The Constitution and God’s Standards
A few night’s ago, at a Michigan campaign stop, Mike Huckabee said the following:
“I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that’s what we need to do is amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than trying to change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other and how we treat the family.”
Perhaps I am late to the party, or perhaps the MSM just hasn’t picked it up yet, but several liberal types on the internet seem to be making a big deal about this statement - recognizing in it a plea for a “theocracy.” This seems to be a ridiculous and un-thought-out assertion, betraying an ignorance of mainstream conservative evangelical thought.
It should come as no surprise that religious conservative and conservative voters are upset with gay “marriage” and abortion - or at least the judicial usurpation of these issues. It should further be recognized that one reason (a big reason) for some voter’s opposition to these practices is based on their interpretation of religious writings they receive as authoritative. It was just a matter of time before one of these people became a candidate and spoke the language of these voters.
Part of the democratic process is hearing the voices of the electorate and evaluating their claims. It is not a “theocracy” for conservative religious people to share their views on abortion any more than it is an imposition of theology for liberal religious speakers to preach against war or advocate an increase in welfare entitlements. Would Huckabee’s detractors deny him access to the public square to make his case before the populace? Such seems patently un-American.
You may not agree with Huckabee’s positions on gay “marriage” or abortion, but amending the Constitution with specific policy statements would make them constitutional laws, not religious laws. The candidate is not speaking of the establishment of a particular national church. The candidate is not advocating the alteration of the Constitution to privilege a certain faith. He is advocating public policy decisions to be considered by the American public. His own personal basis for recommending these changes may stem in part from religious motivations, but the policies and process themselves are entirely secular.
An amendment to the Constitution that privileges the dignity of human life would be a statement that a Constitutionally controlled people made the democratic decision to set a standard for how the country should operate. It would not create a theocracy any more than the 13th amendment, widely supported by religious abolitionists, created a theocracy.
The cries of “theocracy” and “theo-con” and etc. are nothing more than political spin attempts to discredit the policy positions with which the critics disagree. Where any fear actually exists, it is the result of paranoia. Of course, the true danger to a Constitutional way of life for our country is not from Huckabee’s statements or those who oppose them for political reasons, but from those who oppose his views specifically because they have some basis in religious thought. Rabid secularists would seek to squelch the protected speech of religious citizens, bar certain candidates of faith from public office, and silence the voice of certain of America’s citizens. This is anti-religious bigotry in its worst form and undermines the most cherished of American guarantees - a voice.
It is not immoral to be a moral person who cares about others and the welfare of our country. It is not un-American to participate in the great debate. It is both to promote falsehood and fear an effort to deny citizens their political and religious rights.
Pingback by Huckabee on The Constitution and “God’s Standards”: Don’t Be Quick to Judge « Musings of a Wannabe Muser
[…] over at LeStourgeon Online provides interesting insight to Hucabee’s “the Constitution and God’s Standards” comment. […]
Posted on January 19, 2008 at 6:35 pm
Comment by Matt
You ignore the main point by saying this is simply a public policy issue. Huckabee did not say we should define marriage as one man/one woman or outlaw abortion by showing how it is good public policy. He specifically frames it in religious language. He says it is a good idea because it is “God’s standard.” In no way can this comment be taken as secular.
It is not the “liberal media” or the “rabid secularists” who brought up Huckabee’s specifically (and so far, exclusively) religious motivations for amending the Constitution. It was Huckabee himself.
The 13th Amendment was supported by religious people, this is true. But many Southern religious people defended slavery as Biblical and ordained by God. So, who’s interpretation was right? It was a war, not a religious majority, that decided what view would define American policy.
In similar fashion, many sincerely religious people believe same sex marriage to be a fundamental human right. Other sincerely religious people believe homosexuality to be a sin. Who’s interpretation is right? The genius of our American system is that each person is free to make religious decisions for themselves. If Huckabee wants to amend the Constitution to define marriage or ban abortion, let him make a public policy argument. Let him appeal to the common good. But he cannot use his personal view as to what “God’s standards” are to promote a “polic(y) and process” that should be “entirely secular.”
Posted on January 24, 2008 at 7:59 pm
Comment by blestou
Matt,
With all due respect (whatever that may be) who made you the arbiter of what is permissible speech in the public square? Who endowed you with the right to determine what personal views are allowed to determine public policy?
The “genius” of the way you describe the “American system” is that my side can’t win, so you win by default. Bogus.
Your desire to force your “entirely secular” mindset upon me is a violation of my freedom. Nothing in the Constitution prohibits citizens from having religions motivations for doing whatever it is they would do. Those intolerant souls who would bar the religious with whom they disagree from the debates of our time are the enemies, not the protectors, of freedom.
Posted on January 24, 2008 at 11:15 pm
Pingback by LeStourgeon Online » Blog Archive » Baptist Ruckus
[…] posting about Huckabee’s “Constitution and God’s Standards” comment, I found an editorial at the On Faith blog of the Washington Post penned by J. Brent […]
Posted on January 25, 2008 at 8:04 am
Comment by Matt
You presume to know a lot about me if you think you know my mindset. The “entirely secular” comment is from the first post. They are not my words. That is why I put them in quotes.
Also, I am not talking about sides. You may be interested to know that I am currently working on my Master of Divinity and want to be a Baptist minister. I am not a “rabid secularist”, the enemy, or someone who is trying to “force [my]… mindset” on you or anyone.
In addition, no one made me, “the arbiter of what is permissible speech in the public square.” Huckabee can say whatever he wants. Incidentally, so can I. But there is a difference between speech in the public square and a president who would make public policy decisions.
Likewise, no one, “endowed [me] with the right to determine what personal views are allowed to determine public policy.” However, the 1st Amendment to the Constitution says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” So, there are certainly restrictions in the Constitution on what kinds of personal views can be turned into public policy. A specifically religious view cannot be made into law.
I think you also miss the point. Anyone is free to have any kind of motivation for his or her beliefs. But what this commentary says in defense of his comments is that he is not talking about a religious position, but rather a public policy position, e.g. “He is advocating public policy decisions to be considered by the American public.”
It also says, “His own personal basis for recommending these changes may stem in part from religious motivations.” So, the question is, where is the other part? Where is his argument that does not stem from a religious motivation? In a public policy decision (which by definition affects the whole public) the ideal must translate beyond a personal religious conviction to a value that will appeal to many people.
It is true that passing another amendment to the Constitution is a public policy process. It is also true that Gov. Huckabee can have the belief that homosexuality and abortion are contrary to God’s Law. Where I (and many others) take exception is that (at least in this speech) he is using his personal religious opinion as the only basis for a public policy decision.
This will not affect only those people who hold that religious belief, but also those who hold other religious beliefs. You cannot deny that other people’s religious beliefs will be violated. They will be forced to go against their conscience. And like it or not, their religious opinion must be equally respected under the law.
So, my point is, no matter your personal motivation (and I hold many public policy positions that ultimately stem from my religious convictions) if a law is going to apply to everyone, it must have an argument behind it that is appealing to a broad spectrum of people. This cannot be a specifically religious argument.
What if the tables were turned? What if a president were elected who wanted to pass a Constitutional amendment that violated your religious convictions. In addition, what if the only defense for this amendment was, “This is God’s Law.” You would cry out, “NO! This is contrary to God’s Law!” But neither one of you could prove it. Both are beliefs held on faith. If that Constitutional amendment were passed, you would feel that your religious rights had been violated, and you would be right. For religious minorities, this is exactly the position in which they are being put.
Imagine this scenario: Group A is a religious group that holds position X. They account for 51% of the population. Group B is a religious group that holds position –X. They account for 49% of the population. Using a specifically religious argument, group A can only say, “X is true because my faith tells me so.” Group B can only say, “-X is true because my faith tells me so.” If it comes to a vote, Group A will win, of course. But that doesn’t make it right. Almost half the population will have to live under a law that violates their beliefs. None of us would want to be in Group B, but I don’t think Group A is upholding the best of what it means to be an American.
What would be better (and dare I say more consistent with Christian charity) would be to appeal to a common good that will resonate with both A and B. Not everyone will agree, of course. But by translating your argument into beliefs and ideals held by both sides, many people on both sides might actually come together and agree.
In conclusion, if Gov. Huckabee wants to make a case for a Constitutional amendment that would define marriage or ban abortion, I welcome him to do so. If his motivations are at the core religious, he is free for them to be so. All I would like to hear is a public policy argument for this public policy d
Posted on January 30, 2008 at 5:30 am
Comment by Matt
In conclusion, if Gov. Huckabee wants to make a case for a Constitutional amendment that would define marriage or ban abortion, I welcome him to do so. If his motivations are at the core religious, he is free for them to be so. All I would like to hear is a public policy argument for this public policy decision.
Posted on January 30, 2008 at 5:32 am
Comment by blestou
Matt,
I presume nothing about your mindset beyond the sentence you typed:
I do not think I am missing the point at all. You seem to argue that people can have private religious beliefs but must not act upon them in the public square without corresponding entirely secular reasons. I think that the Constitution says nothing of the kind and to require such is itself a religious test.
You are arguing like an amendment to the Constitution is the same as a simple majority vote. If all the requirements for amending the Constitution were met, then there could be no doubt that the will of the Constitutionally governed people was to live under the understanding of whatever the amendment proposed. This would make many people unhappy, but it is a thoroughly legal and secular change.
A Constitutional change, regarding a general public policy, that takes place through a Constitutional process can be in no way considered an establishment of religion. To place your artificial religious test and redefinition of “establishment” above the Law does not protect the First Amendment, it subverts the entire Constitution.
Posted on January 30, 2008 at 9:07 am