|
Post by wdmundt on Jan 16, 2008 11:50:15 GMT -4
Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee wants to change the Constitution so that it reflects the Bible. The YouTube video below is from MSNBC: www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OldusRj7jAAnd the "liberal media" go insane covering it! Oh, wait... they aren't covering it at ALL.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 16, 2008 11:58:27 GMT -4
Huckabee isn't going to win the Republican nomination, let alone the Presidency, so who cares what his mythical presidency would do?
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Jan 16, 2008 12:04:33 GMT -4
I care. He won Iowa and was third yesterday in Michigan. He's currently tied for second in the delegate count. I'm sure someone is considering him as a VP candidate so he can bring the evangelical votes along.
Foolish and dangerous and the "liberal media" isn't covering it.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 16, 2008 12:06:40 GMT -4
Well, if he becomes a candidate for President or VP I won't vote for him. Can you summarize what's in the video? I won't watch You Tube at work.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Jan 16, 2008 12:16:13 GMT -4
He says, "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 is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards."
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 16, 2008 12:22:41 GMT -4
That's kind of vague. Did he have a particular part of God's standards he wanted the Constitution to conform to?
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Jan 16, 2008 12:32:27 GMT -4
How can that possibly matter?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 16, 2008 12:45:24 GMT -4
Well I haven't been a fan of the guy ever since he pulled out the anti-Mormon card, but I like to think I understand someone's position before I start flaming them for it.
You can say right now "I don't think the constitution should be changed on strictly religious grounds," I guess, but I would still like to know what he's really talking about (if anything).
Get the context of a remark before you start flaming it. In context it might not be as unreasonable as you thought.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 16, 2008 12:47:54 GMT -4
For instance, a short while ago Will Smith got a beating from the media because he reportedly said "Hitler wasn't really evil." What he had actually said was essentially that "evil people don't think they're evil. Even Hitler didn't wake up in the morning and think 'what evil can I do today' - he thought he was doing good even when he was doing evil." The full quote in context makes a lot more sense, and actually has a very different meaning from what was first reported.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Jan 16, 2008 13:06:02 GMT -4
"what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards" isn't specific enough for you? It's specific enough for me.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 16, 2008 13:12:41 GMT -4
No it's not. On the face of it it looks bad, but I can't be sure until I know the context.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 16, 2008 13:31:40 GMT -4
I googled the remark, and it seems that it is way open to interpretation. Some commentators think he was talking about removing the right to US citizenship by birth. Others think it was about banning gay marriage, teaching creationism in schools, making wives subserviant to husbands, felonizing masturbation, or burning Paris Hilton at the stake as a witch (I assume the last one was probably joking).
The whole exercise seems to be the old game of "look at the scary Evangelist". In other words, fear mongering.
The President can't ammend the Constitution anyway.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Jan 16, 2008 13:43:55 GMT -4
What if a Muslim candidate said the same? I'd feel exactly the same as I do right now. Would you?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 16, 2008 14:13:31 GMT -4
Hmmm. I think my reaction would be basically the same. My first reaction would be "boy that was a stupid thing to say in today's political climate," (a reaction I had but didn't voice when you summarized Huckabee's comments) and my second would be curiosity - "which parts of the Constitution does he think don't meet God's standards? What is he really trying to say here?" If I then went and googled up a bunch of websites that really didn't know what the candidate meant with the remark but used it as ammunition to claim the candidate was making open attempts to implement sharia in the Constitution I would probably write it up to anti-muslim prejudice.
My reaction would be roughly the same either way because I feel the American people in general understand the principle of protecting religion from the state, and they simply won't vote for someone who's too radical one way or the other (either for implementing their own religious agenda through the laws or for implementing their anti-religious prejudices). Anyone who says "I plan to ammend the Constitution to bring it into line with God's standards," has shot himself in the foot to a good majority of American voters, regardless of his religion. The possible benefit to be gained by appealing to a zealous minority who share his religious affiliation is outweighed by the damage done before the majority, and the candidate will have to distance himself from those remarks if he wants to get any traction with a majority of voters.
I might eventually wonder if the muslim candidate really did mean that he wanted to implement sharia law, since there actually are a few Islamic theocracies in the world. I think that would be my only point of departure from a Christian candidate.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jan 16, 2008 15:04:37 GMT -4
The problem with such comments like Huckabee’s is that they are vague. They are codes to play up to certain voting groups by saying ”I am one of you,” without committing to any particular policy. Commitment to a specific religious right agenda would be foolish but H is good at drawing conservative evangelicals to support him through such phrases.
The vagueness of his statement leaves it open to interpretation, leaving each of us free to interpret it within the context of his campaign. If he want to stop such speculation it is up to him to clarify what he meant. Until he does that we are free to argue the intent behind the message without waiting on him.
H’s statement indicates that he has the political desire to frame the government on his version of Christianity and that of the evangelical right. I deeply oppose that. Individuals should be guided by morality, governments should be run by reasoned principles, not one man’s interpretation of the Bible. H gives more than lip service to the religious right they are his base. I would cast my first vote for a Democratic presidential candidate before I’d vote for Huckabee.
|
|