Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by yg17, Jan 15, 2008.
This guy scares the **** out of me...
Huckabee doesn't scare me at all. Because he'll never be president.
He's wrong to want to change the Constitution to fall in line with his bible views.
Just what we needed: a Christo-fascist running for president.
I'm not surprised, a religious righty runs in every election.
He's pretty much sunk now. Saying crap like that isn't going to make him very popular.
when one of these religious right types say 'change the constitution to God's standards', they usually mean theocracy (see taliban). basically meaning those that don't conform to the religious right's demands (many of them aren't biblically sound despite what they say) are getting in big trouble.
not voting for him, and he scares me.
And Michigan said, "No."
Don't underestimate the voting power of the gaggle of religious-right evangelical barking loons, who love to vote for evangelical barking loon presidential candidates.
Bush barely won last time, and he was also popular with the fiscal conservatives, which the Huck is not. No chance this time. People really don't like the Republicans this time around, so they all have an uphill battle, even against the current crop of Dems. Maybe the 30 percenters, but even some of them are fed up with the rhetoric from their party. Some of them are getting frustrated with the GOP, who talk a good game, but don't deliver, and at this point are just making them look bad. His affable, ah shucks was working for him for awhile, but this is going to kill his chance elsewhere if it gets more play.
The obvious problem of course is which version of God's word? The reason there's separation of church and state is to protect religion and religious beliefs. Imagine if you're a devout Catholic and a Baptist decides to change the Constitution to his beliefs. What happens to your beliefs? Maybe ~90% are the same, but what about the other 10%? Same with Mormonism, and why the fundies aren't really happy with Romney. Especially after that speech he gave. I'm sure this will work with some people, who see someone mention God and there goes their vote, but not enough to get them elected, especially without the help of the GOP establishment, who don't want someone with Huckabees economic priorities.
Just goes to show you can never trust what a politician says they'll do when they're running.
Huckabee probably doesn't realise it yet, but he just sunk his campaign.
When he mentions "the living God", is he is referring to Pan? If so, I agree. The whims of Fauns aren't mentioned anywhere in your constitution and I personally think this is where America is going wrong.
While your at it, Odin and Thor also need a mention. Otherwise how are you people going to prepare for the Ragnarök?
Considering all the grief Obama got from the usual suspects for saying he wanted to be an instrument of God (is he saying he wants to be a lute? ), I don't see a lot of outrage from them...
I'm sure it will be forthcoming.
now i'm not a repub, but remember guys, changing the constitution IS constitutional.
but just disregarding the constitution (like bush and his cronies) is wrong.
From the same speech:
To me, the most frightening part is that he views the Constitution with such contempt as to call it "some contemporary view".
This is far beyond Originalism.
At least he is being homest about what he wants to do. Most people in support of a marriage admendment are trying to amend the constitution to fit God's standards but they would never actually say that because the sound bite would be used against them.
I wonder if he is going to amend the constitution to ban divorce expect for reasons of immorality. What about adultery? Fornication? Lying? Prostitution? Selfishness? Back talking your parents? In my opinion, this is really not the role of our government.
On the other side of things, I am all for a human life amendment, giving rights to unborn children.
Clearly he has no clue about the history of the US and the reason for the First Amendment.
Some people never learn. Do you have any idea of the public health risk that would follow a ban on abortion...?
There is no such thing as an unborn child; a few cells is not a child. They're not babies either.
Read and learn how you would put real lives at risk.
Criminalising young (and usually) women for abortion is the most fundamentally backward step for a so-called civilised society; who the hell gives you the right to impose your religiously-motivated laws on others?
I'm sure it has not escaped your notice that nearly all of the disgust registered regarding the consequences of teen sex in the Maternity thread has been directed at the woman, with no thought of any consequences for the man.
Funny how that works, eh?
Whose God? Which one?
You know, Dworkin's Taking Rights Seriously comes to mind here. . .
People are free to exercise their OWN religion free from state interference as long as it does not interfere with the right of ANOTHER to exercise their own. Although I am not Jewish, my understanding is that Judaism does not infuse a person with their soul until birth. Banning abortion then poses a very sticky First Amendment question--how could an abortion ban NOT be read to inhibit the practice of religion? In such conflicting cases, the state cannot favor either, and must refrain from acting.
No, it hasn't. But then again, I don't suppose these moralists really think things through... how would they like seeing their own sister incarcerated for murder, seeking an abortion because she'd been raped. How would you like to see an eight year old treated by the zealots?
That's where these morally-bankrupt cretins want to take us.
That's a dangerous road you're going down there, laddie...
My views are not religiously motivated. I have always been against abortion, even when I was an athiest/agnostic. I simply feel that life is created at conception and life should be protected. To say that there is no such thing as an unborn child is completely wrong in my opinion. By the time most women have an abortion, those few cells have a beating heart and are most certainly alive.
If you recall, I have no disgust for teen mothers, and I stated it very clearly in that thread. I hope you were not trying to equate my post which Blue Velvet commented on to the disgust of others in the Maternity thread.
This is a little OT:
A few cells? Maybe at like 2 weeks. Have you never seen an ultrasound? It gets a heartbeat at like 10 weeks.
I'm not for banning abortion, but saying there is "no such thing" as an unborn child is disingenuous. As for the public health risk, there may be more babies being born, but there certainly wouldn't be an outbreak of the plague.