Ayatollah Huckabee Condemns US Constitution with new Fatwa
Mike Huckabee says he wants to amend the US constitution to bring it into line with the divinely revealed law of the living God:
' "I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that's what we need to do -- to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view."
Ayatollah Huckabee is behind the times. Ayatollah Khomeini has already rectified this unfortunate secular humanist lapse in the Iranian constitution, way back in the early 1980s:
"Article 2
The Islamic Republic is a system based on belief in:
1.the One God (as stated in the phrase "There is no god except Allah"), His exclusive sovereignty and the right to legislate, and the necessity of submission to His commands;
2.Divine revelation and its fundamental role in setting forth the laws;
3.the return to God in the Hereafter, and the constructive role of this belief in the course of man's ascent towards God;
4.the justice of God in creation and legislation . . .
Even Michigan's evangelicals appear to have been put off by Huckabee's theocratic tendencies. Mitt Romney beat him in Michigan among evangelicals by a small margin, in contrast to what happened in Iowa before the dark (and sometimes bumbling) side of Huckabee became apparent.
Here is video of Huckabee's speech:
posted by Juan Cole @ 1/16/2008 12:04:00 AM
|
Facebook
30 Comments:
The abolitionists were all religious groups arguing based on their understanding of divine standards. They succeeded in bending the laws to their moral, religious views. Eventually, this resulted in amendments to the Constitution. Did this shake the foundations of American democracy? No. Quite the opposite, it strengthened democracy.
The word "fatwa" refers to the considered opinion of an Islamic legal specialist. For about a billion people, and for dozens of generations reaching back many centuries, it hasn't been a dirty word. It's a little disheartening to see it used as a dirty word.
As for Mr. Huckabee's idea that the US Constitution may be amended to conform to God's laws (as interpreted by humans), there's actually nothing in the Constitution itself, nor in the American political ethos to preclude that. The Constitution contains procedures for amendments without specifying the ethos to which amendments must conform. In fact, some parts of the Constitution, and some amendments, were drafted to conform to Judeo-Christian ethics as interpreted and internalized by its drafters, although there's obviously a lot more to the Constitution than just that.
Going beyond the Constitution itself, all this certainly applies to much of American law as well. Take the prohibition of polygamy. Some cultures and religions allow polygamy, but in the US marriage is between one man and one woman. Take anti-slavery or the civil rights movements. These were religious movements that eventually succeeded in bending the laws to their standards (an enterprise that, in the former case, did lead to amending the Constitution)!
If "theocracy" means that people are allowed to vote according to their values (which may be based on religion), and run for office on a platform of religious values, then this country has always been a "theocracy." That this has always been the nature of American political life is not controversial.
But isn't your definition of theocracy a rather loose one? Normally, a theocracy is defined as state where the laws explicitly grant the clergy a dominating role. By this definition, the US is not a theocracy, nor is Mr. Huckabee advocating a theocracy.
In summary, with all respect and reverence, I disagree with the way you use the words fatwa, theocracy, and ayatullah. Furthermore, I think it's uncontroversial that Americans have always participated in public life on the basis of their religious values (if any), except where the Constitution and the laws have placed restrictions on the institutions of the state and the institutions of the Church-- and the nature of such restrictions have beeen made more or less clear in the decisions of the courts.
As a postscript, if American liberals fight religion rather than reclaim, appropriate, and internalize it, they're going to be in a politically precarious position.
I think someone who wants to amend a civil (government) document to 'conform to the word of a living god' is the very definition of theocracy. what about the ones where the god is not living, and the ones with no god or several gods? Making people who don't believe in the same superstitions conform to some text (Huckabee's Bible) as to what is 'right' and 'wrong' and under who's definition and interpretation?.. that is definitely putting clergy in charge. Huckabee is a clergy for his own Baptist religion. Many people interpret the Judeo/Christian Bible as rewritten Mythra, Jain and Horus myths and look at the very passages that most people refer to when they cite 'scripture' when they condemn suposedly 'immoral behavior' as recommendations and laws only for the holy clergy of the early Jews. What will happen to Red Lobster when they go to jail (or are stoned to death) for selling shrimp and all the people eating shrimp? How about wearing garments of mixed fibers, etc, etc. Will Giulianni be killed for adultery? What about the gays who don't 'lie with mankind as with womankind' and only do other stuff? Does that apply to gay women? What if they aren't lying down when they do it? Abortion isn't even mentioned in the Bible. How about the uncircumsized guys?etc, etc. What a sorry state of eduction and belief system. This is fundamentally no different than a fatwa, since the 'punishment' for not obeying is death, and I can't see any difference between an ayatulla, minister, priest or reverand etc in the spelling.
Also, doesn't this disqualify Huckabee for holding the office of President, since he can't take the oath to 'uphold and defend the Constitution'?.. He has now gone on record as wanting to trash it.
Governor Huckabee wants us to believe that he has a hotline to God. The problem with this is that millions of us do not share in this belief. He wants to re-write the Constitution according to the word of the living God. I assume he means the Bible, since I have not heard God on T.V. or the radio, as yet. Governor Huckabee might say God speaks through him, but I have only his word for it. That is the same with any other preacher or priest,who makes that claim. There is also a problem with interpreting the word of God, as it appears in the Bible. Some Christian denominations interpret the meaning differently. The Jewish Faith and the Islamic Faith also read the Old Testament.Whose interpretation is to have the "stamp of approval"? The Evangelicals? The Catholics? The Mormons? The Jews? The Muslims? Whose interpretation is to be written into the Constitution? This,of course, ignores the great diversity of this country, and the many people who have differing religious beliefs than Christians, but who are good and faithful people. Then, there are the atheists, who may be compassionate, generous, and just. Are they to be forgotten, abandoned, condemned? The reason that separation of Church and State is of the utmost wisdom is that in such an arrangement, all can choose which religion they wish to practice (or not); and are not forced to practice a "State Religion." Is Governor Huckabee suggesting we should have a "State Religion"as Henry the Eighth demanded? Whose religion shall it be? Are we now going to force everyone to adhere to Governor Huckabee's interpretation of religious belief? What would he do after two terms, should he be elected, and a new fellow comes in, who is of another faith, and he demands another interpretation? Shall we have another Hundred Years War to see who gets to tell us all how to believe? Let the preachers tend to their flocks. Let wise men, who are ethical, just, intelligent and tolerant govern the nation. Otherwise, we shall enjoy the same repetitions of history that Northern Ireland, Iraq, and other assorted countries have experienced or are experiencing throughout the ages, as religious zealotry has overtaken tolerance, and divisiveness has trampled common sense.
Steve Talbert:
If you dislike specific religious practices (stoning, etc.), or all religious values, that's one thing. Democracy allows you to hold such a position, vote on its basis, and even run for office on such a basis. But to say democracy automatically bans all laws that are rooted in religious values--and that seems to be your argument--is an entirely different thing. Your position is utterly incompatible with American democracy as it has been understood and practiced until today. (And getting rid of all laws with religious roots would require repealing all anti-slavery legislation. The anti-slavery movement was *thoroughly* religious.)
Let's take your examples of banning the sale of shrimp (consuming shrimp being forbidden in Jewish law, and by half of Shiite jurists, incidentally). Actually, there is nothing in the *essence* of American democracy that precludes forbidding the sale of shrimp--just as if a state bans the sale of dog meat or cat meat, there'd again be nothing in the essence of American democracy to preclude it.
What authority determines whether your distaste for stoning or for a ban on shrimp should supersede somebody else's support for such things? What authority determines that polygamy is illegal? What authority determines that the government can spend your taxes on war? You answer seems to be this: we should inquire into whether a certain position on these matters has a religious basis, and then do the exact opposite of that position! That seems to be your position, yet you won't find anybody in law schools or political science departments expounding such a principle. Do you *seriously* hold this position, and are you willing to accept all its consequences?
If stoning is banned, it's because the democratic *process* *happens* to have led to its being made illegal, not because it has religious roots. You see the distinction?
And I'm afraid you abuse the word "fatwa" when you say, "This is fundamentally no different than a fatwa, since the 'punishment' for not obeying is death..." Fatwa is simply a legal opinion. When a Muslim jurist rules that "the sale of shrimp is permissible," that is a fatwa. There is more to Islamic jurisprudence than death!
"As for Mr. Huckabee's idea that the US Constitution may be amended to conform to God's laws (as interpreted by humans), there's actually nothing in the Constitution itself, nor in the American political ethos to preclude that."
You have a talent for stating the obvious, son. The point is not whether it can be done, but rather, whether it SHOULD be done.
Personally, I don't believe in an all-powerful invisible space daddy who apparently is such a blundering idiot of a "Creator" that he cannot even figure out a way to include in his "Grand Design" a way of bringing children into the world without unspeakably horrible birth defects. God, YOUR FIRED!
"Behnam said..."
The abolitionists were not "ALL" "religious groups".
Not all abolitionists predicated their anti-slavery position on religious principles.
The 14th Amendment was not effectuated by abolitionists.
The 14th Amendment says nothing about religion being the basis for affording equal protection under the laws.
The 14th Amendment provides much more than mere equal protection. (Have you even read it?)
And whether the abolition of slavery "strengthened democracy" (whatever the heck that is supposed to mean) is at the very least debatable. (Ask a pro-slavery southerner.)
So, please, stop pretending to enlighten us with your 5th grade analysis of hard-hitting social and political issues.
Such lovely choices we have. Let's see, do you want Corporatocracy or Theocracy, or both?
Huckabee wants to amend the secular constitution which was founded on the basis of Christian principles so that it conforms to Christian principles.
Huh?
Election of Romney may be a potent innoculation further GOP cultivation of the Religious Right. Romney may consider himself a religious conservative and share many social views of evangelicals, but his doctrinal distinctions may inspire many of them to stay home rather than vote. If elected nontheless, they would be the first to howl about public displays of faith that gave any whiff of Romney's denomination. Suddenly they would all agree with the ACLU that faith is a matter for the home, not the school, public property, or state promotion. But, of course, they might still be in complete agreement over continued tax exemption of all church enterprises and revocation of RvW.
I would like to correct Behnam on the Fatwa. It is a dirty word for most of the (1.3) billion Muslims he is worried about. Ayatollahs (Shiite title only) and others flash them every five minutes to suit them and their gangs, and Fatwa conflicts are ongoing all the time.
They are regularly used for political and material gains. In the December 2005 Iraqi general elections, Sistani issued a Fatwa to force the Shiite to vote, to get more wait in government. Hakim's gang spread rumors that Sistani issued a Fatwa annulling the marriages and parenthood of those who didn't vote for them.
Religion breeds ignorance and violence because it does not tolerate others, particularly other religions. It is largely responsible for most of the wars including the Iraqi invasion and the Israeli occupation now.
Slavery was not opposed by the Christians by the way. In Islam, there is even Shar'ia law to regulate how it should work!
Huckabee is a real nutjob. Why should we discard contemporary made-up views and replace them with made-up views from the Iron Age?
Surely we can find some justification for our ideas, but invoking a book from the Iron Age doesn't help.
What amazes me is not so much that he said it, but that the media is too delicate and maybe afraid to tackle this idiocy.
I just don't understand why would a government-fearing republican, that can't trust government with his/her health care, would want to put government in control of his god.
For these religious zealots of whatever stripe (Christian, Jewish, Islamic, whatever), it's all about being able to bully women and other minorities in the name of God.
As for the notion that abolitionism was supported by most or even a majority of religious people:
"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts."
Jefferson Davis, President, Confederate States of America
Robert E. Lee was was a fervent Episcopalian who prayed daily, as was Jefferson Davis. Stonewall Jackson was a deacon in the Presbyterian Church. And so on and so forth. Pretty much everybody was religious back then, and happy to use religion to justify whatever their beliefs were, whether pro-slavery or not. The more things change, the more they don't...
Meet the Huckster's top advisor: 'I’d put a cop in front of every mosque until I was completely satisfied nothing was going on there'
Will "God" as the Huckster's National Security Advisor, let slip the dogs of holy war?
Actually, Huckabee's argument is fairly liberal for the circles he moves in. Apparently many in the evangelical community already consider the U.S. constitution to be one of the Lord's minor works, and therefore they're reluctant to see it changed, even to ban gay marriage and the like.
One respondent calls me "son," the other refers to my "fifth-grade level analysis." I'm a liberal myself, but I don't think that arrogance and dogmatism are more attractive when they emanate from fellow liberals. And --I'm sorry to say-- the attitude of complete confidence in one's monopoly on Truth (and the arrogance that it breeds) is especially pervasive among liberals.
Ronald says, "You have a talent for stating the obvious, son. The point is not whether it can be done, but rather, whether it SHOULD be done."
This raises an important distinction, but the issue is not that "it should not be done," but *why* it should not be done. Should a law not be passed because it's wrong, or should it not be passed merely because its advocates are moved by religious motives? Let me explain:
I believe Prof. Cole and Mr. Talbert are saying something that goes beyond, "Well, I happen personally to disagree with Christianity per se, or with the banning of abortion per se, and therefore I disagree with Huckabee." They are *not* arguing merely that Huckabee's desire to refashion the laws according to his values is wrong because those values are *wrong*; rather, they're arguing that Huckabee is wrong because his values are *religious*. The consequence of this position would be that values should not affect laws as long as they are religious, regardless of whether they're wrong or right.
George B: No doubt, among abolitionists there would have been some who were not religious, or who were religious but totally separated their views on slavery from their views on religion. Today, too, among those who want abortion banned, not everybody is religious. Yet, what do exceptions and marginal tendencies show? What is crucial here is this: exceptional attitudes do not bring about the kind of social and political change that can lead to Constitutional amendments! For this reason, exceptions appear as irrelevant to the point at issue.
The proposition that "the abolitionist movement was religious" is just as accurate as the proposition that "the anti-choice/pro-life movement today is religious." To deny this would be radical historical revisionism.
Mr./Ms. Anonymous: Muslims generally do not consider fatwa a dirty word. The fact that people in Muslim countries are mostly religious is established beyond doubt by the "World Values Survey," which encompasses dozens of Muslim countries. (Incidentally, in the same breath, you speak of Ayatullah Sistani and Hakim. Why would these individuals be so influential if many Iraqis were not religious, in fact, not only religious, but also Islamists of various shades?)
By the way, a fatwa is not a dirty word even for religious Muslims who are secular. A fatwa that "it's forbidden to eat shrimp," is essentially secular before it's enforced by the state.
Just use a distinctly Islamic and neutral term like "fatwa," and all the prejudices come out of the woodwork.
Slavery was also PROMOTED AND DEFENDED on religious grounds, and the bible (new and old testaments) provided several quotes that aided the slavers. Paul advised all slaves with Christian masters to serve them faithfully, and Jesus himself stated "render unto caesar that which is caesar's", (which I think can be taken to refer to property, in an age when many people were property).
By contrast, the bible is thin on quotes to back up the other side of the case. The lesson from all of this is that no practice ought to be defended or condemned on the basis of its conformity to scripture. We just can't unite to decide which scripture is best, or how to interpret the same piece of scripture; best we do without scripture altogether, especially in matters which affect whole nations.
Behnam, being religious does not prevent you from treating Fatwa as a dirty word. The opposite in fact. As I said there are Fatwa conflicts. A while back a Saudi cleric issued a Fatwa to encourage Sunnis to attack Shiite shrines, so the religious Shiites were outraged and condemned all Saudis to being murderous Wahabis, and you had quick fire Fatwas against the original Fatwa. Another was by an Egyptian Sunni authority saying that the illegal immigrants who drawned will go to hell, met by other Fatwas calling that rubbish.
Sistani is not just any old person, He is the reliious boss of all Iraq's Shiite. One of only two countries in the world with Shiite majority.
The majority of Muslims are not religious. They believe in the Quran, but may be Whisky guzzling or gamblers. A very small minority actually PRACTISES Islam.
Little Knowledge Is A Dangerous Thing.
On religious pro-slavery arguments:
Some religious denominations fell on one side of the slavery debate and others on the opposite side. This supports my original point even more strongly: it underscores just how salient religion was in public life and politics.
On "fatwa":
True, *some* religious Muslims may drink beer, consider "fatwas" a dirty word, etc. However, "Anonymous" generalizes this to most Muslims, and this is where I disagree. I disagree on the basis of the "World Values Survey" as well as personal experience. The WVS captures the degree of observance of religious law and measures attitudes towards clergymen in dozens of Muslim countries.
One of only two countries in the world with Shiite majority
Shiites compose the majority in four countries: Iran, Iraq, Bahrain and Azerbaijan.
A cople of points on slavery in the Bible.
The Bible does not forbid slavery, partly because it teaches that whoever commits sin is a slave of sin - that is, if you are not serving the God of Truth, you will be a slave to something else.
Instead, Moses permits slavery, but goes on to say in Deuteronomy 23:15-16, "You shall not give back to his master the slave who has escaped from his master to you. He may dwell with you in your midst, in the place which he chooses within one of your gates, where it seems best to him; you shall not oppress him."
This ordinance, while permitting slavery, makes it impossible, revealing also that wherever slavery occurs, it is not merely the enslavement of one by another but the product of the surrounding society which enforces it by standing against the oppressed and intervening in behalf of those that oppress them.
In the question of the tax money, Jesus left no doubt of what is God's - and those who had questioned him understood him instantly and that shut them up.
The coin was Caesar's money because it bore Caesar's image and superscription. Those hearing Jesus understood immediately from Genesis 1:26-17 that God's money is human beings, because human beings bear the image and likeness of God.
The so-called "Christians" of the US who want to offer human beings, including their own children, as sacrifices to imperial America in its wars, are even more void of understanding about the tax money than those who questioned Jesus about it in order to trip him up - because they at least were put to silence by his wisdom.
In the same way, those who want to enslave human beings - and there are many ways to do that - want to steal God's money for themselves. If we do that we wind up being robbed in some way ourselves.
We don't need God to run the country.
behnam's:
"there's actually nothing in the Constitution itself, nor in the American political ethos to preclude that."
That's simply wrong. As in obviously inaccurate (as well as immoral, but that's not the point).
The First Amendment was added to the Constitution pretty early on and it says VERY clearly "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or restricting the free exercise thereof..." It's hard to get any more explicit than that. That's why Huckabee is talking about changing the Constitution in the first place. As for "the American political ethos," the Federalist Papers (look them up) are generally considered the other authority on that, and they are at least as clear on the separation of church and state, if not more so.
Making political decisions based on religious beliefs is not the same as changing the Constitution to allow the establishment of religion; the prohibition of religiously motivated political action is a straw man; it simply is nowhere near where the courts have consistently drawn the church-state line.
For instance, a lot of people (myself included) are antiwar for religious reasons, but there are also rational reasons for being antiwar, just as there are rational reasons for being antislavery, and when we discuss them, we use those reasons. The existence of those rational reasons--and not some bizarre(and impossible to determine) requirement that proponents of a law have purely secular motives-- has always been the standard for adjudicating religious freedom issues.
The courts have always ruled that, if the government has a "compelling interest" in the issue, then it can restrict religious practices and, if it doesn't, it can't. For example, you can't do human sacrifice, even if your religion requires it, because the government has a compelling interest in protecting people against being killed.
In contrast, the government has no compelling interest in prohibiting same-sex unions; the fact that people don't have a problem with civil unions proves that. We're hardly underpopulated and those who claim that it would somehow hurt heterosexual unions have yet to support this assertion in anything resembling a rational manner (unsurprising, since it is without rational foundation).
In fact, the only reason an unConstitutional hate law like DOMA is on the books at all is because of:
1. a stacked and thoroughly broken judiciary
and
2. the widespread but errroneous belief that, without it, the government would force people to perform weddings they don't believe in.
Actually it won't, and never has. For instance, if you are divorced, a Catholic church won't remarry you to someone else and nobody is going to make them. Religions that require counseling (e.g. Quakerism and clearness committees) before they will perform a wedding have not been forced to waive that requirement. Why would gender requirements be any different?
As for polygyny, the government does have a "compelling interest" in prohibiting it. For example, it messes with inheritance laws and it would be a strain on pension systems. I, for one, do not think that prohibiting polygyny is the best way to deal with those issue, but the issues' existence makes it, as you should know, an entirely different type of debate.
As for whether or not the opposition to abortion has any rational basis, that's another debate for another time.
You cannot understand the attitude of our founding fathers towards the role of religion in government without understanding the history of the English Revolution (and Puritan rule of England therein), and its immediate aftermath (where Catholic and Protestant contenders fought over the English Crown). This was a messy situation that was fairly fresh history-wise in the minds of our founders, and it all boiled down to religion in government causing death, killing, mayhem, and madness. They wanted no part of that for the most part. Thus the "no religious test" part of the body of the Constitution, and the 1st Amendment's prohibition of any law respecting any particular religion.
If you are not aware of the particulars of the English Revolution, do go study it. Then you may be (barely) qualified to talk about what our founding fathers thought about the notion of religion in government. Sadly, most of the people spouting off about these things are utterly ignorant of English history -- for them, history apparently starts in 1776. But it is impossible to know the mindset of our founders without knowing the mindset of the English Revolution and Restoration that produced them and that was still quite well in mind.
Excuse me, BadTux, was that directed at me? Because, if so, I'm more than a little insulted and have this to say:
You have one thing right: One of the reasons that the founding fathers did not want to mix religion and government was because they knew that it generally leads to massive bloodshed.
What's your point?
Does that therefore mean that theocracy is not a bad thing, or that it is no longer a bad thing? Does it mean that protecting religious freedom is no longer important?
Does it mean that they really didn't want to protect religious liberty (their words in the Constitution and the federalist papers notwithstanding), but they just couldn't figure out another way to avoid a religious war?
Are you saying that the first half of the First Amendment is an error that they made because they were so prejudiced and/or traumatized by (one of the instances of) violent religious conflict in British history?
If you are trying to say one of those things, then please say it, and try to support it in a reasonable fashion. If not, I apologize for thinking you capable of stooping so low.
Nevertheless, what you are saying still seems a bit reductionist to me. I mean, yes, Britain's history of bloody religious struggle may well have been a factor, but I'd say that an understanding of the Enlightenment (not to mention the study of their own writings) is a bit more important to an understanding of the mindset of the Framers.
A contributor (culturegeek) states that "political decisions based on religious beliefs" are fine; what is not fine is "the establishment of religion."
Suppose Huckabee attempts to amend the Constitution to outlaw abortion (or same-sex marriage, or polygamy). If he succeeds, he will have delivered on his promise to bring the Constitution in line what he personally takes to be God's law (for "Roe vs. Wade" based the right to abortion on the Constitution).
Yet, this will be an example of "political decisions based on religious beliefs," which one has to admit is completely in line with the ethos of American politics!
I, therefore, fail to see what all the hoopla is about. Huckabee never called for a theocracy, nor for the enacting of laws respecting the establishing of any particular religion. To ascribe such things to him is to construct a straw-man.
Behnam:
I don’t know where to begin. Either you’re being thoroughly disingenuous or you are ignorant of both basic civics and basic logic.
I suppose I’ll start with Hucakbee.
-Firstly, changing the Constitution to match a religious text is pretty much the definition of establishment of religion. Thank the Gods he doesn’t have a chance.
Secondly, I know that Huckabee very carefully avoided mentioning any specific legislation, but here’s the really obvious thing that you keep ignoring:
If Huckabee did not intend to do something unConstitional: would not have proposed amending the Constitution to allow it.
Duh.
Furthermore, the Bible says a number of very specific things and Huckabee says he takes it literally. Therefore, when he says he wants to change the Constitution to match the Bible, that means certain things, making it possible to discuss questions of whether or not those things pass the Constitutional test for non-establishment of religion.
continued...
-----------------------
Now, before we get to specific examples, I have to clear up one of your distortions:
There is a difference between individual political decisions (to which I was referring) and political decisions by the state (with which you once again tried to conflate them).
-Political decisions by the state are controlled by the Constitution*.
-Political decisions by individuals are protected by the Constitution.
Rubber meets road on legislation as follows: While legislators are individuals and, as such, can advocate whatever they want (see note), they only have the power to enact certain types of laws. The Constitution protects individuals' freedom of thought and expression, but it also limits the amount of power that any individual has over other individuals.
As I said before, whether or not a legislator's (let alone a private citizen's) actions were inspired by religious beliefs isn't just irrelevant; it's impossible to determine. That is why absence of religious motivation is not, nor has it ever been, nor have I ever suggested that it should be, the Constitutional test. It generally indicates that there may be an issue, but it does not decide the issue.
The Constitutional test is, as I said before, whether or not the state has a compelling interest in prohibiting a given religious practice, or enacting a given religion-inspired law. A religious-inspired law and a law affecting a religion are separate issues as well, but the test is essentially the same: does the state have a good reason (aka compelling interest) to enact it?
continued
-------------------------------
------------------------------
*While I'm teaching remedial political science, here's why individual political decisions are protected:
The other half of the First Amendment means that even the worst of irrational opinions, even advocating fascism (religious or otherwise) must be permitted.
That is because free speech is a safety valve for bad ideas as well as a protection for good ones. The Framers knew that bigots are going to exist no matter what the government does and the only choice that the government has is whether or not to know about them.
Since some of them want to kill me, I have a pretty strong opinion on the subject. I want them out in the open where society can keep an eye on them.
That way, if one of the bigots acts on those beliefs in an illegal fashion, the state stands a bettter chance of knowing whom to question. Furthermore, I can spot the bigots and avoid them.
I don't even think Huckabee should be prohibited from expressing his views. I do use my free speech to criticize him, but, contrary to conservative belief (and constant, often disingenuous claims), that is not the same as censoring him.
And finally, let’s see how that relates to Biblical law, which is what Huckabee advocates.
We’ll set aside a couple of red herrings first: If you knew your history, you’d know that Roe was based on privacy, not religious freedom, so it’s irrelevant. The Bible advocates polygyny as often as it prohibits it, and I’ve already covered it in my previous post with no further response from you, so I’ll get to the real issue at hand: DOMA.
Firstly, DOMA isn’t just a religion-based law, it is a law that infringes the religious freedom of those who believe in performing it. I am neither gay nor married, but DOMA infringes my right to act according to religious beliefs that are every bit as deeply held as yours and Huckabee’s are.
As I’ve said many times before (I am repeating it because you keep ignoring it) the Constitutional test is whether or not the government has a compelling interest that requires it to infringe that freedom.
Is there a rational argument for outlawing same-sex unions. No. I have never heard one and you haven't changed that. Therefore, it constitutes an unConstitutional establishment of religion.
The idea that same-sex MARRIAGE would increase the spread of STI's among homosexuals is patently absurd.
In case you hadn’t noticed, married people in our culture tend to have fewer partners than unmarried people, not more.
Do you think that people will somehow become straight if they're forbidden to marry? Wrong. All evidence says that people are born gay and they stay gay.
Do you think that gay people are more likely to get STI's? Wrong again. Last I checked (and I should know; I am a volunteer safer-sex educator, because abstinence-only education, unlike same-sex unionsdoes demonstrably increase risk of STI infection), the fastest-growing rate of HIV infection was among young, hetero women.
Did you think that STI’s just spontaneously generated when people had gay sex or something?
Speaking of which, what about outlawing homosexuality in general? The Bible (as interpreted by Huckabee) does. Look up Lawrence v. Texas. Given how broken our judiciary is, that’s likely to get overturned.
Do you think it would be okay to outlaw homosexuality altogether? Because the Bible, which Huckabee says he wants to amend the Constitution to match, prohibits it.
Do you think that would be establishment of religion?
What about fornication? Fornication is prohibited in the Bible too. Huckabee said he wants the Constitution to match the Bible, and he’s a literalist. Either he was just exercising his mouth or he wants to outlaw that too.
What would be the result of that? Well, here’s one: if fornication were illegal, it would be illegal to sell any kind of birth control (including condoms) to unmarried people. What do you think that would do to the rate of STI deaths?
It’s not impossible. Far from it. Until Griswold v. Connecticut, it was okay to have a state law banning all birth control use, even by married people. That was a privacy thing too, but once religious freedom falls, so does privacy.
If you still “fail to see what all the hoopla is about” (which, incidentally, must mean that you failed fifth grade civics too)I suggest you take a good hard look at Iran--and a good hard look at the history of Medieval Europe, while you're at it.
Huckabee did very clearly advocate eliminating the provisions in the Constitution that protect us from that. As an informed and patriotic citizen, I find this extremely worrying.
I reiterate, if what Huckabee wanted to do weren't unConstitutional, then why was he talking about amending the Constitution to do it?
Once again, duh!
----------------------------
I'm done.
Post a Comment
<< Home