Photo: Alex Wong / Getty Images
That was made clear when he openly advocated amending the U.S. Constitution to transform it from a secular document designed to create a secular, civil government into a religious document designed to reflect "God's standards." This the explicit goal of Christian Reconstructionists, the most extreme among right-wing Christian Nationalists, but all adherents of Christian Nationalism support the general goal which Huckabee is pursuing.
"[Some of my opponents] 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]," Huckabee said, referring to the need for a constitutional human life amendment and an amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
Huckabee often refers to the need to amend the constitution on these grounds, but he has never so specifically called for the Constitution to be brought within "God's standards," which are themselves debated amongst religious scholars. As a closing statement he asked the room of nearly 500 supporters to "pray and then work hard, and in that order," to help him secure a victory in Tuesday's GOP primary.
Notice first that Huckabee is offering a stark choice between just two options: changing "the word of the living god" and changing the Constitution. It would appear that no other options are available — like, for example, leaving both alone and restricting "the word of the living god" to private religious practice while the secular Constitution continues to structure public, civil affairs.
Denying such a possibility is characteristic of those who deny that there is any legitimate separation between private religious doctrine and civil regulation of public affairs. This is not only the basis for the separation of church and state, but also civil, secular society today. The absence of any separation between religion and civil law is what you find in theocracies — and only theocracies. What this means is that Mike Huckabee is basically advocating changing America from a secular government to a Christian theocracy.
I think it's also important to notice how Huckabee singles out "how we treat each other" and "how we treat the family" for special mention. The latter, at least, is certainly a reference to gay marriages and gay relationships. It sounds like he fears that Constitutional guarantees of equality are wrong and should be replaced with theocratic oppression of gays. The former could refer to many things, and I suspect that abortion is at the top of the list — and so real liberty for women should be prevented by amending the Constitution to give clumps of cells that might become a person have more rights than living, breathing adult women.
Readers should remember that Mike Huckabee very recently tried to tell people that he somehow supported church/state separation:
In December, Governor Huckabee offered this charade on Meet the Press, words which obviously are no longer operative: "The key issue of real faith is that it never can be forced on someone. And never would I want to use the government institutions to impose mine or anybody else's faith or to restrict."
As it turns out, using the institutions of government to impose his faith is exactly what Mike Huckabee has in mind. Quick to denounce sharia law and "Islamofascism," Huckabee seems quite eager to embrace a Christian version of God's law here at home.
Re-writing the Constitution to eliminate its secular nature and to conform it to what Huckabee thinks are "God's standards" absolutely does entail having government institutions enforcing those standards — which is to say that government institutions will be imposing a particular faith on the people. So was Huckabee deliberately lying, or is he not bright enough to understand this? I honestly don't know, and I certainly can't think of any other alternatives. It should be noted that Huckabee is at least smart and honest enough to implicitly admit that the Constitution is secular and doesn't already mandate a Christian Nation or Christian government.
I wonder what such a theocratic Constitution would look like? Which of "God's standards" would Huckabee prefer to emphasize and which would he prefer to ignore? Perhaps Huckabee would approve of constitutional amendments that would authorize stoning gays, witches, and rebellious children. Perhaps he would approve of constitutional amendments that would require official Christian approval of all government officials and that would ensure the establishment of his own church as the official church of America.
Needless to say, no Constitution that is rewritten to match "God's standards" would be able to treat non-Christians or atheists as equals; even some Christians would be in trouble if they failed to uphold the alleged standards which Huckabee thinks are important. Some Christians try to claim that "true liberty" and "true equality" can only exist in a Christian context and/or require Christianity to exist, but a Christian, theocratic Constitution would inevitably destroy both liberty and equality in America.
Carpetbagger documents how conservatives are reacting negatively to Huckabee's comments — but not his desire to destroy our secular Constitution:
All Huckabee said was that those on the lower end of the economic spectrum are suffering in this economy. This is “socialism-lite”? It’s “gag-inducing”?
Huckabee is, to borrow one conservative’s phrase, “manifestly unprepared” for the presidency. But the fact that he’s at least willing to pay shallow lip-service to the concerns of those who can’t qualify for country club membership isn’t one of the reasons.
Few Christian Nationalists will openly and unapologetically argue for destroying America's secular Constitution in order to reconstruct America along "godly," biblical lines, but they can be accused of supporting theocracy when they fail to even dissent from — much less criticize — such a prominent endorsement of theocracy. Attacking his economic populism is legitimate, but attacking it while giving him a pass on his theocratic agenda is note even remotely legitimate. This is one of those cases where there are no real grey areas and you can thus tell a lot about where a person's real sympathies or agenda lie based on whether they criticize Huckabee or let his comments pass.