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?

[r~]

Well I would agree, but I wouldn't say that there is a God that sets down these rights...Good but again... God?

God goes by innumerable other names. Choose the one that best fits your understanding. Yet god is the force that is behind our existence; that is our existence; that controls our existence.

ItS
Peace
r~

[OpenedUp]

Well I would agree, but I wouldn't say that there is a God that sets down these rights...Good but again... God?

God goes by innumerable other names. Choose the one that best fits your understanding. Yet god is the force that is behind our existence; that is our existence; that controls our existence.

ItS
Peace
r~

It's hard to argue against something that can not be proven or disproven.

If I said that magical invisible pixies were behind our existence and controlled our existence, how would you respond? How would you say I'm wrong?

Ok that was off topic,
The Constitution specifically makes no reference to the Christian God and specifically calls for no establishment of religion. It is in place to protect the liberties of the people, but not necessarily the liberties set down by God. They may have some similarities but God or the Bible is not and should not be used as an all or nothing guideline.

[r~]

o-

I offer a simple proof of my argument. Depending on the extent of your disbelief, jump from an appropriate ledge and debate on your way down whether your existence is controlled by a greater force. You can always claim that the devil made you do it.

I have not speculated on the form of the force that is existence. Indeed any form flesh might imagine can only be but an image of god and all. I simply state the self-evident truth that we exist due to a force beyond our understanding. Yet it is truly amazing to me how many would still deny this; how many still seek to slay their pixies of straw.

Whether recognized as god given, or not, I stand for the right to use words and names of own choosing. And I will gladly clarify any of my words that might not be clearly understood by all. In turn, please feel free to use your best words and to clarify your meaning as you wish. But please trust that god (In the Spirit of good and all) calls for all patriots to stand against all forms of tyranny.

The spirit of the 'Judeo-Christian God' (as illuminated by jesus) calls to forgive sins and sinners; to not judge and condemn sins or sinners; and to give to government what is government's (the duty to secure liberty and justice for all) and to god what is god's (judgment and condemnation of sins). I cannot think of a greater nor more noble calling or guideline for patriot or government than to hold this spirit of liberty and justice for each and all.

We and all retain the right of peaceful and well regulated pursuit of happiness; no matter laws construed otherwise. It is the duty of a just government to secure this right through regulation and justice.

Should we pass another amendment to further entrench tyranny?
Absolutely not.

Should we pass an amendment to clarify that 'Laws shall not be construed to deny liberty'?
We obviously need to do something to tell all tyrants and terrorists that We stand for liberty and justice for all; no matter the Words of their idolatry; no matter their threat of force.

ItS
Peace through Liberty
r~

[pwsoldier]

Should we pass an amendment to clarify that 'Laws shall not be construed to deny liberty'?
We obviously need to do something to tell all tyrants and terrorists that We stand for liberty and justice for all; no matter the Words of their idolatry; no matter their threat of force.

It seems to that such an amendment would me more symbolic than anything else. I see no reason to put symbolic words in the Constitution. The Bible is loaded with symbolism, and look what it's done to Christian doctrine.

[r~]

It seems to that such an amendment would me more symbolic than anything else. I see no reason to put symbolic words in the Constitution. The Bible is loaded with symbolism, and look what it's done to Christian doctrine.

liberty: the peaceful and well regulated pursuit of happiness
crime: the denial or prohibition of liberty
justice: the balance of liberty between plaintiff and defense

By definition, words are symbols.

The authority and meaning of "laws shall not be construed to deny liberty" are both quite clear to patriots, statesmen and justices. Yet others (tyrants et.al.) will still argue Words and definitions and precedence even as they seek to deny.

That We retain the right of liberty is already established in the constitution. It fits my definition of crime that not our current president nor legislators nor judges will uphold this aspect of the constitution when it interferes with their politics.

An amendment, no matter how symbolic, still carries the weight of law.

Words of the Declaration of Independence heralded our nation's birth by igniting and stoking the spirit of patriots seeking the end of tyranny. Symbolic words and actions might be more effective than you give credit.

Time is pressing more than ever to again find the words and actions to defeat tyranny and terrorism. If it takes a constitutional amendment to do so, so be it. Yet I would suggest impeachment might be an even better alternative.

ItS
Peace through Liberty
r~

[pwsoldier]

It seems to that such an amendment would me more symbolic than anything else. I see no reason to put symbolic words in the Constitution. The Bible is loaded with symbolism, and look what it's done to Christian doctrine.

The authority and meaning of "laws shall not be construed to deny liberty" are both quite clear to patriots, statesmen and justices. Yet others (tyrants et.al.) will still argue Words and definitions and precedence even as they seek to deny.

That We retain the right of liberty is already established in the constitution. It fits my definition of crime that not our current president nor legislators nor judges will uphold this aspect of the constitution when it interferes with their politics.

An amendment, no matter how symbolic, still carries the weight of law.

Words of the Declaration of Independence heralded our nation's birth by igniting and stoking the spirit of patriots seeking the end of tyranny. Symbolic words and actions might be more effective than you give credit.

Wrong. An amendment doesn't carry the weight of law unless there is a system of enforcement set up. This truth made itself very clear after the Civil War, when multiple amendments were put in place to extend rights to blacks, yet for several decades they had no real legislative protection from being treated like inferiors. If an amendment is created to forbid the restriction of liberty on the part of the government, how would you enforce it? How would you keep politicians from following the same pattern of business-oriented politics that has strangled the US since its conception?

[r~]

p-

I understand your pessimism. I will even accept that it was much more than several decades that women and blacks were still regularly treated as inferior. Even today, they still are by some. Yet we currently have both a man of color and a woman running for president. That could only be a dream several decades ago.

Although We still have such a long way to go, we have already come so very much farther.

It is always an uphill battle for patriots and statesmen and justices to secure liberty and justice for all. Evil will always be very powerful in the short term. Yet even as flesh can be martyred and Words corrupted, the spirit patiently remains to be reborn. Now seems as good a time as any.

I am just a small voice in the wildernet. Yet if all of our voices unite together, We can bring about revolutionary changes. Even though it might take our forever; stay alive and keep the faith and take your stand against tyranny.

ItS
Peace
r~

Pass it on.

Liberty is the peaceful and well regulated pursuit of happiness.
Crime is the denial of liberty.
No matter Words of Law to the contrary.

[Sultan85]

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?

You cannot do this because it violates the first amendment, and the due process clause of the fifth and fourteenth; by changing the constitution to meet "god's standards" you are automatically imposing YOUR beliefs, or in this case the state's beliefs, on other people who do not share your beliefs. The framers of the constitution had the insight to make sure this kind of thing would never happen.

Religion out of politics please. I had no idea that Huckabee said that, ugh.

[carolineislands]

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?

It's already being done -- in Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Great idea Huck -- lets just jump on the lunatic fundamentalist bandwagon.

Freakin idiot. I never would have believed there would be even one person in this entire nations stupid enough to embrace this idiotic, maniacal thinking until I watched Jesus Camp. Have you SEEN THAT?

<shudder>

[Logan]

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?

Just what heritage would that be changing, secularism? For the heritage of our nation is firmly grounded in the belief of God. In fact the US Supreme court noted that in 1892 that the 44 states that made up, "WE THE PEOPLE", the United States of America, ALL had God-centered declarations in their constitutions. Many of which had declarations as such, "I do profess faith in God the father, and in Jesus Christ, His Son, and in the Holy Ghost, ONE GOD, blessed forever more." This was a pledge made by all public office holders, as it was a prerequisite to believe in God before even being allowed to run for public office.

If one takes note, all the words that refer to religion do not state "freedom from religion", but rather "freedom of religion". Its true that the constitution was indeed worded to keep any one form of Christian Doctrine to take total control of any state run religion, for this is in fact why this nation was founded in the first place, to escape a state sponsored mandate of any one particular form of religion. Its very clear by the language to be found in All State constitutions that indeed made up the central federal government by representation and thus was established to emulate the peoples will, this nation was indeed founded upon the principals found in a profound belief in Almighty God. Logan