Although I would certainly disagree that the constitution should be changed to fit Huckabee's brand of Christianity, I would defend the position that the constitution should be changed to fit Ron Paul's brand of Christianity. That is, to give all individuals the God given rights as outlined in the Bible.
I happen to be a Theocrat that supports Ron Paul and I would contend that a proper reading of the Bible, yields the kind of inalienable rights, freedoms and peace that is characterized by Ron Paul's positions.
Some of you guys need to be careful not to bite the hand that feeds you. It is only a Christian world and life view that gives man his rights and dignity, since if these rights come from man, they can also be taken away by man, which leaves you without any principled argument against having those rights taken away by your fellow man. It is only in the case that there is a sovereign God that these rights can be considered inalienable.
Here is my challange to the non-christians on this board. I would like a explanation that is consistent with your view of reality, how you arrive at objective moral values without relying on a Christian conception of a sovereign God as an underlying presupposition?
If you would like an example of the kind of answers that I am looking for, go to my website and read through the article that I posted called "Metaphysics and Meaning" and answer the questions being posed by one naturalist to the other naturalist.
http://presupposetheism.blogspot.com/
Good luck!
) it was probably more to do with order. 
) yet. People are too afraid without the state telling them what to do 
