Theocracy?

Why am I not surprised by this comment made by Mike Huckabee:

I have opponents in the 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 its in God’s standards rather than try to change God’s standard so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other and how we treat the family.

And he wonders why all the religion questions are always point to him in the debates.

All joking aside, that comment is scary. Some call it dominionism, Andrew Sullivan calls it Christianism (which I think is a more appropriate term). What Huckabee said highlights the problem with religious collectivism. It is no better than than its secular collectivist counterparts. Both seek to take away liberty from the individual by using the power of government to be more moral or compassionate.

We are electing a President, not a pastor.

[UPDATE] Here is the video, courtesy of Doug:

FacebookGoogle+RedditStumbleUponEmailWordPressShare
  • http://www.belowthebeltway.com Doug Mataconis
  • http://publiusendures.blogspot.com Mark

    To Huckabee’s credit, at least he understands that he’d have to amend the Constitution. That’s more than I can say for certain politicians I can think of who seem to think they can just ignore the Constitution entirely.

  • Pingback: The Line is Here()

  • uhm

    I don’t want him to be my Emperor!

  • http://www.belowthebeltway.com Doug Mataconis

    Based on that remark, I’d say he’s running for Pope, not Emperor.

    But you know, those Baptists don’t really like at that Popery ;)