Oh, what’s that you say, Mike H? Those aren’t the laws, er… commandments you meant. Oh, right. You just mean the “values” stuff — family matters.
As candidate Huckabee said on FOX News the other night, he mainly was referring to the “Human Life Amendment” and “traditional marriage.” Gotcha. Well, let’s see what the text has to say about human life.
The Human Life amendment has had many incarnations, but all have to do with overturning Roe v. Wade. Here is one version of this staple of "values voter" Republicans:
Section 1. With respect to the right to life, the word 'person,' as used in this article and in the fifth and fourteenth articles of amendment to the Constitution of the United States, applies to all human beings, including their unborn offspring at every stage of their biological development, irrespective of age, health, function, or condition of dependency.Section 2. No abortion shall be performed by any person except under and in conformance with law permitting an abortion to be performed only in an emergency when a reasonable medical certainty exists that the continuation of pregnancy will cause the death of the mother and requiring that person to make every reasonable effort, in keeping with good medical practice, to preserve the life of her unborn offspring.
Regarding the question of when “life begins” is addressed in Chapter 21 of Exodus. The text says that someone who causes a miscarriage by harming the mother must pay a monetary fine. If the pregnant woman is killed, then it is a “death for a death” (Ex. 21:22-25) But causing the death of the fetus is not a capital offense in the Bible. Hence, not murder. The fetus, the text suggests, hasn’t the same status as a “human being.” The fetus is considered a “pursuer” of the mother. This is a far cry from those who would call a frozen embryo sitting in a laboratory a “human life.” Far from a God-given standard, like many ethical concepts in the Bible, it is open to scholarly debate and interpretation.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - SteveS
Thankfully, Huckabee has no chance of winning.
2 - Barbara Barnett
The scary thing about Huckabee is that he posesses an ability to make the most conservative of Christian opinion seem moderate and palatable. One Christian conservative leader in South Carolina called him Houdini-like in this ability. His style is seductive and he's a genuinely warm and funny guy. He scares the bloody hell out of me.
3 - SteveS
I think the reason why people are turning to him is because they see no religious alternative, not that he's seen as moderate.
He scares me too, but he won't win.
4 - Petrica
The "separation" you mention obviously does not occur in the Consitution and even the word, as used in Madison's letter, was meant to keep the government out of the church and to prevent the government from establishing a state church.
5 - Clavos
Amen, Barbara. If ever there was a man for whom the phrase "silver-tongued" fit like a glove, it is Mike Huckabee.
And, despite his religious beliefs, he's also very smart.
Good article.
6 - Arch Conservative
While I support amending the constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman I do not support it for the same reason's the Huckster does.
He supports it because it's what god wants. I suppor tit because it's what the AMerican people want. Time and time again when the people have had the chance to express how they feel about the issue the overwelming consensu has been that marriage should is a traditional institution which has always been between one man and woman woman since the founding of this nation and that's the way it ought to stay.
7 - Dave Nalle
Why Arch, you sound just like a Democrat in your last comment. Who would have thought you supported the dictatorship of the majority and mob rule.
Republicans usually believe that government exists to protect the rights of all people from demagoguery and democratic excess.
Dave
8 - Lee Richards
I was an ordained Southern Baptist "insider" for years. (I have long been inactive, by choice.) My brother-in-law was president of a church-affiliated college.
I have known many religious charmers exactly like Huckabee. They are warm, gregarious, humorous, compassionate--until dogma and doctrine are discussed or questioned. Then, they make it clear, as he has, that his version of Christian faith is true and anything else is false.
I guarantee that his idea of real religious freedom is the right to be an evangelical, fundamentalist Christian--under his guidance and direction, of course.
Although he is a very longshot to become president, his attitudes and beliefs are not uncommon among those who would be willing to gut the Constituion as he suggests.
9 - SteveS
In the 50's, Arch Conservative would have supported amending the Constitution to have separate drinking fountains because that's what the American people wanted.
In the 1800's Arch Conservative would have supported amending the Constitution to guarantee slavery, because that's what the American people wanted.
10 - Arch Conservative
Who would have thought you supported the dictatorship of the majority and mob rule.
Mob rule?
I was actually referring to the fact that in every state but Az, that's 18 states, where the public had the chance to vote on wether or not to amend the state constitution to ban gay marriage, the voters have overwelmingly voted in favor of the amendment.
Now if you consider placing initiatives on the ballot and letting people vote on them mob rule than I guess I do supprot mob rule. But please do me the favor and don't start whining about gay marriage being a civil rights issue Nalle because then you'll be the one sounding like a moonbat.
Nice try Steve but banning people from water fountains and forcing them to be slaves actually deprived people of their rights. As of writing this post every single American has the right to enter into marriage as currently defined by the law. Save your bullshit moonbat logic for someone else jerkoff!
11 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Bing's been nice to me, so I'm not going to get all over his neck. I cannot go along blindly with "the will of the people".
But often, and more often than not lately, "the people" have had it on the money while "the political echelon" has had it all wrong. In America, the solution of the banking and oil elites, who manipulate "the political echelon", has been to dumb down the debate to confuse everybody. Hence Huckabee's dumb remarks.
It is evident to me that the big issue that America faces is the fact that its economy is going down the tubes because of its over-extended foreign policy. The insistence of the American administration of keeping thousands of soldiers in Iraq is sweating all the energy out of the American economy, while the oil companies, charging $100/bbl for a product that is less and less necessary, are squeezing every last dime out of the economy, driving it into a recession.
But the candidates do not want to address this at all, and when they do it is with the glib generalities that indicate lack of interest.
As for Huckabee's remarks about modifying the constitution to fit G-d's law, I have no trouble with it - except as the author points out, G-d in this case is Jesus. If that were the path chosen, the author, in order to enjoy the religious freedom she desires, would have to come home to Israel: something she obviously does not want to do at all.
I have no problem with countries squeezing Jews out of exile - but she does....
12 - Jerry
I firmly believe that Mike Huckabee is the only candidate in the field that is qualified on moral grounds to be President. I intend to vote for him in our upcoming state primary. Unlike some of the aforementioned opinions I've read, I do believe he has an excellent chance to win the Republican nomination for President. If not, then I believe he will be on the ticket as the VP candidate. Regardless of my opinions, the outcome of the election has already been determined and is in the hands of the sovereign God of the universe who has revealed Himself in the presence of His Son, Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ. Now I recognize that this isn't politically correct, but that I've never sought to ever be politically correct anyway.
13 - Clavos
"Now if you consider placing initiatives on the ballot and letting people vote on them mob rule..."
Yep.
That about sums it up, Arch.
Remember?
We're a representational Republic, not a "democracy?"
You do know what "tyranny of the majority" means, don't you?
14 - Arch Conservative
Would you prefer tyranny by the minority where a small but vocal minority gets to dictate what culturla norms will be against the will of the majority of society where no ones rights have in fact been taken away/
15 - SteveS
As of writing this post every single American has the right to enter into marriage as currently defined by the law.
It's funny, I was a blogcritics member in 2003 and 2004 and gay marriage was the hot topic that drove conservatives nuts. 4 years later and while the rest of the country has moved on....
Every single American does not have the right to enter into marriage with another consenting adult of their choosing. Only heterosexuals currently have that right.
16 - bliffle
"I firmly believe that Mike Huckabee is the only candidate in the field that is qualified on moral grounds to be President."
There's no moral requirement for president in the constitution. And for good reason: no one would qualify.
17 - Jim in Texas
It's amazing to me that people who enjoy all the benefits of a country founded on Judeo-Christian principles want to bash the only candidate, Mike Huckabee, because of his "religious beliefs". By omission, doesn't it suggest that the others, Democrat & Replubican, in varying degrees, are immersed in a principle contrary to our country's heritage and laws? Remember, the religious beliefs of people like Pol Pot, Josef Stalin, Iddi Amin, Adolf Hitler set the stage for their country's people, to those people's regret
18 - Clavos
"Would you prefer tyranny by the minority where a small but vocal minority gets to dictate what culturla norms will be against the will of the majority of society where no ones rights have in fact been taken away/"
No.
As you say, in the case of gay marriage, no one's rights have been taken away, (because they've never had it yet). However,the right to be married IS being denied them.
Back in 1964, the majority, particularly here in the south, didn't want the African Americans to have equal rights, either.
But it happened anyway. Why? Because equality is our most precious and honorable principle; it's in the Declaration of Independence and all citizen's rights are guaranteed by the Constitution (Amendment XIV), whether the majority likes that or not.
But you know that. It's been discussed to death, here and everywhere.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."
You do remember, don't you?
19 - Arch Conservative
However,the right to be married IS being denied them.
No it is not.
They are free to marry anyone of the opposite sex of their choosing. That is their right.
20 - Clavos
Never mind, Arch.
You just don't get it and never will.
And you won't; not until the Thought Police come charging into your home one day to take your copy of the constitution away from you...
21 - SteveS
So conservatives don't care if marriage and family is built on love. No wonder their children turn out so messed up.
22 - Lee Richards
#17:
Jim:
Exactly which branch of Judaism and which brand of Christianity is our country founded on? There are differences, aren't there, in Reform, Conservative and Orthodox Judaism? And variances in the teachings and beliefs of Catholics, Baptists, Lutherans, Mormans, and on and on.
For that matter, don't the principles and teachings of Judaism and Christianity clash and conflict with each other?
Who, when, where and how was it decided that this country would be founded on J/C principles? What year, what meeting, what documents, by whom?
Did the Founders intend for this to be a Christian country, or a free country? How can our nation endorse and espouse a single religion, claim to be founded on it (and its root) and, at the same time, be free of favoritism and intolerence? Are you saying that's what the Founders planned and desired? And just what is the "right" kind of Christianity that our country was founded on? Who decided which laws to include and which to leave out, for religious reasons?
Was it "Christian principles" when the Puritans persecuted the Quakers here? How about when witches were hung in Salem for blasphemy, or Baptist preachers were arrested in Virginia by Episcopalian authorities? Who decided the orthodox "principles" you claim we're founded on?
Our country's principles depend on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, both of which show clearly that we weren't designed as a Judeo-Christian government or nation, but as a free country where government can't compel or influence us to hold any religious belief of any kind. (You evidently think the Founders did intend for our government, if they based it on religious principles, to have that influence. Do you have any evidence that was their aim?)
Your Judeo-Christian principles require that eveyone must recognize and submit themselves to a particular concept of a God. Our country has never, ever been guided by such a "principle". Do you have any evidence to the contrary?
Do you honestly believe a country based on Judeo-Christian principles and beliefs, dogmas and doctrines would have provided the religious freedom that is one of our greatest historical achivements? Not bloody likely!
23 - Clavos
"So conservatives don't care if marriage and family is built on love"
Use a smaller brush there, Steve. I'm a Conservative.
24 - Barbara Barnett
Amen, Barbara. If ever there was a man for whom the phrase "silver-tongued" fit like a glove, it is Mike Huckabee.
And, despite his religious beliefs, he's also very smart.
Good article.
Thanks, Clavos.
He's not only smart, his funny, he's charming, he plays electric bass, he's got dimples and a seemingly self-effacing style. And, despite what some people might think, he can win. My 21 year old daughter (who is a very smart and involved young adult) was watching him on television with me over winter break and said (without knowing who he really is) he seems pretty cool. " I like him."
25 - Barbara Barnett
If that were the path chosen, the author, in order to enjoy the religious freedom she desires, would have to come home to Israel: something she obviously does not want to do at all.
shavua tov, Ruvy. Problem with Israel for me right now is that I, as a female, conservative (Masorti) woman, would not have the religious freedom I desire. The religious life of the country where a Masorti conversion isn't by many of the ruling class of religious authorities valid; where the Orthodox leadership says publicly that passing a Masorti or Reform synagogue is sinful, is NOT a place where I experience religious freedom.