Comments on: Mike Huckabee’s Sunday Sermon at Prestonwood

By: Ray Fowler

Ray Fowler — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 05:08:41 +0000

Mark, Keith and Jaycen – Other commitments have kept me from the blog lately, but thanks for carrying on the conversation. I imagine if Huck throws his hat in the ring for 2012 this thread will probably pick up some steam again.

By: Mark Deckard

Mark Deckard — Thu, 13 Jan 2011 22:11:01 +0000

Keith your question is still loaded. You are presuming that Huckabee wants to amend the constitution to mention Jesus. But thats not in the excerpt. What he is saying is that the “architect of the universe” has a design. The constitution should not violate that design. If some contemporary interpretation of supreme court justices creates a violation of that design thay was not intended by the founders i.e. Roe v Wade, the people can remedy that violation by way of amendment. Should the Constitution be amended to protect the rights of the unborn? Yes, for the creator made life an unalienable right according to the founders. Should the constitution be amended to grant a particular religious sect primacy in terms of rights? No. You ask me if the constitution should be amended to match the bible. It already has! The bible shows God liberating slaves from Egypt and thanks to the work of christian abolitionists in America the constitution was amended to match the bible more closely. Quakers like Benjamin lay, and anthony Benezet led the abolition movement as early as 1727. Abraham Lincoln said at the gettysburg address that “this nation, under God shall have a new birth of freedom.” was that any different than what Huckabee said? Sorry Keith but if you really study unvarnished history you will see that our constitution has been formed around Christian and Biblical ideas not in spite of them. So in light of that Yes i favor amending the constituttion to clarify the Creators definition of freedom and not secular unbeleivers in God.

By: Keith

Keith — Thu, 13 Jan 2011 21:26:26 +0000

They were not relating Creator to Christ. The were relating Creator to being the Architect of the Universe (as in the Enlightenment) a Deist God, allowing for freedom of religion of all springing from that God.
I am not in favor of removing Creator.
I must still post Huckabees statement AGAIN, and beg for a reply on that statement AGAIN.

”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.” – Mike Huckabee, January 14, 2008

Do you support Huckabee’s belief in changing the Constitution…amending it, to make it biblical, or is it better left as-is?

By: Mark Deckard

Mark Deckard — Thu, 13 Jan 2011 15:21:15 +0000

There is no need to replace creator with Lord Jesus Christ. I know they are the same. BUT if anyone does not know they are the same, it is not the governments job to convince them. It is the job of a christian church unhindered by free speech constraints. But I ask you this, would you feel comfortable amending to strike the word creator? Is that not an establishment of religion that excludes all athiests? I have answered you now answer me.

By: Keith

Keith — Thu, 13 Jan 2011 03:47:47 +0000

The comparison to Sharia is an analogy. Biblical law is to Judeo Christians as Charia Law is to Muslims. You HAVE to understand the comparison where Huckabee is concerned in his statement.
One more time.
Are you comfortable abandioning the Constitution where the founders placed law in Common Law and not Biblical Law or do you want Biblical Law to be the Constitutional Law where the United States is concerned as Mike Huckabee proposed…the amendment of the Constitution to reflect Biblical Law.
This is a simple question.
Keep the Constitution or amend it?
Which are you comfortable with.
(and it was the founders intention to create the first government of God through the PEOPLE and not through the CHURCH. It was the founders belief that God would work through the PEOPLE to select their leaders and not through the CHURCH granting the rule over the people as in the Pope granting authority to the emperor).
It is the belief of Christian Reconstructionists that the founders erred by NOT putting Christ in our originating documents. They believe that our Declaration of Independence should have read, “We are endowed by our Lord Jesus Christ with certain inalienable rights…” instead of using the term “Creator”.

By: Mark Deckard

Mark Deckard — Wed, 12 Jan 2011 21:40:17 +0000

Ok keith, sorry if i was mean. I see the excerpt that made you wonder now that you pointed it out. But my question is where did huckabee mention sharia? He didnt. And implementing christian values into the constitution is not akin to adopting sharia. You should look into the role faith plyed in the lives and political philosophy of the founding fathers. Why do you think history did not produce such amazing document in the middle east or africa or asia? Because the light of christianity led sincere souls to establish true freedom. Secularist will claim the constitution is free of religious influence, but thats a myth. The truth has been supressed. I beleive that the bible teaches grace and free will vs compulsory compliance. That theology is the basis of the establishment clause. It is impossible to keep moral considerations out of goverent because there is a moral obligation to protect the weak from the oppressor. We christians beleive yhe unborn should be counted among the protected ones in as much as our founders would not have fathomed the travesty of abortion as a privacy issue. But they gave us the amendment process to do with as our society sees fit. If you can get we the people to sign on its done deal. Liberals and secularists use activists judges to unilaterally impose their own brand sharia on America.

By: Jaycen

Jaycen — Wed, 12 Jan 2011 18:32:53 +0000

Wow. Interesting comment thread, though started a few years ago. I too stumbled on to this and have read enough of the transcript to know that Huckabee is in the majority of the Christian faith that rip this passage out of context kicking and screaming.

This verse does have implications to us, but not the sappy way most use it. Jeremiah 29 as a whole shows God’s sovereignty, a need to learn patience and even multi-generational faithfulness. But it definitely doesn’t tell you that you’ll have your best life now! Further, anyone who twists it like that must have never read about how the apostles died. Did God fall off the throne for a moment when one was stoned or another crucified or another ran through with a spear, etc.? No, not at all. This promise was for a specific time to a specific people in a specific situation. In fact, if you consider the pre-exile period and look at the dates, it was OVER 150 yrs before the promise was seen!

There’s a great exposition of it by one of the greatest preaching minds of modern times here:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1863221767917599647#

Soli Deo Gloria!

By: Keith

Keith — Wed, 12 Jan 2011 17:32:42 +0000

`”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.” – Mike Huckabee, January 14, 2008

I ask my question again. Is there a person here who can answer it without being mean?

By: Mark Deckard

Mark Deckard — Wed, 12 Jan 2011 17:13:04 +0000

Keith your question really belies a gross confusion and biasas to the christian population. In case you haven’t noticed christians are being persecuted and maligned all over the world. Note recent events in Egypt. Your formula for logic appears to be thus: Muslims want Sharia law. Islam is a religion. Christianity is a religion, thus christians must also want a type of sharia. At first I wanted to attribute your uninformed and fallacious premise to bigotry, but then i have to allow for the possibility you are just really living in some vacuum where you are being fed distorted information about the christian religion. Just so you can understand the underlying offensivenesse of your question, i’ll create a racial paralell. It would be like someone asking a black forum, “im doing research, tell me, do you all beleive watermelon is the source of black on black crime in the inner city.” do you see how it would be hard to veiw the questioner as credible? Thus it is with your question.

By: Keith

Keith — Wed, 12 Jan 2011 02:15:14 +0000

I found this page through searching for sermons by Huckabee. they are as rare as a 50-year-old virgin.
Part of my searching for information is that here, in 2011, he is considered an early GOP favorite for the 2012 presidential race.

My question.

Are you happier with religious freedom granted by a secular government or do you wish the Constitution to be amended to make biblical law take precedent over common law…I’m speaking of stoning and other penalties for transgressions, and the efforts of dominionists and Christian reconstructionists to change the face of America?
Should, as the founders stated, that man should come to God by hearing His voice or by threat of the state (akin to Christian “Sharia” law).