Huckabee is Losing it.

Check out this video showing Mike Huckabee talking about his desire to amend the Constitution in order to put it in line with Biblical principles:

“[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.”

I think this shows that while Huckabee is very likable and personable, he simply doesn’t have the thoughtfulness needed to be the kind of leader we need in a president. If one would stop to think about that statement for a minute, it becomes painfully clear how absurd and un-American this positions is. Andrew Sullivan brings up a good point about how we’d handle divorce is Huckabee had his way. This along with Huckabee’s pandering to the Confederate Flag folks is evidence that his campaign is in trouble. He may win the battle in South Carolina but these kinds of statements may cost him the war.


13 thoughts on “Huckabee is Losing it.

  1. Ethics have to be based on some type of “revelation,” whether one decides that this will be the so-called revelation of human Reason, or the divine Word of God. Is it really so bad of Huckabee to base his political positions on what he believes is revealed truth? What else would he base his policy on?

    He notes that the reason that human rights are even part of the constitution is something which was taken from biblical revelation: each person, regardless of their financial status, racial status, or any other status, has intrinsic worth because they were created in the image of God.

    If we refuse to allow biblical revelation, or some type of revelation at least, to have any type of voice in the debate, we could ultimately lose the ability to assert human equality in any sense.

    For example, in Nazi Germany, most of the church, which by then was very liberal (denying the possibility of revelation in Scripture, denying the existence of a personal God, etc.) and committed to following human reason, this church completely capitulated and went along with the Nazi programme. It was the very conservative (for that time) Karl Barth and Dietrich Bonhoeffer who were able to decry the Nazi propaganda. Meanwhile, the postmodern forerunner Martin Heidegger was using his ‘destruktion’ (tangentially related to Derrida’s ‘deconstruction’) to support the Nazi programme of ‘national destiny.’

    If and when revelation loses a hearing a priori in our political decisions and policies, we are in for some scary times.

    Buy hey, what do I know, I’m just a fundamentalist like Huckabee.

    By the way, I’m not yet committed to a certain candidate or even a certain party. Seriously.

  2. matt, i have no idea what you are talking about in most of your comment but I applaud your attempt to equate liberalism to being pro-Nazi and conservatism as anti-Nazi. bravo 😉

    I don’t fault Huckabee for his convictions, but I wonder if he understands the concepts of freedom of religion and the separation of church and state. we may have our religious beliefs or deeply rooted convictions, but as a president, he is to be responsible for governing those who don’t believe in the Bible and it’s principles as well as those who do. A President need to consider and represent those who may disagree with their religious views. unfortunately our current president doesn’t understand that and as it turns out, huckabee isn’t much different.

    if nothing else, ask yourself how you would react if Romney was making the same kinds of comments in regards to changing the Constitution to be consistent with the Book of Mormon.

  3. I would agree with you Zach. As said, I on one hand to applaud him for doing what he thinks is right, but it may be more proper to take that stance as the leader of a church group or family rather than the country. I do not want a president who is going to be basing his truths on Christianity, which when it comes down to it on a global perspective stage, is a relative truth (I do not mean to offend any Christians out there).

    I want an effective president who has his personal values, yes, but is willing to put the values of the country ahead of that. Someone who is effective in dealing with international affairs and religions and willing to at least take a step into the world viewpoints and paradigms of others when making his decisions. I truly do not see this man as being able to do that.

    America was founded under God, yes, but also as a means to escape conversative religious oppression. Let’s not create the same situations 235 years later anymore than we already have.

  4. “If we refuse to allow biblical revelation, or some type of revelation at least, to have any type of voice in the debate, we could ultimately lose the ability to assert human equality in any sense.”

    Matt you are making a ton of assertions here that have absolutely no basis in fact. Where does the Constitution use the words “God” or “revelation”. If God and revelation are so absolutely necessary to equality and freedom, why are they not the preferred terms?

    In Nazi Germany the Catholic Church did fold under the pressures of fascism and was taken over by the Reich Church. But where on earth did you read that they believed the following: “denying the possibility of revelation in Scripture, denying the existence of a personal God, etc.”?

    Finally: “If and when revelation loses a hearing a priori in our political decisions and policies, we are in for some scary times.” Whose revelation? The Branch Davidians had a revelation given to them based on the Bible through David Koresh in 1994. Pat Robertson talks with God on a regular basis and gives predictions that fail each year. Jim Jones? Calvin is quite clear that when preached, Scripture becomes the very Word of God. That is also revelation. But these various revelations compete don’t they? So which is right? The one you yourself happen to agree with?

    I think you need to do some research here to counter some dis-information you seem to have received somewhere.

  5. Rich,

    Seems true after this weekend doesn’t it… The republican party seems really kind of confused right now. Hard to know what to make of it. It’s evidence in itself that Bush really failed in a lot of places including the disintegration of his own party. Who knows, they might even produce a republican candidate some day!

  6. Fascism actually has a lot in common with Liberal America. They held/hold most of the same values in common…education for everybody, keeping religion out of government, reason and science, public health care, etc. Aside from persecuting certain genetic groups, most Liberals would probably have very little problem with Nazi Germany or WWII period Italy.

    There are, in fact, books about this, documenting it quite clearly. However, leaning toward things that the Fascists leaned towards does not make the liberals facists, it just gives them qualities in common.

    There is a common belief in America that at some point, being American is based on Christianity. This is, in fact, false… there were certain theistic beliefs that shaped a lot of how the founding fathers shaped the constitution, certainly, and much of what we value as westerners comes out of a theistic or Christian tradition (Sanctity of Human life, Loyalty, Honor, etc.) but in fact much of how modern American Christianity (which is more of a folk tradition than anything to do with the actual bible) practices goes directly against what both Christ and Paul preached.

    Nowhere in the bible is it espoused that Christians should take over the government and change the laws to enforce biblical principals. In fact, Christ makes it quite clear that laws cannot change hearts…that it takes the change of one’s internal character to produce a change in actions which would produce the type of behaviour that laws attempt to create. Thus, “If your eye offends you, pluck it out, it is better to be blind than let your eye lead you to hell.” Well, of course your eye doesn’t make you sin, your heart does. And no law can change your heart.

    Huckabee and those who are with him want to establish theistic government, on the belief that that’s what the founding fathers wanted…moral government. But it’s not, and it’s not what Christ wanted either. But they, apparently, know better than Christ…

  7. As I gather you are hoping for a McCain Vs. Obama. From what I have read you believe both of them to be a good choice? Most of the critism that you give is poured out on Clinton and Huckabee, with a little left for Romney. What makes Obama so great? Im not saying he is any better or any worse than the other candidate’s. It just seems like he is your choice…

  8. If you are equating liberalism with fascism then American conservatism under Bush is guilty of the same thing under the guise of privatization and entrepreneurialism. With calls for Constitutional amendments to define marriage, the Patriot Act, stem cell research limitations and the like, the government has mushroomed in size and has sought to regulate morality and everything under the sun except for corporate entities. This combine with the power the President currently has adds a little more salt to the fascist flavor so conceived.

    The two parties are two sides of the same coin really. BTW – the foundners never intended for it to be a two party system and would likely look upon it disfavorably.

  9. scotty, how are you man? i hope all is well.

    Let me preface my answer to your question by clarifying that, for me, the most important issues are foreign policy and healthcare. On these issues, no one in the field impresses me more than John Edwards. I am very disheartened by the fact that Edwards’ campaign has not been able to secure any momentum. If I were able to vote in the Arizona primary (i can’t because i’m a registered independent) I would most likely vote for Edwards. Because Edwards really has no chance of winning the nomination, my next favorite candidate is Obama by a long shot. I think many of HRC’s votes with regards to foreign policy have been unfortunate, Obama easily wins me over as the only competitive candidate from either party who has been consistently against the war in Iraq and who also models an approach to foreign policy that makes sense to me (i.e. troop withdrawal, talking with the nations who we’ve antagonized and alienated in past, shutting down any plans for permanent military bases in Iraq, etc.) Obama, if elected, would be more of a uniter than HRC, who conservatives love to hate. I believe Obama has the ability to persuade both parties to work together.

    Because of the reasons cited above, I simply can’t vote for any of the Republican candidates. I do respect John McCain to some extent, I do not agree with his hawkish military posture. I respect bits of McCain and Huckabee and I have a genuine appreciation of Ron Paul, but I am a long way away from being on board with any of their candidacies. If the polls are accurate, McCain would be the most formidable candidate from the Republican side. If that’s true, then I would obviously like to see someone else, like Huckabee, who won’t be able to sway independents like McCain can. Although most hardcore Republicans like Rush Limbaugh and Tom Delay hate McCain, he’s still probably their best option in order to win a general election.

    In the end, I think it will be difficult for any of the Republican candidates to beat any of the Democratic front runners and they can thank their current President for that.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s