Mike Huckabee

Page 1 of 2 12 Last
  1. Board Sponsor
    AE14's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  200 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    12,410
    Rep Power
    987663
    Level
    73
    Lv. Percent
    41.28%
    Achievements Activity ProActivity AuthorityPosting ProPosting AuthorityPosting Veteran

    Mike Huckabee


    I dont know how many of you here really plan to support him, but if anyone has been listening or reading what he has said it is somewhat disturbing. He has claimed to be part of Christs army, and just yesterday made reference to changing the constitution to be similar to gods values. Oh goodness gracious, please no one vote for him!!!!!
    Controlled Labs Head Board Rep
    adam @ ControlledLabs.com
    CONTROLLED LABS products are produced in a GMP for Sport certified facility

  2. Board Sponsor
    AE14's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  200 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    12,410
    Rep Power
    987663
    Level
    73
    Lv. Percent
    41.28%
    Achievements Activity ProActivity AuthorityPosting ProPosting AuthorityPosting Veteran

    wow, I am surprised that no one has said anything. this guy seems to be a legit (I use that term loosely) candidate.
    Controlled Labs Head Board Rep
    adam @ ControlledLabs.com
    CONTROLLED LABS products are produced in a GMP for Sport certified facility
  3. Senior Member
    Mass_69's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  220 lbs.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,550
    Rep Power
    3038
    Level
    28
    Lv. Percent
    94.39%
    Achievements Posting Pro

    Well I dont know much about Huckabee nor am I defending him, but the guy in your sig (Biden) was the author of the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2004.
    •   
       

  4. Diamond Member
    VolcomX311's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  205 lbs.
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    13,250
    Rep Power
    78136
    Level
    70
    Lv. Percent
    66.22%
    Achievements Activity ProActivity AuthorityPosting ProPosting AuthorityPosting Veteran

    Huckabee is a Republican running with Democratic policies. I don't have issue with him running under the flag of an evangelist Christian. The founding fathers build this nation on Christian principles.

    However, what does concern me are these extra "changes" he would make to the constitution to make it "more" Christian. I believe he is pro amnesty, pro open borders, which I can see him making a Biblical correspondence to justify such policies. That does bother me, A LOT.
    NSCA - CSCS
  5. Banned
    CNorris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,184
    Rep Power
    0
    Level
    26
    Lv. Percent
    24.7%
    Achievements Posting Pro

    Huckabee is a good and motivating speaker and is playing on identity politics. Thats why he is doing so well. The fact that people cant see past those superficial issues and that he is doing so well while Fred Thompson is doing so poorly really speaks badly about the intelligence level of the average voter. Same goes for Obama. The only thing he is better at than Hillary is spewing political rhetoric and drawing identity votes.
  6. Diamond Member
    VolcomX311's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  205 lbs.
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    13,250
    Rep Power
    78136
    Level
    70
    Lv. Percent
    66.22%
    Achievements Activity ProActivity AuthorityPosting ProPosting AuthorityPosting Veteran

    Quote Originally Posted by CNorris View Post
    Huckabee is a good and motivating speaker and is playing on identity politics. Thats why he is doing so well. The fact that people cant see past those superficial issues and that he is doing so well while Fred Thompson is doing so poorly really speaks badly about the intelligence level of the average voter. Same goes for Obama. The only thing he is better at than Hillary is spewing political rhetoric and drawing identity votes.
    I think Huckabee has great morals and ethics, but his policies don't represent the Republican party.
    NSCA - CSCS
  7. Diamond Member
    VolcomX311's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  205 lbs.
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    13,250
    Rep Power
    78136
    Level
    70
    Lv. Percent
    66.22%
    Achievements Activity ProActivity AuthorityPosting ProPosting AuthorityPosting Veteran

    Quote Originally Posted by CNorris View Post
    Huckabee is a good and motivating speaker and is playing on identity politics. Thats why he is doing so well. The fact that people cant see past those superficial issues and that he is doing so well while Fred Thompson is doing so poorly really speaks badly about the intelligence level of the average voter. Same goes for Obama. The only thing he is better at than Hillary is spewing political rhetoric and drawing identity votes.
    I agree. Charisma and Personality gets you voted these days, not party and policy.
    NSCA - CSCS
  8. Senior Member
    warnerve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Age
    30
    Posts
    1,959
    Rep Power
    11030
    Level
    32
    Lv. Percent
    44.04%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by Mass_69 View Post
    Well I dont know much about Huckabee nor am I defending him, but the guy in your sig (Biden) was the author of the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2004.
    yeah, but almost, if not all, others who had a vote on it were on his side, it was hardly biden only. not defending biden, as I am far from a fan of his, but just pointing that out.

    and i definitely have to agree with what cnorris and volcom say, far too many people vote without knowing anything candidates stand for. i personally am dumbfounded by the number of people my age who like obama just because everyone else they know does, although the college education system definitely plays a role too
  9. Board Sponsor
    AE14's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  200 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    12,410
    Rep Power
    987663
    Level
    73
    Lv. Percent
    41.28%
    Achievements Activity ProActivity AuthorityPosting ProPosting AuthorityPosting Veteran

    regarding huckabee, he is a dangerous candidate. I dont think he will get the nomination but his religious agenda is not what we need at this point. Also, the founding fathers did not create the country on christian principles. in fact they did all they could to keep religion for the most part out of it. which is where it belongs.

    regarding biden, keep in mind something, and it was mentioned before, he was not the only one on the steroid act. Additionally, when looking at experience and foreign policy expertise he was probably the class of the field, but as mentioned before he just didnt have "it" like an obama.
    Controlled Labs Head Board Rep
    adam @ ControlledLabs.com
    CONTROLLED LABS products are produced in a GMP for Sport certified facility
  10. Board Sponsor
    AE14's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  200 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    12,410
    Rep Power
    987663
    Level
    73
    Lv. Percent
    41.28%
    Achievements Activity ProActivity AuthorityPosting ProPosting AuthorityPosting Veteran

    Quote Originally Posted by VolcomX311 View Post
    I agree. Charisma and Personality gets you voted these days, not party and policy.
    I dont disagree, however you shouldnt be voted on just based on party. To me it should be the issues
    Controlled Labs Head Board Rep
    adam @ ControlledLabs.com
    CONTROLLED LABS products are produced in a GMP for Sport certified facility
  11. Diamond Member
    VolcomX311's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  205 lbs.
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    13,250
    Rep Power
    78136
    Level
    70
    Lv. Percent
    66.22%
    Achievements Activity ProActivity AuthorityPosting ProPosting AuthorityPosting Veteran

    Quote Originally Posted by Reaper329 View Post
    I dont disagree, however you shouldnt be voted on just based on party. To me it should be the issues
    Double agree, however, for the most part, policies generally fall under particular principles of either conservatism or liberalism, and the two are usually distinct to a particular party.
    NSCA - CSCS
  12. Banned
    CNorris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,184
    Rep Power
    0
    Level
    26
    Lv. Percent
    24.7%
    Achievements Posting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by Reaper329 View Post
    regarding huckabee, he is a dangerous candidate. I dont think he will get the nomination but his religious agenda is not what we need at this point. Also, the founding fathers did not create the country on christian principles. in fact they did all they could to keep religion for the most part out of it. which is where it belongs.

    regarding biden, keep in mind something, and it was mentioned before, he was not the only one on the steroid act. Additionally, when looking at experience and foreign policy expertise he was probably the class of the field, but as mentioned before he just didnt have "it" like an obama.
    Huckabee is not dangerous, he is just using that type of talk to get votes. Its 100% identity politics. Your fears are as absurd as thinking Hillary rallying women around her means that she will lead a fascist anti-man administration and appoint women as the supreme sex in America. He will not use his faith to legislate any more than Romney would. In truth Huckabee is not really that conservative.

    And by the way if you think for one second that judeo-christian philosophy is not what the country was founded upon there really is not debating with you since you have already discredited yourself. The country was founded upon judeo-christian values with respecting religous freedom in every way possible at the same time.

    A Ron Paul supporter calling another cadidate dangerous is very ironic.
  13. Board Sponsor
    AE14's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  200 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    12,410
    Rep Power
    987663
    Level
    73
    Lv. Percent
    41.28%
    Achievements Activity ProActivity AuthorityPosting ProPosting AuthorityPosting Veteran

    Quote Originally Posted by CNorris View Post
    Huckabee is not dangerous, he is just using that type of talk to get votes. Its 100% identity politics. Your fears are as absurd as thinking Hillary rallying women around her means that she will lead a fascist anti-man administration and appoint women as the supreme sex in America. He will not use his faith to legislate any more than Romney would. In truth Huckabee is not really that conservative.
    I was not calling him conservative <I guess reading is not your strong suit> I was saying that the religious agenda he is pursuing will be dangerous if he continues to gather support.

    Quote Originally Posted by CNorris View Post
    And by the way if you think for one second that judeo-christian philosophy is not what the country was founded upon there really is not debating with you since you have already discredited yourself. The country was founded upon judeo-christian values with respecting religous freedom in every way possible at the same time.
    I am assuming you are not reading the whole points that have been made. The term used was founding fathers. If you have done any extensive research into the formation of this country, the men who did so did it with the separation of religion from the government. However, the earliest settlers (dating back to Roanoke, and Jamestown) here did in fact use religion as their guide and yes this is a christian country unfortunately. Additionally, please feel free to look further at the topic before you confirm your lack of knowledge on the topic by writing drivel.
    Quote Originally Posted by CNorris View Post
    A Ron Paul supporter calling another cadidate dangerous is very ironic.
    Actually Paul is probably the turest conservative of the bunch
    Controlled Labs Head Board Rep
    adam @ ControlledLabs.com
    CONTROLLED LABS products are produced in a GMP for Sport certified facility
  14. Advanced Member
    BingeAndPurge's Avatar
    Stats
    6'3"  250 lbs.
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Age
    36
    Posts
    748
    Rep Power
    526
    Level
    24
    Lv. Percent
    14.5%

    I am a conservative, but I will never vote for Huckabee or any person with evangelical ties. I am sorry if this is anyone here, but evangelical views do not sit right with me one bit. Working with a bunch of evangelicals was mind-blowing enough with some of the things they said and claimed, but watching "Jesus Camp" scared the absolute crap out of me.

    The puritanical forefathers also believed in witches and allowed slavery, and killed Indians in the name of God and manifest destiny. They did set our government up to be an evolving process, not one that relies on archaic beliefs that time has passed by.
  15. Banned
    CNorris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,184
    Rep Power
    0
    Level
    26
    Lv. Percent
    24.7%
    Achievements Posting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by Reaper329 View Post
    I was not calling him conservative <I guess reading is not your strong suit> I was saying that the religious agenda he is pursuing will be dangerous if he continues to gather support.

    I addressed the issue of his so called religous agenda. <I guess reading isnt your stong suit.> I agree he has said some nutty stuff but once again, so has Barack about blacks, Hillary about women... its the name of the game when it comes to identity politics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reaper329 View Post
    I am assuming you are not reading the whole points that have been made. The term used was founding fathers. If you have done any extensive research into the formation of this country, the men who did so did it with the separation of religion from the government. However, the earliest settlers (dating back to Roanoke, and Jamestown) here did in fact use religion as their guide and yes this is a christian country unfortunately. Additionally, please feel free to look further at the topic before you confirm your lack of knowledge on the topic by writing drivel.
    I dont even know where to begin here. I am not saying that this country was founded upon a state sanctioned religion, but the founding fathers were overwhelmingly influenced by judeo-christian philosophy. Our freedoms are god given, each person is equal because we are all created equal. Free will, free speech etc. These are all judeo-christian ideas. They certainly didnt originate in the middle east or dictatorial asian governments. The fouding fathers came from and descended from ancestors that live in nations where the laws, social norms and most ideas were heavily influenced by judeo-christian ideas. Apparently you dont understand the difference between having your views of the world influenced by judeo-christian values and your views formed by relious dogma. Feel free to research and attempt to understand some very simple concepts before you spout such idiocy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reaper329 View Post
    Actually Paul is probably the turest conservative of the bunch
    Ron Paul is a conservative in the most extreme form of the word. He is so conservative that he ignores basically every political precedence set by conservative leadership in order to change with a rapidly globalizing and rapidly evolving world since the time our country was formed. Unfortunately, Ron Paul's brain is living in the 1700's.
  16. Diamond Member
    Irish Cannon's Avatar
    Stats
    5'8"   lbs.
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Age
    27
    Posts
    12,615
    Rep Power
    74318
    Level
    68
    Lv. Percent
    43.15%
    Achievements Activity ProActivity AuthorityPosting ProPosting AuthorityPosting Veteran

    I understand your fear, but I really don't see him as being a threat. What do you think he would really do because of his religion that would so horribly change the nation? He used to be a Baptist minister, and seems to have a good understanding of the Bible from what I've seen. I see the Bible as pure and just, and I have a hard time believing that Mike Huckabee of all people would further bring down this countries moral values...if we have any left that is.

    I really don't understand what peoples beef is with Christian values and principles. They are so basic and have such a good reason behind all of them. Example:

    If everyone waited until marriage to have sex and they were only with one partner their whole life, would AIDS exist? No.

    You Democrats really are having a hayday with this whole "Jesus Camp" video, aren't you? I'm a Christian guy, but I'll be the first one to say that those people are complete loons and don't have a clear understanding of the Bible whatsoever.

    As far as this country not being found on Christian principles, I completely disagree. It's simple; the US Government was created on Christian principles, however, people of other religions were free to worship however they wanted.

    I just really don't understand what would be so bad about his religious agenda. He wants to get the country moving in the right direction again. Keep in mind that Huckabee isn't some crazy Pentacostal, tap you on the forehead to get rid of demons, type guy. He's a friggin Baptist. Haha.
  17. Board Moderator
    Never enough
    EasyEJL's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  205 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Age
    46
    Posts
    31,851
    Rep Power
    778049
    Level
    95
    Lv. Percent
    26.47%
    Achievements Activity VeteranActivity RoyaltyActivity ProActivity AuthorityPosting Pro

    he says he just wants 2 constitutional amendments. A right to life kind, and a marriage defined as mand + woman. realistically he can WANT to force prayer in schools and 10% tithe to the church and etc. but a constitutional amendment requires a large majority of GOVERNORS to vote for it. First it has to have 2/3 majority in each the house + senate, then a 75% majority of governors. I don't think any president can make crazy religious changes unless the overall sentiment of the country changes enormously

    I hope mccain gets the nomination, he has the best chance to actually beat the democrats in the general election
    This space for rent

    Phenadrol Log http://anabolicminds.com/forum/suppl...-hell-did.html - AMAZING fat loss results so far
  18. Diamond Member
    Irish Cannon's Avatar
    Stats
    5'8"   lbs.
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Age
    27
    Posts
    12,615
    Rep Power
    74318
    Level
    68
    Lv. Percent
    43.15%
    Achievements Activity ProActivity AuthorityPosting ProPosting AuthorityPosting Veteran

    A completely suppport both of those Amendments.

    He would never want to create an Amendment to force prayer. That would be ridiculous. And I wouldn't support it.
  19. Registered User
    Iron Warrior's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  265 lbs.
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    5,328
    Rep Power
    13069
    Level
    51
    Lv. Percent
    28.59%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting ProPosting Authority

    I think this is all hype to get votes. I doubt any candidate would be allowed to make such changes to the American establishment. If he/she (in case Hillary wins) tries then there will probably be an assassination. I just don't want a liberal in office. My dad says they're like the digestive system because they can turn everything into crap LOL.
    Last edited by Iron Warrior; 01-17-2008 at 01:08 AM.
  20. Diamond Member
    Irish Cannon's Avatar
    Stats
    5'8"   lbs.
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Age
    27
    Posts
    12,615
    Rep Power
    74318
    Level
    68
    Lv. Percent
    43.15%
    Achievements Activity ProActivity AuthorityPosting ProPosting AuthorityPosting Veteran

    We need someone liberal enough to want to change, and conservative enough to know how to go about it.
  21. Board Sponsor
    AE14's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  200 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    12,410
    Rep Power
    987663
    Level
    73
    Lv. Percent
    41.28%
    Achievements Activity ProActivity AuthorityPosting ProPosting AuthorityPosting Veteran

    Quote Originally Posted by Irish Cannon View Post
    A completely suppport both of those Amendments.

    He would never want to create an Amendment to force prayer. That would be ridiculous. And I wouldn't support it.
    I definatly have a differing opinion on this. There should not be any amendments pertaining to right to life (IMO) but specifically marriage as a man and woman. I never understood peoples issue with this. Why does it matter if two men, or two women truly are married? It is so silly
    Controlled Labs Head Board Rep
    adam @ ControlledLabs.com
    CONTROLLED LABS products are produced in a GMP for Sport certified facility
  22. Board Sponsor
    AE14's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  200 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    12,410
    Rep Power
    987663
    Level
    73
    Lv. Percent
    41.28%
    Achievements Activity ProActivity AuthorityPosting ProPosting AuthorityPosting Veteran

    Quote Originally Posted by Iron Warrior View Post
    I think this is all hype to get votes. I doubt any candidate would be allowed to make such changes to the American establishment. If he/she (in case Hillary wins) tries then there will probably be an assassination. I just don't want a liberal in office. My dad says they're like the digestive system because they can turn everything into crap LOL.
    I guess the current conservative in office has done a wonderful job?
    Controlled Labs Head Board Rep
    adam @ ControlledLabs.com
    CONTROLLED LABS products are produced in a GMP for Sport certified facility
  23. New Member
    Ribo68's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  215 lbs.
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Age
    46
    Posts
    132
    Rep Power
    160
    Level
    10
    Lv. Percent
    18.16%

    Quote Originally Posted by Reaper329 View Post
    I dont know how many of you here really plan to support him, but if anyone has been listening or reading what he has said it is somewhat disturbing. He has claimed to be part of Christs army, and just yesterday made reference to changing the constitution to be similar to gods values. Oh goodness gracious, please no one vote for him!!!!!

    Let's see, God's values: Don't steal, don't lie, don't cheat on your spouse, honor your mother and father, don't lust after what others have, don't murder. Hmm, seems like wise, sound counsel. Good foundation for a good man to live by.
    Now, man's values (that are always changing to suit their own needs btw): I probably shouldn't take this cause it's not mine but they won't miss it. It's ok to lie if it'll suits my needs or keeps me out of trouble. My wife doesn't satisfy me so I'll get it elsewhere....Do you see the pattern? We (mankind) are too wishy washy and change our moral compass to suit us. God's values are the gold standard.
    This isn't a pro or con Huckabee thing, it's a common sense, look at the moral failure/decline of our nation thing.
  24. Board Sponsor
    AE14's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  200 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    12,410
    Rep Power
    987663
    Level
    73
    Lv. Percent
    41.28%
    Achievements Activity ProActivity AuthorityPosting ProPosting AuthorityPosting Veteran

    Quote Originally Posted by Ribo68 View Post
    Let's see, God's values: Don't steal, don't lie, don't cheat on your spouse, honor your mother and father, don't lust after what others have, don't murder. Hmm, seems like wise, sound counsel. Good foundation for a good man to live by.
    Now, man's values (that are always changing to suit their own needs btw): I probably shouldn't take this cause it's not mine but they won't miss it. It's ok to lie if it'll suits my needs or keeps me out of trouble. My wife doesn't satisfy me so I'll get it elsewhere....Do you see the pattern? We (mankind) are too wishy washy and change our moral compass to suit us. God's values are the gold standard.
    This isn't a pro or con Huckabee thing, it's a common sense, look at the moral failure/decline of our nation thing.

    so then you are saying we should amend the constitution per what Huckabee said? Thats kinda of odd for the "melting pot". It makes no sense with the variety of religions here, that there should be no reference to religion in our government. It needs to be as limited as possible.

    So in your mind the decline in morals is b/c we dont have a constitution based on "gods" law?

    Referencing a previous point, if we allow the government to make amendments based on religion we are giving too much power to religion and to government, which is not the best idea imho. small government is that way to go.
    Controlled Labs Head Board Rep
    adam @ ControlledLabs.com
    CONTROLLED LABS products are produced in a GMP for Sport certified facility
  25. Diamond Member
    Irish Cannon's Avatar
    Stats
    5'8"   lbs.
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Age
    27
    Posts
    12,615
    Rep Power
    74318
    Level
    68
    Lv. Percent
    43.15%
    Achievements Activity ProActivity AuthorityPosting ProPosting AuthorityPosting Veteran

    Quote Originally Posted by Reaper329 View Post
    so then you are saying we should amend the constitution per what Huckabee said? Thats kinda of odd for the "melting pot". It makes no sense with the variety of religions here, that there should be no reference to religion in our government. It needs to be as limited as possible.

    So in your mind the decline in morals is b/c we dont have a constitution based on "gods" law?

    Referencing a previous point, if we allow the government to make amendments based on religion we are giving too much power to religion and to government, which is not the best idea imho. small government is that way to go.

    I definitely don't think we should make vast amendments to the constitution. I think people should be free to do as they wish, and that includes cheating on your spouse; it's their decision and they will have to take the consequences. I do think that marriage DOES need to be defined, however. As for abortion (partial birth abortion, at least), I find it to be one of the most vile things I can think of. It's like saying, "It's okay. You don't have to take responsibility for your actions. We will just deny the life of this child so you can go on living your life without any hindrances." I've never met a woman that has had a partial birth abortion and was right in the head afterwords. They are all so mentally screwed up from it. Have you ever seen one of these taken place? Try to find a video of it. It will make you so sick to your stomach. You see this thing that is simply a smaller version of a newborn baby contract all its muscles as the doctor scoops out its brain, and then it just goes limp.

    I'm still on the fence about the morning after pill. It's sort of a lesser evil I guess, but still not right.

    And I still don't understand why people get charged for murder of unborn children. Is it or is it not a life? You can't go both ways.

    Back to Huckabee, he may be weak on some issues, but overall I find him to be a good candidate. With that said, I'll be happy with McCain as well.
  26. Board Sponsor
    AE14's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  200 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    12,410
    Rep Power
    987663
    Level
    73
    Lv. Percent
    41.28%
    Achievements Activity ProActivity AuthorityPosting ProPosting AuthorityPosting Veteran

    Quote Originally Posted by Irish Cannon View Post
    I definitely don't think we should make vast amendments to the constitution. I think people should be free to do as they wish, and that includes cheating on your spouse; it's their decision and they will have to take the consequences. I do think that marriage DOES need to be defined, however. As for abortion (partial birth abortion, at least), I find it to be one of the most vile things I can think of. It's like saying, "It's okay. You don't have to take responsibility for your actions. We will just deny the life of this child so you can go on living your life without any hindrances." I've never met a woman that has had a partial birth abortion and was right in the head afterwords. They are all so mentally screwed up from it. Have you ever seen one of these taken place? Try to find a video of it. It will make you so sick to your stomach. You see this thing that is simply a smaller version of a newborn baby contract all its muscles as the doctor scoops out its brain, and then it just goes limp.

    I'm still on the fence about the morning after pill. It's sort of a lesser evil I guess, but still not right.

    And I still don't understand why people get charged for murder of unborn children. Is it or is it not a life? You can't go both ways.

    Back to Huckabee, he may be weak on some issues, but overall I find him to be a good candidate. With that said, I'll be happy with McCain as well.
    to me, I dont disagree about partial birth abortions, however abortion in the first trimester is ok (if that is appropriate). I am not prochoice personally, but the woman should have the option, specifically in the case of rape and incest. What I would like to see is a database set up to avoid women using abortion as a means of birth control.

    In terms of marriage, I dont see why it needs to be given something specific. To me, if two people of the same gender do want to be married and do love each other, they should be entitled to all that marriage brings, both good and bad.

    Back to Huckabee, I will give him this, he is very charasmatic, however typical conservatives are going to start to back away from him and have already started to do so, b/c he truly only appeals to the evangelicals. McCain is too much of a war monger for me, and is inconsistent on his amnesty for illegals issue.

    Ron Paul is ok, but stands no chance. The only fairly moderate Republican with a chance IMO is Romney, but there is a lot wrong with him as well. The bottom line is there is not one great candidate out there, so sad. Hey maybe Bloomberg will run. At least the economy will have a shot
    Controlled Labs Head Board Rep
    adam @ ControlledLabs.com
    CONTROLLED LABS products are produced in a GMP for Sport certified facility
  27. Diamond Member
    VolcomX311's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  205 lbs.
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    13,250
    Rep Power
    78136
    Level
    70
    Lv. Percent
    66.22%
    Achievements Activity ProActivity AuthorityPosting ProPosting AuthorityPosting Veteran

    Coming from a Southern Californian point of view, amnesty and open borders are my biggest issues. We're infested with illegals, now I don't mean I'm anti-immigration, just the influx of illegals that tax the $*** out of our society.

    I include this next example not out of any type of racial bigotry, but to make a point (I'm Asian and my roommate is Mexican, he's also my best friend, so it's all good in the hood). My roommate teaches 8th grade at a Jr High. The school has 600 kids, 556 are mexican, 60% of the students are in ESL classes, meaning they don't speak proficient English and did I mention I said I lived in California which last I checked was located in the U.S. I have nothing against immigration, my family is slowly coming across the Pacific, but they're paying the procedure fee's and waiting out the due process. My 45 yr old aunt who's been a teacher for 20yrs, is enrolled at a J.C. to learn English, because she realizes now that she's in American, she better assimilate to the language.

    I won't even get into what kind of devastation it would be if illegals were issued driver's licenses, as Hilary tends to sway back & forth on. Southern California traffic is a joke as is.

    Plus out here in Southern California we've had TWO Mexican Pride rallies in Los Angeles where people brought out their Mexican Flags, green, red white shirts, denouncing America and burning U.S. flags, it really makes you scratch your head and say WTF sometimes.

    Our F'n major Villareygosa makes maybe half of his speeches in SPANISH!!!! WTF!!!! Again, I'm not racist or anything, my best friend is Mexican, but our situation out here has gotten waaaay out of hand.

    All the pro amnesty politicians need to get sniped.
    NSCA - CSCS
  28. Board Sponsor
    AE14's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  200 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    12,410
    Rep Power
    987663
    Level
    73
    Lv. Percent
    41.28%
    Achievements Activity ProActivity AuthorityPosting ProPosting AuthorityPosting Veteran

    I agree on the immigration issue. I am originally from Long Island which is struggling in an immense way with this very issue. There are towns now that are almost all predominantly called "centros". It has gotten out of control. The expense and crime rates are through the roof. Keep in mind I am also the son of an immigrant
    Controlled Labs Head Board Rep
    adam @ ControlledLabs.com
    CONTROLLED LABS products are produced in a GMP for Sport certified facility
  29. Diamond Member
    Irish Cannon's Avatar
    Stats
    5'8"   lbs.
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Age
    27
    Posts
    12,615
    Rep Power
    74318
    Level
    68
    Lv. Percent
    43.15%
    Achievements Activity ProActivity AuthorityPosting ProPosting AuthorityPosting Veteran

    If Ron Paul had more of a spine I'd be all for the guy. His stance on the war really screwed him over for the nomination.
  30. New Member
    DBinMD's Avatar
    Stats
    5'5"  174 lbs.
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Age
    60
    Posts
    372
    Rep Power
    279
    Level
    15
    Lv. Percent
    67.53%

    In and of itself, there is nothing wrong with being part of “Christ’s army.” That’s really just Christianity 101. What really matters to me is how Huckabee (or any candidate) performed in the past. It is starting to sound to me like he and Ron Paul may a little to left of center for me.

    But in regard to all this fear of religion, the first thing the Founding Fathers did when they met was to pray for God’s guidance. The first line of the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”. Despite what the critics say, we’ve establish the most successful system ever. Our FF knew they could not produce such a successful model without Divine Providence.

    Without a God centered system then truth becomes relative. Whatever is in fashion becomes the truth. Eventually, things fall apart and we can either realize we went wrong, or blame some one else and find an equally erroneous fix. Since our rights are endowed by their Creator when we take God out of the equation they are no longer unalienable. The idea of separation of church and state does not appear in the constitution. That idea appeared in the late 19th century, but that is another long story. What the FF did not want is a “Church of America” (like a Church of England), although, a “Church of Rhode Island” would have been permitted as a state’s right.

    Like it or not, God is intimately involved in our existence, to deny that would be unnatural and irrational. To build a system on the irrational would be dangerous. Personally, I think much of the extremes are media hype, but regardless, we have a system with a lot of checks as balances. All and all, we pretty much get the leaders we deserve. Lately, we are, as a whole, into pandering, more on the left IMO, than on the right. We elect leaders that promise us more than is practical (or even constitutional) and then wonder why the nanny wants to poke its nose where we don’t want it to.

    Lastly, I liked IC's example. Promiscuity was supposed to be fun and liberating. Instead we got an epidemic in: sexual diseases, illegitimate births, abortion, broken homes, and children who have no idea of who their father is. From broken homes we have poverty, crime, and failing test scores. Now we want the government to come and clean up the mess.


    DB
  31. Lift Heavy
    bLacKjAck.'s Avatar
    Stats
    6'2"  241 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Age
    30
    Posts
    3,949
    Rep Power
    2083
    Level
    43
    Lv. Percent
    40.99%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    I like the healthy convo we have going on here.

    I personally am a very strong christian, and respect Huckabee for his personal and moral beliefs, and honestly was VERY excited to see him win Iowa because I thought I had found my man, but as these debates go on and on and you hear Huck talk about the issues more and more I just get very scared man, he just isn't very conservative at all imo.

    Having said that, I am a republican and I am running into the problem that Reaper stated, we don't have jack **** for candidates this year who are well-rounded. Romney is a liar and will do ANYTHING to win one more vote, McCain is OK to me, he just never really says anything to make me believe he is going to bring much change to our current (IMO) horrible situation we as a country are in right now. Giuliani(sp?) is OK I guess, but I disagree with a lot he says also. Having said all that, I can't stand Hillary so much so that I will vote for any of them to keep her out of office. If I had to pick I would probably hope McCain or Giuliani win the nomination though.

    Reaper, just as a side note. I know a girl that was born from a mom who was raped. One of the best/most grounded girls that I know. One Turned out just fine...IMO your idea "work some kind of plan so that only incest or rape victims can have abortions" gives no voice to the child at all, I can't imagine that girl not being here because her mom didn't feel like raising her. She shouldn't have that choice in my opinion. I know several people who were born through a rape situation and they are as normal as you and I. I will say this, your idea would be MUCH better than what is in place now. Right now all it is; is a pretty name for murder because you don't want the inconvenience.
  32. Board Sponsor
    AE14's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  200 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    12,410
    Rep Power
    987663
    Level
    73
    Lv. Percent
    41.28%
    Achievements Activity ProActivity AuthorityPosting ProPosting AuthorityPosting Veteran

    Quote Originally Posted by bLacKjAck. View Post
    I like the healthy convo we have going on here.

    I personally am a very strong christian, and respect Huckabee for his personal and moral beliefs, and honestly was VERY excited to see him win Iowa because I thought I had found my man, but as these debates go on and on and you hear Huck talk about the issues more and more I just get very scared man, he just isn't very conservative at all imo.

    Having said that, I am a republican and I am running into the problem that Reaper stated, we don't have jack **** for candidates this year who are well-rounded. Romney is a liar and will do ANYTHING to win one more vote, McCain is OK to me, he just never really says anything to make me believe he is going to bring much change to our current (IMO) horrible situation we as a country are in right now. Giuliani(sp?) is OK I guess, but I disagree with a lot he says also. Having said all that, I can't stand Hillary so much so that I will vote for any of them to keep her out of office. If I had to pick I would probably hope McCain or Giuliani win the nomination though.

    Reaper, just as a side note. I know a girl that was born from a mom who was raped. One of the best/most grounded girls that I know. One Turned out just fine...IMO your idea "work some kind of plan so that only incest or rape victims can have abortions" gives no voice to the child at all, I can't imagine that girl not being here because her mom didn't feel like raising her. She shouldn't have that choice in my opinion. I know several people who were born through a rape situation and they are as normal as you and I. I will say this, your idea would be MUCH better than what is in place now. Right now all it is; is a pretty name for murder because you don't want the inconvenience.
    I agree, the candidates are crappy this go around. However, if given the opportunity Huckabee shouldnt be the guy IMO. There is no need for religion in governmnet.

    In terms of the religion, I dont doubt that your friend is well rounded and a wonderful person, however to me there are circumstances where a woman should have the opportunity. Also, I think the definition of life comes into question here. To me it is not life if it cannot sustain on its own. Keep in mind I am a father of a beautiful soon to be 5 year old girl, but if as a fetus there is an issue, the woman deserves the right ot choose. It really just comes down to when is it life.

    Also, keep in mind that personally I disagree with abortion, and couldnt ever take prt in it, but still think a woman has a choice.
    Controlled Labs Head Board Rep
    adam @ ControlledLabs.com
    CONTROLLED LABS products are produced in a GMP for Sport certified facility
  33. Board Sponsor
    AE14's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  200 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    12,410
    Rep Power
    987663
    Level
    73
    Lv. Percent
    41.28%
    Achievements Activity ProActivity AuthorityPosting ProPosting AuthorityPosting Veteran

    Quote Originally Posted by DBinMD View Post
    In and of itself, there is nothing wrong with being part of “Christ’s army.” That’s really just Christianity 101. What really matters to me is how Huckabee (or any candidate) performed in the past. It is starting to sound to me like he and Ron Paul may a little to left of center for me.

    But in regard to all this fear of religion, the first thing the Founding Fathers did when they met was to pray for God’s guidance. The first line of the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”. Despite what the critics say, we’ve establish the most successful system ever. Our FF knew they could not produce such a successful model without Divine Providence.

    Without a God centered system then truth becomes relative. Whatever is in fashion becomes the truth. Eventually, things fall apart and we can either realize we went wrong, or blame some one else and find an equally erroneous fix. Since our rights are endowed by their Creator when we take God out of the equation they are no longer unalienable. The idea of separation of church and state does not appear in the constitution. That idea appeared in the late 19th century, but that is another long story. What the FF did not want is a “Church of America” (like a Church of England), although, a “Church of Rhode Island” would have been permitted as a state’s right.

    Like it or not, God is intimately involved in our existence, to deny that would be unnatural and irrational. To build a system on the irrational would be dangerous. Personally, I think much of the extremes are media hype, but regardless, we have a system with a lot of checks as balances. All and all, we pretty much get the leaders we deserve. Lately, we are, as a whole, into pandering, more on the left IMO, than on the right. We elect leaders that promise us more than is practical (or even constitutional) and then wonder why the nanny wants to poke its nose where we don’t want it to.

    Lastly, I liked IC's example. Promiscuity was supposed to be fun and liberating. Instead we got an epidemic in: sexual diseases, illegitimate births, abortion, broken homes, and children who have no idea of who their father is. From broken homes we have poverty, crime, and failing test scores. Now we want the government to come and clean up the mess.


    DB
    Just a coupleof thoughts. I dont disagree that the worship of god (deism) played a role, however that is immensely different from what Huckabee is saying and doing. His focus is on one religion alone, that is where the danger comes in. BTW, most of the FF classified themselves as deists.

    You also quote the declaration, but that is not our founding document, hell that is prior to the war for independence. Lets look at the constitution

    " We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

    In just the preamble there is nothing here dedicated to god, nor should there be throughout the document
    Controlled Labs Head Board Rep
    adam @ ControlledLabs.com
    CONTROLLED LABS products are produced in a GMP for Sport certified facility
  34. Banned
    CNorris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,184
    Rep Power
    0
    Level
    26
    Lv. Percent
    24.7%
    Achievements Posting Pro

    A normal baby can not sustain life by itself. I guess we should just kill them too if they become a problem.

    Its just flat out bad science to say a fetus is not a living organism. I guess its acceptable to kill it if you havent seen it yet. Thats some pretty screwy morality if you ask me.

    I can understand how people say marriage amendments are enforcing religion, but being pro-life has nothing to do with religion. Unfortunately it seems that the religious people are the only ones that hold all forms of human life sacred.
  35. New Member
    DBinMD's Avatar
    Stats
    5'5"  174 lbs.
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Age
    60
    Posts
    372
    Rep Power
    279
    Level
    15
    Lv. Percent
    67.53%

    Quote Originally Posted by Reaper329 View Post
    Just a coupleof thoughts. I dont disagree that the worship of god (deism) played a role, however that is immensely different from what Huckabee is saying and doing. His focus is on one religion alone, that is where the danger comes in. BTW, most of the FF classified themselves as deists.

    You also quote the declaration, but that is not our founding document, hell that is prior to the war for independence. Lets look at the constitution

    " We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

    In just the preamble there is nothing here dedicated to god, nor should there be throughout the document
    1) “Most of the FF were deists.” I don’t believe that is the case. But I don’t have time right know to research this fully right now. Here is a link that refutes it: http://www.faithofourfathers.net/index.html
    2) Re: His focus is on one religion alone. Honestly, I haven’t been paying any attention to Huckabee, so I don’t know what he’s doing. But which religion are you talking about? If his own denomination, then that may be to narrow. If you’re talking about Christianity, then, well, yeah. This country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. I’m not sure why the Declaration of Independence is not considered a founding document. It clearly sets the basis and reason for our independence. Did the signers suddenly change their religious beliefs before the convention?

    DB
  36. New Member
    DBinMD's Avatar
    Stats
    5'5"  174 lbs.
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Age
    60
    Posts
    372
    Rep Power
    279
    Level
    15
    Lv. Percent
    67.53%

    Quote Originally Posted by Reaper329 View Post
    I agree, the candidates are crappy this go around. However, if given the opportunity Huckabee shouldnt be the guy IMO. There is no need for religion in governmnet.

    In terms of the religion, I dont doubt that your friend is well rounded and a wonderful person, however to me there are circumstances where a woman should have the opportunity. Also, I think the definition of life comes into question here. To me it is not life if it cannot sustain on its own. Keep in mind I am a father of a beautiful soon to be 5 year old girl, but if as a fetus there is an issue, the woman deserves the right ot choose. It really just comes down to when is it life.

    Also, keep in mind that personally I disagree with abortion, and couldnt ever take prt in it, but still think a woman has a choice.
    Defining human life based on it’s ability to sustain itself would immediately eliminate the very: young, old, and sick, i.e. any one of inconvenience. That could easily translate to the “not so convenient.” Also, since science makes progress continually, if we get to the point an egg can live outside of the womb, would that make abortion illegal.

    Re: It really just comes down to when is it life. Your definition, based solely on your opinion sets you up as judge and executioner over an innocent human life. It also allows science to be our conscience.

    Re: personally I disagree with abortion, and couldn't ever take prt in it, but still think a woman has a choice.

    DB

    This philosophy never made any sence to me, either you believe it is sacred and inviolable or you don’t. If it’s not sacred then it doesn’t matter what you do to it.

    My reply is little disjointed but it’s late and I need to go to bed.
  37. I am faster than 80% of all snakes
    Dwight Schrute's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  221 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    41
    Posts
    12,911
    Rep Power
    7017

    Where is God in the Constitution?


    Secularists believe that they have the right view of America. They are convinced that America should be a secular or a godless state. They believe that religion was not a decisive factor in the formation of the Constitution of the United States and that this proves that the framers of the Constitution did not want religion to influence public policy. Simply put, politics and religion don't mix. . . . There are several historical "facts" secularists use to support their views. One of the most important historical facts is the absence of the word "God" in the U.S. Constitution. To a secularist, the absence of the word "God" has a deep, almost mystical significance. It suggests that the framers had little or no interest in religion.

    Most people would not consider Charles Darwin, author of On the Origin of Species (1859), to be someone important in order to understand the U.S. Constitution. Most people think the writings of John Locke, William Blackstone, and James Madison are important in order to understand the Constitution. There is a sense in which Charles Darwin is more important than all of them and has had a profound impact on the modern interpretation of the Constitution. In fact, a case could be made that he has had a greater or equal impact on the Constitution than the delegates at the constitutional convention! The reason is simple: Darwin changed the way we see the Constitution. For better or for worse, the way many Americans see the Constitution today is very different from the time before Darwin. The dominant legal philosophy in the United States today is secularism. The Constitution is seen today as a "secular" document. Darwin made us secularists. Secularists believe that only scientific evolution is valid. They are not atheists as often claimed. Many secularists believe in God. But for a secularist, it does not matter whether God exists or not when it comes to understanding government. The impact of secularism on our understanding of the Constitution was revolutionary. Secularists read the Constitution in a way that is totally foreign to its framers. In a nutshell, secularists think that religion was not important to the framers of the Constitution. As one of their writers said concerning the majority of the delegates at Philadelphia: ". . . most were men who could take their religion or leave it alone."1

    To the framers of the Constitution, the idea of having a government not based on God would have been unthinkable. It is important to remember that when the Constitution was written, the only possible explanation for the existence of the Universe was special creation. Therefore, all of the delegates at the Philadelphia convention were creationists of one form or another. This is the reason the framers did not create a "secular" state in the modern sense of the term. Indeed, the concept of "secularism" as it is used today didn't even exist in 1787. It is largely a twentieth-century concept. Since the framers of our Constitution predated Darwin and the theory of evolution, the desire to have a "secular" state would have made as much sense to them as Egyptian hieroglyphics. It is only with the advent of Darwin and an alternative explanation for the existence of the Universe that a secular state becomes necessary. There were atheists in 1787 to be sure, but they lacked a coherent scientific explanation for the existence of the Universe.

    At the same time, the framers of our Constitution did not want America to become a theocracy. They did not believe in a theocratic state. The framers of our Constitution did not want clergymen to pick the Presidents and set government policy. This is not to say, however, that they saw no role for religion in government. The framers most certainly did believe that religion and religious values should influence the government and its policies. George Washington's first Proclamation as President made this abundantly clear. On the day that Congress finished its work on the First Amendment, they called on Washington to issue a Proclamation to the people of the United States to thank God for the freedoms we enjoy. A week and a day later the President's opening paragraph in his Proclamation said: "Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor . . ."2 The words "to obey His will" are fatal to any suggestion that George Washington and the framers of our Constitution believed in "secularism." In America, religious values influence government policy through the vote of the people.

    The rise of modern secularism made the debate about the word "God" in the Constitution very intense. It was not until the legal community in the United States adopted secularism that the absence of the word "God" took on the kind of significance it has today. It is true that before the rise of modern secularism some Americans objected to the fact that the word "God" was not in the Constitution. There were suggestions to amend the Constitution to add it. There were efforts to add "Almighty God" and "Jesus Christ" to the Preamble for example. Some members of Congress suggested that "In the Name of God" should be inserted before the Preamble. As early as the time of the Civil War, Americans have been trying to amend the Constitution to add some sort of reference to God. These efforts did not get very far with the public. Thankfully, Americans were content with the Constitution the way it was. However, in all of these early debates about whether the word "God" should be added to the Constitution, the debate was between one group of creationists versus another. Almost no one believed that the United States was a godless country just because the word "God" was not in the Constitution. Today, this is no longer true. Today the fight is between creationists and evolutionists. Secularists insist that the absence of the word "God" means that the Constitution created a godless government in America.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
  38. I am faster than 80% of all snakes
    Dwight Schrute's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  221 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    41
    Posts
    12,911
    Rep Power
    7017

    Secularists are very quick to point out that the word "God" does not appear in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution. They claim that this is highly significant. It proves that the United States should not be 'under God' in their opinion. Of course, they are correct in one point: The word "God" does not appear in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution or anywhere else. It is doubtful, however, that this fact has the kind of significance they claim it has. Generally, the word "God" will appear in two places in most constitutions: in the preamble and the religion clauses in the bill of rights. For example, the word "God" appears in the preamble in eight state constitutions. In four states, the "Supreme Ruler of the Universe" is used instead. By far, the most popular divine reference in a preamble is "Almighty God." This appears in the preamble of 30 state constitutions. In some states, there is no preamble. In these cases, a divine reference can be found in the religion clauses in the bill of rights. There is only one state constitution which has a preamble that does not have a divine reference of any kind. This is the Constitution of Oregon. But here the words "Almighty God" appear in the state religion clauses.

    The most likely reason why the word "God" does not appear in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution is textual. The Preamble is modeled after the Preamble in the Articles of Confederation. Since the Articles of Confederation did not use the word "God" in the Preamble, this is the most likely reason it does not appear in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution. The Preamble in the Articles of Confederation began by listing all 13 states. It began as follows: "Articles of Confederation and perpetual union between New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, etc. . . . and Georgia." When the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution was first drafted, this was the model that was used. Later, as the constitutional convention was coming to a close, a short form was agreed to. The 13 states were dropped in favor of We the People. Thus, rather than trying to establish a radical godless state, the most likely reason the word "God" does not appear in the Preamble was because the Articles of Confederation did not have it. It is doubtful that anyone in 1787 could have foreseen the development of radical secularist groups like the ACLU and their 'spin' on the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution.

    The most likely reason why the word "God" does not appear in the First Amendment is textual as well. Here the textual reason is due to the subject. The religion clauses in the First Amendment are very different from the religion clauses in most state constitutions. The subject of the religion clause is the government or "Congress." This is not the case with most state constitutions. In most state constitutions the subject is the individual. This difference is the reason the word "God" does not appear in the First Amendment's religion clauses. Let's compare the religion clauses in the First Amendment with the most popular religion clause used in the United States. Most states copy from the religion clauses found in the Pennsylvania Constitution. In particular, the first sentence appears in many state constitutions which says: "All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences . . ." The subject of the clause is clear. It is "All men." The New Hampshire Constitution which copied from Pennsylvania uses' better wording. It says "Every individual . . ." In either case, the individual is the subject of the clause. Thus, a major difference between the religion clauses in the First Amendment and most state constitutions are their points of view. The First Amendment was written from the point of view of the government. Most state constitutions were written from the point of view of the individual.

    In addition, the religion clause in the Pennsylvania Constitution protects a "natural right" of an individual to worship "Almighty God" according to conscience. Since the focus of the religion clause is on the "right" of an individual, the word "God" naturally appears. This is not the case with the First Amendment. Here the focus is on the role of the government. There are two religion clauses in the First Amendment. They consist of 16 words as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . " The first clause is known as the Establishment Clause. The second clause is known as the Free Exercise Clause. The subject of the First Amendment is clearly the "Congress." The purpose of the First Amendment is to bar the Federal Government from interfering with the freedom of religion among the states. Congress may not establish a religion or prohibit the free exercise of religion as it relates to the states. Since the purpose of the First Amendment is to stop any abuse by the Federal Government against religion, this explains why the words "God," "natural right," "worship," or "conscience" do not appear. Rather than trying to promote a radical secularist philosophy, the most likely reason the framers did not use the word "God" in the First Amendment is because the subject is what Congress can do in relation to the states which are explicitly religious.

    The mistake modern secularists make is obvious. They take a twentieth-century concept like "secularism" and read it back into the Constitution. They take a concept that didn't even exist in the eighteenth century and attribute it to the framers of the Constitution. Unfortunately, this is a very common error. The fact that the word "God" does not appear in the Constitution means little. It is actually a rather shallow observation. The reality is "God" is in every word of the Constitution, including the punctuation. Below the surface of the words in the Constitution, there is a mountain of ideas that made its formation possible. The belief that God exists and that all nations of the world are subject to Him sits on the summit of that mountain.

    The Supreme Court of Florida concluded in 1950 that "Different species of democracy have existed for more than 2,000 years, but democracy as we know it has never existed among the unchurched. A people unschooled about the sovereignty of God, the Ten Commandments and the ethics of Jesus, could never have evolved the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. There is not one solitary fundamental principle of our democratic policy that did not stem directly from the basic moral concepts as embodied in the Decalogue and the ethics of Jesus . . . No one knew this better than the Founding Fathers."3

    Even if the word "God" was in the Constitution, it probably would not make any difference. Secularist groups like the ACLU would probably dismiss it as a mere formality. There are 50 reasons to believe that this is true. Since secularists dismiss all references to God in the state constitutions, there is no reason to believe that they would behave any differently with the federal Constitution. Their commitment to secularism will not allow for the possibility that they might be wrong.

    1 Clinton Rossiter, 1787, The Grand Convention (1966), 126.

    2 Messages and Papers of the Presidents (1896), 1:64.

    3 State v. City of Tampa, 48 So. 2d 78 (1950).
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
  39. Board Sponsor
    AE14's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  200 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    12,410
    Rep Power
    987663
    Level
    73
    Lv. Percent
    41.28%
    Achievements Activity ProActivity AuthorityPosting ProPosting AuthorityPosting Veteran

    Quote Originally Posted by DBinMD View Post
    1) “Most of the FF were deists.” I don’t believe that is the case. But I don’t have time right know to research this fully right now. Here is a link that refutes it: http://www.faithofourfathers.net/index.html
    2) Re: His focus is on one religion alone. Honestly, I haven’t been paying any attention to Huckabee, so I don’t know what he’s doing. But which religion are you talking about? If his own denomination, then that may be to narrow. If you’re talking about Christianity, then, well, yeah. This country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. I’m not sure why the Declaration of Independence is not considered a founding document. It clearly sets the basis and reason for our independence. Did the signers suddenly change their religious beliefs before the convention?

    DB

    I appreciate your source, however there are several others the dispute yours. The beauty of the internet.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_...eligious_views

    Regarding the declaration (not trying to change topics) it was a french inspired document that is not the basis for our government. Hell, we had the Articles of COnferation after the war.
    Controlled Labs Head Board Rep
    adam @ ControlledLabs.com
    CONTROLLED LABS products are produced in a GMP for Sport certified facility
  40. Board Sponsor
    AE14's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  200 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    12,410
    Rep Power
    987663
    Level
    73
    Lv. Percent
    41.28%
    Achievements Activity ProActivity AuthorityPosting ProPosting AuthorityPosting Veteran

    Quote Originally Posted by DBinMD View Post
    Defining human life based on it’s ability to sustain itself would immediately eliminate the very: young, old, and sick, i.e. any one of inconvenience. That could easily translate to the “not so convenient.” Also, since science makes progress continually, if we get to the point an egg can live outside of the womb, would that make abortion illegal.

    Re: It really just comes down to when is it life. Your definition, based solely on your opinion sets you up as judge and executioner over an innocent human life. It also allows science to be our conscience.

    Re: personally I disagree with abortion, and couldn't ever take prt in it, but still think a woman has a choice.

    DB

    This philosophy never made any sence to me, either you believe it is sacred and inviolable or you don’t. If it’s not sacred then it doesn’t matter what you do to it.

    My reply is little disjointed but it’s late and I need to go to bed.
    I do agree with the bolded part
    Controlled Labs Head Board Rep
    adam @ ControlledLabs.com
    CONTROLLED LABS products are produced in a GMP for Sport certified facility
  

  
 

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Mike Huckabee Responce
    By bpmartyr in forum News and Articles
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-19-2008, 02:00 PM
  2. Mike Mentzer
    By Panther06 in forum General Chat
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-15-2004, 02:49 PM
  3. Mike "Mule" Miller Benches 730lbs at Bench America
    By YellowJacket in forum Exercise Science
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-07-2003, 05:49 PM
  4. Kansas City's Running Back Mike Cloud Busted
    By YellowJacket in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 04-08-2003, 10:55 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Log in
Log in