Huckabee is one scary dude - even by the standards of the modern Republican party. Don't let the smiling face fool you ..

In all pragmatic fairness to Huckabee, you pretty much *can't* get the 2/3 supermajority necessary to amend God in this bitterly partisan era.

Yet the fact that he wants to repeal the First Amendment - which is what that proposal would amount to - makes him deeply unAmerican and the enemy of our way of life.

He and Osama bin Laden should make common cause.

Xopher, #3: don't give them ideas.

Anyone from a fundie background around tonight? I am guessing that "the living God" is one of those dog whistle terms the rest of us don't get.

God's standards? Huckabee knows God's standards? Did he get them from Tom Cruise?

The word "living" in Huckabee's speech isn't meant to imply a changing or in any way "modernist" God. He's using it as a code word to "True Christians" that he believes that Jesus rose from the dead on the third day and nothing has changed a whit since then.

Slacktivist talks more about the same passage here.

Anyway, he's using a sort of Evangelical code to speak to the religious right and slip concepts past us ungodly progressive liberal etc., et ceteras.

Tazistan Jen, in #5, the phrase "living God" shows up a few times in the Bible, but I've mostly just heard it from so-called "born again" Christians. I think there's some connotation there of having God as an active presence in their lives, as opposed to just some guy who died on a cross millennia ago.

If it's a dog whistle, it's a very low-pitched one. I mean, it's very clearly religious. It's not like talking about Dred Scott and meaning banning abortion.

Tazistan Jen @ #5: Yep. And it's pretty simple. It's the god that Nietzsche's thoughts couldn't kill--the god who's set to smite all wrongdoers and sinners at a moment's notice. The god that all good Southern Baptists and other fundie Protestants believe in, or profess to.

@ #6: Of course he does. Being an ordained Southern Baptist minister gives him that knowledge, as well as the knowledge that Tom Cruise is simply another tragic victim of Satan­­®.

Xopher @ #3: I see you have him figured. In principle, they already have.

Tazistan Jen @5: It's a reference to Jesus Christ the Resurrected, I'm reasonably certain. Beyond that, in my experience, it was mostly used to refer to God as directly relevant in our lives today -- the "living" is a reminder that it's not just about what happened to the Israelites thousands of years ago, but He is here now, today.

As such, it's an appropriate loaded usage for his point, and one that will resonate with his audience, but it's not (in my opinion) one that's speaking with a forked tongue the way some such code-phrases are.

re: #9, I have no idea why Eileen Gunn's name didn't show up in bold.

#3 Xopher: You might want to check out this site. I find it hard to believe that people actually believe in that sort of thing.

Of course, Huckabee really reminds me of the Constitution Party position on a lot of things. Despite their name, the last time I checked they wanted to abolish a significant chunk of the Constitution.

Spherical Time in #7 -- If Huckabee is trying to slip religious concepts past us, he's not doing a very good job of it. I think I'm speaking for most secular liberals when I say that a phrase like "amend the Constitution so it’s in God's standards" gets our attention, perks our ears right the hell up.

Me, I'm just amused by the fact that the adjective "living" seems to imply diametrically opposite things when you apply it to "God" or "Constitution", and yet the various approaches people take towards interpreting the words of God and the Constitution seem to fall into the same patterns.

Somehow the living god always brings to mind images of the selected one being treated as a god ... for a year and a day.

Taziastan @ 5

"Living God" is a phrase from the Bible. It's found in both the Old Testament and the New Testament. Yahweh is called living God as opposed to the popular pagan practice of praying to images or idols.

Unfortunately for Huckabee, it's impossible to meet God's standard. The whole point of the Incarnation and Crucifixtion of Christ was to provide a way to bridge the gap between God and man.

I'm not sure what Huckabee intends to change, but he appears to have missed the most of what the Old Testament was about, which is, external 'religion' or state religion Does. Not. Work.

In the OT, you find a government, a nation (Israel), founded from the beginning on the Word of God spoken to Moses and continually spoken to the people through the prophets. And what is the common theme throughout the narrative? The people and even the kings turning away from God and embracing sin. The New Testament is about internal change, a decision to turn to God. This cannot be legislated. If the Ten Commandments didn't work for Israel, they won't work for the United States.

So yeah, I believe all this God stuff, it's what my life is about. Would I want to live in a society/culture that reflects (my understanding of) God's character, his 'standards'? Sure enough. Do I think that changing the law, reducing our freedom to choose, in an attempt to force conformity to some preferred behavior will accomplish that? By no means. If man is not free to reject God, he is not free to choose God, and this thing that folks, like Mike Huckabee and myself, call Salvation and Abundant Life would not be available to anyone.

#13 Avram: Spherical Time in #7 -- If Huckabee is trying to slip religious concepts past us, he's not doing a very good job of it. I think I'm speaking for most secular liberals when I say that a phrase like "amend the Constitution so it’s in God's standards" gets our attention, perks our ears right the hell up.

It depends on what he intends to slip past you. I think that in this case "living God" was intended to be a Shibboleth, and your interpretation in the blog entry missed that.

He doesn't care if you know that he's out to be a theocrat. He knows you would have figured that out eventually. He does care that his core constituency of conservative Evangelicals knows that he's not just passing as a Christian. He's got their unwavering support now.

Me, I'm just amused by the fact that the adjective "living" seems to imply diametrically opposite things when you apply it to "God" or "Constitution", and yet the various approaches people take towards interpreting the words of God and the Constitution seem to fall into the same patterns.

You're certainly right about that. That's one of the reasons that I'm such a huge Slactivist/Fred Clark fan.

tristero at Digby's place has some background about Huckabee's ties to the far right Christian movement. I can't read the comments to see if anyone tried to refute it, since my browser is having one of its "I hate Haloscan" moments.

Spherical Time #16: I think that in this case "living God" was intended to be a Shibboleth, and your interpretation in the blog entry missed that.

I think you may have missed a thing or two yourself.

One of the things that drives me crazy in discussing this sort of fundamentalist horseshit is that my first reaction is always "Oh, God," but I don't want to drag Her into the conversation. She might start smiting people, and who knows where that would lead.

Madeleine @ #19: I won't let my GOD smite you, if you won't let your GOD smite me.

#18 Avram: I think you may have missed a thing or two yourself.

Quite possible. However, if you keep that sort of thing to yourself, I'll never learn my place. Show me, master, what it is that I, in my pitiful understanding, have failed to comprehend.

/supposed to be funny, but tone doesn't translate well over the internet, eh?

I'm not sure just what God's standards are, but I can imagine her singing "My Favorite Things." Or maybe he sings "What a Wonderful World."

I second Spherical Time's recommendation to read the post and comment thread at Slacktivist. Avram, you didn't copy Hucakbee's whole passage: at the end of that passage, Huckabee talks about respecting life and the definition of marriage. He wants abortion and man/woman only marriage amendments.

TomB @22: Somehow, these days, I think God's singing "I Don't Want To Work (I Just Want To Bang On The Drums All Day". (Of course, if you ask Huck and The Gang, they'd probably say the song is "You Can't Get What You Want ('Til You Know What You Want)" )

The Constitution is a living document.

Unenlightened Aussie here, but is the process for altering the US constitution anything like the one for altering ours? Over here, if the constitution is going to be altered, there has to be a referendum on the subject, which has to firstly get a positive answer from at least 50% +1 vote worth of the Australian population, and secondly has to have a 50% +1 vote majority in half of the states (so that the people in NSW and Victoria aren't making decisions for the rest of us). Since Federation, there's been about 40 referenda here (the most recent being an attempt to make Australia a republic which was rigged from the very start) and only 8 of those have succeeded. The Australian population tends to be reasonably conservative about these sorts of things: if it ain't broke, don't try to be fixing it.

I'm not fond of any of the Republican candidates for various reasons, but Huckabee is the only one who scares me at a gut level.

"It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." - Hebrews 10:31. I seem to remember the scary dude in Manhunter intoning this at one point.

I don't think "living God" is fundie-specific. I was raised Catholic and heard it all the time. Religious folks often speak of God with biblical adjectives attached in order to emphasise his power, coolness, glory, etc. (And I guess that should say "His") power, etc.) It's fairly common, in religious circles to hear phrases like "the Resurrected Christ" tossed around where a less-enraptured person would say "Jesus."

To me, this is no more of a shibboleth than a Frenchman saying "Bonjour" in a speech would be. Huckabee's speaking the only language he knows, and there's nothing sneaky or clever about it. I agree with Xopher @#3, he's coming right out and advocating destroying our constitution and our way of life (because it's "easier!" As if governance should be about what's easy). Screw him and his Christian-Sharia crap.

The Living God sounds like the title of a story of Conan the Barbarian. By Crom!

Meg Thornton @ 26
Its really quite difficult to
amend
the Constitution. Note from the linked article:

It is interesting to note that at no point does the President have a role in the formal amendment process (though he would be free to make his opinion known). He cannot veto an amendment proposal, nor a ratification. This point is clear in Article 5, and was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Hollingsworth v Virginia (3 USC 378 [1798]):

I love the fact that Huckabee is being so upfront about all of this. When a really dangerous guy is running for President, isn't it refreshing that he doesn't try to be subtle about it?

Let's not go into the Constitutional Convention question. I have a friend that wants another one. My problem is that I don't think you'd be able to duplicate the quality of the members of the first one...

Come on, people. If you trace all the way back to where this came from-- and with the daisy chain of sound-biting, it takes a bit of an effort to find that, and I still haven't seen the whole context in which the comment was made-- you'll find out that this is "only" an expression of a desire to get a ban on abortion and on gay marriage into the constitution. I put "only" in quotes because I understand those are hot-button issues for a lot of people here, but the notion that this represents a desire to establish some sort of theocracy is commentator spin and liberal alarmism, pure and simple.

As far as what God is singing, the "living God" phrase is precisely directed against the kind of deist god who doesn't make moral judgments against the inhabitants of the earth. Like or loathe it, but that's what it means.

I'm invested in the wrong place on the political spectrum for any of this to work on me, but what I find most striking is the stark difference in the emotionalism being used by and against the different factions. The attacks on the Democratic candidates generally try to cast them as bad people, but the attacks on the Republican candidates generally cast them as crazy people.

CW, #32: there you go again. What a load of hooey! Writing religious law into the constitution is theocratic in itself. But it turns out that Huckabee has Christian Reconstructionist ties, so there's no need to speculate; he's connected with theocrats, though he may just be opportunistic himself.

Got myself a dying, talking, smiting, walking
LIVING GOD!
Got to do my best to please him, just cos he's, um, a
LIVING GOD.
I'm a sinning guy and that is why he sanctifies my soul!
Got the one and only walking talking
LIVING GOD!

Take a look at those nails: just feel!
If you don't believe God's truth: it's real!
And the Constitution's just words, maybe you haven't heard,
Fall into his hands, you'll see...

Got myself a dying, talking, smiting, walking,
LIVING GOD.
Got to do my best to please him, just cos he's, um, a
LIVING GOD.
I'm a sinning guy, and that is why he sanctifies my soul!
Sign up here to worship every day, my
LIVING GOD!

The terrible thing about this is that it would actually work fine as one of those ghastly modern hymns.

but the notion that this represents a desire to establish some sort of theocracy is commentator spin and liberal alarmism, pure and simple.

theocracy (dictionary.com): a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God's or deity's laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities.

So you're saying that basing the constitution on the tenets of one particular sect is not in any sense theocratic? That a ban on gay marriage, for instance, is not based on one particular interpretation of one particular sect of one particular religion's view of the Word of God?

I agree with you that this is not insanity in the DSM IV sense, but it is deeply offensive to me and a lot of other people, and shows a disregard for the rights and welfare of others that borders on sociopathic. But ignoring the question of sanity, why do you say that installing religious dogma as civil law isn't theocratic?

a) "living God" isn't an exclusively fundie term, although it may mean something different Over There.

b) C Wingate @32: My response is best summarised as "WTF?" followed by "What Bruce said @35." I'm having trouble thinking of a more blatant example of attempting to establish a theocracy, short of explicitly requiring membership of The One True Church on pain of state sanctions.

a ban on abortion and on gay marriage into the constitution. I put "only" in quotes because I understand those are hot-button issues for a lot of people here

Yes, I'd say it is.

Pam over Pandagon has a bit today about how Huckabee's Christian reconstructivism ties in with various racist groups as well.

My favourite two remarks were: "Mike Huckabee is a complete embarrassment because he embodies the entire id of the GOP."

and

"Shorter Pam: Mike Huckabee is everything you expected him to be."

(And not in a good way.)

What I love is how large chunks of people on the right have flipped out over Mitt being Mormon but have no issue with Huckabee's reconstructivism.

(And as an ex-Mormon with family wot is still Mormon, I'm always boggled that so many LDS folk are so blindingly faithful to the GOP, when the fundy side of the GOP base thinks that Mormons are one of the first things to go when we bring America back to God. But then again, that sector of the GOP AND the Mormons are equally blind about things like Abramoff's casino money or the Halliburton war machine, which are against things they believe in. But it's all okay, cuz God is a Republican, doncha know.)

Also ironic: Doesn't anybody remember how during the early days of Bill Clinton's presidency, people on the right side of the spectrum went around writing books about how the Constitution was hanging by a thread. I never did read any of them, but the newspaper interviews in the Desperate, I mean, Deseret News all seemed to imply that the Constitution was in danger of being cast aside by those dangerous Liberals who were breaking out the Newspeak as we read and infiltrating our libraries and re-writing history. But in the last few months, we've had one major presidential candidate declare that you can't have freedom without religion (Mitt), we've had another candidate declare that he'd amend the Constitution to fit his God, we've had that silly let's recognise Christmas bill, and we have another bill floating around that wants to recognise the US as a Christian nation, and which has portions of false history in it. Hello, GOP base. If your Constitution is hanging by a thread, it's because your elected leaders have been taking scissors to whatever binds it.

pixelfish @ 38... Mike Huckabee is a complete embarrassment because he embodies the entire id of the GOP.

"Morbius! What is the Id?"

Before we start the pile-on*...

There is a messy middle ground between democracy and theocracy, and this quote certainly inhabits it.

Laws, in the United States, are an expression and a codification of the will of the people. Constitutional amendments face a particularly stringent test, of course, to ensure that they are a good codification of the will of the vast majority of the people.

However, the will of the people does not spring from some mysterious force, separate from their moral and ethical beliefs. The idea that things "should not happen" is often inextricably linked to notions of right and wrong, many of which are embodied in religious belief.

So was this statement Huckabee's declaration that the foundation of American law, the will of the people, should be superseded by another foundation, namely the Bible? Or was it a statement that his will, and the will of a number of other people, has been formed and shaped by his religion, and that he wants that formed will to be given expression in law?

I agree that the former reading is, absent cultural shadings, slightly more supported by the text. But I also think that, absent more evidence, the latter reading is more plausible in the wider context.

I would certainly be disappointed to see either reading considered prima faciae evidence of either bad faith or an evil nature.

-----
* I know. Too late.

Spherical Time #12:

Yeah, I remember listening to an interview with the Constitution Party's presidential candidate in 2004, in which he explained that his priorities as president would be respecting the Constitution and federalism, and banning abortion and gay marriage. Which is beautifully ironic, since laws regarding both marriage and murder[1] are almost entirely state matters, outside of military bases, DC, and similar stuff.

Mary Dell #28: I'm Catholic, and have also heard the term. I agree, it's not a dogwhistle. To put it into different terms, this isn't the secretly gay congressman assuming a "wide stance" and doing a couple discreet handswipes, this is the proud lifelong gay-rights activist marching at the front of the pride parade.

Abi @ 40... Good point. Still, it'd be nice if a politician were clear as to what he means, especially when he's applying for the Top Job in the country. And if he is being purposefully vague, why would proponents of either of the positions you suggest trust him one bit? Anyway.

Abi, at the risk of devolving this thread into "What Fred Clark said", what Fred Clark said: "King offered secular arguments in sectarian language. Huckabee is offering sectarian arguments in (mostly) secular language."

I will also opine that if you read what this Jebus guy said, he seems to have an awful lot of priorities higher than banning gay marriage.

Then again, crazy constitutional amendments are par for the course for Republicans. At least Huckabee isn't advocating for a flag burning amendment like Bush I, which would have required amending the first commandment as well as the first amendment...

#40 abi:

It's interesting to ask how we'd distinguish between the two. One problem is that basing law on your moral beliefs is a very reasonable thing to do. This is where stuff like child labor laws and laws against domestic abuse come from, as well as laws against murder, rape, robbery, vandalism, etc. But there's a problem because:

a. We don't all agree on morality, and in fact, there are major moral questions with direct relevance to law (abortion, mercy killing, the need for a living wage, torture, preventive and aggressive war, drug laws, gay marriage, a right to healthcare) on which we, as a society, don't have much of a consensus.

b. Morality is based heavily on religious and philosophical beliefs that differ widely, and that frequently come off as silly or nutty to nonbelievers. Heinlein's quote about "one man's religion is another man's belly laugh" is spot on.

c. There's no way which we can all agree to for resolving disputes about morality or its basis. It's easy to find people willing to decide those issues for you, but not so easy to find any reason to prefer one over another. Do you want the Pope, the President, a majority vote, the consensus of academic philosophers[1], the consensus of religous leaders[2], something else?

This leaves us in a hard position for these issues, right?

[1] Good luck
[2] Good luck, squared

FungiFromYuggoth @ 44... if you read what this Jebus guy said...

I think you can be sure that Abi knows what Jesus said, and what his priorities were. And I think she's doing a good job of following his teachings.

Serge, Fungi*,

Judge Huckabee as you like. I think it was a pretty stupid thing to say if you are running for President, personally, and I evaluate his judgment accordingly.

But please don't pile on commenters who interpret the statement differently.

-----
* I love Fred Clark's take on the matter, and anyone who hasn't seen it should follow the link.

Serge - oops, flawed phrasing on my part. That should have been "one", not "you". I blame English, and apologize to Abi for any implication that she needed to recheck anything.

Abi, my intent was clarification as to why people feel that Huck is on the other side of the line you drew, not piling on. I'll back off and return to the lurkerverse for now...

albatross @45:

I don't think there is a firm, bright line between the two of them. I agree entirely that much of the good* of our legal system comes from a shared moral imperative.

I don't think that all moral standards are amenable to legislation. I can name a number of things that are entirely legal, but that I find deeply wrong, and vice versa. Some of that is due to the imperfections in our legal system; sometimes it just means that the price of doing right is a jail sentence.

Of course this stuff is hard. The easy stuff was settled long ago.

-----
* Take that as relative or absolute as you list

Abi Actually, I was not taking C Wingate to task for interpreting Huckabee differently from the way I do. At least that's not how I meant my comment @ 37 to be construed.

re 33: I've read the Salon article, and it is not convincing. They can't really come up with anything that Huckabee actually said (excepting one claim that is unsubstantiated and likely out of context), so they have to settle for ten year old guilt by association. So I'll file this one under "innuendo".

Fungi @48:

Don't worry - I didn't think you were having a dig at me. Nor did I think you were piling on. That was a shot fired in the air, maybe tilted slightly in the direction of Randolph Fritz @33.

And you should visit the posterverse more often. I like reading what you write.

Y'all might be interested in my severely toned-down reaction:
Theocracy Now! Recap
Or not.

In any event, it's the last sentence in the second paragraph that should lead to Huckabee being strung up by the testicles (giving a new implication to "testifying for Christ"): If one actually reads the New Testament — regardless of translation; I'm sort of partial to the Revised New English, but that's because I'm a recovering literary scholar — one will find that Jesus never attacked the secular authorities except in the three instances in which the secular authorities crossed the line into "legislating" on moral issues. Every other instance in which Jesus himself attacked authorities, it was religious authorities... and Jesus seemed not only capable of distinguishing between the two, but implicitly approving of the distinction.

In other words, Jesus appears to have believed in separation of Church and State. Only when some of his disciples went off on their own do we find opposition to the State on religious grounds... and their positions are not "the word of the living god" (to quote Huckabee).

Serge @46:
Thank you for the thought, but I'd not nominate myself for sainthood just yet. It simply happens to be that the worst of my weaknesses are not visible on Making Light.

Abi @ 54... There is quite a ring to 'Saint Abi' though.

And as I said elsewhere, this is why we can't fix the dratted Electoral College mechanisms....

C. Wingate #32: If you're looking for the ultimate source for the quotation, everywhere I've seen it posted has said it's from an interview on beliefnet.com. They have a link to the interview on their front page. There's an unholy number of ads on the site, but if you can navigate them, they have at least a partial transcript and a bunch of sound files. I don't know if it's the whole interview, but it looks like a lot of it.

And that's all I'll say on the topic, lest I be chastised.

re 35: You seem to be leaving out the part about the "the God's or deity's laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities". So no, voting the tenets of your religion isn't theocracy; and what's more, it's protected behavior under the first amendment ("free exercise" and all that).

The whole thing is on the silly side anyway since there isn't a snowball's chance in Hell that such an amendment could be adopted. He has simply used preacher language in a campaign promise that Republicans make all the time.

I did some time in Christian radio (long story. Interesting few years, though) and can tell you that Huckabee's scheme isn't new. I can also tell you that there are a number of Christians who don't support that idea. They see just one flaw with that plan: God happens to offer free choice.

Forcing someone to follow a religious edict does not make that person a follower of (insert any particular religion here).

@C.E. Petit #53: "...testifying for Christ." Coffee, meet keyboard.

Oops. Messed up that bold tag. That's what happens when the keyboard is full of coffee.

re 57: Thank you, Ethan. And in that interview, we have this:

[Interviewer]: Do you think that on issues other than marriage and the life of the unborn that the Constitution should be brought into conformity with the Bible, which is what that quote seemed to suggest?

[Huckabee]: No, I was specifically talking about those two issues. Those were the only two issues I spoke about in the speech, and that was the point. I’m not suggesting that we say, “Okay, the Bible says you should tithe, so now in the Constitution we’re going to amend it to say everyone tithes.

(my emphasis)

#54 Abi: Thank you for the thought, but I'd not nominate myself for sainthood just yet. It simply happens to be that the worst of my weaknesses are not visible on Making Light.

Perhaps prophet Abi then? They certainly had their share of weaknesses.

I think there's miles of difference between the statement "gambling* is wrong, so it should be illegal" and the statement "God forbids gambling, so it should be illegal." Even if you believe gambling is wrong specifically because your religion says so, doing the work to convince your fellow citizens that it's wrong according to more universal measures is part of the American way of government. Or should be, anyway.

*to choose a low-scoville example

Spherical Time @62:
Perhaps prophet Abi then?

Oooh! Can I be Elisha? Instead of using the disemvoweler on trolls, I'll send in the bears.

Mwahahahaha....

#32: "but what I find most striking is the stark difference in the emotionalism being used by and against the different factions. The attacks on the Democratic candidates generally try to cast them as bad people, but the attacks on the Republican candidates generally cast them as crazy people."

I guess you've missed the media left and right casting Kucinich as crazy for saying he saw a UFO.

Or here's someone at DailyKos calling Bill Clinton batshit crazy:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/16/15525/2630/690/437631

The whole Obama madrassa bullshit was equivalent to calling him crazy, because the people pushing it equate madrassa with terrorist with crazy.

The Hillary "meltdown" nonsense was supposed to imply that she's too emotional to govern, i.e., crazy.

Meanwhile, *Republicans* are casting Huckabee as crazy; not implied, said outright:

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2007/11/26/matthews-liberal-media-should-grill-crazy-huckabee-views

See also Limbaugh's feud with Huckabee.

Here's a more reasoned version:

http://leftword.blogdig.net/archives/articles/January2008/03/Viguerie_on_Huckabee.html

It's exactly that Huckabee is *not* speaking in dog whistles that scares the Republican establishment.

"What was already a steady campaign against Huckabee is about to become a full-throated assault. And the theocons will ultimately realize what the rest of the party thinks about them. They are supposed to be cannon fodder. Nothing more."

As for Huckabee only wanting to change the Constitution to ban gay marriage and abortion: what makes you think it would stop there?

Avram, you really have to understand that the Living God is eternal and unchanging -- the same yesterday, today, forever -- unlike us changeable, dishonest humans. This is a core fundie belief.

#7:
He's using it as a code word to "True Christians" that he believes that Jesus rose from the dead on the third day and nothing has changed a whit since then.
Sounds more like an undead god, to me. Change is an essential property of life (even decay is a change caused by life, although not the life of the corpse). If you want a god that doesn't change, you might as well worship a rock. At least you have clear proof of its existence, and can study its nature by some means other than pontification.

Honestly, any god that can't see that the laws that weren't even so great 3000 years ago *definitely* aren't so great today is a god that's not worth following, irrespective of his/her other deeds.

#49:
I can name a number of things that are entirely legal, but that I find deeply wrong, and vice versa. Some of that is due to the imperfections in our legal system; sometimes it just means that the price of doing right is a jail sentence.
In theory, that's why prosecutors have the discretion not to prosecute, in the interests of justice. In practice it's a safeguard that doesn't always work out so well, but it might be better than nothing.

Gubernatorial and presidential clemency and pardons are also supposed to be used for cases when following the letter of the law would lead to a miscarriage of justice (odd phrase, who exactly is expected to give birth to justice?). The modern perversion of those powers to shield cronies is something the Founders explicitly discussed as an impeachable offense. (If someone *is* going to give birth to justice, that certainly prevents it. Does that make it an abortion of justice?)

Given that the issue is marriage, it's worth noting what the standard of the 'living god' is. Matthew 19:

3The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

4And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

5And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

6Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

7They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

8He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

9And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

10His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.

11But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.

12For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

Now, I would not want to be living in a small town in the South if the standard in verse 9 above were enacted into law.

C. Wingate, #51: So it's OK for Huckabee to cozy up to the theocrats, and talk about making their beliefs into law, if he doesn't himself believe? Saying that he's a hypocrite is a defense of the man?

Fragano Legister, #66: but if god is eternal and unchanging, how does he differ from a very hard rock? Ah! Much is explained: the religious radicals secretly worship death! And, speaking philosophically for a moment, I suppose that is true enough.

Feelin' snarky this morning!

Ok, Lets remake government the in the image of the living god government, starting from the most important.

1) Department of loving thy Neighbor, Do unto others division. Formerly known as the Department of War. Stop it with the Do unto others before they do unto you, and more like Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. We've got some restitution to deal with here, since we're not really loving the neighbors, we're threatening them. Likewise, on a more personal level, Dogs, no crapping in the neighbor's yards and cats, no more flower beds.

2) Department of Blessing. Lots of people have been deamonized lately, so we need to catch up here too. Poor, Meek, Peacemakers, Hungry, Merciful, Pure of Heart, We need to do some blessing here. We'll have to figure out some way to do the whole inheriting the earth thing.

3) Killing. Ixnay on the Illing-kay. Death Penalty, gone. Department of War, Think up something else. Black Prisons, Not allowed.

And digging back a little here:

4) Jubilee year. We've had this republic for 200+ years, and no jubilee year yet. So we're over due. Slaves, you're freed. Corporations, you're dissolved. Debts, Forgiven. Charging Interest, Banned.

5) Miracles Department. Water into wine -- Charles Shaw, while 2 Buck Chuck is a miracle of something, it's not wine. You're relieved of duty. Napa, Sonoma, Oregon, Columbia Valley, Step up to the plate. There's goign to be lots of celebrating this jubilee year. Loaves and fishes -- Norwegians: Just because no one wants to touch the lutefisk, 5 fish don't feed hundreds.

6) False Idols. That Bull on Wall Street has to come down. Though the Jubilee year probably did that anyway.

The idea that it would be reasonably easy to amend the Constitution amuses me. Anyone remember the Equal Rights Amendment anymore? Yeah, that was quick and painless, wasn't it? Although I don't actually believe that things have gone that far, I would be truly alarmed if Huckabee's proposals met with more Congressional support than the ERA.

Randolph Fritz #69: That's a good question. Not one I can answer, however.

Honestly, if I were to go about amending the Constitution, I'd start with the Sixteenth Amendment. Raze the current tax system to the ground and start over (with a cap on total federal taxes— i.e. if you institute a consumer tax/sales tax, you have to scale back on the income tax.) And automatic scale recalibarations the year after every census (so the poverty line is properly moved) with an inflation adjustment five years after the census adjuctment. And where the progressive nature of the tax is not applied to the whole— you get X, the poverty limit, free and clear, then a certain percentage taxed on the amount Y above that, then a percentage taxed on income -(X+Y), and so on— so that when you get a raise and bumped into the next tax bracket you're not making less than before...

Um. Where was I? Oh yeah...

Popular though such an idea could be, I still don't think it would manage the necessary states to make it into the Constitution.

I can dream, though...

Fragano @ 68: Hell, I live in Jackson, MS. I'd sit back and enjoy the show, complete with wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Randolph Fritz @69:
Feelin' snarky this morning!

We'd noticed. Where do you get your coffee, and do they ship internationally?

I trust you're also feeling polite and respectful of your fellow commenters. Politicians are fair game, but it bears* repeating: keep it civil.

-----
* Yes, intentional

I wouldn't want a Constitutional Convention; everthing gets put on the table and you cannot control what happens. You might not like how it comes out. Our current Constitution was a "reformation" of the Articles of Confederation. They were only supposed to tweak the Articles but we got a whole new and different system instead. And based on the ERA, how do we know that these two things -- abortion and same sex marriage -- wouldn't be the issues that get the state votes.

(sarcasm)We'd probably get an Equal Rights Amendment that states that lesbian reproductive choice doctors have the same right to be executed for crimes against Ghod that real people do.(/sarcasm)

Back to Avram's opening question, Huckabee's "living God" usage doesn't bother me. I think it's akin to Vigil always using "pius Aeneas": it's just a standard tag line. That said, I, too, find Huckabee deeply disturbing. The upthread link to MLK was interesting in its description of how King used religious language as metaphors for secular ends. I fear Huck's not talking metaphor when he uses religious constructions--he has in mind the literal meanings of religious texts.

C. Wingate @53: So no, voting the tenets of your religion isn't theocracy; and what's more, it's protected behavior under the first amendment ("free exercise" and all that).

Yes and no. The Lemon Test requires that any law, though it may have a religious basis, must have a secular basis as well. So you can't write the tenets of your religion into law without being able to show why the law should be applicable to everyone, not just believers in that religion.

Though I don't always agree with the conclusions he draws about specific issues, Barack Obama expressed this principle well in his keynote address at the Call to Renewal conference a couple of years ago. (Scroll down near the end, to the section that begins "Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason.")

abi @64,71: Elisha: "When you write this story, make sure to leave out all the times the bears didn't show up!" (From The Book of Gonick, aka 'The Cartoon History of the Universe').

So it is the bears that are doing the disemvoweling... I appreciate the insight into the mechanism.

Eric @70: Yeah, that's why I never buy the "our government is based on Christian principles" argument.

I would like to say that the law is not based on morality. Justice can be explained (or else it is unjust), while moral imperatives transcend reason. Laws and moral rules do overlap, but it is dangerous to take that as meaning they are the same. Rather it is a symptom of moral authorities taking credit for civic virtues they did not create, and of civil authorities who have forgotten their responsibility to protect the rights of all.

Trey #74: There would be a hell of a lot of those, that's for sure.

Arthur Hlavaty @ 25 (hi, Arthur!): The Constitution is a living document.

Well, the Constitution is malleable, and changeable. The Bible, of course, is unalterable, and no one has tampered with it or proposed a new version since God handed it down to Moses and Paul in the original Aramaic.

Jo @34, what makes that terribly chilling is the possibility that the word doll has etymological links with the word idol.

That seems to have double-acting chill, both in your delightful godderel and in the mock-deification and objectification of the original subject of the song.

Pixelfish @38, the compliance of the not-Christian-evangelist fundies with the Huckabee variety is fascinating. The Mormons stand to be outlawed, the Jews get moved to Palestine & mass converted, then embroiled in end-of-times war, the Republicans get their party taken over for them by radical anti-conservatives - and they all. play. along.

What is wrong with people? (That's a rhetorical question, I read Bob Altemeyer's The Authoritarians yesterday, so I know what the problem is. Followers follow (without particularly caring what they're following). Lemming time for humans on earth. Bah.

Fragano @68, one sure could read that passage in some pretty narrow-minded ways (and that small town in the South might well do so). But one could also read it otherwise - as in "yo! don't trade your mature wife for a younger model! That's not ok, dudes, even if it's legal" (or in the inimitable rabbinical response to the question of whether a properly slaughtered corpse may be eaten after several days in the sun: "it's kosher, but it stinks").

And that leads to the surprising (not) conclusion that religious (or possibly all) texts function as a sort of Rorschach test for their readers. A small town in the South being no exception.

Just how bad is Huckabee? Even hardcore conservatives are saying they'd rather see Hillary Clinton as President.

Spherical Time #21 -- I generally hate explaining jokes, but since you asked: I was playing off the opposite implications of the word "living" in the phrases "Living God" and "Living Constitution", how one is associated with conservative religious philosophy and the other with liberal legal philosophy.

Look at the two paragraphs after the quote. In the first, I'm talking about God, but using phrases generally used to talk about the Constitution ("strict constructionist", emanations and penumbrae). In the second, I'm talking about Constitutional interpretation with phrases used for describing approaches to biblical interpretation.

#73: The 16th Amendment didn't legalize the income tax; it just addressed a Supreme Court ruling that taxes on income from property (rents, royalties) were property taxes not income taxes. The 16th enables taxing income from any source. The income tax itself comes from the basic power to lay and collect taxes.

Also, you don't get less take-home pay when you move to a higher tax bracket. You only pay the higher rate on the amount in excess of the bracket level. So if you're single and make $36,000 you pay 10% of $7,825 plus 15% of $24,025 plus 25% of $4,150. You don't pay 25% of $36,000.

Sorry to pick on you, but it seems the biggest proponents of changing the tax system don't understand what they're changing.

Dena #85: That's the point. If the Bible is the eternal, infallible word of god, to be read as his literal commandments for every aspect of human life, it has to be read literally. That's what the fundies have been insisting for years.

PurpleGirl @76 I wouldn't want a Constitutional Convention; everthing gets put on the table and you cannot control what happens. You might not like how it comes out. Our current Constitution was a "reformation" of the Articles of Confederation. They were only supposed to tweak the Articles but we got a whole new and different system instead.

Not only that, but the ratification procedure used was the one specified in the new Constitution, not the one in the Articles of Confederation. If the same thing happened again, there's not only no telling what the new constitution might look like, there's no telling what procedure, if any, might be available to stop it.

Meg @26: the procedure is different (there's not necessarily any direct public vote), but it's difficult in similar ways and for similar reasons.

First, the proposed amendment has to be passed by both houses of the (federal) Congress, by 2/3 majorities.

Next, it has to be passed by 3/4 of the states. There are two diferent ways this can happen, and Congress chooses which one will be used.

In the more common method, state legislatures will vote on it, and it has to pass there by simple majority. In states with two-house legislatures (all but one), it has to pass both houses.

In the less common method (used just once, for the 21st Amendment which repealed federal alcohol prohibition), voters in the states will elect members to attend a state convention, which will then vote just on the amendment. I assume the people running for the convention would run on either 'yes' or 'no' tickets, turning that into something reasonably close to a state-wide referendum.

The Constitution doesn't specify any time limit for 3/4 of the states to ratify the proposed amendments. Most of the recently proposed ones have included a 7 year limit in the text passed by Congress, but it's not clear to me if that can actually be binding, and since there haven't been any cases where it would make a difference I don't think a court has ever ruled on it.

There are currently 27 amendments, for an average of about 1 every 8 years. The first 10 (commonly called the "Bill of Rights"), however, were passed en masse almost immediately after the adoption of the Constitution itself. The most recently adopted was in 1992, having taken more than 200 years from being passed by Congress to being ratified by 3/4 of the states.

The most recent amendment which came close to passing was the Equal Rights Amendment, which was ratified by 35 states prior to its deadline being reached, three short of the 38 required. If three more states would ratify it, we could finally settle whether or not those deadlines are binding (we'd also have to settle the question of whether states can rescind their adoption; 5 of the 35 claim to have done so).

Fragano @89, the fundies have had the worst time trying to point at an unambiguous, literal reading of any text.

If they could, though, now would be a really good time to d sell short a PILE of stock in companies that sell pork and shellfish.

It is most amusing to watch two groups of fundamentalists who THINK they are following the same traditions clash and burn over a difference in interpretation. When I was twelve and one group of crazies felt card-playing was wrong and sent home from school kids who played cards (we're talking War and Go Fish) and the other hadn't read it that way, the perplexity and distress of the parents in the not-anti-cards-yet group was a joy to behold. Hypocrisy (nay, hypocracy) was well worshiped that day.

Dena Shunra #91 Fundies, if they are biblically literate, point to Acts 10 ix-xvi which would seem to permit eating foods forbidden in the Old Testament (though, since it does not mention shellfish, you have a point).

When the Baptists were wailing and threatening me with the one, true living God, I always thought, threatening me with a dead God would be kinda anti-climatic, wouldn't it?

The preacher used to use the one God thing for the rhythm when pounding on the pulpit (One, pound, true, pound, living, pound, pound, GOD (resounding pound). Usually woke up the people sleeping in the back pews.

Seriously, Abi, how do you feel about Huckabee signing the 1998 Southern Baptist accord calling upon women to submit graciously to their husbands?

Fragano @92: if.

Sean O'Hara at 86; I enjoyed the link, thank you. Reading about Christian Reconstructionists always make me feel a bit nuts, but it's interesting nevertheless.

However, I read Mr. Bainbridge to say that if Hillary Clinton and Mike Huckabee were to oppose each other, Bainbridge would not vote for either. He would stay home. Also good.

I can't help it. ...Send in the bears. There ought to be bears.... Send in the bears.

BTW, according to TPM, Romney won the Nevada caucuses with 53% of the vote. McCain and Ron Paul are tied for second place with 13% of the vote each. Huckabee's tied with Dead Fred with 8% each.

Pass the popcorn. I can't afford to send money to Ron Paul -- do you think he takes grocery coupons?

Pixelfish, #38: Doesn't anybody remember how during the early days of Bill Clinton's presidency, people on the right side of the spectrum went around writing books about how the Constitution was hanging by a thread

Long-term strategy. Convince enough people that the liberals are set on demolishing the Constitution, and perhaps no one will notice when we start doing it for real. Alternative explanation: projection -- this is what we would do if we were in power, so of course they must be doing it!

FungiFromYuggoth, #44: The specific flavor of Christianity that's taken over the Republican Party and the current Administration has excised Jesus' teachings entirely from their tenets, though his name is still used as a rallying cry. In the language of the Gospels, they are Pharisees.

Richard Brandt, #84: *SPLORT!* Slam dunk!

Alan Hamilton, #88: Also, you don't get less take-home pay when you move to a higher tax bracket.

Unless that's a fairly recent change (as in, within the past decade), your statement is incorrect. When I still had a day job, I knew a number of people who got a raise that kicked them into a higher tax bracket and ended up with less take-home pay than they had before, all other deductions being unchanged. I was one of them. Reality trumps ideology, I'm afraid.

Jackie L @93:
Seriously, Abi, how do you feel about Huckabee signing the 1998 Southern Baptist accord calling upon women to submit graciously to their husbands?

Hey, between consenting adults, that's fine with me. Impose that outwith those boundaries or try to turn that into law, not so much.

Do not mistake me in any way, shape or form for a Huckabee supporter. I have never been any kind of Republican. Indeed, some of my political views would cause a certain stripe of American to want to revoke my passport.

My comments above are merely to ensure that, if we shred the guy, we do it honorably and decisively, and that we don't shred each other in the process. (Mostly the latter.)

Jackie L, again
...threatening me with a dead God would be kinda anti-climatic, wouldn't it?

On the other hand, threatening you with an undead God would be pretty attention-grabbing.

Uh, Abi, it wasn't about sex. You see Baptists aren't allowed to talk much about sex. They get their babies from under a bush, dontcha know.

They meant submit, like let your husband rule your every waking thought.

Honestly, if you knew some of the stuff that gets preached in the name of the Southern Baptist Conference, you'd be more afraid of Huckster, er, Huckabee than Douglas Bruce. (He's Colorado's latest state representative and day one, he assaulted a newspaper photog. He represents the ultra-conservative area of F*cus on your own d*mn family territory in Colorado Springs.)

Jackie,

My views on what should be left to the discretion of consenting adults extend far beyond the bedroom.

Lizzy L @95:
Drat you, I was supposed to be doing something else this evening!

Isn't it rich? Aren't we a pair?
Me up above on the bridge, and you way down there --
Send in the bears.

Isn't it bliss? Honey and oats?
One who keeps feeding the troll, and one eating goats.
But where are the bears? Send in the bears.

Just when I joined in on the thread,
Acting as though the debate hadn't gone to my head;
Setting my arguments out with unusual care,
Sure of myself - no one was there.

Don't you love fights? My fault, I fear;
I thought that you'd listen to me - sorry my dear.
But where are the bears? Quick, send in the bears.
Don't bother, they're here.

Isn't it rich? Aren't we a pair?
Losing our vowels together? So unfair!
But where are the bears? There ought to be bears
Somewhere out there.

Abi, you never disappoint.

*soft clapping, big grin*

Serge 55: There is quite a ring to 'Saint Abi' though.

We should found a convent: The Abbey of Saint Abi.

C. 61: Well, of course he's MY enemy even if that's all he meant, but in addition, saying it's what he meant after the outcry doesn't quite prove that's what he meant at the time.

And his example of what he would NOT change is also telling. The living God forbid he should suggest that people be required to give up their MONEY, just because the Bible says they should! Why, that wouldn't be Republican at all!

I just can't even understand where flaming fckng sshl hypocrites like Huckabee think they get OFF, telling their neighbors THEY have to follow the Law (I mean the Bible kind), before they follow all of the Law themselves. Not that someone who DID follow all the rules in the Bible has any right to tell me I have to; this is the United States, not the Republic of Gilead.

He may be no worse than your basic jackhole politician, but he's certainly no better.

abi 102: That's wonderful! Mind if I quote that elsewhere?

Xopher @105:

Feel free. How much explaining are you going to have to do in advance, though?

abi 106: I just quote things and let people ask me. I'm mean that way.

For a moment, btw, I thought you were OKing my suggestion at 104. Brief light of hope, but swiftly dashed, alas!

(DAMN that abbey would've had a great scriptorium!)

Xopher @ 104: We should found a convent: The Abbey of Saint Abi.

I don't know about an abbey, but there's a church.

Well, for me the biggest chill I get about Huckabee is his connection to Bill Gothard and Basic Youth Conflicts.

I spent some time on the periphery of BYC. It is a very, very scary Dominionist movement that's been around since 1964.

Here's a good recap of it here:
Breaking: Mike Huckabee Linked to Bill Gothard

These are truly scary people that Huckabee's in bed with. They warped my mind for a few years--and I was just on the very edge of that particular nasty cult.

Argh. Link-fu not working.

Bare link here:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/19/175629/012/188/439174

Do check it out. It's accurate.

Jackie L., #93: This, of course, brings to mind an aphorism that I've had quoted to me by several attorneys:

"When the law is on your side, pound on the law. When the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. When neither the law nor the facts are on your side, pound on the table!"

#97: No, it's been like that for more than 10 years. It's possible your withholding increased more than the tax increase, but in that case you'll end up with a bigger refund or can increase your exemptions.

The example I quoted was based on the actual 2007 tax tables.

JRW, #110: gulp! Thank you. Based on analysis, I was sure that something like Gothard & all existed, but I didn't know the names. I suppose it was bound to surface in national politics eventually, but, like Digby, I am very unhappy to see these ideas coming into the mainstream of debate. It is very much of a shame that there has been no serious investigation of that group; I've little doubt it would result in many prosecutions that would discredit them.

Abi, I don't think Huckabee is defensible; it's been clear to many of us for some time just how much of a religious authoritarian he is. I've also responded once too often to people who drag out the debate on such figures by first casting reasonable doubt and becoming steadily more defensive until, finally, they offer the hypocrite defense ("you can't prove he really believes") I've slammed above. It takes a huge amount of time to answer these things, and the answers hardly ever persuade, so I'm short with such arguments. This is the equivalent of plausible deniability for candidates for office and justifies granting high office the likes of W. Bush and Huckabee until they have committed horrific crimes and, sometimes, long after.

The hypocrite defense is worth some further commentary, but I'm too tired to write it right now.

86, 95: Steve Bainbridge isn't the hard-core conservative that his writing seems to make him, or that he sometimes claims he is. Really. He's much more reasonable than that. He is a social conservative who takes the philosophy of "what is conservative" very seriously... in the sense that he's against change and against any government role in excess of that absolutely necessary to minimally deal with free riders, not for a radical reversion to a past-that-never-was.

(NB Steve was my professor for securities regulation a decade and a half ago, and although he always brought a conservative/market-based philosophy into the classroom and used that to begin discussio