Mike Huckabee wants to "amend the Constitution" to align it with "God's standards."
"[Some of my opponents] do not want to change the Constitution, but I believe it's a lot easier to change the constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that's what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards," Huckabee said, referring to the need for a constitutional human life amendment and an amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
The Constitution, of course, does not mention God at all. The Constitution takes its authority from the people, not from God or any other religious authority.
So far, the few right-wingers who have even taken notice are responding in one of two ways.
There is the Rip Van Winkle response:
"[Some of my opponents] do not want to change the Constitution, but I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that's what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards."
— Mike Huckabee, campaigning in Michigan last night.
This statement should shock every American to their very core. It is theocracy, pure and simple.
No shit, Sherlock! And where have you been for the past eight years while the religious right has been taking over the Republican Party?
Others are not troubled at the idea of amending the Constitution into a blueprint for Christian theocracy -- they just feel that Huck should use code language instead of explicitly religious language:
I don't have much of a problem with religion-based policy impulses. All of our impulses come from somewhere, after all, and I don't see why a religious person's core beliefs should affect his worldview less than my own secularist/humanist worldview. The left's insistence that only secular beliefs should impel policy stances is inconsistent but convenient in that it would, if accepted, lead to a secularist-only public polity.
However, I prefer such prescriptions to be couched in secularist terms. There are numerous reasons to be pro-life or pro-traditional-marriage that don't have much to do with religion. It's not deceptive, I don't think, to argue in terms of sound policy, without mention of God, even if, at root, it is a belief in God's will that ultimately leads one to embrace those non-religious rationales for one's positions.
Deceptive? Not at all. We can come up with better descriptors than that. How about... tactful?
Here and there, we even get hints that someone is maybe, at least, starting -- to get it:
... [I]t's really infuriating if you've had the experience — as I have — of being portrayed at various panels as part of the "American Taliban" for defending the purportedly Islamophobic efforts to root out Muslim terrorists. Part of my usual response, as a demonstration of how nuts this accusation is, focuses on the Taliban, their imposition of sharia (i.e., God's law), and the marked contrast to our system's bedrock guarantee of freedom of conscience.
Huckabee is made to order for the Left: his rhetoric embodies their heretofore lunatic indictment that we're no better that what we're fighting against. Let's "amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards"? Who needs to spin when the script speaks for itself? Where has Huck been for the last seven years? Does he not get that our enemies — the people who want to end our way of life — believe they are simply imposing God's standards?