Thomas Jefferson to the Danberry Baptists:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. (reference: www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html)

<object width="425" height="373"><param name="movie" value="www.youtube.com/v/onHkywYc...m><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="www.youtube.com/v/onHkywYc...der=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="373"></embed></object>

Mike Huckabee in Michigan:

"I have opponents in this race who 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 amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than trying to change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other and how we treat the family."


I find Mike's thinking dangerous and offensive. If he has his way as an elected official and changes the Constitution based on his personal beliefs then we're back where we were four hundred years ago. Our ancestors in Europe had to endure a state-sanctioned religion, and those that wanted to practice differently were prosecuted. Some eventually fled to the New World to set up a system of government that was supposed to protect people from the very thing Mike is advocating.

Where I think Mike is misaligned is believing that there are those who are trying to change "God's standards." First, there are those who simply don't believe in God and thus, neither do they believe in those standards. Second, of those who do believe in God one will not find consensus as to what those standards are and how they are interpreted. This is evident by the variety of Christian churches, each founded on a the translation of a specific doctrine.

Our laws are made to reflect the changing "contemporary view" (as Mike puts it)- that's the point of having democracy. If laws didn't change based on contemporary views then it would be illegal for blacks and whites to marry or for women to vote. Instead of the fear-based, inflexible, and arrogant adherence to God's standards why doesn't Mike advocate making God's standards relevant to today's culture? Where is Mike advocating feeding the poor, helping the homeless, and truly blending his faith with relevant social issues (if he's so quick to tear down the wall between church and state).

It's obvious that Mike wants to impose his style of morality on the country. I hope that voters are able to see through his veneer of conservatism and recognize the danger that this type of rhetoric contains. Bastardizing the constitution to reflect the personal religious beliefs of the president is the worst kind of sin our civil nation could endure.