http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/02/05/politics/fromtheroad/entry3793554.shtml

I'm still hoping for a Huckabee-McCain ticket...or McCain-Huckabee, for that matter. Talk about solid credentials. They're both pro-life, McCain can cover terror and Huckabee can work the domestic side.

Herb

This brings up a good quesrion for me; Other than Cheney, who do you think has been the most influential and effective Vice President ( while BEING VP ) and why?

I'd GUESS (and it's just a guess) Bush #41, during the Reagan adminstration.

He was a former CIA head with plenty of political experience as well. As a CIA chief, Mr. Bush knew a lot about the inner workings of the Soviet Union...he may have helped Mr. Reagan more than we know in tearing down that wall.

Herb

I think I'll have to agree with Herb here...

I think that Bush pretty much took over when Reagan's Alzheimer's really kicked in during his 2nd term.

Huckabee only appeals to the backwards states, like WV. He stands no chance in the general on his own, and would drag down a McCain ticket as a VP choice. Nice guy and all, but wrong on just about everything, including evolution.

"Nice guy and all, but wrong on just about everything, including evolution."

I wonder where he stands on gravity?

Me thinks he stands on his feet!

Gravity sucks!

According to this, the Huckabee win in WV was a "Romney block" engineered by McCain supporters..

"*West Virginia Update* NBC's John Yang says Romney officials had a "degree of confidence" they'd win West Virginia because it was an organizational contest. But with Sen. John McCain trailing, his backers switched their support to Mike Huckabee to deprive Romney of the win. Huckabee was expected to earn 18 delegates in the state."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23000449/

He's pro-life, good on terror and apparently a populist.

That's good enough for me.

Herb

"He's pro-life, good on terror and apparently a populist."

And he wants to chuck the Constitution in favor of the Bible!

...which is not good enough for me.

The Constitution was founded on Biblical principles by Godly men.

Herb

Herb, that's good.

Honestly, it is.

But we are not a theocracy. This is important. It's not important to deny god, or diminish faith, or any other reason so often cited.

It's important because we need the freedom to practice our faith, to the fullest extent possible, without fear of being told we must live a lie.

The Huckster has this terribly wrong, as to the many claiming this nation in the name of their particular faith.

The Huckster has this terribly wrong, as to the many claiming this nation in the name of their particular faith.

EXACTLY!

The HUCKster is toast! If He runs as VP with McCain it will be a cake walk for either Hillary or Obama.

I think so.

The idea of being "locked in" to one faith in particular, does not have a lot of support.

Why?

Because there is a lot of variation in faith here, and that's because of how things were set up in the beginning.

"God Bless America" dose not appear anywhere in my bible.

I just checked mine and I couldn't find it either...
Huh....

Nope, not even in the Parallel Bible.

NPR just reported that Huckabee voters described themselves as Wal-Mart Republicans.

Well, I think it goes without saying Huckaberry was going to take his home state along with a few really backward "christian" states in the south. McCain is just too far ahead and not every state in the south is as determined as Georgia to shove religion on the rest of the country. My point is, he had to take some states, but he won't take enough to matter.

On cue, NPR declares Mike Huckabee the projected winner in Alabama.

That's just gotta be chapping Romneys ass!

(And he's spending a ton of his own money too.)

Wal-Mart Republicans = People voting against their best economic interests.

*Plonks all around*

Lets see . . . WalMart sucks the dollars out of the communities their stores are located and sends it to . . . ARKANSAS! Huckabee wins Arkansas. Surprise, not!

God is not pleased with the ongoings in Bentonville AR.

The HUCKster a WAL-Mart Republican?

Mrs. Clinton was on the board of WAL-MART.
You leftists make me laugh.
Spin on.

Herb

Mike Huckabee just called his supporters "Wal-Mart Republicans" on NPR.

Mr. Huckabee is not being malicious, but embracing those who shop there.

But read the leftist trashing here of WAL-MART. And it's socialist Mrs. Clinton who was cozying up to WAL-MART and ON THEIR BOARD.

Classic.

Herb

So he insulted his flock???

Looks like the HUCKster is toast anyway.....

TOP DEMOCRATS
2,025 delegates needed
Candidate Delegates*
Hillary Clinton 247
Barack Obama 142


TOP REPUBLICANS
1,191 delegates needed
Candidate Delegates*
John McCain 383
Mitt Romney 135
Mike Huckabee 96
Ron Paul 4

"Mike Huckabee just called his supporters "Wal-Mart Republicans" on NPR."

Since everything in Wal-Mart is made in China ...

... they are building southern voters in their factories now? :0)

Wal-Mart Republicans: People working their asses off and supporting policies against their own best interests - and LOVING it!

Again.

Mrs. Clinton WAS ON THE BOARD OF WAL-MART.

Yet the duplicitous left only trashes conservatives who shop there. Talk about hypocritical.

Classic.

Herb

Its the morning after Super Tuesday and this is the Huckabee thread and the troll is yakking about WalMart still. I take it the troll has conceded that for Huckabee, its all downhill from here and McCain will be the GOP nominee.

Hillary Clinton was on the Walmart board PRIOR to Bill Clinton running for President, which was previous to 1992. Walmart was a different company back then than what it is today. Regardless, it doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.

"...the duplicitous left only trashes conservatives who shop there."

Not so! I'm a non-partisan "trash-er" of the people who shop there, regardless of political persuasion.

Except maybe for seniors living on a tiny income and who don't have a behemoth RV beached out in the lot, a majority of the people who shop there ARE trash, and probably don't, or can't, legally vote.

(I've hated Wal-Mart since 1993 when they put one in, against a huge ugly battle, at the entrance to Park City, Utah. It's still an eyesore)

Herb....
We are making fun of The HUCKster and that's it... READ!

Nowhere else on earth is so much cellulite visible underneath of dirty white stretch pants 5 sizes to small for the person wearing them. OH, and some people's naval's should never see the light of day....GROSS! Geeeez, put on a shirt that covers up that sinkhole would ya!

Walmart used to be pro-USA until Sam died.
Then his greedy kids took over.

Greedy Kids? One of his sons was Sgt John Walton, USA, SF. Served as a Green Beret medic in Vietnam, came home with a bronze star.

So?

(edit) He served his country then, now he selling it out.

" Greedy Kids? One of his sons was Sgt John Walton, USA, SF. Served as a Green Beret medic in Vietnam, came home with a bronze star."

And therefore a person who has had that happen to them can never do anything bad?

"Served as a Green Beret medic in Vietnam, came home with a bronze star."

I wonder who he lifted it from?

JUST KIDDING!!!

He died, while piloting an expermental light aircraft.

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2005/06/godspeed_john_w.html

Nwokie, the master of the non-sequitur.

"He died, while piloting an expermental light aircraft."

I wonder if it was made in China.

It was the DuraBrand Ultralight.

Was he with John Denver?

No he was proball more likely with Steve Fossett!

/Or did he really get recruited to work at Area51? Steve Fossett that is.

This thread is far too hilarious to not give it a bump. Besides, I have good solid reasons.

According to NPR and the AP, Huckabee is running away with Kansas. The elephants are getting wilder than Tusko when he was buzzed by a plane.

For anyone who struggles to understand him, this special report from NPR explains the ins and outs of Huckabese.

Of course Kansas Republicans are voting for Hickabee. Their anti-evolution and anti-science beliefs are a common thread between them.

Laugh all you want at middle America. God-fearing citizens are what makes America great.

Our Founding Fathers were God-fearing, so if you laugh at Mr. Huckabee and his supporters, you're laughing at those supported Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Washington, too.

God fearing citizens dumb down the gene pool, and I'll laugh at anyone that takes fairy tales too seriously.

No, that's not true Herb.

Of course, we've been around this discussion a bunch of times. Too many times really.

The divide is not pro-god / anti-god. There, people believe what they will. Either they believe we were created, or they don't, and from there, the who and how varies about as much as it can.

The divide is all about legislating god / anti-god. In that scenario, people cannot believe what they will and that's the whole problem with the Huckster right there.

I grow extremely tired of the constant co-mingling of these things. Same as the hate / displeasure bit.

Wanting to preserve a state with freedom of religion is not the same thing as being anti-god, nor is it picking on middle America. It's just crap to always imply that it is.

Look around and you will see more religion here than just about anywhere. It's diverse, vibrant, healthy and all of that is really good. Most people want it, need it, and try to live it.

In every case, where this is an issue, it comes down to some people wanting to control other people. I'm willing to bet every one of us holds a belief, of some kind, that the others would just think is terrible.

That's OK!

Advocacy is how we deal with this, not law.

Our founders understood these things were personal choices. Why? Thomas Paine answers it best, in his "Age Of Reason". Put all of that in a nut-shell and you get the reality that we have absolutely no concrete, known truths to justify legislating this stuff.

Given the facts are not in (and they aren't, for if they were, we would not have this discussion), people then get to choose --in fact, they have to choose, and maybe that's part of the race to get them to choose early, or under duress, or any other thing besides just a rational decision on their part.

It's almost as if it's a big race for the numbers. Capture them when they are young, have broken the law, are in serious need, scared, emotionally outraged, etc...

Get them then, and with enough numbers maybe a law can be passed. With that law comes the perception of truth. Of course, reality does not change, but those wanting and needing to exert some control, for their own self-serving reasons, will feel a lot better about things, having planted their flag in the land of the free first.

Our religious mind-share is not something we need to define on a national level, and that's exactly what the Huckster is advocating we do.

IMHO, we can and should be laughing at those, who actually believe, we can just legislate religious diversity away.

We don't need anybody that does not understand these elementary human things to be anywhere near a position of power.

Before anybody supports a damn fool, go and look for the facts first. You won't find them, just as every other human hasn't found them, since we've been able to record history.

This is a belief thing. Here, in this nation, we are free to believe what we will. That's good for all of us. Changing that is bad for all of us, including those who think they somehow have discovered something the rest of the race hasn't, given our entire recorded history of trying.

"The divide is all about legislating [G]od / anti-[G]od."

No and in being charitable, that is an ignorant statement.

The divide is about trying to remove God from our country's culture and history. It was founded on God and the Bible. Deny that and you deny reality, in a pathetic partisan attempt to re-write history.

http://www.alfredny.biz/Christian-Heritage-of-America/index.htm

Herb

Herb, I think Missing_KSKD has it straight. No amount, style or kind of personal faith should be discouraged, but it certainly has a clear separation in our system.

Just relax for a second and enjoy the slim lead that Huckabee has in Louisiana. He is also less than 200 votes behind in Washington. Instead of stewing and fighting, why not follow your guy?

Rove said it best on Wednesday night and that is that the HUCKster needs 83% of the remaining states to win.
Won't happen...
The HUCKster is toast

Trixter, the more you scream about your fear of Mr. Huckabee, the more I realize he's up to the task of at least a cabinet position.

Herb

No doubt a fox in charge of a hen house if McCain wins.

I know I absolutely have it straight.

If, in fact, this nation was founded as any religion in particular, a clear statement of that would be in the founding documents.

There isn't one, and the indirect "proof" always offered is no different than any of the other indirect "proof" offered in support of absolute religion claims since the dawn of recorded history.

This is why we call it faith, and not truth.

So, it's the numbers game for you Herb. Guess this thread is a fine example of exactly why we cannot have freedom without eternal vigilance.

That's ok. I'm completely willing to invest a portion of my time so that the balance of it remains as free as is possible.

There will always be someone, who confuses conviction with truth, and that's just how life is. We are not a perfect race it seems

I need to add something.

Having religion, in all it's forms, be a part of our culture is not under question by anybody that actually matters.

Religion is a good thing.

The core problem is this:

-if public dollars promote it, then that lends credence to it, and that's gonna favor some over others.

Look at the Bush faith based programs. Go and see where the dollars went. Did the Muslims get their share? What about the Catholics, Christians, Quakers?

(quick answer is no --it's not balanced)

The other core problem comes from the law. We all are equally bound by the law. If, we make laws that derive their authority, not from facts as in demonstrable harm or property matters, we then favor one religious authority over another!

Anybody I've ever had this discussion with says, "no need for that, I've got the truth right here! See?" And they offer up what ever talisman they believe certifies that truth.

With laws, this is no small matter!

And here is why:

If we permit religious law, of any kind, without tying said law to known facts of harm and property, we open the door for what is essentially arbitrary law! That means having people, like Clerics, who just say stuff and the rest go along with it because they interpret the divine word and that's that.

An American will ask, "well, who checks the clerics?", and "are you sure that's the one true divine word?", etc... Why do they ask these things? Because they are free! You can't be free and have your core life choices of faith legislated!

Pick one, and defend that, but don't mis-represent the matter over and over and over. That's a lie and it's wrong.

Religion is a personal matter with every one of us. Advocacy of it, through our lives, thoughts and deeds is how we share it, grow it, enjoy it, benefit from it.

All good. Again, nobody that actually matters will tell you otherwise.

When it is incorporated with the state, or the law, it then becomes a not so personal thing and with that comes living a lie, and that's not something the founders intended for anybody period.

That's what this is about. It's not about any people, suppressing god, the kids, or any other foolish thing. It's a core matter of freedom, tolerance, and acceptance of what we do know for absolute sure, and what we don't, and letting people make their choices as they see fit.

Nobody that matters wants to live a lie. The price for seeing one religion in particular established as our national one, funded in favor of the others, promoted over another, etc... is then Americans being forced to live lies in the land of the free.

It just ain't gonna happen.

No, we're not perfect, but I like to think a good measure do try. You put it out there and it stands. Sometimes you even reach for the clue stick. What else can one do but hope it sinks in someday? I certainly applaud your efforts, Doug.

Herb, I always figured that God was fairly universal. What the ancients might call magic -- or a screenwriter might call the force -- is essentially the same thing. Some people even have the audacity to use words like hunches, gut feelings or even luck. I suspect, for most folks, God is an indescribable feeling.

Originally, becoming enlightened to this natural gift bound people together and they formed religions. There are many names for God because each culture attempted to capture the essence of this heightened spirit. When power and wealth became involved, people tried to control this internal state of being in others. Where it went from there is a cruel, perverse story filled with injustice and bloodshed from every corner of the world.

Many Christians believe God is a still small voice guiding you quietly from inside your soul. This feeling keeps you from hurting people. It tells you that you are in love. The voice keeps you company whether you are scared and lonely in a POW camp or a summer camp. It also keeps your feet on the trail or your wings in the sky during a blinding snowstorm. It is the source of miracles both big and small.

The thought that any intensely personal thing like faith or spirituality or religion should be legislated should give you pause, Herb. Really, sincerely and truly take a second to think about it. Do you really favor making any one set of standards for worship?

If you dig to the bottom of the rantings of the Branch and other still very active radical Adventists, you will find a complete disconnect from other faiths. Not the simple prejudice of many congregations, but a genuine paranoia about every steeple but theirs.

One thing that was hammered flat when I was growing up was a "National Sunday Law" that meant one could only worship on Sunday. Like Jews, members of the SDA church worship on the Sabbath, or as most know it, Saturday. This we were told was just a part of a litany of moves by the "government of the future" to control faith.

I described in detail a few months ago about how the neo-cons took over my particular church in the early 80s, so I will not go back in depth into the programming of fear. I would just implore you Herb, to really rethink the idea of legislating morality.

You need not worry about folks on this board that you call Godless and heathen -- or that frightening big world of queers, lesbians, and Arabs. You do need to worry about extreme feelings that stem from decades of divisive propaganda within the walls of many churches. Maybe even that one you drive by every day.

The problem with growing such an abundant crop of fear and division is where it all goes when it is harvested. I am sure you get the Biblical allusions. I hope you reconsider the idea of changing America to suit any single vision of God. What if every variation thinks that they are chosen? Yeah, that is a real can of worms.

To make our system work, we need choice and freedom. It doesn't matter whether it is a sedan, a soda, a sofa or a swami. In fact, some of us might prefer a pickup, a pop, a porchswing or a parson. It is entirely our call. We were born with the right to make those decisions for ourselves. We are all Americans.

"I would just implore you Herb, to really rethink the idea of legislating morality."

We have laws against murder, theft, rape..indeed much of our legal system is based on the Biblical view of right and wrong. So our system already legislates morality. The question is, 'who's morality?'

You want anarchy? Mess with either the natural law or God's law. Our country has made mistakes. But because our country is comprised of a predominately Christian citizenry, along with fostering policies like protecting Israel as commanded, America has been so bountiful and blessed these past two hundred years.

Look over our founding documents and study the men who made them. It's not about imposing anything on anyone. It's about a free people, able to worship and live their lives in accordance with their faith, or without faith.

By insisting on messing with the ideals that our founders PUT IN, THAT's a HUGE problem. The aclu's marching orders only make those of faith more diligent, more resolved and more aware of the evil that would attempt to wrest from our blessed nation our faith in the Almighty. And that's un-American.

When a kid goes inside a school, or a lawmaker enters a legislative chamber, neither checks their religious beliefs at the door.

Mankind and our blessed nation were not created by chance, evolutionists and socialists be darned.

Herb

MK and LS, I've really enjoyed reading your Sunday morning posts. Right on.

Herrbocrite:

"You want anarchy? Mess with either the natural law or God's law."

I agree with you, for once. "Example A" is the mess and seemingly endless ocean of crap of the past 8 years of the current administration and the state of our country. Lies, greed, senseless deaths on a massive scale, etc. and on and on and on. Thankfully, the majority of us are SICK of it and we want change. That's the beauty of it, regardless of spiritual, political, or scientific bent.

Even Mr. M. (again for the newbies, Army vet, party-line Republican, Viet Nam War history buff and my complete 180-degree political opposite) likes Obama best so far. After 16 years, the guy still surprises the hell out of me sometimes.

"...a lawmaker enters a legislative chamber, neither checks their religious beliefs at the door."

Thankfully,that is exactly why religious "extremists" such as Romney and Huckabee don't stand a chance with the majority. And West Virginia isn't exactly (stereotypically) known as a brain-trust hotbed.

Murder, theft, rape

Let's talk about this. Conversation is going good so far, right? I absolutely do not mind pressing on this topic. It's not so much the hope of changing anybody, but more like: "Did I really miss anything?" For me, personally, exploring that completely and fully is very important. It goes right back to faith, morality and other core things. If somehow, there is something wrong, missed, etc... that's a very big deal. Just to be clear in that ok?

Murder, theft and rape are all biblically wrong. No question there.

I want to sort out the word morally. IMHO, there is some considerable overlap between our views. But not just yet. Let's tackle those with raw facts --things we all accept, period.

Murder is ending a life. Game over, that person isn't here any more.

If we are equally entitled to live here, and let's leave serial killers and such outta the picture for the moment and just consider murder in the simple form, then any one of us taking action to deny another that entitlement has to have some justification right?

I can't think of any. Can anyone else?

Lacking justification, then murder is simply wrong. There is a core idea here that acting in a way that impacts others, without their consent, is a violation of their person.

That leads me to harm and that's really where theft and rape enter the picture.

If we go back to earlier times, maybe one of us spent some of their time and resources to craft something that has value. What that value is really does not matter, only that value exists.

What entitlement does another have to said thing?

Again, I can't think of any, unless that thing does harm to others somehow, then it's a more complex matter. But theft in the simple form is really another violation of the person.

Here's something interesting! After considering rape for a moment, I realize that's not always been a crime! Why?

Because our equality was not recognized for some reason or other. Lots of manifestations of that, but really, anybody that feels they have some entitlement to that, does not consider the other sex as their equal peer.

**IF RAPE IS WRONG, WE THEN MUST BE EQUAL. Interesting, no?

Now having put some thoughts on the table, what shakes out? Where is the authority for the law, whose morals, etc...?

The question of authority shines brightly here. Everybody asks it. They ask it because nobody wants to spend their time in ways they don't want to and everybody wants it easy and their way.

All of that speaks to our primal motivations for these kinds of acts in the first place. We disagree with somebody, so murder, we don't want to work so hard, so we steal, maybe thinking that creator can just create again, or will live without their creation, we rape because we just want people and don't see them as peers.

Nasty stuff. We are bastards really.

So, authorities are needed to correct these things and help us just get along. Without them, a huge fraction of our lives will be spent just staying alive and that's not good for a whole lot of reasons that should be obvious right now.

We have had authorities from royalty. The idea that some people are better than others violates equality, and really cannot be demonstrated in a factual way. They might have more money, command armies, or just be extremely personable. Whatever it is, equating raw power to authority has been done often.

How they got that power is under question though. Take an ass and grant that ass entitlement and do we have a solid authority, or do we have an ass with a lot of power?

No need to go down that road, we all know the answer and the important part is that no authority that justifies law can be derived this way.

We've had religious authorities. Still do. Same for royalty.

The real problem with those is two fold:

One, it's hearsey, "Bob says God says". No way to connect that divine authority to anything other than a specific person, who we just have to trust to have it right. There are books, stories, artifacts that all hint at it, but that's it.

The other is then, why should we trust somebody in particular. Do they know more? If so, can't that knowing be shared so that more of us may decide on our own? If not, does just the knowing make them just and true, when we all have shown to have our needs and wants, like I detailed above.

It goes like this for lots of authorities. So, how do we insure those who hold authority govern just and true, and where does their power come from?

These are the American questions and we are living the answer. (and it's not a perfect answer)

Before I say this next bit, another element of confusion is simple matching up of religious authorities with the law and common ideas of what is likely to be wrong and right.

The bible says murder is wrong, and so does the law. However, the bible also says one cannot approach a woman when she is menstruating, and we know that's not wrong. My point here is that just because some big things match up, it does not mean the whole enchilada is authoritative.

They just happen to align well, and that's it, barring we get some additional facts to consider.

Going back to equality again, I'm gonna put something out there I believe to be absolutely true.

We are equal as beings. I've not seen, read, or heard anything --ever that contradicts this.

Equality then is one absolute we can use to build a compass and begin to ask "whose morals", "whose authority?".

All of which calls to mind Don Henley's brilliant lyrics in "Frail Grasp on the Big Picture" from the Eagles' new CD:

"And we pray to our Lord, who we know is American
He reigns from on high
He speaks to us through middlemen

And he shepherds his flock
We sing out and praise his name
He supports us in war
He presides over football games

And the right will prevail
All our troubles will be resolved
We hold faith above all
Unless there's money or sex involved."

Here's something I'll bet you don't expect Herb.

I don't think anybody can just check their religion at the door. If one has conviction, then one really needs to act on it, or it's just not really conviction.

Does that ring true? It does for me personally. It did for the founders too. Go read the stuff. They were god fearing men of conviction and they were very concerned about the origins --the justification for one to have power over another. They were all about this because they were living it and were tired of it.

How to balance the two and build government and law that permitted people to act on their convictions?

That's the very core of our system today. Equality is a constant and consent is the balance.

One result is no one person can have absolute power over another. (W doesn't grok this, but he's almost gone.)

Another result is that we limit law to matters of harm and property as much as is possible. In fact, I really can't think of any other reason to have law, given the above.

"Whose morals?" gets answered by group judgements of our peers. Our legal system is designed in such a way that a cross section of our own personal convictions combine to render judgement on others when warranted.

It's not perfect, BUT IT IS PERFECT ENOUGH TO BE RESPECTED, BECAUSE THERE ISN'T ANYTHING BETTER, WE NEED SOMETHING, AND THEREFORE WE CONSENT TO THAT.

There is the core justification for it right there. That's where the authority comes from. Our equality demands we consent to limits on our freedom. We actually do consent because we know the disadvantages of anarchy.

Let's say Herb, Little, Mrs M, Vitalogy, Brian, and the rest of us end up on jury duty.

That's one hell of a cross section right?

Would it be safe to say, any law we all could agree on would be a pretty damn solid law?

I sure think so.

Would it also be safe to say, we would all honor or personal convictions when deliberating about said law?

Again, I think so. Why do anything else?

And that's another compass right there. That's the best there is! It can be connected back to core physical realities, we all can understand to be true and reach acceptance on. (equality, harm, property)

So then, the idea of freedom to be who we are is then checked by law --and said check is the least possible so as to balance freedom with the need to be governed.

We consent to that, and we have then our core authority --which is US!

That by the way does make it a numbers game to a degree, and that's exactly why I strongly encourage advocacy for matters of religion, morality, etc...

If we keep our law connected to those things we know to be absolutely true, our deliberations as people slowly expand on those truths, or we reach agreement on some things, and our freedom is only checked in a just and true way.

(well, mostly nothing is perfect, but remember, that's as good as it gets!)

Playing that numbers game, without treating others as equal peers and giving them the respect one feels entitled to in like kind, is cheating the system! It's failure to consent to the process and is generally not a good idea.

And that's the core justification for having tolerance, BTW. If we have the right to our personal convictions, then we all have that right, or none of us do. It's an all or nothing because we are equal as beings, period, end of story.

That's getting to legislating morality right there. That's probably the very best way to state it I've ever managed to come up with.

So, packing courts, stuffing votes, leveraging money and power, to see things happen is a violation of the persons of all of ones peers. That is infringing on others personal freedom without a solid justification.

Does this diminish God?

No. God is embodied in the process by virtue of all God's followers. How they follow, when they follow, who they follow with are all personal choices.

They remain personal choices because the law only gets it's authority from us, and we must decide how and when that authority manifests itself in our personal lives.

God cannot be honored through self-serving deeds. Those are things of men, not divine, not just, not true. Cheat to see your belief see greater treatment in the law, and you've broken the divine principles you are trying to put there in the first place.

Ends cannot justify means. That's circular, and false --demonstrably, absolutely, false and therefore not just, not true.

It's our morality then. All of ours, via our mutual consent.

There's your compass, your absolutes and your answer.

Guess it's a long one for me today.

Know what? These matters are difficult. They take time, energy and deliberation.

IMHO, that's quite likely one of the primary motivators for people to seek religion! It's a whole lot easier to just hand that stuff off, pile on the trust, and go from there.

Anything good in life takes work. This is no different. There is no magic authority that would do us all right, if only we would just listen!

If there was, I think it would be out there and very largely accepted. Why?

Because, along with being bastards, we are fricking lazy.

So, there you go.

We have to do this, we have to do it every day, always, or we all suffer because of who we are period. Sucks, but that's just how it is.

Edit: Heh.. Call me an American Fundamentalist!

(come on, that's funny laugh!)

I am laughing! :0)

I cannot possibly put it any clearer than Missing_KSKD, but I do have a story to illustrate why making impersonal rules about personal actions is such a messy process.

When I moved out on my own in the late 80s, I found a funky apartment in Buckman. We were a diverse crowd in our building and often had fun together as a group. However, two particular neighbors presented an interesting challenge to the landlord.

The first was a couple who practiced TM. Rules that were meant to apply to a pair of 8 ohm speakers equally applied to 8 folks chanting "om" after hours. Their religion was not the issue, simply the time they chose to vocalize. Rather than mandating a different course of spirituality, the manager suggested a different time to practice it.

The second was a nice quiet churchgoing pair who changed drastically behind closed doors. After a night or two, it was obvious to all of us that they were in a submissive/dominant sexual relationship. It never seemed to get violent, but it was certainly loud. Again, what they did in their bed was their business, only the noise was an issue.

Rules are rules, right? So when folks in an apartment were breaking noise curfew, they were told to desist. We all agreed to that principle when we signed our contracts, so it should not be a surprise that late night noise was met with resistance by tenants and management alike.

However, not one of us would have denied these folks the right to express themselves spiritually or sexually. It was never a question of changing people. We simply wanted peace and quiet for the common good. A compromise was reached, and in the end, everyone was happy.

If these questions cause uncomfortable feelings in a building full of friends, one can easily see that standards applying to a nation of millions are even more complex. The framers of our Constitution were wise. Our founding fathers made the very act of worship a right. However, they did not -- and would not today -- tell Americans that there was only one way to exercise that right.

"Ends cannot justify means."

Even I believe there can be exceptions. Was it wrong for Christians to lie to Nazis whilst hiding Jews from certain death? Or midwives who secreted the baby Moses from sure death by a vicious pharaoh? Here's an interesting note that shines some light on these paradoxes:


"A good example of this is the story of Moses’ birth....pharaoh...tries to destroy the woman’s..baby...by killing [ALL] the male Hebrew babies. Naturally, he failed. But how, exactly, did he fail? By the strength of an army? By the appeals of a great leader? No, by the deception of the Hebrew midwives. But the midwives feared God and did not do as the king of egypt commanded them, but let the male children live.

So the king of Egypt called the midwives and said to them, “Why have you done this, and let the male children live?” The midwives said to Pharaoh, “Because the Hebrew women are not like the Egyptian women, for they are vigorous and give birth before the midwife comes to them.” (Liars!) And because the midwives feared God, he gave them families. So, the midwives feared God, lied...and God blessed them. Later on in the same story, Moses’ mother and sister use deception and are blessed as well.

Was it wrong for Christians to lie to the Nazis and hide the Jews in their homes? I have heard more than a few respected people say “yes,” believe it or not. To their credit, its because they hold the Word of God above all else, and desire to uphold His commands - regardless of the consequences. Unfortunately, I believe their understanding of what the Bible says on this issue is wrong (Its a good thing Anne Frank didn’t come knocking on their door!).

So what are the parameters for lying? Where does the Bible draw the line in the sand? First of all, lets look at the various categories of lying. St. Augustine divided lying into three categories:Playful lies, which are told in jest or performed on stage by actors; Obliging lies, which are told to protect someone else; and the Destructive lie - this is the bad one, a violation of the ninth commandment. The Playful lie is not wrong because it is done in jest, and can even be enjoyable - as long as it is not mean-spirited and it is clear it is playful. The Obliging lie refers to the World War II scenario given above. I like what Luther has to say about it: “[the obliging lie] not only serves the advantage of someone else, who would otherwise suffer harm or violence, but also prevents a sin. Therefore it is not proper to call it a lie; for it is rather a virtue and outstanding prudence, by which both the fury of Satan is hindered, and the honor, life, and advantages of others are served. For this reason it can be called pious concern for the brethern, or, in Paul’s language, zeal for piety.” (This was taken from Luther’s Lectures on Genesis).

Luther touches on something here that I think is worth noting - he says that the obliging lie shouldn’t be called a lie at all. Ok, but its still not telling the truth, isn’t it? So maybe a distinction should be made here - there is a difference between lying and deception. But if quacks like a duck, and waddles like a duck…. it may just be a beautiful swan.

So what does the Bible say about lying? Thou Shalt Not Lie! Well, not exactly. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. The context: the covenant community. The command: Do not lie to your brother. I don’t want to get into a discussion here about who our neighbor is, because for all practical purposes, I believe this command - applied to believers today - extends beyond the scope of the covenant community. But I do want to point out who our neighbors aren’t - enemies of God, specifically Satan."

http://brianmclain.wordpress.com/2007/03/25/righteous-lying/

Herb

Well, that's not black and white is it?

Pretty damn grey, from where I stand. Know what?

All of that boils down to, "It's right, if I think it is." Couple that with "Bob said God said", and you've an absolute mess. Which, is why we don't justify ends with means. Gotta have some boundaries somewhere in there, or we've just another arbitrary authority that not everyone can consent to.

When that happens we get wars, exertions of power, you name it. Look at history. Filled with that crap. Going on right now, in fact.

Doesn't have to happen so much, if we live by the rule of law.

Wanna try and really address the topic of discussion?

(hope so)

"All of that boils down to, 'It's right, if I think it is.'"

No, that's where you entirely miss the point.

What I've said is that right and wrong isn't what you or Herb says it is.

Look.

It may be LEGAL to have an abortion. It may be LEGAL to commit adultery, or many other behaviours.

But that doesn't make those behaviours GOOD or RIGHT. Look to the Natural Law and God's Law. Anyone can try to misinterpret anything. That doesn't mean we don't try to get it right.

And if you wanna go by 'rule of law,' better consider who wrote them. The diabolical communist evil-doers used their laws to murder millions of innocents in China and Russia. Much as we desire order, it's a futile academic excercise to defend man's law open-endedly.

Remember, Mr. Bush went by the rule of law. He had the blessing of the UN. He had the vote of Hillary Clinton. Whether one believes or not that he was earnest in attempting to save millions of innocents, he did it by the book.

On the other hand, Martin Luther King broke local laws but went with a Higher Law.

Be careful of what you wish for.

Herb

Herb, you can duck, bob, weave, dodge, obfuscate, change the subject, go on a tangent, throw out a non sequitur, wriggle, squirm and run, but it really isn't necessary.

We are asking a very simple question:

Do you believe that the framers of our Constitution protected our freedom of religion with the guarantee that we all have the right to worship or not worship as see fit?

If so, please acknowledge the wisdom of our forefathers with a simple "yes."

If not, please explain how a Governor from Arkansas could have more insight on the Constitution than any other citizen of this country. We have a great nation now because of the sharp quills and deep inkwells of Madison, Paine, Franklin, Jefferson, and so many others. What is it that Huckabee must add to benefit each and every American?

"Do you believe that the framers of our Constitution protected our freedom of religion with the guarantee that we all have the right to worship or not worship as see fit?"

Yes and if you read my earlier statement, you wouldn't have asked the question:

"Look over our founding documents and study the men who made them. It's not about imposing anything on anyone. It's about a free people, able to worship and live their lives in accordance with their faith, or without faith."

No you don't. It's not about our framers.

It's instead about your turning into a figurative pretzel whilst re-framing the issue, plus the dastardly aclu and the leftist God-denying atheists on our courts. For in twisting the words of our honourable Founding Fathers, evil-doers and people in black robes justify the killing of an unborn child with scissors. It was wrong when Hitler justified his playing games with human lives in the name of 'science' and it's wrong when we stop an innocent kid's beating heart.

Herb

Okay, so your vote for Huckabee is solely a vote for a pro-life candidate. I get that part. What you miss by only hearing one note, is that Huckabee is interested in rewriting the Constitution.

He is not just looking to add a little chapter about making the uterus Federal land. It is not just about pleasing those who feel that women are second class citizens, or life is sacred, or whatever. He wants to take the document and change great portions of what the framers intended, including our civil rights, and how we worship.

I understand that you have an unwavering stand on abortion. Everyone with an internet connection is well aware of how you feel. I am asking you if you think that one issue is so important that you would gladly trade your other freedoms for it.

"He wants to take the document and change great portions of what the framers intended, including our civil rights, and how we worship."

If there are specifics you have, I'd be glad to read them. My hunch is that he's merely hoping to prevent groups like the aclu from their already re-written version, whilst they further erode our Constitutionally-protected freedom of worship.

Herbert Huckabee

"I am asking you if you think that one issue is so important that you would gladly trade your other freedoms for it."

That IS the question. A mighty fine one I might add.

A recent study asked today's younger evangelicals to list in order what is most important to them about today's issues. At the bottom were abortion and gay marriage.

Now keep in mind they were still important BUT, the war, the economy, poverty, hunger far out distanced what these younger voters thought is important.

Evangelicals have been leaving the "old guard" in droves over the past couple of years because they believe abortion is not THE issue.

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/01/15/huckabee-amend-the-constitution-to-gods-stan dards

Herb is duckin', bobbin and weavin' so much he should have been a boxer....

"It's instead about your turning into a figurative pretzel whilst re-framing the issue, plus the dastardly aclu and the leftist God-denying atheists on our courts. For in twisting the words of our honourable Founding Fathers, evil-doers and people in black robes justify the killing of an unborn child with scissors."

Dude! That can only come from swallowing a lotta dogma whole. At least chew it up a little. Tends to stay down that way!

My carma ran over your dogma!

Herb, I am still curious about the Constitutional questions, but I am willing to set that aside for a moment. In light of some of the discussions that have riled us all up in the past, I really wanted you to have a chance to read this story:

"Two days after I won the Democratic nomination in my U.S. senate race, I received an email from a doctor at the University of Chicago Medical School.

"Congratulations on your overwhelming and inspiring primary win," the doctor wrote. "I was happy to vote for you, and I will tell you that I am seriously considering voting for you in the general election. I write to express my concerns that may, in the end, prevent me from supporting you."

The doctor described himself as a Christian who understood his commitments to be comprehensive and "totalizing." His faith led him to strongly oppose abortion and gay marriage, but he said his faith also led him to question the idolatry of the free market and the quick resort to militarism that seemed to characterize much of President Bush's foreign policy.

The reason the doctor was considering voting for my opponent was not my position on abortion as such. Rather, he had read an entry that my campaign had posted on my website, suggesting that I would fight "right-wing ideologues who want to take away a woman's right to choose." He went on to write: "Whatever your convictions, if you truly believe that those who oppose abortion are all ideologues driven by perverse desires to inflict suffering on women, then you, in my judgment, are not fair-minded. ... I do not ask at this point that you oppose abortion, only that you speak about this issue in fair-minded words."

I checked my website and found the offending words. They were not my own; my staff had posted them to summarize my pro-choice position during the Democratic primary, at a time when some of my opponents were questioning my commitment to protect Roe v. Wade. Within the bubble of Democratic Party politics, this was standard boilerplate, designed to fire up the base. The notion of engaging the other side on the issue was pointless, the argument went; any ambiguity on the issue implied weakness.

Rereading the doctor's letter, though, I felt a pang of shame. Yes, I thought, there were those in the antiabortion movement for whom I had no sympathy, those who jostled or blocked women who were entering clinics; those who bullied and intimidated and occasionally resorted to violence. But those antiabortion protesters weren't the ones who occasionally appeared at my campaign rallies. The ones I encountered usually showed up in the smaller communities that we visited, their expressions weary but determined as they stood in silent vigil outside whatever building in which the rally was taking place, their handmade signs or banners held before them like shields. They didn't yell or try to disrupt our events, although they still made my staff jumpy. The first time a group of protesters showed up, my advance team went on red alert; five minutes before my arrival at the meeting hall, they called the car I was in and suggested that I slip in through the rear entrance to avoid a confrontation.

"I don't want to go through the back," I told the staffer driving me. "Tell them we're coming through the front." We turned into the library parking lot and saw seven or eight protesters gathered along a fence: several older women and what looked to be a family—a man and woman with two young children. I got out of the car, walked up to the group, and introduced myself. The man shook my hand hesitantly and told me his name. He looked to be about my age, in jeans, a plaid shirt, and a St. Louis Cardinals cap. His wife shook my hand as well, but the older women kept their distance. The children, maybe 9 or 10 years old, stared at me with undisguised curiosity.

"You folks want to come inside?" I asked.

"No, thank you," the man said. He handed me a pamphlet. "Mr. Obama, I want you to know that I agree with a lot of what you have to say." "I appreciate that."

"And I know you're a Christian, with a family of your own."

"That's true."

"So how can you support murdering babies?"

I told him I understood his position but had to disagree with it. I explained my belief that few women made the decision to terminate a pregnancy casually; that any pregnant woman felt the full force of the moral issues involved and wrestled with her conscience when making that decision; that I feared a ban on abortion would force women to seek unsafe abortions, as they had once done in this country. I suggested that perhaps we could agree on ways to reduce the number of women who felt the need to have abortions in the first place.

The man listened politely and then pointed to statistics on the pamphlet listing the number of unborn children that, according to him, were sacrificed every year. After a few minutes, I said I had to go inside to greet my supporters and asked again if the group wanted to come in. Again the man declined. As I turned to go, his wife called out to me.

"I will pray for you," she said. "I pray that you have a change of heart."

Neither my mind nor my heart changed that day, nor did they in the days to come. But I did have that family in mind as I wrote back to the doctor and thanked him for his email. The next day, I had the language on my website changed to state in clear but simple terms my pro-choice position. And that night, before I went to bed, I said a prayer of my own—that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that the doctor had extended to me."

-- Barack Obama

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1546298,00.html

And I would like to add this from 2006.

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/bononationalprayerbreakfast.htm

Thanks for the story, Littlesongs.

What isn't mentioned, and what MIGHT help make Mr. Obama re-consider his position once again, is that African-American babies are aborted by FAR greater percentages than the population at large.

Mr. Obama has tried to stress a sense of civility in the argument. I respect the notion. But imagine if during the Civil War the North had shrugged off slavery in such an acceptant and C'est La Vie manner as Mr. Obama...or if the US and England had averted our gaze from the Holocaust.

In both of those cases, human beings were treated as chattel...or far worse.

Herb

Uh, I thought we (the US) did for far too long.

Mr. Obama doesn't subscribe to the theory of government forced birth for any woman who may become pregnant. Here in America we have choices, and one of those choices is the availablity to terminate a pregnancy if the mother so chooses.

Actually, in the Civil War, an offer was made to the South, that if they (the South) ceased hostilities, the status quo, as far as slavery was concerned would be maintained.

President Davis rejected the offer.

Thanks folks. Before the discussion gets too far afield, I wanted to point out a couple of things I found telling in that excerpt from his book.

First, at no point did Obama try to change the position of his pro-life constituents. He simply invited them to participate in the process. Rather than shut them out, he reached out, and that clearly separates him from most politicians on both sides.

Second, in spite of party enthusiasm, he made sure that his people presented his position with absolute accuracy. To Barack, partisanship was -- and remains -- far less important than the truth.

Third, and I believe most importantly, he did not demonize or distort the position of his opponents on this delicate issue. He simply agreed to disagree and looked for common ground. His willingness to discuss issues with his opponents is very refreshing.

Obama is not focused on "Black" or "Democratic Party" issues. He is working on "American" issues. He has always fought for the people. It really has nothing to do with the color of their skin, or their party, only the pressing need that they have for representation.

Barack Obama is a former law professor, a civil rights lawyer, and an expert on the Constitution of the United States. In light of the recent abuses of that document, I want a fellow who not only can recite every word, but will preserve it as well.

This is a sharp contrast to Mike Huckabee. His candidacy represents a small segment of our population, but seeks to impose their standards on all Americans. Instead of cherishing our heritage of growth and inclusion, he seeks to change the very foundation of our freedoms.

Which brings us back to the initial question. Do you believe that changing our Constitution to fit the vision of one believer is fundamentally sound? Is the sort of division that creates a net positive or a net negative for all Americans?

"...he did not demonize or distort the position of his opponents on this delicate issue."

And this is exactly what the Herb's of the world do.

Such a change would be an absolute negative as it essentially undoes the hard work to establish this nation in the first place.

Might as well call it New America.

Good Obama insights. I'm liking that a lot.

"Do you believe that changing our Constitution to fit the vision of one believer is fundamentally sound?"

No.

It sounds like Mr. Huckabee merely wants us to return to the original founder's intent. Otherwise leftist shills will continue twisting the Constitution whilst making things up out of whole cloth.

Herbert Milhous Huckabee

Okay, first of all, the sweatshops full of leftist whole cloth Constitutional seamstresses are a myth. The only folks who have tinkered with our freedoms and rights in the last seven years are either affiliated with or solidly within the administration.

The Courts and Executive Branch have weakened our positions as citizens by simply ignoring the letter of the law. With such treasonous measures providing a precedent, it is a short step to rewriting the document itself. Yes, it is time to use that great cliche: slippery slope.

I hope you see that come November, there will be candidates who may not harmonize with your one note, but resonate with most of your nation. I believe it is in the best interest of all of us to start working together again. This is our country.

I have more of a problem with radical judges who read a 'right to abortion' into the Constitution than those in the federal government defending us from bad guys whilst monitoring my phone calls in the process.

Herb

Herb, why are judges 'radical' when they rule against what you want? You either accept the judicial system or become an anarchist.

We know you do.

I have more of a problem with The Federal Government monitoring my phone calls.

But you knew that too.

Gee, that was fun.

"Herb, why are judges 'radical' when they rule against what you want?"

It's hardly radical after 9/11 to monitor bad guys before they hit us again. It is radical to snuff out innocent human life.

Abraham Lincoln and FDR both suspended habeas corpus. So big deal if, during the middle of war, Mr. Bush does the same thing.

Herbert Walker Milhous Huckabee

Obama's ability to reach out to those on the other side of an issue and grant them their dignity for their beliefs shows great wisdom and understanding of the basic right for us to disagree and yet be civil.

"It is radical to snuff out innocent human life."

Yes I agree. All those innocent Iraqi's that have needlessly died. All the innocent children who aren't given basic needs because our military budget and the need for war outweigh their basic need of food.

Yes we do agree Herb; innocent life snuffed out is too radical for both of us.

Well, I'm not so sure that statement on monitoring is completely accurate.

It's absolutely not radical to monitor those people we think are the bad guys, or who might just be talking to the bad guys.

THERE IS NO DISAGREEMENT NATIONALLY ON THIS ISSUE.

What is radical is that said monitoring is being done:

a. via private corporations with no oversight on their activities

b. outside the due process we have established over our national body of case law

c. a grant of immunity, for the above.

The only major point of disagreement has been accountability.

Bush said using the courts takes too much time. FISA allows for a post-tap warrant, up to 72 hours after the fact; and that time could easily be extended.

Any and all discussion on that matter has been met with stiff opposition. Essentially, this administration wants to just monitor who ever they want, when ever they want, for any reason they want (and with said reason being ANY REASON, not just terror), with no records being kept of any of it.

That's radical.

That's also against the current law, unless we grant immunity, which I do not suggest we do. Why?

Because the immunity is post-facto immunity. That means at the time those acts are being done, the law does not provide for them, and or does, and was not followed.

Those things are high crimes. Illegal.

Passing legislation here in the present, for acts of the past, creates a travesty of the law, which says essentially: "Do what you want, ask forgiveness later."

That's not how we do things and it's an extremely dangerous slope to go down.

Really, if the courts were not fast enough, FISA could have been easily amended. If the need for record keeping was so great, a trusted committee could have been formed, and or those records could be kept in trust for the public interest afterword. It goes on and on and on.

The truth is, we now know the tapping happened before 9/11, is still happening, and will continue to happen.

What we do not know is who, what, when, where, how and why.

That's a blank slate for abuse. There is NO ACCOUNTABILITY there and where there is no accountability, the potential for abuse runs very high. --too high, which is exactly why we have the process we do.

Again, very radical in that the core elements of what makes America what it is, are violated and tossed aside as if they were some mere inconvenience getting in the way of keeping us safe.

Another hard truth:

Either we can defend ourselves against terror and do it as Americans do; meaning, our rule of law remains intact, our checks and balances remain intact, and our freedoms, but for those we mutually agree to surrender, remain intact

,or

they don't! (And the terrorists win, in that America is then lost.)

If they don't, then we are basically saying to the world, "It's not possible to have a free society any more."

I don't know anybody willing to say our system has failed, our values have failed, and that fear trumps these things that got us here.

NOBODY.

That's radical too.

Herb, since you value both women and innocent life, please read these reports from Radio Liberty, Radio Free Europe and the BBC. Across the Middle East, immolation is but one cost of this senseless war.

Add -- I agree KSKD. All that monitoring every citizen does is shift the focus of the people from terror as the enemy to government as the enemy. Somehow, that does not strike me as a constructive direction.

Absolutely!

In this nation, we are considered innocent until proven guilty. Core rights violations are done with oversight, which can be very, very permissive mind you, so that a record is kept in the public interest.

Nothing about that prevents us from responding to the demands of terror. NOTHING.

What is does prevent is abuse. If such a public record, and chain of trust is maintained, abuses would be on that record to be prosecuted.

It's not about getting the wrong guy and getting into trouble. That's just a strawman. It's about making sure there is a sufficient deterrent to make abuse not worth doing.

The fact that this administration has opposed this, from the start, leads me to believe there has been abuse and there continues to be abuse.

Otherwise, why the problem?

The endless Shakespearean denials of this administration make me very uneasy.

"It is radical to snuff out innocent human life."

Yes I agree. All those innocent Iraqi's that have needlessly died. All the innocent children who aren't given basic needs because our military budget and the need for war outweigh their basic need of food.

ALL of us on here agree on something! WAY TO GO Herb!!!! Your HUMAN after all....