Mike Huckabee’s New Constitution

Last updated on: May 9, 2013 at 6:09 am by Faithful Democrats

Mike Huckabee’s New Constitution 2013-05-09T06:09:09-06:00 Faithful Democrats

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Mike Huckabee wants to amend the Constitution so it conforms, specifically, to The Word of God.

Mike Huckabee wants to amend the Constitution so it conforms, more specifically, to The Word of God. This is good news to those of us who believe John 1, which says that The Word of God is Jesus Christ, which means that the U.S. government will start paying more attention to the poor, the needy, widows and orphans, the oppressed, the downcast, those who need healing. If that’s true, we will start working more for Peace, and working to have a more caring society. But we don’t need an amendment to do that. We just need to take seriously the words that define what Government is to do – “to promote the general Welfare.”

But that doesn’t seem to be what Huckabee means. He wants an amended Constitution that fits better with his interpretation of the Bible. This might create some problems that he’ll need to address, once he becomes President.

Which translation will he use? Since translations imply different theologies, we would need to presume he would return to the original – with certain words in Aramaic, Greek, and Hebrew. He might want to consider agreeing to a bilingual America of English and Biblical languages. This will take substantial money from the government to teach us the original languages, to make sure that we understand everything accurately.

He wants to create a marriage amendment which says that marriage is between a man and a woman. The Bible doesn’t exactly say that, but he could create an amendment that would better conform to the marriage customs of that period (and we’d need to know which period he’s referring to – pre-Eden or post-Eden? Before Jesus, during Jesus, after Jesus?). Presumably he’d have to add that engaged/betrothed couples can live together and have sexual relations. He would need to add that homosexual couples can have ceremonies of commitment, or make pacts between each other showing their love of each other, since David and Jonathan did that. (I Samuel 18-20, 2 Samuel 1). They would be allowed to kiss each other (depending on the translation), but further study would have to clarify whether they’d be allowed to have sex since we don’t know how David and Jonathan expressed their love for each other, except through embracing and maybe kissing. To enforce this amendment, he would need to have government money to add more police. Since it is estimated that there are about 300 million people in the U.S., and since there may be as many as 10% homosexuals in the country, and since they would need to be watched to make sure that they didn’t have sex, and since it would be unclear who is having sex or just living together as friends without constant watching, this may mean as many as fifteen or thirty million more police men on the sex patrol.

Of course, they wouldn’t need to watch the lesbians since the unnatural acts mentioned in Romans 1:26 may only refer to unnatural acts by women with men, not between women, so if there’s a little wiggle room for this interpretation, the numbers of police needed could be diminished. It depends on which translation he uses (see above) and whether more sex police would need to be added to make sure that women didn’t do anything unnatural. (And another commission would need to be formed to define “unnatural” for women.)

He has also asked for an amendment about the sanctity of life. Since there is nothing in the Bible about abortion, except perhaps Numbers 5:12 which seems to be for abortion, not against it, since it allows a priest to cause a miscarriage (depending on the translation – see above) the amendment would need to state that abortion would be prohibited, except in instances when the husband accuses the woman of being pregnant by another man. (The concept of what constitutes a “husband” and a “marriage ceremony” would need to be decided, whether according to modern standards or Biblical standards. Rape and its consequences would also need more study and more laws.) Since husbands can become jealous for no good reason, money would need to be set aside to pay for the bitter water to give to the woman to shrivel up her womb and to hire more priests to become involved in the patrolling of these accusations. Government or insurance money would also need to be set aside for medical costs for false accusations that end up with a shriveled-up womb for no good reason.

This would also need a clear amendment against adultery, which would need extra government money for more sex police (since the homosexual police wouldn’t be on the same adultery patrol, since homosexuals wouldn’t be married and therefore couldn’t commit adultery). And, it would eliminate several of the Republican candidates or would-be candidates and put them in jail. (Good-bye Rudy, and don’t run Newt!)

For a sanctity of life amendment, care would also need to be taken to make sure we know whether all life is sanctified, or only fetuses. If all life is sanctified, then an amendment would need to be added against capital punishment (see Jesus’ refusal to execute the woman caught in adultery – John 8) and if the Word of God includes following the Prince of Peace, then wars would also need to end unless one gives equal credibility to the wars in the Hebrew Scriptures as to the non-Wars in the New Testament. (This would need another commission to determine whether both Testaments should be equally weighted.)

To follow the Word of God specifically, Huckabee would also need to pay attention to all of the Bible. Certainly he would need to take I Corinthians 14 seriously, that women shouldn’t talk in Church. This would mean kicking out all women who are preachers, theologians, missionaries. There would need to be some commissions formed, to decide whether Billy Graham’s daughter, Ann, would be allowed to continue to preach, or whether she could only preach if she’s not in Church but if she has her head covered. Or would that make her look more like a Muslim? Presumably Ann Coulter could continue to talk on the O’Reilly Show, but not in church.

There would need to be a clear definition of what constitutes a church, whether it’s a building or a community. This study might be able to be done for just a few million dollars. Kicking the women out and figuring out the appropriate punishment for their disobedience in becoming preachers will take another commission and a few million more.

Huckabee would also need to add an amendment that the woman has to be subject to the man, (see Ephesians 5) but would need another commission to figure out whether Hillary would be allowed to continue to run for President, since Bill agrees with her candidacy. Perhaps if she doesn’t talk in Church this would be fine.

Polygamy, of course, would need to be reinstated. Slavery also and slaves, and women, would need to be subject to their masters – white men! Women would need to stop wearing pants and men would need to grow beards. (See Deuteronomy and various other verses in the Hebrew Scriptures.)

It does seem that if Huckabee is serious, he needs to take this all the way. Or, perhaps, it’s better to just not elect him and to follow the Constitution we now have.

Dr. Linda Seger is the author of Jesus Rode a Donkey: Why the Republicans Don’t Have a Corner on Christ

Featured Writers

Previous Post

January 15, 2008

A bit of humor

Next Post

January 19, 2008 What happened to Compassion?

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category About Us About Us Action Center Advertise Ask a Theologian Ask a Theologian Blogs Books Campaign Blog Candidate Spotlights Commentary Donate Facebook Featured Writers Fellows Fellows From the Pulpit General Information Hillary Clinton Interfaith Blog Latest Media Center Media Center Media Center MyBlog MyBlog News Newsflash Newsflashes Our Team Reader Blogs RSS Sermon of the Week Shop Social Networking Static Items Support Talking Points Test blogs The Basics Theology Uncategorized YouTube

Select a Month November 2020 October 2020 February 2020 August 2019 July 2018 July 2017 March 2017 February 2017 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 June 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 January 2006 August 2004

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What does Paul say he does not do the good he wants to do, but instead does?

Select your answer to see how you score.

The evil he does not want to do What displeases God What is sinful What leads to death