Should The U.S. Constitution Conform To God's Standards?

[myth-one.com]

On the night of January 14, 2008, Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee made the following statement:

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.

Questions for debate: Should we risk our national heritage by amending the Constitution to meet God's standards? And who defines "God's standards?" The President?

[cnorman18]

This is an incredibly bad idea.

[myth-one.com]

Hi Cnorman18,

This is an incredibly bad idea.

I hope you mean that "amending the Constitution to meet God's standards" is the bad idea, and not my opening up the question for debate.

If that is your meaning, I wholeheartedly agree!! I haven't slept well since reading his comments. Is this how the Taliban started? Scary!

[cnorman18]

Hi Cnorman18,

This is an incredibly bad idea.

I hope you mean that "amending the Constitution to meet God's standards" is the bad idea, and not my opening up the question for debate.

If that is your meaning, I wholeheartedly agree!! I haven't slept well since reading his comments. Is this how the Taliban started? Scary!

I meant changing the Constitution, of course.

Huckabee strikes me as a bit right of "evangelical" but not quite all the way to "fundamentalist." I think this might be more of a case of not thinking through what he's saying than of outright religio-fascism. Of course, that's scary enough all by itself.

The Constitution ain't broke. Therefore...

You know the rest.

[McCulloch]

Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee makes such stupid statements that the chance of him being elected to the presidency is not any greater than George H. W. Bush's son. We should be very frightened!

[pwsoldier]

To quote someone from another debate forum I participate in: "There is a special circle of hell reserved for people who vote for this guy."

If there's one issue that hasn't been addressed properly in this election race, it's seperation of church and state. Given the conservative slant we've seen in the last 8 years, I think more people should be concerned about this. With everything from faith-based initiatives to assaults on the rights of women and homosexuals, Bush has torn down the wall of seperation. Now we have Huckabee suggesting by no subtle means that he wants to do the same thing. Not only that, he seems willing to do it by screwing with the First Amendment. It's guys like him that make me want to believe in hell.

[realthinker]

On the night of January 14, 2008, Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee made the following statement:

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.

Questions for debate: Should we risk our national heritage by amending the Constitution to meet God's standards? And who defines "God's standards?" The President?

Our national heritage is everything that has gone on from its foundation to today. Just because they lived before me does not give my ancestors more significance. Their intent and desires were expressed in their day. Our understanding of certain topics has arrived from theirs. But my views on what is good and right and acceptable, my notion of how I would like people to live together and to function as a society, is just as legitimate. I resent, vehemently, the notion that earlier generations are more legitimate just because they can be associated with some idea that a particular group wishes to promote. My generation is in no fashion lesser than any that has gone before!

[cnorman18]

On the night of January 14, 2008, Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee made the following statement:

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.

Questions for debate: Should we risk our national heritage by amending the Constitution to meet God's standards? And who defines "God's standards?" The President?

Our national heritage is everything that has gone on from its foundation to today. Just because they lived before me does not give my ancestors more significance. Their intent and desires were expressed in their day. Our understanding of certain topics has arrived from theirs. But my views on what is good and right and acceptable, my notion of how I would like people to live together and to function as a society, is just as legitimate. I resent, vehemently, the notion that earlier generations are more legitimate just because they can be associated with some idea that a particular group wishes to promote. My generation is in no fashion lesser than any that has gone before!

Maybe, but the value of the Constitution has been proven in that the United States has the oldest and most stable government on Earth and has become and remained the most powerful, the wealthiest, and the most envied nation that has existed since the fall of Rome. And those are all good things.

The generation that produced the Constitution of 1789 has been proven to have been wise and just. Our generation has yet to prove much of anything.

In any case, it's not clear to me; are you saying the Constitution ought to be changed to fit "God's standards," whatever that means, or not?

[realthinker]

On the night of January 14, 2008, Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee made the following statement:

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.

Questions for debate: Should we risk our national heritage by amending the Constitution to meet God's standards? And who defines "God's standards?" The President?

Our national heritage is everything that has gone on from its foundation to today. Just because they lived before me does not give my ancestors more significance. Their intent and desires were expressed in their day. Our understanding of certain topics has arrived from theirs. But my views on what is good and right and acceptable, my notion of how I would like people to live together and to function as a society, is just as legitimate. I resent, vehemently, the notion that earlier generations are more legitimate just because they can be associated with some idea that a particular group wishes to promote. My generation is in no fashion lesser than any that has gone before!

Maybe, but the value of the Constitution has been proven in that the United States has the oldest and most stable government on Earth and has become and remained the most powerful, the wealthiest, and the most envied nation that has existed since the fall of Rome. And those are all good things.

The generation that produced the Constitution of 1789 has been proven to have been wise and just. Our generation has yet to prove much of anything.

In any case, it's not clear to me; are you saying the Constitution ought to be changed to fit "God's standards," whatever that means, or not?

The constitution has indeed proven its value across the generations. Those were indeed marvelous individuals. History, though, has not shown yet the value of my generation. Perhaps it will be significant only in maintaining the lineage for another later generation of individuals that does something even more marvelous than the crafting of our constitution.

The point is that I don't believe that the invocation of our ancestors and the selfish interpretation of their intent or beliefs is a legitimate reason to disregard the opinions of the current population. Then is not now. The conditions are not the same. Their conclusions about how to govern may remain valid, but their reasoning and their motivation may not apply. Read that again, because I think it is VERY significant. Their conclusions about how to govern may remain valid, but their reasoning and their motivation may not be.

Let's keep the conclusions and validate them against what we know of the world and its new dynamics. We're not fighting a tea tax. We're not fighting the quartering of soldiers at our expense in our homes. We're not looking out at a wilderness of undiscovered country that's been claimed by a king to the dismay of indigenous people.

So, to clarify since I did not address the question, I do NOT believe that the constitution should be changed.

[cnorman18]

On the night of January 14, 2008, Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee made the following statement:

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.

Questions for debate: Should we risk our national heritage by amending the Constitution to meet God's standards? And who defines "God's standards?" The President?

Our national heritage is everything that has gone on from its foundation to today. Just because they lived before me does not give my ancestors more significance. Their intent and desires were expressed in their day. Our understanding of certain topics has arrived from theirs. But my views on what is good and right and acceptable, my notion of how I would like people to live together and to function as a society, is just as legitimate. I resent, vehemently, the notion that earlier generations are more legitimate just because they can be associated with some idea that a particular group wishes to promote. My generation is in no fashion lesser than any that has gone before!

Maybe, but the value of the Constitution has been proven in that the United States has the oldest and most stable government on Earth and has become and remained the most powerful, the wealthiest, and the most envied nation that has existed since the fall of Rome. And those are all good things.

The generation that produced the Constitution of 1789 has been proven to have been wise and just. Our generation has yet to prove much of anything.

In any case, it's not clear to me; are you saying the Constitution ought to be changed to fit "God's standards," whatever that means, or not?

The constitution has indeed proven its value across the generations. Those were indeed marvelous individuals. History, though, has not shown yet the value of my generation. Perhaps it will be significant only in maintaining the lineage for another later generation of individuals that does something even more marvelous than the crafting of our constitution.

The point is that I don't believe that the invocation of our ancestors and the selfish interpretation of their intent or beliefs is a legitimate reason to disregard the opinions of the current population. Then is not now. The conditions are not the same. Their conclusions about how to govern may remain valid, but their reasoning and their motivation may not apply. Read that again, because I think it is VERY significant. Their conclusions about how to govern may remain valid, but their reasoning and their motivation may not be.

Let's keep the conclusions and validate them against what we know of the world and its new dynamics. We're not fighting a tea tax. We're not fighting the quartering of soldiers at our expense in our homes. We're not looking out at a wilderness of undiscovered country that's been claimed by a king to the dismay of indigenous people.

So, to clarify since I did not address the question, I do NOT believe that the constitution should be changed.

Well, okay, then.