Huckabee: "Amend the Constitution so it's in God standards"

[11811]

@Ponder Stibbons

The only good thing about him is that he’s drawing away the nutty bigot vote from Romney, thus splitting the fundamentalists and making it all the more unlikely that either will accomplish anything.

Oh good! McCain/Giuiliani in 2008!

[Guinastasia]

@Clothahump

Why do these religious whackjobs insist on running for office? And why do people even listen to them, much less vote for them?

Because the people that vote for them are also religious whackjobs?

[elucidator]

@Der Trihs

…And there’s no more evidence for that than there is for God to exist at all.

How would it be possible for something that doesn’t exist to change? I mean, dude?

[John_Mace]

God moves in mysterious ways. Especially when he doesn’t exist!

[tds1273]

Jesus on a fucking dinosaur!
Yikes.

So Supreme Court Justice seats, if any, are likely to open up in the next four to eight years?

[Hostile_Dialect]

@marshmallow

So a POTUS who wanted to turn America into a Christian version of the Taliban would face difficulties unless some weird shit was going down.

Not really. Given how much progress our current president has made in 8 years, I think it would only take a couple more bloodthirsty theocratic Presidents, savvy VPs and soulless Congressmen to turn the US into a de facto theocracy. Now, it certainly wouldn’t happen anywhere near as quickly as the Talibanization of Afghanistan happened, and it would take an assload of idiot voters, a handful of megolomaniac ideologues and more than a couple of hanging chads, but I wouldn’t call that “weird shit”, just an unlikely extension of a series of unfortunate fads.

@Ludovic

You prefer fundamentalists with a wide stance?

Did you hear about the college football star who became a Republican Congressman?

He left college as a Tight End, but by the time he left the House he was a Wide Receiver.

[Fear_Itself]

In other Huckanews, his newest senior advisor, James Pinkerton, has advocated putting a cop in front of every mosque:

PINKERTON: You asked me what I would do about American Muslims. Answer is** I’d put a cop in front of every mosque until I was completely satisfied nothing was going on there.**

CORN: You’d put a cop in front of every mosque?

PINKERTON: That’s what I said. […]

CORN: I mean, do you have any proof that every mosque deserves a cop in front of it?

PINKERTON: I said, I would put one in there just for safe keeping all the way around.

The scarey thing is, I am sure his constituency supports this move. Other Pinkerton gems:

• In a 2005 column, Pinkerton advocated genocide in Iraq, writing that America can make “anti-American violence in Iraq end” by unleashing “the Shia Arab Muslims and the Kurds to finish the job,** all the way to the bloody extreme.”**

• On Fox News in June 2006, Pinkerton complained about people who feel the “military needs to be carefully restrained with legal rules and procedures,” exclaiming “I’d rather lose our civil liberties than lose the war.”

• In December 2006, Pinkerton argued that “proximity to Mexico is at least partly to blame” for corruption in Texas.

• In September 2007, Pinkerton warned in the American Conservative of “Muslimization,” concluding that “to keep the peace, we must separate our civilizations.”

[Icerigger]

Is not Liberty a pagan goddess, is not her statue on top of the capitol. You could interpret it as: to secure the blessings of the Goddess Liberty, at least metaphorically.

Not the Christian God but the Greek Goddess!

[jayjay]

@Icerigger

Is not Liberty a pagan goddess, is not her statue on top of the capitol. You could interpret it as: to secure the blessings of the Goddess Liberty, at least metaphorically.

Not the Christian God but the Greek Goddess!

You apparently didn’t get the memo. When, in a founding document of the republic, there’s an explicit reference to a pagan deity, it’s obviously a metaphor. When there’s a reference to either just “God” or what might be meant as some aspect of God that makes God look good, it’s a literal description of Yahweh.

Please read your memos more carefully!

[MovieMogul]

Looks like Hucabee’s back-pedaling a little:

Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee has clarified what he meant when he said that “what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards.”

In an interview with Fox News – Crooks and Liars has the video – Huckabee says an amendment banning abortion and another banning same-sex marriage “are the two areas I’m talking about. I’m not suggesting that we rewrite the Constitution to reflect tithing or Sunday school attendance.”

Oh, well that makes it much better. :rolleyes:

[John_Mace]

@ArchiveGuy

Looks like Hucabee’s back-pedaling a little:Oh, well that makes it much better. :rolleyes:

Well, that’s exactly the way I interpreted his statement originally, so I don’t think it counts as “back-pedaling”. But you’re right-- it’s still a bit scary. Not just because he’d say such a thing, but because he was stupid enough to say it. Or worse, he figured it was the way most people thought.

[Lobohan]

@Shodan

• those don’t change.

Because they come from God.

Regards,
Shodan

Or, conversely, you’re utterly wrong.

Oh and my imaginary friend could smite your imaginary friend.

[stolichnaya]

@John Mace

Well, that’s exactly the way I interpreted his statement originally, so I don’t think it counts as “back-pedaling”. But you’re right-- it’s still a bit scary. Not just because he’d say such a thing, but because he was stupid enough to say it. Or worse, he figured it was the way most people thought.

Well, maybe not “most people”, but maybe 30% of the Republicans who vote in the in South Carolina primary, which would probably be more than enough.

I don’t think Huck or his staff are much concerned with the eventual potential of what he says at this point, they are much more concerned with the immediate effect. They’ll burn that bridge when they come to it.

[Voyager]

@Shodan

There is only one God, Our conceptions and misconceptions about Him don’t change His nature.

Regards,
Shodan

Ever read The Age of Reason? Paine specifically says he believes in Natures God (like Jefferson and Madison) but spends a good bit of the book on what a crock of shit Christianity and the Bible is. And I doubt he’d believe in any god if he was alive today.

How do you know his nature isn’t what Jefferson and Paine thought? Or that he has any nature at all?

[stolichnaya]

There is only one God, Our conceptions and misconceptions about Him don’t change His nature.

That statement is turning me around and around. I think in my deepest darkest I want to agree that there is a God, but the first part and the second part seem so contrary to each other.

[John_Mace]

@stolichnaya

Well, maybe not “most people”, but maybe 30% of the Republicans who vote in the in South Carolina primary, which would probably be more than enough.

Yeah, I almost added that exact thought on the end of my post.

I don’t think Huck or his staff are much concerned with the eventual potential of what he says at this point, they are much more concerned with the immediate effect. They’ll burn that bridge when they come to it.

Could be. They’re probably still reeling a bit over the fact that he’s even remotely viable.

[vibrotronica]

Jefferson chose the word “creator” very carefully. Not “God”, not “Jesus”, not “Yahweh,” not “Allah”, not “Shiva”, not “Zoroaster”—the generic “creator.” The very concept of religious freedom is embodied right there in that one word.

Notice also that he said “THEIR” creator, meaning “the creator they believe in,” not “the” creator, meaning “the official god of America.”

[MovieMogul]

Uh-oh, people! We’ve got the Slippery Slope a’comin!

Asked whether it wouldn’t be a “dangerous undertaking” to try to bring the Constitution into conformity with the Bible – particularly “given the variety of biblical interpretations” – Huckabee said: “Well, I don’t think that’s a radical view to say we’re going to affirm marriage. I think the radical view is to say that we’re going to change the definition of marriage so that it can mean two men, two women, a man and three women, a man and a child, a man and animal. Again, once we change the definition, the door is open to change it again. I think the radical position is to make a change in what’s been historic.”

Huckabee said that “the genius” of the Constitution is that it was built to be changed. On the other hand, he said, the Bible “was not created to be amended and altered with each passing culture.”

[SisterCoyote]

I seriously want to know what sort of logical progression leads from two consenting adults marrying to an adult marrying a child or an animal, neither of whom can consent (not planning to start an age debate, here).

I mean, I know that their logic is not similar to Earth logic, but someone, somewhere, had to come up with a logical reason that consensual marriages must logically be followed by non-consensual couplings. Right?

Right?

/curls up in a small ball and starts whimpering/

[Guinastasia]

@ArchiveGuy

Uh-oh, people! We’ve got the Slippery Slope a’comin!

Man and animal/children? Looks like we got a cousin to Santorum a’comin’!

(Oh, and link? I am SOOOOO going to send that to Savage Love)