Yeah, say it with me: That Huckabee REALLY crazy!"
“I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that’s what we need to do — is to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than try to change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other and how we treat the family.”
Hucka-whaaaat?
Umm. No. The Constitution is a consciously secular document, and the writers of that fine product of the European Enlightenment, for whatever their and its flaws, made an active choice to NOT invoke God in any specific way – even against some specific demands to do so even at the time by people in the vast minority, such as Mike Huckabee.
The difference between that minority in the past and that sucka mutha-Hucka is that the Constitution is a finished document that was ratified and put into effect, and has been the founding document of the United States ever since. The debate's over. The document inked. Constitution signed. Done.
Inserting a defense of a singular religion or its values goes against the Constitution, the spirit (and conditions for creating in the first place) of its original ten amendments, as well as some of the purposes in making the document itself.
"God" is not invoked a single time in that document. That's because it's not supposed to be there. Hellllllllo, Huck-fly? The President of the United States has to take an oath to "uphold and defend" the Constitution of the United States of America.
NOT CHANGE IT!!!
Umm, when does a presidential candidate get to be called a crackpot? I mean, they do it for Ron Paul, most of whose views I agree with, even down to the assertion that the Supreme Court may have overstepped its bounds with Roe v. Wade, since his argument is that the power to legislate in relation to abortion should lie with the States, not with the specious logic of the Supreme Court's decision in this case.
Does this mean I'm not pro-choice? Noooo. But that doesn't change the fact that the basis for the "right to choose" may very well rest on faulty Constitutional grounds.
But at least Ron Paul is arguing in terms of the Constitution, and NOT outright saying that it should be changed in line with "God's standards." And on that note:
"Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." (Matthew 22:31 with help from Wikipedia)
Jesus Christ. No – I mean that. Jesus!
But back to the Constitution again – that document was laid down with one of two major logical bases for separating Church and State – either the 17th-century Roger Williams-style argument that linking the two actually corrupts organized religion, or the late 18th-century idea that yes, the state should actively safeguard the people's right to worship as they choose – pick one. They both inform the writing of the Constitution, and both come to the same conclusion: the Consitution is a consciously secular document.
Indeed, Huckabee's sentiments about the relationship between religion and the state resemble the Taliban's more than the average American's. And I'm not just throwing a rhetorical bomb here – I'm being dead serious. Think about what he's saying. He certainly isn't – at least if he is actually serious about becoming President.
So wait – who's the crackpot, again? And does that little speech snippet really sound like some little soundbite taken out of context?
That Huckabee crazy! At least too much to be President of the United States, even if he may be a great human being, good Christian, or whatever. But anyone who votes for someone who just out-and-out said he wants to do the OPPOSITE of what everyone knows he must swear to do as President – they Huck-crazy, too!
