Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Huckabee Gets Biblical
In a Beliefnet interview, Mike Huckabee elaborates on his comment that "what we need to do" is "amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards." He says he was referring specifically to amendments banning abortion and defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman:
People sometimes say we shouldn't have a human life amendment or a marriage amendment because the Constitution is far too sacred to change, and my point is, the Constitution was created as a document that could be changed. That's the genius of it. The Bible, however, was not created to be amended and altered with each passing culture. If we have a definition of marriage, that we don't change that definition, that we affirm that definition. And that the sanctity of human life is not just a religious issue. It's an issue that goes to the very heart of our civilization of all people being equal, endowed by their creator with alienable [sic] rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That was the point. The Bible was not written to be amended. The Constitution was....
I don't think that's a radical view to say we're going to affirm marriage. I think the radical view is to say that we're going to change the definition of marriage so that it can mean two men, two women, a man and three women, a man and a child, a man and animal. Again, once we change the definition, the door is open to change it again. I think the radical position is to make a change in what's been historic.
If "the Bible was not written to be amended," what's the New Testament all about? And if Huckabee wants to stick with the biblical definition of marriage, why does he imply that a marriage consisting of "a man and three women" is some newfangled challenge to the family arrangements endorsed by God? According to the Bible, Abraham sired one son with Hagar (his concubine) and one with Sarah (his full-fledged wife) while they were both living and had more children with Keturah after Sarah's death. Jacob had two wives (Rachel and Leah) and two concubines (Bilhah and Zilpah) at the same time, producing children with each of them. Moses apparently had two wives (Ziporrah and "the Ethiopian woman"). David and Solomon each had a bunch. (More examples here.) As far as abortion goes, the Bible (the "Old Testament" part, at least) has nothing clear to say about it one way or another. It seems Huckabee, despite his firm stance against amending the Bible, is doing exactly that, based on his own moral intuitions, and he wants to treat the Constiution in a similar manner.
|1.18.08 @ 5:15PM|#
We could be thankful that the President has virtually nothing to do with amending the Constitution.
|1.18.08 @ 5:17PM|#
I had something witty and insightful to say, but I'm just going
to boil it all down to:
This guy is a fucking boob.
Sulla|1.18.08 @ 5:23PM|#
Oh great, here comes a bunch of comments on how adam and eve are
the "true" template for marriage and God's "real" meaning is one
woman, one man, and every polygamist in the Bible had family
problems, and a bunch of comments on inconsistent fairy tales, and
how religion is the worst abomination ever on the face of the
universe.
Did I miss anything?
:)
|1.18.08 @ 5:26PM|#
Repeat after me -
Ignorant, hillbilly, whack job, preacher.
Ignorant, hillbilly, whack job, preacher.
Ignorant, hillbilly, whack job, preacher.
Ignorant, hillbilly, whack job, preacher.
Ignorant, hillbilly, whack job, preacher.
Ignorant, hillbilly, whack job, preacher.
|1.18.08 @ 5:28PM|#
If you all would have just been reasonable and let the christers
have it their way, this wouldn't be happening. God wouldn't be
offended and The Incredible Huck wouldn't be foreordained of God to
be the next potus.
can I get an amen?
|1.18.08 @ 5:28PM|#
bunch of comments on inconsistent fairy tales
There you go with that "marriage is between one man and one woman"
meme again.
;)
|1.18.08 @ 5:29PM|#
Paging the Usual Screamers!
Paging the Usual Screamers!
It's time to loudly and repeatedly state your views while
pretending to have a discussion!
Elemenope|1.18.08 @ 5:30PM|#
I never thought I would outlive the institution of
marriage...but with 50%+ divorce rates and begging for legislative
shelter, maybe these are the last gasps.
Shit, who can even *afford* to get married anymore?
economist|1.18.08 @ 5:35PM|#
I think the word "alienable" in Huckabee's speech might be one of those times when he accidentally makes his true beliefs known.
|1.18.08 @ 5:38PM|#
Of course he has to mix in "Man and a Child" and "Man and an
Animal" to the arguement.
Cause, you know, there are all those folks lobbying for child
marrage and beast-human marrage and all.
|1.18.08 @ 5:41PM|#
If what's-His-name is so doggoned omnipotent, why doesn't He just smite the wicked on his own initiative, without a Constitutional Amendment?
R C Dean|1.18.08 @ 5:44PM|#
I think he should get some cred for at least calling for a Consitutional amendment. Its been 100 years since anyone thought it was necessary to do that in order for the federal government to do something beyond its enumerated powers.
jtuf|1.18.08 @ 5:48PM|#
R C Dean,
Dito. While I don't agree with Huckabee's suggestions, ammending
the Constitution is better than ignoring it.
economist|1.18.08 @ 5:54PM|#
If Huckabee gets nominated by Repubs, I swear I'm not going to bother voting in the general election.
|1.18.08 @ 6:03PM|#
"If "the Bible was not written to be amended," what's the New
Testament all about?" That's what conservatism is all about: you
fight like hell any innovation, and then when it comes to past and
becomes an accepted backdrop of society, you fight like hell
against any attempt to change the very thing you (or people like
you) once fought like hell to prevent from ever coming to
pass.
Conservatives 80 years ago: Contraception is an evil, immoral
affront to God and morality in society.
Conservatives now: Oh, of course we are not against contraception,
but abortion is an evil, immoral, affront to God and morality in
society.
tarran|1.18.08 @ 6:10PM|#
So I guess when Satan offered to give Jesus the power to use the
state to force people to follow God's law, Jesus was immoral to
turn him down?
God must be very happy to have servants like Huckabee that are
willing to reject Jesus' teachings and follow Satan's instead.
Regis Carnifex|1.18.08 @ 6:11PM|#
Here's an idea: How about God's people follow God's laws, and the rest of us can do what we like and just burn in hell after we die?
Regis Carnifex|1.18.08 @ 6:12PM|#
I mean, even if we heathens DO follow the divine law (or Huckabee's interpretation), we've still got that whole original sin thing hanging over our heads. So, why bother?
|1.18.08 @ 6:13PM|#
Regis Carnifex | January 18, 2008, 6:11pm | #
Here's an idea: How about God's people follow God's laws, and the
rest of us can do what we like and just burn in hell after we
die?"
Hellfire!
As a believer, I'd settle for His people following His laws. The
rest is umm, well, not of great importance.
|1.18.08 @ 6:18PM|#
So he wants to amend the Constitution, fine. What I want to know is if he has READ the Constitution.
|1.18.08 @ 6:20PM|#
I want to be able to fuck my brother's wife, if he dies.
That's why I'm voting for Huckabee!
|1.18.08 @ 6:25PM|#
Malto Dextrin,
That's after the brother dies?
I gotta talk with my brother.
and my wife...
|1.18.08 @ 6:33PM|#
...the Constitution was created as a document that could be
changed.
The problem isn't with the idea of changing the Constitution, it is
with trying to use it as Superlaw, a higher level of
statute that serves the same basic purpose as ordinary legislation,
only more so.
The Constitution was created to establish - and then severely
restrict in scope - a government for the U.S.; attempts to amend it
to restrict the activities of individuals, however cleverly worded
those attempts may be, are in violation of the spirit and purpose
of the document. While not, strictly speaking, "unconstitutional",
such amendments are in my opinion contemptible.
Douglas Gray|1.18.08 @ 6:44PM|#
I can't think of a more fundamental way to violate the
separation of Church and State, as by saying the Constitution needs
to be "amended so as to suit God's standards." What Hukabee is
really saying is to amend it so as to suit his particular beliefs
and views about what he thinks God's standards are.
Suppose you believe in a pragmatic God who thinks abortion is all
right if there are too many mouths to feed and not enough food, but
wrong if there is enough? Or maybe God is really a libertarian
after all. Ya never know!
|1.18.08 @ 6:47PM|#
Conservatives 80 years ago: Contraception is an evil, immoral affront to God and morality in society.
Conservatives now: Oh, of course we are not against contraception, but abortion is an evil, immoral, affront to God and morality in society.
80 years ago, conservatives were against abortion too -- and the
women's rights movement was one of the most vocally anti-abortion
sectors of American society.
TBH, Mr Nice Guy, I don't really know where you're going with
this.
|1.18.08 @ 6:55PM|#
I'm still not sure where Huckabee is trying to go with the
"Bible is not supposed to be amended" thread. I mean, I agree with
him on that, but I don't see how he gets from there to the idea
that the Constitution needs to be brought in line with the
Bible.
I support an amendment making clear that a state that doesn't
consider same-sex unions to be marriages need not recognize a
same-sex "marriage" performed in another state. That's due to
federalist concerns.
I support the Human Life Amendment based on the secular arguments
for life beginning at conception, which applies no matter what
one's religious beliefs are.
But I definitely don't think we should alter the constitution for
truly religious reasons.
M|1.18.08 @ 7:02PM|#
As a Christian, I would be interested to learn what part of the
Bible commands, implies, or otherwise refers to what Mr. Huckabee
proposes.
(To spare anyone unnecessary labor, I am already familiar with
passages that seem to imply the contrary.)
|1.18.08 @ 7:12PM|#
The Bible, however, was not created to be amended and
altered with each passing culture.
I don't know if it "was created to be amended" but it has been
altered numerous times. What we know as the four gospels were not
the only gospels floating around during christianity's infancy.
Other gospels existed but were eventually excluded.
Then there's the Apochraphal books. Since he's an ordained
minister, I think he's aware of all this but feels it's too
complicated to explain to his supporters, who likely believe there
is only one true bible.
Since I'd rather have even Hillary as president, keep digging Mike.
People need to know what you believe about God and how it relates
to the United States.
|1.18.08 @ 7:32PM|#
brotherben:
Yep, after your brother dies, you get to take his wife for
yourself.
And your current wife doesn't get to vote on this, either.
It's in the bible, god said it, that settles it!
|1.18.08 @ 7:36PM|#
And then the pro-Huckabee people can't understand why the rest of us think this guy is a Talibangelist loon.
|1.18.08 @ 7:41PM|#
I want to be able to fuck my brother's wife, if he
dies.
When following his condemnation of polygamy by associating them
with child molestation and bestiality, Huckabee forget to mention
this group of upstanding citizens:
I want to be able to fuck my brother's wife, if he
she dies.
Cause if you're gonna make yourself persona non grata in Utah, why
not go whole hog?
|1.18.08 @ 7:51PM|#
"Conservatives now: Oh, of course we are not against
contraception..."
Many conservatives are against contraception. Why else did the Bush
administration stall so long before approving the morning-after
pill?
|1.18.08 @ 7:56PM|#
Just to clear things up...
If anyone looks back through history, marriage between a man and
multiple women or a woman and multiple men was done so in order to
aid in the survival of their people. That, and it's also a
culturally different world we're living in as Americans. We aren't
in the Middle East, remember that. And thirdly,it does not say in
the Bible, "marry multiple women" but it makes references to people
in the Bible having multiple spouses. Also, in the beginning God
created Adam and Eve and made them man and woman. Reference to
spouses may not have been clearly made here to the average person's
eyes, but there is definite reference to gender relationships. Just
make sure the commentary doesn't over step it's research. Anyone
can read the Bible and see what you saw, but a studied individual
can see it's intentions.
ktc2|1.18.08 @ 8:07PM|#
Uh so your claiming the whole "one man + one woman" thing is
based on Adam and Eve?
So because only two people existed in this fairy tale doesn't that
kind of uh . . . make anything else impossible?
Then in the rest of the bible (stories) when it is possible it sure
was practiced by the "holiest" of men.
|1.18.08 @ 8:12PM|#
Jacob, you want him to think too hard. He can't do it.
Mike talks to God, you know, and Mike does what he's told to
do.
|1.18.08 @ 8:19PM|#
Er, it's not necessary to disparage the Bible to skewer Huckabee here. Even assuming the Bible justifies all the positions he outlines, the Bible should absolutely not be the guide for the constitution. With apologies to brotherben, can I get an amen?
alisa|1.18.08 @ 8:19PM|#
"Yep, after your brother dies, you get to take his wife for
yourself."
Not "get to," "have to." It's not as strange as it sounds, if you
consider that women at the time the Bible was written had no source
of independent income. If your sister-in-law is widowed, she is
destitute and her children have no father, so you step in to
provide for her.
|1.18.08 @ 8:53PM|#
Anyone can read the Bible and see what you saw, but a
studied individual can see it's intentions.
Sorry, Ashley, but every bible thumper from St. Paul to Rev. Jim
Jones to Mike Huckabee has claimed to "see its intentions."
|1.18.08 @ 8:55PM|#
Not "get to," "have to." It's not as strange as it
sounds.
I agree, it does make sense in the context of the culture and
environment of tribal, semi-nomadic desert dwellers. And it has
certain almost Heinleinian aspects that are OK with me, except for
the compulsory nature of the relationship.
But Huckabee and is fellow fundmentalists won't support it, which
makes them hypocrites, and they certainly don't take things like
this in context, which is even worse when you consider they will be
making policy for us 21st century urban dwellers.
If you don\'t like it, you can|1.18.08 @ 9:12PM|#
they will be making policy for us 21st century urban
dwellers
...to another century.
alan|1.18.08 @ 9:45PM|#
Ever get the feeling that our generation should be let no where
near a constitutional convention?
I would not even trust Reasonoids with amending that document and
you are much closer to my political persuasion than the general
population.
What we need is a Mexican standoff, or a cold war, if you will,
where each political demographic can deliver hell fire and
brimstone to every other demographic if there is even the scent of
a constitutional convention in the air.
Until the day our public school system and brain dead mainstream
media is on the trash heap of history we are shit out of luck in
hoping any sensible amendments are put forth and put into
action.
alisa|1.18.08 @ 9:49PM|#
Amen, crimethink.
I tend to think someone this theocratic can't win the nomination,
let alone the general. Wasn't the Federal Marriage Amendment a
resounding failure? I doubt our "alienable" rights are going away
anytime soon.
|1.18.08 @ 9:55PM|#
Every time one of these amending the constitution based on Christian tenets or biblical interpretation discussions gets going, just swap Koran/Bible; Allah/God; Mohammed/Christ and Muslim/Christian (Jew). It cuts right to the batshit craziness of the matter.
Robert|1.18.08 @ 10:34PM|#
horsewithnonick, many constitutions of states of the US read
like statute books -- NY's, for instance.
Anyway, stuff like revealed here is why I can't get up any fear of
Huckabee. The stuff that he wants and is bad, he has no chance of
ever enacting (like for instance, Constitutional amendments, which
POTUS has no binding say in), while the stuff that he wants and is
good, has a chance. It's still only Giuliani, McCain, and Clinton
that frighten me.
Bulwinkle|1.19.08 @ 12:50AM|#
It's still only Giuliani, McCain, and Clinton that frighten
me.
Speak for yourself, Robert. Huckabee didn't fry your best friend in
a popcorn maker.
Timothy|1.19.08 @ 1:02AM|#
J sub D had it right. And anybody who'd vote for Huckabee is kindly invited to fuck right the hell off.
alan|1.19.08 @ 2:28AM|#
I want to be able to fuck my brother's wife, if he she
dies.
Cause if you're gonna make yourself persona non grata in Utah, why
not go whole hog?
Reminds me of a Hustler (like Playboy, I only read it for the porn,
the articles are terrible) cartoon where a guy is complaining to
another inmate, 'Jeez, fuck one dead body and they brand you for
life.'
Rajan R|1.19.08 @ 10:48AM|#
If I read the Bible correctly, God was rather pissed when with Sarah and Abraham with the Hagar incident. And that David's (and Solomon's) polygamy led to their downfalls...
|1.19.08 @ 12:02PM|#
If "the Bible was not written to be amended," what's the New
Testament all about?
Well, there is this:
Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the
prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For amen I say
unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot, or one tittle shall
not pass of the law, till all be fulfilled. - Matthew
5:17-18
Jews wouldn't think so, but Christians don't think anything in the
New Testament actually contradicts the Old.
As an apostate raised Catholic, what I find amusing about the
Huccubus is that he, and any other Protestant clergyman or
layperson, could be seen as incorrectly interpreting his
god's law. If the bible is to be compared to the Constitution, then
each of the hundreds of Christian sects operating in the U.S.A. is
like a supreme court unto itself. Now, we know that our
conservative friends are strongly in favor of following the
original text of our secular law, discovering its original meaning
and reading it within the proper historical contexts. In the eyes
of a Roman Catholic or an Orthodox Christian, Protestants are like
activist justices, feeling free to find anything in the scriptures
that they please, while ignoring tradition and the teaching
authority of the church hierarchy.
I think it's all unnecessary pilpul, and I don't think one
sect or another is "correct" in its particular interpretation, but
as long as the theocratically inclined keep bringing their beliefs
up as a basis for secular law, they need to be swatted down.
And the devil can quote scripture...
Kevin
Franklin Harris|1.19.08 @ 2:30PM|#
I'm still not sure where Huckabee is trying to go with the "Bible is not supposed to be amended" thread. I mean, I agree with him on that, but I don't see how he gets from there to the idea that the Constitution needs to be brought in line with the Bible.
Maybe it's a subtle attack on Romney and Mormonism. You know, that
whole Book of Mormon thing.
LarryA|1.19.08 @ 4:54PM|#
I must have missed the verse where Jesus said, "The government
ought to..."
But on the subject of a man with more than one wife the Bible is
quite clearly opposed. "No man can serve two masters..." ;-)
economist|1.19.08 @ 5:23PM|#
kevrob,
Same here. While not particularly religious, I always like to point
out to anti-papist Protestants things that are rather inconvenient
to them. My favorite is when they complain about how Catholics
supposedly are at odds with the Bible, and I point out how all but
a few parts compiled at a Church Council in the 200s or 300s AD
form pretty much the entire modern Bible. Then I piss them off
further by saying I really don't give a damn either way.
|1.19.08 @ 5:44PM|#
Remember the phrase " endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable rights"? It seems that non other than our FOUNDING FATHERS shared Huckabee's "strange" belief that there is such a thing as "divine law" and that those of us who would write constitutions and create societies ought to do so in accordance with those timeless principles.
Mort|1.20.08 @ 5:30AM|#
>R. Totale | January 18, 2008, 6:07pm |
>Hagar never really caught on as a woman's name.
Depends on where you are. I work for a company in Tel Aviv, there
are at least three Hagars in my (fairly small) office.
Make of that what you will.
|1.20.08 @ 1:08PM|#
If I read the Bible correctly, God was rather pissed when with Sarah and Abraham with the Hagar incident. And that David's (and Solomon's) polygamy led to their downfalls...
Actually, I thought it was the adultery and coveting other men's
wives that got those fellas into trouble, not the polygamy.
Kim Scarborough|1.20.08 @ 1:13PM|#
Yep, I'm with Franklin Harris. The Mormons are the only major religion who could be said to have "amended" the Bible. It was a poke at Romney, in code... but it won't have gone over the heads of many of the voters Romney and Huckabee are competing for.
Strappado|1.23.08 @ 6:27PM|#
If you read 1 Corinthians 7 you'll see that marriage is hardly
the most Christian thing to do. The Christian thing is to live like
a monk or a nun. Marriage is only the second best option if you are
a lustful person.:
"1Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to
marry.[a] 2But since there is so much immorality, each man should
have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. [...] 8Now to
the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay
unmarried, as I am. 9But if they cannot control themselves, they
should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
[...] 25Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I
give a judgment as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy.
26Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for you to
remain as you are. 27Are you married? Do not seek a divorce. Are
you unmarried? Do not look for a wife. 28But if you do marry, you
have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But
those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to
spare you this."
Now I would prefer that Christians tried to live up to this, so
they could vanish.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245