment is done away with.
If so, they are really off base, but I don't think anyone will fight them on it.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote: There is great antagonism to the principle of "Separation of Church and State," by people largely uneducated in history who just do not understand its vital necessity.
Kind of like people antagonistic toward the electoral college?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Kind of like people antagonistic toward the electoral college?
Probably not, no.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Mr. Squicky, you're right. I should have said the non-establishment clause is in the first amendment. My bad.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:If the way to accomplish this were opened up, there would be immediate and enormous support.
Define "enormous."
Also, "possibility" does not equate to "likely."
If you're going to propose an outrageous reversal in American politics (such as you just did a couple posts above), and criticize others when they show their disbelief, you should also provide the reasons for why you think that reversal is probable.
I don't think your current support ("I receive...mass mailings...") constitutes an actual, reasonable data point.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I think a strict division between Church and State would be awful. The Establishment Clause has been massaged almost as much as the Commerce Clause, and for the most part, I'm fine with both. Religion matters in public policy.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I think that it would be awful to say, "If you're using religious criteria to vote a certain way, then you are not allowed to vote."
I don't think it's possible to remove religion from American culture; and inasmuch as that's true, it can't be extricated from public policy.
I do not think that it would be awful to say, "We're a secular government and we will not institute policies that favor or promote one religion above another."
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Which Church are you talking about, Irami? What about the religions that don't have a Church, but rather a temple, or a mosque, or a synagogue? What about the people who explicitly reject religion? I'm with Scott on this one - our government should be secular in nature, which means a significant (if not absolute) division between all religions and the State.
I think it's Huckabee's blatant dismissal of all other religions' Gods that angers me the most, even though I'm not religious.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:Many of you seem to be forgetting the second way the Constitution can be changed. Hold a Constitutional Convention.
Sneering aside, is this for real? What would be involved? Is my impression that every state would have to ratify any resulting product correct? If so, I don't think this is a serious threat.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I'm with Scott on this one - our government should be secular in nature, which means a significant (if not absolute) division between all religions and the State.
That's not what I said. Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
I know it's not, Scott, and I'm sorry if it seems that I implied that. However, I do think it's a necessary conclusion of a secular government that there is some division between any and all religions & the State. Do you disagree? (Maybe we're mentally defining "line" differently.)
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:I think that it would be awful to say, "If you're using religious criteria to vote a certain way, then you are not allowed to vote."
I don't think it's possible to remove religion from American culture; and inasmuch as that's true, it can't be extricated from public policy.
I do not think that it would be awful to say, "We're a secular government and we will not institute policies that favor or promote one religion above another."
What about when the people in the first part are Senators?
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
If he was explicit about his religion - and his intention to vote in accordance with it - when he was up for election, then I have no problem with any elected representative using religious criteria in his job in the House or Senate. I don't like it (because I don't like most religions' criteria) but I don't think it's a wrong act.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
quote: Huckabee ran Arkansas for 12 years and the state still exists. It's not a state I'd move to, but Arkansas people like it.
Uhhh... I moved to California.
Granted, it was before Huckabee was governor (Mr Clinton had just quit as governmor because he got promoted.) but every time I go home I remember why I left. And Huckabee made that worse.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I believe that laws can be informed by broad religiously-based support for them; I don't think that it would be right to disallow religion to inform public policy.
For example, my beliefs regarding welfare are intimately tied to my understanding of Mormonism. I believe that the best system is a system in which all receive according to their needs, regardless of the work they do. There's no separating, to me, financial matters from spiritual matters.
It would be awful if the government outlawed my system of welfare because it was religiously based.
It would also be awful to enact my system of welfare merely because it is what I believe God wants.
I think that religion is the impetus for a lot of our culture, morally; I think that as that culture is legislated, we need to examine the implications of that morality for fairness and broad applicability. It's in this last step that I think the government is secular-- just because it's of God doesn't mean the US has to make it law.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
From your explanation, Scott, I do think we're defining "division" or "line" as it relates to religions & the State differently. Very briefly (since this is a whole 'nother discussion), I'm thinking of it as keeping the government from backing a particular religion in a way that pushes down other religions or people who are agnostic or atheistic. This includes things like using a particular religion's definition of marriage (simply because it's that religion's definition) as State law, or posting a particular religion's laws in a State court. I don't think it includes things like keeping moral reasoning out of the government process, since morality must not be informed by any particular religion. Your moral conclusions regarding welfare, for example, have also been reached by agnostic/atheistic thinkers.
edit: In case it's not clear, I'm largely in agreement with Scott's post above.
[ January 16, 2008, 01:59 PM: Message edited by: Jhai ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: I think it's Huckabee's blatant dismissal of all other religions' Gods that angers me the most, even though I'm not religious.
Me, too. Because I am religious.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
If I may paraphrase Irami: "A moral upbringing matters in public policy." A specific religion does not.
For example, I think legislators should keep in mind the poor and disenfranchised. This is not a Christian, Jewish, or Muslim belief I hold, although it is mentioned in all three religions. It is the right thing to do, based on my upbringing and adult experience.
Morals and spirituality do belong in politics. Scripture does not.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Morals and spirituality do belong in politics. Scripture does not.
I disagree.
Depending on precisely what one means, I might agree with "Scripture does not belong in government."
But much of politics happens outside government. The conflation of the two concepts is something I see more and more of in this country.
Well-differentiated political and governmental spheres* would go a long way to alleviating the concern some people** have about over-zealous enforcement of the establishment clause.
*Of course, those spheres would overlap, but they would still be distinct.
**I am not speaking of the people who want to roll back the establishment clause in order to allow government to advance their religion at the expense of others. But I do think they'd have a harder time gaining allies from those who do not want such government advancement of religion.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I believe that laws can be informed by broad religiously-based support for them; I don't think that it would be right to disallow religion to inform public policy.
For example, my beliefs regarding welfare are intimately tied to my understanding of Mormonism. I believe that the best system is a system in which all receive according to their needs, regardless of the work they do. There's no separating, to me, financial matters from spiritual matters.
It would be awful if the government outlawed my system of welfare because it was religiously based.
It would also be awful to enact my system of welfare merely because it is what I believe God wants.
I think that religion is the impetus for a lot of our culture, morally; I think that as that culture is legislated, we need to examine the implications of that morality for fairness and broad applicability. It's in this last step that I think the government is secular-- just because it's of God doesn't mean the US has to make it law.
I agree with what you are saying and would like to add my own little bit. Religion is a fine motivation for public policy as long as it is not used as a justification for public policy. For example, banning abortion would be unconstitutional if the sole justification for doing so were religion (of course that's not the case).
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
quote:I think that it would be awful to say, "If you're using religious criteria to vote a certain way, then you are not allowed to vote."
What about when the people in the first part are Senators?
I don't think it matters whether people are ordinary citizens or Senators. I think what matters is the nature of the vote in question and the way that religious criterion are applied.
I believe it would be unjust for either ordinary citizens or Senators to vote for laws that would give advantages to any religious group or its members over other groups. So for example, I think a law that would give any sort of privileges to people married within one religion but not to those married within another would be unjust. I would also find any law that made public resources available to one or a few religions but not all to be unjust. I would include in "public resources", space and time on public property or in publicly funded activities.
On the other hand, if a particular religious sect values individualism, or the free market, education, the environment, or caring for the poor -- I see no problem with members of that sect pushing for laws that promote their values, as long as it is done with in a democratic system that ensures representation of all religious and non-religious values.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:It would be awful if the government outlawed my system of welfare because it was religiously based.
It would also be awful to enact my system of welfare merely because it is what I believe God wants.
You are going to vote on the strength of your religion, and the government is going to act in accordance with your vote. Once you cut out the legal prestidigitation, you have government policy based on religion.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka:
quote: There is great antagonism to the principle of "Separation of Church and State," by people largely uneducated in history who just do not understand its vital necessity.
Kind of like people antagonistic toward the electoral college?
To echo Squick, I'd have to also say no, not at all. I'd think well educated people would largely be more in favor of getting rid of the electoral college than keeping it once they understand its history, original intent, and the damage it does today.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: For example, banning abortion would be unconstitutional if the sole justification for doing so were religion
For the record, that's just not true, at least under any interpretation of the Constitution that's ever been enforced by courts.
quote:On the other hand, if a particular religious sect values individualism, or the free market, education, the environment, or caring for the poor -- I see no problem with members of that sect pushing for laws that promote their values, as long as it is done with in a democratic system that ensures representation of all religious and non-religious values.
To expand a little on what I was saying above, it is perfectly reasonable for someone trying to advocate a new assistance program for the poor to quote Matthew 25 35-46 to convince people to support that program. That's politics.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
Huckabee's fascinating because he's really the Frankenstein's monster of the Republican party. For thirty years now they've been buying the religious right's vote with a lot of rhetoric about ending abortion and (more recently) the Defense of Marriage act, but once Republicans have won the elections, they've expended almost no energy toward these ends. Remember all the talk in the 2004 election about adding a marriage amendment to the Constitution? Where did that go?
Huck, though, is now freaking out the Republican establishment. He's the base that's not content to simply cheer for the establishment's candidate. And, true to who these evangelicals really are, he's an economic populist who's not interested in the pro-business platform that the Republicans have generally combined with cherry-picked "moral" issues. He's William Jennings Bryan, in short; an insurgent. Trust me, the party leadership's praying he goes down.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:On the other hand, if a particular religious sect values individualism, or the free market, education, the environment, or caring for the poor -- I see no problem with members of that sect pushing for laws that promote their values, as long as it is done with in a democratic system that ensures representation of all religious and non-religious values.
[italics added]
The italicized part assumes that religion and non-religious values can be represented in harmony, and that's not true. Many values are contentious, and we have to choose which ones are going to be expressed in our public policy, else we'll live in a degraded public sphere. The winners decide and everyone else sucks it up. This is me, sucking it up.
[ January 16, 2008, 02:54 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattB: Huckabee's fascinating because he's really the Frankenstein's monster of the Republican party. For thirty years now they've been buying the religious right's vote with a lot of rhetoric about ending abortion and (more recently) the Defense of Marriage act, but once Republicans have won the elections, they've expended almost no energy toward these ends. Remember all the talk in the 2004 election about adding a marriage amendment to the Constitution? Where did that go?
Huck, though, is now freaking out the Republican establishment. He's the base that's not content to simply cheer for the establishment's candidate. And, true to who these evangelicals really are, he's an economic populist who's not interested in the pro-business platform that the Republicans have generally combined with cherry-picked "moral" issues. He's William Jennings Bryan, in short; an insurgent. Trust me, the party leadership's praying he goes down.
:nods:
One of the first things I noticed when I started noticing politics was the GOPs nice speech to social conservatives combined with very little action for them. Combined with very pro-middle class speeches and exuberant policies undermining (or satiating) the middle class in exchange for fattening corporations.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I just heard Huckabee called the candidate for "Wal-mart Republicans". Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:The italicized part assumes that religion and non-religious values can be represented in harmony, and that's not true. Some values are anti-thethical, and we have to choose which ones are going to be expressed in our public policy.
My statement implied no such assumption. Naturally, it any pluralistic society, some people will hold values that are anti-thetical. In this respect, "religious vs. non-religious values" are no different than say "libertarian vs. socialist values", "ecological vs. commercial values" or "Baptist vs Muslim values".
My statement implied only that I thought true democratic which give equal weight to the votes of every person were a just and reasonable way to resolve at least some values conflicts in a pluralistic society.
While I am not confident that democratic processes are necessarily just, I am confident that any process which restricts the participation of a segment of the population in the formation of public policy is unjust.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Scott R agreeing with MattB:
quote: One of the first things I noticed when I started noticing politics was the GOPs nice speech to social conservatives combined with very little action for them. Combined with very pro-middle class speeches and exuberant policies undermining (or satiating) the middle class in exchange for fattening corporations.
I forget which show I was watching, but Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council was engaged in a conversation with one of the tax groups that hates Huckabee. Part of the discussion involved the history of the the "three legs" supporting modern conservatism in the Republican party.
Prior to Reagan, conservatives and the Republicans stood for mostly a strong defense and small government/low taxes.
That wasn't a winning formula.
Reagan added the social conservatives in as the "third leg" which changed the size of the voter base.
It's pretty clear that no one candidate represents those "three legs" very well.
Perkins didn't endorse Huckabee but made it clear that it's easy to understand why social conservatives flock to him.
I have at least two acquaintances who are evangelicals who haven't been thrilled with the pro-business side of the Republican party.
They love Huckabee.
I suspect that the one thing pro-business establishment types in the GOP have in common is this one wish in terms of their eventual candidate: "anyone but Huckabee"
Having said that, he makes me nervous, too. Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:My statement implied only that I thought true democratic which give equal weight to the votes of every person were a just and reasonable way to resolve at least some values conflicts in a pluralistic society.
And I think that just moves the problem around and makes it a numbers game. For example, I care about schools and prisons. Black males are graduating high school at a ridiculously low rate and being incarcerated at a high one. It's a national problem, tied to a national legacy, cultural norms and disposition. I care very little about Iraq and lowering taxes, but white guys do. So those are the issues debated, and it's my patriotic duty to suck it up and pretend that their issues are important to me.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
quote:it's my patriotic duty to suck it up and pretend that their issues are important to me.
Why? Pretend to whom?
It would be a better act of citizenship to make noise and work for your issues so they don't dissapear.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Why? Pretend to whom?
Every time I vote, I feel complicit in a system that, while perfectly just, is thoroughly unbecoming.
quote:It would be a better act of citizenship to make noise and work for your issues so they don't disappear.
At some point, even that requires working through a system I find unbecoming. The majority of voting Americans can have whatever President they want, or create the President they'd like. But they can, have, and will do it without me. Huckabee, Romney, Clinton, McCain and Obama are all the same guy in different moods to me. As much as I like Obama, and I'll vote for him in the general, he wants to unite America under the banner of uniting America. If he makes any more specific distinctions, it'll show that we aren't one country. I'm barely the same animal as Mitt Romney.
Posted by Starsnuffer (Member # 8116) on :
I'm disturbed at the prospect of Huckabee being president. I don't support what he does, and find it... bad, to say the least, that he does not support evolution. Not in and of itself, but what that fact suggests about other views he may have and other decisions he makes, is disturbing.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
How easy is it to call a Con-Con? (the abbreviation ammuses me)I was under the impression it was difficult but I find I don't actually know.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattB: Huckabee's fascinating because he's really the Frankenstein's monster of the Republican party. For thirty years now they've been buying the religious right's vote with a lot of rhetoric about ending abortion and (more recently) the Defense of Marriage act, but once Republicans have won the elections, they've expended almost no energy toward these ends. Remember all the talk in the 2004 election about adding a marriage amendment to the Constitution? Where did that go?
Huck, though, is now freaking out the Republican establishment. He's the base that's not content to simply cheer for the establishment's candidate. And, true to who these evangelicals really are, he's an economic populist who's not interested in the pro-business platform that the Republicans have generally combined with cherry-picked "moral" issues. He's William Jennings Bryan, in short; an insurgent. Trust me, the party leadership's praying he goes down.
This is precisely why I am a Republican, but completely at odds with the party. We are discussing this very thing in Political Geography. I'm sick of hearing Republicans talk about being the "party of traditional morals and values" and upon election they pay lip service to those things and actively work ONLY on big business friendly programs. Tax rollbacks for the rich, and anti union measures.
Huckabee I think is genuinely interested in progressive financial reform and in the environment, but he is also rooted in religious fundamentalism. In short, he somebody the Republicans did not mind being a congressman, or a governor. As a senator and God forbid a president he scares the hell out of the whole party.
Huckabee won't get the nomination, though I think he will do VERY well in the south. If he does get the nomination, I think the Republicans are doomed this election. If by some incredible happenstance Huckabee wins the election, I will pray that he be a one term president and not screw up too bad. I don't even want to think about what it will mean if I am wrong about all of the above.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: How easy is it to call a Con-Con? (the abbreviation ammuses me)I was under the impression it was difficult but I find I don't actually know.
2/3 of the state legislatures have to apply for a convention. Then 3/4 of the state legislatures have to approve any amendments the convention proposes.
quote:Article V: Amendment Process
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
Irami- what makes you think that only blacks are in favor of fixing the educational system? In my experience, just about very middle class white parent cares about education. The problem is that fixing it is not going to be a simplistic solution so no lovely soundbite like with Iraq (I'll bring the troops home, I'll never surrender, more troops!). Also, if you expand jail to eliminating crime, I think a lot of Americans would be pretty concerned. But again, not an easy solution. Now, if you just want to look at improving the education of only black students, well, duh, your going to limit who cares about your cause.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
We've been "fixing the educational system" for most if not all of my lifetime. I think that ship has sailed. Only marginal or local improvements seem possible at this point.
Huckabee scares me too. But not as much as Giuliani does.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
quote:I think that it would be awful to say, "If you're using religious criteria to vote a certain way, then you are not allowed to vote."
I don't think it's possible to remove religion from American culture; and inasmuch as that's true, it can't be extricated from public policy.
I do not think that it would be awful to say, "We're a secular government and we will not institute policies that favor or promote one religion above another."
What about when the people in the first part are Senators?
Why would it be OK to remove their own right to religious freedom simply because they hold public office? That is one of the worst thing you could do, IMO.
And I am hardly a Huckabee fan....
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
The only candidate that doesn't scare me is McCain. I really like Obama, but I don't really know that much about the man.
And since someone is bound to ask, yes, I include Romney in that because of his stance on immigration.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
What's his stance on immigration?
I don't know his specific stance, other than the fact that he wants to send all 11 million illegals home, but admits that isn't feasible. So, near as I can tell, he doesn't even have a stance except to say whatever he has to say at any given moment to make him sound more electable.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: What's his stance on immigration?
I don't know his specific stance, other than the fact that he wants to send all 11 million illegals home, but admits that isn't feasible. So, near as I can tell, he doesn't even have a stance except to say whatever he has to say at any given moment to make him sound more electable.
Mr. Card made immigration and Mitt Romney a big part of his latest essay on world watch, you might want to go check it out.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
*goes off to check it out*
I skimmed some of it, but it looks like he and I mostly agree on illegal immigration. I'd have gone a bit further on Romney though. Republicans in general are just full of it on immigration. The word "amnesty" is anathema to them. They can't do anything that could be construed as amnesty, but anyone who has suggested we "send them all back" also admits that is totally not feasible. But they're afraid to go near the Democratic position for what I imagine are obvious reasons. It's a case where pandering to your base might get you reelected in your home district, but it'll lose you national elections, and it'll kill your party, to say nothing of the fact that it's wrong, dishonest, and I think cruel.
And I know this has been said quite a bit but, for the love of God, shut up about Democrats wanting to lose the war. It's intellectually dishonest, which is usually what we say when we're trying to give someone the benefit of the doubt before calling them a liar. First off, a majority of the people in this country think we have bigger issues than the war, and we do, like the things that keep us tied to that region: energy independence. Then there's the economy, and healthcare, and a host of other domestic issues that have been ignored for 7 years by a President that hasn't been powerless to do anything about it, he just hasn't tried.
You can't keep ignoring a nation that is crumbling at home to fight a war overseas that has questionable influence on us anyway. What's the point of winning over there if there's nothing worthwhile to come home to here? When/If a Democrat wins, they will look at the war, probably be a lot more honest with us on how it is really going, and we'll reevaluate. If things are really going better, I bet we stay there, but there will be a lot more pressure on the government, and there'll be a lot less of a blase attitude about the whole thing. They'll either get something done, or they'll get us out. Bush isn't getting anything substantive done, and he isn't getting us out. Bush even said it doesn't bother him that we'll be there long past his presidency, well it bothers us.
Democrats want to disengage us from the region smartly, they want energy independence so we aren't financing the terrorists we're fighting through oil money, and so we don't have to keep hoisting up dictators over there just to keep the region stable to get the oil out. We waste far too many of our resources over there, and only very recently have Republicans started to change their tune, and only after they saw how well people responded when the Democrats were saying it.
I just don't understand how an intelligent person can talk the way he does.
[ January 16, 2008, 11:34 PM: Message edited by: Lyrhawn ]
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Transcript and recording of a Huckabee push-poll. Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote: Colmes: When you make statements like that, changing the Constitution in keeping with your God.
Huckabee: On two things. The context is two things. Human life amendment, which I support and which has been in the Republican platform since 1980. And by the way, Fred Thompson doesn’t support it, nor does John McCain. And yet it’s part of our platform and it’s a very important part of our platform to say that human life is something we’re going to stand for. And the second thing is traditional marriage. So those are the two areas in which I’m talking about. I’m not suggesting that we re-write the constitution to reflect tithing or Sunday school attendance. I want to make that very clear.
Posted by String (Member # 6435) on :
quote:Originally posted by stihl1: I have problems with that link and the way this has been treated. To begin with, Huckabee was talking about a marriage ammendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Not widespread changes to the constitution like many have speculated. And in doing so, his quote "to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view" is in keeping with Christian beliefs. Too many people think that because we run our country as a democracy that christianity or any religion can be run the same way. As a christian I believe marriage is an institution created by God for a man and a woman. And I believe that's not changeable by a democratic vote. Because the last time I looked, God doesn't hold elections. Huckabee is talking about ammending the constitution to make legal marriage closer to the standards set forth by God.
The way this has been reacted to is typical. Find out what the dude is talking about. That source didn't bother to explain any of that or even include the full excerpt from his speech. The way it was quoted and presented was meant to be reactionary, and that's exactly the way many of you took it, and reacted without finding out what exactly he was talking about.
Yeah, this fuss might get Huckabee the Howard Dean treatment. I guess any given front runner is only one sound-bite away from disaster.
As far as the gay marriage and abortion issues go, neither are going to change. They are irrelevant issues designed to get one-issue voters into the camp of one or another candidate.
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: So long as Congress also passes laws mandating and standardizing the manner of presidential elections across the US -- specifically, the voting technology.
Losing the paper ballot system scares me alot more than any one candidate actually being elected fairly.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Exactly. If we're going to abolish the electoral college, Presidential elections need to be conducted in a nationally standardized and transparent manner.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote: Colmes: When you make statements like that, changing the Constitution in keeping with your God.
Huckabee: On two things. The context is two things. Human life amendment, which I support and which has been in the Republican platform since 1980. And by the way, Fred Thompson doesn’t support it, nor does John McCain. And yet it’s part of our platform and it’s a very important part of our platform to say that human life is something we’re going to stand for. And the second thing is traditional marriage. So those are the two areas in which I’m talking about. I’m not suggesting that we re-write the constitution to reflect tithing or Sunday school attendance. I want to make that very clear.
I hope he elucidates on these two points further, the ambiguity does not calm my fears much.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:As far as the gay marriage and abortion issues go, neither are going to change. They are irrelevant issues designed to get one-issue voters into the camp of one or another candidate.
People keep saying this, yet we are closer to overruling Roe than we have ever been. Roe was decided 7-2. Of the justices appointed by Republican presidents, two have explicitly said they won't overturn Roe v. Wade. The rest have either said they would, or have not made a definitive statement (Roberts and Alito).
Kennedy was appointed by Reagan; he upheld Roe in Casey. However, originally Reagan appointed Bork for that spot, who would definitely have voted to overturn Roe. Even so, Kennedy has enabled restrictions on abortion that would be unconstitutional were his predecessor still on the court.
Souter is the only justice who is a confirmed failure with respect to the goal of overturning Roe. That's not a bad record on the most important aspect of this issue.
And that record does not support a contention that the abortion issue is irrelevant.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:In my experience, just about very middle class white parent cares about education.
They care about their kid's education, not the work and duty of public education at large. Public schooling, criminal justice reform, and immigration aren't minority issues. They are moral issues. Just like Civil Rights wasn't a minority issue, it was a moral issue that the white voting majority had been bungling for hundreds of years. The problem is that white people are too busy chasing wealth and security to trouble themselves, so minorities have to take up the issues as their own.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Minorities aren't interested in wealth and security?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Yes, that's what I said. Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Clearly, they simply more moral than the evil majority.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
No more evil than some mechanic in Iowa who tacitly believes it's his right to have an inside track to picking the President.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Irami, please back up this statement:
quote:[White people] care about their kid's education, not the work and duty of public education at large.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
Or any of your statements, really.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:I just don't understand how an intelligent person can talk the way he does.
If you mean Card, he's devoted several columns to energy independence. And perhaps he doesn't believe a smart withdrawal involves telling your enemies exactly how long they have to keep resisting you.
But back to Huckabee, he said McCain does not support the Live amendment. But McCain does believe in overturning Roe v. Wade. McCain opposes the instituting of gay marriage from the Judicial Bench and believes the decision should be made by the populace. I think this reflects McCain being a conservative and not looking to remedies such as constitutional amendments to settle every issue that comes up.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
String, I did listen--right away--to the video of Huckabee's full original statement about wanting to change the U.S. Constitution. There was no mistaking what he meant. He went way beyond calling for an amendment to define marriage. He was not talking about making just one change in the Constitution.
I have in past years, from time-to-time, received part of nation-wide mass mailings from Evangelical organizations, whose primary burden is to remove the separation between church and state, which is spoken of with great contempt. Many Evangelicals feel the Non-Establishment clause in the First Amendment has been used to persecute Christians, proscribe their traditions like having manger scenes in public places, and penalize them for trying to have their own legitimate say in public discourse about policies and laws that should govern our society. I think they have largely misconstrued the situation, though they do have some basis for their grievances.
But I do know for a fact that the single most important change in the Constitution that many Evangelicals want is to do away with that hated Non-Establishment clause. This is more important than the definition of marriage, more important than abortion. You can be absolutely certain that if there are to be any changes made to the Constitution, regardless of the pretext, this changing of the Non-Establishment clause will definitely be on the agenda, even if it may be somewhat hidden at first.
I do not think that Gov. Huckabee is evil or a monster; I share many of the same core values he does. I just believe he is seriously wrong on this one issue, that happens to be of tremendous importance.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka:
quote:I just don't understand how an intelligent person can talk the way he does.
If you mean Card, he's devoted several columns to energy independence. And perhaps he doesn't believe a smart withdrawal involves telling your enemies exactly how long they have to keep resisting you.
Logically I don't think that argument really makes sense. If they really wanted us to leave, all they'd have to do would be give up for a few months. Go underground. Violence drops, we leave, and then they can pop right back out again and fan the flames right back up, and I bet we wouldn't go back in. I'm not a particularly big fan of the regimented way the Democrats have largely gone about this either, but Bush has been wholly unwilling to negotiate in any manner of degrees. Democrats say we won't pull out, but we MUST have benchmarks, some way to measure our progress, and more importantly (and backed up by military officials) some way to pressure the Iraqi government into action. Bush says a blanket no to all of that and just says to give him more money and to trust him.
Given an intractable foe, Bush I mean, not the insurgents, they've chosen to quit negotiating too, and just want out. You can't blame them when they originally spent years trying to find a middle ground with a President wholly unwilling to negotiate, and it's not just with Iraq, he's like that on every damned issue.
Is the argument supposed to be that if we just keep going, thinking we'll stay forever they'll just give up? We're in a part of the world where populations resist invaders for decades, for centuries. The Russians were stymied in Afghanistan for a decade before they gave up and went home. A DECADE. And this was a war he said we'd win a in a few months. Oh but yes, things have changed now. Now that he's been proven wrong a dozen times over we have to adjust to the new reality and trust him THIS TIME. I'm sorry but bull, it's all bull. A man only gets to screw up so many times before you label him incompetent. It's not even a matter of honesty, he's just not competent.
Negotiations with Iraq's government should be carrot and stick. You entice them to make changes with rewards but threaten them with consequences, such as our withdrawel, to spur them forward. It's worked in international diplomacy, such as with North Korea, for hundreds of years, but Bush won't do it. He's offered them so many carrots I bet they have 20/10 vision by now.
Lines like "democrats are trying to ensure our defeat" play well when you're trying to whip up partisan fervor, but they do NOTHING to solve the situation, and I think it's intellectual dishonest to purposely misrepresent the Democratic position on the issue. Language like that is tantamount to calling Democrats treasonous and traitors, which hey, I guess isn't that far out of bounds for a Bush follower. Democrats don't WANT to lose the war, they thing Bush's mishandling is what has cost us so much so far. And anyone who thinks differently of them is either not paying close enough attention, or is lying intentionally to stoke partisan tensions.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
As in the Fox news piece, he continues to walk back his statement about the Bible and the constitution, limiting it to abortion and same-sex marriage (page 2 at the link).
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:He's offered them so many carrots I bet they have 20/10 vision by now.
That's a good one, honestly. We don't agree on hardly anything but you are very fun to talk to.
I felt we went wrong when Bremer was installed as the provisional government head honcho. Turns out he replaced a guy who wanted Iraqi elections within 90 days, and wound up resigning. That would have been the way to go, in my opinion, and constituted regime change rather than imperialism.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: "OMG the fundies are comin'! Hide your laws!"
quote:Reacting to criticism by his own party that he is too liberal, Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee is highlighting his conservative, evangelical southern credentials to South Carolina primary voters.
I wouldn't have thought that Huckabee would be "too liberal", for pretty much anyone, but hey, I suppose I could be wrong.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: We don't agree on hardly anything but you are very fun to talk to.
I quite agree, and feel the same way about you. I'm sure we'll find plenty of things we agree on eventually.
I'm not sure what my opinion is on immediate elections. My gut instinct is that you're right. Quick elections would have gotten a vote in before debaathification had taken place, which would have meant maybe a more equal election and not as much seclusion for the Sunnis. Also the Baaths, for better or for worse, are the ones with all the government experience. For whatever corruption was there before, kicking them out has only made the fledgling government more corrupt. And it also might have meant electing officials before the major political powers that that are entrenched now would have had a chance to form.
Plus, waiting as long as we did I think gave anti-US groups plenty of time to sow discontent among the people there. Invading, toppling the old dictator, and then installing a temporary leader, which 200 years ago might as well have been a Lord or Viceroy to rule our conquest until we sorted it out, couldn't have looked good to the locals who we expected to greet us with hugs and kisses. Between that and dissolving the Iraqi Army, we created a LOT of problems for ourselves very, very early on that I think could have been avoided. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on the elections, maybe, because we'd never done something like that before (who had?) and it was uncharted waters.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I found this interesting:
quote:whether you call them Evangelical, or fundamentalist, or religious right, or Christian conservative voters
This was in a transcript of the News Hour.
Do people really not know the difference between these? To be honest, I didn't know what Evangelical meant until this past fall, but it's a wing of Presbyterianism that is know for building rather large churches, if I'm not mistaken. Huckabee was a Baptist minister. I think an awful lot of people kind of assume Huckabee is Evangelical.
I think some people use "Evangelical" the way "Shi'ite" was used in the 70's and 80's, to mean scary and militant, without any awareness that it is an actual sect.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Huckabee is an Evangelical. Your definition of an Evangelical is wrong.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:1: of, relating to, or being in agreement with the Christian gospel especially as it is presented in the four Gospels 2: protestant 3: emphasizing salvation by faith in the atoning death of Jesus Christ through personal conversion, the authority of Scripture, and the importance of preaching as contrasted with ritual 4 a capitalized : of or relating to the Evangelical Church in Germany b often capitalized : of, adhering to, or marked by fundamentalism : fundamentalist c often capitalized : low church 5: marked by militant or crusading zeal : evangelistic <the evangelical ardor of the movement's leaders — Amos Vogel>
I don't see how it's at all inaccurate.
[ January 18, 2008, 03:03 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
"wing of Presbytarianism known for building rather large churches"
There's nothing close to that in the MW definition.
Added: Or maybe JB wasn't addressing me. Never mind!
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Huh, some of what I'm reading on wikipedia is familiar and some not. I guess that's why it sucks. The megachurches are still there, though.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: Added: Or maybe JB wasn't addressing me. Never mind!
Nope. Your post wasn't there when I went to check M-W.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
pooka, there is an evangelical wing of the Presbyterian Church. Several denominations have evangelical "branches". Evangelical, though, describes a type of belief and practice (see Jon Boy's post) that crosses denominational lines. Sometimes this is official - the Evangelical Lutheran Church, sometimes just descriptive - she is very evangelical about her beliefs.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
The third of M-W's definitions is closest to what 'evangelical' as we generally use it in the United States means. The 'evangelical movement' in the US began in the early eighteenth century with the rise of charismatic, emotive Methodist preachers like George Whitefield and John Wesley who emphasized the importance of a personal, spiritual, saving relationship with Christ. The style quickly penetrated other denominations; the Presbyterians split into evangelical and non-evangelical wings in the early nineteenth century, as did the Congregationalists. However, the movement basically overrun the Baptists; there's only a fringe non-evangelical Baptist rump out there.
Evangelical, by the way, is not the same as 'fundamentalist.'
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
JB, that's the second time I've done that today.
--
I was just thinking that MattB would give a good definition of an evangelical.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Well, thanks for setting me straight, hatrack.
I came to hatrack. I was wrong.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote: And in doing so, his quote "to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view" is in keeping with Christian beliefs. Too many people think that because we run our country as a democracy that christianity or any religion can be run the same way. As a christian I believe marriage is an institution created by God for a man and a woman. And I believe that's not changeable by a democratic vote. Because the last time I looked, God doesn't hold elections.
Stihl1 has, inadvertently perhaps, articulated what I find so disturbing about Huckabee's original statement.
Like Stihl1 and Huckabee, I also believe that God's standards don't change by majority vote. But that is where our agreement ends.
You see what I believe to be absolute standards set by God, aren't the same as what Huckabee believes to be absolute standards set by God. While I am confident that I know what God's will is regarding my own marriage, I'm not at all confident what God's will is concerning the US constitution and I'm even less confident that Huckabee knows God's will on this issue.
So many people believe that because their religion operates according to an absolute standard given them from God, our government should operate according to the same principles. The problem is that we live in a pluralistic society. There is no consensus in our society about what God's standards are. Even many Christians disagree about whether God accepts same sex marriage and our society encompasses not only Christians but also Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Pagans, Atheist and many more.
As a Mormon Christian, I am not willing to accept Huckabee (or Obama or Romney or the members of a constitutional convention or the majority vote) as a legitimate authority on God's will or God's standards.
It would be a violation of my human rights if the government ruled that my church had to perform marriages according to a standard other than the one my church believes God has established.
It would be unethical and unjust if the church denied citizens of my church rights and privileges afforded to members of other churches.
I believe marriage is ordained of God. I believe that can't be changed by majority vote or government decree. Which is why government should stop regulating marriage.
If the government (by which I mean the majority of the people in a democratic society) wish to give rights and privileges to "married couples", then it is only fair that those same privileges be offered to married couples of all religions without regard to the particular restriction that religion places on marriage.
More preferrably, I think the government should stop recognizing marriage as a legally binding contract. Doing this creates a dangerous potential for the government to regulate religion. Religions should govern marriage, the state can govern civil unions that are offered equally to all citizens.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
In that scenario, should a separation clause stipulating that the government cannot define marriage be put into the constitution?
That is to say, non-religious people might object to "religion" taking ownernship of marriage.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
I'm not sure if saying the government shouldn't define marriage is the same as saying only religions can define marriage.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
pooka, I think the first amendment covers that already.
I got carried away with my rant on marriage laws and didn't really express what concerns me about Huckabee's statements.
His statements about amending the constitution to match God's standards fails to recognize the that we live in a pluralistic society. It seems that he is completely oblivious to the fact that Americans don't agree on what God's standards are. He seems to be dividing America into those people who want to follow God's standards (as he understands them) and people who don't. Its like he doesn't even realize that the vast majority of Americans want to follow divine laws but disagree with him about what those laws are which is critical to understanding why we are a secular society.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Yup. What Rabbit said (again).
The government should enforce contracts.
The government should not be distributing (or withholding) sacraments.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:should a separation clause stipulating that the government cannot define marriage be put into the constitution?
My interpretation of the First Amendment would cover this already. Marriage is a religious institution, and therefore the government can't put any enforcements or restrictions on the religious institution itself.
I think everything we need to solve this debate was set in stone by the Founders.
Edit to add: whoops, late to the game on that one. I echo everything Rabbit is saying.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: In that scenario, should a separation clause stipulating that the government cannot define marriage be put into the constitution?
That is to say, non-religious people might object to "religion" taking ownernship of marriage.
There is nothing in what I said that would restrict marriage to religions. It would restrict the government from regulating marriages or considering marriage as a legally binding contract. If non-religious people wanted to get married, I'm sure that country clubs, resorts, and perhaps even bars would be willing to accommodate them with a ceremony. This could even broaden the options for non-religious people who now have the option of being married by a justice of the peace or a minister but not by a non-religious leader of their choosing.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: My interpretation of the First Amendment would cover this already. Marriage is a religious institution, and therefore the government can't put any enforcements or restrictions on the religious institution itself.
I think everything we need to solve this debate was set in stone by the Founders.
Edit to add: whoops, late to the game on that one. I echo everything Rabbit is saying.
I agree with everything in this post (including that you were late to the game ) EXCEPT that marriage is a religious institution. To paraphrase wikipedia, marriage is a interpersonal relationship, often coupled with religious, societal, and governmental implications, recognition, and institutions. As a society, I think it would be best if we separated out the governmental stuff from the rest of it. Or, what Rabbit said. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Okay I had this big thing typed out and then realized I was making it far too complicated.
I agree with you entirely. Did you read my previous post on the subject? I agree wholeheartedly with getting all the governmental stuff out of marriage.
But once you get all that out, marriages, like deciding who gets them and the rules for them and what not, are controlled by the church, and thus I'd describe them as a religious institution, which is precisely why the government shouldn't be allowed to make any lawas about them, because the Constitution forbids it.
I think maybe we're getting caught up in terminology though. I expect regardless of what the churches would do in that situtation, whether or not a church sanctioned it, everyone who got a civil union would call themselves married and consider themselves married, and I wouldn't have a problem with it.
I feel like I'm not explaining myself properly, but I also feel like we agree entirely, so, I'll quit while I'm ahead.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
I think we agree on the major policy stuff, but I do think there's a major point that we disagree on. Basically, I think that once you get all the government stuff out, marriages are not (only) controlled by religions, which seems in direct contrast to your statement that "once you get all that out, marriages, like deciding who gets them and the rules for them and what not, are controlled by the church, and thus I'd describe them as a religious institution...". I think this is a pretty big difference between our two views.
For example, I believe that should this policy that we both agree on take place, an atheist could have a civil ceremony for the state in front of the judge, and then have a non-religious marriage ceremony later or before, and these two (non-religious) ceremonies would have different & important meanings.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
That's where you run into trouble, though. "Marriage" is, for many people, a sacrament - like baptism or confirmation. It would be sort of like saying that any person who has reformed their life has been "baptised".
I'm not saying that this is how it should be, but this is where much of the religious community is going to balk.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
I think that even if (or especially if) the religious community believes that marriage is a sacrament, it can agree with the basic policy that the government should not be in the business of granting that sacrament.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Right.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Historically, all the Protestant Reformers referred to their religion as "The Evangelical Faith." This is the nomenclature used in the early histories of the Reformation, such as Wylie's and D'Aubigne's.
If like Jhai, Lyrhawn, Kmboots, and others said, the government should not be involved in defining marriage, just enforcing the contract, then that would mean if someone believes in polygamy, then that could not be forbidden, and the FBI clampdown on Mormons a century ago was wrong. I realize, some here may like the idea of revisiting the legality of polygamy--but our society has collectively decided it is not going to tolerate polygamy, and I see no virtue in re-opening a past and settled discussion about this.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The government enforces contracts. It could very well decide that one contract would specifically preclude another similar contract.
Not saying it should, but it could.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I've never waded into the issue at all? But what are the non-religious arguments against and for polygamy?
Jhai -
I think kate more or less summarized what I was saying. Marriage, from the way you are talking about it, and I agree with you here, is between two people, in that interpersonal relationship way, and I agree with you. I like looking at historical precedents, and marriage goes back much further than any of the major religions, well, maybe except Judaism, but it wouldn't matter anyway because it existed way before in parts of the world Judaism hadn't touched yet, so, as far as I'm concerned marriage is a piece of human interaction rather than strictly a religious institution.
I worded it wrong before, but there IS a religious institution of marriage. I think we got caught up in that you thought I was saying all marriage regardless of how other defined it was automatically religious inherently, and that's not what I meant. But marriage, in the religious sense, and not the individual it means whatever I want it to sense, is controlled by the church.
I think we need to set up a clear line between religious marriage and non-religious marriage, which we generally just call civil union, but people will call it marriage anyway, for the purposes of this discussion. Like I said, I think this is a problem of terminology.
Does that clarify at all? Or do you still think we disagree?
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Yeah, that clears it up. After your further clarification, I agree that it's almost certainly just a problem of terminology.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
If we are thinking historically, marriage was first a contract between two people. The "groom" and the bride's father (or other guardian). They made the deal. The woman was basically property to be bought and sold or traded to secure alliances. It is really only fairly recently that we think of marriage as being between two people both of whom get to decide.
I don't think that we want to use most historical ideas of marriage as a model!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Not as a model, just to know where it started. It comes in handy when people are claiming what marriage is or what it should be, to be able to go back and say "yeah but, BEFORE that, it was like this."
And the use of women as chattel, though prevelent, wasn't universal. Plus it varied in degrees. A few societies gave women equal status to men, or at least, something better than that of property.
Posted by String (Member # 6435) on :
Dag:
well said. I guess that just because sometimes the abortion issue is used to herd voters, It doesn't mean that there isn't an active movement to do something about it. I just think that it is too bad that some people will vote on one ore two issues, sometimes for a candidate that may not otherwise represent them in government. You caught me generalizing a bit I guess. Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Would a "human life" amendment affect things other than abortion? If we grant embryos full human rights, how does that affect a pregnant woman's control over her body (completely ignoring the abortion issue for this discussion)?
Would women be prevented from taking medications that haven't been proven safe for embryos/fetuses? Would failure to take enough folic acid be child abuse?
As a side note, Christians who want to abolish the separation of church and state should keep in mind that the it protects them as well. There is no guarantee that Christians will forever be the majority in this country.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
It would make some out of womb pregnancy procedures such as in-vitro fertilization more difficult. It would also make genetic screening for debilitating hereditary diseases illegal.
[ January 21, 2008, 06:36 PM: Message edited by: Threads ]
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shigosei: As a side note, Christians who want to abolish the separation of church and state should keep in mind that the it protects them as well. There is no guarantee that Christians will forever be the majority in this country.
I think it's reasonable to assume that, for the foreseeable future, either Christians will be the majority, or the majority will be nonreligious. However, that shouldn't be a relief to most Christians, given that the denomination in power could very easily change. (And historically, that hasn't been very pretty.)
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"There is no guarantee that Christians will forever be the majority in this country."
"However, that shouldn't be a relief to most Christians, given that the denomination in power could very easily change. (And historically, that hasn't been very pretty.) "
Both of those comments are historically unfounded. Now, although I believe the Constitution was inspired by God that doesn't mean I believe this nation's founding doctrines are Christian specific. That said, I think that U.S. history and even current demographics holds that Christians (be they Catholic, Protestant, or even "heretical" Mormon) will be a majority for a very long time - perhaps a couple more hundreds of years if it ever changes at all.
That is why the seperation of Church and State argument "it protects the Christian religions too" comes off as rhetorical falsehood. The only ones that have challenged Christian hedgomony in the recent generation are the secularists. They have proven much more of a threat to Christian rights and power than any religious denomination. Coming from a minority religion myself I am concerned about too much theological intrusion in American politics, but that hasn't been in play since the 19th Century. The best argument that secularists can make is by proving that seperation of Church and State already has been a protection. Somehow I don't see that argument easily made and historically don't see the argument having any actual facts.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
I think you misunderstood my post, Occasional. By "denomination", I meant the various Christian denominations. I don't think that any one Christian denomination will necessarily hold sway in the coming, say, 100 years in the US. And historically, the fights between various Christian denominations have been pretty vicious.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote: They have proven much more of a threat to Christian rights and power than any religious denomination.
Power I'll give you. But what "Christian right" have secularists threatened?
Near as I can from reading the Constitution, you have no "Christian rights" guaranteed by the federal government other than the right to be Christian.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
I think it is less of a political matter than a social one that many Christians are concerned about.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote: - "There is no guarantee that Christians will forever be the majority in this country."
"However, that shouldn't be a relief to most Christians, given that the denomination in power could very easily change. (And historically, that hasn't been very pretty.) "
Both of those comments are historically unfounded.
No they aren't. The establishment clause in the constitution was originally sponsored by small Christian denominations, including Baptists specifically because of religious discrimination Baptists had experienced. If you look at USA history you will find Anti-Baptist sentiments, anti-catholicism, anti-quakerism, anti-Mormonism and so forth.
Mormons were much stronger supporters of the establishment clause back when their leaders were being jailed and lands seized because of their religious practices. One of the most recent supreme court cases involving the establishment clause was based on a suit brought by Catholic and Mormon families living in a majority Baptist part of Texas. I've noticed that even Baptists who live in Utah where they are a minority are much more supportive of the separation of church and state than Baptists who live in the Bible belt.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Oh, I recall a case back in '91 or so that Orrin Hatch (Utah Senator) was active in protecting the rights of African religions to sacrifice animals.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
pooka, I'm not sure if you are referring to my comment regarding Mormons support for the establishment clause or not. If so, I should amend my comment to indicate that it was in reference to the opinions I've heard expressed by many (but certainly not all) Mormons regarding issues of prayer at public events, the ACLU, statement by Mitt Romney and a variety of church and state issues. It was not by any means intended to indicate a change in the official church position or every church member.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
The ACLU? I'm not sure what that's shorthand for. I know that it's the American Civil Liberties Union. But...?
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
The ACLU is famous in many Christian communities as being the beast of the apocalypse
I don't think that assertion is entirely justified myself, though I disagree with a bit of what the ACLU does regarding church and state.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: The ACLU? I'm not sure what that's shorthand for. I know that it's the American Civil Liberties Union. But...?
I've heard lots of Mormon's rant about how everything the ACLU does is pure evil. It tends to come up whenever there is an issue about religion in the public school or religious displays on public property or the like.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
When neo-Nazis wanted to march in Skokie, IL, the ACLU defended them. Whenever someone inveighs against town governments that want to have nativity scenes, it is usually the ACLU that is trying to get it banned. Whenever anyone complains because some student said a prayer at the start of the Homecoming football game, it is usually the ACLU trying to deny freedom of religion and freedom of expression.
Sometimes the ACLU picks a just cause to support. But most of the time they just offend all people who are not atheists.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am not an atheist and I am a "card carrying member". I keep my ACLU card in my wallet (right next to my priest's phone number).
I have also been defended by an ACLU lawyer.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Whenever anyone complains because some student said a prayer at the start of the Homecoming football game, it is usually the ACLU trying to deny freedom of religion and freedom of expression.
You show your biases by how you word things. As I see it, when the ACLU backs a lawsuit against school sponsored prayers at football games, they are defending freedom of religion.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
Wow I agree with both of you. Because Rabbit said "school-sponsored" and Ron just said "student."
The way you word things really does matter a lot. And assumptions based on the way someone else words something reveal a lot about your biases.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Wow I agree with both of you. Because Rabbit said "school-sponsored" and Ron just said "student."
We were however both referring to the same incident. The detail are as follows, a Texas school was sued by the families of some Mormon and Catholic students for practices that were viewed as discriminatory. Among the practices in question, the school had a prayer "solemnizing" their football games given by a local minister. In addressing the suit, the school altered the program so that the prayer would be given by a student minister elected by the student body. The supreme court ruled that this still constituted a school sponsored prayer.
Here is an excerpt from the Court's ruling.
quote:In the Court's Majority opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens writes, "School sponsorship of a religious message is impermissible because it sends the ancillary message to members of the audience who are non-adherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community."
Justice Stevens continues, "The delivery of such a message - over the school's public address system by a speaker representing the student body, under the supervision of school faculty and pursuant to a school policy that explicitly and implicitly encourages public prayer - is not properly characterized as private speech."
Stevens said the court recognizes, "the important role that public worship plays in many communities, as well as the sincere desire to include public prayer as a part of various occasions so as to mark those occasions' significance.'' But he added: "Such religious activity in public schools, as elsewhere, must comport with the First Amendment."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I bet there was lots of praying at that (and other football games) that was not a problem for the ACLU or anyone else. ("Please, God, let me make this field goal" for example.)
Lots of praying that was allowed.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I guess I've always associated the ACLU more with freedom of speech than separation of church and state, though I guess it makes sense now.
or
"Please, God, let the other quarterback trip and hurt himself."
Does the ACLU care about the right to bear arms?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Does the ACLU care about the right to bear arms?
That depends on what you mean by that. They don't interpret the Constitution to grant an unqualified right for individuals to bear arms, so, for the more common way that term is used, no. As I understand it, they regard the 2nd amendment to pertain to "well-regulated militias" only.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Does the ACLU care about the right to bear arms?
And are people who are strongly in favor of the second amendment more or less likely to go to the ACLU for legal assistance?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:Does the ACLU care about the right to bear arms?
That depends on what you mean by that. They don't interpret the Constitution to grant an unqualified right for individuals to bear arms, so, for the more common way that term is used, no. As I understand it, they regard the 2nd amendment to pertain to "well-regulated militias" only.
Hmm. One could read the first amendment narrowly as well.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'm not sure what your point is, pooka.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
It just seems like a jump between Congress enacting a law establishing a religion and people having religious observance in their communities. That's just me, though. I am probably biased in seeing the ACLU as tending toward a specific political stripe rather than rigorously defending the constitution.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
People have religious observances in their communities all the time. Many people have them at least weekly. Often more.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I am probably biased in seeing the ACLU as tending toward a specific political stripe rather than rigorously defending the constitution.
Yes, you are. Stop it.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:people having religious observance in their communities
The ALCU doesn't have a problem with this, provided the government is not sponsoring this observance.
quote:I am probably biased in seeing the ACLU as tending toward a specific political stripe rather than rigorously defending the constitution.
How much do you actually know about the cases that the ALCU takes on? Do you really think it is enough to make that determination? I'm not amazingly up to date on the cases either, but it's been my impression that the ALCU takes on Free Speech and similar cases from across the political spectrum.
Also, if there's one trend that I really dislike about modern politics, it is this idea that everything falls into one of two sides and that you either belong to one of the other. I see the 1st and 2nd amendments largely the way they do, as being broad and narrow. And, despite what you may think, I have actual reasons for believing this as opposed to it fitting in with whatever side I've chosen in an ideological divide.
---
From my perspective, it seems like the ALCU sometimes go over the line, especially in religion cases, but considering that the people who are trying to push Christianity on everyone else are almost constantly over the line and have gotten their way quite a bit, I think fighting even the small or very questionable battles is understandable.
Ultimately, the ALCU doesn't do much more than bring court cases against what they see as violations of civil rights. They advocate for their point of view but they don't decide anything. That's up to the courts. That's pretty much how our legal system is supposed to work.
The costs of a court battle can be prohibitive and that can add a great deal more weight to their actions (especially when people make decisions before the fact to ward of a law suit), but that's a problem (if you see it as one, which I do) with the legal system as a whole.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)