Wednesday Highlights

Good morning. 20 here. How about where you are?

  • A column excerpted by David Wayne, in which the Golden Compass is discussed by an ESPN writer.
  • Henry on the electoral process.
  • A storm of people have decided Huckabee’s statement on Amdendments is indicative of theocracy. It seems to me however, on the face of it the statement is factually correct and not that surprising. You’d have to be, well, predisposed to dislike Huck to get outraged. There is actually a change process for changing the Constitution, oddly enough called Amendments of which there have been more than one. There is however, if you’ll notice, no structural or approved method to enact a change to the Bible. The real question is, why is this a surprise? Do people not know that?
  • Amending the Bible … or (not) Inerrancy?
  • However, while on the one hand, there is no way to change the Bible, great theologians are asses.
  • Some of that “theocracy” at work.
  • Pachinko disco.
  • Book plug.
  • Posturing in Asia.
  • A somewhat smug parable.
  • As has been said before, an non-empty tomb ends Christianity. How about Islam and its book?
  • Theosis.
  • An interview (disclosure I bought the book). (HT: Carl Olson)
  • Statements from (I think) ignorance.
  • Verse.
  • At least switchgrass isn’t food.

11 responses to “Wednesday Highlights

  1. 20? Must be nice. It’s 12 here. :) (Yeah I know, there’s not much difference between the two… they’re both COLD!)

  2. What if scholars can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Koran was not dictated by the Archangel Gabriel to the Prophet Mohammad during the 7th century, but rather was redacted by later writers drawing on a variety of extant Christian and Jewish sources? That would be the precise equivalent of proving that the Jesus Christ of the Gospels really was a composite of several individuals, some of whom lived a century or two apart.

    Won’t matter a bit. It doesn’t affect Orthodox Judaism or Fundamentalist Christianity in the slightest that the “five books of Moses” have been conclusively proven to have been written/redacted long after Moses’s day.

    Never underestimate the power of denial, especially where religion is concerned.

  3. I didn’t get to look at Huckabee’s comment yesterday. Now that I have, I have to think you’re being incredibly disingenuous or you just missed the whole point. Given that it seems you generally argue with good faith, I’ll assume the latter. So here goes:

    The controversial part is not that Huckabee said (1) the Constitution is amendable or (2) that the Bible is not, but (3) that we should change the Consitution so that “it’s in God’s standards!” A more overt call for theocracy I have not seen from a major candidate of either party.

  4. Correction: it’s not theocracy, per se, but it is an enormous, unprecedented (for a major candidate) breach of the wall between church and state.

  5. JA,
    I’ll revisit the statement, but on the surface I find it unsurprising that:

    1. A candidate uses his personal ethics to order his politics
    2. A Baptist minister has a Biblical notion of how to do that.
    3. He’d be willing to say so.

    How this is a breach I don’t know, but as noted I’ll look more carefully at his statement.

    I do think, however, that the religious should couch there arguments in non-religious terms to reach out and the converse, the non-religious should couch their terms in a religious context to reach out.

    This however, rarely occurs and in a primary ostensibly Huck is not “reaching out” but trying to connect (and probably failing in this case) to connect with “the choir.”

  6. It’s a big jump to go from “I don’t believe abortion is ethical because I believe God thinks it isn’t” to “we should amend the constitution to do what God wants.”

  7. Also, to explicitly invoke “God’s standards” as a defense of an anti-abortion is to endorse not just religion, but a particular subset of religion. That’s even more clearly unconstitutional.

  8. JA,
    Forbidding such argument or requiring similar are both equally un-Constitutional. However, just making that argument and using those reasons are not.

    You may not find them convincing (and neither do I btw), which is pretty much all there is to object to.

  9. Obviously, he’s allowed to make that argument. It’s just that it reveals a complete lack of respect for one of America’s fundamental principles. If he put that “God’s law” nonsense into a law it would certainly be unconstitutional — but can an Amendment even be unconstitutional? Scary thought.

  10. JA,
    Scary thought, yes. But I don’t follow how you get that from the statement he made.

    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 to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than try 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.

    Where did you get the impression he wanted a to explicitly write a law reading “laws should be in God’s standard” enshrined as an Amendment and not that he would like that his interpretation of what God’s standard be reflected in the Constitution. That seems the plain meaning of of what he said.

  11. No, I didn’t think that’s what he was saying. I just think the statement “we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards” is very disturbing.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>