WTF? Huckabee: The Constitution Should Be Amended To Conform To The Word Of God

[aspiringconstitutionalist]

Baptists are the champions of Separation of Church and State. He must be pandering to a different crowd there.

200 years ago. Not anymore.

 

[PaulineDisciple]

Well, would it be OK if "God" had said it was OK?

Morality evolves... just look at the Old vs. New Testament for er... Christ's sake!

Ah yes, Euthyphro’s dilemma, is a thing right because God says it is right or is it right because it is right in and of itself? This question is actually a false dichotomy, it is neither, God calls something right or wrong based on His character and this is what makes something either right or wrong.

And if morality evolves than there is no such thing as objective morality and murder can be moral one moment and immoral the next. IOW, the word moral would loose its meaning.

 

[Theocrat]

Amen!

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!

I would agree with Mike Huckabee's position on changing the Constitution to conform more to the Word of God, but for different reasons than his theology would require. I still believe in a separation between Church and State (as understood by our Founding Fathers) in that there are certain things the Church should never legislate, such as declaration of war, as well as the State, such as marriage.

 

[PaulineDisciple]

The damage Huck has done to himself is congruent to that of McCain with his '100 years in Iraq' quote. That said, I think he is also embarrassing to people who ARE theocrats, for some elements of their position are reasonable. The above shows you don't have to be an AUTHORITARIAN to be a theocrat. A case could be made from the Bible that the ancient Israelite theocracy was actually rather anarchistic; it became unfree only when the people asked for a human king and adopt a monarchic form of civil government like all their neighbors. It is the FASCIST application people are most afraid of and think most quickly of when they hear it being presented.

All governments are theocracies, that either defacto posit the true God, a false God, or Man as the ultimate authority. Either God will be God, or Man will play God in ruling the nations. The modern concept of secular government falsely presumes 'secular means neutral,' but has been in practice has been a Humanist theocracy that is hostile to the other faiths. The old meaning of the 'secular' as understood by the Founders (as something that was worldly/of this current age, but not spiritual/eternal) allowed them to create a decentralized state generally built on underlying 'principles of Christianity,' while not explicitly imposing a denominational commitment on everybody.

Huckabee, however, does expressly imply he wants to force a creed on us from central command. He is precisely creating the combination between theocracy and tyranny people are concerned about. 100% of Christians should be desiring a Theocracy, but one run by Christ, not authoritarians like Huckabee. If we believe in the Second Coming, what other kind of government would He set up once back on earth?

Thank you, your response clarified what I am trying to say.

 

[[email protected]]

The morality of murder is inconsequential since murder can be argued against from a property rights stand point. Murder is wrong because it infringes on a person's property rights. In a Republic, majority only rules if it does not violate someone's rights... so no, murder will _NEVER_ be okay in a Republic. Can it be okay in the U.S.? Yes, if we make the full transition into a pure Democracy... when majority _ALWAYS_ rules.

Very true.

Murder, or hurting others in any way, is just wrong. Plain and simple. Just because a fable like the bible says it is wrong, doesn't make it any more wrong. Christianity is a manmade tool of social and political control, the same as Islam, Judaism, Mormonism, and all of the other spiritual scams that exist. "Donate 10% of your income to us, and live as we say or you will spend eternity in agony." What a sweet deal for those at the top. No one knows the true nature of God, anyone who claims to be speaking or writing His words is yanking your chain for their own benefit. The world would be so much better off if the followers of manmade religion would wake up and realize that they're being played against each other like a bunch of suckers.

 

[Gimme Some Truth]

I know you didn't just compare the CFR to the Nazi Party...

My point was , lets not be naive and think that every group is "just a group of people working together to bring about the change they want" in the sense that they are good people who deserve to be cheered "Good for them!". Go tell that to the Jews back in the 40's or the Chagos Islanders from the 60's etc etc etc etc etc ...you get the idea

Oh Brother!

Does anyone have an orgininal comment? People get a little radical and we start namecalling... Nazi's...Bosheviks.

Please!!!!

Erm... what? How in the world was I namecalling!? My point was a valid criticism of fmontez's thinking , and still is.


.

 

[PaulineDisciple]

The morality of murder is inconsequential since murder can be argued against from a property rights stand point. Murder is wrong because it infringes on a person's property rights. In a Republic, majority only rules if it does not violate someone's rights... so no, murder will _NEVER_ be okay in a Republic. Can it be okay in the U.S.? Yes, if we make the full transition into a pure Democracy... when majority _ALWAYS_ rules.

But the property rights argument falls into the same trap. All you need to do is substitute infringement of property rights for murder and constitution for majority of men.

The real question that needs to be answered is, is infringing on property rights wrong because the constitution says it's wrong, or is it wrong because a sovereign God says it is wrong? Would it become right if I the constitution was changed to say infringing on property rights was ok?

 

[SovereignMN]

GTFO of this campaign. If your advocating that ONLY your christian religion is correct you can move on. This campaign is about the constitution which includes freedom of religion. I have seen Muslims, Atheists, Mormons, Agnostics, and many others rally behind Ron Paul and his message. To say that he should change the constitution is completely out of line of what he is fighting for. Doing such a thing, or even advocating it would be as bad as what Huckabee has said.

Please read his post next time. It's obvious you did not.

 

[Kade]

This, right after I posted this: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=90294


It's not funny. It really is not funny.

 

[PaulineDisciple]

Very true.

Murder, or hurting others in any way, is just wrong. Plain and simple. Just because a fable like the bible says it is wrong, doesn't make it any more wrong. Christianity is a manmade tool of social and political control, the same as Islam, Judaism, Mormonism, and all of the other spiritual scams that exist. "Donate 10% of your income to us, and live as we say or you will spend eternity in agony." What a sweet deal for those at the top. No one knows the true nature of God, anyone who claims to be speaking or writing His words is yanking your chain for their own benefit. The world would be so much better off if the followers of manmade religion would wake up and realize that they're being played against each other like a bunch of suckers.

So is something wrong because you say it is wrong?? What you cite for proof, “Plain and simple” is not a very convincing argument. Who died and made you god? Just because you say it is wrong doesn’t make it wrong. Atheism is a manmade tool of social and political control, the same as Marxism, Communism, Socialism, Fascism, and all of the other atheistic scams that exist. "Donate 50-100% of your income to us, and live as we say or you will be tortured and killed." What a sweet deal for those at the top. The world would be so much better off if the followers of manmade philosophies would wake up and realize that they're being played against each other like a bunch of suckers.

 

[robert4rp08]

But the property rights argument falls into the same trap. All you need to do is substitute infringement of property rights for murder and constitution for majority of men.

The real question that needs to be answered is, is infringing on property rights wrong because the constitution says it's wrong, or is it wrong because a sovereign God says it is wrong? Would it become right if I the constitution was changed to say infringing on property rights was ok?

Huh? You don't need a document or deity to tell you that you have a right to your property. Rights are not granted by the Constitution. You have rights by existing in this world, having free thought, and the ability to defend your property. You are born with rights (arguably bestowed to you by "your" Creator whether it be a god, gods, lump of coal, nature, etc).

Like I said, rights are a property issue. If you own property, you have rights over that property. It _IS_ that simple. Why do you think the government doesn't allow you to own land, vehicle, wages, children, business, etc? They are limiting your rights by restricting the property that you actually own.

 

[Roadrcr]

I’m completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death.

 

[Theocrat]

Check Your Logic

Murder, or hurting others in any way, is just wrong. Plain and simple.

Why is murder wrong? Because you say so?

Christianity is a manmade tool of social and political control, the same as Islam, Judaism, Mormonism, and all of the other spiritual scams that exist.

By your own logic, would you conclude that all man-made things, like the U.S. Constitution and your statement that "Christianity is a manmade tool of social and political control, the same as Islam, Judaism, Mormonism, and all of the other spiritual scams that exist," are wrong just because they came from men and/or are used to control politics and society?

No one knows the true nature of God, anyone who claims to be speaking or writing His words is yanking your chain for their own benefit.

Oh, so you know the true nature of God, then? Since you know that no one knows the true nature of God, you must have absolute knowledge about God, then, to speak on such matters in authority. I'm being sarcastic, of course, but since you don't have absolute knowledge about the true nature of God, then how do you know that no one knows the true nature of God?

 

[random]

Ah yes, Euthyphro’s dilemma, is a thing right because God says it is right or is it right because it is right in and of itself? This question is actually a false dichotomy, it is neither, God calls something right or wrong based on His character and this is what makes something either right or wrong.

Ah, there's a neat little side-step that totally avoids the issue. So let's leave everything, unquestioned, to "God's character" then, shall we?

And if morality evolves than there is no such thing as objective morality and murder can be moral one moment and immoral the next. IOW, the word moral would loose its meaning.

Yes, there's no such thing as objective morality, and yes, murder (e.g. the killing of non-believers advocated by the God of the Old Testament) can be "moral" by religious standards one moment and immoral by newer standards (it is no longer advocated by the God of the New Testament).

The non-existence of objective morality can still leave room for:

1) refinement of morality based on new knowledge/zeitgeist, e.g. universal adult suffrage

2) directionality in the evolution of morality, whereby once something like murder is recognized as immoral, it is hard for it to revert to being moral.

 

[Roadrcr]

Morality laws came into place from people living together and seeing what has helped the community and what has hurt.

 

[random]

Morality laws came into place from people living together and seeing what has helped the community and what has hurt.

And it is our common human nature that is responsible for communities to end up evolving their morality along common lines of development.

 

[Gimme Some Truth]

If you are a naturalist, at least this would be a consistent answer, thank you for your honesty.

Having not looked up what being a naturalist pertains to , since I try to ignore labels and categories , I dont know whether I am one or not. I am just myself , open-minded.
I try not to get too embroiled in day to day matters , in arguments of absolutes etc .However I do love to take part in discussions. I often look at this world and its people (myself included), and thus all arguments and happenings, from a birdseye or off-world perspective. Its the only way to stay open to all possibilities and not be too judgmental - something that is hard not to become , i admit, when taking a step back from the "norm".

I guess I am an enigma wrapped in a riddle nestled in a sesame seed bun of mystery .

You may call me an individual


.

 

[Captain Shays]

Unbelieveable.. What's really sick is this guy will get tons of votes because 30% of americans are evangelicals, and they are sick enough to want a God fearing Constitution..

Oh my

.

I'm an evengelical Christian and this stuff scares the bejesus out of me. By rants like your's above you'll drive Christians away from Ron Paul before Christians like me can convince them not to vote for Huckabee.
Please tone it down a little before you sobvert my efforts.

 

[Kade]

I would agree with Mike Huckabee's position on changing the Constitution to conform more to the Word of God, but for different reasons than his theology would require. I still believe in a separation between Church and State (as understood by our Founding Fathers) in that there are certain things the Church should never legislate, such as declaration of war, as well as the State, such as marriage.

"(as understood by our Founding Fathers)" You mean, like when Jefferson wrote:
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

Or, like what Madison wrote in my signature?

 

[Theocrat]

You're Wrong

Morality laws came into place from people living together and seeing what has helped the community and what has hurt.

Laws of morality didn't come to me by living with somebody or a group of people. I learned the laws of morality from an absolute standard (the Holy Bible), which was taught to me by my parents.