This Ain’t Chocolate and Peanut Butter
Posted by Hazel Stone | Filed under Plain Old Hypocrisy
It is not our intention to post very often, if at all, regarding the 2008 elections. We have our preferences, just as you all do, and if anyone is fence-sitting, well, there are much better places than this to look for answers.
However.
This is simply not to be tolerated, in any way, shape or fashion.
“[Some of my opponents] do not want to change the Constitution, but I believe it’s a lot easier to change the constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that’s what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than try to change God’s standards,” Huckabee said, referring to the need for a constitutional human life amendment and an amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
I read Revolt in 2100, and, to paraphrase Tom Hanks, it scared the crap out of me. We can not (read as: will not) allow the rise of a Nehemiah Scudder type.
Some tinpot redneck is not going to track his muddy ideals all over my Constitution because his version of God “tells” him to. And if you’re a religious person at all, I’d be extremely offended that this backwoods martinet presumes to tell *you* what God wants.
Regardless of your personal beliefs, separation of church and bloody state is what this country is founded on. Let’s all remember that, shall we.
Others on this topic:
Tags: election, i'm getting a headache
Help Support Simon-Jester.org!
January 16th, 2008
And lest I be picked upon for choosing a Heinlein novel for my example, here’s another one: The Handmaid’s Tale
Boy, I read this book at WAY too young an age… I’m glad I did though, it was a bit of an eyeopener. As bad as you think things are, they can always be worse.
January 16th, 2008
Funny … since what he’s talking about was a edict started by the church – marrage. It wasn’t something the government started – it was a church based function started between man and women.
However, since the government likes to take over everything, it became government issue and so on. Using the old ‘seperation of church and state’ argument is so rediculous since it seems only to apply to when the church stands up and not the government or anyone else … aka: If the church is doing something the government wants it’s hands in, it’s ok. If the church tries to do anything it’s in violation of church and state …
I’d rather see marrage taken out of the secular culture all together to be honest and leave it to the church folk. Find a different “union” that insurance companies are ok with and leave the church crap to the church peoples. World woudl go smoothly if everyone would keep their fingers out of eachothers business.
January 16th, 2008
Ok, sweetie, what *I* was talking about was specifically what HE said, as I quoted. Any attempt to modify the bloody Constitution of our country, just because President Redneck says so, is simply not going to be tolerated.
And we shan’t get into an argument about where the concept of “marriage” (along with every other “idea” the Church claims for themselves) really started.
January 16th, 2008
See? We’re swimming in it.
January 16th, 2008
I fear men like Huckabee, because I’m an atheist in their eyes, and should they ever be able to grab police authority, I know I’d be one of the first against the wall just because I don’t believe in any faith, and if I won’t be turned…I mean “saved”, I’ll be destroyed, or somehow made safe from the rest of the flock.
And am I the only one who gets disturbed by how easily religion refers to people as sheep?
January 16th, 2008
Correction: This country was founded on the concept of religious freedom, not separation of church and state. Those are two entirely different things. One is stated in our constitution, the other is an incorrect judicial interpretation of the first.
That said, I agree with the rest of your argument.
January 16th, 2008
Yeah, I knew someone was going to whack me about that.
January 16th, 2008
Vegasguy,
I’ve often heard your argument in other forums, but no one has ever described a legal interpretation of the first amendment that would protect minority faiths from being marginalized on the basis of that faith.
I know the whole Separation of Church & State gets under some peoples skins, but is there a better way to protect people from the invasiveness of religious zealots?
January 16th, 2008
Okay, I have a minor nit about the so-called “religious freedom” in the First Amendment.
Please remember that the Constitution is a limit on the FEDERAL Government. The reason that there had to be a freedom of religion was because several States among the original 13 had various State-sanctioned religions (Rhode Island springs to mind), and they weren’t about to give the religion of some other State any kind of preference over their own.
That having been said, the fact that there is a Presidential candidate who is arguing in favor of altering the fundamental structure of our government to more closely conform with the interpretation of morals as taught in his own personal pew is detestable, to say the very least. Would he approve of Senator Obama saying the same kind of thing about his Farrakhan-praising, racist preacher’s interpretation of how the COTUS should be amended to support his God’s standards?
If not, why not?
January 17th, 2008
How exactly are these proposals theocratic? Are you going to tell Libertarians for Life that they are theocrats because they see abortion as a violation of libertarian values? Are you going to seriously argue that the majority of Americans are theocrats because they oppose the legalization of gay marriage? Just saying…
I take it you haven’t read through the Mosaic Law, which is basically what our legal system would look like if we were becoming a theocracy. The Mosaic Law is actually more humane on serious offenses than our own system. Far fewer innocent people got punished under the Mosaic Law than under our own system because the Mosaic Law has much higher standards of evidence than our own system. For one, you cannot execute anyone under it without two eye witnesses. For another, anyone who bears false witness against an innocent party is summarily sentenced, without mercy, to whatever punishment the innocent person would have gotten. We would do well to adopt some of these things into our secular legal system, as they would provide powerful checks and balances that would repair a lot of the damage done by prosecutors and legislators.
January 17th, 2008
I would like to add that ironically, the Mosaic Law would unleash a bloodbath on law enforcement and its informants with the way that they conduct the War on Drugs. You’d see so many cops summarily sentenced to decades in prison, or in the case of victims of the Drug War like Kathryn Johnston (the old black woman shot to death in Atlanta), executions, that it’d probably cause the police to refuse to enforce the drug laws out of fear for their own lives.
January 17th, 2008
You’re going to want to indicate precisely to whom you are replying, because if it is to the original post, you are once again attempting to put words into my mouth and I’m getting a bit weary of it.
January 17th, 2008
Yep, MikeT, good point, excellent suggestion, because no one ever abuses Mosaic Law for their own ideology, and eye witness testimony is such a reliable standard to base the execution of a person on. And you are right, a woman who was raped could never be innocent and should always be punished.
As for Theocratic suggestions, placing any language in the Constitution that somehow favors one set of religious values over another is setting things up for a theocracy. One could argue that the values that are in the Constitution are already Christian, but that would be the narrow view as they are also the values of a good many other faiths around the world, as well as the morals and values of the majority of the atheists/agnostics around the world.
I don’t want to suffer more under laws that enforce faith fueled morality, we got enough of those already, Thank You Very Much.
January 17th, 2008
Not to put too fine a point on it, but neither Sharia, nor Mosaic, nor any other law deriving from a Bronze Age book of shepherd-and-whore stories has any business being confused with the Law Of The Land.
January 17th, 2008
Sigh.
That was inflammatory, and deliberately so.
My ancestors had a great collection of drunken vagabond warrior tales, but you don’t see me cherry-picking the good parts out of the Elder Eddas and saying that they’d make a swell foundation for the laws of a techno-industrial nation…
January 17th, 2008
Well, honestly, he deserved it. I don’t mind debate, but he can’t even keep it on topic.
January 17th, 2008
I think perhaps the consternation over Huckabee’s comments are out of proportion to what was actually said. I didn’t see anything to indicate that he would be forcing a change in the Constitution through any but legal means. And just because the basis of the language of any potential amendment is a religious moral one, that does not mean that it cannot be considered for acceptance.
January 17th, 2008
Despite the fact that some of the existing Constitution is based on the moral values of the time, I think you’ll agree that allowing legislation-based-on-morality in THESE times is an extremely dangerous precedent to set.
January 17th, 2008
Let’s review:
“amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards”
Part of the beauty of the first amendment is that it permits you to practice any faith you want, or none at all. And I have trouble knowing what God’s standards are, since he is not exactly a real good public speaker, and a book written by superstitious goat herders is really not what I would call an authoritative source.
An amendment to the constitution that favors the standards of one interpretation of god over another is in fact a violation of the first amendment. You want to stick god in the Constitution, you need to strike part of the first amendment.
January 17th, 2008
I didn’t say that we should adopt it all. I said that we should adopt some of it. I think that if there are signs of trauma to the woman’s body and evidence that the man she accused was the one who caused it, that that should be enough. However, I a woman’s word alone should never be enough to secure a conviction in a rape case. That is too much “he said, she said.”
The two religions which account for about 50% of the human race, Christianity and Islam, already agree on these values. Depending on the sect of Buddhism, homosexuality is also regarded as unacceptable behavior. Most major religions already have similar values on these topics. Many non-religious people also hold these values, so don’t try to hide behind the religion angle to try to make the other sound illegitimate.
January 17th, 2008
Nope, not at all.
If we remove moral considerations from the legislative process, what are we to use as a compass? I believe in lower taxes because it is immoral to take as much money from people as the government does. I oppose eminent domain in almost all cases because I believe it is immoral (theft) to force owners to sell to the government.
Because my positions on these issues come from a moral background, and not some pure economic or scientific reasoning, does that mean that they should not have weight?
But I don’t want to get too far afield from the topic of the post. Huckabee’s positions on marriage and abortion are founded on his religious beliefs. But enacting legislation or even a constitutional amendment based on those beliefs do not call into existence a state church or religion. As such they aren’t a violation of the First.
Moreover, no president has the power to enact amendments without the approval of Congress and the States. We all know that. The most he could do as President would be to provide leadership on the issue.
January 17th, 2008
I’m not putting words into your mouth. I’m drawing conclusions from your post. The bulk of his comment was about establishing biblical morality in the Constitution. Why would it be wrong to conclude that you see this as a step to a more theocratic government considering that your comments around his quote came off as in opposition to the entire quote?
I’m very good at not putting words into people’s mouths. Maybe the problem is with you, not me.
January 17th, 2008
Oh, and those references to Huckabee receiving divine revelation and Revolt 2100. Sorry, I really blew it there, since Revolt 2100 is about the overthrow of a theocracy in America.
January 17th, 2008
MadRocketScientist,
Just to pick a nit, amendments don’t violate other amendments, they supersede them. Otherwise it could be said that the 20th (Repeal of Prohibition) violated the 18th (Prohibition), which in turn violated the Commerce Clause.
January 17th, 2008
MikeT: Yes, all law has some basis in one religion or another, from some part of history or another. I can trace parts of the 10 commandments to faiths far older than Judeo-Christian beliefs. And in those ancient civilizations, religion was the government, and the use of religious influence (divine punishment, god doesn’t like it, etc.) was a good way to get the unwashed masses to accept the wisdom of a given law.
However, law in the US, is set out by the constitution, not by god, and should only exist to protect rights, not to limit any or to explicitly target/exclude a given group just because the majority does not like them.
The majority of the country does not like Fred Phelps, maybe we need a constitutional amendment against religious zealots who froth at the mouth.
Mike R: I am an atheist/agnostic. None of my morality has a basis in faith. I was never raised to behave a certain way to make god happy. I follow my morals because they make logical, rational sense to me.
If you don’t like Homosexuality, fine, give me secular argument that explains why we should not permit homosexuals to enjoy all the same rights and privileges as heterosexuals. Don’t like abortion, fine, give me a secular argument as to why abortion is so wrong as to require a law against it rather than a socialogical shift so that it becomes un-necessary except in the most extreme of cases.
And presidents may not be enable to enact change, but right now, our nation has problems which are far more critical than whether or not Neil and Bob want to get married. I want a president who will focus on things that will help the country as a whole flourish, rather than things that will make a group of people feel less icky about certain things that do not affect them personally.
January 17th, 2008
As opposed to laws that enforce secular morality, like gun bans, smoking bans, forcing the medical system to treat the poor at the system’s expense, should I continue? Collectivists of all stripes are not shy about forcing their values on others. In fact, the most controlled states in history were/are secular. As to suffering under the law, you were far more likely to experience that under atheist communism than divine right monarchies. I’m not saying that either is preferable as a model for us.
The refusal to even consider any religious ideas for fixing our system is a totalitarian impulse. It’s thought policing at its most basic.
January 17th, 2008
Huh. It had never occurred to me that this would be the natural conclusion of using the Mosaic Law as a source for inspiration for how to fix some of our legal system’s problems. Damn. Here I was under the impression that simply drawing from a source was just, well, drawing from a source, not trashing the entire project and replacing it with every aspect of the source. I guess it’s too late, since we already have “good samaritan laws” on the books that can compel people to action against their will for a stranger’s protection. Zealots already got their foot in the door now, it’s only a matter of time…
You are either hysterical or dishonest. I have said nothing about using the law against anyone. Is it against people outside of Judaism or Christianity to add a clause to the standards of evidence in capital cases, drawing directly from the Mosaic Law’s requirement that two reliable witnesses had to have seen the murder in order to execute (as opposed to merely giving time in prison)?
January 17th, 2008
Mike T:
I fail to see how gun bans, smoking bans, universal healthcare have anything to do with secularism or faith. They are all based on failed logic, or a good idea carried way too far. Arguments toward limiting homosexual rights are steeped in religious rhetoric, as are most arguments against abortion. Start making those arguments without involving religion, and I’ll start looking to see if you have a point. As soon as I hear about gay sex making baby Jesus cry, I dismiss the talker as an idiot.
Communism was not bad because it was atheist, it was bad because it failed to account for the needs of man above and beyond food and shelter. Even if communism had allowed faith, it still would have failed miserably, and to be honest, it would have lasted longer since folks tend to tolerate abuse longer if they have their faith.
As for controlled societies, hello, Holy Roman Empire, Spanish Inquisition, the current Middle East, the list goes on. Faith based government has an even more compelling interest in policing the thoughts of its constituents than a secular government does. I hear far too many persons of faith who are all too eager to shout “There ought to be a law” because something makes them feel icky that in no way impacts them directly.
And I don’t refuse to consider a religious idea, but I want a logical, rational argument for it. If you think the rules of evidence and punishment in Mosaic Law have merit, argue for them OUTSIDE of the context of Mosaic Law and IN the context of the US Constitution. This is not thought policing, it is making sure you are advocating for something by way of a well thought out and reasoned argument, and not just “Hey, it sure sounds cool and I’d feel better, and look, it works over there (kind of)”.
And no eye witness is reliable, ever. In our modern age, eye witness testimony should suffer the strictest of scrutiny. Too often justice is miscarried because an eye witness got it wrong, or had their own agenda at play. If you want to execute a person, eyewitness testimony had better be the least of your evidence, not the most of it.
Mike R:
Yep, you are right, that was a proper nit to pick, my bad. Thanks for the correction.
January 17th, 2008
MadRocketScientist,
This line here gives me pause:
“If you don’t like Homosexuality, fine, give me secular argument that explains why we should not permit homosexuals to enjoy all the same rights and privileges as heterosexuals. Don’t like abortion, fine, give me a secular argument as to why abortion is so wrong as to require a law against it rather than a socialogical shift so that it becomes un-necessary except in the most extreme of cases.”
As you state, your moral compass is based on reason instead of any religious leanings, but this statement almost sounds as if you believe that I have no right to base my moral compass on any grounding which you don’t accept. I understand that if I want to bring you around to my way of thinking, I can’t use a religious moral argument, that’s fine. But on the flip side, you can’t claim that a moral position can’t be legislated upon simply because most of its adherents reached that position through religious teaching.
Also, mostly agree with your last paragraph. Too many of the most devisive social issues don’t matter as much in the big picture as their adherents would like us to believe, but they are part of the fabric of our society, and debate over them is good and healthy.
January 17th, 2008
“The two religions which account for about 50% of the human race, Christianity and Islam, already agree on these values. Depending on the sect of Buddhism, homosexuality is also regarded as unacceptable behavior. Most major religions already have similar values on these topics.”
One bazillion flies are going to eat cowsh!t for dinner tonight, and yet I won’t let weight of numbers sway my dinner menu.
January 17th, 2008
Mike R:
First off, I’m a scientist by training and trade. I place a great deal of stock in logic and reason, not because I hate religion, but rather because I have engaged too many people in debates about making something a crime, or restricting a persons rights or liberties, that stem from faith or emotion. While the lessons that faith teach often have value in society and law, if the only reason a person can give me regarding the wisdom of their proposal is that “It’s in the [insert religious text here]!”, then it is obvious to me that they wish to legislate dogma and have not given thought to the possible ramifications and unintended consequences of their proposal.
Everyone has a right to set their moral compass using whatever makes them happy, but it is wrong to insist by force of law that one of the waypoints that exists on your compass exist on mine as well.
However, if you decide that you think one of the waypoints on your compass has value, a value that would be good for all, then you should be more than able to make an argument for it that takes it outside of your faith and shows how it benefits men of all stripes.
January 17th, 2008
Mike R:
I agree that the debate is healthy, and I fully support that. I just want a leader who will remember he works for the whole country and not just the people who voted him into office, something our Presidents of late seem to have forgotten.
January 17th, 2008
MikeT, you are either welcome to the world, or to kindly moderate your tone. I thought I made it clear here on DAY ONE, if you want to come here and discuss issues, you are welcome, but do not let your discussions become emotional arguments.
This lodge is here to inspire thoughts on liberty, not to make personal attacks against other commenters.
January 17th, 2008
If you are talking about Hazel, I already apologized for the one post where I jumped to conclusions with her position. I stand by what I said to her here, which is that if she doesn’t like the conclusion that I came to, which is a reasonable one, then perhaps she ought to consider being a little clearer when posting. I think my tone in the beginning was quite civil. This is ASCII (or Unicode, whatever the charset), therefore emotion is something that we read into other people’s writings most of the time. All I did was throw out some obvious points that there are many people who aren’t religious who would strongly agree with Huckabee that these things must not be allowed.
Now with respect to MadRocketScientist, I have little use for people who jump to conclusions with wild assertions, but I try to put that aside. C’est la vie, whatever. If we’re going to go by labels, I’m a libertarian, and probably more so than anyone else here. It would not even occur to me to dismiss someone’s ideas because they are religious, atheist or agnostic ideas, something that I get the feeling cannot be said of MadRocketScientist who has an aversion to apparently even drawing ideas from religious legal systems for fixing the government’s problems. I’m sorry, did I offend you or someone else here when I said that this is a totalitarian impulse? Well it is, and it’s one that was frequently used by Marxists to discredit critics (they would “reveal the capitalist motivations” of their opponents).
Even now I am having to resist the urge to snicker at the cliche reference to the Spanish Inquisition above. Even Wikipedia will show you the true motivations behind it, and some interesting history that doesn’t jive with the way it was used above. What do I say about the rest of it? “Congratulations, you’ve discovered that a collectivist impulse is what unites most people, be they secular or religious. What do you want, a cookie?” When my point was that atheists’ primary time in power was during the heyday of communism, and look what that wrought.
Don’t worry, you don’t have to ban me or anything. I think I’ll leave of my own accord.
January 17th, 2008
Tam:
Since I love a good verbal repost, allow me to be the first to say Touche!
January 17th, 2008
MikeT, I wouldn’t dream of banning you. Your comments still get approved do they not? But calling someone either dishonest or hysterical because they chose not to fit into your idea of right and wrong is not what this joint is all about. No, MikeT, you are welcome to comment: you serve as an example for the rest of the class.
January 17th, 2008
MikeT (if you hang around for a sec):
Seems you are jumping to conclusions just as easily as you accuse me. I’m as libertarian as the next guy, and I never said I would toss the baby out with the bathwater in regard to good ideas with a religious basis, only that any such sourcing needs to be supported by something more.
The reason I take this position is because making laws based on religion is a very dangerous door to open. Taking a good idea out of the context of a set of religious laws keeps that door closed. As I’ve said before, if you like an idea, present it in such a way as to show me the wisdom of such an idea in our society without resorting to an appeal to authority.
As for the Spanish Inquisition, that was the thought police, as it was established to maintain orthodoxy and out of fear. It is a great example of a society using faith as a club to keep everyone in line.
And atheists were not the power in Marxist Russia, rather, the state chose not to share power with the church. You seemed to imply that communism and atheism are somehow interconnected, when in reality it was a political decision to kick the church out. Hell, if Lenin and Stalin had not had egos the size of Siberia, they would have seen the wisdom of allowing a church that was closely tied to the state as it would have provided for an even greater level of social control.
January 17th, 2008
(I hit refresh and noticed that MadRocketScientist had responded, so well, I couldn’t help myself)
And I never once suggested that we adopt a religious legal system. I suggested that we examine the Mosaic Law because despite the sections that would be, well, upsetting to a lot of people, it contains some extremely good points like its standards of evidence in capital cases, and its protections for the falsey accused. Furthermore, the views that Huckabee espoused there, the abortion and gay marriage issues, were views that are frequently shared by non-Christians. By definition, adopting those ideas which happen to be religious to Huckabee, but that jive with the views of millions of non-Christians, doesn’t lead us to a theocracy anymore than adding a murder statute does.
I don’t recall making an appeal to religious authority with my defense of the Mosaic Law. Rather, I said that the Mosaic Law had some good ideas, and that in practice it operated more cleanly in capital crimes cases than our own system does. My pastor did a sermon on capital punishment that illustrates how the Mosaic Law carried them out, and our death row looks like a killing field compared to the Mosaic Law because it errs on the side of protecting anyone who could be possibly innocent. As a libertarian with an aversion to capital punishment, I think that rocks.
*Buzzer* Wrong answer. The Spanish Inquisition was carried out at the end of the reconquista in order to root out people who converted to Catholicism to avoid being expelled from Spain for collaborating with the Moors. The Pope didn’t even want to do it, and tried to end it by issuing a bull to stop it, but got his arm badly twisted again by the Spanish monarchy. The crown used the Inquisition as a way to hunt down Jews and Muslims that pretended to be converts because the crown considered such people traitors. Right or wrong, you can’t blame them, considering their country was occupied for nearly 700 years by a foreign, religious power. 700 years of no home rule tends to inspire the sort of animosity that leads to the sort of ruthlessness you see here with the Inquisition.
This is historically laughable at best. The Marxists were, as a class, ardent atheists. The church was badly assaulted by the Soviet government. A significant number of churches were blown up, burned down, etc. Believers badly persecuted, you name it. Not all atheists are like this, but virtually all atheists who happen to be Marxist have this spirit in them.
I don’t think atheism inherently leads to this behavior, but it is rather telling that atheism often leads to collectivist politics. Regimes headed up by atheists in the 20th century were almost down to a regime violent and oppressive on a level that was rarely seen before then.
Anyway, it’s occurred to me that this whole back and forth between us has been essentially one big misunderstanding on both sides. Let’s just forget it about it, eh?
January 17th, 2008
You might find this excerpt from Wikipedia about the Spanish Inquisition enlightening:
1. To establish political and religious homogeneity. The Inquisition allowed the monarchy to intervene actively in religious affairs, without the interference of the Pope. At the same time, Ferdinand and Isabella’s objective was the creation of an efficient state machinery; thus one of their priorities was to achieve religious unity to promote more centralized political authority.
2. To weaken local political opposition to the Catholic monarchs. Strengthening centralized political authority also entailed weakening local political opposition. Resistance to the installation of the Inquisition in the Kingdom of Aragon, for example, was often couched in terms of local legal privileges (fueros).
3. Out of fear. The Encyclopaedia Judaica of 1991 (Vol XI, p.485) states that, “It remains a fact that the Jews, either directly or through their correligionists in Africa, encouraged the Mohammedans to conquer Spain.” Whether real or imagined there was a great fear among 15th Century Spaniards that they had a Fifth column living among them.[6]
4. To do away with the powerful converso minority. Many members of influential families such as the Santa Fés, the Santangels, the Caballerias and the Sanchezes, were prosecuted in the Kingdom of Aragon. However the King of Aragon, Ferdinand, continued to employ many conversos in his administration.
5. Profit. The property of people found guilty by the Inquisition was confiscated. Sixtus IV openly accused the monarchs of this sin.
January 17th, 2008
I’d rather set the example than serve as one…
January 17th, 2008
ENOUGH. Comments are closed on this post.