digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at thinkprogress.org

Huckabee: Amend the Constitution To "God's Standards"

thinkprogress.org — At a campaign stop yesterday, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee recommended — to a cheering audience — that the Constitution be “changed” to fit “God’s standards."

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • yakimushi, on 01/16/2008, -22/+358Yes, lets amend the Constitution to God's word... if my brother dies I get to nail his wife! (Leviticus 14-16). But then we have to bake our bread with poo... (Ezekiel 4:12). But I'll get to kill my enemies then take their women, children, and cattle! (Deuteronomy 20:13-14)

    Gosh, this could be exciting!
    • rishubhav, on 01/16/2008, -9/+61Don't forget banning Shrimp! (http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/)
      • Jb611, on 01/16/2008, -12/+4404
        • gbarberi, on 01/16/2008, -1/+11Digg's comment system is retarded. You need to take off the closing parenthsis.
          • tidu, on 01/16/2008, -1/+37We need to amend the comment system to god's standards.
          • spucky, on 01/16/2008, -0/+8@tidu
            I think god would have still stuck the paren on the URL, just look at the platypus.
          • MarkOfTheDead, on 01/16/2008, -0/+3@tidu
            bad idea, people would get executed for stealing comments or bitching about the system.

            nevermind, do it.
        • spucky, on 01/16/2008, -1/+9Take the ) off the end. Digg added it to the URL. Happens a lot with "." as well when people end a sentence with a URL. Digg just gobbles up the characters and adds them to the URL.
      • ryan83189, on 01/16/2008, -26/+1I don't eat shrimp for that reason. no kidding, really. digg me down if you must, and call me superstitious, but this is one of the only things in the bible that i have a shot at actually following.
        • aukxsona, on 01/16/2008, -3/+13yes well...I don't call myself Christian because I can't follow the Bible. I actually read it. It is one wacked out trip ....
          • divrekku, on 01/16/2008, -2/+1OMG you actually read it?!? I didn't think that was allowed!

            /sarcasm

            You obviously didn't get it if you actually did read it. You may not believe that what it says actually took place, but its one hell of a story (pun intended).
        • DrMonkeyLove, on 01/16/2008, -1/+18That is quite possibly one of the dumbest things I've ever read. Congratulations, you killed some of my brain cells.
        • mancat, on 01/16/2008, -0/+3you are kidding, but digg has no sense of humor sometimes.
        • shaun1018, on 01/16/2008, -0/+9Shrimps are mighty tasty. Come to the dark side.
      • michaelb1, on 01/16/2008, -3/+54Lets not get ridiculous and take everything to the extreme with these outlandish but literal Bible stories. I'm sure Huckabee was simply referring to the right to stone a whore to death. No news here.
        • LeeSoong, on 01/16/2008, -0/+6Well, stoning to death all fornicators should cut back on the voter population.

          But Stoning to death all those who charge usury should make the car & mortgage payments so much easier !
      • LeeSoong, on 01/16/2008, -0/+7Well, shrimp and lobster have a crunchy exoskeleton,
        isn't that just like having scales?

        I think you need to at the translation a little more broadly,
        the definitions of these words have changed over hundreds of years ...
    • elfprince13, on 01/16/2008, -7/+51yay, lots try to implement the whole old testament and pretend we live in ancient Israel....

      or we could just try and have decent morals.
      • artanis, on 01/16/2008, -5/+2Really? Israel?
      • epiccollision, on 01/16/2008, -4/+8because religion is all about the morals
      • Bobski, on 01/16/2008, -14/+2And the source of those morals are?...........
        The Judeo-Christian ethic.

        Or do you believe in some magical being who imparted such belief in humanity?

        Oh. That would be GOD, wouldn't it?
        • sodade, on 01/16/2008, -1/+10OMFG - you are trying to say that the Judeo-Christian ethic is the source of all morals? You fail at history.
          • Bobski, on 01/16/2008, -9/+1Western world morals, the ones that are inescapable by you, the ones in which you are steeped, the ones that you cannot escape because your entire being is shaped by the culture in which you were brought up? - absolutely yes.
          • chicofaraby, on 01/16/2008, -1/+2No thanks. I'm not interested in your make believe crap. The "morals" of murder and torture that are the legacy of christianity aren't mine. And my actual morals of "right and wrong" are universal.
          • RobotBuddha, on 01/16/2008, -1/+5"Western world morals, the ones that are inescapable by you"

            Because there's nothing the greek philosophers based western thought on like the Judeo-Christian bible.
          • LeeSoong, on 01/19/2008, -0/+1@chicofaraby:

            Christians can 'wash our robes white, in the blood of the sacrifice' - or something like that - Christianity sees the sacrificing of - OTHER - peoples' lives, (human sacrifice) as the source of solving your own problems, even the source of curing your own guilt.

            When a religion is fundamentally based on human sacrifice - the killing of somebody else to solve your problems, you can expect the behavior of some of its followers to become rather repulsive.

            And that is why you see fundamentalist christians as ''problem leadership'' - wiping out a few million Iraq citizens, just means all the more problem solving , and their clothes will come out spring time fresh, washed white in the blood of the sacrifice...

            Fundamentalists worship a False Idol, because they deify the Bible, making their imaginary idea of what Jesus and God should be into a ''Golden Calf''. When they see their own beliefs, their own mental constructs as 'Absolute Truth' - they are worshiping a graven image, and their actions can turn to evil, because they worship a false god - absolute interpretations of their Own creation.
        • Exhaust, on 01/16/2008, -1/+7Religion and morality are not the same thing. You don't need to have faith in a higher being to understand the difference between right and wrong.

          I give humans a little more credit than that... We don't need the threat of internal damnation to prevent us from raping and pillaging our fellow man. Even apes have morality.
        • jsmu, on 01/16/2008, -3/+0riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Judeo-Christian religion is the source and sign of all 'morality'.
          You fail at existence, not just history.
      • LeeSoong, on 01/16/2008, -0/+13LOVE THE SHRIMPER,
        HATE THE SHRIMP !
    • MrObjectional, on 01/16/2008, -35/+12Yeah I'm sure that's what Huckabee meant.
      /sarcasm
      • pixel4e, on 01/16/2008, -2/+24I'm wondering what he meant then? I'm wondering if he(Huckabee) gets to choose which part of the bible should we consider the "true" god's word.
        I'm also wondering if anybody, who hears this and approves it, is all there and then I remember where I live and forget all hope.
        • Vegabondsx, on 01/16/2008, -2/+8I agree. The Bible has lots of passages which Christians simply "ignore". Imagine if all the passages in Deuteronomy were law. If the Constitution had a passage that says that you have to like to "God's Standards" There's no argument for enforcing these laws. Not to mention followers of other faiths and Athiests/Agnostics... what do you think will happen?
          • aadyss, on 01/16/2008, -4/+2"imagine" that Christians have never been required nor have ever followed "the law" of the Old Testament. If you knew Christianity you would know that fact.
    • ryan850, on 01/16/2008, -4/+69So does this mean we get stoned to death for masturbating? Seriously this is important.
      • capiCrimm, on 01/16/2008, -15/+6normally I'd say you're afraid, but since this is the internet I'm guessing that's your fetish?
        • cheesecake42, on 01/16/2008, -1/+1pwnd!!!!!!!!!! good one!!!!!!!!! (/sarcasm)
      • ryan83189, on 01/16/2008, -1/+17"Yet he amongst us who is without sin, cast the first stone"-Jesus. so no, you will not get stoned, at least on the internet anyway.
        • Gerz1219, on 01/16/2008, -2/+24Hmm, it's almost like that Jesus guy is telling his followers not to be all quick to judge people or something.
          • nullifidian0, on 01/16/2008, -1/+13Or he's saying that, if you're "good", you get to be a judgemental prick.
        • UNL1M1T3D, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1But what if I want to get stoned on the internet?
      • dasdef, on 01/16/2008, -2/+33can we still get stoned then masturbate?
        • senatorpjt, on 01/16/2008, -2/+2Yes. In fact, you can only masturbate if you get stoned afterwards.
          • Dubbsacc, on 01/16/2008, -0/+2I'd rather get stoned first...
          • MarkOfTheDead, on 01/16/2008, -0/+1Afterwards kills the post-orgasm gloomies and makes you not feel like *****.
      • Stoutlimb, on 01/16/2008, -1/+17Read the bible carefully. Masturbation (The so-called Sin of Onan) is not the crime. Onan was struck down by God for refusing to impregnate his sister. So masturbate all you want, unless you're wasting it when you could be impregnating your sister.
        • dasdef, on 01/16/2008, -2/+10what if i masturbate then ejaculate on my sister? Hahaha *****, sorry for these comments, i just have to say them
          • Bobski, on 01/16/2008, -4/+1No, actually, you don't.
          • Chassit, on 01/16/2008, -0/+3Gross. Funny, but gross.
          • gwolf, on 01/16/2008, -0/+1Wow sounds more like Penthouse Forum than a holy book. Suddenly the 79 virgins thing doesn't seem as ridiculous.
        • empiric, on 01/16/2008, -6/+2Read it a little more carefully, or finally realize that your sarcasm (even if accepted) offers no one anything. Onan was struck down for turning a directive to help someone have a child into, in effect, a rape for his pleasure. Imagine a similar scenario with a gynecologist, and the moral appropriateness of God's response should become clearer.

          Yeah, I know you'll deliberately follow the most unreasonable interpretation you can find, in all cases, but, I'll mention it anyway.
          • nullifidian0, on 01/16/2008, -1/+9Interpretation is moot, it is what it says. Make up any old ***** to try and justify it, but unless it says it in the scripture, you're merely talking out of your hermeneutic arse.
          • Stoutlimb, on 01/16/2008, -0/+6The bible doesn't say anything about rape, just "spilling the seed on the ground' rather than impregnating his sister. Totally wacked.
        • skyfire1, on 01/16/2008, -4/+1Brb, gonna ***** my younger sister.
        • Matri, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1Woot! NOT committing incest is a punishable offense in christianity?
    • HigherLogic, on 01/16/2008, -5/+94Typical Christian response to the OT: Well we don't follow that anymore (except certain parts that we really like).
      • badenglishihave, on 01/16/2008, -0/+20As a Christian, I completely agree. For example: my church doesn't believe in sacrifice or stoning homosexuals but like most churches they teach that tithing is necessary. It's really hypocritical. Even the 10 Commandments don't REALLY apply to Christians... sure they're some good rules but the bottom line as a CHRISTIAN is to love and follow Jesus.

        It's a shame that so many Christians are wishy washy and hypocritical as you have pointed out.
        • HigherLogic, on 01/16/2008, -1/+8It's nice to hear that from a Christian, I wish the whole would understand the hypocrisy that you just pointed out. And speaking of the 10 commandments...those aren't even the real ones ;-)

          See the Decalogue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ritual_Decalogue

          1. Worship no other god than the LORD: Make no covenant with the inhabitants of other lands to which you go, do not intermarry with them, and destroy their places of worship.
          2. Do not cast idols.
          3. Observe the Feast of Unleavened Bread for seven days in the month of Abib.
          4. Sacrifice firstborn male animals to Yahweh. The firstborn of a donkey may be redeemed; redeem firstborn sons.
          5. Do no work or even kindle a fire on the seventh day. Anyone who does so will be put to death.
          6. Observe the Feast of First Fruits and the Feast of Ingathering: All males are therefore to appear before the LORD three times each year.
          7. Do not mix sacrificial blood with leavened bread.
          8. Do not let the fat of offerings remain until the morning.
          9. Bring the choicest first fruits of the harvest to the Temple of the LORD.
          10. Do not cook a kid in its mother's milk.

          ...hard for Christians to use that, eh?
          • MarkOfTheDead, on 01/16/2008, -1/+3uhhhh #10 is the most ***** up out of all of them. I wonder who did it that they had to set an example.
          • Nowheredan, on 01/16/2008, -0/+3Someone out there saw that and said, "See? Because of me, now they have a rule!"
          • staffa, on 01/16/2008, -0/+3#10 is refering to a baby goat also known as a kid.

          • gwolf, on 01/16/2008, -0/+1So who's responsible for the rewrite that Charlton Heston does in the Ten Commandments.
            Most of this sounds like the rantings of a drunken holy man.
        • aadyss, on 01/16/2008, -6/+2You are a Christian? ???????
        • eviltandem, on 01/16/2008, -1/+8This is the part I don't get. Every time I want to talk about what the Bible says all the christians tell me the old testament is off limits. That none of them take it that seriously.

          Didn't the 10 commandments come from the old testament? (that was rhetorical)
          • Stoutlimb, on 01/16/2008, -2/+4Actually in the new testament Jesus is quoted as saying the old testament applies in full.
          • Cerebral, on 01/16/2008, -4/+3Here's your answer. To be a Christian means that you believe that Jesus came to Earth and died for your sins. Jesus says that the old Covenant and all of it's teachings are gone and that through his sacrifice we all are starting a new covenant with God. The 10 commandments still apply because they are the basic laws that everyone must follow however all of the other laws everyone states (stoning gays for example) are for the old covenant.
          • LeeSoong, on 01/25/2008, -0/+1No, to be Christian, you must live your life As Christ.

            If you're doing it right - you're feeding the hungry, helping the sick, loving your neighbor, your friend, your enemy, and your self. Forgiveness of wrongs frees you to do more good.

            You don't worry to much about sin, because you make your every breath a simple prayer of thanks. Gratitude and Generosity are your constant focus - for others and for yourself.

            The 10 commandments are eliminated with the single commandment: Love they neighbor as thyself. Be kind, be friendly, be helpful, do no harm.


            And you will spend your life serving others, for their benefit - even when they hate you.


            Sitting in buildings mumbling prayers and singing off key doesn't count for much - J.C. didn't spend much time doing such things - he was out and about helping people. Do good, with love, from the heart.
        • spudnic, on 01/16/2008, -0/+8So basically you pick and chose the bits that are good ideas?
          shame you can't broaden the sources you pick good ideas from, include other religious texts, bits of philosophy...
          This is exactly my problem with religion. Why limit yourself to one book to pick the good bits from? (Seriously asking.)
      • epiccollision, on 01/16/2008, -0/+7there will be no rationalization...or sense making...this is digg
      • aadyss, on 01/16/2008, -5/+0Not anymore. Never have.
    • samssf, on 01/16/2008, -6/+46I can't believe anyone likes this douche. Thinking about it makes me depressed about this country. Seriously, WTF.
      • michaelb1, on 01/16/2008, -0/+9but he cracks jokes and has a folksy demeanor.
        • MarkOfTheDead, on 01/16/2008, -0/+2And Danny from manhunt 2 is his son.
      • hollyminkowski, on 01/16/2008, -0/+4This fool is just so damned creepy! How can anyone be fooled by his glad-handing manner?
      • bsmang, on 01/16/2008, -0/+2Dugg for using "douche" without "bag". (And because I agree. Go figure.)
      • i208khonsu, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1Agreed, I can't believe he's still a front runner and has even picked up a state.
    • iainc, on 01/16/2008, -1/+8Fruit loop, anyone?
    • webmastercorey, on 01/16/2008, -44/+4LOL... I love how you totally took the Bible out of context. But I love playing games too... like for example where in Article 1 section 2 of the constitution it says, "No Person shall be a Representative..." what's up with that? Why do we have so dang many then? OOO! My favorite from Amendment one, "Congress shall make no law..." Amendment 14: "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress." better yet,

      Amendment 22, "No person shall be elected to the office of the President..." Why are we doing this election thing anyway? That means all current candidates are government created robots! DANGIT!
      • PlutoniumPlague, on 01/16/2008, -3/+26You're not taking those out of contexts, you're pulling them from their sentences and presenting nonsensical fragments...
      • marky125, on 01/16/2008, -1/+3No.
      • bsmang, on 01/16/2008, -2/+6Hey fool... you're not being nearly as funny as you think. The bible _never_ needs to be taken out of context to show how retarded it is.
      • WWJeffersonDo, on 01/18/2008, -0/+2"That means all current candidates are government created robots!"

        All but one
      • nullifidian0, on 01/23/2008, -0/+1Then why does it have all those little verse numbers next to these sentences that allow, nay, encourage christian fanboys (and girls) to do exactly that? Next time I see one of those John 3:16 things, I'm gonna say "nope, means nothing, taken out of context".
      • LeeSoong, on 01/25/2008, -0/+1Truly Brilliant - you have successfully defended Anarchy as the only Constitutional Government of the U.S.A. - No more paying taxes! Because the American government can "Make No Law"

        Rearranging words or looking for ''hidden patterns'' also yields new insight to the
        deep meaning of the Original documents:

        "Keep and Arm Bears" - It is not easy training a black bear to use
        a chain fed 20 mm minigun, but it is constitutional !
    • smithjls, on 01/16/2008, -0/+3don't forget: and don't go to Church (Mathew 6)
      • empiric, on 01/16/2008, -2/+0...for the purposes of self-aggrandizement.
      • LeeSoong, on 01/25/2008, -0/+1This is fun:

        Jesus Said "He is like a man which built an house, and digged ..." - Luke 6:48

        GOD HATH SPOKEN - YE MUST DIGG.
    • zxcasd, on 01/16/2008, -4/+21the bible is a lie......
    • empiric, on 01/16/2008, -2/+017: "...They will be appalled at the sight of each other and will waste away because of their sin."

      Looks like the bread-threat thing would work, actually.
    • empiric, on 01/16/2008, -12/+7By the way, for the secularists against this (as I am as a Christian), I suggest that attacking the bible probably isn't the best way to make your point with theists.

      Better, I think to remind them that this exact same thing, replacing "Baptist" with another denomination was a major factor in the political forces shaping the recognition of the importance of separation of Church and State in the 1700's. Even if they would want the Constitution explicitly enforcing Christianity, would they want it enforcing specifically the Baptist interpretation? How about Huckabee's personal interpretation of Baptist doctrine? The slippery-slope should be clear to all here, theist or not.
      • nullifidian0, on 01/16/2008, -2/+7***** your interpretations of your special book: we judge you by your actions.
        • empiric, on 01/16/2008, -7/+0Okay, since your judgment doesn't matter in the least, and could not matter in the least, feel free.
          • nullifidian0, on 01/16/2008, -0/+5By 'we' I meant society as a whole, not just (as you say) "secularists".
          • yutt, on 01/16/2008, -0/+6@nullifidian0

            I think he is saying only the judgment of his sky-daddy is relevant.
        • LeeSoong, on 01/25/2008, -0/+1Religion is used to justify any action in any context - because the Invisible One said you could do it.

          God IS Love, Love God Back, Love Yourself, Love all Beings -
          there, that's the nice version of religion in 1 phrase.

          How that turned into genocidal crusades and multiple wars,
          I just don't follow...
      • eviltandem, on 01/16/2008, -0/+14You seem to think your ilk are rational. At all. All they see and hear right now is Christian vs Secular. Most the devout people I talk to would actually prefer to have a christian nation as opposed to one that let them worship as they wished. Trying to explain to them that even christian ideology changes, and hence is not a good framework to build a country on, is similarly a waste of time.

        It's short sighted, and the idea that the constitution actually protects them too is completely lost on them. They don't see it as a liberating document that lets us all worship as we want. They see it as a competing ideology that must be stamped out like galileo, etc...
        • MarkOfTheDead, on 01/16/2008, -0/+3Dammit, I wish your comment was further up top, especially how logical is is.
        • lilrabbit129, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1He's not trying to justify what Huckabee is spouting off, he's trying to tell people that bashing the bible isn't going to do anything. Keep the issue of Religion vs Digg out of the issue of Seperation between Church and State.
      • TubaTechno, on 01/16/2008, -0/+3Then judge me by MY actions, and don't judge ME by the actions of an over-generalized group of crazy people.
    • SuperWinner, on 01/16/2008, -2/+34Any chance we can impeach this guy before he is elected?
      • BM5k, on 01/16/2008, -1/+16We can't even impeach the people that are already in office, so I doubt it.
    • toastybeast, on 01/16/2008, -0/+1This makes me want to cry.
    • Vodka2389, on 01/16/2008, -0/+2Now that you put it that way, it doesn't sound so bad.
    • shamanlife, on 01/17/2008, -0/+2I'm sorry, I just woke up. What year is this, 1208 or 1308 AD ?
  • DavidYeah, on 01/16/2008, -11/+158Jesus thinks you're a jerk.
    • hmmdar, on 01/16/2008, -18/+10Jesus can suck my poll
    • zephyr42, on 01/16/2008, -4/+21I think we should amend the constitution to the standards of "THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER'S"

      See I can make ***** up to.....
      • MarkOfTheDead, on 01/16/2008, -0/+7......Is that a cheap shot at my noodley lord and savior?
      • LeeSoong, on 01/25/2008, -0/+1Bless'ed be thy meatballs,
        they shall be covered in sauce.

        Bless'ed are the noodles - for they are very filling,

        Bless'ed be the fork, the spoon, and the bowl - the Holy Trinity of serving Pasta...
    • michaelb1, on 01/16/2008, -5/+3Who's Jeebus?
      • Bobski, on 01/16/2008, -0/+2An old bumper sticker take on an old bumper sticker:
        Jeez if you love Honkus
    • bowe, on 01/16/2008, -1/+7Zappa!
  • MadKennyP, on 01/16/2008, -8/+260Did anyone ask Huckabee whose God and which standards? Oh right, he's Evangelical, so he can only listen to one answer.
    • SpyDerMann, on 01/16/2008, -6/+11Actually this is a very interesting question. It's no use forcing the constitution of a whole country to fit one religion, when the vast majority of americans (IMO) are NOT christians. This is like starting another crusade. Perhaps we could judge Huckabee for religious discrimination against non-christians.
      • zxcasd, on 01/16/2008, -1/+5how about atheists?
      • razor150, on 01/16/2008, -3/+1The majority of Americans do identify themselves as Christians. Whether or not they actually go to church is another matter.
        OP does make a good point, whose God do we amend the Constitution to? The Mormons? The Baptists? The Catholics? None of them agree on how the Bible is to be interpreted.
    • eviltandem, on 01/16/2008, -0/+5Even better, he gets to make up what those answers are as he goes.
    • TubaTechno, on 01/16/2008, -8/+2vast majority of Americans are NOT christians? Whats your standard of being a Christian? Since 80% of Americans believe the Bible to be true.
      http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000004745.cfm

      You might want to check your assumption before you pull them out of your ass.
    • Acolyte357, on 01/16/2008, -0/+8Ohh yeah because this ( http://www.citizenlink.org/ ) pile of horse ***** is factual
      "CitizenLink is a registered trademark of Focus on the Family Action, Inc. "Focus on the Family" is a registered trademark of Focus on the Family, a California non profit religious corporation."
  • hawkeye17, on 01/16/2008, -7/+195The more people find out about Huckabee the more people realize that this guy is just about the last person this country needs as it's next President.
    • KRNpro, on 01/16/2008, -1/+8The scary thing is, people watch him doing well now. You can be sure there will be clones of him next election. And when one of the wins....
      *hides
    • BryanTravers, on 01/16/2008, -2/+19Sadly, I've met people who are inclined to the exact opposite kind of thinking. It's truly frightening.
      • tyywebb, on 01/16/2008, -2/+7I've come to the conclusion that we need two countries. We need one country for people like this guy and they can go ahead and have their theocracy and one country for the rest of us rational types.
        • mancat, on 01/16/2008, -1/+5Whatever country you carve out of the bible belt will end up looking like a giant hot dog. Joke's on them.
    • rz8472, on 01/16/2008, -1/+26He's like George W. Bush Mark II. The affable, far-right idiot who everyone feels comfortable having a beer with. Upgrade from Mark I to Mark II includes new speech/charisma software.
    • samssf, on 01/16/2008, -1/+21I'd rather have Bush as president than Huckabee. This ***** is scary. If this ever happens, I will definitely leave this country. I don't care if I have to live in poverty in the UK or Japan or Australia or Sweden or New Zealand or Denmark or Canada or any of the other great places to live on this earth. And it's not even the president... it's the fact that so many people actually think that we should run our country based on some stuff that's written down that is supposedly divine word and written by a god... and there are more supposed gods than there are man's opinion on morals and how people should live. WTF. Right, that's smart. How the hell can someone this stupid get this kind of power?
      • michaelb1, on 01/16/2008, -2/+8Don't worry. The President cannot change the Constitution. If he could do you think GW would still be called Mr. President instead of Emporer Bush.
        An amendment takes, I believe, 2/3rd's of the states to ratify. There are WAY WAY WAY too many blue states for that to happen. He is just pandering to the knuckle heads in the crowd that want an American Theocracy. Don't hate the ignorant. They just have no idea what they're doing.
        • StarlessKnight, on 01/16/2008, -0/+6Two thirds of Congress, three quarters of all the States.
        • senatorpjt, on 01/16/2008, -1/+10You don't have to change the constitution if you just decide to ignore it.
      • aadyss, on 01/16/2008, -5/+1Silly little samssf buttercup. You sound like Streisand and Baldwin. Well, they're still here and you will be also. What makes you think the other countries will want you anyway? Do you think you can live anywhere you want? And what's this living in poverty. I'm sure you're a little to soft for the sacrifice. Any sacrifice. What pride you embrace.
        • Phatt138, on 01/16/2008, -0/+2Educated people, including Americans, are in demand in many up-and-coming European nations as well as Australia, New Zealand, etc. You won't have much trouble living in the world's nicest countries so long as you have a valuable skill or some degree of education to bring to the table.

          And as for living in poverty, aadyss, I'd rather be lower middle income in a country with a strong economy than upper-middle in a country with a collapsing financial sector. You won't have to make a sacrifice anytime soon to live poorly - it's already been made for you. Arabs and the Chinese essentially own our country now...but essentially that's okay, because no one wants it anyway. They can't even sell the ***** off.

          It's true that most potential expatriots are just talking big, but the fact remains that moving away is a more and more viable option in a nation that's bought in mind, body, and soul to its own propaganda. I'm ready to move if I think it's the only option, but you're right about one thing - I'm only ready to do it specifically because I -don't- think that I'll be giving anything up. If you want to sacrifice yourself for old rich white men who don't know your name, go ahead.
          • aadyss, on 01/17/2008, -0/+0The cycles of life are exactly that. Cycles. You are embracing hysteria as an answer to what you perceive is a problem. What do you really know of the "real world?" You don't even recognize that you already live in the best country in the world. You 're saying the U.S. is not the best hardly makes it so. People around the world are taking many dishonest actions to come here and you are blessed to be here and cry about it. I know people like you. Trust me, you will never be happy wherever you live. I remember when the Japanese owned our country before. Turned out to not be true. Just some more pitiful hysteria.
        • jsmu, on 01/16/2008, -0/+0Please continue to get ***** by rich and privileged white men who laugh at the thought that anyone is as deluded as you....
          • aadyss, on 01/17/2008, -1/+0Poor little poor guy. I'm sorry you are poor.
      • tyywebb, on 01/16/2008, -0/+2I'm right with you! I say we go to Italy! I can speak enough Italian to get by and they must need tech people over there just like anywhere right?
        • aadyss, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1You'll be on strike half of the time. Without pay, of course.
      • Bobski, on 01/16/2008, -2/+1"it's the fact that so many people actually think that we should run our country based on some stuff that's written down that is supposedly divine word and written by a god"

        You mean like the Constitution and the Founding Fathers beliefs?
        • eviltandem, on 01/16/2008, -1/+2What? Are you suggesting that somehow the Constitution is like the Bible?

          One is a document describing how to run a successful country. The other is a collection of short stories meant to convey morals. They have nothing to do with each other.
          • Bobski, on 01/16/2008, -3/+1The Constitution was written by men of God.
            The Bible was written by men of God.

            What is it you don't get?
          • eviltandem, on 01/16/2008, -1/+5@Bobski

            The Constitution was written by men who were devout atheists living in a time when that was not socially acceptable. Have you ever read the Declaration of Independence? There's no way those guys thought religion was a good idea. If I wanted to write a document describing a system of government without religion I couldn't possibly draft a better document. It verbatim spells out a government free from religion. It spells out a government so free of religion that it is not allowed to even acknowledge one over the other.

            Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson would roll over in their graves if they knew you were claiming they were religious. They were outspoken atheists (for their time). Their new country removed religion from government, and provided freedom so that anyone could worship, or not worship, as they saw fit.

            What is it about that you don't get?
        • razor150, on 01/16/2008, -1/+3Please stop trying to rewrite history and the Constitution.
    • mille716, on 01/16/2008, -1/+4But...but he is so nice and affable and plays bass! Surely that's more important than his politics when we vote for our new president.
      • cyberprunes, on 01/16/2008, -1/+6He makes want to quit playing bass
      • senatorpjt, on 01/16/2008, -1/+2Maybe. If he can play YYZ, I'll vote for him.
        • tyywebb, on 01/16/2008, -1/+2Woah now that there's Devil music, boy!
          • senatorpjt, on 01/16/2008, -0/+2How can it be devil music? It's an instrumental, about an airport.
          • MarkOfTheDead, on 01/16/2008, -0/+2If religion can turn love into hatred and shame, imagine what it can do to rush songs.
    • caketank, on 01/16/2008, -1/+7Meanwhile, back in the real world, Huckabee is running second place in the Republican primary race.

      Don't underestimate the appeal of theocracy to one leg of the Republican tripod.
    • DrMonkeyLove, on 01/16/2008, -1/+4The scary thing is, at this point, I think I'd rather have Giuliani. What is this world coming to?!
      • Bobski, on 01/16/2008, -0/+4Armageddon
        • JuanBSU, on 01/16/2008, -0/+0You know what that rhymes with?
          Hint: We're talking about Giuliani.
        • xaxxon, on 01/17/2008, -1/+1Haha, that's funny. Oh wait. You're being serious.
    • bsmang, on 01/16/2008, -2/+2 I wonder if Ron Paul will end up winning the republican nomination just by process of elimination... Since adding all the R front runners together doesn't quite net you a shred of decency.
      • widgetmaker, on 01/16/2008, -0/+6Since when was decency a quality that voters look for in a leader..
    • bemenaker, on 01/16/2008, -0/+7The Dem's don't care about this loon, cuz he is easy to beat. He can't win a national election. Every poll shows that.

      Hey Huck', I'm an aethiest, so fuhq you!!! Freedom of Religion asswipe
    • AirBallistic, on 01/16/2008, -0/+0Yeah I feel the same way, the more I know about Huckabee, the more I hate the idiot.
    • littlewing82, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1Man, I saw the movie Jesus Camp. That ***** was scary! You would be surprised at how many back-woods Evangelicals there are out there. If they all came out of the woodwork, they could hypothetically decide who the next president is.
      http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/jesus_camp/
  • DeadElephantORG, on 01/16/2008, -19/+12I'm neoChristian . . . . . I'm holier than thou.
  • mrgreenjeans, on 01/16/2008, -6/+78Danger! Danger!
    • planksconstant, on 01/16/2008, -4/+22High Voltage!
      • m0tbaillie, on 01/16/2008, -1/+13When we touch..
        • theBlackPickle, on 01/16/2008, -1/+10When we kiss..
          • michaelb1, on 01/16/2008, -2/+6it feels like this. And when we touch, it means so much.
          • Bigbeanx, on 01/16/2008, -1/+4Don't you want to know how we keep starting fires?
            It's my desire, It's my desire
      • spucky, on 01/16/2008, -3/+8Cause I'm T.N.T, I'm dynamite!
  • Opeth1, on 01/16/2008, -8/+96This nutbag fundie wants to take the wheel so he can floor it towards 'the Rapture'.

    Give me a friggin break.
    • nyx210, on 01/16/2008, -2/+13You thought Bush was bad? What d'you think'd happen if this guy gets elected?!! I can totally see this country going up in flames all while plunging down the ***** all for "the will of God"
  • BeKaws, on 01/16/2008, -7/+52Scary stuff right there
    • tidu, on 01/16/2008, -2/+15Seriously, that's the scariest thing I've heard coming out of this race. If that quote doesn't have any consequences, then we're more ignorant than we've ever been.
  • Chaoticfist, on 01/16/2008, -7/+124Seriously who the ***** would vote for this douche? Like seriously before we know it, its gonna be the law to be Christian, and look out everyone else. (btw i am not anti Christian, simply think those who like to push there beliefs on another need a good beating.)
    • Jb611, on 01/16/2008, -4/+83I'm a Christian and i agree. This country was founded on the constitution, NOT the Bible. I don't understand why these guys are running for president instead of head of a church.
      • Jo9100, on 01/16/2008, -3/+37The world needs more christians like you. You are a good christian. God bless you.
      • aukxsona, on 01/16/2008, -1/+11Yes please multiply and be fruitful to put these guys out. I am surrounded by so many nutters like the Huck....seeing you is so nice.
      • michaelb1, on 01/16/2008, -1/+13Well said. Can you do us a favor and tell every single one of your fellow Christians what you just said?
        • darkcooger, on 01/16/2008, -0/+3Many of us Christians of similar mind are just as worried about what's happening in the name of our faith as non-Christians. I guess it's time we stopped worrying about it and start making a real change, hmm? Of course, we now have this nasty problem of perception...
      • SuperWinner, on 01/16/2008, -9/+3Be very cautious of anyone who starts a sentence with, "I'm a Christian..."
      • Bobski, on 01/16/2008, -8/+1Being a Christian does not make you an historian by any stretch of the imagination.
        And an historian you are most certainly not.
        • eviltandem, on 01/16/2008, -1/+11He was spot on. Our country was not founded on the bible or religion. It was founded so that any book and any religion could be openly practiced without fear of oppression by other groups or the government.

          Read a book.
      • GeorgeCostanza, on 01/17/2008, -0/+2That's ***** right. I'm Christian too, but i'm totally against this. Religion is meant for the home.
    • WWJeffersonDo, on 01/16/2008, -1/+10The scary thing is, the people that would vote for this live ALL AROUND ME! (Indiana) He's pushing for the bible voters...and that's a lot of votes.
      • Bobski, on 01/16/2008, -6/+1No, the scary thing is that you are a pimple on the face of humanity and the liberals refuse to wash you away.
    • HigherLogic, on 01/16/2008, -0/+13>> Seriously who the ***** would vote for this douche?

      The voting Christians. That's who. I can't count how many times I've heard preachers from all different denominations and parts of the country talk about bringing god back to America, or electing a Christian leader that will fix this country up. And it's NOT just the "fundies" either.
      • Bobski, on 01/16/2008, -12/+2It would never be Christian to make it against the law to be not Christian, but the same cannot be said about Islam.
        Even so, life under truly Christian rule would be far more preferable that that of Islamic rule under Sharia law. Most especially for you Liberals. While true Christianity touts forgiveness and tolerance to "non-believers", Islam offers only death.
        • Abomonog, on 01/16/2008, -2/+8Religious government still equals death for nonbelievers, no matter the religion. History has proven that is especially true with Christian governments.
          • jstone, on 01/16/2008, -0/+4"History has proven that is especially true with Christian governments." History has proven that it is true for ANY of the Abrahamic religions.
        • EJTower, on 01/16/2008, -1/+3All this about true Christian or untrue Christian has been going on for hundreds of years. It is *****! Doesn't matter if you believe the Huckster is in your religion or not! If the idiot wants to ruin the government and use the Bible as an excuse or the Quran. It hardly matters in the end. Your argument is nothing but equivocation at best. In the end you're all appealing to invisible men in the sky.
        • gudnbluts, on 01/16/2008, -1/+8"It would never be Christian to make it against the law to be not Christian."

          There's a commandment banning other religions.
          • darkcooger, on 01/16/2008, -0/+1Indeed, but there is no commandment for followers to punish those who are not followers. I think that's a relevant point given the context of this discussion. You are correct, but there's still nothing in Christian doctrine that says man should enact laws against other religions.
        • michaelb1, on 01/16/2008, -0/+1It's still about even.
        • terrix, on 01/16/2008, -2/+1"There's a commandment banning other religions."

          No it bans practicing other religions or worshiping other deities if you are of that religion. Try reading.
          • gudnbluts, on 01/16/2008, -1/+2On one hand I have "No it bans practicing other religions or worshiping other deities if you are of that religion. Try reading." and on the other I have "“You Shall Have No Other Gods Before Me"

            So let me put it another way:-

            There's a commandment banning other religions.

            Oh, hang on, that's the same.
        • eviltandem, on 01/16/2008, -0/+4Christianity was just like Islam a few centuries ago. The difference is secularism took hold in western cultures. We removed religion from our governments and have prospered as a result. When christianity had power it abused it just as badly as the muslims.

          When they learn that the job of the people should be the economy, medical science, etc then they will move out of their "dark ages". It's a waste of time to argue and bicker about which version of the crazy you should all be forced to adhere to. Let people adhere to whatever crazy they want privately, and let's just deal with secular issues publicly.
        • jsmu, on 01/16/2008, -0/+1'you Liberals'?
          You're beyond the pale.
      • darkcooger, on 01/16/2008, -1/+1Not all Christians support Huckabee. I certainly don't. For what it's worth, as a Christian, I do not require my candidates to be Christians themselves, but if they oppose Christianity then I am likely to oppose them. For that matter, if they openly oppose any religion, I'm going to have a problem with them. :P
        • Matri, on 01/17/2008, -1/+1You don't really get what you're saying, do you?
          • darkcooger, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1Yes, actually, I do. I'm saying that I oppose a candidate who would support using the government to raise one religion above others or to push a religion below others. I may not have worded it very well, but I certainly get what I'm saying. Obviously you do not. :)
      • MarkOfTheDead, on 01/16/2008, -0/+3More religion in politics to "clean things up" is about as useful as a war for peace or a ***** fest for virginity.
    • mille716, on 01/16/2008, -0/+9When I read the title to this I figured it would be another digg story that someone titled very biasedly and was twisting his words. I actually thought I'd watch it and end up posting on how people were getting carried away. Damn if it it wasn't spot on though.
      This is scary. Even if you're Christian and base your politics on your religion, wouldn't you still respect the seperation between church and state? This guy is insane.
      • eviltandem, on 01/16/2008, -0/+3One would think if you were christian you would especially care about that separation. None of them seem to be able to conceive of the idea that there may be a group of christians with ideas that are scary even to them.

        The rest of them don't seem to be able to remember that the reason so many christians came over here originally was all the religious persecution in europe.
    • iucraigmc, on 01/16/2008, -7/+1This country was found on Biblical principles, which were instated into the Constitution. Biblically, Christians are to respect other religions, not denounce them. We are to love others as we love ourselves, not oppress them. This is exactly why Jesus didn't get involved in politics, he was interested in changing the hearts of people, and he knew this could only be done by letting them choose. If Jesus were to legislate his doctrine, it would not have been a doctrine that passed down 2000 years in history. "Give to Ceasar what is Ceasar's". As Christians, we need to fight less for government control and more for changing the hearts and minds of those around us, politics will change themselves. Jesus understood this, unfortunately it doesn't look like Huckabee does...
  • SickMonkey, on 01/16/2008, -46/+123Ron Paul also wants to amend the Constitution to achieve the same exact things. The only difference between him and Huckabee on the issue is that Ron Paul wants the state legislators to decide. Read his We The People Act:
    The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court--
    (1) shall not adjudicate--
    (A) any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion;
    (B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or
    (C) any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation; and
    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:h4379:
    Ron Paul also believes that the concept of Separation of Church and State is a myth as well:
    "It’s important to recognize that the First amendment applies only to Congress. Remember, the first sentence starts with "Congress shall make no law..." This means that matters of religious freedom and expression should be decided by the states, with disputes settled in state courts. The First amendment acts as a simple check on federal power, ensuring that the federal government has no jurisdiction or authority whatsoever over religious issues. The phony "incorporation" doctrine, dreamed up by activist judges to pervert the plain meaning of the Constitution, was used once again by a federal court to assume jurisdiction over a case that constitutionally was none of its business."
    http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2002/tst070102.ht ...

    I really have a hard time understanding why diggers come down so hard on a guy like Huckabee on these issues while giving their sanctified candidate of choice, Ron Paul, a complete hall pass on the issue. Somebody please explain.


    • moocow1452, on 01/16/2008, -9/+31Huckabee is both a Republican, and a not-Ron Paul. Thus, he is Digg's punching bag.
      • MindTrigger, on 01/16/2008, -2/+21He's a Christian fundamentalist, period. You can hear it in his speeches. There is only one god, and he wants to make sure the constitution reflects *his* god's word. Well, what about Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, etc? He doesn't even try to pretend there are other valid points of view out there.
        • fusama, on 01/16/2008, -1/+4In his mind there aren't other valid points of view. This is what we're dealing with here.
          • michaelb1, on 01/16/2008, -0/+1I'm sure if someone explained to him in a calm manner that there is no God then he would come around.
        • kyrre, on 01/16/2008, -2/+1Judeaism, Christianity and Islam share the same god.
          • Corrosionx, on 01/16/2008, -0/+4Everyone has a different God in their head. Nobody shares the same God. They may share the same portions of scripture or build upon each other but that's all.
      • michaelb1, on 01/16/2008, -0/+5If the Supreme Court could not judge those sorts of cases as RP wants then the country would fracture. There would be religiously intolerant states and there would be liberal states. That would have all kinds of reprecussions when it comes to doling out federal funds because I don't want my tax dollars going to the First Church of Jesus and White People of Alabama.
        • xaxxon, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1Fortunately if RP got elected, you wouldn't be paying taxes to those states.
    • rocket777, on 01/16/2008, -19/+46You don't seem to understand the concept behind federalism. We have all kinds of people in this country and having one law for all coming from DC will never make many people happy. And with one law, if you don't like that law, for example medical marijuana, you have no where to turn. The feds are on you.

      The founders considered each of the states as a separate country, bound only for defensive purposes and free trade by the constitution. If you live in a state (e.g. PA with absurd religious laws) you can move to another state without the need to leave the entire country.

      Like federalism or not, that's what the constitution created and that's what it still says. All the changes that have occurred over the life of this country have been through unconstitutional means. And that makes the constitution worthless. Given the patriot act and a few others since, the president has the same powers now as Hitler did in the 1930's. So far even Bush hasn't become that crazy, but if you let this go, and a angry revengeful killer like McCain gets into the oval office, then these unconstitutional laws could be used quite differently. Any dissenters would be "drafted" (did you see what he said to that kid who asked a question he didn't like).

      Whatever else you might think of Ron Paul, he has convinced his supporters that he will obey the constitution, and that means we know what to expect. With Huck or the others, incl the dems, one really has no idea. Did anyone expect Bush to turn out the way he did? So, that's what's the ron paul revolution is all about - getting back to rule by law, not men (or women).
      • rald84, on 01/16/2008, -16/+12fail. history has shown time and time again, the worst abuses (slavery, segregation) were committed BY THE STATES. the worst kinds of human and civil rights violations should not occur just because the majority of a state decide so.
        • Hananda, on 01/16/2008, -3/+8But if the majority of a nation decides to commit human and civil rights violations, it's a-ok in your book, eh? The point in reducing federal power is to reduce abuse of power and increase personal freedom. Nobody is advocating genocide here. Of course, it's always easier to paint the other side as "evil".
        • rald84, on 01/16/2008, -7/+2the constitution applies to BOTH the federal AND state governments. thats how you prevent abuses at both levels.
        • rocket777, on 01/16/2008, -4/+10Slavery was a constitutional error until after the civil war. The constitution enforced slavery. The northern states had to return fugitive slaves. So, this was a federal problem. Once the 13th and 14th amendments came in, slavery was done for.

          Segregation was pretty bad. It was, however, the fault of the federal government for not enforcing the constitution. And when it finally did, in 1964, it turned things upside down. On one day, segregation in the states was required by law, then the next day, integration was required by law. Both results were bad and have resulted in the lingering racial problems. Only when all are truly equal, as MLK dreamed, will racial hatred subside. Never fully, but humans are not perfect.

          And as Ron Paul has stated, the civil war led to 100 years of racial hatreds that only occurred in the US because of what Lincoln did. In other countries where slavery ended peacefully, there weren't nearly as many problems. So, I think maybe less reading of government school history books and more of the true history of the US is in order.
      • rsurfs, on 01/16/2008, -2/+8If getting back to the rule of law means dealing and fighting state legislation, I will feel a lot more comfortable knowing that there's initiatives, referendums, and recalls. I'm tired of people being scared of the tyranny of states and using that as an excuse to allow the Federal Government's power grabs. Quit being pussies and fight the states! You live in it, you can change it. Deal with it.
      • aukxsona, on 01/16/2008, -1/+6Fail. All citizens must be treated the same under the law...thus the states can't willy nilly about the 1st Amendment.
      • adeptusarts, on 01/16/2008, -4/+5This type of intelligent commentary is so refreshing. Please continue, you are changing the world. No joke!
      • TheSwashbuckler, on 01/16/2008, -1/+6"You don't seem to understand the concept behind federalism."

        You don't seem to understand the concept behind federalism.

        "The founders considered each of the states as a separate country, bound only for defensive purposes and free trade by the constitution."

        That would be a confederation, not a federation.
        • azimir, on 01/16/2008, -3/+4We tried a true confederation:
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confedera ...

          It didn't work out, so they tweaked it to get a slightly stronger Federal government. The goal overall was to have as little of it as possible, while still being able to function as a grouping of states to the outside world. Think the EU without the [Insert country in EU that is feasible to make fun of, i.e. French or Dutch], and a single military strategy.
          • dahlek, on 01/16/2008, -1/+1Why would you make fun of the French or the Dutch? Each has some kick-ass attributes, take the French health care system for example. I understand that Bill O'Splotchy finds France funny. What I find funny is that the French economy improved slightly AFTER Splotchy started his silly French boycott...
      • jaxcs, on 01/16/2008, -2/+2Does that mean the war of 1860, aka the Civil War, really was the war of Northern Aggression? Strong states weak federal?
        • eviltandem, on 01/16/2008, -0/+4That's a way of viewing it yes. That fight came down to federal law trumping state law. The southern states decided they didn't want to give up that power, and so a fight was the only way to end it.

          In the end the Federal government won. Which is the basis of the system we have now. The federal government trumps the states when a law is in conflict.

          The real problem is after that it got out of hand. At one time this was to provide freedom to all Americans. Now it's used to wage dumb ideology wars.
          • MarkOfTheDead, on 01/16/2008, -0/+3Now federal is trumping State laws and arresting its citizens on a plant known to heal the sick or provide comfort at least. Awesome. Abuse of Federal resources FTW.
        • browwiw, on 01/17/2008, -0/+3There was no such thing as the "War of Northern Aggression". It was the War of Southern Treason.
      • JoeVet, on 01/16/2008, -2/+4"having one law for all coming from DC " This is where you fail. The laws governing freedom of religion, the right to privacy and the right to equal treatment under the law comes directly from the constitution and is given directly to each individual citizen. Ron Paul wants to take away our constitutionally given rights and give them to the states. How are MY constitutional rights protected by giving them away to state (mob) rule? Ron Paul's agenda is no different from Huckabee; he is just less honest about it.
      • browwiw, on 01/16/2008, -0/+3Ron Paul is a neo-Confederate and believes that the South will rise again.

        http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397 ...
    • Hananda, on 01/16/2008, -4/+19You uh, you do understand that "diggers" are multiple people with unique opinions and thoughts, right? Take me for example. I don't view Ron Paul threads because it's the same set of people arguing the same points, making the same troll comments, and performing the same uninformed circle-jerk day in day out for the last eight or so months. I will, however, open a Huckabee thread to see the general reaction to whatever insulting, nomination-losing opinion the man expressed today.
      • EJTower, on 01/16/2008, -0/+5Yes, thank you. I am very tired of people making these sweeping generalizations.
        • xaxxon, on 01/17/2008, -0/+2Everyone is tired of these sweeping generalizations. in general, generalizations are never right.
    • Myztry, on 01/16/2008, -7/+20Gold Standard.
      God Standard.

      All Huckabee did was drop the L from Gold.
      • michaelb1, on 01/16/2008, -1/+7It's kind of like how you can substitute 'Freedom' for 'Money' in any Bush speech.
    • rroeserr, on 01/16/2008, -10/+18Actually that is a big difference between Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee. Huckabee wants it to the be law of the land, and Paul wants the states to decide what they should do. Some states will be more conservative the then others. Some states will have crosses and some won't. Some will say you if have to have a cross you have to have everything, etc. But people from ANOTHER state will NOT have a stay in how your state is run. For instance, the new EPA ruling ***** over California.now because they are claiming its a state right to decide there own pollution laws. Most Democrats would say that California has that right...Ron Paul would be for California because the Constitution does not give the federal government power to decide these matters.

      I read the article and I think that what he saying in the article was that first amendment works both ways. IE the government can't make you profess a religion but it can't stop you either even in public setting. Should Presidents not be allowed to say, "God Bless America" when making a public speech? If

      Further if there was a voucher system in education, or the money was attached to the kid like in Belgium the parents would be free to chose where they wanted to put their child. If they wanted them in a school that teaches them something silly like God created the world in 6 days they could go there, and if they wanted to go to a completely secular school - and learn how evolution, abiogenesis, etc. really works - they could go there.

      We are starting to loose choice in everything in American now. That is why people like him - he wants to give choice back to the states where it was supposed to belong.
      • michaelb1, on 01/16/2008, -0/+7 By that logic then some states could NOT have crosses on federal buildings) because of the whole freedom of religion thing in the Constitution. If RP supports the Constitution then he supports the fact that a state or federal government cannot endorse a religion over others.
        • Corrosionx, on 01/16/2008, -2/+1I think only Congress is prohibited from passing laws respecting the establishment of religion.
          • michaelb1, on 01/16/2008, -0/+3The Constitution applies to states within the United States. They cannot make any laws that violate or super cede the Constitution.
        • TheSwashbuckler, on 01/16/2008, -0/+4"I think only Congress is prohibited from passing laws respecting the establishment of religion."

          You are incorrect. Take a look at the 14th amendment, e.g. "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." You might also want to look up "the doctrine of incorporation"...
      • rroeserr, on 01/16/2008, -1/+1I did say that:

        Some states will have crosses and some WON'T.
      • eviltandem, on 01/16/2008, -1/+2Well put sir.

        We're just tired of the federal government telling us all how to live our lives. Go deal with terrorism, trade, and foreign policy. Leave who we marry up to us. Leave what we do with our bodies up to us. Leave who we worship and how up to us. Leave who we have sex with up to us. Leave what medical science we do and do not want up to us.

        We are a large diverse group of people. One set of rules will never make everybody happy.
      • JoeVet, on 01/16/2008, -1/+5There is no difference between Huckabee and Ron Paul except how they are trying to accomplish their fundamentalist social agenda. Huckabee want to change the constitution. Ron Paul know that would be extremely difficult so he is trying to run around the constitution by claiming its a state issue. Huckabee is trying for one united theocracy, Ron Paul is trying for 50 individual theocracies. Either way they both make the Taliban proud.
    • samssf, on 01/16/2008, -8/+16I won't vote for Ron Paul, I'll vote for Dennis Kucinich... the chance he'll make it is very slim, but whatever.
      • jwgen, on 01/18/2008, -1/+0I’m feeling sorry to those who’s mocking our Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus said do not be afraid of evil and he warned us that we should be afraid to the heavenly father. I’m a woman and a mother of 3 children and we are blessed by having faith in Jesus Christ. I will pray for those who hated our Lord that maybe tomorrow they will wake up to praise the Lord Jesus. Well the only reason the people start saying bad things to Christian because Satan had took over their soul. If your weak you would end up saying things bad to the Lord Jesus. Of course Satan hated the Lord Jesus, so Satan will look for those who’s weak and easy. Satan can only enter to those who’s not believing Christ. Our family is being protected by Jesus Christ. I’m sorry that some people doesn’t Love Jesus” For me! my life is useless with out Jesus Christ he is everything to my family. Just remember life on earth is short. As you know if you don’t like to vote for Huckabee you don’t have to say bad things to Christ Jesus go on and vote for who ever you want, obviously you already chose who you like for your selves. The one thing I can say my faith to God is if God wants Huckabee to win it’s going to happen with out every body’s vote. If he doesn’t win then God has different planned for him. God bless America if he wins because the country need to get fix. We can’t keep letting the corruption go on or else we will lose the freedom.
    • domokunt, on 01/16/2008, -4/+11Huckabee wants God to decide, RP wants the states to decide... you don't see the difference?
      • JoeVet, on 01/16/2008, -2/+6Huckabee wants the federal government to take away our freedom of religion, Ron Paul wants the states to do it. I see no difference in the their ultimate objective.
    • kaythecraven, on 01/16/2008, -1/+2Who's job is it to interpret the constitution, again? That's right- the judicial branch.
    • bsmang, on 01/16/2008, -6/+2I sincerely hope that neither Huckabee nor Ron Paul gets within yodeling distance of our presidency. But I have to admit that the same feeling goes for Giuliani and Romney, and to a slightly lesser extent, McCain. Personally, I'm hoping for Obama, but I have to say that I'd pick any of the democrats, even Hillary, over those buffoons any day.
    • dahlek, on 01/16/2008, -8/+2Right-on, saved me the trouble. I can't figure out why Ron Paul is so popular here. Assuming he gets elected, he would nominate strict constructionists to the Supreme Court, which means that any legislation having to do with gay marriage or abortion or church/state issues would lean towards the, "we want the states to decide" crowd which is a code word conservative activism. Yes, conservative activism! Conservative judges have turned back more Congressional legislation than the liberal "activists" on the court, but the "liberal" media doesn't really frame it quite like that. Conservatives aren't any more for state's rights than liberals, take laxer drug laws for instance. When it comes to their pet issues, state's rights are suddenly thwarted by "higher" concerns.

      The worst Huck could do would be to nominate conservative judges to the Supreme Court, so in the church/state context, a vote for Ron Paul may as well be a vote for Huck. Even if we pretend that Ron is REALLY for smaller government and state's rights, in the really-real world, this translates directly into what the religious Right wants most. It's sort of like Ralph Nader. We can like what he stands for, but in the REAL world, what he did was help Bush get into office and in effect, helped that which he claims to despise most.
    • guichetroo, on 01/16/2008, -2/+3Hiding behind the mantle of federalism is convenient, but ultimately, unhelpful. Certainly many aspects of law-making should be left to the states. And, yes the judiciary often oversteps its bounds and delivers rulings that many people find ridiculous. However, there are many things that we simply cannot let the states decide individually yet. Slavery had to be federally imposed on states. Racial integration of schools and society at large had to be forced on many states. And now we need the federal government to prevent some states (I’m looking at you Alabama) from imposing ridiculous religious standards of behavior on people ( in terms of gay marriage, prayer in schools, sex ed, (un)Intelligent Design, etc.)

      in short - Ron Paul's strict federalism, like any other form of fundamentalism, is bad for America.
    • mcool119, on 01/16/2008, -2/+3You can't see the difference between wanting to give the right to pass laws about religion to the states instead of the federal government, and wanting to force religion into the federal government?
    • RockLobstah, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1I believe that the federal government has the obligation to protect the rights of its people, even if that means interfering on the state level, as articulated in the 14th Amendment.

      "Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

      That said, in that article, I find myself in agreement with Ron Paul. He was specifically objecting not to the federal government protecting the religious freedom of its people (which I think it has the authority to do - maybe Ron Paul does not) but to the federal government restricting religious freedom, which that ruling did. Not allowing kids to recite the pledge of allegiance in school is just as unconstitutional as requiring them to do so. In that sense, I agree with Paul's stance.

      I would like to hear him answer a question on this issue, because in my mind it would be hard to deny that one of the few roles the government really should have is to ensure the equal treatment of all its people.
  • LostRiot, on 01/16/2008, -6/+8hmm, I don't think god would be too keen on the old guns
    • aspec, on 01/16/2008, -1/+11Are you kidding? God had the original guns. Hellfire and brimstone? God has a hard on for guns.
      • michaelb1, on 01/16/2008, -0/+742. Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
        - Epicurus
      • emomakesmecry, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1Dugg for "God has a hard on for guns". Made me literally lol.
  • flipmoe, on 01/16/2008, -4/+46This is a great idea! We should also create a Department of Homeland Morals! (You know, like Iran has) and then we can arm ourselves and go about carrying out God's will on the non-believers!
    • UNCCEJ1010, on 01/16/2008, -0/+9Thought Police FTW!
    • StarlessKnight, on 01/16/2008, -0/+5Soon we, too, can proudly proclaim there are no Homosexuals in our country. /sarcasm
  • ChileanGoD, on 01/16/2008, -7/+16OMFG
  • Jo9100, on 01/16/2008, -5/+42Huckaboo is a joke. A real joke.
    • Loonacy, on 01/16/2008, -0/+8Then why am I not laughing?
      • michaelb1, on 01/16/2008, -0/+6Some jokes are sad. Like when a guy in a wheel chair gets knocked over.
      • janeuner, on 01/18/2008, -0/+1Because it is a real bad joke.
    • Bobski, on 01/16/2008, -11/+3And you're a real Jokeaboo.

      The mentality of Diggers is dropping whole percentage points by the millisecond. You actually were dugg up for an unbelievably lame attempt at a joke just because you poked at the diggers latest punching bag?

      Sick - you people are what are what the world rests its future on? I'm hoping for the developement of the Home-Nuke so I can blast you morons out of my neighborhood.
      • BigBenKlingon, on 01/16/2008, -5/+4Heh, you OBVIOUSLY don't have any mental problems. Real nice.
        • Bobski, on 01/16/2008, -3/+1And this is dull witted edge is to cut me how?
          • BigBenKlingon, on 01/16/2008, -2/+2Who taught you grammer, douchebag...Yoda?
      • bsmang, on 01/16/2008, -0/+3lol Bobski.. It wasn't a joke and he wasn't trying to be funny. He stated his opinion, and diggers showed their agreement with it. I think BigBen was barking up the right tree there hinting at your mental condition.
        • Bobski, on 01/16/2008, -3/+1I GET the fact he was trying to make a joke - dimwit. I said as much in my comment.

          It is that the joke is so unbelievably lame and yet it got dugg up anyway solely because it was anti Huckabee.

          Get it, Oh Retarded One?
        • HueytheFreeman, on 01/17/2008, -0/+2"It wasn't a joke and he wasn't trying to be funny"
          "I GET the fact he was trying to make a joke"

          "Get it, Oh Retarded One?"
    • toddcat, on 01/16/2008, -0/+5No, he isn't a joke. This is exactly why he's scary-because he's totally serious.
      • bsmang, on 01/16/2008, -0/+1Jo didn't imply that Huckabee was making a joke.. Just that he is a joke. There's a pretty big difference.
    • TheSwashbuckler, on 01/16/2008, -0/+3A really BAD joke...
  • mulling, on 01/16/2008, -3/+13Sweet, I hope Mullah Huckabee wins the nomination so he can go down in flames.
    • EJTower, on 01/16/2008, -0/+4or rise up and make us all ***** a brick and loose all hope.
    • Gemfinder, on 01/16/2008, -0/+1Yeah, be careful what you ask for. If he gets the nomination people will vote for him. A LOT of people. He scored second from the bottom in Zogby's "Who would you NEVER vote for?" poll.
  • SOS84, on 01/16/2008, -4/+60This anti-American extremist needs to drop his bid right now. He is unqualified to be president of this country.
  • TomK88, on 01/16/2008, -6/+107It's a trap!

    Seriously, how can in this day and age people in Western civilization still believe religion has any business in the governing of a country?
    • Bobski, on 01/16/2008, -28/+1You Leftists seem to think Islamists are your best buddys, so how could you even ask such a question?
      • TomK88, on 01/16/2008, -0/+23What are you talking about? My whole point is that religion should have absolutely nothing to do with politics. To me, it's a private thing that you can practice as you wish as long as it doesn't infringe on any laws. Islam, Christian, whatever, I could care less.
        • Bobski, on 01/16/2008, -17/+1You mean "I couldn't care less." But beside that, the fact remains , no matter how your beliefs differ from others, you *should* care.

          I've always hated Thoreau's "Walden's Pond" because while he thought it perfectly acceptable to dismiss the outside world because it never encroached on his private space, the reality is he ignored the bulldozers that came decades later and destroyed his sanctuary.

          No Man is an island, moreso now that ever before in human history, and yet liberals still cling to the ideal that they can somehow go back to Kansas if they just truly believe and click thier heels three times.
        • StarlessKnight, on 01/16/2008, -1/+13@Bobski: Your point is disassociated from the points you presume to counter. TomK88 said how can someone that believes in a supernatural power be expected to govern using reason instead of God whispering in their ear? You responded Leftists love them some Muslims. TomK88 then said that people should be free to believe whatever they want, in private, and that only becomes a problem when it is forced upon others, in public. You responded that no one is an island (I presume you're arguing nothing is or can be private?) and that Leftists are trying to escape reality.

          I disagree with TomK88 that a believer in a religion isn't fit to govern a country, but I also disagree with you, Bobski, that the private is a dream. You can worship your religion, I can worship my religion (or lack thereof), and we can *discuss* them in seeking a better understanding of what the "Truth" is; mandating that people accept certain mores/morals/ethics/behavior, however, that might be contrary to their beliefs in so long as it does not infringe upon someone else is violating the privacy of people that don't agree with your beliefs. Why should they have to adopt what you believe, as long as they're not infringing on your own rights?

          We are not islands completely removed from one another, we're a chain of islands with boats and planes traveling amongst them with radio and television signals being broadcast across the entire chain/cluster.
        • TomK88, on 01/16/2008, -0/+11I don't necessarily believe that a believer isn't fit to govern a country. I just don't think that their religious beliefs should have any impact on the way they rule the country. If a candidate existed who believed in some sort of God but I agreed with him on every aspect of his platform (since he followed reason, not religion) then I would definitely vote for him. I just can't stand candidates saying "we should do X because it says so in the Bible".
      • eviltandem, on 01/16/2008, -0/+5Nope. We "leftist" view muslims exactly same way we view christians. That's the part you don't get. To us all religions are equally crazy. You all believe the same basic things, you just fight over the name of the people, and the details of what they meant.

        The EXACT same ideals we give the muslims, we give to you. Which is why it is legal for you to practice whatever flavor of christianity you practice. We don't treat your faith different, we treat it the same as any other.

        The difference between the US and the middle east is secularism. That's why we have this large stable society, and they blow each other up. We learned a long time ago that politics and religion don't mix. You (and huckabee) just need to learn it too.
      • jsmu, on 01/16/2008, -0/+0Your imbecility is breathtaking.
        It's posters like you who give FOX NEWS a good name.
        It isn't "Walden's Pond", ***** for brains. It's "Walden".
    • artdwpmt, on 01/16/2008, -0/+12Simple, they're religious. They believe it because their religion tells them it has a business in government and in running everyone else's lives.

      Really not that surprising given the rest of what their religion tells them, which they also believe.
      • iucraigmc, on 01/16/2008, -3/+1Christian doctrine and Jesus' example clearly shows Christians are much better suited outside the realm of politics and achieve far greater success in changing the hearts and minds of people by example and through teachings. I understand that some people believe it is the states responsibility to legislate Christine doctrine, but they simply do not understand that is not what Jesus did... at all. Not once did he ever force his hand on others - yet history has shown his followers did not quite follow well in his footsteps in this respect.
        • Matri, on 01/17/2008, -1/+1If they had actually followed him they wouldn't have made a religion out of him.
  • Nick2632, on 01/16/2008, -7/+58I'm a Christian and all, but that's just too far. There's a line you cross when you want to start governing out of religion instead of the best interest of the American people (who aren't all Christian) in the first place. But changing the Constitution to make the country more to "God's Standards?"

    Well I guess that makes sense, since, ya know Jesus was born in Texas.
    /Sarcasm
    • maladork, on 01/16/2008, -0/+4Why can't Evangelicals just let God punish us in the afterlife? They have to play God and sick BIG BROTHER on us.
    • SuperWinner, on 01/16/2008, -1/+6Why do all christians have to announce the fact at the beginning of every sentence?

      I think I'll start every sentence with, "I'm a rational human.... and here is my 2 bits"
      • eviltandem, on 01/16/2008, -0/+4I'm ok with it. My biggest complaint is that the regular joe christians aren't resisting these bigots who speak in their name.

        Personally I love to see people profess their faith openly in public discourse. It's what I love about my country. He should be able to scream his opinion on any topic, and explain why they are compatable with his faith.

        It's the idiots who tell me they are going to force their opinions on me that I think we need to fight. This guy is on our side, religious or not. By giving him the time of day I'm endorsing the sane side of christianity.

        I don't think all the christian ideals were bad. Just that most of them aren't following them.
        • mbeauchez, on 01/16/2008, -0/+2You think people are able to openly express their faith in this country? Silly boy. You've never heard someone declaring himself an atheist, have you?
  • indigothirdeye, on 01/16/2008, -25/+4buried for repeat

    http://digg.com/politics/Huckabee_Amend_Constituti ...
  • TimeLincoln, on 01/16/2008, -4/+21Well i'm sure separation of church and state will go out the window if Father Huckabee is elected. *shutters*
    • Bobski, on 01/16/2008, -14/+2Age old mis-conception. If any of you leftists ever bothered to actually study your American history, you would discover that the debate in question is about the separation of Church - an institution, and State - an institution. The debate was /never/ about the separation of religion from politics.

      Any real patriot of these United States knows in absolute certainty that every single founding father, without exception, was a man of God.
      • gudnbluts, on 01/16/2008, -1/+6"Any real patriot of these United States knows in absolute certainty"

        There's one of the big problems with some people your country right there. The idea that patriotism has anything to do with truth.
        • Bobski, on 01/16/2008, -9/+1Hey, well, dickwad. I saw that weakness in my argument and tried to correct it to "any true historian", but was too late due to the digg timeout. I figured that with the mentality I'm dealing with, nobody would notice.
          So guess that means you get the booby prize.
        • JoeVet, on 01/16/2008, -0/+4Typical reaction of a "Christain". Name calling and profanity when challenged.
      • Tilon, on 01/16/2008, -2/+5lmao. God, you're uninformed.
        • Bobski, on 01/16/2008, -7/+1Wow - I'm just blinded by your piercing logic. I bow to your superior intellect.
          • Tilon, on 01/16/2008, -2/+1Want to target me? I actually didn't tear your ***** argument up because it wasn't worth doing, but you had to call me out.

            "Age old mis-conception. If any of you leftists ever bothered to actually study your American history, you would discover that the debate in question is about the separation of Church - an institution, and State - an institution. The debate was /never/ about the separation of religion from politics."

            First off, stop thinking in the preschoolish Left-Right paradigm. It's just stupid, okay? The world nowadays is in more of a Socialist------Libertarian struggle, where huge controlled, centralized powers (Corps, Big Government) are on one side and Decentralization is on the other side.

            As for the rest, Just go read about Thomas Jefferson or Benjamin Franklin's religious beliefs. I can pretty confidently tell you that the great ideas that founded our republic did NOT come from 'God', little man.

            Good day.

            "Any real patriot of these United States knows in absolute certainty that every single founding father, without exception, was a man of God."

            Funny, that. You'd think a Christian Country would enforce its religion, maybe bar graven idols (which God commanded you to do) or maybe at least banning shellfish from the outset?
          • jsmu, on 01/16/2008, -0/+0It really is worth commenting on your every public show of your cloaca, buddy. it's laughable. oh, wait, that was your FACE....never mind...
      • SuperWinner, on 01/16/2008, -1/+8Its pretty easy to disregard anyone who has the words "you leftists" in their comment...
      • tidu, on 01/16/2008, -1/+7You really have no ***** idea, do you? Most of the major founding fathers (Georgie, Tommy Jefferson, etc.) were agnostic, atheist, or just didn't follow a denomination. Read a *****' book.
      • jsmu, on 01/16/2008, -1/+0Not clue one. Have you ever read ANY book? is it strictly FOX NEWS for you? LMAO
    • PabloMac, on 01/16/2008, -0/+1Shutters?
  • xXMetalJesusXx, on 01/16/2008, -5/+46I consider myself sooooo lucky that I'm Canadian. Dealing with Harper's Conservative agenda in NOTHING compared to the ***** you people could have to deal with.
    • aukxsona, on 01/16/2008, -0/+6Do you have room for some Pagans and Atheists? I mean if this nutter is elected...I am so moving some damn where.
      • bsmang, on 01/16/2008, -0/+5I'd suggest somewhere in Europe, maybe Denmark or similar. At least that's where I'll be looking to if it comes down to that. Some of the countries over there have much higher levels of atheism / intelligence than we have here.
        • mufasa, on 01/16/2008, -0/+2Afaik, Sweden is one of the most secular countries in the world.
  • syroncoda, on 01/16/2008, -12/+2oh this is brilliant. its interesting to see yourself being censored

    i posted my comment in a similar thread here ( http://digg.com/politics/Huckabee_Amend_Constituti ... ) and its removed! i think i even only swore once in that one...

    double post of doom with ***** cut out!

    "what. the. *****. the current rate of politics in this country as as such: if the bigwig corporations don't like you, you are removed from presidential debates. if you are a constitutionalist, the "moral majority", who blindly follow their pastors instru … "
    • greyfox007, on 01/16/2008, -2/+4Those large evil corporations suck: paying political leaders, lobbying, etc...
      I wish the United States had a reset button
      • edisonoside, on 01/16/2008, -3/+2That button is Ron Paul.
        • EJTower, on 01/16/2008, -1/+4You could just easily say the reset button is Huckabee. The only difference is that your happy go lucky ideology wouldn't be what is in power after the reset!
        • michaelb1, on 01/16/2008, -0/+1Jesus Christ.
    • holygram, on 01/16/2008, -0/+2Niether you or your comment are quite as important as you seem to think.
  • evadanielle, on 01/16/2008, -3/+12Creeeeeeeeeeeeepy.
  • Madak17, on 01/16/2008, -1/+41I hear his first act as President will be to burn all the non-believers at the stake.
  • scabbers, on 01/16/2008, -3/+45It's the same principle as a fundamentalist muslim wanting the U.S to be an islamic state.
  • enchilladam, on 01/16/2008, -13/+2This same topic was discussed a couple of hours ago.
    • Hananda, on 01/16/2008, -0/+10Well, I and others missed that one, so we're going to do it again.
  • Hurricane, on 01/16/2008, -1/+44The really honestly sad thing is that there are actually millions of people who support this idiotic loon.
    • SuperWinner, on 01/16/2008, -0/+5Well those million people all went through Jesus Camp, so the brainwashing has not worn off yet...
    • qh4dotcom, on 01/23/2008, -0/+0I don't support Father Huckabee, but besides Ron Paul and Giuliani there's no other tax cutters out there.
  • rald84, on 01/16/2008, -2/+23for all of you screaming "dupe," goto digg homepage. look to the right. yeah, apple takes over five of the top 10. i think this is more serious than steve job's newest cash cow
  • WalkAroundMe, on 01/16/2008, -16/+21If Huckabee, Paul or Romney win in November, I am moving out of this ***** country -- after eight years of George W Bushwhacker, I've had it. This place is going to the 'sinners', and they're eating all this 'god' ***** up. They're coming at us from every direction -- even the Dems are babbling about fa