Huckabee Is Scary

[Wizened Sage]

The following is an editorial I submitted today to our local weekly newspaper. Although I live in the liberal northeast U.S., I suspect the chances of it being printed are somewhere between slim and none. I post it here so that the effort won't be a complete waste.

 

Huckabee is Scary

 

In a Michigan speech on 1/14/08, Republican Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee made clear his contempt for the Constitutional principle of separation of church and state.

 

"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 amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than trying 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."

 

This is a very, very scary idea. As Ruth Hurmence has written, “There was a time when religion ruled the world. It is known as the Dark Ages.â€

 

Most Americans today might argue that the essence of “God’s standards,†as written in the Bible, involve love, compassion and tolerance, so what’s the problem? The problem is that most Americans are unaware of the less than nice parts of the Bible, and what grossly immoral actions – by today’s more enlightened standards - can legitimately be defended by these passages.

 

For example, the recommended sentence for a stubborn and rebellious son is public execution (Deuteronomy 21). Homosexuals (Leviticus 20:13), and non-Christians (Luke 19:27) are to be eliminated in the same manner.

 

I urge the reader to look up these passages for himself/herself, and ask whether this is the sort of world he would like to live in. Impossible? Consider Afghanistan, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, countries whose current legal systems are based on centuries-old religious texts.

 

We have come a long, long way in the past few hundred years, let’s not quit now. A vote for Mike Huckabee is a vote for the Dark Ages.

[♦ nivek ♦]

Lets dump this thought of "Constitutional" separation of Church and State.

 

There is none. Nothing written, specifically, period.

 

Research T. Jefferson's "Letter to Danbury Baptist Church" to find where this thought comes from. It is not in our Founding Documents.

 

One may consider that the Founders refused to allow a State Sponsored church body, 1A:

(Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the freedom of press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.)

 

There is no specific "Wall of Separation" granted, suggested or codiefied by any of the Founding Documents.

 

As far as Huckleberry himself? Dude like any other politician gets notes from me starting "Dear Employee"....

 

Never fucking forget that those nice folks in the Houses of Legislature are OUR EMPLOYEES. We do not serve them, they exist in part to do as their electorate demands.

 

When we generally slackjawed, lazy and stupid people get off our asses and get back to ensuring that discussion of important things happens, the Employees will get word.

 

kFL

[Vigile]

Disagree Skip,

 

The "wall of seperation" is not specifically written in the C, but the concept exists in the Sep clause. It has been upheld in several major decisions. US law is both legislative (written by congress) and precidential (determined by court decisions). Until at least one major decision is overturned, the wall of sep is Constitutional regardless whether or not it is spelled out. Those who argue otherwise are making the same mistake as ID proponents make when they claim that evolution is just a theory.

[Japedo]

Disagree Skip,

 

The "wall of seperation" is not specifically written in the C, but the concept exists in the Sep clause. It has been upheld in several major decisions. US law is both legislative (written by congress) and precidential (determined by court decisions). Until at least one major decision is overturned, the wall of sep is Constitutional regardless whether or not it is spelled out. Those who argue otherwise are making the same mistake as ID proponents make when they claim that evolution is just a theory.

 

 

Agree,

 

One can hold a belief in dogma near and dear to their heart. That belief is not to be legislated into law of the land. It would fall under the establishment of religion clause in the first amendment. Where Deity or faith would established and set as a state recognized religion.

 

All other gods/ dogma/ or lack there of would then be infringed upon. It's a complete breach of the constitution. Each men held their private belief, that belief was suppose to stay out of law/government.

 

 

I liked your Letter to the editor Wizened Sage, Welcome to ex-C and hello to a fellow New Englander

[MathGeek]

Yet, what Skip said about the electorate controlling the representatives is true also. If the people desperately want a theocracy, they can vote in representatives AND a president who could, in essence, appoints judges to all the federal benches to ensure the demands of the people are met. Theoretically, if more and more Christians decided to send judges that "use" biblical principles to render decisions to the key benches via the electoral process, then it can be done. Granted both arguments are sound, I think if the people of the United States really wanted a Christian nation, they could conceivably have it. Which is why I am somewhat fearful of having Huckleberry and similar believers in the congressional seats in charge. And his character is somewhat flawless thus far since the mainstream press hasn't printed a real word of vitriol against him, despite reports of his son being a psychopath that tortured animals.