Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
I took a colleague to task recently over his description of Mike Huckabee as a Christian reconstructionist. I pointed out that Huckabee is a premillenarian, while reconstructionists are post-millenialists. But while it's not accurate to call Huckabee a reconstructionist, it's certainly accurate to call him a theocrat:
"I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution," Huckabee told a Michigan audience on Monday. "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 so it lines up with some contemporary view."
I predict that this is going to hurt him even among evangelical voters (and in Michigan last night, he actually received 31% of the evangelical vote to Romney's 33%, which is a seismic shift in voting patterns after Iowa and New Hampshire).Even most evangelical Christians do not favor theocracy, only the really hardcore ones do.
On a substantive level, the statement is almost refreshing in this sense: at least he's not taking the David Barton/Roy Moore line of claiming that the Constitution already is a Christian document that makes the Bible binding as a matter of law. This is another big split among theocrats, between those, like Gary DeMar, who argue that the Constitution already is an explicitly Christian document, and others, like Gary North, who argue that the Constitution was explicitly anti-Christian.
Huckabee is probably somewhere in the middle, but at least he recognizes that the Constitution doesn't require Biblical law as it's now written. Still, it's a frightening statement that should, in a sane world, immediately relegate Huckabee to the looney bin of politics.
Comments
I'd love to see the look on his face when I asked for certain "Biblical" law that would turn his supporters blue in the face opposing... starting with Jubilee, let's see how the US economy fares if it has to set itself up on a model that forgives debts on a predetermined basis...
I mean, if you're going to be Biblical you should really go whole hog right? (/snark)
Posted by: kodiak | January 16, 2008 9:10 AM
It is indeed a disturbing comment. On the plus side, it will damage his electability. I haven't been able to find a video that gives its full context. If I were to guess, based upon the family comment it sounds like he is specifically giving a rationale for supporting an anti-gay marriage amendment. Does anyone have access to the full speech?
Posted by: Jason S. | January 16, 2008 9:23 AM
Yes, it seems to me that he got out ahead of his skis, and took a tumble. Sad, when you have to watch what you say, in case how you really think comes out.
However, don't panic - There is a couple of things we can do now to prepare for The New Theocratic USA:
1. Stockpile stones now. Avoid the rush later
2. Prepare your slave quarters - expect a lot of influx.
(unless God talks to President Huckabee and says to exterminate all our enemies, instead of enslaving them).
3. Increase the insurance on your First Born Son - God likes a little sacrifice every now and then.
See, it's easy. God sends us plagues, locusts, and lemons, we turn them into lemonade.
Praise Jesus! Praise President Huckabee!
Posted by: J-Dog | January 16, 2008 9:34 AM
When you think about it, though, it is not all that radical. What were his other choices? I mean, you could bring it in line with the word of all the dead gods, but frankly I don't see that garnering a lot of votes. Or you could choose to have a constitution that draws authority from "We the People". As someone much more gifted with words than I am put it, it would be a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people."
And who needs that?
There's too much pollution in our constitution
As any good Christian can see;
Compare with the Bible, and anyone's liable
To note that the two don't agree.
And so, if we tell 'em it's just ink and vellum,
Not sacred like God's Holy Word
The people might buy it, and let someone try it
Although it seems wholly absurd!
A nip and a tuck 'd be just fine for Huckabee--
Really, I don't like the odds--
He already said it; he's ready to edit,
And substitute Man's law with God's.
This ludicrous scheming (I wish I were dreaming)
Must surely be nearing its end;
Voters, open your eyes, and say your goodbyes
To the Huckster's invisible friend!
http://digitalcuttlefish.blogspot.com/2008/01/what-thehuck.html
Posted by: Cuttlefish | January 16, 2008 9:37 AM
There's a video-clip here:
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Huckabee_Amend_Constitution_to_meet_Gods_0115.html
And, yes, he's talking about a Offense On Marriage amendment. Doesn't matter, though. He's still talking about imposing HIS religion on the rest of the nation.
Posted by: Michael Suttkus, II | January 16, 2008 9:44 AM
Hmm, I'm not so sure about that. Bear in mind that one of the more common claims of the Christian right is that the true meaning of the Constitution has been perverted by liberal, activist judges. It's not at all inconsistent for them to want the Constitution amended to state explicitly what they claim it already means.
Posted by: MartinM | January 16, 2008 10:08 AM
Cuttlefish - Dude - You have GOT to be getting published! I have noticed your posts at Pharyngula also, and you do some good rhymes /;' raps. Got an agent? Maybe Ed can help!
Posted by: J-Dog | January 16, 2008 10:09 AM
I agree with Ed on this. There is a big difference between a Christian reconstructionist and a theocrat, and from what I see Huckabee is the latter, although in truth I haven't paid much attention to the presidential campaigns. That said, I suspect he advocates laws that he sees as consistent with his Christianity--but that is not really any different from any group, except perhaps libertarians. Liberals want to impose laws--generally lots of them-- consistent with their views, too. Ditto for secular conservatives.
You can even argue, it seems to me, that you can be a theocrat and be in favor of separation of church and state--you just can't be a libertarian. After all, Huckabee might be opposed to murder for biblical reasons, but you wouldn't say that his support for murder laws violated separation. It seems to me one could say: I favor separation, but that doesn't mean I won't play the political game like everyone else--while I don't advocate political power for the church, I am going to exercise my rights as a citizen to advocate laws I like, just like everyone else, and the laws I like are those that happen to be consistent with my brand of Christianity. That ain't me by the way--but I can see the point.
Reconstructionists, on the other hand, really do want church control of the state--including the gathering of stones as my friend J-Dog suggested. It seems to me that to label someone that leans in a certain direction with the tag of the extreme dilutes the meaning of the tag, like if a conservative calls a liberal a "commie."
And as Ed said, the reconstructionists are motivated by eschatology. Huckabee's eschatology, premillennialism, if he were self consistent, should make him sort-of welcome the vast apostasy he sees in the land, because that is a sign, for premills, that the glorious end is near. The reconstructionists are postmills, they believe (I agree with them on this) that the bible teaches Christ will return to a victorious church, not one in defeat or retreat. Since the church at the moment certainly doesn't look victorious, especially in a global sense, postmills take one of two routes. Some of us say: well, I guess Christ is not coming soon, but what we have to do is preach the gospel and rely on the Holy Spirit. The reconstructionists, on the other hand, say--"We'll help the Holy Spirit do his job by preparing a state that would make Jesus proud."
As Ed alluded to--the theological underpinnings of reconstructionism would be utterly disputed by a premil like Huckabee.
As for the evangelical vote, I can only speak anecdotally. The amount of political discussion I see in evangelical circles is far, far less than in the past. Evangelicals were crazy for GW, especially in 2000, and politics was in the air, thick. And density of GW bumper stickers in the church parking lot was high. I see nothing like that now. In fact, the only political bumper sticker I noticed in our parking lot last Sunday was for Ron Paul! (Not on my car.) There is nowhere near the evangelical political fervor this time around.
Posted by: heddle | January 16, 2008 10:28 AM
Heddle and Ed, I am curious, how is "evangelical" defined in this context? I keep seeing that so and so won x% of the evangelical vote, but how is that measured? Is it a census category, or a self-identification? When you use it in a post or comment, how do you mean it?
My sister asked me this last night and I realized it's one of those words I use and "know what it means", without actually being able to articulate a concrete definition. I'm honestly curious how you two (and of course anyone else who wants to chime in) define it.
Posted by: Jeff Hebert | January 16, 2008 10:36 AM
I suspect thats because they thought GW was going to be The Man to push for a moral mandate like the defence of marriage ammendment, that he owed them. But they got burned and felt used and abused as GW and his merry band of brigands had their own agendas.
Posted by: Dave S. | January 16, 2008 10:37 AM
Heddle, your comments are illuminating. The difference is that in the past, both premills and reconstructionists were willing to let their God be the determiner of when to act. Today, they are trying to set conditions such as to force their God to act - and in doing so, do great damage to our national interests, both domestically and internationally.
Posted by: BC | January 16, 2008 10:45 AM
Am I blind or is there a media blackout on Huckabee's (and Paul's) theocratic lunacy? Or is the media waiting for the right time to pull the proverbial rug out?
Posted by: Rod | January 16, 2008 10:48 AM
Jeff Herbert,
I don't know, maybe Ed does. I assumed it refers to self-identified evangelicals. But even in Christian circles, the term has no clear meaning. It once was a synonym for Protestant. But now there are "evangelical Catholics." Roughly speaking, I think it now means "conservative" Christian vice "liberal" Christian, but I wouldn't be surprised if that definition was challenged.
Posted by: heddle | January 16, 2008 10:56 AM
So we -can- change the word of god. That's good to know. What exactly are the requirements? Because, ya know, I would like to see some words changed.
Posted by: yoshi | January 16, 2008 11:16 AM
In my dictionary, Evangelical = Loudmouth Christian. Someone who has "found Christ" and is compelled, for various reasons, to tell everyone they meet that they are saved.
Despite this, I do have Evangelical relatives and we get along just fine. (Heddle? Hedle? Are you all right? Drink some water, you'll be fine!)
Posted by: J-Dog | January 16, 2008 11:19 AM
"Evangelical" has multiple definitions, because it has been around long enough that in many circles it's a desirable label. I explicitly claim not to be evangelical, but there are people who call me evangelical even after they see my own statement.
It would be convenient to go something like "fundamentalist - evangelical - mainline - liberal," but there are folks in all those groups who use the label evangelical. It nonetheless most commonly refers to a group of Christians who are orthodox in doctrine (trinitarian, high view of scriptural inspiration, salvantion through Jesus alone), but are not so literal as fundamentalists, and not so loose as mainliners and liberals, in their view.
Like any word, usage determines meaning ultimately.
Posted by: Henry Neufeld | January 16, 2008 11:26 AM
Nice going Cuttlefish! I'd much rather read that than that stuffy Robert Frost guy with all his straining at making the words fit with his stuffy "o'er" stuff and whatnot. :P
Posted by: 386sx | January 16, 2008 11:26 AM
I'm a bit surprised by the reaction to this in the blogosphere, including Ed's. Why is this stunning? Many if not most social conservatives would support constitutional amendments banning gay marriage and abortion. And they do so overwhelmingly on religious grounds. So Huckabee's only saying what his supporters think. It's just unusual for a presidential candidate to be up front about it - hence the over the top backlash from people like Scarborough and the Freepers. Isn't it better for him to push for constitutional amendments, which can be fought, than by stuffing the judiciary and the executive branch with ideological/party sympathisers as Bush has?
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | January 16, 2008 11:40 AM
I agree with Ginger Yellow. I'm glad to see Huckabee be open and honest about his intentions - it's a refreshing change of pace from the usual stealth degradation of the Constitution that we see practiced by the GOP. The Constitution isn't a sacred document, after all; if We the People want to change it, we can and should.
That said, I don't think his proposed amendments have a chance of passing. It's much easier to fight this nonsense when it's out in the open than when it's under cover, after all.
Posted by: Kenneth Fair | January 16, 2008 12:00 PM
Ginger, I think the reason it's stunning is that a presidential candidate is advocating something that is patently illegal. Huckabee is essentially saying "I want to be President so I can break the most basic laws of this country." And I don't think him being up front about violating the Constitution is any better than attempting to end run around it. He would most likely do both. Speaking out about it directly just shows how insane he is, and indicates he could be even more dangerous than was previously thought.
Posted by: Jason I. | January 16, 2008 12:12 PM
So, if elected, and he swears on the bible to uphold the Constitution, it means exactly what?
Why does he hate America so much?
Can you say "sedition"?
Posted by: RAM | January 16, 2008 12:14 PM
Ed said, "at least he's not taking the David Barton/Roy Moore line of claiming that the Constitution already is a Christian document that makes the Bible binding as a matter of law."
I agree with your post in general except I wouldn't claim an absolute position for Huckabee on the quoted topic above (the statement yes, but Huckabee, no). My careful scrutiny of Huckabee is that he is very ignorant about the ramifications on many of his positions taken to their logical conclusion or even the validity of the premise supporting his claim. Instead, he appears to favor espousing whatever is rhetorically pleasing to his perceived audience, similar to a preacher who doesn't fear that his congregation is digesting his claims critically or comparing to previous sermons. For example, when pressed about his support on the FairTax with questions about the challenges of implementing this sort of tax reform, it's clear he doesn't understand the concept at the most elementary level.
I wouldn't be surprised to see future claims from him that directly rebut these claims without any acknowledgment a reconciliation is in order unless pressured by the media; similar to what Tim Russert forced out of Romney in his Meet the Press appearance regarding his "no freedom with without religion" claim.
Huckabee is an extremely ignorant, sloppy thinker, though often charming and witty, with many examples supporting my claim.
BTW, Joe Carter, a Huckabee supporter, has made an excellent attempt to define Huckabee to a pretty detailed level, though he avoids the ramifications of many of these positions, e.g., how does one support denying gays equal rights without either explaining how gays don't deserve rights or why it's OK to deny gay rights and still believe in equal rights and protections at the individual level as a general principal. http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/004182.html
Posted by: Michael Heath | January 16, 2008 12:26 PM
Jason I.
I think the reason it's stunning is that a presidential candidate is advocating something that is patently illegal.
Huh? How is desiring to amend the Constitution "patently illegal"?
The Constitution has been amended many times in the past and will no doubt be amended in the future. How can announcing that you wish to do something that is not illegal be illegal?
I'm confused by your reasoning.
-Richard
Posted by: Richard | January 16, 2008 12:30 PM
Heddle wrote:
I don't think there's as big a difference as you do. Reconstructionists are theocrats, they're just a particular type. Huckabee is a theocrat without being a reconstructionist. They have different starting points but reach a similar conclusion. I just think we need to be careful with those labels and apply them as accurately as possible.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | January 16, 2008 12:30 PM
Richard asked:
He didn't just say he wanted to amend the Constitution. He said:
I'm fairly sure that would be a violation of the First Amendment.
Posted by: Jason I. | January 16, 2008 12:39 PM
Jeff Hebert wrote:
Two different situations, two different answers. When it comes to exit polling, it is based solely on self-identification. One of the first questions they will ask them is whether they consider themselves an evangelical Christian or not.
In other kinds of statements about evangelicals, Henry Neufeld did a pretty good job of explaining how it's typically used. There is no precise definition of the word that could be used in any rigorous manner (at least not in the context of political discussions).
Posted by: Ed Brayton | January 16, 2008 12:39 PM
I have to second Jason in those feelings about it but I must add that I'm heartened to see that it's losing him support (permanently I hope).
Cuttlefish, the poems are great! And I do like Frost too.
Posted by: Donna | January 16, 2008 12:41 PM
There's nothing illegal about amending the Constitution to ban abortion or gay marriage, even if your motiviation is explicitly to align the constitution with the Bible. It's deeply anti-liberty, and against the spirit of the Constitution, but then so was Prohibition. And besides, it wouldn't be the first time a candidate has advocated something patently illegal. Look at most of GWB's 2004 campaign, for instance.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | January 16, 2008 12:46 PM
Ginger Yellow:
You bring up a good point. Can the Constitution be amended to include a provision that violates one of its prior provisions? I suspect the answer to that is no, except that that particular legal challenge has never been faced in the nation's history.
Which is all the more reason not to attempt such a thing, ever. If our own founding document is self-contradictory, where does that leave the rest of us?
Posted by: Patrick | January 16, 2008 12:49 PM
On second thought, I suppose you actually could, except that it would have to be a two step process. First, the establishment clause in the 1st Amendment would have to be explicitly stricken by the new amendment, and then the provisions of the new amendment spelled out.
And that of course would invalidate 200 years of case law.
That sounds like fun.
Posted by: Patrick | January 16, 2008 12:54 PM
Merely having a religious motivation for proposing an amendment does not mean you're violating the 1st Amendment.
Posted by: Gretchen | January 16, 2008 1:02 PM
Evangelical is really synonymous with recruitment. Evangelism is based upon witnessing and conversion and an acknowledged evangelist must both witness and induce others to conversion. Evangelicals are lay preachers attempting to entice new membership and evangelism is a simply PR campaign executed by the layperson on the street. Some sects build the entire premise of a religion upon evangelism; however, this is simply a pragmatic survival design in that a church or community only survives as long as its constituents participate and an evangelical community is compelled to participate by its very definition. Also, it never hurts to have new money brought in so as to expand the size of the coffers. This rhetorical environment is why the sermons presented in evangelical churches are emotional appeals rather than reasonable arguments and ultimately why evangelicals are generally always fired up. It is simply the nature of evangelism itself to engage in specious argumentation as it is a daily exercise with weekly, bi-weekly or tri-weekly reinforcement that the position espoused by the evangelical is both infallible and just.
Posted by: James Taylor | January 16, 2008 1:03 PM
Huckabee's insanity aside, the fact that people actually debate stuff like the above should earn folks a quick trip to the looney bin if there weren't so many loonies to begin with.
Posted by: CTaylor | January 16, 2008 1:04 PM
I guess the shorter version is "pyramid scheme".
Posted by: James Taylor | January 16, 2008 1:06 PM
Maybe we could ammend the Constitution to prevent anyone named Huckabee form ever being President.
Posted by: J-Dog | January 16, 2008 1:07 PM
I'm not sure what the legal situation would be with an explicit contradiction (an amendment establishing the Catholic Church). But amendments banning gay marriage or abortion aren't explicit violations of the first amendment. Just because they coincide with or come from a particular religious viewpoint doesn't make them establishment, any more than the 1st amendment is an establishment of Unitarianism or the 18th was an establishment of Southern Baptism. There is a clear, stated secular purpose, even if it's wrong.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | January 16, 2008 1:08 PM
Gretchen:
That's exactly what it does. I suppose a way to weasel out of it is to point out that the Amendment states "Congress shall make no law.." but I'd consider that to be recklessly intellectually dishonest.
If there are no other arguments in favor of the amendment aside from religious ones, it would be a religious law supporting the establishment of a specific religious viewpoint. That's entirely antithetical to the purpose of the 1st Amendment, and depending how you interpret it, the text, as well.
For instance, there's no exit clause in the Constitution. The absence of one didn't prevent Lincoln from fighting the Civil War in order to preserve the Union.
Just because the Constitution doesn't explicitly say "The States can't amend the Constitution to respect an establishment of religion" doesn't mean they really, actually, can't do that.
Purely legalistic arguments aside, yes, it's deeply anti-liberty and against the spirit of the Constitution. You'd have to be blind to argue otherwise (not that I'm saying you are).
Posted by: Patrick | January 16, 2008 1:16 PM
Jason I:
Thanks for the clarification, but I guess I'm uncomfortable with the notion that intent makes a difference between legal and illegal. Yes, I know that intent can affect the severity of an illegal act (manslaughter vs. murder), but using intent to cross that line doesn't seem right to me.
(As I'm typing this and trying to work out how to say what I want to I'm coming up with all sorts of conflicting situations, such as "loitering" vs. "protesting" or stalking cases where intent clearly matters...)
So, I still don't think that Huckabee's statement is "patently illegal", but I'm starting to see much nuance. I look forward to reading comments from others here.
-Richard
Posted by: Richard | January 16, 2008 1:16 PM
Ginger:
Can you give me an example of how such amendments would benefit anyone who didn't support them from a religious perspective? That is, can you give me objective scientific or policy reasons why such amendments would be necessary? No religious arguments allowed.
It seems to me like you're trying to play devil's advocate with that statement. The problem I have there is how much it actually has to ignore in order to do so. Devil's Advocate only works when the advocate is including just as much fact and opinion as the opposite viewpoint, in order to demonstrate that two intelligent minds can examine the same data and come to different conclusions.
Posted by: Patrick | January 16, 2008 1:19 PM
Patrick, "secular" and "justified" are not synonymous. If Huckabee wants to pass amendments against abortion or gay marriage, all he has to do is say that abortion is murder and gay marriage de-legitimizes straight marriage, which he undoubtedly believes. Those are secular reasons, whether you agree with them or not. The fact that Huckabee's motivation is religious is therefore irrelevant.
Think of an amendment to the Constitution that you would actually support, and then imagine someone proposing it because their religion tells them to. Is that amendment therefore illegal, because it violates the establishment clause?
Posted by: Gretchen | January 16, 2008 1:25 PM
Gretchen - I want you on my side, if I ever get caught TPing (toilet-papering)Huckabee's house.
Posted by: J-Dog | January 16, 2008 1:31 PM
Gretchen:
I'm not saying they are. That's a strawman argument. He'd have to explain HOW they de-legitimize straight marriage. I challenge anyone to do that without relying on religious arguments.Raw assertion is not a secular argument.
This is the heart of the matter, isn't it? The answer to your question is NO. If there are ONLY religious arguments in favor, the answer is YES. Just because an idea is religiously motivated doesn't make it bad.For instance, when Prohibition was in effect, the arguments in favor of it ranged from drinking being immoral (insert your favorite Bible quote here) to it causing too much domestic violence (insert your favorite statistic here). There ARE arguments in favor of Prohibition that aren't religiously motivated. They're not sufficient to make Prohibition a good idea, but just because religious arguments exist in favor of the idea doesn't make the idea a violation of the Establishment Clause.
That is exactly why I asked you: Can you give me an example of how such amendments would benefit anyone who didn't support them for religious reasons?
Posted by: Patrick | January 16, 2008 1:32 PM
"Can the Constitution be amended to include a provision that violates one of its prior provisions?"
Didn't that happen with Prohibition? The Constitution was amended to to enact prohibition and many of the motives expressed supporting such a ban were fundamentalist-Christian religiously-based; hence the Prohibition Amendment should have been a violation of the Establishment Clause. Yet it became law and was enforced as law until its subsequent repeal (primarily due to the fact that it was so widely ignored).
Posted by: Engr Tony | January 16, 2008 1:38 PM
Patrick, I'm not saying that the secular reasons Huckabee would be presenting are good ones. I'm saying that if he can provide secular reasons, he's not running afoul of the establishment clause.
Obviously I don't think people would benefit from them (which would be why I don't support them), but I can easily imagine people supporting them for non-religious reasons. You don't have to be religious to think that both abortion and gay marriage are wrong, and should be illegal.
Posted by: Gretchen | January 16, 2008 1:39 PM
Gretchen:
Fair enough
Logically speaking, you're right, but that's why I asked if you had examples. I haven't seen anyone assert such support for non-religious reasons.
Posted by: Patrick | January 16, 2008 1:43 PM
Patrick is wrong on this one. Yes, an amendment can contradict an earlier part of the constitution and the amendment would, in fact, take precedence over the earlier provision with which it was in conflict. Lots of amendments have. The 14th amendment contradicted earlier provisions in the Constitution by making binding upon the states what was originally applied only to the US Congress, for example. That had the effect of rewriting the first amendment so that it now says "No government agency at any level shall...." rather than "Congress shall...". The whole point of a constitutional amendment is that it rewrites and supercedes the earlier text; if it didn't, there would be no need for the amendment.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | January 16, 2008 1:54 PM
Ed:
Smackdown accepted. :)
That said, I don't think anyone here disagrees that would simply be in complete opposition to what the 1st Amendment stands for and the principals upon which this nation was founded.
Posted by: Patrick | January 16, 2008 1:57 PM
Tony, the proponents of Prohibition grew out of the temperance movement with justifications ranging from domestic violence issues to religious arguments. The Women's Christian Temperance Union was probably the most influential proponent of temperance and was at least somewhat religiously motivated; however, the issue was much more complex hence the ability to build a platform for Prohibition around non-religious issues. The issue certainly didn't crop up over-night. The temperance movement was a substantial political football all troughout the 1800's with the ultimate culmination of their efforts at the turn of the 20th century. In the end, the temperance movement proved to be the minority opinion and was relegated to the ash-heap of politics which is why Prohibition was ultimately repealed. The fallout over temperance laws still affect daily life in at least some portion of the rural south. There are many local temperance laws on the books that either create dry towns or counties or prevent the sale of alcohol on Sundays.
Posted by: James Taylor | January 16, 2008 1:58 PM
I think Patrick's question is more of whether such amendments actually would contradict and supersede an earlier part of the constitution-- not whether they're allowed to do so.
Posted by: Gretchen | January 16, 2008 1:59 PM
Patrick wrote:
Oh, no doubt about that.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | January 16, 2008 2:05 PM
CTaylor,
Oh, but we have so much fun arguing stuff like that. Please don't take it away from us.
Posted by: heddle | January 16, 2008 2:17 PM
I have to admit I hadn't paid any attention as to the context of Huckabee's statement, i.e. abortion and gay marriage. I was responding to the statement alone, not the context, when I made the "patently illegal" comment.
Posted by: Jason I. | January 16, 2008 2:20 PM
As long as one realizes that is all it is have at it.
Posted by: Ctaylor | January 16, 2008 2:24 PM
Some of the comments suggest to me that there may be insufficient awareness of how vulnerable to idiocy one is even in a constitutional democracy. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that (in theory) if 50%+1 of the voters in 3/4 of the states want badly enough to create or overturn any constitutional provision, they can do so (via amendment). Which at the extremes means that slightly more than 37.5% of the voters in the country could (in theory) do any mischief whatsoever, including creating a full-blown theocracy.
If my understanding is correct, it should be quite disturbing for a rational person to read poll results indicating that 50-60% of the populace believes things that are indisputably contrary to any reasonable concept of "reality". In theory, those believers have the power to enact their delusions into law.
- Charles
Posted by: ctw | January 16, 2008 4:12 PM
Charles -
Luckily, in the US you need at least 3/4 of the states to ratify Amendments to the Constitution. At current count, that's 38 of the states (I THINK they round up...?).
Also, Amendments are ratified by State Legislatures, not by popular vote. Not that that's much consolation, but it at least means that it's easier for dissenters to speak loudly against ratification rather than the mob drowning out their voices.
Consider that in our 220 year history since the Constitution was ratified, the Constitution has been amended only 18 times, and many of those came together in spurts during times of huge upheaval (leading up to and just after the Civil War, for instance).
Posted by: Patrick | January 16, 2008 4:27 PM
Huckabee is a lunatic, for sure, but it is precisely his lunacy that assures me that he ultimately has no chance of taking the presidency. He would most certainly take the Southern states (especially if he was up against Hilary Clinton), but I simply cannot envision him taking the Swing states. He's too much of an extremist.
At least, that's the optimist in me talking. His being so vocal about his delusional desires certainly must be jeopardizing his credibility among even moderately intelligent Americans, though.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | January 16, 2008 4:49 PM
I hear (second-hand, via my wife) that some conservatives are speculating that Huckabee's statements aren't getting much press because the "liberal" media wants Huckabee to get the Republican nomination, since he will be "easier to shoot down" than Romney, Giuliani, or McCain.
Posted by: Squiddhartha | January 16, 2008 5:29 PM
Patrick -
My "37.5% of the voters" rounded up isn't the same as your 38 states. By "at the extremes", I meant if half the voters in 3/4 of the states voted for an amendment and all of the voters in the other 1/4 voted against (1/2 X 3/4 = 3/8).
Because there are all sorts of qualitative arguments why the scenario I posited is unlikely, I ignored the mechanics in the states (not to mention that I have no idea what they are). But if one assumes constitutional conventions and perfect representation, my 37.5% is in theory possible. In the case of state legislatures, it's conceivably even worse. Assume that ratification by each legislature requires majority vote. Then half the legislators plus one, each elected by half the voters plus one could ratify. If you assume that the opposing legislators were elected unanimously, then only 18.75% of the voters in the country could cause ratification.
To repeat, this is all qualified by "in theory". However, look at what's going on in the current campaign, the big state-little state political divides, the high-low population density political divides, etc - the relative influence of that 50-60% seems to be growing. So, it may not be as far-fetched a concern as it appears.
Support for Prof Levinson's contention that our constitution is fatally flawed?
- Charles
Posted by: ctw | January 16, 2008 6:10 PM
Speaking of amending the constitution so that it's in "God's standards", it appears that the Huckster has Georgia on his mind.
On January 22, the poster child for religious lunacy is coming to Georgia to support a resolution by a few of our equally deranged state representatives. This resolution calls for amending the state constitution to declare that life begins at fertilization.
Which I'll guess the Huckster would consider one of those God Standards he was telling the Yankees in Michigan about the other day.
http://www.legis.ga.gov/legis/2007_08/search/hr536.htm
One Emory physician thinks this is a very bad idea, because it could end up banning hormonal birth control in a state that is already in 9th place in the teen birth rate.
http://www.ajc.com/search/content/opinion/stories/2008/01/15/huckabee0115.html
Huckstering points up bill's dangers
By Robert Hatcher
For the Journal-Constitution
Published on: 01/15/08
I have been a physician at Grady Memorial Hospital for 44 years, in family planning for 41 years and a professor of gynecology and obstetrics at Emory for 39 years. I have seen the importance of family planning, including birth control, for the women of Georgia. I am concerned about the impending visit of former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee on Jan. 22, the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court ruling legalizing abortion. He is here to encourage the passage of House Resolution 536, supported by Georgia Right to Life.
Most Georgians are unaware of the full implications of HR 536, which designates personhood in the state of Georgia beginning at fertilization and continuing to natural death. The intention is to ban legal abortion in Georgia. Additionally, defining personhood as starting at fertilization is contrary to the medical definition of pregnancy by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which is at implantation --- when the embryo adheres to the wall of the uterus.
HR 536 would impact all hormonal methods of birth control, including birth control pills, the patch, the Nuva-Ring, injections like Depo-Provera and both currently available IUDs. It could even prevent the use of some forms of assisted reproductive technology and cast a shadow on the reporting of miscarriages.
Huckabee is coming to Georgia to highlight his support of legislation that could prevent public health facilities in Georgia from providing the contraceptives that 95 percent of women use at some time in their lives. Is this what anyone in the United States would want to see happen?
Family planning was designated one of the top 100 health breakthroughs of the 20th century by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. We know, scientifically, that family planning, spacing the amount of time between the birth of children, access to prenatal care and safe, legal abortion contribute to the health of women and families.
I have never understood the lack of support and in some cases overt opposition to funding for family planning by those who oppose abortion. Currently fewer than 50 percent of Georgia's poorest women have access to subsidized family planning services. Many health departments run out of birth control supplies and have to write prescriptions for clients. There are only eight states with higher teen birth rates and seven states with higher infant mortality rates than Georgia. How sad.
I have loved my years of providing individual women with completely voluntary contraceptives, in large part because I have seen the benefits family planning has brought to women and families. If people of conscience on the other side of this issue would join forces with those of us who want to see less teen and unintended pregnancy and reduce the number of abortions, we could make it happen. There are many countries that are far more successful than we are on these issues. Canada has half as many teen pregnancies and Western Europe one fourth as many, largely because of access to sexual health information and contraceptive services.
I do not believe that private and personal issues should be decided by legislators, the state or the federal government, or frankly, by the president. We do not need a Huckabee, on his whistlestop trip through Georgia, to come and make recommendations about changing our state's constitution. We need practical and realistic policies and practices that will help our state climb out of the cellar in health status for women and children. Programs that promote prevention and wellness should be at the top of the list. An ounce of prevention is always worth a pound of cure.
> Robert Hatcher, M.D., is a professor of gynecology and obstetrics at Emory University School of Medicine
Posted by: JC | January 16, 2008 8:41 PM
Anyone else heard about Huckabee's weird "don't refer to natural disasters as 'acts of God'" incident about a decade ago? He sent a bill back to the legislature because its language didn't square with his insipid theology. Ridiculous.
Posted by: Jim Anderson | January 16, 2008 9:10 PM
The Huckabee Amendment:
Article I. The president shall not enforce any law which, in the sole judgment of the President, conflicts with the word of the living god.
Article II. No person shall be impeached, nor shall anyone be convicted of a high crime or misdemeanor, whose acts violate the constitution or laws of the United States or of any state, provided that said acts shall be in accordance with the laws of the living god as determined in the sole judgment of the president.
Article III. No person shall have a judiciable action against the United States, or against any state, or against any person for any act that the president, in his sole judgment, shall determine to be an act in accordance with the laws of the living god.
Article IV. The president shall be required neither to approve nor to veto any purported act of Congress that the President in his sole judgment determines to be at variance with the laws of the living god, nor shall any such purported act become law without the president's signature or upon a vote of two-thirds of each House of congress.
Article V. Upon the adoption hereof, the president shall have sole power to enforce the provisions of this amendment
Posted by: PoxyHowzes | January 16, 2008 10:21 PM
I think Huckabee could most accurately be called a Dominionist. Most of the Southern Baptist crowd (consider, for example, Rick Scarborough) seem to fit quite neatly in that slot. They're just about all premillennialists -- thus their very influential support for Israel. They absolutely HATE the independent judiciary and long to rein all the "activist" judges in. That's if, of course, those judges don't get assasinated by the righteous. No, I'm not kidding. As a practical matter, the Reconstructionists are the smaller and more overtly crazy group. The Dominionists are far more numerous than most people realize; they've been very successful in inserting their ideology into major denominations, notably the Southern Baptist Convention, and truly enormous numbers of people who've never heard the word Dominionist have been taught, from the pulpit, to support the movement's goals.
What saddens me the most is that both ideologies are profoundly un-American. It speaks volumes for the poor quality of history instruction -- what we used to call "civics" -- that the average pew-sitter who's conned into the movement can't recognize how antithetical to American values it is.
Posted by: Leigh | January 17, 2008 4:08 AM
The "how" of it.
You would have to pass an amendment rescinding the protections for freedom of religion ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...") and allowing "religious tests for office," and then whatever other provisions you want to insert.
In other words, start by repealing the First Amendment.
Yes, it would be legal to do that. But it has an approximately zero chance of happening. If anyone even tried tampering with the First, there would be a sudden nationwide surge of enthusiasm for the Second.
And as for Hucksterbee, if he gets elected, Canada and Mexico are going to have to worry about a sudden influx of political refugees and he's going to have to worry about how the economy is going to function when the best & brightest have fled like Jewish physicists from Nazi Germany.
Posted by: g510 | January 17, 2008 1:29 PM
I find this whole debate fasinating and have been studying the Federalist Papers to see the original intent and whether, as some claim, this is a Christian Nation based on the Constitution. So far I would say no it is not. It seems to be a broad compromise among many factions and interests to all try and work together. As it should be in my mind.
As far as whether their are some "Theocrats" among the "Religious Right" I do not doubt and will not be voting for Huckabee if he said this stuff. What I cannot understand as an Evangelical Christian (Meaning that I believe in the good news that God is real, I was seperated from Him at birth, Jesus died because God cares and I am valuable, and in his death through faith and repetance I can be reconciled to God) who is a Libertarian is why the rhetoric gets so extreme and labels get thrown around?
I think it is good to define our terms in this debate. What is the "Religious Right" ? What is an Evangelical? What is a Libertarian? What place did God have in the founding of our nation? What place should He have? My faith is personal about a personal God. It is not about a bunch of rules and laws. I think that is the difference. If God does exist then we need to see what He has to say about government in my mind. If one does not believe He exists then why should he tell me that I cannot explore this line of thought in study and views?
What I am saying is: If the document was based on compromise and all working together why should a "there is no God opinion" have anymore value than "there is a God opinion"? Leave all the laws and Theocracy aside (which is dangerous in my mind and was not in anyway what the Constitution set up in fact it warned against this) can we discuss as a nation about what God may have to say about all this? He was invoked in the Declaration. In short, you guys do not seem to want me to impose my views on you through government. Could you be doing the same thing to me that you hate?
Freedom of Religion is a right of all Americans. Freedom from religion is impossible in today's world. We might as well debate it and my view would be all need to have the right to liberty of consciene. Which is hard to maintain when people intensely disagree. Loud mouths are not limited to Evangelical Christians. They come in all shapes and sizes.
Posted by: King of Ireland | January 17, 2008 1:57 PM
Re. King of Ireland: The reason we get so upset with Huck and co. is that in a very real way they are undermining the basis upon which all of us, you and I and everyone else here, are free to act on our own consciences with respect to matters of faith. When the line between church and state is breached, at first it looks like a good deal for you if it happens to be your church that is getting state endorsement. However pretty soon comes the time when the state decides it wants to call in its chips and the next thing you know it's interfering with your religion. Look at the "Mormons aren't Christians" thing: it is attempting to create a de-facto religious test for office by mobilizing voters on that basis. Should the LDS Church have to conform to Southern Baptist theology? Or vice-versa? And the bottom line for a lot of these politicians is frankly Mammonism: the worship of worldly gain and power as ends in themselves.
---
Re. Constitutional amendments: Nor is there any requirement that they comport with facts or reason or human decency or common sense. One could propose an amendment stating that the Moon is made of green cheese, and if it was passed it would become the law of the land. One could propose and pass an amendment "clarifying" the phrase "cruel and unusual punishment" to be interpreted based upon the word "and," so that any cruel punishment that was "the usual punishment" for an offense would become constitutional.
What I find interesting is how very often these instances side-step items as basic as the definition of words. For example, "life" begins at conception.
The medical and in most states legal definition of death is "brain death," the cessation of brain activity. Thus, no brain, no mind, no person, no legal standing. If death occurs when the brain ceases to function, then life begins when the brain begins to function, and redefining "life" to include blastocysts without functioning nerve cells much less brains, is as much a violation of logic and common sense as attempting to define the Moon as made of green cheese.
Same case with marriage. One male and one female? How do you define male and female? External genitalia? Chromosomes? What do you do about persons who are born with dual genitalia, or with chromosome combinations such as XXY (the XX of female, and the XY of male, where one of the Xs is "shared") or XXXY (full set of XX and XY)? There are about a million such people in the US right now, so this is not an abstraction. Deny all of them the right to marry?
What about someone with dual genitals and XY chromosomes whose parents "decide" to have their (small) male genitals removed and "assigned" to female, and then the person grows up and, due to the effect of their XY chromosomes on their brain, has "male" brain wiring and is "heterosexually" attracted to females? In terms of external genitalia that person is female and lesbian! Shall we forbid that person from marrying a woman? And if we allow them to surgically switch to get male genitals, and marry a woman, then what about someone with XX chromosomes who has been "female" all their life and is attracted to women, getting surgically switched over to male genitals in order to marry another woman...?
And when the righties talk about the "sanctity" of marriage, make no mistake: sanctity is sacredness, which is a religious characteristic. Nowhere else in our law is a set of legal rights dependent upon a religious sacrament. You don't get to vote after you've had your confirmation or your mitzvah, you get it when you turn 18 regardless of whatever religious ceremony that marks spiritual adulthood: legal adulthood is age 18, including for atheists.
---
If I had it to do, I would want to pass an amendment stating that no law may be passed that is based upon factual or logical falsehoods as determined by empirical methods. That would make for some interesting debates, wouldn't it..?
Posted by: g510 | January 17, 2008 3:16 PM
Re: King of Ireland- some history.
http://www.theocracywatch.org/
Posted by: Rick R | January 17, 2008 3:46 PM
King of Ireland wrote- "If one does not believe He exists then why should he tell me that I cannot explore this line of thought in study and views?"
No one has the right to tell you anything at all about your faith.
I think what gets vastly under-discussed in this whole conversation is the notion of 'responsibility'.
From what I can see (not having any experience at all with Evangelical Christianity) is that EC's (for short) don't see their responsibility to their God ending with the act of voting their conscience in a democracy. What I have seen many times is the idea that unless the laws ALL Americans live under are changed to conform to some 'biblical' standard, that God is going to be royally pissed and remove his 'blessing' from across the land.
This I believe is why EC's are perceived as rude, arrogant pushy and pious in the public sphere.
This would be opposed by the rest of us who believe that just because someone has the right to do what we wouldn't want to (marry someone of the same sex for example), doesn't necessarily means it is just to deny them that right, or that any diety will start hurtling tornadoes and other undesirable meterological phenomena upon the face of the land.
Posted by: Rick R | January 17, 2008 4:02 PM
Evangelical Christians, Fundamentalist Christians, Dominionists, Christian Reconstructionists- lets's just call them "people who think theocracy is a good and worthy idea".
That's comfortably broad.
The problem these folks face is that America was not created in this image. So they have told many many lies about the foundations of America, and have drawn up fake history to defend their position.
What was somewhat unusual about Huckabee's statement was that he didn't actually try to state the usual lie- he actually told the truth about the Constitution: that it is a secular, not a christian document.
That was a first.
Posted by: Rick R | January 17, 2008 4:17 PM
King of Ireland, for the non-evangelicals, freedom from religion is an entirely reasonable expectation. Since evangelism depends on ministering to the unconverted whether the unconverted want the ministering or not, it is only that particular type of religion that demands that freedom from religion is impossible. I know many people content in their religious convictions and beliefs; however, I generally don't have to be subjected to soap-box sermons on hellfire and brimstone awaiting anyone who disagrees with a non-evangelical. When I worked in the local bar district, I saw many pathetic scenes; however, the most pathetic was the weekly megaphone march by the evangelicals accompanied by the giant banner adorned with the lake of fire and passages of revelations scrawled about it. Many confrontations arose because they would corner revelers and preach and preach and preach about the sins this unknown person was guilty of. Frankly, the evangelicals behavior was abominable. You are suggesting that I have no right to bypass these self-righteous louts and live my own life. The churches I participated in as a child at least had enough respect for others to not berate strangers and castigate them for imaginary sins. That weekly march did more to damage evangelical Baptists than all of the peer complaints from Baptists I heard throughout my childhood. The system the evangelicals espouse is one of shame, threat and fear. I personally believe that I have every right to avoid being cornered by a radical, crazed, deluded group of people who hold positions that make no sense and I demand the freedom to bypass such a misguided group where herd mentality trumps reason, intellect and the simple act of engaged conversation.
Posted by: James Taylor | January 17, 2008 4:20 PM
Another scene was a group of evangelicals approached outside a local fast-food restaurant by a panhandler. Rather than actually help the panhandler out, they formed a ten-minute prayer circle then offered him nothing. The evangelicals subjected him to their judgment and offered him nothing but empty words in return. In the end, he just stood there while they happily pilled into their suburban content with their good works. The panhandler was left exactly as before except with a lower self-esteem than he had before the encounter. Considering that I live in the heart of the Baptist Evangelical community, these encounters are fairly common and are truly enlightening for myself.
Posted by: James Taylor | January 17, 2008 4:35 PM
Rick R stated:
"What I have seen many times is the idea that unless the laws ALL Americans live under are changed to conform to some 'biblical' standard, that God is going to be royally pissed and remove his 'blessing' from across the land"
I would agree that this is stated or implied often. I think it is a somewhat misreading of the Bible by many Christians. I used to be an athiest then they tried to turn me into a preacher when I got saved. I would often go out and preach to churces until I realized it was a waste of my time. Why? The message that most churches put out is similar to what you stated above.
I feel that in my reading of the times in the Old Testament when God blessing was removed from the land it was not so much because God's people or others did bad things it was that they had forgotten God. I look at the book of Hosea and see that the allegory is of a jilted lover not some stern rule maker. The law was given to show us that we need God. When God removes His blessing it is to show us we need Him. This is both personally, as communities, and as nations.
This is where I differ with "The Religious Right". They want to emphacize the law over relationship. It usually turns into some sort of State Church in the end that is so far from anything that God intended that He has to come and tell the church people they are far worse off than the heathen. Look at the Pharisees. This type of Religion stifles freedom and usually progress and prosperity with it. Yes much of what has been called Christianity has turned into this throughout history.
I personally am thinking of ways to change the whole scene as far as politics and govenment go. We are missing it as Christians in that the first ones who came here left those types of places where they were persecuted. I will stand up for the Muslim or Jew just the same. Or the athiest for that matter. The second we give up our freedom in the name of any idea or fear we are all done.
Posted by: King of Ireland | January 17, 2008 8:12 PM
James Taylor Stated:
"When I worked in the local bar district, I saw many pathetic scenes; however, the most pathetic was the weekly megaphone march by the evangelicals accompanied by the giant banner adorned with the lake of fire and passages of revelations scrawled about it. Many confrontations arose because they would corner revelers and preach and preach and preach about the sins this unknown person was guilty of. Frankly, the evangelicals behavior was abominable."
This is wrong man. Sorry for these guys. Modern day Pharisees.
Posted by: King of Ireland | January 17, 2008 8:17 PM
I've argued before that the fact that so many of these churches relegate Christ's teachings to a footnote (if they mention it at all) calls into question if these are 'christian' churches at all. The old testament definitely trumps the 'new covenant', I believe it's because it's much easier to inspire fear in the unsaved using the 'angry daddy' of the OT as opposed to the compassionate Christ of the NT. Fear makes people easy to control, and control is what it's ultimately about. See the movie "Jesus Camp" for a sobering demonstration of that dynamic in action.
And then there are 'churches' like the Assembly of God, who make the Pentecostal Evangelicals look like teddy bears in comparison.
With such groups, reasoning becomes impossible. See this article written by a former Christian cult member...
http://dogemperor.livejournal.com/122878.html
Posted by: Rick R | January 17, 2008 8:45 PM
As an aside, has anyone ever made a graphical chart showing the breakdown of all the various christian sects, sort of a "family tree" representation of how the different groups split from larger groups and are related, with a brief writeup of how they differ theologically?
For instance, I know in a general way that Protestantism split from Catholicism, and that all the fundie varieties we normally speak of are subsects of Protestant Fundamentalism. But other than that, I'm vague. History of religion wasn't my subject at all.
Posted by: Rick R | January 17, 2008 9:34 PM
I think King of Ireland needs to realize that not every crazy in his religion is innocent until proven crazy.
Posted by: Brian | January 17, 2008 11:16 PM
Rick R said:
See this article written by a former Christian cult member...
I read the article and can relate. I was in a church like this for years. I lost my Mother and Wife in a short period and was in bad shape at 24. I started going to this church because my ex and other members of my family were there. The charasmatic Pastor met with me one day and asked me if I wanted my wife back. They had been guilting her into taking me back for a while since she had come in.
In the end, I too realized slowly but surely that much of the crap I was taught there was just that: crap. The man imposed his own leaders and talked about "submission" to leaders all the time. I knew something was wrong but I was so detached from real society that I could not really see it. As I began to get around other groups and finally left my world expanded and I began to study the character of God. I have recently decided to cut all ties with this group. I gave away my son to his step Father through adoption because I wanted to be a "missionary" to the heathen and thought that God would get me if I let people go to hell and did not leave my son behind. Someone put that idea in my head. By the way the ex did come back but left again when she realized that they had manipulated her into doing something she did not want to do.
Now my ex was not letting me see the child anyway so I do not beat myself up too much. But I think now I see now that she got out and did not want him in this crap. Thank God He got out when he did. It was too late for me in regards to him. I do go overseas and did what they taugth me. I crashed and burned and now I am 34 living at home and jobless because of the whole in my resume from years of seeking to have a "ministry" like they told me. My eyes have been opened though and even though I struggle with depression and feel like a fool at times, I am so happy that I can enjoy life again. Thank God I have a degree and normal work experience. So many go to there Bible schools or training schools and realized later in life they have no realskills to survive in the world. They have degrees that are worthless in the real world. I feel for them.
I did find God in that Church though. Do not ask me to explain how. That is why I cannot personally throw out the baby with the bathwater. I am not on this sight to bash you guys or defend Christians. Some or much of this is indefensible. I am saying that God gets a bad name because of people who give it to Him. I am with you and this discussion on here over the last months has been healing to me as I realized just how far things have gotten off in some circles. I watched Jesus Camp and it saddened and scared me. I think it was when I really saw the complete truth about what I had been in. Thank God I was not born into that crap. I do have a point of reference to go back to unlike so many.
If this is what you guys are against I am with you. I just think a reasonable discussion about God can be had apart from all this. There is a time and place I agree. But I would add again that there is other groups in this country that in the name of their own freedom would take away others. I would love to see a debate about the Constitution and God's role in society. If it is zero in some people's minds they should be able to state that. But dialouge is important and all have to have their say. Even the nuts like the Jesus Camp people. Freedom is a dangerous but necesary thing.
Thanks Ed for opening my eyes to what some of these guys are trying to do. I read Barton and some of the others. I think there is some truth in what they say. But in the end I think most of them want to legislate morality. The other groups say ingnore the government though. This is just as bad in that it teaches people to be heavenly minded but no earthly good. I have a love of History, Government, and Politics, that was stolen from me for years by people who taught me that handing out little pieces of paper that told people they were going to hell was the essence of life. I want to take my faith an apply it to doing what Jesus said to do: Bring Heaven to Earth. Practical good in all aspects of society.
If God is what He desribed Himself as in Exodus 34:5-7: Compassionate, Gracious, Slow to anger, Abouding in love, Faithful, Forgiving, and Just. Then I want to see how I can bring this aspects into the realm of human governments. I think we can all agree that these are things we need more of. The rub is what does it mean and how to go about it. Dogmatic religionists seek to coerce by fear. It never works and is a reproach to the character of the God of the Bible.
Posted by: King of Ireland | January 18, 2008 12:50 PM
Rick R stated:
As an aside, has anyone ever made a graphical chart showing the breakdown of all the various christian sects, sort of a "family tree" representation of how the different groups split from larger groups and are related, with a brief writeup of how they differ theologically?
I wrote a book about Church History and how different movements spring up from the old ones. The point was how after generations things get so bad God goes in another direction. The Assemblies and most Pentecostal movements came from what was known as the Methodist Holiness movement. There whole doctrine was seperation from the evil world to make oneselve holy and presentable to God. The thing I was in was like that. It got worse over the years as the "law" was imposed as the way to God. I can send it to you if you want to read it you can see patterns for sure.
Brian stated:
" I think King of Ireland needs to realize that not every crazy in his religion is innocent until proven crazy"
I agree. My concern is that all are thrown in the same boat and no dialouge takes place. It would be like me saying that all homosexuals are nuts and are not value to society. I do not believe this. I think that it is wrong. I also think it is less of a big deal to God than most Evangelical's would think. It is no different than my lying or cheating. Labeling the whole group in any sense imposes the fear that you guys seems to oppose being used against you.
When we are divided we are conquered. I feel that there are interests out there that love to polarize things and make it feel like their is no compromise. Divide and conquer. Read Federalist Paper 41. Madison talks about this. The only thing that keeps the Union together is compromise. The more polarize things get the better chance we lose it and something far worse takes over. The homosexual is no more the bogey man to me than I should be to him. I want to worship the way I chose. He wants to do what he wants to do. He does not want my thing imposed on him and the same for me. I am afraid that both sides have an agenda and it is to limit the rights of the other in the name of preserving the their rights.
Posted by: King of Ireland | January 18, 2008 1:03 PM
King of Ireland wrote- "I am afraid that both sides have an agenda and it is to limit the rights of the other in the name of preserving the their rights."
Can you be more specific? What rights do you as a Christian feel are being threatened? Doesn't the first amendment already adequately guarantee your right to worship the way you want to?
Posted by: Rick R | January 18, 2008 5:14 PM
Rick R asked:
King of Ireland wrote- "I am afraid that both sides have an agenda and it is to limit the rights of the other in the name of preserving the their rights."
Can you be more specific? What rights do you as a Christian feel are being threatened? Doesn't the first amendment already adequately guarantee your right to worship the way you want to?
The last I read about the Hate Crimes Bill months ago they were trying to make it the right of the Federal Government to enforce state laws against saying homosexuality is wrong. The general idea goes like this: The Christian or whoever says in the hearing of the Homosexual that it is wrong. The Homosexual hears it and it hurts him. He can sue under the hate crimes law and get the person fined and I think 10 days in jail. If the state does not enforce this than the Federal government will come in and do it.
Let me state this: I think homosexuality is wrong. But no more wrong than me lying. It is crazy the big deal most Christians make about all to do withit when poor people are dying all over the world. There is more to values than telling gays what do in their own homes. But I do think I should have the right to say it is wrong.
Now I know where this comes from. It is the the guy with the bull horn who yells that all the fags are going to hell. I tell these guys to shut up all the time. But they do have a right to say it. So the relgious jerk should have the right to be a relgious jerk and the gay man should have the right to be the gay man. Is sex in public ok? I am not sure. I think we need some order. If the bull horn guy really get out of line should we shut him up? Yea maybe.
I think that boths sides are hypocrites. The bull horn guy wants the right to say what he wants and if stopped will call Jay Sekulow. The other guy wants the right to what he wants but wants to lock the bull horn man up. This is broad but I think illustrates my point that if there is people who are eroding our freedoms as we all argue this would serve them well to have both camps hate each other. Not all gays want to have sex in the street. Not all Christians want to be bull horn man. When we paint both groups in such dogmatic ways I think it puts us in danger of having our freedoms taken from both the right and the left.
Posted by: King of Ireland | January 18, 2008 5:26 PM
Do people really think this way? I must lead a sheltered life as I have never once seen a gay man have sex in the street.
And that one isn't either. It's a civil contract plain and simple.
Posted by: JimC | January 18, 2008 7:01 PM
King of Ireland,
Here is a some info that might help you decide if a Hate Crimes Bill would affect your ability as a Christian to hold opinions...
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_hat2.htm
Basically, a hate crimes bill that includes sexual orientation would not give special protection to gays as it would also cover violent crimes made against someone who was heterosexual based on their sexual orientation.
Also, it would cover VIOLENT CRIME, not thought or even speech. Christians, including pastors, would not be effected unless a clear conspiracy could be proven. i.e.- persons seeking to commit a violent act discussing their plan with a pastor, and the pastor clearly condoned the violent act. This is far from a pastor preaching their views on homosexuality from the pulpit or even in the street.
Christians (or any religion) are already protected BOTH by the first amendment AND currently existing hate crimes legislation.
Posted by: Rick R | January 18, 2008 7:24 PM
Jim C said:
Not all gays want to have sex in the street
Do people really think this way? I must lead a sheltered life as I have never once seen a gay man have sex in the street.
I am refering to the parade months ago in San Fransico that Bill O Reilly was pissed about. Supposedly eye witnesses saw sex acts in the street. That is was I am talking about. My point is that what some consider objectionable others consider part of their rights as free Americans. I think the whole evangelical movement has lost credibility with its stance on the gay issue. I am not that worried about it personally. I think it is a red herring.
Posted by: King of Ireland | January 18, 2008 9:35 PM
Hmmmmmm. I wonder what Bill O'Reilly was doing at that parade?
Oh, you mean it was just something he heard about and was presenting as fact?
Bill O'Reilly is a hatemonger.
Posted by: Rick R | January 18, 2008 9:53 PM
The purpose of the hate crimes was to differentiate a crime against gays, regardless of the other provisions of the bill to dilute the impression of particularization. Hate crimes are following the trends in Europe where religious statements are, indeed, imprisonable offenses. The camel's nose is under the tent.
To believe that it is not thought crime being defined, one must assume that hate is not a thought, it is an action. If it is an action, it is different than any other action. So a "hate" assault would be more damaging to the broken arm than a regular assault. This is preposterous, so the answer must be that the crime is more than physical damage, it is "thought" damage also, and therefore it is a thought crime. (hate is a mode of thought, after all).
Denying that a "Hate" crime is a thought crime just doesn't change the facts. Soon the hate itself will be defined by the victim; will be extended to the thought itself, independent of physical damage; will protect certain powerful groups and not others, if not specifically, at least de facto by prejudicial differential prosecution.
Stan
Posted by: Stan | January 18, 2008 10:09 PM
Uh huh.
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=1422
Posted by: Rick R | January 18, 2008 11:32 PM
Rick R. Stated:
Bill O'Reilly is a hatemonger.
Based on what? Did you watch the show? I am not saying that the guy is right all the time. I disagree with him a lot. But there were reports from the scene of what some would term improper sexual behavior. It is not even about the gays. If I did the same thing with a woman I would be arrested. The whole point is that each group seeks to limits the rights of the other group to ensure their rights.
I also agree with Stan. The only way to prosecute someone on a "hate" crime is to get into their mind and see their thoughts. What scares me is that some of the rational for these types of bills is correct but in that the behavior they seek to curb is wrong. The question is how to go about stopping gays from being attacked just because they are gay? A legitimate concern can be used to erode Constitutional rights. It is the rights I am concerned about not so much the issue.
Hitler scared everyone into giving their rights up. He villified the Jews and used it to take everyone's rights away until they were all gone and the only law was what Hitler thought.
Posted by: King of Ireland | January 19, 2008 11:18 AM
Rick R, What is described in the URL you posted is terrorist behavior. Behavior can be correctly categorized and judged; mental processes cannot. The conundrum of the policing of any free society is that policing occurs after the fact; the crime must be commited first. In a non-free society the policing comes first, as a prophylactic, preemptive clamp on potential behavior. Hate crime legislation is totalitarian; the thought is not to be tolerated. The punishment is preemptive, on behavior that didn't happen.
Terrorist control is beset with the same difficulty. Is it a hate crime to pray to Mecca on a rug while in an airport? Is it a hate crime to be a young arabic male? Is it a hate crime to carry toothpaste onto an aircraft? Or take flying lessons?
Or is it a crime to engage in overt behaviors that can be seen to be illegal and destructive? I think it is the behaviors that need regulation, not thoughts.
Stan
Posted by: Stan | January 19, 2008 6:46 PM
g510 wrote:
Yeah, and Alec Baldwin was going to move to Canada if Bush was elected.
Why don't you be the first to try to start the trend?
Posted by: James Hanley | January 19, 2008 7:23 PM
Not so fast. At least some European countries have laws that forbid "the disparaging of religious teachings" -- with the intent of keeping the public peace. Besides, I don't think any such law has been enforced for decades. Several controversial cases that had conservatives* in uproar about blasphemy have happened in the last 10 years, and not one led to a conviction; I'm not sure if any made it to court in the first place.
* Keep in mind that, for European standards, John Kerry and both Clintons are conservative.
Posted by: David Marjanović | February 13, 2008 6:29 PM