Does Mike Huckabee want a theocracy?

Anyone?

This entry was posted in Journal. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Does Mike Huckabee want a theocracy?

  1. Mark says:

    OMG, that guy is so far to the right that it makes my head hurt.Some of the things that come out of that man’s mouth both terrify and appall me.My political views fall somewhere between a strict constitutionalist and a libertarian (I also lean towards being an isolationist as well) so I’ll be voting for Ron Paul in the primaries, then again in the actual election… as a write-in if necessary.Anyone who wants to “amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards” is seriously disjointed from America and the origins of our country.I’s like to know exactly how Mike would amend it. What in the constitution is “not in line” with “God’s standards”?God’s standards according to whom?

  2. Brenda says:

    Don’t know about the theocracy, but I would like to address “God’s standards according to whom?” What about those found in the Bible? As far as what in the Constitution itself (strict constructionist position) is not in line with God’s standards, probably nothing. I suspect that he was talking about various interpretations of the document which have taken place over the last 200 years.

  3. Derek Lidbom says:

    Our knowledge of God’s standards “as found in the Bible” are open to all the issues of hermeneutics. I am CONSTANTLY (still) amazed at the number of people who appear to have consistent and solid interpretation guidelines, who using (almost) exclusively the Bible and arrive at mutually exclusive positions. I realize only one (at BEST) of the views is correct, but my point is when we legislate Biblical morality, we are asserting that the view we are trying to legislate is absolutely the only correct interpretation of that piece of Biblical morality. I’m still working through to what extent we should legislate Biblical morality, because I do believe you have to legislate some sort of morality.I believe the comments Huckabee made about amending the Constitution so it is within God’s standards were in regards to creating amendments “against” homosexuality and abortion. I would love to know more specifics if anyone has any.I am opposed to abortion and don’t support “special rights” for homosexuals, but amending the constitution to include language referencing homosexuality specifically is cause for a flinch, in my opinion.

  4. Brad R says:

    Regarding constitutional questions, it’s important to keep in mind that that instrument was meant to be a “living, breathing” document that could be changed and provided a specific mechanism (Art. V) for doing so. So, you could still push to have it amended and be a “strict constitutionalist” (depending on what you actually mean by that term). I’m fairly certain no candidate has suggested/proposed more amendments to the Constitution than Ron Paul. I think this discussion–at least in its current form–is hard to have without knowing a couple of things:1. What specific changes does Huckabee want to make to the constitution?2. Can you even have a theocracy in a democracy/republic? 3. What do we mean when we use the term “strict constitutionalist” (or strict constructionist)?I think the second question really answers it. I would say you can’t have a theocracy in a democracy/republic. As long as the government serves the will of the people, it does not serve the will of God unless the people do so first. I know of no time in all of history where such a thing has happened for any sustained period of time. I think the two concepts are mutually exclusive. If Huckabee doesn’t want to do away with our democracy/republic form of government (I have heard nothing to say he does), then he does not want a theocracy. For what it’s worth, I’m not defending Huckabee. Having grown up in Little Rock, Arkansas, I’ve had the chance to see him lead. I would never vote for the guy. But I think that’s for another discussion.

  5. El Gray says:

    Yes. Yes he does.

  6. Richard says:

    Those things which are ‘open’ to interpretation from the Bible are theological from which there can be no resolution until the end of time as known to man. Those things which we consider moral law are not open to interpretation because the Scriptures do not present us with alternatives. A strict “Constructionist” should, at this point, be agast at the ‘interpretive’ changes made to the Constitution to date. It is only a matter of time before “freedom of religion” is formally changed to “freedom FROM religion”.

  7. Jon Wright says:

    I agree with Brad. Our very nature as a republic/democracy prevents us from becoming a theocracy. “Mutually excusive” is the right phrase to use when refering to these two types of governments. Yet even though this is true, there is a way in which religion is needed in a democracy. Our Founding Fathers saw this relation clearly and knew of its necessity. Let me quote the greatest of them all:Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.- George Washington in his Farewell Speech

  8. Brad R says:

    I’ve gone back and listened to Huckabee’s most recent comments calling for an amendment to the Constitution, and one thing occurred to me. It seems that presidential candidates are increasingly calling for constitutional amendments (remember all the talk in ’04 about amending the constitution to address the gay marriage/civil union issue). This allows candidates to deliver lofty rhetoric to galvanize their base while calling for something that they could never deliver. Amending the constitution requires a 2/3 vote of the Senate and approval by 3/4 of the states. Even if Huckabee were to propose an amendment “so it’s in God’s standards,” it would NEVER pass–and he knows this. It’s a dog and pony show. Jon, agreed. Although your quote from George Washington gives credence to Derek’s point. Washington spoke and wrote in very vague terms about religion, and I wonder whether he and Huckabee would agree on what it would take to bring the Constitution into conformance with God’s standards. I suspect that they would not.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *