Should The U.S. Constitution Conform To God's Standards?

[myth-one.com]

On the night of January 14, 2008, Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee made the following statement:

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.

Questions for debate: Should we risk our national heritage by amending the Constitution to meet God's standards? And who defines "God's standards?" The President?

[realthinker]

In any case, it's not clear to me; are you saying the Constitution ought to be changed to fit "God's standards," whatever that means, or not?

The constitution has indeed proven its value across the generations. Those were indeed marvelous individuals. History, though, has not shown yet the value of my generation. Perhaps it will be significant only in maintaining the lineage for another later generation of individuals that does something even more marvelous than the crafting of our constitution.

The point is that I don't believe that the invocation of our ancestors and the selfish interpretation of their intent or beliefs is a legitimate reason to disregard the opinions of the current population. Then is not now. The conditions are not the same. Their conclusions about how to govern may remain valid, but their reasoning and their motivation may not apply. Read that again, because I think it is VERY significant. Their conclusions about how to govern may remain valid, but their reasoning and their motivation may not be.

Let's keep the conclusions and validate them against what we know of the world and its new dynamics. We're not fighting a tea tax. We're not fighting the quartering of soldiers at our expense in our homes. We're not looking out at a wilderness of undiscovered country that's been claimed by a king to the dismay of indigenous people.

So, to clarify since I did not address the question, I do NOT believe that the constitution should be changed.

Well, okay, then.

I don't really know how to read that reply, but I hope something in my reply doesn't suggest I took exception to your questioning. You were right on to ask for clarification, and you're also right in your acknowledgement of the crafters of the constitution. If you're thinking something else with regard to what i've written, I'd like to hear it. You've already lead me to a new understanding of my feelings on the subject with the last question. Maybe we'll get somewhere new with more.

[Greatest I Am]

Which God.
Christianity is so split at present that the range of God seems to be designed to give people choices from ultra conservatism to fundamentalism to liberalism.

Which God is under discussion. Take your pick?

Regards
DL

[cnorman18]

In any case, it's not clear to me; are you saying the Constitution ought to be changed to fit "God's standards," whatever that means, or not?

The constitution has indeed proven its value across the generations. Those were indeed marvelous individuals. History, though, has not shown yet the value of my generation. Perhaps it will be significant only in maintaining the lineage for another later generation of individuals that does something even more marvelous than the crafting of our constitution.

The point is that I don't believe that the invocation of our ancestors and the selfish interpretation of their intent or beliefs is a legitimate reason to disregard the opinions of the current population. Then is not now. The conditions are not the same. Their conclusions about how to govern may remain valid, but their reasoning and their motivation may not apply. Read that again, because I think it is VERY significant. Their conclusions about how to govern may remain valid, but their reasoning and their motivation may not be.

Let's keep the conclusions and validate them against what we know of the world and its new dynamics. We're not fighting a tea tax. We're not fighting the quartering of soldiers at our expense in our homes. We're not looking out at a wilderness of undiscovered country that's been claimed by a king to the dismay of indigenous people.

So, to clarify since I did not address the question, I do NOT believe that the constitution should be changed.

Well, okay, then.

I don't really know how to read that reply, but I hope something in my reply doesn't suggest I took exception to your questioning. You were right on to ask for clarification, and you're also right in your acknowledgement of the crafters of the constitution. If you're thinking something else with regard to what i've written, I'd like to hear it. You've already lead me to a new understanding of my feelings on the subject with the last question. Maybe we'll get somewhere new with more.

Sorry, I didn't mean to be cryptic.

I basically agree with you on all counts. It is my hope, too, that present generations can and will prove themselves and their ideas; we could have a discussion about that, I suppose, but then that's not the subject of the thread.

My reply was merely an effort to stay on-topic, since the question of altering the Constitution was settled.

Thanks.

[daedalus 2.0]

I voted "Not Sure".

What is this "god" you speak of?

[r~]

The Spirit of the Constitution already meets God's standards.

The word of the living god commands all to love your neighbors as yourself.
The word of the living god commands that we forgive sinners.

Laws shall not be construed to deny or disparage rights retained by the people.
The god given right of liberty cannot be justly denied; no matter the law or constitution.

If any amending is needed, it is to weed out any laws and amendments that stifle the blossoming of god's liberty and justice for all.

It is indeed much easier to change a constitution than to change god's law.

Yet no matter how much tyrants like George or Mike manage to temporarily muck up our spiritual heritage, they will never change god's law.

All have right of liberty.
It is the duty of government to secure liberty and justice for all.

Only god has just authority to judge and condemn sinners; and no Bible thumping, or constitutional amending will justly give that authority to the state.

It is not that difficult to recognize the mark of the beast.

I am
ItS
r~

How easy is it to change Supreme Court Judges?
(Only the ones that do not uphold the constitution and construe laws to deny the right of liberty.)

[daedalus 2.0]

The Spirit of the Constitution already meets God's standards.

The word of the living god commands all to love your neighbors as yourself.
The word of the living god commands that we forgive sinners.

Laws shall not be construed to deny or disparage rights retained by the people.
The god given right of liberty cannot be justly denied; no matter the law or constitution.

If any amending is needed, it is to weed out any laws and amendments that stifle the blossoming of god's liberty and justice for all.

It is indeed much easier to change a constitution than to change god's law.

Yet no matter how much tyrants like George or Mike manage to temporarily muck up our spiritual heritage, they will never change god's law.

All have right of liberty.
It is the duty of government to secure liberty and justice for all.

Only god has just authority to judge and condemn sinners; and no Bible thumping, or constitutional amending will justly give that authority to the state.

It is not that difficult to recognize the mark of the beast.

I am
ItS
r~

How easy is it to change Supreme Court Judges?
(Only the ones that do not uphold the constitution and construe laws to deny the right of liberty.)

I think you assume God cares about those things you claim he does.... and that there is a God in the first place.

If we were to ask one of the Holy Men of the Bible to set the standards, we would still have slavery (yes, I'm talking about the Man-God, Jesus).

Personally, I think the COTUS represents the best that a group of men coming out of the Enlightenment and Humanist period could come up with.

These are Secular values, not religious - thank god!

[r~]

I think you assume God cares about those things you claim he does.... and that there is a God in the first place.
If we were to ask one of the Holy Men of the Bible to set the standards, we would still have slavery (yes, I'm talking about the Man-God, Jesus).
Personally, I think the COTUS represents the best that a group of men coming out of the Enlightenment and Humanist period could come up with.
These are Secular values, not religious - thank god!

I am not convinced that you actually read my post. I am certain that you do not understand it.

Unfortunately Jesus is not here to defend himself. You might be surprised to find that he was actually an enlightened humanist (possibly more so than you) long before that phrase came to be.

Please reread my post with an open mind. I was speaking in the tongue used by the OP and Mikey. Please insert the phrase "nature" or "natural law" or "secular value" or whatever you wish in place of the phrasing of "god" and see if my post does not still ring true.

It was not the enlightened humanists or the religious deists that institutionalized tyranny and slavery in the COTUS, it was the social conservatives.

There were two wars in 1776: a revolutionary war against the crown, a civil war against the loyalists. We won the revolutionary war, but we lost the war with our home-grown tyrants. We were tired of fighting and did not wish to see the union disintegrate.

Yet our spiritual fathers were able to embed the essence of Liberty in the COTUS in a way that was hidden from the tyrants that would veto or amend it. It is still hidden there today, waiting to be discovered by statesmen and justices and patriots:

Laws shall not be construed to deny or disparage rights retained by the people.

The right of liberty; the peaceful and well-regulated pursuit of happiness; cannot be justly prohibited from mothers or gays or other sinners; no matter the Huckabees that would try.

ItS
Peace
r~

Spread not just the word; also spread the spirit.

[Salt Agent]

Greetings posters, just passing through, and saw the poll.

Which God.
Christianity is so split at present that the range of God seems to be designed to give people choices from ultra conservatism to fundamentalism to liberalism.

Which God is under discussion. Take your pick?

Two thoughts. The opening thread is problematic, very nebulous and a loaded question/ garden path question,with prejudiced assumptions built in, so the results will invariably be skewed as well.

Let me give an example to show my point. Question for debate? Since GIA is an articulate poster, who is very logical and saw the holes in the Opening thread, did he pose the question in order to generate some response, or does he really think Christianity offers many gods? No disrespect intended at all to GIA.

The best example of a problematic opening thread which ended up being hijacked needlessly because of poor wording is http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... php?t=7002.
It matters little what position a person holds when the Opening Post is so jaded. Take the following lines and fill in different phrases to the skewed OP, and you see the implication.

Questions for debate: Should we risk our national heritage by amending the Constitution to meet the standard of Home Schoolers?

Questions for debate: Should we risk our national heritage by amending the Constitution to meet the standard of Vegetarians/Vegans?

Questions for debate: Should we risk our national heritage by amending the Constitution to meet the standard of Homosexual lobbyists?

Question for debate: Should we risk our national heritage by amending the Constitution to meet the standard of Atheists?

Question for debate: Has Daedalus stopped beating his wife yet?

Built into the question is the blatant assumption that if the constitution were ammended, that it would be risking our entire national heritage, blowing something out of proportion and playing on one's emotions by using hypotheticals.

Which God is under discussion. Take your pick? If he read the quote in the OP, he would know which God Mike Huckabee was referring to, and even though he may be an atheist, he likely knows that Mike Huckabee did not mean Vishnu, or Buddha. That would have been the case if the quote had been by Depak Chopra or Opra Winfrey.

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.

Questions for debate: Should we risk our national heritage by amending the Constitution to meet God's standards? And who defines "God's standards?" The President?

A better question would be ... Should we change the constitution because it already sounds too much like laws taken from the ten commandments. Take out the laws about homicide, and stealing, and lying under oath. Isn't that really a bunch of Jewish myth and fairy tales.??

I vote that GIA, being the intelligent philosopher that he is, posed the question to give the thread a boost and get some response to a question that he already knows.

Good job, GIA.

SA

[r~]

Which God.

There is but one god.

The opening thread is problematic,

Yes, but I rather liked how the closing comments brought it back to point.

Should we change the constitution because it already sounds too much like laws taken from the ten commandments. Take out the laws about homicide, and stealing, and lying under oath.

We are endowed by our existence with the right of peaceful and well regulated pursuit of happiness. It is the duty of government to secure that right for all. Murder fits the definition of denial of liberty.

If an amendment is needed to help politicians and judges and the police understand that laws are not to be construed to deny liberty, then I am all for it.

I am
ItS
r~

[OpenedUp]

Which God.

There is but one god.

The opening thread is problematic,

Yes, but I rather liked how the closing comments brought it back to point.

Should we change the constitution because it already sounds too much like laws taken from the ten commandments. Take out the laws about homicide, and stealing, and lying under oath.

We are endowed by our existence with the right of peaceful and well regulated pursuit of happiness. It is the duty of government to secure that right for all. Murder fits the definition of denial of liberty.

Well I would agree, but I wouldn't say that there is a God that sets down these rights.

If an amendment is needed to help politicians and judges and the police understand that laws are not to be construed to deny liberty, then I am all for it.

I am
ItS
r~

Good but again... God?