No, not as in "I just saw your" nuts, but as in "he may be crazy" nuts.

Here is a recent quote: "But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God," Huckabee said. "And that's what we need to do, is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards."

Wow. Mr. Huckabee, meet Mr. Cruise. You two fellows may have a lot in common.

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2008/0...e_with_god.php

I guess that makes me nuts too. All civil governments are accountable unto their creator. Just read some of the writings of our founding fathers and government.

Although some of the founding fathers may have believed that, our government wasn't established to operate in that fashion. If we modeled our government solely on "God's standards", then we'd be no different than many Islamic states.

No offense, but religion is abundantly available to me outside of the realm of government, I'd prefer not to have politicians invoking the name of god as they discuss how they'd govern. Would religious folk be put off if a politician stated that they were guided by the ethos of the Easter Bunny?

You can vehemently be anti-abortion, pro death penalty, etc... without being a person of faith, and the government can act to ensure the safety of the fetus without changing the constitution in the name of god.

Originally Posted by Flop The Nuts

Although some of the founding fathers may have believed that, our government wasn't established to operate in that fashion. If we modeled our government solely on "God's standards", then we'd be no different than many Islamic states.

No offense, but religion is abundantly available to me outside of the realm of government, I'd prefer not to have politicians invoking the name of god as they discuss how they'd govern. Would religious folk be put off if a politician stated that they were guided by the ethos of the Easter Bunny?

You can vehemently be anti-abortion, pro death penalty, etc... without being a person of faith, and the government can act to ensure the safety of the fetus without changing the constitution in the name of god.

Huckabee is obviously appealing to religious conservatives (like ctc) with such statements (the context which is hard to determine from the source given). As to whether he would actually try to do this is a different matter. I say: better to appeal to the constitution (where the chances of actually passing such amendements are nil) than to resort to force.

Although some of the founding fathers may have believed that, our government wasn't established to operate in that fashion. If we modeled our government solely on "God's standards", then we'd be no different than many Islamic states.

I think that you have a major misconception as to the meaning and intent of Huckabee's statement. Don't forget that Huckabee is a Baptist. Baptist adhere to and ushered in "seperation of church and state".

CTC, I'm only going by the plain wording of his statement. He said that he would like to amend the constitution to be in accordance with his god's standards. What if Romney said that he'd like to amend the constitution to allow for polygamy?

Just to clarify, I don't have any issues with a President or candidate being a religious person. I'm not a believer, but I understand that many people are.

He is specifically talking about abortion and gay marriage. You try to read too much into it. Here is from the link you provided.

At a Michigan campaign event last night, Mike Huckabee gave an interesting reason for why he wants to amend the Constitution to ban both abortion and gay marriage: Otherwise, the Constitution would be in conflict with God.

Originally Posted by ctc

He is specifically talking about abortion and gay marriage. You try to read too much into it. Here is from the link you provided.

At a Michigan campaign event last night, Mike Huckabee gave an interesting reason for why he wants to amend the Constitution to ban both abortion and gay marriage: Otherwise, the Constitution would be in conflict with God.

"Constitution in conflict with God (unless amended to comport with God)" and "separation of church and state" represent conflicting ideas as to the relationship between God and state--unless perhaps one believes his God is the one true God and everyone (who counts) was/is on board with the one and only and saw no need to acknowledge said God in the Constitution.