King and Huck

Today would have been the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s 78th birthday.

That honorific -- "reverend" -- refers to King's vocation as an ordained Baptist minister. He was the pastor of Dexter Avenue Baptist Church in Montgomery, Ala. But King believed his ministry extended beyond his congregation. He believed that God had called him to work for justice not just in the hearts and lives of the believers at Dexter Avenue, but in all of Montgomery, in all of Alabama, in all of America and even, ultimately, in all of the world.

And today, on what would have been the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s 78th birthday, I read this MSNBC account of recent comments by another Baptist minister, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee on "The Constitution and God's Standards" (thanks, mmackmcc and Tonio, for the tip):

"[Some of my opponents] 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 is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards," Huckabee said, referring to the need for a constitutional human life amendment and an amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

It's nice to hear Huckabee concede that same-sex marriage is, in fact, constitutional, and thus that outlawing it would require a constitutional amendment, but that's not the main point here.

The main point here is sweet fancy Moses this guy wants to rewrite the Constitution to align it with his idea of "God's standards"!

So, OK then, here's one Baptist minister who sets out to change America, leads a march on the nation's capital, and succeeds in changing the law of the land. And here's another Baptist minister who has set out to change America and to rewrite the laws of the land. So what's the difference? Why do I admire and honor the former while mocking the latter as a theocratic goof? Is it just because one was a liberal and the other a conservative?

Actually, the difference between the two cases is huge. One could almost say these two cases are opposites. King offered secular arguments in sectarian language. Huckabee is offering sectarian arguments in (mostly) secular language.

I mention their use of religious language here because that's what quite a few people get tripped up on. Religious or sectarian language is not itself the issue. Religious language can be a stumbling block in the secular realm of politics because it is not a universally shared language. King's language was steeped in religion. Quotations and allusions from the Bible, from Christian hymns and gospel songs, infused all of King's public speech. Huckabee simply can't compare. Like most of the leaders of the religious right and most of the politicians who court their favor, he is far more likely to talk about the Bible than he is to quote from it. Yet while Huckabee's use of religious language is both rarer and shallower than King's use of such language, it stands out more. It stands out because, as Huckabee uses it, it is exclusively sectarian language. He does not, as King always did, translate that language into shared, nonsectarian principles* because unlike King he has no shared, nonsectarian argument in mind, and unlike King he is not employing this language in service of a shared, nonsectarian agenda.

King's biblical oratory and Huckabee's bibliolatrous babble serve very different arguments. King's argument was ultimately a secular one: a call for justice in accord with the biblical prophets but also, even more so, in accord with the rights guaranteed in the Constitution. Huckabee's argument is ultimately a religious one: a call for the Constitution to be re-written in accord with the (alleged) fiats of his faith.

Those are very different. It is in no way inconsistent to endorse the former while opposing the latter. In fact, it would be inconsistent not to.

Ira Chernus explores this in a Common Dreams essay, "Faith and Politics: Rules of the Game. Chernus asks what we mean when we object to someone "trying to impose their religion" on us:

Was Dr. King trying to impose his religion upon the southern racists when he demanded integration because blacks, too, are “children of God”? More recently, progressive faith-based coalitions have won living wage campaigns. The small businessmen who must pay their help higher wages may well feel that their freedom is curtailed due to someone else’s religious beliefs. Is it fair to complain that “they’re imposing their religion on us” when gay marriage is banned, but not when racial integration or a living wage is required? We need to think this through carefully.

The real conflict between religion and politics in a democracy comes not from what people say or do but how they talk about it and the authority they invoke for it.

The underlying premise of democracy is that we human beings get to choose our laws and policies, not discover them inscribed in the cosmos. The rules a community lives by are produced by that community, and by no one or nothing else. Any law or policy is fair game, as long as it is constitutional and achieved through the democratic process.

... Any belief, statement, or action can be religious if it claims some transcendent or supernatural authority for its truth. Believing in life after death or giving alms to the poor is no more intrinsically religious than praying for a million dollars, dancing around a tree, or robbing a bank. As long as you say “Hey, I didn’t just think this up on my own. I know it’s right and true because some eternal transcendent authority told me so,” it’s religious. And that means it can never be challenged or change.

But challenge and change is the essence of democracy. The only valid authority for political values is the truth discovered by human thought, which is always open to challenge and change. Democracy requires that all the people (either directly or through elected representatives) be thinking and debating about their laws and policies, constantly and endlessly. Every claim made in the political arena must be open to debate without limit.

And the debate must be open to everyone. No one’s ideas can be excluded. So everyone must have equal access to the terms of the discussion. No special terms, like the words and symbols of a particular religion, can be privileged, because that would exclude all the people who don’t find those words and symbols meaningful. The terms have to be secular.

Those who base their political values on their religion have to translate faith statements into value statements that non-believers can evaluate and debate in rational terms. That’s what Dr. King did. ...

The majority of people who bring their faith into politics, on the right as well as the left and center, translate that faith into statements of value couched in more or less secular terms. The critical question is whether they allow open-ended challenge and debate, or whether they claim “Hey, you can’t challenge this because we didn’t make it up. It comes from a transcendent authority than can never change and never be challenged.”

If you hear that, it’s fair to say “Religion out of politics!” Because at that point the only response adherents of another faith or none at all can make is, “I don’t believe you.” Then there’s nothing more to say. The conversation comes to a dead end. And that means the democratic process comes to an end.

Huckabee fails Chernus' "critical question." By stating, explicitly, that he wants "to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards" he is saying, precisely, "You can't challenge this because it comes from a transcendent authority that can never be challenged." His approach is defiantly unconstitutional and profoundly undemocratic. To accuse him of endorsing theocracy here is simply to quote him accurately.

The problem with Huckabee's statement is not that I disagree with him about same-sex marriage. The problem is that Huckabee doesn't care if I, or you, or anyone else, disagrees with him. His approach does not allow disagreement -- indeed, he says, to disagree with him is to disagree with God.

Most opponents of same-sex marriage will try at least to present an argument that relies on something other than their personal conviction that they have heard the voice of God and must impose the divine sanction upon the rest of the world. They will argue, for instance, that same-sex marriage would have bad consequences. By somehow eroding the Institution of Marriage or undermining The Family: Building Block of Society, they argue, same-sex marriage would lead to harmful consequences for society (dogs and cats ... mass hysteria, etc.). Whether or not those arguments make perfect sense, or are consistent with the facts, or bear any relation to the actual consequences, the point here is that those arguments are not sectarian. I think they're wrong, but I do not think they're illegitimate.

Huckabee's argument is illegitimate. He explicitly -- and proudly -- seeks to impose his religion on the rest of us. That's out of bounds. That is theocracy, not democracy. King knew the difference. Huckabee doesn't.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

* King was southern and Baptist, but he was not a Southern Baptist, so unlike Huckabee he was accustomed to viewing the Bible in terms of its larger themes and moral principles. Huckabee comes from the evangelical tradition of "literalism," which thinks primarily in terms of discrete precepts and propositions and has a very hard time discerning larger themes or principles. This is a serious handicap for evangelicals in the public sphere. They're equipped to prooftext, but not well-equipped to formulate arguments basic on overarching principles, and almost wholly incapable of translating such arguments into secular language or of basing them on shared, nonsectarian principles.

Comments

[Geds]

Damn straight.

Although, on some level, Huckabee's finally given me the ammo I need to explain to people why I don't like him and he creeps me out. I've been trying to explain his various evangelical dog whistles to people who aren't evangelicals and they just don't get it and even if they do they don't see why it's such a big deal. Now I can just say, "Look here."

Also, I think Tonio gave the link, not mmack. Or did Tonio just give the non broken link?

[burgundy]

Every time I try to talk about how arguments about the public sphere need to be arguments that are accessible to the public, I end up fumbling for words. So I may just quote from this.

[burgundy]

And the points made here aren't just limited to religion. I got into a discussion with a friend of mine recently after I said that I don't like victims and victims' families giving testimony at sentencing hearings because I don't think sentencing should be based on the emotional reactions that this kind of testimony can evoke (and it leaves open the possibility that certain victim traits will lead to more punishment than others.) She and I have different takes on reasoning vs emotion as motivating factors. But I think that at least with a constructed argument, even if it is tortured and wrongheaded, another person can engage it. If someone says "I want it done X way because that will make me feel Y," what can you say? You can't argue their feelings.

[mmack]

Fred, for starters, you've cited the wrong person who gave you the link to your story. It was actually Tonio, so I'd like to give him credit.

Secondly, it boils down to Dr. King using religion for inclusion (Demanding African Americans share the civil rights they were promised by the Constitution) versus Mike Huckabee using religion for exclusion (Denying same gender marriages because "The Bible says so")

Contrast the beauty and forcefulness of this:

In a sense we've come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the "unalienable Rights" of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note, insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked "insufficient funds."

But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. And so, we've come to cash this check, a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice.

...

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."

To the claptrap Huckabee and his ilk spew forth.

I for one am tired of the false piety that the candidates spew forth. I'll vote for the first one who replies "I believe a person's faith is a private issue between themselves and their creator. Next question."

[aunursa]

It's nice to hear Huckabee concede that same-sex marriage is, in fact, constitutional, and thus that outlawing it would require a constitutional amendment, but that's not the main point here.

Not necessarily. It might be a pragmatic position. Huckleberry might not consider same-sex marriage to be protected by the constitution, but he might be concerned that, absent an amendment, a court would (falsely in his opinion) declare it constitutional. Of course that's entirely my speculation on what might be his position.

I think they're wrong, but I do not think they're illegitimate.

I appreciate that perspective. I wish that others could understand such nuances. It would make for more productive discussions.

[Dylan]

This is probably going to make me look like an idiot, but... having seen this headline about "changing the Constitution to match God's laws" several times today, I'm actually less creeped out knowing it's code for "amendments banning abortion and gay marriage." If you don't know that's what he's implying, then you wonder just how far he's wanting to go in changing the Constitution.

That may have been a mistake on his part because it's the exact opposite of a "dog whistle." Rather than make a statement opposing the controversial topics of abortion and gay marriage directly, he's made an indirect statement that lends itself to conspiracy theories unless you're familiar with the religious right and know the code. (Of course, if it gets the religious right motivated enough, then it might outweigh the harm it'll do.)

[Rob Rodger]

Please forgive the inelligance of this post:

Yes, yes, yes! Thank you. That's just what I was thinking. But better expressed and more deeply informed and researched. When I heard the Huckabee quote I was appalled.

[yesteray]

Personally I look forward to the 99th amendment outlawing the eating of shellfish.

[Anna]

The only valid authority for political values is the truth discovered by human thought, which is always open to challenge and change.

I am unendingly fascinated by the way that all old things are new again. Politically, this is the heart of the Enlightenment, in one sentence. (Not incidentally, the Constitution was written based almost obsessively on the premiere Enlightenment philosophers.) Popular Sovereignty, as enunciated by Rousseau in the early eighteenth century, was the idea that not just a government, but the political sphere derived all of whatever authority it might possess from its public nature: a political sphere (or political dialogue) that was not wholly public, per Rousseau, had could claim no authority over the people that it excluded from dialogue.

Rousseau was writing, at the time, in opposition to another major theory of governmental sovereignty: the Divine Right of Kings. Note that Huckabee essentially invokes this right whenever he talks about why he should be elected: he claims that he has spoken to God (prayed), and that God has told him that it is his will that Huckabee run for President (Chief Executive by divine mandate). Now, if we frame it in the antiquated Enlightenment language of 'divine right of kings', I would bet that you'd be hard-pressed to find even a fundamentalist who thought it was a good plan to hand a government over to the man. Rephrased as Huckabee sells it, however, a good number of people apparently think it's a fabulous idea. This is what's fascinating to me about this election: Bush has been hinting at divine-right theories for years, but Huckabee has made it explicit. The problem with divine-right theories of sovereignty, however, is that our Constitution was explicitly framed in terms of an Enlightenment system of universal rights and values. No wonder Huckabee thinks the Constitution needs changing: his entire political strategy is subtly (or in the case of his most recent quote, not-so-subtly) at odds with its principles.

[Luke]

Wow, there's a lot of meat here. But let me just say first, as a faggot, I my first response was "Suck it Jerry Falwell, I'm getting married in Vegas!" I mean, it's legal until expressly forbidden, so, apparently, DOMA's not good enough....(as long as not the GOP wins, I figure I'll be able to gay marry by the time I'm 35. Currently, I'm 22. I'll take bets)

[Spherical Time]

I seriously think that Huckabee is unelectable for exactly the reasons expressed in this article and so I hope that he's the nominee, as unlikely as that is.

I don't think that enough of America supports completely rewriting the constitution to include religious language, and if a majority does, then I need to know that.

[Ian]

I can't wait to see the 122nd amendment, which will enact the redistribution of property from each according to his ability to each according to his need. (Acts 4:32-37)

[Josh]

"If we are wrong, then the Supreme Court is wrong. If we are wrong, then the Constitution of the United States is wrong. If we are wrong, then God Almighty is wrong!" Huck's a long way from MLK's belief that all three of those authorities are compatible.

[Reynard]

"King offered secular arguments in sectarian language. Huckabee is offering sectarian arguments in (mostly) secular language."

This reminds me of something I heard several years ago in a computer class. The speaker was an ex-High School teacher telling us why some his former students, all athletes, had problems passing their computer courses: "Geeks speak Geek, and Jocks speak Jock. If they refuse to learn each other's language, of *course* they won't understand each other and they're going to fail each other's subject. The trick (to helping them pass) was to make them realize that their two languages had enough similarities* that they could understand enough of each to communicate the basic concepts of their respective subjects to each other, and; once they had mastered these; begin to use more specialized terms when the need arose."

Basically, MLK was a Jock who was willing to master Geek and speak it when the need arose. Huckabee is a Jock who *isn't* willing to do the same.

*Don't ask me what they are, I don't remember.

[Praline]

The only valid authority for political values is the truth discovered by human thought, which is always open to challenge and change. Democracy requires that all the people (either directly or through elected representatives) be thinking and debating about their laws and policies, constantly and endlessly. Every claim made in the political arena must be open to debate without limit.

How true. Now here's something I expect will be unpopular with at least some of you, but it's a foreigner's perspective:

This is why it's slightly screwy to relate everything back to the Constitution.

Calling something unconstitutional is an iron-clad argument in America, or at least, an iron-clad way of getting people's attention. Now don't get me wrong, I think the Constitution is good. I like what is says, and 'unconstitutional' is a pretty reliable indicator that something is a bad thing. But, coming from a culture that instead depends on common law, which changes and adapts continually as new situations arise to set precedents that nobody thought of before, it seems to me that the idea of a single document that can never be deviated from is just as likely to be used to oppose good change as to institute it, or, indeed, to oppose or insitute bad change. It's a single document, and once something's written into it, that's supposed to be the end of the debate.

In this day and age, similarly, there's a lot of talk thrown around about the Founding Fathers. Does anybody other than me ever think, 'Stuff the Founding Fathers, why not talk about what's right? What's right in itself, not because it's in the Constitution or the Fathers thought it up, but what's the right thing to do?' If it's right, then why do you need to point to some other authority?

King's arguments were so fine, ultimately, because the man was just right. Whatever the Constitution said (or indeed the slave-owning Founding Fathers), it was true that black citizens had as many rights as white and that it was wicked for a society not to honour that. He was working with the materials to hand when he cited things being unconstitutional, but there was a deeper law at play. The Constitution is a formulation of morality, but morality itself abides in other forms.

I appreciate that if you're arguing with traditionalists and authoritarians, pointing to a traditional authority that happens to be liberal can be a good way of getting through to them. I appreciate also that if a document is good, you could use a corrupted version of the same arguments I'm using to support people like Huckabee who want to deviate from it in a bad way. (Do we have to call him Huckleberry? Huck Finn was a good guy who stood against bigotry; it's a nicer nickname than the man deserves.) But I also wonder whether there's an element of moral/intellectual hiding going on. The neocons are successfully agressive campaigners partly because they're prepared to stand up and fight for their own opinions, and a lot of the time it seems that Democrats lose out because they're less willing to fight as hard. Can pointing to the Constitution ever be a way of saying, 'Well, it's not exactly me who thinks this, so don't get mad at me'?

I could be wrong. But we have no Constitution in England, and we do have gay marriage. (Or civil partnerships at least.) I just wonder if there can ever come a point where Constitutionolatry might constrain debate.

[spencer]

So let me see if I understand this "Scott" guy. He's more or less incapable of actual argumentation that goes beyond the repetition of a handful of stock phrases / themes, most of which do little more than accuse other commenters of hypocrisy. And yet he sometimes has good comments in the LB threads.

Is that about right?

[Jesurgislac]

To understand Scott, you have to understand his tale of woe.

[cjmr]

Odd thing is, four years ago he did more than parrot catch phrases and we all had some interesting (if frustrating) debates with him...

[cjmr's husband]

@Spencer: Yup.

@Raynard:

"Geeks speak Geek, and Jocks speak Jock. If they refuse to learn each other's language..."

I suggest that it is easier to convince a Jock that it is in his best interest to learn to speak Geek. The average Jock is not accustomed to hearing the Geek-phrase "let's go beat up the Jock".

There is an exact parallel here between the theocrat and the atheist/evilutionist/liberal/gay/feminist/sane individual.

[Tlonista]

@Praline: In Canada we have a Constitution, but that didn't keep us from legalizing same-sex marriage -- yes, marriage, none of this "civil partnership" nonsense. I suggest that it's not whether you have a Constitution or not that matters, but the patriotic mythology you tack onto it. George Washington is deeply glamorous. John A. MacDonald, for all he's on the money, is not.

[Praline]

Hey, you've got marriage! I didn't know that. Good for Canada.

And yes, I'm sure that having a Constitution doesn't prevent people from doing good things. It's more that it seems that there can be a risk of dwelling purely on whether something's contitutional to the exclusion of whether it's right. On the other hand, with common law, you can just as easily set a bad precedent, so I guess I say tomato, you say tomato. As I keep saying, the basic problem is generally bastards rather than any particular system.

[MikhailBorg]

Praline, as Clay Jenkinson of the (fascinating) podcast "The Thomas Jefferson Hour" is known to frequently mention, at least one of the Founding Fathers thought the Constitution ought to be re-written from scratch every 20 years or so; he couldn't imagine that a blueprint for 18th century government would make a lick of sense in (say) the 21st.

Whether such an idea is sane or practical in the 21st century as a matter rich in the possibilities for debate.

[Jesurgislac]

In the UK, we don't have a constitution, yet we didn't get same-sex marriage (though civil partnership is almost legally identical to marriage, 99%).

The Republicans in Congress actually had to have a law repealing a bit of the US Constitution (the infamous DOMA repeals Article 4 with respect to same-sex marriage) in order to prevent couples just going to whichever state permits same-sex marriage, getting legally wed, and coming back to their home states with a marriage which the Constitution would require their home states to accept. The legal structures for refusing to accept the Constitutional requirement to recognize marriages that bigots in that state don't like, are exactly those used to refuse to recognize interracial marriages.

[aunursa]

Spencer: So let me see if I understand this "Scott" guy. He's more or less incapable of actual argumentation that goes beyond the repetition of a handful of stock phrases / themes, most of which do little more than accuse other commenters of hypocrisy. And yet he sometimes has good comments in the LB threads.

Based on my experience, that description would apply equally to some of his opponents.

[Toby]

I liked Pope B's argument on New Year's: The Gay undermines peace. (And so do condoms.) So if you're worried about war or terrorism, there's the root problem right there.

[aunursa]

Jesurgislac: The Republicans in Congress actually had to have a law repealing a bit of the US Constitution (the infamous DOMA repeals Article 4 with respect to same-sex marriage) in order to prevent couples just going to whichever state permits same-sex marriage, getting legally wed, and coming back to their home states with a marriage which the Constitution would require their home states to accept.

DOMA was signed into law by President Clinton, a Democrat the last I checked.

The irony is that some Democrats state that they oppose SSM, but oppose a constitutional amendment, citing DOMA as a sufficient measure to prevent one state from effectively forcing same-sex marriage on the other 49. Yet Republican opponents of SSM argue that DOMA itself is subject to the whims of the judicial branch; there is nothing preventing a future court from declaring DOMA unconstitutional. In that sense the Republicans agree with you that DOMA could be declared unconstitutional, while Democrats have ignored or dismissed that possibility. Thus, the only way for opponents to ensure that one state cannot dictate marriage policy to the other 49 is via a constitutional amendment.

[aunursa]

Clarification: the irony is not that Democratic opponents of SSM oppose an amendment. The irony is that Republicans cite the potential unconstitutionality of DOMA (thus agreeing with Jesurgislac) to demonstrate the need for an amendment.

[Tonio]

While I appreciate Geds and mmack mentioning my earlier post, my main concern is making sure everyone here knows what Huckabee said. I'm really afraid for my daughters. Not that I necessarily expect Huckabee to win, but his supporters want an America where my daughters would be forced to pray in school, to learn creationism, and to "submit graciously" (uuugh) to their husbands.

[Jesurgislac]

DOMA was signed into law by President Clinton, a Democrat the last I checked.

Conservatives never like to take responsibility for the ugly bigotry of their own, I've often noticed this.

In the House of Representatives, 224 Republicans voted Yea on DOMA, 118 Democrats. 65 Democrats voted Nay on DOMA, 1 Republican, 1 Independent. Out of a total of 198 Democrats then in the House, fully 1/3 of them stood up and said No to a bigoted bill that they knew about three-quarters of Americans would support. Not enough, and not good enough, but out of 234 Republicans then in the House, 95% of them supported it. (In the Senate, every single Senator to oppose DOMA was a Democrat: every single Republican voted Yea.)

Yes, I think Clinton should have done more to oppose the active malice and bigotry of conservatives against LGBT people, including the conservatives in his own party. I think it typical of conservatives that they so often try to wriggle away from standing up and admitting the ugly bigotry of their own politicians - as with DOMA.

[Richard Hershberger]

I have a positive interpretation of Huckabee's proposed amendments to the Constitution. It is stock in trade for the modern conservative Christian to claim that the nation was founded on Christian principles by good Christians. This is risible, of course, but that's beside the point. Huckabee, by speaking of the Constitution's not meeting God's standards, implicitly admits that this is nonsense. I hope he keeps this in the limelight. The more people talk about it, the harder it is to pretend that the Constitution already is Christian.

[mmack]

Personally I look forward to the 99th amendment outlawing the eating of shellfish.

I can't wait to see the 122nd amendment, which will enact the redistribution of property from each according to his ability to each according to his need. (Acts 4:32-37)

I'm waiting for the entire book of Leviticus to be enacted as law. I forsee a Department of Animal Sacrifices added to the USDA to ensure sheep, goats, and bulls are slaughtered and offered up as sacrifices to the Almighty as prescribed by gov't regulations.

I am also curious to see which branch of gov't would decide the "cleanliness\un-cleanliness" standards and enforce them.

[MikhailBorg]

I am also curious to see which branch of gov't would decide the "cleanliness\un-cleanliness" standards and enforce them.

I nominate TV personality Mike Rowe for the head of that department.

[Tonio]

The legal structures for refusing to accept the Constitutional requirement to recognize marriages that bigots in that state don't like, are exactly those used to refuse to recognize interracial marriages.

Although I agree in principle, I usually hesitate in making the comparison. That's because some black conservative Christians mistakenly assume that comparison makes light of the horrors of slavery and Jim Crow, or equates the suffering of American gays to those horrors. While that's not the case, I don't know how to make the legal argument in a way that would prevent them from making that assumption.

[scottbot_sings_in_the_chorus]

Amen, Scottbot is ready to parrot a few stock phrases - can we have another 'amen'?

Scottbot, though no longer beta, and certainly never alpha, is still tweaking itself for improved responsiveness.

'At least that person seems to actually give a damn what the Constitution says, instead of "reinterpreting" it into what he wants.' Scottbot has a certain illogical conviction that Huckabee (bless you) cares a lot less about the Constitution than some may believe - after all, not being in conformation with the word of god according to Huckabee (bless you), there is little reason to respect it enough to worry about changing it.

Huckabee (bless you) will simply use whatever biblical exorcism ritual most suits his needs (or may instead be able to find a burning shrubbery in the White House) to handle the pesky fact that the Founders wanted to keep the word of god out of the American Republic - and yes, today, Scottbot's spelling module is in fine fettle.

At some point, Americans will simply need to confront the fact that a number of their fellow citizens have decided that what was formerly shared historical truth among all Americans has been replaced by another vision in the eyes of those following a higher truth, one where atheists and their fellow travellers, indecently deiest non-christians, have no role in the true vision of America, one nation under God.

Which has been true since the 'last change in the Pledge of Allegiance occurred on June 14 (Flag Day), 1954 when President Dwight D. Eisenhower approved adding the words "under God". As he authorized this change he said: "In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war." '

Personally, I think Eisenhower missed the boat - waterboarding seems to be our most powerful weapon in the America's current fight against a noun.

Luckily, Huckabee (bless you), a man young enough to have never heard the original, non-Communist influenced Pledge of Allegiance, realizes that god is sometimes a bit slow in actually getting the word out about what god wants. Which is why god is now declaring Huckabee (bless you) his candidate. Much to Huckabee's (bless you) humbly delighted acceptance. Sort of like how Cheney was forced to pick himself when searching for Bush's vice presidential candidate, or even more appropriately, how Bennie the 'Rat' reached the top, with god's one way intercom in his office suite.

[Robin Z]

Off to the side: I don't know if this is somewhere on MSNBC's site, but here's a post with a video clip from "Morning Joe" that includes a clip of the quote in the speech.

[McJulie]

That may have been a mistake on his part because it's the exact opposite of a "dog whistle."

That's why I think it's good to have Huckabee in the race -- because he does have one virtue ascribed to him, that of being a "straight talker" who doesn't play political games -- so he is just blurting out the religious right's agenda in raw, naked terms.

"We want to amend the Constitution to be more in line with our particular religion." He doesn't even use the thin coating of "family values" varnish, that might get social conservatives of more diverse religious backgrounds on board.

Also, he is making it explicit that the only real arguments against same-sex marriage or abortion are religious ones.

Not to get caught in the tarpit of arguments with Scott, but you seem to be missing something important about the US government: it is constructed to be representative but specifically not to allow 51 percent to just do whatever they like to the remaining 49 percent.

I believe one of the primary things our government is for -- as outlined in the Constitution -- is to protect our rights and freedoms from those who would take them away. Foreign powers, government institutions, commercial entities, individuals, our fellow citizens -- all of these forces may, at some point, attempt to take away a right that turns out to be protected in the Constitution.

(And how can the government act to protect us from the government, you ask? It just can, okay? Different branches and levels and whatnot.)

I believe the purpose of Constitutional Amendments, such as the Bill of Rights, is to explicitly guarantee a right that was not previously recognized, or would otherwise be threatened. And most of the Amendments do just that -- giving black people and women and eighteen year olds the right to vote, for example. The equal rights amendment proposed during the 1970s would have attempted to guarantee equal treatment for men and women.

All these amendments being proposed by the right wing are bad amendments because their purpose is to take away a right. We have passed at least one bad amendment in the past -- Prohibition. It didn't work out too well, and it was repealed 13 years later.

[Tonio]

Huckabee, by speaking of the Constitution's not meeting God's standards, implicitly admits that this is nonsense. I hope he keeps this in the limelight. The more people talk about it, the harder it is to pretend that the Constitution already is Christian.

I hope that happens. My negative interpretation involves the theocrats growing in influence as more of them come out of the closet and make connections with each other.

[Robb]

Huckabee is offering sectarian arguments in (mostly) secular language.

Ah. . . I think I've finally figured out why I've had a subconscious like of Huck - Yes, I like Mike Huckabee (mostly - as a person more than a candidate), and despite lots of Republican-ish things he's said, I've always appreciated the way he talked. Now I see why - I haven't been comfortable with a lot of what he's said, but I like that he was upfront about his convitions & faith, and I liked that he hasn't couched his statements in the vaguely implicative language of "higher power" type statements, while dropping Christianese codephrases left & right. I also appreciate that he's committed to "God's standards" above men's. Nevermind that I think he's wrong about what God's standards are, or that he's been quite vague on a lot of his other plans for what he'd do as prez (foreign policy anyone?), but still, I appreciate that commitment & consistency - he's an authentic evangelical loon.

But he won't get the nomination, much less win the election, so it doesn't matter. Personally, I think Mitt Romney is far more unelectable, so I kinda hope he gets the nomination to go against Obama - that would be an awesome battle, but one that Romney couldn't hope to win.

[John]

Geds has it exactly right. I heard the dog whistles too, and it creeped me out as well. Robb, turn up your hearing aid 8^). Mr. Huckabee is a slick, fast talking con man who will take anyone's money for his own pocket. That doesn't sound like principle, unless the principle is "me first."

[Tonio]

I'm actually less creeped out knowing it's code for "amendments banning abortion and gay marriage." If you don't know that's what he's implying, then you wonder just how far he's wanting to go in changing the Constitution.

Dumb question - how do you know his implication? I assumed he was talking not just about banning abortion and gay marriage, but about mandatory prayer and creationism in public schools. Or even more extreme measures like bans on contraception, pornography, and blasphemy.

[Praline]

I believe the purpose of Constitutional Amendments, such as the Bill of Rights, is to explicitly guarantee a right that was not previously recognized, or would otherwise be threatened. And most of the Amendments do just that -- giving black people and women and eighteen year olds the right to vote, for example. The equal rights amendment proposed during the 1970s would have attempted to guarantee equal treatment for men and women.

All these amendments being proposed by the right wing are bad amendments because their purpose is to take away a right.

Nicely put, McJulie.

[Rob C]

To Scott's first comment:
You made 3 points. You are correct in the second two.
As to your first, no, of course the Constitution is important. It is the law of the land. If someone thinks that something is "right" and the Constitution doesn't have it, that's exactly why we have Constitutional Amendments. And that's also why amending the Constitution is hard. Because the Constitution generally works better than the latest fad, or a 2000 year old argument. Not always--sometimes a good idea comes from the new or the old, and the Constitution will never be perfect. But 51% of people will believe in ghosts, UFOs, and WMDs in Iraq if there's a media campaign for it first, so I'm very glad it takes a lot more than that to amend it.

[Dylan]

Dumb question - how do you know his implication? I assumed he was talking not just about banning abortion and gay marriage, but about mandatory prayer and creationism in public schools. Or even more extreme measures like bans on contraception, pornography, and blasphemy.

I don't, actually--I assumed what you did the first time I saw the quote. Fred's post (and the MSNBC article he references) says he's referring to abortion and gay marriage, and I assume they have a better understanding of the context of the statement than I do.

[Robb]

heard the dog whistles too, and it creeped me out as well. Robb, turn up your hearing aid 8^). Mr. Huckabee is a slick, fast talking con man who will take anyone's money for his own pocket.

As a lifelong evangelical. . . well, most of my life, I have to disagree. Who's he conning? What's he hiding? Yeah, he's asking for money, because he's dirt poor compared to Moneybags Romney (and most other Republicans for that matter). He's made his biases quite well known, as Fred has demonstrated. I grew up hearing all sorts of this crap from people trying to woo Christian conservatives, and one thing I would always hear would be criticism of a candidate for not being explicit enough in public about their faith and/or values. Not Huckabee - he's making his plans pretty well known. There's no code phrases here that only make sense to fundies, just pure populism. In fact, he's been criticized up & down (and rightly so) for spouting vague platitudes rather than more concrete details about his plans for healthcare, the economy, foreign policy. He's even been accused of being in bed with the one world govt, which I thought was hilariously ironic, given that he sought LaHaye's endorsement.

[Robb]

Dammit Typepad!

"one world govt" should link to here: http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/01/huckabee_handle.html

[Jeff]

Basically, MLK was a Jock who was willing to master Geek and speak it when the need arose.

I would say he was a Geek (specializing in a field) who could speak to Jocks (the main group of Americans).

==============================

At least that person seems to actually give a damn what the Constitution says, instead of "reinterpreting" it into what he wants.

No, he doesn't give a damn. If he gave a damn, he'd use it as a base, instead of wanting to start from scratch.

====================================

Based on my experience, that description would apply equally to some of his opponents.

Name them, torture-monkey.

===================================

I am also curious to see which branch of gov't would decide the "cleanliness\un-cleanliness" standards and enforce them.

Bureau of Weights and Measures.

[Bugmaster]

Name them, torture-monkey.

I love the smell of discourse in the morning ! :-]

[Anna]

re Tonio and Dylan:

I think the 'hurhur God's Standards' answer was given in response to an interview question about the constitutionality of specifically abortion and gay marriage. That's why people have assumed that he was talking about those two things, rather than establishing a general theocracy (which, out of context, is what it sounds like he wants).

Robb: There's no code phrases here that only make sense to fundies, just pure populism.

I think maybe it's less that he's using language that only makes sense to fundies, and more that he drops fundie buzzwords like hot potatoes in every sentence that he uses. 'Living God', for example, in the quote above. It's not particularly deceptive, since non-fundies can understand it just as well as the RTCs, but I think it has significance to fundies that it doesn't for those who haven't heard that language their whole life. It's less about what the words mean on face, and more about the baggage that gets associated with them. To someone who wasn't accustomed to Christian culture, 'living God' might sound like a rhetorical flourish, something that he'd say instead of just saying 'God' (because one assumes that if God is important enough to amend Constitutions then surely He's alive in some sense?). But to people who've gotten used to fundie rhetoric, it carries meaning beyond the obvious: 'living God' ties Huck's subsequent statement to a whole system of beliefs about Jesus, about abortion ('living' God, emphasis on the life, has been a buzzword in anti-choice circles for a while), etc. So it's not so much deceptive language as language that speaks in a particular way to Evangelicals.

[Anna]

re Tonio and Dylan:

I think the 'hurhur God's Standards' answer was given in response to an interview question about the constitutionality of specifically abortion and gay marriage. That's why people have assumed that he was talking about those two things, rather than establishing a general theocracy (which, out of context, is what it sounds like he wants).

Robb: There's no code phrases here that only make sense to fundies, just pure populism.

I think maybe it's less that he's using language that only makes sense to fundies, and more that he drops fundie buzzwords like hot potatoes in every sentence that he uses. 'Living God', for example, in the quote above. It's not particularly deceptive, since non-fundies can understand it just as well as the RTCs, but I think it has significance to fundies that it doesn't for those who haven't heard that language their whole life. It's less about what the words mean on face, and more about the baggage that gets associated with them. To someone who wasn't accustomed to Christian culture, 'living God' might sound like a rhetorical flourish, something that he'd say instead of just saying 'God' (because one assumes that if God is important enough to amend Constitutions then surely He's alive in some sense?). But to people who've gotten used to fundie rhetoric, it carries meaning beyond the obvious: 'living God' ties Huck's subsequent statement to a whole system of beliefs about Jesus, about abortion ('living' God, emphasis on the life, has been a buzzword in anti-choice circles for a while), etc. So it's not so much deceptive language as language that speaks in a particular way to Evangelicals.

[Anna]

re Tonio and Dylan:

I think the 'hurhur God's Standards' answer was given in response to an interview question about the constitutionality of specifically abortion and gay marriage. That's why people have assumed that he was talking about those two things, rather than establishing a general theocracy (which, out of context, is what it sounds like he wants).

Robb: There's no code phrases here that only make sense to fundies, just pure populism.

I think maybe it's less that he's using language that only makes sense to fundies, and more that he drops fundie buzzwords like hot potatoes in every sentence that he uses. 'Living God', for example, in the quote above. It's not particularly deceptive, since non-fundies can understand it just as well as the RTCs, but I think it has significance to fundies that it doesn't for those who haven't heard that language their whole life. It's less about what the words mean on face, and more about the baggage that gets associated with them. To someone who wasn't accustomed to Christian culture, 'living God' might sound like a rhetorical flourish, something that he'd say instead of just saying 'God' (because one assumes that if God is important enough to amend Constitutions then surely He's alive in some sense?). But to people who've gotten used to fundie rhetoric, it carries meaning beyond the obvious: 'living God' ties Huck's subsequent statement to a whole system of beliefs about Jesus, about abortion ('living' God, emphasis on the life, has been a buzzword in anti-choice circles for a while), etc. So it's not so much deceptive language as language that speaks in a particular way to Evangelicals.