jump to last post 1-5 of 5 discussions (53 posts)

Religion and the Presidental Races

  1. wilderness profile image96
    wildernessposted 17 months ago

    For some reason I've been getting emails from Mike Huckabee, running for President.  They include such statements as:

    "I, Mike Huckabee, pledge allegiance to God, the constitution, and the citizens of the United States."

    "I will stand for the sanctity of all human life from the moment of conception until the grave.  Taking this unequivocal stand includes fighting to defund Planned Parenthood."

    "I will support the elevation of none but faithful constitutionalists as judges or justices.  They must be committed to restraint and applying the original meaning of the constitution, not legislating from the bench.

    And now, he wants us all to sign a petition to the Supreme Court:

    "As you work towards making your ruling at the end of June, I am writing today to tell you marriage is between one man and one woman. Period. The Supreme Court is not the Supreme Being."

    What is happening in our country that someone can garner votes by telling us that they put their personal religious beliefs above the constitution and above the people?  That claims they will only support judges that follow the constitution and not legislate from the bench and then immediately ask for help in getting the Supreme Court to ignore the constitution and the people by voting according to religious beliefs?

    Are there really voters out there that want a government founded on religion?  Yes, I know there will always a few whackos that do, but enough to make a presidential race of it?  Do we want to become another Iran or Afghanistan with a specific priesthood making the rules for all of us?  Do we not understand separation of church and state even as we look to both current and historical failures that ignore that most important stance?  Is it possible that a candidate (whether Huckabee or not) could ever be elected on a platform of religious domination?

    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 17 months ago in reply to this

      Maybe its not based on religion so much as knee jerk common sense.
      Does he quote the Bible?

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 17 months ago in reply to this

        Pledging allegiance to a god is not religious?

        Declaring the "sanctity" of life begins at birth is not religious?
        (Full Definition of SANCTITY:
        1:  holiness of life and character :  godliness
        2a :  the quality or state of being holy or sacred :  inviolability)

        Declaring that the Supreme Court is not "the" Supreme Being" (and insinuating that the Supreme Court should ignore the constitution in favor of the ideology of that "supreme being") is not a religious matter?

        Nor did I mention that he is Christian, just wanting all the country to follow his religious beliefs.  The bible is irrelevant to the question.

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
          Kathryn L Hillposted 17 months ago in reply to this

          <"Declaring the "sanctity" of life begins at birth is not religious?">
          You mean, conception.

          1. teamrn profile image79
            teamrnposted 17 months ago in reply to this

            "Declaring the "sanctity" of life begins at birth is not religious?">
            You mean, conception." I mean he speaks of the sanctity of life-yes, that IS RELIGIOUS.

            Speaking of the sanctity of life is a statement of his religious beliefs. His religious beliefs are that life begins at conception. Did I say that he said something different. If so, pay me no mind. Last night my husband was snoring, so I didn't sleep well, we have a rather small apartment, so I went to our CAR to sleep!! I'm tired and missed that one!

            I'm beginning to feel that some of you would like ALL references to religion or any phrases that sound remotely religious, to be removed from the Constitution. Then we'd have an atheist government. Am I reading right?

            This country was founded as a religious nation, on religious principles; it's just that the mention of A SPECIFIC RELIGION was left out.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 17 months ago in reply to this

              Outside of prohibition of the federal government promoting any religion (which has since been extended to states as well) I can't think of any religious requirements in the constitution.  Can you?

              And no, the first settlers were not here on religious grounds; they were here for economic reasons - to gain a profit.  Even later, when the country itself took form, any specific religion was barred just as you say.  Yet we continually see very specific requirements, from specific religions, being proposed and pushed for as laws.

              1. teamrn profile image79
                teamrnposted 17 months ago in reply to this

                What are the requirements that we have a specfic religion? " Yet we continually see very specific requirements, from specific religions,"

                The desire to found a new country was for economic reasons, the first settlers felt passionately about 'taxation with no representation.'

                However, when they assembled in Philadelphia for the Constitutional Convention, and the Constitution was written by Jefferson, they did put in religious references. They did not call for the establishment of a particular religion, that in itself would be stuffing that choice down people's faces.

                Yes, this country was founded on religious basis; not, though, on a SPECIFIC religious basis though. For a fairly accurate visual representation (though it glosses over some facts), the musical "1776" with Blythe Danner and Ken Howard and William Daniels, comes close to being spot on.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 17 months ago in reply to this

                  No, not have a specific religion - just obey the god-given laws and rules of a specific religion.

                  Start with the one man-one woman idea, straight out of Christianity (not the bible, but mainstream Christianity today).  Move on to calls for Sharia Law, and then swing back to the blue laws that still exist in some areas.  You can even add gay bashing (and laws), from both of those religious institutions.

                  What religious references (outside of not allowing the federal government to promote one) are there in the constitution?  Without re-reading it, I can't think of any, even in the Preamble.

                  1. teamrn profile image79
                    teamrnposted 17 months ago in reply to this

                    Wilderness, in the first sentence, you mention that we ought not to have a specific religion. Then you say that we should "just obey the god-given laws and rules of a specific religion." I'm with you so far as calls for Sharia Law.

                    Sharia is not a religion; it is a code of laws that govern those who practice of a religion. The people who practice that particular religion can practice Sharia Law in their communities. I, as a Christian,  am not bound to be  by Sharia Law or Islamic Law in the US, but would expect to be if I lived and practiced in Arab nations.

                    I'll check the Constitution, Preamble and Bill and get back to you on the third paragraph. I like having a chat with you!

                  2. adagio4639 profile image80
                    adagio4639posted 17 months ago in reply to this

                    @wilderness: "What religious references (outside of not allowing the federal government to promote one) are there in the constitution?  Without re-reading it, I can't think of any, even in the Preamble."

                    It's not necessary to re-read it. There aren't any.

                2. adagio4639 profile image80
                  adagio4639posted 17 months ago in reply to this

                  @teamrn: "However, when they assembled in Philadelphia for the Constitutional Convention, and the Constitution was written by Jefferson, they did put in religious references."

                  The constitution was NOT written by Jefferson. You're confused. He wrote the Declaration of Independence. He wasn't even in the country at the time of the Constitutional convention. He was in France. And there are no religious references in the Constitution other than the 1st Amendment and Article VI. So..you're wrong about Jefferson, and you're wrong about religious references in the constitution. Care to try for more??

                  1. teamrn profile image79
                    teamrnposted 17 months ago in reply to this

                    Do you want me to? I suppose you've NEVER goofed! Perfect, I'm not. Ciao.

                3. adagio4639 profile image80
                  adagio4639posted 17 months ago in reply to this

                  "Yes, this country was founded on religious basis; not, though, on a SPECIFIC religious basis though. For a fairly accurate visual representation (though it glosses over some facts), the musical "1776" with Blythe Danner and Ken Howard and William Daniels, comes close to being spot on."

                  You're basing your view of the history of the founding of the country...on a Broadway musical?? American History is taught in Jr. High, High School, and College. You can major in it and get a degree in History in college. Think of what a waste of time and money that is? All we need to do is send kids to see a Broadway Musical and we can witness our History wrapped in song. What a concept! I wonder what song James Madison sang while he was working on the Bill of Rights?

                  1. teamrn profile image79
                    teamrnposted 17 months ago in reply to this

                    I started to justify my answer to answer your insults. Since when do I owe you and apology when you've done nothing but Lord your supposed superiority over me since you've joined this discussion.

                    You know that I wasn't endorsing a musical as "for a quick history lesson, dial 1-7-7-6" and ask for Ken or Blythe. Why don't we bring Gwnneth Paltrow to act with her Mom?

            2. adagio4639 profile image80
              adagio4639posted 17 months ago in reply to this

              @teamrn: "I'm beginning to feel that some of you would like ALL references to religion or any phrases that sound remotely religious, to be removed from the Constitution. Then we'd have an atheist government. Am I reading right?"

              No. You aren't. We wouldn't have an atheist Government. We'd have a secular government. You know...like the one we have.

              " some of you would like ALL references to religion or any phrases that sound remotely religious, to be removed from the Constitution"

              ??? In case you hadn't noticed, there are no phrases or references to religion to be found in the constitution. The ONLY references to religion are in the religious clause of the 1st Amendment and the mention in Article VI which says this: "... no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." That's it. Maybe you can find some other places where religious references are made....but you can save yourself the effort. There aren't any. They were never put in to begin with.

              "This country was founded as a religious nation, on religious principles; it's just that the mention of A SPECIFIC RELIGION was left out."

              No. It wasn't. The country was founded on principles coming from the European Enlightenment, including the Social Contract as described by John Locke. The country was the first secular state in the world. There was no Divine Right of Kings. Reason was what guided the formation of America, and reason requires freedom of thought, and freedom of thought is necessary for Freedom of Religion to exist. This country was based on the idea that you could believe or not believe whatever your mind told you. The state would never be involved in that. The freedom of thought is absolute. The freedom to act on that thought, however is not.

          2. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 17 months ago in reply to this

            Yes, you're right - apologies.

      2. teamrn profile image79
        teamrnposted 17 months ago in reply to this

        "Maybe its not based on religion so much as knee jerk common sense.
        Does he quote the Bible?" How are Mike Huckabee's statements not common sense?

      3. adagio4639 profile image80
        adagio4639posted 17 months ago in reply to this

        @Kathryn L Hill: "Does he quote the Bible?"

        Yes. Often.

    2. rhamson profile image76
      rhamsonposted 17 months ago in reply to this

      "And now, he wants us all to sign a petition to the Supreme Court:

      "As you work towards making your ruling at the end of June, I am writing today to tell you marriage is between one man and one woman. Period. The Supreme Court is not the Supreme Being."

      I have enough problems with the predisposition of some of the justices and their leaning either left or right in adherence to their appointment. Getting an impartial decision from them is hard enough let alone putting conditions on them from outside the Constitutional constraints they already have.

      Huckabee talks a good game but he is a wolf in sheep's clothing as many of them are. Tell us what you want us to believe and then pour on the deception later is their SOP.

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 17 months ago in reply to this

        Yes it is (standard SOP, from all parties).  And we fall for it every year - are we then allowing (encouraging) a religious takeover of the nation after already losing most of our freedoms for other goals and ideals?

    3. janesix profile image60
      janesixposted 17 months ago in reply to this

      " Is it possible that a candidate (whether Huckabee or not) could ever be elected on a platform of religious domination?"

      Unfortunately, yes. I think so.

      Do you realize that around forty percent of Americans are Creationists? I'm not sure about that number, I have to look it up.

      EDIT:
      http://www.gallup.com/poll/170822/belie … igins.aspx

      42%

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 17 months ago in reply to this

        Sad isn't it?  And when they force the rest of us to teach their myth to our children it's really scary.  Makes me think that you may be right - that a religious control fanatic could become president.

        1. janesix profile image60
          janesixposted 17 months ago in reply to this

          I think it could easily happen. We already have to fight tooth and nail to keep creationism out of schools. It really IS sad. I see this country going downhill quickly.

          At least though, it will be Christian as opposed to Muslim, which is the lesser of two evils. Not by much though.

        2. teamrn profile image79
          teamrnposted 17 months ago in reply to this

          "And when they force the rest of us to teach their myth " WHO is this 'THEY?'   

          What myth is that, the myth that makes you fear that Mike Huckabee will teach some myth to your children?

          Methinks that if children were taught to THINK for themselves, there wouldn't be a need to worry. I submit that there is a force other than fear that allows the Mike Huckabees to thrive. Time for a bit of parental responsibility?

    4. adagio4639 profile image80
      adagio4639posted 17 months ago in reply to this

      The Huckster is famous for injecting God and his religious beliefs into the debate. Not too different from Santorum. His opening statement is "I, Mike Huckabee, pledge allegiance to God, the constitution, and the citizens of the United States"  I'm not interested in whatever God he is talking about ( he doesn't make that clear does he?) Apparently the "pledge" isn't good enough for him. He needs to re-write it in order to pander to the religious voter. I, for one, being an Agnostic/Atheist, have no interest in his personal brand of religious belief. We don't govern the country based on the Bible. Huckabee pledges allegiance to God and the Constitution? Really? Maybe he needs to brush up on his constitution.
      Articles VI
      ..".but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."  It's a secular government Huckster. It's in the constitution. You need to be reminded.

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 17 months ago in reply to this

        I don't think our constitution or any other laws have much meaning to the religious fanatic trying to control the country.  Reminding him won't be much good as being president isn't the goal - controlling the religious lives of others is.

    5. Don W profile image83
      Don Wposted 17 months ago in reply to this

      Don't knock it. Anything that helps him to not be President is a good thing. Reply telling him to keep those emails coming, and to make them even more religious if possible.

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 17 months ago in reply to this

        Lol. Maybe I should, at that.

      2. adagio4639 profile image80
        adagio4639posted 17 months ago in reply to this

        Good point.

      3. 0
        DebMartinposted 17 months ago in reply to this

        Excellent point, Don W. Fortunately there are many "religious" people in this country who are inclusive. They believe in their god and choose to not force their opinions on the rest of us. Huckabee stopped to tie his shoes while the country was moving forward and now he's lost.

    6. jeff61b profile image91
      jeff61bposted 17 months ago in reply to this

      The Bible might be a great book to base your life on, or raise your family by, but it is not and never should be the basis of our government. That's what the Constitution is for.

      Only the Constitution exists to establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,

    7. Don W profile image83
      Don Wposted 14 months ago in reply to this

      For me, the relevant question is: how would a presidential candidate who holds a religious belief, manage a conflict between that belief and the Constitution? Both Mike Huckabee and Ted Cruz have indicated that they support violating the Constitution on the grounds of religious conviction. That view is contrary to the oath of office of the President of the United states (and the oath of office Cruz took as a Senator). Both oaths are legally binding. They place the president and members of congress under the constraint of the Constitution (as opposed to vesting in them the powers of a monarch and aristocracy). In other words, they protect the people from government. If a president broke that oath (by violating the Constitution) and imposed their own religious beliefs on society, then they would effectively be declaring themselves king and claiming a divine right to rule the country with "god's authority". A scary prospect, and one that has historically not ended well for the "ruler".

  2. teamrn profile image79
    teamrnposted 17 months ago

    "That claims they will only support judges that follow the constitution and not legislate from the bench and then immediately ask for help in getting the Supreme Court to ignore the constitution and the people by voting according to religious beliefs?"

    According to our Constitution, the Supreme Court justices are to interpret the Constitution and NOT legislate from the bench. What is an example of Mike Huckabee's ignoring of the Constitution and desiring to legislate from the bench? What court could legislate from the bench MORE than this one? He's allowed to vote according to his religious beliefs, his personal beliefs.

    "What is happening in our country that someone can garner votes by telling us that they put their personal religious beliefs above the constitution and above the people?" That is for the people who vote for Mike Huckabee to determine. Personally, I feel that he has every right and reason to have those beliefs; just as much as you have as much right no to vote for him based on those statements.

    That second paragraph, about how he plans to stand for the sanctity of all human life; all this is is his personal platform. If you don't like those things about hime, don't vote for him. THAT SIMPLE. In the same token, if he is elected and you see him do something on that list, don't say that you weren't forwarned, He's given you his platform.

    "Are there really voters out there that want a government founded on religion? " Yes, there are voters that want people to pass a certain litmus test on religous principles. This country WAS FOUNDED on religious priniciples and religious freedom. There was not a "federal" religion established, but the country was established as a religious nation. There was no discussion or ESTABLISHMENT of a national religion. As far as I'm concerned, some of our moral fiber was eliminated at approximately the same time that the practice of religion became passee or non-attractive and references to religion were eliminated from schools.

    "Are there really voters out there that want a government founded on religion?  Yes, I know there will always a few whackos that do, but enough to make a presidential race of it? " HE is making HIS presidential race out of it. You can follow-or not-but what will you replace it with. He'd like to take a stand and taking that stand may cost him the election-maybe hot.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 17 months ago in reply to this

      "What is an example of Mike Huckabee's ignoring of the Constitution and desiring to legislate from the bench?"

      "As you work towards making your ruling at the end of June, I am writing today to tell you marriage is between one man and one woman. Period. The Supreme Court is not the Supreme Being."  It's called legislating from the bench as that definition does not exist (outside of religious claims to the contrary) and is certainly not constitutional in origin.

      "Personally, I feel that he has every right and reason to have those beliefs"  Absolutely he does, no question about it.  The question is should he, as president, attempt to enact laws that will force those beliefs onto everyone else.

      Yes, I have the right not to vote for him, but the question is are we as a nation going down the road of religious persecution?  Can he (or anyone) reasonably expect enough voters that also want their religious views forcibly spread to stand a chance of election?

    2. adagio4639 profile image80
      adagio4639posted 17 months ago in reply to this

      @teamrn: "What court could legislate from the bench MORE than this one? He's allowed to vote according to his religious beliefs, his personal beliefs."

      This particular court is conservative with a 5-4 majority. If you're concerned about them legislating from the bench then you should be concerned that they are legislating conservative ideas. And when you say " He's allowed to vote according to his religious beliefs, his personal beliefs.". I'm not sure who you're referring to when you say, "HE", but if it's a Supreme Court justices, then you'd be wrong. He's NOT supposed to be voting according to his religious beliefs. His voting is based on the constitution. NOT his personal religious beliefs.

      "Personally, I feel that he has every right and reason to have those beliefs; just as much as you have as much right no to vote for him based on those statements."

      Nobody is denying that he has a right to hold whatever beliefs he has. The question is over whether he can legislate those beliefs. What makes those beliefs true? If he can't demonstrate what makes them true, then why would we want them legislated? I'm only interested in what the Constitution has to say about things, Not what Mike Huckabee's beliefs might be. I could care less about that.

      "In the same token, if he is elected and you see him do something on that list, don't say that you weren't forwarned, He's given you his platform."

      I doubt that Mike Huckabee has a ghost of a chance of winning the GOP nomination let alone the White House, so this is really all just food for debate.

      "Yes, there are voters that want people to pass a certain litmus test on religous principles."

      Then those are people that don't give a crap about the constitution that they also claim to love. The constitution makes it very clear in Article VI that "... no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." So if you really love the constitution as much as you claim, then you'll respect what it says. You can't claim to love and respect the document and then want to ignore and violate one of the most important parts of it. It's not even an Amendment that could be repealed. It's an Article. That makes it one of the pillars of the document. 

      "This country WAS FOUNDED on religious priniciples and religious freedom."

      That's a contradiction. You can't claim that the country was founded on religious principles ( which religion's principles? ) and religious freedom at the same time. You can't have religious freedom and religious principles at the same time. They're mutually exclusive ideas. In order to have religious freedom I have to be free FROM your religion and it's principles. Those two ideas contradict each other.

      "There was not a "federal" religion established, but the country was established as a religious nation."

      No it wasn't. You're attempting to re-write history. Can you show me some place in the Constitution that supports what you just said?

      "There was no discussion or ESTABLISHMENT of a national religion."

      You're misreading the 1st Amendment. It doesn't say anything about a national religion.
      Amendment I
      "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

      It says nothing about a national religion. It's very clear. There can be no law respecting an establishment of religion. It forbids not only establishments, but also any law respecting or relating to an establishment. Most importantly, it forbids any law respecting an establishment of "religion." It does not say "a religion," "a national religion," "one sect or society," or "any particular denomination of religion." It is religion generically that may not be established. The First Amendment does not say that Congress shall not establish a religion or create an establishment of religion. It says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Whether "respecting" connotes honoring or concerning, the clause means that Congress shall make no law on that subject. The ban is not just on establishments of religion but on laws respecting them, a fact that allows a law to fall short of creating an establishment yet still be unconstitutional. The entire non-preferentialist argument reduces to the proposition that, although a law preferring one religion over others would be unconstitutional, government aid to all without preference to any would be constitutional. But if government cannot pass a law on the subject of an establishment of religion, whether the aid is to all without preference or to only one makes no difference. A law of either kind is a law on a forbidden subject and therefore unconstitutional.

      This was done deliberately in order to avoid any governmental interference with religion or religious beliefs. Religions rise or fall on their own merit without any influence coming from the government. The government must remain neutral and out of religious decisions. They cannot legislate religious beliefs no matter what the religious make up of the country might be. All beliefs are protected and none are promoted over others, for the simple reason that the government can't know which religion (if any) is the right one.

      "As far as I'm concerned, some of our moral fiber was eliminated at approximately the same time that the practice of religion became passee or non-attractive and references to religion were eliminated from schools."

      Your concern is noted. It's just not in line with our constitution. What can a school tell our children about religion? That's what those kids have churches for. The church is what will give them moral direction, or if not the church then their own families. Are you saying that you would put your child's moral direction in the hands of the public school? Seriously? That's not their job. It's your job. You can either do it, or turn your kids over to your church to get that. It's not the job of the school. They aren't even qualified to do that.

      "HE is making HIS presidential race out of it. You can follow-or not-but what will you replace it with. He'd like to take a stand and taking that stand may cost him the election-maybe hot."

      Which is why he won't get anywhere. We're looking for the next President. The next commander in chief. NOT the next Preacher in Chief. I certainly don't need Mike Huckabee or any politician preaching morality to me. I can do that for myself. In fact, I find it pretty rude and arrogant of him to think that he's qualified to tell me anything about morality.

    3. GA Anderson profile image86
      GA Andersonposted 17 months ago in reply to this

      "...As far as I'm concerned, some of our moral fiber was eliminated at approximately the same time that the practice of religion became passee or non-attractive and references to religion were eliminated from schools."

      Without referencing the religious folks, I think there might be a lot of other folks that would agree with that sentence.

      I think I understand Wilderness' point, but I also think your response was spot on.

      GA

  3. teamrn profile image79
    teamrnposted 17 months ago

    He's expressing that he believes marriage is between a man and a woman. "...Period. The Supreme Court is not the Supreme Being."  That's not legislating from the bench. Legislating from the bench is if/when the SUPREME COURT should say that.

    Instead, Huckabee is imploring the SCOTUS to define marriage a certain way. He is petitioning the SCOTUS to declare that marriage is between a man and a woman. That is not saying that Mike Huckabee is legislating from the bench. Legislating from the bench would be: if the SCOTUS acted upon Mr. Huckabees definition and took it upon themselves to hand down a 'ruling' that reflected that definition.

    What is scary is that you feel that by the sheer action of asking the Supreme Court to rule the way he'd like them to rule, that Mike Huckabee is guilty of legislating from the bench. What is legislating from the bench, would be if the Supreme Court would make that very determination itself: when they are charged with INTERPRETING EXISTING LAW. Not making NEW law.

    The last 2 paragraphs of your answer that begin with religious persecution. "The question is should he, as president, attempt to enact laws that will force those beliefs onto everyone else." How is this different, at all different, from the executive orders that all other presidents have issued?

    If you think a candidate is going to "behave" this way and you don't want to see this in a candidate, don't vote for him. This requires studying and knowing what makes a candidate 'tick' because they can be real sticklers and/or chameleons. It's almost more important that we learn their character than memorize where they stand on issues.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 17 months ago in reply to this

      You are misunderstand what I meant.  It's not that a presidential candidate is legislating from the bench - it's that he's trying to get millions of people to encourage the SCOTUS to do so.  After saying he only supports "constitutional" judges that will not legislate themselves.  The concern, then, is not that the SCOTUS has done so - it's that a (possible) future president wants them to.  And thinks he can gain votes from people that also want that court to legislate, at least when it comes to their own, very personal, religious beliefs.  He thinks there are enough people wanting religious control over others to swing the election.

      Are there?  Doubtful (but possible) but what does that say of the future as we travel further and further down the road of a religious government?

    2. adagio4639 profile image80
      adagio4639posted 17 months ago in reply to this

      @teamrn: "Instead, Huckabee is imploring the SCOTUS to define marriage a certain way. He is petitioning the SCOTUS to declare that marriage is between a man and a woman."

      Right. He's doing that, but what is the basis for his petition? He's hoping that popular opinion will over-ride the constitution, and that the SCOTUS will rule based on popular opinion. The basis for his appeal to popular opinion is his religious view, and we don't use religion as the basis for our laws.

      " they are charged with INTERPRETING EXISTING LAW. Not making NEW law."
      Right. But what Huckabee is hoping to do is to get the SCOTUS to ignore the constitution and rule in favor of popular opinion. The fact of the matter is that Huckabee is actually on the wrong side of public opinion. This isn't about persuading the court over popular or religious opinion, but over the constitutionality of the law.

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 17 months ago in reply to this

        Exactly what Huckabee is trying to do, and after writing that:
        "I will support the elevation of none but faithful constitutionalists as judges or justices.  They must be committed to restraint and applying the original meaning of the constitution, not legislating from the bench."

        Apparently it's OK to legislate if the legislation is something he wants.  Or thinks his god wants, maybe.

        1. teamrn profile image79
          teamrnposted 17 months ago in reply to this

          wilderness, you surprise me. Surely you can see the difference between desire and showmanship and legal ability to carry out the threat.

          What would you have him say? THAT HE DOES NOT SUPPORT STRICT CONSTITUTIONALISTS . That could cause such a hue and cry, would ring his death knell, as well as the alienation of all conservatives.

          1. teamrn profile image79
            teamrnposted 17 months ago in reply to this

            Not all past comments have appeared in their entirety, some are taken out of context, rearranged or all of the above. So much for friendly banter on this board...

          2. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 17 months ago in reply to this

            Of course I don't expect that - he's a politician after all.  He will say what he thinks will get votes - in this case that judges should be constitutional and that they should cast their votes according to religious principles.  Hopefully people will not put the two statements together and thus he will get votes from both sides.

  4. Kathleen Cochran profile image85
    Kathleen Cochranposted 17 months ago

    I'm afraid too many well-intentioned people confuse practicing their faith with allowing others to have the same protections and privileges under the law that they have.  These are two different issues.  The government shouldn't interfere with your freedom of religion - as long as your freedom does not infringe upon the freedom of others.  And your religion (or mine) shouldn't keep someone else from having the same rights under the law as you do.

    Practice your faith, by all means.  But the laws are for everyone, whatever your personal beliefs are.  Presidential candidates should at least understand this fact.   

    The conservative Christian voting block lost me during the last election when they supported a Morman candidate over a professed evangelical Christian.  So much for voting your faith.  All it was about was abortion, and believe it or not, there actually are Christians who are pro-choice - and for Biblical reasons.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 17 months ago in reply to this

      "But the laws are for everyone, whatever your personal beliefs are."

      Just so.  Which is (apparently) why laws enforcing the religious belief of a few must be made and enforced - to force others to obey the "right" rules and behave according to God's rules.  "Believe as you wish (See, I give you religious "freedom") but make your actions according to what I say my god has decreed.

      1. teamrn profile image79
        teamrnposted 17 months ago in reply to this

        kidding, right? Say it ain't so!

  5. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 17 months ago

    How does he indicate this?
    <"...ask for help in getting the Supreme Court to ignore the constitution and the people by voting according to religious beliefs?">

 
working