1
   

Has Gov. Huckabee forgotten the law (RANT ALERT)

 
 
Reply Thu 25 Oct, 2007 06:55 pm
I'm baffled at the attempts of the Christian Right to change the laws of this
country to suit their own beliefs. They are acting on behalf of themselves and
not on the behalf of the people they represent. It's astonishing that more has
not been said on this topic.

I was reading on CNN.com today that Mike Huckabee was actually quoted as saying
"I'm very tired of hearing people who are unwilling to change the Constitution,
but seem more than willing to change the holy word of God as it relates to the
definition of marriage."
-- Romney wins straw poll at Values Voters Summit - CNN.com

After reading this, I was forced to pull out my trusty copy of the Constitution
to make sure that the First Amendment had not changed. To my dismay, it had not
been repealed or amended. It still plainly states that "Congress shall make no
law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof." It goes on to state that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the
freedom of speech." Which means the Christian Right is allowed to make what ever
comments they wish to make, and I am allowed to respond to them.

I wonder who's god Gov. Huckabee was referring to in his above statement.
Personally, I try to avoid the trap of religion. When I see twisted people
taking money in the name of 'god', it just reaffirms my stance as an agnostic.
Sure, there is more than likely some entity that made everything, but his views
do not control our lives on Earth, nor does he take the time to shape the things
that are happening on this planet. God is more like a football fan watching the
never ending game. He can yell at the players all he wants, but all that yelling
is not going to keep them from doing what they want to do. That's why we still
have murders, thieves and rapists. However, this is a conversation for another
time.

Gov. Huckabee's verbal attacks on congress, and the people of the United States
disgust me. The constitution was written as our guideline to the proper
operation of our country. The founding fathers specifically took god out of the
decision making process. I think one must take into consideration the fact that
god did not 'smite' the framers for making such heretical comments. That in
itself should show that god agree with the decision the framers made. If he
didn't agree, surely a man would have come down from the Rocky Mountains with
lightning inscribed tablet.

Here's my unabridged comment to the Christian Right:

"Keep your religion out of my politics. You are free to believe what you want.
You can say what you want, as long as it does not impose on the liberties of
others. Changing the constitution to ban gay marriage or ban abortions is a
direct slap in the face to George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison,
and the others that put their lives and faith on the line to make this country
great. If you think god would have you silence the views of those that oppose
your rational, then I think you have missed the lesson of tolerance that Christ
spent his adult life trying to spread."

I'm quite aware that my minority view is going to be cast aside like yesterday's
garbage, but the battle not fought is the first battle lost.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,114 • Replies: 10
No top replies

 
mlurp
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Oct, 2007 07:01 pm
@reikoshea,
Wrong, I believe that not one word need to be added or changed in the Constitution. Now maybe if a majority agrees to add to the Bill of Rights some sane principals that enrich all our lives, I might go for that. But not if the government does it without all Americans speaking out and supporting it overwhelmingly. Just IMHO.....
0 Replies
 
briansol
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Oct, 2007 10:10 pm
@reikoshea,
he doesn't have a chance anyway i don't think. not much support for him lately.
0 Replies
 
aaronssongs
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Oct, 2007 10:17 pm
@reikoshea,
reikoshea;43182 wrote:
I'm baffled at the attempts of the Christian Right to change the laws of this
country to suit their own beliefs. They are acting on behalf of themselves and
not on the behalf of the people they represent. It's astonishing that more has
not been said on this topic.

I was reading on CNN.com today that Mike Huckabee was actually quoted as saying
"I'm very tired of hearing people who are unwilling to change the Constitution,
but seem more than willing to change the holy word of God as it relates to the
definition of marriage."
-- Romney wins straw poll at Values Voters Summit - CNN.com

After reading this, I was forced to pull out my trusty copy of the Constitution
to make sure that the First Amendment had not changed. To my dismay, it had not
been repealed or amended. It still plainly states that "Congress shall make no
law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof." It goes on to state that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the
freedom of speech." Which means the Christian Right is allowed to make what ever
comments they wish to make, and I am allowed to respond to them.

I wonder who's god Gov. Huckabee was referring to in his above statement.
Personally, I try to avoid the trap of religion. When I see twisted people
taking money in the name of 'god', it just reaffirms my stance as an agnostic.
Sure, there is more than likely some entity that made everything, but his views
do not control our lives on Earth, nor does he take the time to shape the things
that are happening on this planet. God is more like a football fan watching the
never ending game. He can yell at the players all he wants, but all that yelling
is not going to keep them from doing what they want to do. That's why we still
have murders, thieves and rapists. However, this is a conversation for another
time.

Gov. Huckabee's verbal attacks on congress, and the people of the United States
disgust me. The constitution was written as our guideline to the proper
operation of our country. The founding fathers specifically took god out of the
decision making process. I think one must take into consideration the fact that
god did not 'smite' the framers for making such heretical comments. That in
itself should show that god agree with the decision the framers made. If he
didn't agree, surely a man would have come down from the Rocky Mountains with
lightning inscribed tablet.

Here's my unabridged comment to the Christian Right:

"Keep your religion out of my politics. You are free to believe what you want.
You can say what you want, as long as it does not impose on the liberties of
others. Changing the constitution to ban gay marriage or ban abortions is a
direct slap in the face to George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison,
and the others that put their lives and faith on the line to make this country
great. If you think god would have you silence the views of those that oppose
your rational, then I think you have missed the lesson of tolerance that Christ
spent his adult life trying to spread."

I'm quite aware that my minority view is going to be cast aside like yesterday's
garbage, but the battle not fought is the first battle lost.



Thank You for that! Couldn't have expressed it better.
0 Replies
 
reikoshea
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Oct, 2007 11:20 pm
@reikoshea,
I know he's not a popular candidate, it just bothers me how many conservatives put religion into why they campaign on the points they do.

All I'm looking for is tolerance, and besides Giuliani, the Democrats are the source of that tolerance. It seems like most Republicans campaign based on the fact that the Christian Right is the only hope they have to win.

I am very aware it doesn't happen that way, it's just the coverage I see makes it appear that way.
0 Replies
 
briansol
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Oct, 2007 08:52 am
@reikoshea,
stop watching fox news then Smile

and read this:
Ron Paul Opposes Separation of Church And State
Freeman15
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Oct, 2007 09:54 am
@briansol,
briansol;43252 wrote:
stop watching fox news then Smile

and read this:
Ron Paul Opposes Separation of Church And State


That article is so incredibly biased it isn't even funny.

The motivation for Paul's anti-court stance in religion is his adherence to the Constitution. Amendment I states that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, and thus such a power falls to the states. The Federal court system has no right to dictate to the states what they can and cannot display or say in schools or public places.

No, if federal funding of public schools is the issue, well then the answer is to simply adhere to the Constitution and abolish the Department of Education.
0 Replies
 
reikoshea
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Oct, 2007 09:56 am
@reikoshea,
That's that stuff.

That's the stuff I'm talking about.

I'm aware that Ron Paul isn't a majority candidate right now (and if that little article is true, I'm relieved that he is not), but I hope the Justices of our Supreme Court have enough sense to realize that a law passed like that is completely unconstitutional.

I would spend every dime I had (and probably quite a few pennies from other people) fighting a law like that. I couldn't in good conscience let religion be nationalized.
Freeman15
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Oct, 2007 09:58 am
@reikoshea,
reikoshea;43261 wrote:
That's that stuff.

That's the stuff I'm talking about.

I'm aware that Ron Paul isn't a majority candidate right now (and if that little article is true, I'm relieved that he is not), but I hope the Justices of our Supreme Court have enough sense to realize that a law passed like that is completely unconstitutional.

I would spend every dime I had (and probably quite a few pennies from other people) fighting a law like that. I couldn't in good conscience let religion be nationalized.


Paul doesn't want a nationalized religion. Read my post right above you, and then read your copy of the Constitution.
0 Replies
 
reikoshea
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Oct, 2007 06:41 pm
@reikoshea,
Quote:
Ron Paul further complained in that speech that the government ought not to be blocked from establishing official prayers in schools and at public events, and promoting the Old Testament as the source of American law in courthouses through the exclusive display of the Ten Commandments.


Now I'm going to preface this comment with the fact that I don't believe everything I read on the internet.

If the above is true, that is a President[al candidate] supporting the practice of official prayers in school (coming from the president, it is implied that he is talking about National Government).

Such an action would have to go through CONGRESS before approval. That being the case, Ron Paul is making useless comments that do nothing but make me (and likely other people) question his politics. We currently have a president in office that went to war without congressional approval, what makes you think it wouldn't be possible for a different president to pass a law for the "moral improvement" of society during a crisis.

I'm very aware that STATES have the ability to make such laws (Under the 10th Amendment).

Please do not take my words as a direct attack on your post. I was writing that before your comments had been posted.
Freeman15
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Oct, 2007 10:18 pm
@reikoshea,
reikoshea;43306 wrote:
Now I'm going to preface this comment with the fact that I don't believe everything I read on the internet.

If the above is true, that is a President[al candidate] supporting the practice of official prayers in school (coming from the president, it is implied that he is talking about National Government).

Such an action would have to go through CONGRESS before approval. That being the case, Ron Paul is making useless comments that do nothing but make me (and likely other people) question his politics. We currently have a president in office that went to war without congressional approval, what makes you think it wouldn't be possible for a different president to pass a law for the "moral improvement" of society during a crisis.

I'm very aware that STATES have the ability to make such laws (Under the 10th Amendment).

Please do not take my words as a direct attack on your post. I was writing that before your comments had been posted.


Paul was referring to state governments. 9 times out of 10, when Paul advocates governmental authority (which is RARE), he is advocating state governments' authority.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Has Gov. Huckabee forgotten the law (RANT ALERT)
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/10/2025 at 08:49:47