« Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence | Main | Extraordinarily Mangled »

January 15, 2008


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

If only it were that easy to get these idiots to shut up and go away.

Another thing: Didn’t they, in fact, rewrite the bible several times?

I saw this story at Pharyngula, and while I hate a theocrat as much as the next atheist does, I have to wonder about the context of Huckabee's remark. If he was talking at the time, specifically about one issue, for example an amendment to define "marriage" as the union of one man and one woman, then his comments make sense. Evangelicals are motivated by their religion to oppose gay unions, and they want a constitutional amendment to do so.

That's not news. Note: I disagree with that view, but we've all known all along that it's their view. If that was the context, then his comment isn't very remarkable.

On the other hand, if he was just saying that in general the Constitution should be amended to be in accordance with the Bible, then that is a shocking thing to say.

Does anyone know the context?

It was apparently in the context of marriage and the family if you watch the rawstory video that is in the linked article.

However, even given the context this is a terrifying thing to say. He wants to amend the Constitution for religious reasons and nothing else. This is a direct violation of the establishment clause.

How about he amends the Constitution to fit some of his other views on marriage, like the subservience of women?

This comment is indeed remarkable and quite frightening.

I don't think it's a violation of the establishment clause, to amend the Constitution with religion as the motivation. For example, imagine if there was a president 100 years ago who wanted to give women the right to vote, because it fit with his view of his religion. Would that be a problem?

No, I don't see how. We have to evaluate proposed amendments based on our own evaluation of the rightness/wrongness, regardless of the motivations of people who support it. The proposed marriage amendment is wrong because it's wrong, not because some people are motivated by their ancient texts to propose it.

"For example, imagine if there was a president 100 years ago who wanted to give women the right to vote, because it fit with his view of his religion. Would that be a problem?"

It wouldn't be a problem because his 'religious view' can be based on evidence (ya, know...that women are those things called 'peoples'). But does that view have anything to do with religion or faith? I think the point is to make sure laws are based on evidence and rational thinking--if a religion happens to take the same view I would consider that a unrelated bonus.

I'm glad I live in Canada--Huckabee would never have a chance in politics here.

Sorry Curt but I beg to differ.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Huckabee intends to amend the Constitution to make law something that is based only on his own religious texts and beliefs. He is therefore asserting (or respecting in the wording of the clause) the supremacy of one religious view to any and all others, and including the secular view.

It is most definitely a violation of the establishment clause to make law based solely on or in favour of one religious preference and belief.

For example, imagine if there was a president 100 years ago who wanted to give women the right to vote, because it fit with his view of his religion. Would that be a problem?

Yes, if religion was his sole motivation. As Sara pointed out, there are plenty of other more reasonable non-religious reasons to grant universal sufferage. To do so only for religious reasons still breaks the Establishment clause, regardless of the outcome.

Interestingly enough, I wonder how Huckabee feels about women voting anyway. Especially if a wife's intended vote differs to her husband's.

The establishment clause was specifically written to prevent the very thing Huckabee says he wants to do.

What's scary is that this guy is a viable candidate for the presidency, a position where he would be sworn to uphold the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, and to him that document is just a bunch of nonsense because he happens to believe that the Bible is more important for running the country than the Constitution.

Uh, Chaya, we already have a president in office that believes the constitution is meaningless and that the bible is more important. We have a congress that believes that HR847 is the definition of a "necessary bill."

I don't see the madness in this country ever coming to an end, until the country itself comes to an end. I'm waiting patiently for the next election to come around. I want to see the results. If another religious KOOK ends up in office again, i'm going to get my passport in order and start seeing about getting a visa for canada or england or france or any other country. actually maybe not england. i hear they're having their own religious infighting out there.

This is getting serious. Remember Judge Moore (IIRC) with his rock with the ten commandments on it - and how many minimized the issue by claiming that the BoR and Const were based on the commandments... argh!
(BTW: "Capitol Steps" has a hilarious song about Huckabee to the tune of "Let it Be")

It's the same problem all over Xtianity and for some reason, they feel immuned to producing real proof for any of their junk. Show us this 'living god' Mike. Can't? Won't? didn't think so.

The fact that a religious nujob like Hucabee even has a chance to be president is disheartening to say the least.

120 to 314 huckabee mcain on super tuesday. 318 to 405ish for obama/clinton

The comments to this entry are closed.

Search site