Sorry, but any time I hear someone who wants to be the president say "amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards," I get really, really nervous.

  Well the liberals have an easier method of changing the Constitution to their liking.   They say it should be a 'living' document, open to 'modern' interpretation.

 We know CCCPNN, Huck's an idiot, but just last month you guy's were singing his praises and are partly responsible for why he's still in the race, so dont' cry now. Huck want's to amend the constitution and be a high priest in a theocracy. You guy's want to do away with the constitution. Im only confused as to who play's the useful idiot here, the mainstream media or Huck.

"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "

                   - Ben Kenobi on  Liberals, and the MSM.

                               " The Cake is a lie."   

I am quite sure the changes this man is wanting to make to our most important national document would require the convening of a Constitutional Convention. Given the times we live in, as well as the contempt so many on the left have for certain provisions written in said document, I believe it would be highly dangerous to kick that hornet's nest over, particularly with the democrats currently holding a majority in the Congress. God only knows what sort of underhanded maneuvers the left would undertake to alter the one thing that ensures the continuation of our hard won rights.

If there are any changes to be made to the Constitution, let that change center around the outright repeal of the 16th Amendment, nothing more.

As for Huckabee, if he desires to reside in a theocracy, then he can relocate to Saudi Arabia.

None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. -J.W. von Goethe

Zakaria goes in exactly the opposite direction as Huckabee, but he's guilty of the same confusion as Huckabee. Neither seems to grasp the distinction between religion and civil law. Where Huckabee's quotes seem to argue that civil law must conform to religion, Zakaria seems to reject any relationship between religion and civil law. Both are wrong. It isn't all or neither.

I remember an article by Thomas Freidman of the New York Times after Bush won re-election. Basically, he took it for granted that you were supposed to leave your religion behind when you voted. Friedman was shocked to discover, he said, that fellow Americans didn't do the same. It was a further shock that his fellow Americans didn't "know" they were "supposed to." In Friedman's view, religious freedom means that religion has no place in the voting booth. Zakaria has that same perspective. For him, religion should never trespass into public policy. For him, religion is a strictly private affair, something to keep to yourself.

There's nothing wrong with upholding your religious values, so long as you recognize the political right of everyone else to advocate their own values. The task is to show how your religious principles translate into public policies that everyone can support. You can do both, so long as you respect the distinction between religion and civil law. Huckabee's quotes suggest he didn't respect that distinction well enough, but Zakaria's attitude is that the distinction is impossible. Zakaria apparently doesn't understand the difference, certainly not any better than the Huckabee he's criticizing.

The last entity that should examine anybody's religious views is CNN and its representatives. Insofar as media today largely serves constituencies, CNN serves the secular imperialists who are efforting to ban traditional morality from "decent conversation."

What CNN, ABC, CBS, along with most European states and the UN are asserting is the dominance of non-traditional values as the correct "moral stand." These values include homosexual marriage, no-fault divorce, the demonization of paternalistic family structures, mainstreaming of pornography, prostitution, and drugs along with empathy for criminal behavior.

 This charge may seem strong at first, but if you look at the behavior of UN non-governmental NGOs in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East, it becomes very clear that this is the future thrust of liberal effort to codify their ideology.

Obviously, the MSM cannot outright support those values here in America, so they do their part by marginalizing religion, which serves the same purpose. The goal is for all leftist morality is to be based on empathy for the perp, or moral relativism, not a fixed set of standards such as the Ten Commandments.

The manner in which this manifests in American mainstream media is that when a woman drowns five of her children in Texas, we are deluged with "experts" who absolve her from blame because she was depressed. When terrorists kill over 3,000 innocent civilians on 9/11, we are told that America deserved it.

 There is no right or wrong any longer, which preps the battlefield for the debate in a future effort to install the "morality" of the left mentioned above.

When the constituency media of the left examines religion, it is  reminiscent of Victorian anthropologists studying the sex lives of Polynesians: there is simply no scenario in which the results can be trusted.