Good morning, Coffee aficionados. Since the injection of topic headings into the smooth flowing Morning Coffee, writing sufficient introductions has become a challenge. I guess that’s the problem with any digital media; a problem associated with our “have-it-now” attitude. Readers ignore grandiose prose, and wish to delve into the meat. “Get to the point,” they say. No time to enjoy reading for the sake of reading. I suppose the topic headings allow the reader to scan the Coffee (and it’s apparent that scan is all they do considering the amount of time they spend on the actual site) and consume what they want without having to “wade” through any ancillary garbage. In turn, I suppose that’s why topic headings are so inflammatory – they must grab the reader. Thus dies literature, and reading comprehension…
Huckabee the Bible-Based Constitutionalist:
Luckily, I don’t have to give equal billing to all the candidates. If I did, I would have to Brew at least five times a day, seven days a week. My seemingly chronic criticism of certain candidates does not mean I endorse others. It just means that they might say things that are more absurd than others. I only have so many hours to write, so I choose the best material from what’s available. And since I am unable to produce original reporting on anything, I can only expound upon what is already written. And sue me; I go for the easy targets sometimes. It’s their fault.
I actually think Huckabee’s an overall swell guy. But then he opines on something that should have been left unsaid. It’s interesting to me how the choice of words changes depending on the audience. Still, anyone who is a serious contender for the Presidency should realize that in this day and age, anything you say can and will be held against you in the court of public opinion, no matter if it’s to an obscure, private audience.
Huckabee was recently interviewed by the spiritual/religious website Beliefnet.com. It is here that you get some insight on Huckabee. As I read this interview, I found myself continuing to say, “Wow…” Not in awe, but that incredulous “Wow” that you utter when you are sort of perplexed. Like “Wow, he really said that?”
I implore you to read the interview yourself when presented with the opportunity, but I’ll give a few examples for those short on time. I first uttered “wow” while reading his response to the question of whether or not he’s felt God’s presence during the campaign. Of course, he uses the tried and true “a friend of mine sent me/told me such and such”, which politicians use to humanize their responses. His friend/classmate quoted Luke, Chapter 12, something about when “you stand before the assembly, give no thought to what you shall say for the Holy Spirit will give you the words in that hour.” He feels that the Lord gives him the wisdom and responses that are needed. That sounds a lot like prophetic inspiration to me. So if we elect Huckabee, we’re actually getting Godly wisdom along with a charismatic preacher, right? So we’re sort of electing God, since He’s sort of speaking through Huckabee. So, what’s the problem? Obviously we need to vote for (anoint) Huckabee as our theocrat, er, President. Well, that’s neat and all, but much like it is for sports teams and Grammy Award winning musicians, I’m sure that God gets an inordinate amount of credit for political victories, successful campaign speeches, and debate answers. Anyone who’s after the type of voters who read Beliefnet.com interviews would probably answer these questions in a similar manner.
Next up is the issue that turned me onto this interview, that being the topic of Constitutional Amendments. Huckabee was asked to elaborate on why “we might need to amend the Constitution to have it apply more to God’s standards,” which is apparently what he has suggested recently. He says, rightfully, that the Constitution was created so that it could be changed. But then he goes on to say that the Bible was not written to be amended, as if comparing the two offers us some validity to his theological opinions. He clearly forgets, however, the fact that the Bible has been amended, and on more than one occasion (never mind the innumerable different interpretations). To the point, he wants a Constitutional Amendment(s) that protects marriage (no gay marriage) and bans abortion. CNN reported that he said to Beliefnet that those two things “could open the door to polygamy, pedophilia and bestiality.” I didn’t see this statement in the interview, but it could be somewhere else on their site. If this statement is true, I must state that Mr. Huckabee is highly irrational. I’ve never seen anything that suggests that gay marriage and/or abortion is a “gateway drug” to those things. I simply do not know how he could arrive to this conclusion. I’m perplexed. It’s absurd. If I’m a woman, and I get an abortion, or if I’m a man who wants to marry another man, I am somehow predisposed to molesting children, having multiple spouses, and intercourse with animals? Please, please, please stop this insanity. Christians should be above such things. After all, long ago they had heinous crimes and behavior wrongly attributed to them by Roman pagans, who called them cannibals (among other things) because they ate the body and drank the blood of their savior god.
It’s scary that Huckabee wants the Constitution to be more aligned with God’s standards, although I am duly relieved that he has no aspirations (yet) to make things like tithing part of Constitutional law. But it sounds too much like religious law for my tastes. If I wanted to live under the yoke of “sharia” I would move to Iran. Having the Constitution specifically address morality issues like gay marriage and abortion is demeaning to the document. In fact, an argument could be made that the very thing violates the First Amendment, considering that it prohibits an establishment of religion. Nothing says “state sanctioned religion” like aligning the document closer to God and the Bible.
My suggestion to Mr. Huckabee and his ilk is to forget about changing the Constitution to reflect the Bible’s teachings and to instead concentrate on slavishly following the (very loose) moral code established in their book themselves. If they (or anyone for that matter, Christian or otherwise) believe that marrying a member of the same sex is wrong, they should simply not do it. If they feel that abortion is wrong, don’t do it. It’s rather simple. I do not particularly want to see a multitude of gay married men and women (nor do I not want to - I simply do not care who marries who), but I’m not clear on why this must be constitutionally mandated. I’m not entirely clear on why it needs to be made against the law. Until someone presents me with a scientific study that unequivocally links abortion and gay marriage to child molestation, polygamy, and sex with farm animals, I cannot support any sort of Constitutional amendment banning those things. Furthermore, these acts taken individually are all illegal without any additional qualifiers, so what is the issue?
One could further argue that it is the Constitution itself that shields us from a theocracy and should thus legally supersede the Bible completely. Huckabee paints a rosy picture of his faith and is proud that his Bible cannot be amended. This is fine. But then he goes on to say that without this malleable document, the Constitution, African-Americans wouldn’t be considered people and women couldn’t vote, etc. It was required to be changed because it wasn’t always clear as it should have been. That is interesting. I find the comparison of the Bible and the Constitution to be paradoxical. How often has the Bible’s clarity been misconstrued, and led to the mistreatment of groups of Homo sapiens because they weren’t considered people? How long has the Bible and its derivatives been used to justify the treatment of various “peoples” and women and children? The Constitution and its message can not be so easily subverted. And the Bible cannot, like our great Constitution, be amended or changed. It’s only been available in the vernacular for one quarter of its life, and only then after the deaths of a number of would be translators. Whatever the Good Book’s merits, and they are few, I do not want the document that serves as the basis for my government to be based upon or more closely aligned with the Bible.
Okay folks, I’ve rambled on incoherently enough on this issue, and for that I apologize. It’s hard to write well in my present environment as there are many things that distract me from what’s important. But I stand by my assessment. Huckabee’s view is wrong, and this view will only serve to pervert our Constitution. The minority will not be protected as it is in our present system, but will instead be marginalized and eradicated. This is what religion in government does.
No time to sanity check my material today. I’m sure my vast readership will call me on any discrepancies.
Word of the Day: Theodicy (noun): A vindication of the divine attributes, particularly holiness and justice, in establishing or allowing the existence of physical and moral evil.
On This Day in History: Pope Pius IV reopens the Council of Trent for its third and final session (1562). The Council of Trent embodied the ideals of the Counter-Reformation; a response to Martin Luther’s heresy. Importantly, anyone who interpreted the Bible differently from the Church was a heretic.
“You have not converted a man because you have silenced him.” – John Morley.
Huckabee the Bible-Based Constitutionalist:
Luckily, I don’t have to give equal billing to all the candidates. If I did, I would have to Brew at least five times a day, seven days a week. My seemingly chronic criticism of certain candidates does not mean I endorse others. It just means that they might say things that are more absurd than others. I only have so many hours to write, so I choose the best material from what’s available. And since I am unable to produce original reporting on anything, I can only expound upon what is already written. And sue me; I go for the easy targets sometimes. It’s their fault.
I actually think Huckabee’s an overall swell guy. But then he opines on something that should have been left unsaid. It’s interesting to me how the choice of words changes depending on the audience. Still, anyone who is a serious contender for the Presidency should realize that in this day and age, anything you say can and will be held against you in the court of public opinion, no matter if it’s to an obscure, private audience.
Huckabee was recently interviewed by the spiritual/religious website Beliefnet.com. It is here that you get some insight on Huckabee. As I read this interview, I found myself continuing to say, “Wow…” Not in awe, but that incredulous “Wow” that you utter when you are sort of perplexed. Like “Wow, he really said that?”
I implore you to read the interview yourself when presented with the opportunity, but I’ll give a few examples for those short on time. I first uttered “wow” while reading his response to the question of whether or not he’s felt God’s presence during the campaign. Of course, he uses the tried and true “a friend of mine sent me/told me such and such”, which politicians use to humanize their responses. His friend/classmate quoted Luke, Chapter 12, something about when “you stand before the assembly, give no thought to what you shall say for the Holy Spirit will give you the words in that hour.” He feels that the Lord gives him the wisdom and responses that are needed. That sounds a lot like prophetic inspiration to me. So if we elect Huckabee, we’re actually getting Godly wisdom along with a charismatic preacher, right? So we’re sort of electing God, since He’s sort of speaking through Huckabee. So, what’s the problem? Obviously we need to vote for (anoint) Huckabee as our theocrat, er, President. Well, that’s neat and all, but much like it is for sports teams and Grammy Award winning musicians, I’m sure that God gets an inordinate amount of credit for political victories, successful campaign speeches, and debate answers. Anyone who’s after the type of voters who read Beliefnet.com interviews would probably answer these questions in a similar manner.
Next up is the issue that turned me onto this interview, that being the topic of Constitutional Amendments. Huckabee was asked to elaborate on why “we might need to amend the Constitution to have it apply more to God’s standards,” which is apparently what he has suggested recently. He says, rightfully, that the Constitution was created so that it could be changed. But then he goes on to say that the Bible was not written to be amended, as if comparing the two offers us some validity to his theological opinions. He clearly forgets, however, the fact that the Bible has been amended, and on more than one occasion (never mind the innumerable different interpretations). To the point, he wants a Constitutional Amendment(s) that protects marriage (no gay marriage) and bans abortion. CNN reported that he said to Beliefnet that those two things “could open the door to polygamy, pedophilia and bestiality.” I didn’t see this statement in the interview, but it could be somewhere else on their site. If this statement is true, I must state that Mr. Huckabee is highly irrational. I’ve never seen anything that suggests that gay marriage and/or abortion is a “gateway drug” to those things. I simply do not know how he could arrive to this conclusion. I’m perplexed. It’s absurd. If I’m a woman, and I get an abortion, or if I’m a man who wants to marry another man, I am somehow predisposed to molesting children, having multiple spouses, and intercourse with animals? Please, please, please stop this insanity. Christians should be above such things. After all, long ago they had heinous crimes and behavior wrongly attributed to them by Roman pagans, who called them cannibals (among other things) because they ate the body and drank the blood of their savior god.
It’s scary that Huckabee wants the Constitution to be more aligned with God’s standards, although I am duly relieved that he has no aspirations (yet) to make things like tithing part of Constitutional law. But it sounds too much like religious law for my tastes. If I wanted to live under the yoke of “sharia” I would move to Iran. Having the Constitution specifically address morality issues like gay marriage and abortion is demeaning to the document. In fact, an argument could be made that the very thing violates the First Amendment, considering that it prohibits an establishment of religion. Nothing says “state sanctioned religion” like aligning the document closer to God and the Bible.
My suggestion to Mr. Huckabee and his ilk is to forget about changing the Constitution to reflect the Bible’s teachings and to instead concentrate on slavishly following the (very loose) moral code established in their book themselves. If they (or anyone for that matter, Christian or otherwise) believe that marrying a member of the same sex is wrong, they should simply not do it. If they feel that abortion is wrong, don’t do it. It’s rather simple. I do not particularly want to see a multitude of gay married men and women (nor do I not want to - I simply do not care who marries who), but I’m not clear on why this must be constitutionally mandated. I’m not entirely clear on why it needs to be made against the law. Until someone presents me with a scientific study that unequivocally links abortion and gay marriage to child molestation, polygamy, and sex with farm animals, I cannot support any sort of Constitutional amendment banning those things. Furthermore, these acts taken individually are all illegal without any additional qualifiers, so what is the issue?
One could further argue that it is the Constitution itself that shields us from a theocracy and should thus legally supersede the Bible completely. Huckabee paints a rosy picture of his faith and is proud that his Bible cannot be amended. This is fine. But then he goes on to say that without this malleable document, the Constitution, African-Americans wouldn’t be considered people and women couldn’t vote, etc. It was required to be changed because it wasn’t always clear as it should have been. That is interesting. I find the comparison of the Bible and the Constitution to be paradoxical. How often has the Bible’s clarity been misconstrued, and led to the mistreatment of groups of Homo sapiens because they weren’t considered people? How long has the Bible and its derivatives been used to justify the treatment of various “peoples” and women and children? The Constitution and its message can not be so easily subverted. And the Bible cannot, like our great Constitution, be amended or changed. It’s only been available in the vernacular for one quarter of its life, and only then after the deaths of a number of would be translators. Whatever the Good Book’s merits, and they are few, I do not want the document that serves as the basis for my government to be based upon or more closely aligned with the Bible.
Okay folks, I’ve rambled on incoherently enough on this issue, and for that I apologize. It’s hard to write well in my present environment as there are many things that distract me from what’s important. But I stand by my assessment. Huckabee’s view is wrong, and this view will only serve to pervert our Constitution. The minority will not be protected as it is in our present system, but will instead be marginalized and eradicated. This is what religion in government does.
No time to sanity check my material today. I’m sure my vast readership will call me on any discrepancies.
Word of the Day: Theodicy (noun): A vindication of the divine attributes, particularly holiness and justice, in establishing or allowing the existence of physical and moral evil.
On This Day in History: Pope Pius IV reopens the Council of Trent for its third and final session (1562). The Council of Trent embodied the ideals of the Counter-Reformation; a response to Martin Luther’s heresy. Importantly, anyone who interpreted the Bible differently from the Church was a heretic.
“You have not converted a man because you have silenced him.” – John Morley.
No comments:
Post a Comment