....so it is in accordance with G_d's will?

Mike Huckabee apparently thinks so. Occasional Faith-Based poster Archaeopteryx links to this story.

Anyway, to follow up on a story Arch recently posted, Huckabee told a Michigan audience last Monday:

I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that's what we need to do -- to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view.

Maybe I have had my head up my ass all week (maybe?) but I missed reading or hearing this on any of the news. Apparently, it DID catch the attention of MSNBC's Morning Joe, where, per The Raw Story,

...co-host Mika Brzezinski was almost speechless, and even Joe Scarborough couldn't immediately find much to say beyond calling it "interesting."

Scarborough finally suggested that while he believes "evangelicals should be able to talk politics ... some might find that statement very troubling, that we're going to change the Constitution to be in line with the Bible. And that's all I'm going to say."

Geist further noted of Huckabee that if "someone without his charm," said that, "he'd be dismissed as a crackpot, but he's Mike Huckabee and he's basically the front-runner."

How does this shit get missed? Joe Scarborough finds it troubling and nobody else thinks this needs to be mentioned?

I believe that Mr. Paine summoned up God's Standard very well...

Whenever we read ... the cruel and tortuous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we call it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize humankind. And, for my own part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel.

--Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason

...I expect we’ll hear more about it. That’d be a good debate question, don’t you think?

“Governor Huckabee, precisely what amendments do you believe are required to align the Constitution with the word of the living G*d?”

I know I’d like to hear an answer to that one.

BigShot:

I believe that Mr. Paine summoned up God's Standard very well... Whenever we read ... the cruel and tortuous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we call it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize humankind. And, for my own part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel. --Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason

In other words, amending the Constitution to match G_d's standards would provide Constitutional protection to the current Administration's enthusiasm for the use of torture.

"How does this shit get missed?"

Might be interesting. Big George could have Little George dragged to the town square to be stoned.

Buy stock in Kosher groceries I guess and hope you don't get sick Friday evening.

In context, Huckabee's statement seems limited to a constitution amendment to permit states to outlaw abortion. Naturally, he phrased it in such a way as to have the broadest appeal to the voters he is primarily aiming at.

According to some people on the right the liberal media didn't cover this story because they want Huck to win the GOP ticket. THEN they will use this story over and over again to defeat Huck.

NOW, I'm not saying I'm buying this line, but it IS a sound strategy.

Moderate Dems (e.g. Hillary supporters) often say the same thing about Obama and the media.

THe only defense I can come up with for Huck's statement is that he meant that instead of a continued division in American each side should look to pass Constitutional amendments.

For example, take abortion. The left shouldn't worry about SC judges and Roe V Wade being overturned. If the country really supports a womens right to an abortion than work on passing a constitutional amendment. Same with Same Sex marriage. Of course the right should try to get their amendments passed.

Now I believe that each side would fail one both of these hot button issues BUT then each side would hopefully learn something. i.e. abortion will remain legal BUT with state restrictions and Same Sex marriage isn't going to happen but Civil Unions can.

And an anti-gay-marriage amendment too, as mentioned in the page you linked to and in this interview which tiponeill linked to the other day.

But you're right: the phrasing of the statement sounds maximalist - let's rewrite the whole damn thing to make it Godly! - when he's really talking about making specific changes. I'm strongly opposed to those changes, mind you.

As I posted below in my defense of Huck's statement it is OK to call for amendments. The founding fathers created amendments and if there is a solid consensus then the change should move forward.

I believe BOTH sides (left \ right) should try to pass amendments on abortion and same sex marriage. Both sides will fair on both of these issues but then both sides will learn something; Abortion is here to stay BUT states can have restrictions AND the nation is ready for same sex marriage BUT civil unions can move forward.

NOTE: I'm 100% pro-abortion and same sex marriage.

NPR Link:

<link>

I also assumed that it was same sex marriage and abortion that he was targeting, in which case, his position is pretty much mainstream Republican at this time.

What is different is that, while the others try maintain the pretense that their motives are secular, he is actually being candid in admitting that it his religious views that motivate his position.

Heleva:

NPR Link:

<link>

I had actually heard that NPR story, and had not caught the specific reference to changing the Constitution to match G_d's standard.

Which is really my point -- not so much that his having said that was not reported, but that nobody (well, not exactly "nobody" but damned few) felt that there was anything especially remarkable about his having said it.

"But you're right: the phrasing of the statement sounds maximalist - let's rewrite the whole damn thing to make it Godly!"

If Torah, the Biblical Law, becomes law of the land will it be possible to tell Americans from Arabians or Iranians?

Seems simpler to have everyone who wishes to live under Biblical Law to convert to Orthodox Judaism, but not everyone can get in. They do have standards. Guess the next best thing is for American Gentiles to follow Noachide Covenant.

I suppose there are a few (Dd for example) who might want to go for the full deal, stone adulterers, death to sabbath breakers, sell your daughter into slavery deal, but if they really want that, they are keeping that on the low down.

Hell, even if they throw out the Jewish laws, even turning all the NT standards into law would be rather radical.

I am imagining an assault victim being charged for failing to turn the other cheek! LOL We won't even talk about all those divorcees being brought up on charges of adultery.

"We won't even talk about all those divorcees being brought up on charges of adultery."

Especially not when a Republican primary is being held today. Five candidates, nine wives? Looks like a city council race in Riyhad.