What is Digg?281 Comments
- vroom101, on 01/16/2008, -17/+84Huckabee wants the Constitution to match 'God's standards'
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/1424 ...
( thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14244.html ) - inactive, on 01/16/2008, -3/+52This kind of legislation could be tangled up in the courts for years. I think our country is near the breaking point, people may require nothing short of a revolution to clear the trash that is in Washington.
- vroom101, on 01/16/2008, -14/+58From Founding Father and 3rd U.S. President Thomas Jefferson speaks via his Notes on the State of Virginia, QUERY XVII. The different religions received into that State? [Query 17], The Writings of Thomas Jefferson: Volume 2 at http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?i ... ( etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=JefBv021.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=17&division=div2 ):
. . . Difference of opinion is advantageous in religion. The several sects perform the office of a censor morum over such other. Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth. Let us reflect that it is inhabited by a thousand millions of people. That these profess probably a thousand different systems of religion. That ours is but one of that thousand. That if there be but one right, and ours that one, we should wish to see the nine hundred and ninety-nine wandering sects gathered into the fold of truth. But against such a majority we cannot effect this by force. Reason and persuasion are the only practicable instruments. To make way for these, free inquiry must be indulged; and how can we wish others to indulge it while we refuse it ourselves. But every State, says an inquisitor, has established some religion. No two, say I, have established the same. Is this a proof of the infallibility of establishments? Our sister States of Pennsylvania and New York, however, have long subsisted without any establishment at all. The experiment was new and doubtful when they made it. It has answered beyond conception. They flourish infinitely. Religion is well supported; of various kinds, indeed, but all good enough; all sufficient to preserve peace and order; or if a sect arises, whose tenets would subvert morals, good sense has fair play, and reasons and laughs it out of doors, without suffering the State to be troubled with it. They do not hang more malefactors than we do. They are not more disturbed with religious dissensions . On the contrary, their harmony is unparalleled, and can be ascribed to nothing but their unbounded tolerance, because there is no other circumstance in which they differ from every nation on earth. They have made the happy discovery, that the way to silence religious disputes, is to take no notice of them. Let us too give this experiment fair play, and get rid, while we may, of those. tyrannical laws. It is true, we are as yet secured against them by the spirit of the times. I doubt whether the people of this country would suffer an execution for heresy, or a three years' imprisonment for not comprehending the mysteries of the Trinity. But is the spirit of the people an infallible, a permanent reliance? Is it government? Is this the kind of protection we receive in return for the rights we give up? Besides, the spirit of the times may alter, will alter. Our rulers will become corrupt, our people careless. A single zealot may commence persecutor, and better men be his victims. It can never be too often repeated, that the time for fixing every essential right on a legal basis is while our rulers are honest, and ourselves united. From the conclusion of this war we shall be going down hill. It will not then be necessary to resort every moment to the people for support. They will be forgotten, therefore, and their rights disregarded. They will forget themselves, but in the sole faculty of making money, and will never think of uniting to effect a due respect for their rights. The shackles, therefore, which shall not be knocked off at the conclusion of this war, will remain on us long, will be made heavier and heavier, till our rights shall revive or expire in a convulsion. - midoritsuru, on 01/16/2008, -3/+36Since we don't learn about it in school, and no one talks about it except maybe during election time, I humbly suggest that every American with a shred of true patriotism actually READ THIS DOCUMENT and become as familiar with it as the Pledge of Allegiance. We can't be manipulated if we're armed with knowledge.
Thanks for sharing this, this is an all-time ultimate digg. - metapop, on 01/16/2008, -1/+33I think you're right, but his intent speaks volumes about what a Huckabee presidency would consist of.
- relaxeder, on 04/17/2009, -1/+30Maybe we should stop worrying about amending the Constitution and first start respecting it as it is.
- johnhummel, on 01/16/2008, -2/+29No.
Sorry, but I *am* going to get hysterical, because people like this shouldn't be anywhere near the political office.
"Oh, he's just one man."
Just like the people on the Kansas and Dover board of educations were just a few people - until they decided to ignore science and bring in Intelligent Design.
Hard to change the constitution - and yet a critical mass of people like Huckabee - people who thought that their religious values should dictate US policy - got the Constitution changed to make alcohol illegal. Hence the Prohibition. Think about it: there were enough religious people in power in government that they told everybody else "You can't make or distribute alcoholic beverages"!
So yeah, I'm going to get upset with the very idea of Huckabee getting into the White House. I don't want him anywhere near it. Anyone who espouses views such as his should be met by the people who disagree, to elect people who believe that the separation of Church and State is essential to Liberty.
If that means that people such as Huckabee and Romney won't get my vote, and that I will vocally oppose their views, then so be it. They, and people like them, must be stopped. Or else we'll watch as they change the Constitution, just like they did for the Prohibition, and wonder how it happened. - pintomp3, on 01/16/2008, -7/+29ron paul also doesn't believe in separation of church and state:
"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.
The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage."
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html - metapop, on 01/16/2008, -4/+25As a Christian, this is shocking. Doesn't Huckabee realize that the original immigrants to the America did so for religious freedom? This is completely inconsistent with the Bible- the Bible makes it clear that we have free will, and to establish a theocracy would be ironically in direct conflict with the very book Huckabee claims to love.
- meshman, on 01/16/2008, -4/+22Too late. How's those faith based initiatives going?
- airencracken, on 01/16/2008, -0/+18The last two elections seem to suggest that already.
- vroom101, on 01/16/2008, -2/+20The U.S. Judicial Branch (federal and state), the U.S. Executive Branch (federal and state), and the U.S. Senate have have no -- none, zero -- legal or formal role in the constitution amendment process. Once the U.S. House of Representatives passes the proposed amendment, the proposed amendment goes to the state legislatures for a straight Yea or Nay. When 3/4 (75%) of the state legislatures have passed the the proposed amendment, the amendment is, effectively immediately, the law of the land, and it can't be reviewed or stayed by U.S. courts, and it can't be appealed, and it can't be vetoed -- it can only be removed by a another constitutional amendment. And that's the way it should be because the Founding Fathers designed the country so that the source of all the nation's power comes from We the People of United States of America.
- Solafein, on 01/16/2008, -1/+18I think that's already been clearly demonstrated =P
- GeneralFault, on 01/16/2008, -0/+16You clearly want your religion in government. But do you want government in your religion? Do you really trust the government and people like me in the government to keep that separation for you? Can you point to any examples of something having a direct influence on government but not the other way around?
- Danjak, on 01/16/2008, -9/+23calm down. you're just trying to manufacture hysteria. do you realize how difficult it is to ratify the constitution?? even if huckabee were elected and even if he wanted it ratified as such, it would go no where.
- Butros, on 01/16/2008, -1/+15Many men died so that we could have that constitution, so go ***** yourself and ***** your impotent god
- giddytonk, on 01/16/2008, -3/+17An American theocracy is as scary as it is "un-American." The Evangelicals are pressing for Huckabee full force.
Interesting Wired article:
http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2008/01/huc ...
The future of America and possibly the world depends on winning the War on Reason. - jonohull, on 01/16/2008, -5/+18Bam. vroom101 blocked.
- Archer007, on 01/16/2008, -0/+12This was written so long ago, and is yet applies to so many issues today. Government shouldn't have anything to do with religion. If the people do not stand up for individual rights, then those rights are lost. These issues are more relevant today than ever before.
- Corrosionx, on 01/16/2008, -2/+14Please America, don't ***** this up!
- antidense, on 01/16/2008, -2/+13When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) - inactive, on 01/16/2008, -2/+13What do you mean "will ruin the USA"?
It's already ruined simply because corporations can have influence on lawmakers. Many of the recent laws that come up aren't things that actually benefit citizens.
How about we BAN the ability for outside entities other than citizens (eg: no corporations, churches, or other profit organizations) having influence on our politicians? - Psalms, on 01/16/2008, -0/+11Someone needs to knock some sense into today's politicians; when they take away our rights, we need to take away their power. I myself am somewhat spiritual, but I say thank God for a secular government. You choose your religion, IF you choose to practice at all; Huckabee needs to know that it's not God's job to run America, it's the job of Americans who believe in the Constitution, and the rights of ordinary citizens. The government shall not favor ANY religion. If they continue with this constant idiocy, we'll need to take back our country, even if it takes marches and mass civil disobedience.
- FaithclubDotNet, on 01/16/2008, -2/+12I'm a Christian and I don't think we should amend the constitution based on religion because even within Christianity there are different denominations and it could be a divisive factor if something denominationally specific fell into the realm of law.
- noahhoward, on 01/16/2008, -0/+10"Maybe instead of getting hysterical you should attempt to rationalise your thoughts and engage in an intelligent conversation."
You mean like he just did? - wiremonkeymommy, on 01/16/2008, -0/+9What about when your religion isn't in power? You and your ilk risk finding out the hard way why upholding the values of the Constitution is ultimately more productive than scrapping it.
- gambyt13, on 01/16/2008, -2/+11Sorry, no. The Founding Fathers - Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Madison, others - were Deist or Agnostic, NOT Christian. The myth of some Christian founding fathers has been simmering to the top of the ***** pile as an excuse for evangelicals to try to pound Jesus into the heads of our children. Because no cult can survive without refreshing its ranks with impressionable young victims.
- brufleth, on 01/16/2008, -0/+9Treaty of Tripoli: Art. 11 -
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;..."
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli ... - vroom101, on 01/16/2008, -0/+9I thought about that but the original e-text doesn't have any paragraph breaks (that I could find). So in the interest of preserving President Jefferson's original train-of-thought, I left the text unformatted, i.e., as-is.
- brufleth, on 01/16/2008, -0/+9So what happens when we vote Jesus out of your theocratic christ office?
- khail250, on 01/16/2008, -5/+13"its just a piece of paper" -the messiah
"you are more worried about protecting the constitution than fighting the terrorists" -some southern moronic senator... - arbulus, on 01/16/2008, -0/+8I don't want to live in a country that would elect Huckabee.
- bitspace, on 01/16/2008, -2/+10Basic fundamental Human Rights: we don't need a deity to tell us what is "right" and what is "wrong." The things that I consider to be "human rights" are not granted or given by any entity; they are innate and inalienable. Our government (theoretically) exists to protect those rights and ensure that they are not violated.
- noahhoward, on 01/16/2008, -1/+9Why the hell should it be given the opportunity?
- Tiemmothi, on 01/16/2008, -0/+8The original or the pledge modified in te 50's?
- johnhummel, on 01/16/2008, -1/+9The reality is that the "Christian right" which, by the way, is a term brought up for propaganda in order to reinforce the lie that we are an extremely politically polarized nation, is small and ultimately gains little momentum with ideas like this.
And yet, this "group invented by proproganda" got Intelligent Design in Kansas, and Dover, and is not making inroads in Texas.
It got money to be funneled to people of their beliefs to run prisons - prisons that then gave prisoners the choice of converting to Jesus to be fast tracked for release, or be stuck in jail.
This "make believe group" got states to pass amendments to state constitution that would deny gay people the ability to be married - the exact same type of amendments that Mr. Huckabee wants to do.
So sorry, but I will continue to be worried and stand up to people who want to enforce their religious beliefs over everyone else. They are well financed (see Discovery Institute). They are motivated and politically organized (see 2004 election, where there was a direct correlation between areas voting for Bush and areas voting for anti-gay marriage state constitution amendments).
And unless people stand up, say "No", and vote their interests to keep religion out of government, we'll let this "make believe group" take over our government, and an American Dark Age will begin. - SOS84, on 01/16/2008, -3/+11This anti-American fool needs to return to Arkansas and stay there.
- willfe, on 01/16/2008, -1/+9Heh. "Aaack! More than two lines of text without a break! I can't *possibly* read *that*! What do you think I am, literate?"
*sigh*. - Asrrin29, on 01/16/2008, -4/+12wall of text crits you for over 9000, please format.
- pintomp3, on 01/16/2008, -1/+9a more topical book would be "American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War On America" by chris hedges.
- zbeast, on 01/16/2008, -3/+10The middle east is a perfect example of what happens when you make
religion the rule of law. - FreakyT, on 01/16/2008, -6/+13I think we should just eliminate the middleman and switch right to Shariah.
- slowbox, on 01/16/2008, -2/+9Common sense, respect, and observing how life flourishes when nutured do not require God to comprehend. The world around you teaches all these lessons. Your invisible friend didn't teach you these either, your parents or pastor did.
- BlacklabelSAR, on 01/16/2008, -1/+8Words to that effect:
Separation of church and state is the political and legal idea that government and religion should be separate, and not interfere in each other's affairs. [1]
In the United States, separation of church and state is often identified with the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof… The phrase building a wall of separation between church and state was written by Thomas Jefferson in a January 1, 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association.
$10 please.
Also, look around you when you are at church. You are surrounded by judgemental people, who are therefore not "Christian". In Texas, the white Christians are racist and the black Christians are racist. I am white, my wife is black, you should see the looks we get by "Christians". What a bunch of judging *****! - BlacklabelSAR, on 01/16/2008, -1/+8Maybe you would be a sociopath without being religious, but don't project that onto others. Good citizenship and respect requires no religion.
- theOster, on 01/16/2008, -2/+9just out of curiosity, why do you want this?
- pjkli, on 01/16/2008, -0/+7But most people will argue that the politicians (be it US House of Representatives or otherwise) do not reflect the peoples opinion. only the gains they recieve will sway their vote.
- OwdenBowden, on 01/16/2008, -1/+8Maybe you should stop bitching about Comment abuse and think about what the ramifications will be if it happens.
Then again, Maybe you can just take your head out of your ass! - Erkenntnis, on 01/16/2008, -1/+7Atheism is not a religion - it is a lack of belief in the proposals of theism. Atheists ask why they should believe in a God; more precisely, they ask what the evidence for God's existence is. Seeing no evidence or extremely flimsy evidence, they conclude that it is irrational to believe in God's existence, and so they lack the belief that God exists. And furthermore, atheists don't "believe in nothing." Many atheists are very strongly moral people. They take inspiration from Socrates in Plato's Euthyphro, where Socrates suggests that divine commands are either completely arbitrary and are justified only because God says they are moral, or are justified by some external standard of morality not dependent on what God says.
Additionally, why would a collective social contract be a problematic source for rights? If we recognize rights collectively, we might do so because we recognize that we ought to defend our possession of them because without them we would be worse off in many ways. - Bethling, on 01/16/2008, -0/+6The Senate is required to pass a proposed amendment as well as the House... From Article V: "The Congress, whenever two thirds of _both Houses_ shall deem it necessary..."
-
Show 51 - 100 of 279 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is