An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

Mike Huckabee: “Easier to change the Constitution”

So we’ve reached the point where Huckabee’s emergence into “serious contender” territory has officially stopped being entertaining to me, however amusingly much it might annoy certain conservative pundits who pandered to the Christian right when it suited their perception of their interests to do so. 

Here’s one of the reasons I’m not laughing:

"[Some of my opponents] 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 to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than try to change God’s standards," Huckabee said, referring to the need for a constitutional human life amendment and an amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

Huckabee often refers to the need to amend the constitution on these grounds, but he has never so specifically called for the Constitution to be brought within "God’s standards," which are themselves debated amongst religious scholars. As a closing statement he asked the room of nearly 500 supporters to "pray and then work hard, and in that order," to help him secure a victory in Tuesday’s GOP primary.  (MSNBC; emphasis added) )

In other words, forget the principles built into the Constitution by the Founding Fathers, forget our country’s tradition of neutrality toward the religious views of individual citizens and principle of noninterference; forget separation of Chuch and State; forget that this is a democracy, not a theocracy.    

As a person with strong Quaker leanings, I get very nervous when one version of Christianity concludes that it knows what God’s standards are and that those standards should therefore become the law for everyone else, including those who see God quite a bit differently. While I am modestly certain that I can muck in with the best when it comes to God-bothering and proficiency in prayer, I don’t force Mike Huckabee to go to my church and I don’t care to go to his. (”Horses for courses,” as my British husband—an atheist—tactfully puts it.) Or, as Christopher Hitchens has said, "Mr. Jefferson, build up that wall!"  It’s the only way to protect Christian denominations from other Christian denominations, not to mention the only way to protect Christians from Christopher Hitchens (and vice-versa, of course).

But Huck does want to build up one wall:  the fence between Mexico and the US.   Next:  the Tower of Babel.  We’re coming for you, Jesus, ready or not! Can I hear you say, "Hallelujah!"?   

Fortunately, my silent prayers that Huckabee fade gently back into state politics have received what a religious person might view as a sort of provisional response. True, it’s not the answer I wanted:  among the Republicans, I definitely prefer McCain to the others by the vague but presumably vast stretch known as a "moonlight mile."  Even so, the Romney predominance in Michigan shows that Huckabee does not in fact have God’s unwavering endorsement, as a few weeks back his supporters seemed to be gleefully assuming.  Perhaps God, like the Founding Fathers, believes in separation of Church and State?

Cross-posted by Damozel at Buck Naked Politics

  • flyerhawk
    Damozel,

    I'm not sure if I agree with you on this. Does it really matter why Huckabee wishes to outlaw abortion? Certainly 19th Century Republicans felt that abolishing slavery was a mandate based on higher law. If he can convince enough people that we should pass a Federal Amendment, more power to him. Somehow I don't 3/4 of state legislatures plus 2/3 of both houses jumping on board though.

    I have no desire to vote for Huckabee at all but I don't see anything particularly odious in his desire to change the Constitution to suit his beliefs, provided he follows legal guidelines in doing so.
  • DLS
    Damozel,

    Please try not to be too emotional and illogical about this.

    The following,

    "a constitutional human life amendment and an amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman"

    is not unusual or outrageous in the least. I happen to believe it is overkill, and a "human life amendment" is almost as evasive as what the Left does on the pro-abortion side (if abortion is to be banned, this is what the amendment should say), but I also understand that most people see the second amendment listed as desireable, particuarly when we continue to see illegitimate leftist judicial activism that substitutes judges' well-left-of-the-public views for valid law. That is totally different from what is sought in this case, which was well described by Flyerhawk:

    "I have no desire to vote for Huckabee at all but I don't see anything particularly odious in his desire to change the Constitution to suit his beliefs, provided he follows legal guidelines in doing so."

    At least these people want the Constitution changed the real, valid way!
  • DLS
    Also don't fall into the trap the Left falls into constantly, hyping the Religious Right into something far larger and more powerful than it actually is. (Also don't display the degenerate hatred we see on the Far Left when it comes to these people, so strangely absent in the case of churches who urge their attendees to vote Democratic.)
  • AustinRoth
    Also, separation of Church and State was NOT in the Constitution originally.

    It is of course in the First Amendment, but it IS an Amendment, which the proscribed method for changing or updating the Constitution (rather than, say Judicial fiat).

    I have no desire to see Huckabee or his ilk get their way on these issues, but let's at least present the facts correctly.
  • I like Huckabee a lot and I've accepted that there is no candidate that is the "perfect" candidate for me, but these types of statements scare me. I respect his commitment to faith as a Christian, but once you get started on things like this, it leads to....
  • DLS
    "these types of statements scare me"

    A constitutional ban on abortion has less chance of success than a flag-burning amendment (which, I'll add, is a form of idolatry). On the other hand, there's nothing wrong with overturning the illegitimate ruling Roe v. Wade and correctly leaving regulation of abortion to state and local government, where it correctly belongs. Also, there's no reason or right whatsoever to abortion being provided by the federal government -- which of course will become an issue of concern once extending Medicare to everyone, or providing federal health care to everyone, is initiated.

    There's no reason to fear the Religious Right, who are mainly the victims here (particularly on this site and elsewhere where there is far-left infection), and have much less power and influence than is suspected (their votes are taken for granted because they, being well right of center, have adopted the GOP as their home by default, seeking shelter from the Democrats and the Left).

    We aren't going to have any federal "blue laws" any time soon.
  • DAMOZEL
    flyerhawk: It's not "odious" that he wishes to "reflect the word of the living God," but I personally do not wish to allow him to try. This is a point on which reasonable people are free to differ. To push for change in the law based on a religious conviction is one thing. To state that the Constitution should be changed to reflect your own view of "the word of the living God" strikes me as quite another....

    DLS: I am not "the Left," and therefore can't speak for them, but one Bible-belt raised Southerner who has been uneasily watching right-wing Christians (so-called) since before the days of Jimmy Carter and the rise of "the Moral Majority." I am simply stating an objection to something Huckabee is quoted as having said. I like him.

    I am tired of public officials who pander to the so-called "religious right," however small or weak or powerless you might believe them to be. Among other things, it encourages people to stare at the mote in their brother's eye without beholding the plank in their own, as it were.

    By the way, did you notice you've made a lot of assumptions about my opinions? "illogical"...."emotional"...."right"..."left"....The problem with these labels, which I need to do a better job of avoiding myself, is that they get in the way of any real discourse on the issues. At any rate, once you've dismissed an argument as "illogical" and "emotional"----as women of my generation have cause to know---there really isn't any point in continuing to speak.

    AustinRoth: I didn't say that separation of church and state was "originally" in the Constitution or indeed address Constitutional history at all. It's there now; and the known statements of a number of the founders certainly support the view that they intended the government to be religiously neutral. At any rate, I don't mind qualifying my statement by saying that IN MY OPINION to amend the Constitution "to reflect the word of the living God" violates the principle of separation of church and state.
  • Jim_Satterfield
    Damozel,

    DLS constantly understates the influence of the RR on the Republican Party and painting them as the poor underdogs compared to the evil commie pinko green liberals. If it is an RNC cliche, DLS is there supporting it.
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC