What is Digg?563 Comments
- yakimushi, on 01/16/2008, -22/+358Yes, lets amend the Constitution to God's word... if my brother dies I get to nail his wife! (Leviticus 14-16). But then we have to bake our bread with poo... (Ezekiel 4:12). But I'll get to kill my enemies then take their women, children, and cattle! (Deuteronomy 20:13-14)
Gosh, this could be exciting! - MadKennyP, on 01/16/2008, -8/+260Did anyone ask Huckabee whose God and which standards? Oh right, he's Evangelical, so he can only listen to one answer.
- hawkeye17, on 01/16/2008, -7/+195The more people find out about Huckabee the more people realize that this guy is just about the last person this country needs as it's next President.
- DavidYeah, on 01/16/2008, -11/+158Jesus thinks you're a jerk.
- Chaoticfist, on 01/16/2008, -7/+124Seriously who the ***** would vote for this douche? Like seriously before we know it, its gonna be the law to be Christian, and look out everyone else. (btw i am not anti Christian, simply think those who like to push there beliefs on another need a good beating.)
- TomK88, on 01/16/2008, -6/+107It's a trap!
Seriously, how can in this day and age people in Western civilization still believe religion has any business in the governing of a country? - HigherLogic, on 01/16/2008, -5/+94Typical Christian response to the OT: Well we don't follow that anymore (except certain parts that we really like).
- Opeth1, on 01/16/2008, -8/+96This nutbag fundie wants to take the wheel so he can floor it towards 'the Rapture'.
Give me a friggin break. - Zlorp, on 01/16/2008, -1/+83I could have SWORN that America was founded to get AWAY from this sort of thing
- Jb611, on 01/16/2008, -4/+83I'm a Christian and i agree. This country was founded on the constitution, NOT the Bible. I don't understand why these guys are running for president instead of head of a church.
- SickMonkey, on 01/16/2008, -46/+123Ron Paul also wants to amend the Constitution to achieve the same exact things. The only difference between him and Huckabee on the issue is that Ron Paul wants the state legislators to decide. Read his We The People Act:
The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court--
(1) shall not adjudicate--
(A) any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion;
(B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or
(C) any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation; and
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:h4379:
Ron Paul also believes that the concept of Separation of Church and State is a myth as well:
"It’s important to recognize that the First amendment applies only to Congress. Remember, the first sentence starts with "Congress shall make no law..." This means that matters of religious freedom and expression should be decided by the states, with disputes settled in state courts. The First amendment acts as a simple check on federal power, ensuring that the federal government has no jurisdiction or authority whatsoever over religious issues. The phony "incorporation" doctrine, dreamed up by activist judges to pervert the plain meaning of the Constitution, was used once again by a federal court to assume jurisdiction over a case that constitutionally was none of its business."
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2002/tst070102.ht ...
I really have a hard time understanding why diggers come down so hard on a guy like Huckabee on these issues while giving their sanctified candidate of choice, Ron Paul, a complete hall pass on the issue. Somebody please explain. - satman33, on 01/16/2008, -3/+79
a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?
i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.
From an open letter to Dr. Laura......these nutjobs...lol - mrgreenjeans, on 01/16/2008, -6/+78Danger! Danger!
- ryan850, on 01/16/2008, -4/+69So does this mean we get stoned to death for masturbating? Seriously this is important.
- inactive, on 01/16/2008, -3/+66One word Christians choke on; C-O-N-S-T-I-T-U-T-I-O-N
Lets remind them once again, shall we?
SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
* Legal and Financial Separation I: the state should not officially establish a religion.
* Legal and Financial Separation II: the state should not officially fund religious activities.
* Legal and Financial Separation III: the state should not fund religious activities.
* Legal and Financial Separation IV: the state should not fund non-religious activities sponsored by religious organizations.
* Separation of State Authority I: the state should not prescribe, proscribe, or amend religious beliefs.
* Separation of State Authority II: the state should not attempt to endorse or criticize any religious belief or practice.
* Separation of State Authority III: the state should not interfere in religious hierarchies, nor interfere in issues strictly related to membership.
* Separation of State Authority IV: No state action should have the primary effect of engaging in religious practice. Any such appearance of a state religious practice must be unintentional and coincidental.
* Separation of State Authority V: No state action should have the primary effect of restricting religious practice. Any such appearance of interference in religious practice must be unintentional and coincidental.
* Separation of State Authority VI: the state should not express any religious beliefs, or in any publication, speech, or other implement of state power such as currency, sworn testimony, oath of fealty to the state, or endorsements of national pride. The state should not imply any derivation of authority from any religious authority, nor should it express temporal supremacy in relation to religious belief or practice.
* Separation of State Authority VII: political leaders should not express religious preferences in the course of their duties
* Separation of Religious Authority I: no church should prescribe, proscribe, or amend civil or common law.
* Separation of Religious Authority II: the church should not interfere in civil political processes or relations between the state and other nations.
* Separation of Religious Authority III: no church should actively endorse any political figure, and should confine itself to moral, ethical, and religious teaching.
* Separation of Religious Authority IV: no church should actively endorse any civil institution by providing religious services or religious expressions at that institution, nor favor one civil institution over another. - SOS84, on 01/16/2008, -4/+60This anti-American extremist needs to drop his bid right now. He is unqualified to be president of this country.
- rishubhav, on 01/16/2008, -9/+61Don't forget banning Shrimp! (http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/)
- michaelb1, on 01/16/2008, -3/+54Lets not get ridiculous and take everything to the extreme with these outlandish but literal Bible stories. I'm sure Huckabee was simply referring to the right to stone a whore to death. No news here.
- Nick2632, on 01/16/2008, -7/+58I'm a Christian and all, but that's just too far. There's a line you cross when you want to start governing out of religion instead of the best interest of the American people (who aren't all Christian) in the first place. But changing the Constitution to make the country more to "God's Standards?"
Well I guess that makes sense, since, ya know Jesus was born in Texas.
/Sarcasm - fracktica, on 01/16/2008, -1/+47Mike Huckabee strikes me as the type of guy that licks all the cheese off the doritos and puts them back in the bag.
- BeKaws, on 01/16/2008, -7/+52Scary stuff right there
- elfprince13, on 01/16/2008, -7/+51yay, lots try to implement the whole old testament and pretend we live in ancient Israel....
or we could just try and have decent morals. - Hurricane, on 01/16/2008, -1/+44The really honestly sad thing is that there are actually millions of people who support this idiotic loon.
- flipmoe, on 01/16/2008, -4/+46This is a great idea! We should also create a Department of Homeland Morals! (You know, like Iran has) and then we can arm ourselves and go about carrying out God's will on the non-believers!
- scabbers, on 01/16/2008, -3/+45It's the same principle as a fundamentalist muslim wanting the U.S to be an islamic state.
- xXMetalJesusXx, on 01/16/2008, -5/+46I consider myself sooooo lucky that I'm Canadian. Dealing with Harper's Conservative agenda in NOTHING compared to the ***** you people could have to deal with.
- Madak17, on 01/16/2008, -1/+41I hear his first act as President will be to burn all the non-believers at the stake.
- samssf, on 01/16/2008, -6/+46I can't believe anyone likes this douche. Thinking about it makes me depressed about this country. Seriously, WTF.
- Jo9100, on 01/16/2008, -5/+42Huckaboo is a joke. A real joke.
- tidu, on 01/16/2008, -1/+37We need to amend the comment system to god's standards.
- edisonoside, on 01/16/2008, -3/+39And we have the nerve to call Muslims fanatical???
- Jo9100, on 01/16/2008, -3/+37The world needs more christians like you. You are a good christian. God bless you.
- inactive, on 01/16/2008, -2/+34Any chance we can impeach this guy before he is elected?
- dasdef, on 01/16/2008, -2/+33can we still get stoned then masturbate?
- rocket777, on 01/16/2008, -19/+46You don't seem to understand the concept behind federalism. We have all kinds of people in this country and having one law for all coming from DC will never make many people happy. And with one law, if you don't like that law, for example medical marijuana, you have no where to turn. The feds are on you.
The founders considered each of the states as a separate country, bound only for defensive purposes and free trade by the constitution. If you live in a state (e.g. PA with absurd religious laws) you can move to another state without the need to leave the entire country.
Like federalism or not, that's what the constitution created and that's what it still says. All the changes that have occurred over the life of this country have been through unconstitutional means. And that makes the constitution worthless. Given the patriot act and a few others since, the president has the same powers now as Hitler did in the 1930's. So far even Bush hasn't become that crazy, but if you let this go, and a angry revengeful killer like McCain gets into the oval office, then these unconstitutional laws could be used quite differently. Any dissenters would be "drafted" (did you see what he said to that kid who asked a question he didn't like).
Whatever else you might think of Ron Paul, he has convinced his supporters that he will obey the constitution, and that means we know what to expect. With Huck or the others, incl the dems, one really has no idea. Did anyone expect Bush to turn out the way he did? So, that's what's the ron paul revolution is all about - getting back to rule by law, not men (or women). - gsadamb, on 01/16/2008, -0/+26Which standards, exactly? Turn the other cheek? Let he who is without guilt cast the first stone? Judge not, lest ye be judged?
Somehow I don't think those are the ones he has in mind. - rz8472, on 01/16/2008, -1/+26He's like George W. Bush Mark II. The affable, far-right idiot who everyone feels comfortable having a beer with. Upgrade from Mark I to Mark II includes new speech/charisma software.
- Gerz1219, on 01/16/2008, -2/+25Hmm, it's almost like that Jesus guy is telling his followers not to be all quick to judge people or something.
- PlutoniumPlague, on 01/16/2008, -3/+26You're not taking those out of contexts, you're pulling them from their sentences and presenting nonsensical fragments...
- TomK88, on 01/16/2008, -1/+23What are you talking about? My whole point is that religion should have absolutely nothing to do with politics. To me, it's a private thing that you can practice as you wish as long as it doesn't infringe on any laws. Islam, Christian, whatever, I could care less.
- moocow1452, on 01/16/2008, -9/+31Huckabee is both a Republican, and a not-Ron Paul. Thus, he is Digg's punching bag.
- pixel4e, on 01/16/2008, -2/+24I'm wondering what he meant then? I'm wondering if he(Huckabee) gets to choose which part of the bible should we consider the "true" god's word.
I'm also wondering if anybody, who hears this and approves it, is all there and then I remember where I live and forget all hope. - rald84, on 01/16/2008, -2/+23for all of you screaming "dupe," goto digg homepage. look to the right. yeah, apple takes over five of the top 10. i think this is more serious than steve job's newest cash cow
- samssf, on 01/16/2008, -1/+21I'd rather have Bush as president than Huckabee. This ***** is scary. If this ever happens, I will definitely leave this country. I don't care if I have to live in poverty in the UK or Japan or Australia or Sweden or New Zealand or Denmark or Canada or any of the other great places to live on this earth. And it's not even the president... it's the fact that so many people actually think that we should run our country based on some stuff that's written down that is supposedly divine word and written by a god... and there are more supposed gods than there are man's opinion on morals and how people should live. WTF. Right, that's smart. How the hell can someone this stupid get this kind of power?
- badenglishihave, on 01/16/2008, -0/+20As a Christian, I completely agree. For example: my church doesn't believe in sacrifice or stoning homosexuals but like most churches they teach that tithing is necessary. It's really hypocritical. Even the 10 Commandments don't REALLY apply to Christians... sure they're some good rules but the bottom line as a CHRISTIAN is to love and follow Jesus.
It's a shame that so many Christians are wishy washy and hypocritical as you have pointed out. - MindTrigger, on 01/16/2008, -2/+21He's a Christian fundamentalist, period. You can hear it in his speeches. There is only one god, and he wants to make sure the constitution reflects *his* god's word. Well, what about Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, etc? He doesn't even try to pretend there are other valid points of view out there.
- planksconstant, on 01/16/2008, -4/+22High Voltage!
- Jb611, on 01/16/2008, -3/+20Give it up man.
- jmob, on 01/16/2008, -0/+17This man has lost his mind.
- DrMonkeyLove, on 01/16/2008, -1/+18That is quite possibly one of the dumbest things I've ever read. Congratulations, you killed some of my brain cells.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 559 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