Huckabee: Amend Constitution to be in 'God's standard'

While we're at it, let's amend the Constitution to make into law these obvious and indisputable laws of God:

It shall be a crime to not honor thy father and mother.

It shall be a crime to take the Lord's name in vain.

It shall be a crime to not keep holy the sabbath.

It shall be a crime to covet thy neighbor's wife.

It shall be a crime to covet thy neighbor's possessions.

If we are to go with God's laws and make them into laws of the state, let's not be ******* about it. Either we're in, or we're out. God is not a diety to be obeyed on an "a la carte" basis. Are you for God's laws being made laws of the state, or not? Half measures are for ******* and sinners.

Of course, if we are a CHRISTIAN nation (not just a Godly nation, no sir -- we live the New Testament here), then we must make law the Great Commandment, so, a couple more amendments:

It shall be a crime not to love the God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength.

It shall be a crime not to love your neighbor as yourself.

There. Those are the biggies. We can probably leave the matters in Leviticus for statutes -- I have some really good ideas on how to punish people who eat shellfish, or who have sex with their wife while she's on her period.
 
Everyone here likely knows my position about religion and politics by now. They are intertwined in ways that will never be undone. That being said, in many ways we need MORE seperation of religion(church)/ and state, and in some ways we need to see there isn't any such thing.

I haven't been a Huckster backer, and I can certainly see why people will disagree with his position to insert God into the Constitution. As a Christian, I can see that he believes that God has more authourity than the Constitution. I also see that as a politician if you want to change the laws of this country you do it by changing the Constitution. I don't see anything 'un-American' about that. I just see it as his position and something that many (including myself) disagree with.

Also, Ag, you should know that morality is legislated, and it is instilled in the laws of our country including in the Constitution. Legislating morality is NOT a bad thing. The issue becomes what should and should not be legislated in the moral sphere. Murder is illegal. Murder is an issue of morality. I don't see anyone arguing that we shouldn't legislate or pass laws against murder. Then there are the murkier issues of morality that we disagree and debate upon the need/desire to regulate them through law. Abortion would be an example. If abortion is murder, then why wouldn't we regulate it? If abortion is a woman's right to choose do to with her own body what she will, then why would we? We haven't gotten to the point where we legislate what people eat or what they wear. There are issues of morality tied up in eating and wearing, but also issues of privacy and free speech. We try to weigh those issues and pass laws accordingly.

Huck didn't have my vote, so he couldn't lose it. Although, I don't agree with his statements, I don't think it was un-American either.
 
again, any data to back up your claim of data? Is there some Jeebus-meter 2000 somewhere that measures these things?
 
And of course, we all know that there was no naughtiness in the good old US of by God A before the 60s. I mean, certainly not at the hands of the fine 'mericans of The Greatest Generation:

Nose%20Art.jpg


Note -- I had to search for a while to find one where you couldn't see nekkitudeness.
biggrin.gif


I'm pretty sure there was plenty of prayer going on inside those bombers, unimpeded by the perversion painted on the outside of those bombers. God seems to exist just fine in close proximity to bare boobage. So, that's another thing that me and the man upstairs can agree on.
biggrin.gif
 
anecdotal vs. evidential is why. youre anecdotal experiences are worthless alone and not fit for making broad generalizations. Your lone experience fails to accurately describe the lives and decisions of hundreds of millions of people in 1960.

you claimed graphs and data, if you have no graphs and data then don't cite graphs and data. Instead you cite Leave it to Beaver. By your logic, The O.C. and FNL describe my teenage years
wtf.gif


then again you're the one who cites texas statutes governing CDL's, thinking they're the same as the Class C licenses in most of our back pockets.
 
The death rate by violence in this country peaked in the 1860s (the civil war killed the **** outa some folks), and in the late 1880s-1900 (the wild west was wild indeed -- we wuz shootin' each other left and right -- at a higher rate than today's drive-by culture).

The good old days weren't always good.

Even your beloved post-war, pre-60's era wasn't terribly nifty, if'n you wasn't white.

"String 'im up!"

Waterfountains and businesses: "Whites Only"

Bombingham, Alabama

Yeah, thank you very much, but you can keep your goddamned ideal era, when folks weren't dumbfucks -- they were just cruel and vicious racists. As for my mexican ***, I'll take today, where I can work where I want to, eat where I want to, and marry who I want to, and not fear for my freaking life, thank you very f'n much.

Oh. But today, we can see butt cheeks on TV. Yeah, that's MUCH more morally objectionable than treating millions of Americans as second-class citizens.

I don't know where in the hell you got your morals from, but mine tell me that it's a lot worse to treat millions of people like **** than to show a boob shot on HBO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top