Huckabee? IN the lead? Really?

Huckabee weighed in on Obama's India trip on Facebook.

Mike Huckabee
Reports say that Obama's trip to Mumbai, India tomorrow will cost taxpayers $200 million dollars a day - come to think of it, that's much less than Obama's been spending here. So maybe it's not a bad thing he's leaving.
November 2 at 8:26pm · Comment · Like

Now is the man so gullible he considered the above might be true, without even checking it out? Or is he just pandering to his conservative base, who are always screeching for Obama's blood?

No matter the reason, it doesn't speak well for his judgment, IMO.
 
Dixie said:
Yes, it's a matter of Huckabee believing one thing and you believing another. I am quite sure Huckabee knows there is a 1st Amendment.
Click to expand...

What Huckabee believes doesn't bother me. If he wants to turn his religious beliefs into policy and law, that bothers me.
 
leaningright said:
Christian Jarod, Christian.....I believe that true Christian's are governed by the New Testament not the Old Testament. You can find many varied beliefs in the world of "Christians." Some want to go to church on Saturday, some on Sunday, some not at all. Some want to accept homosexuality and some stand firm against it. Some forbid the eating of pork and certain meats and some do not. So you see, Jarod, you can find a lot of things to point out...like pork and such....that you can try to use to thwart my beliefs. The simple fact is, though Mr. Huckabee is a member of a "Christian" denomination and I am not, his beliefs on many things line up well with mine....so naturally I like the guy.
Click to expand...

As a christian, my religious beliefs are similar to Huckabee's. As an American, our shared religious beliefs have no place in creating policy or governing the entire population, except to lead me to deal honestly and fairly with all people.

My church would probably not perform gay marriages. But that is a choice my church should be allowed to make.

And churches that decide to perform them, should be allowed to do so.



Although, I would much prefer the gov't get out of the marriage business completely.
 
...our shared religious beliefs have no place in creating policy or governing the entire population...
Click to expand...

Where does the Constitution forbid us from making policy on the basis of shared religious beliefs? You say it "has no place" but I wonder if you can prove that? The only way you can derive such idiocy, is through a perverted distortion of the Establishment Clause in the 1st Amendment. While this is useful to seculars who want to destroy the foundation of America and rot it from the inside out, it is of no benefit to Americans in general.

Most all of our policies, laws, legislation, is based and rooted in some belief or teaching found in some religious dogma. You see, the funny thing about religious dogma, it often teaches right from wrong, good from bad, moral from immoral. Therefore, it is just a natural and ordinary thing, that "laws" we make, might have some commonality with some religion. And IF we applied your rigid standard to all laws and policies, we would live in a society devoid of morals. There could be no right or wrong, people could literally do whatever they wanted to do, and any effort to prevent that, would be a hindrance to their freedoms. I don't want to live in such a world.
 
Dixie said:
Where does the Constitution forbid us from making policy on the basis of shared religious beliefs? You say it "has no place" but I wonder if you can prove that? The only way you can derive such idiocy, is through a perverted distortion of the Establishment Clause in the 1st Amendment. While this is useful to seculars who want to destroy the foundation of America and rot it from the inside out, it is of no benefit to Americans in general.

Most all of our policies, laws, legislation, is based and rooted in some belief or teaching found in some religious dogma. You see, the funny thing about religious dogma, it often teaches right from wrong, good from bad, moral from immoral. Therefore, it is just a natural and ordinary thing, that "laws" we make, might have some commonality with some religion. And IF we applied your rigid standard to all laws and policies, we would live in a society devoid of morals. There could be no right or wrong, people could literally do whatever they wanted to do, and any effort to prevent that, would be a hindrance to their freedoms. I don't want to live in such a world.
Click to expand...

You know full well that I mean when you use our religious beliefs to the exclusion of other beliefs. That is what the 1st Amendment is written to prevent.

Your continued insistence that, without religion there would be no morality is as ridiculous today as it always has been.
 
WinterBorn said:
You know full well that I mean when you use our religious beliefs to the exclusion of other beliefs. That is what the 1st Amendment is written to prevent.

Your continued insistence that, without religion there would be no morality is as ridiculous today as it always has been.
Click to expand...

No, my understanding of the 1st is quite different than yours, obviously. I asked you a simple question, and you can't really answer it. The 1st prohibits our government from establishing a singular belief as our national religion, and also preventing the exercise of any religious belief. It says nothing about the basis on which we establish our laws, and such a concept is absurd.

Whether "morality" originates from some belief outside of religion or not, most all religion teaches moral beliefs. Therefore, you can't exclude moral beliefs expressed through religious beliefs without destroying essentially all moral beliefs. As a responsible society, we indeed have the right to establish the rules and boundaries which govern the society we live in, and whether a particular tenant happens to be found in someone's religion, is of no consequence. Nothing in the Constitution prohibits this, and to attempt to apply this standard to all our laws and rules, is totally foolish and devoid of any understanding of what the Constitution states.
 
Dixie said:
No, my understanding of the 1st is quite different than yours, obviously. I asked you a simple question, and you can't really answer it. The 1st prohibits our government from establishing a singular belief as our national religion, and also preventing the exercise of any religious belief. It says nothing about the basis on which we establish our laws, and such a concept is absurd.

Whether "morality" originates from some belief outside of religion or not, most all religion teaches moral beliefs. Therefore, you can't exclude moral beliefs expressed through religious beliefs without destroying essentially all moral beliefs. As a responsible society, we indeed have the right to establish the rules and boundaries which govern the society we live in, and whether a particular tenant happens to be found in someone's religion, is of no consequence. Nothing in the Constitution prohibits this, and to attempt to apply this standard to all our laws and rules, is totally foolish and devoid of any understanding of what the Constitution states.
Click to expand...

Whether you want to call it establishing a national religion or not, writing laws based solely on one religion is exactly what the 1st Amendment was written to prohibit.

I am not excluding moral beliefs expressed through religions. I am excluding laws and policies which make singularly religious beliefs into laws which govern people who do not believe in that faith.
 
WinterBorn said:
Whether you want to call it establishing a national religion or not, writing laws based solely on one religion is exactly what the 1st Amendment was written to prohibit.

I am not excluding moral beliefs expressed through religions. I am excluding laws and policies which make singularly religious beliefs into laws which govern people who do not believe in that faith.
Click to expand...

If Congress wanted to pass a law stating that every American had to receive communion on Sunday, THAT would be establishment of religion. If they passed a law stating that everyone must attend a church... establishing religion. A law stating we must turn to Mecca at a certain time and pray... establishing religion. But passing a law through the expressed will of the people, recognizing marriage as being between a man and woman, is not the establishment of a religion. Passing a law to respectfully not sell alcohol on Sunday... not establishing religion. While those things may be related to someone's religious beliefs, it isn't something exclusive to a particular religious belief. Do you see the difference?
 
Dixie said:
And what the fuck is wrong with that? Doesn't he have the 1st Amendment right to freely exercise his religion? The President isn't a Dictator! He doesn't get to decide whether Gay Marriage is made legal or illegal! It's not up to him! He IS entitled to have his opinion, and it can most certainly be based on what his religious beliefs are! Who the fuck are YOU to say otherwise? !
Click to expand...



Exactly, he has every right, but someone who wants to impose his version of Gods rules on others, simply because its what he thinks God wants for them should not be president of the United States, maybe president of Iran, but not the United States!
 
Dixie said:
If Congress wanted to pass a law stating that every American had to receive communion on Sunday, THAT would be establishment of religion. If they passed a law stating that everyone must attend a church... establishing religion. A law stating we must turn to Mecca at a certain time and pray... establishing religion. But passing a law through the expressed will of the people, recognizing marriage as being between a man and woman, is not the establishment of a religion. Passing a law to respectfully not sell alcohol on Sunday... not establishing religion. While those things may be related to someone's religious beliefs, it isn't something exclusive to a particular religious belief. Do you see the difference?
Click to expand...

I see the difference yet still disagree with both...

The reason you are for or against something is important to me, and Huckabee has stated his reason for being against Gay Marriage is because its against the will of God.

If someone wants to start imposing his view of Gods will upon others, he does not belong in higher office in a nation that professes religous freedom.
 
Jarod said:
Exactly, he has every right, but someone who wants to impose his version of Gods rules on others, simply because its what he thinks God wants for them should not be president of the United States, maybe president of Iran, but not the United States!
Click to expand...

why not come up with an argument that is relevant.......nobody has proposed electing a president who would do such a thing....
 
Jarod said:
Exactly, he has every right, but someone who wants to impose his version of Gods rules on others, simply because its what he thinks God wants for them should not be president of the United States, maybe president of Iran, but not the United States!
Click to expand...

Jarod said:
I see the difference yet still disagree with both...

The reason you are for or against something is important to me, and Huckabee has stated his reason for being against Gay Marriage is because its against the will of God.

If someone wants to start imposing his view of Gods will upon others, he does not belong in higher office in a nation that professes religous freedom.
Click to expand...

Jarhead, you are an absolute moron. The Constitution FORBIDS him from imposing his religious views on you, even if he had ever expressed that he wanted to impose them on you, which to my knowledge, he hasn't! The President simply does not have such authority, whether he wants to or not! Congress also doesn't have such authority, it's written as plain as day in the 1st Amendment! It doesn't matter why he has an opinion, he has the fucking Constitutional right to express his opinion, that is also written in the Constitution. To argue that, because he happens to express his religious opinion, it precludes him from holding the office of President, is contradictory to the principles of the 1st Amendment! You can't say he "has every right" to his opinion, then punish him for expressing his opinion. You may as well say, he doesn't really have that right, because to utilize it, revokes his right to become President. Now, you don't have to agree with his opinion, and you don't have to vote for him, but you have no right to say he doesn't have the right to seek the office.
 
Dixie said:
If Congress wanted to pass a law stating that every American had to receive communion on Sunday, THAT would be establishment of religion. If they passed a law stating that everyone must attend a church... establishing religion. A law stating we must turn to Mecca at a certain time and pray... establishing religion. But passing a law through the expressed will of the people, recognizing marriage as being between a man and woman, is not the establishment of a religion. Passing a law to respectfully not sell alcohol on Sunday... not establishing religion. While those things may be related to someone's religious beliefs, it isn't something exclusive to a particular religious belief. Do you see the difference?
Click to expand...

And if there are several religions which consider alcohol to be evil, wouldn't banning alcohol be an acceptable law under your ideas listed above? It would be related to someone's religious beliefs but not exclusive to a particular religion.
 
WinterBorn said:
And if there are several religions which consider alcohol to be evil, wouldn't banning alcohol be an acceptable law under your ideas listed above? It would be related to someone's religious beliefs but not exclusive to a particular religion.
Click to expand...

Just about ANY law you can name, can be found in some context, within someone's religious belief. What you are trying to argue is absurd, pathetically stupid, and shallow minded. Laws against murder or theft... found in almost any religious belief! We once DID ban alcohol, we amended the Constitution to do it! Just because some particular thing is condemned by religious belief, doesn't make laws against it unconstitutional. To be a violation of the Establishment Clause, the law would have to be religion-specific. For instance, a law stating we have to tithe 10% to a church, would be a religion-specific type of law. Now, if you want to make a law based on the religion-specific concept of tithing, which says up to 10% of your earnings donated to charity are tax deductible, that is NOT a violation of the EC.
 
Dixie said:
Jarhead, you are an absolute moron. The Constitution FORBIDS him from imposing his religious views on you, even if he had ever expressed that he wanted to impose them on you, which to my knowledge, he hasn't! The President simply does not have such authority, whether he wants to or not! Congress also doesn't have such authority, it's written as plain as day in the 1st Amendment! It doesn't matter why he has an opinion, he has the fucking Constitutional right to express his opinion, that is also written in the Constitution. To argue that, because he happens to express his religious opinion, it precludes him from holding the office of President, is contradictory to the principles of the 1st Amendment! You can't say he "has every right" to his opinion, then punish him for expressing his opinion. You may as well say, he doesn't really have that right, because to utilize it, revokes his right to become President. Now, you don't have to agree with his opinion, and you don't have to vote for him, but you have no right to say he doesn't have the right to seek the office.
Click to expand...

You do not understand or are pretending not to. If as you say, the 1st Forbids Religous views from being imposed upon me, they we can agree that Huckabee's statement that he wants same sex marriage banned because it is against the will of his God... then we can agree that what Huckabee would like to do as president is forbidden by the constitution? Which was my point.
 
Jarod said:
You do not understand or are pretending not to. If as you say, the 1st Forbids Religous views from being imposed upon me, they we can agree that Huckabee's statement that he wants same sex marriage banned because it is against the will of his God... then we can agree that what Huckabee would like to do as president is forbidden by the constitution? Which was my point.
Click to expand...

????...but same sex marriage has always been banned....what we are dealing with is the left asking the government to impose it's views about marriage upon society......I think that's forbidden by the constitution.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
????...but same sex marriage has always been banned....what we are dealing with is the left asking the government to impose it's views about marriage upon society......I think that's forbidden by the constitution.....
Click to expand...



How is anything being imposed on anyone? Noone is proposing that people will be required to enter into same sex marriages or that anyone but the law reconize them.

On what grounds would that be forbidden by the Constitution?
 
Jarod said:
You do not understand or are pretending not to. If as you say, the 1st Forbids Religous views from being imposed upon me, they we can agree that Huckabee's statement that he wants same sex marriage banned because it is against the will of his God... then we can agree that what Huckabee would like to do as president is forbidden by the constitution? Which was my point.
Click to expand...

What is it I am pretending not to understand, Jarhead? The Constitution specifically forbids Huckabee or anyone in Government, from imposing religious views on you. I've not seen Huckabee's statement that he wants to do this, you keep claiming he said it, but I don't believe you. He can certainly oppose Gay Marriage (which is not currently legal) on the basis of his religious viewpoint, he has the Constitutional right to do so, and you have no Constitutional right to prohibit him from that expression. Your claiming of what you think Huckabee would like to do as president, but is forbidden to do by the Constitution, is what we call an "irrelevant" point. You did make one of those, I agree!
 
PostmodernProphet said:
the left wants to impose a new definition of marriage on all of society.....


lol, that's funny.....you almost make it sound like the law only forces itself and not the public, to act.......
Click to expand...

Just because the law reconizes something does not mean you have to... Check out how the Catholics handle divorce.... If you want a divorce in the Catholic church you have to pay the Pope, regardless if the LAW deems you to be diviorced or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top