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

[Kade]

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


.

Chill bro, a naturalist is a benign label... at best. People abuse labels.. here, it just means you happen to only agree with things that are tested empirically, within the realm of reason, obey natural law that we know, and maintain a pretty agnostic state about things we can't know... pretty much, you just know what you know and learn... no better way to put it.

Naturalism is opposed to supernaturalism, in which, you attribute things you shouldn't know to supernatural reasoning and superfluous insanity. Jesus rose from the grave after 3 days is clearly supernaturalism... because, to this day, it is an assault on common sense, and disobeys all known laws of nature. (now Watch the supernaturalists come to the rescue of this insanity)

 

[Kade]

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.

So what is a good price for selling your daughter into slavery these days? I mean, absolutely, what should we do about all these people who continue to work on the Sabbath... ?

 

[Theocrat]

Yes, But a Word of Caution

"(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?

I affirm both of those statements by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, but you failed to qualify them properly because:

1) You quote them out of context.

2) You seem to not understand that when they used the word "religion" back then, it meant something fairly different in their colloquialisms than how we use it today.

 

[Mesogen]

I'd like to see what the context is, if Kade is quoting these 2 deists out of context.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

"(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?

The Founders favored interaction between general Christian doctrines and state, but not for the elevation of a specific sect as the 'official' faith of America at the federal level. The above were supportive of separation of church DENOMINATIONS from state, as the phrase was understood at the time, but were not for a draconian split of religion and government. For myself, I'm partial to John Jay:

"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers. And it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest, of a Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." First Chief Justice of Supreme Court John Jay to Jedidiah Morse February 28, 1797

And John Marshall:

"The American population is entirely Christian, and with us Christianity and Religion are identified. It would be strange indeed, if with such a people, our institutions did not presuppose Christianity, and did not often refer to it, and exhibit relations with it." John Marshall, in a letter to Jasper Adams, May 9, 1833, JSAC, p. 139. Marshall was Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court from 1801-1835.

 

[Theocrat]

"Google" Them

All you have to do, Mesogen, is copy and paste the two quotes posted by Kade onto the Google search engine, and you should be able to find them and read them both in their respective contexts.

 

[Gimme Some Truth]

Chill bro, a naturalist is a benign label... at best. People abuse labels.. here, it just means you happen to only agree with things that are tested empirically, within the realm of reason, obey natural law that we know, and maintain a pretty agnostic state about things we can't know... pretty much, you just know what you know and learn... no better way to put it.

Naturalism is opposed to supernaturalism, in which, you attribute things you shouldn't know to supernatural reasoning and superfluous insanity. Jesus rose from the grave after 3 days is clearly supernaturalism... because, to this day, it is an assault on common sense, and disobeys all known laws of nature. (now Watch the supernaturalists come to the rescue of this insanity)

Well, the word "supernatural" doesn't exist to me. We, the human race, know literally next to nothing about the reality in which we reside. "Supernatural" is just an arrogant word to replace ignorance. Psychic abilities , Telepathic abilities , telekinesis , aliens, spirits , even Jesus and God are all very much possible in my book , infact most of them are highly probable no doubt , resulting in us , in the future, viewing them as natural

PS. I didnt think the naturalist label was an attack btw. Im sorry if i sounded offended


.

 

[akalucas]

I'm a Christian also and this scares the daylights out of me. Any Christian that studies the bible not just goes to church like sheeple and eat up whatever the pastor says knows that church and state should be separated. Bible also predicts a type of Holy Roman Empire type of system will be revived after the original Holy Roman Empire was wounded (1789 Holy Empire came to an end brought about by French revolution). Goodness sakes, one of the man reasons people came here was to get away from the grip of the Holy Roman Empire. It just goes to show people didnt really get away from the Holy Roman Empire cause they thought that way of system was wrong but because the system didnt consist of their beliefs. For instance right after coming here to escape the Holy Roman Empire the people started placing laws, like everyone has to go to church on Sunday (Sunday Laws) or anyone that practices Witchcraft must die. In essence they started making their own little Holy Protestant Empire that consisted of their beliefs. Good thing the forefathers of this nation saw this and put a stop to it.

As a Christian I think there's a reason God put the 10 commandments in two separate slabs of stone. One stone states the laws between you and God and no man has the right to judge you on this since its between you and God. And the other stone is the laws between you and your fellow man and these man can judge you on.

Anyways if Huckabee becomes president its going to be scary.

 

[Mesogen]

All you have to do, Mesogen, is copy and paste the two quotes posted by Kade onto the Google search engine, and you should be able to find them and read them both in their respective contexts.

I was implying these quotes are not taken out of context and mean pretty much what they say.

 

[Mesogen]

So we shouldn't enforce the laws on the books, which are in some form of fashion based off of morals? Most laws are based off of some desire to have a moral society.

We aren't allowed to steal, we aren't allowed to endanger people, we aren't allowed to murder, we aren't allowed to cheat. If we lose our morality as a nation, we also lose our freedom. If we don't have moral leaders (HINT LIKE NOW), then they ignore the constitution and take our freedoms.

Think before you talk from now on.

Laws do not make a moral society.

 

[daniroyer]

I believe (based on the MSM coverage, so take that as you will) that was speaking about abortion and gay marriage. However, if you'll make changes for that based on religion, you can easily argue for more changes.

Laws come from general morality, not just the morality of one minority group. The federal government does not have the power to make such general laws (like those governing abortion and gay marriage).

Making such a statement not only shows how unelectable Huckabee is, but also how ignorant he is of the position he is running for.

 

[Mesogen]

That is my point. Where do those rights you are given come from? If they were given to you by man, who does not do everything perfect, then why couldn't your rights be changed? If 51% of us believed that others did not have the right to life, then why should murder be illegal?

However if they were given to you by something perfect, then how could they be changed if 100% of people believed nobody else had the right to life?

I understand my example is extreme, but I believe in God. Therefore, I believe my rights were first and foremost given to me BY God. I know you don't come in with the same presuppositions that I do, but at least you'll understand where I'm coming from and stop thinking Christians are SO crazy.

Rights are not given or endowed, despite what the DoI says.

I have my rights because I claim them. Just try to violate them.

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.

It's not a false dichotomy and you are merely picking one of the choices.

You are saying that something is moral simply because God ( a book ) says so.

Your God is a book that comes in many versions and this is your "absolute" morality. You think something is moral simply because a book declares it to be so.

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?

It doesn't matter whether you think infringing on my rights is wrong or not. I'm going to stop you from doing it to the best of my ability. It doesn't matter what the law says or what God's law says. I'm protecting myself because it's my instinct to do so. I want to thrive and prosper because it's my instinct to do so, and I'll fight anyone who tries to impede my instinct to survive, thrive, and prosper.

 

[Kade]

I affirm both of those statements by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, but you failed to qualify them properly because:

1) You quote them out of context.

2) You seem to not understand that when they used the word "religion" back then, it meant something fairly different in their colloquialisms than how we use it today.

I did not take them out of context... I don't understand revisionists, are they implying that this country was founded as a Christian Nation solely?

 

[WilliamC]

I am a Christian and I agree it's scary that people of my faith want to impose our beliefs on other citizens.

Jesus said to spread God's word, but if somebody doesn't want to recieve it then let them be. I'm sure he wouldn't want us to harrass them or discriminate against them because they chose not to hear it. That's not what he stood for.

Jesus also said love thy neighbor. I take that as anybody. He didn't say love thy neighbor only if they're Christian and treat outsiders with contempt. I think Jesus would want us to love our neighbor whether they're Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Black, White, Gay, or Atheist. He wanted us to treat everybody with love, respect, and kindness no matter what their background is.

Huck is no Christian. Huck is a poser pandering to the uninformed members of my faith that have been exposed to bad representation of Christianity.

Huck is Pro-War. Jesus is Pro-Peace. I think that tells us all we need to know about this faker.

I've always said "let all peaceful people live freely"

I'd like to think that Jesus would have agreed with that.

 

[CountryboyRonPaul]

What's most disturbing is, evangelical voters are so numb to the facts and get brainwashed by this crap...

Because they have no idea that Huckabee's top campaign advisor is the president of the CFR.. And these evangelical voters have no idea Huckabee is just using God to get himself votes, then he'll dupe all of them later (along with the evil CFR) when/if he's elected..

Boy americans are dumb to fall for all that shit.

.

And they will probably still defend him after he has duped them

Just as Republicans continue to defend George Bush today, after he took a proverbial dump on the Republican platform.

 

[PaulineDisciple]

Huh? You don't need a document or deity to tell you that you have a right to your property.

Oh really, have you ever seen one of these rights before? Can you smell these rights? How would you go about proving that we have property rights? This could get interesting.

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.

These are just bare assertions, “It IS that simple”?? My argument is not a bare authority claim. My argument is that in order to have abstract, universal, invariant, and objective laws such as laws of morality, you have to have a world and life view that can account for such things. They are called the preconditions of intelligibility. Which is just a fancy way to say that they make sense in a particular persons system of thought. IOW, If you are not a supernaturalist, you have to borrow these abstract, universal, invariant and objective laws from the Christian or provide me with a view of reality that can account for such things.

 

[PaulineDisciple]

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?

But it does answer the question of how you can have abstract, universal, invariant and objective laws such as laws of morality within a particular persons worldview. Could you please enlighten me as to where I might be able to find a moral law? I have never seen one before.

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).

I appreciate the honesty with this answer.

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).

Murder is not the same thing as killing. Murder is justified killing. But you haven’t given me an argument as to what makes a killing justified or not.

Of course certain kinds of killing is still justified in the New Testament. In Romans 13, Paul tells us that the governing authorities do not bare the sword in vain. And that they are God’s ministers executing justice on evildoers.

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.

Can I get anything out of you other than bare assertions? Do you have any science projects that I can repeat and keep getting the same results as to when something is moral and when it becomes immoral?

 

[PaulineDisciple]

Chill bro, a naturalist is a benign label... at best. People abuse labels.. here, it just means you happen to only agree with things that are tested empirically, within the realm of reason, obey natural law that we know, and maintain a pretty agnostic state about things we can't know... pretty much, you just know what you know and learn... no better way to put it.

Great! Finally someone gets it! This is exactly what I am asking. If you’re a person that does not believe in something unless it can be empirically tested, please give me an empirical test to show me what is moral and what is immoral and another test to show me when any of these change if and when they do change.

Naturalism is opposed to supernaturalism, in which, you attribute things you shouldn't know to supernatural reasoning and superfluous insanity. Jesus rose from the grave after 3 days is clearly supernaturalism... because, to this day, it is an assault on common sense, and disobeys all known laws of nature. (now Watch the supernaturalists come to the rescue of this insanity)

That’s right, naturalism IS opposed to supernaturalism, that is why I am asking for a naturalist answer to a supernatural problem, it can’t be done. So stop borrowing morality from us Christians and give me a naturalistic argument that makes sense of absolute and objective moral principles. Morality is emptied of any meaning if it is not absolute and objective.

 

[PaulineDisciple]

Rights are not given or endowed, despite what the DoI says.

I have my rights because I claim them. Just try to violate them.

Then they are not rights, they are survival of the fittest instincts, nothing more.

It's not a false dichotomy and you are merely picking one of the choices.

You are saying that something is moral simply because God ( a book ) says so.

No I’m not, It is a linear argument, God is a perfect and moral being and Him saying so, is only communicating His character to His creatures. His saying so does not ‘make’ it so, it already is so and He is just making it known to us.

It doesn't matter whether you think infringing on my rights is wrong or not. I'm going to stop you from doing it to the best of my ability. It doesn't matter what the law says or what God's law says. I'm protecting myself because it's my instinct to do so. I want to thrive and prosper because it's my instinct to do so, and I'll fight anyone who tries to impede my instinct to survive, thrive, and prosper.

Now your talking, but I still don’t know why you keep calling them ‘rights’, just call it your will to survive and we can be in agreement.

 

[WilliamC]

Oh really, have you ever seen one of these rights before? Can you smell these rights? How would you go about proving that we have property rights? This could get interesting.

Ever see a dog pee to mark his territory? They smell their property rights.

Property rights derive from our territorial instincts.

All higher animals know they need a certain amount of territory in order to survive, and actively seek to acquire and defend that territory.