Gregory Boyd has a recent post (here) disparaging presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee on his announcement that he wanted to bring the constitution into line with God's standards. Besides bringing up issues that are irrelevant (such as the fantastical notion that Huckabee lobby for slavery, polygamy, concubines and holy wars merely because they're in the O.T.) Boyd doesn't even address the policy decision Huckabee announces. That is, if Boyd did the work he would discover that Huckabee is firmly adamant about the separation between church and state. And instead of contradict this position, the new announcement only signals his desire to see America regain some of its moral fiber.
Two further comments on his post. First, bringing the constitution into line with God's standards does not mean making the Bible our new constitution (though Micah 6:8 might be a good starting point). Second, simply because a saying isn't in the Bible doesn't mean it isn't in line with God's standards. In fact, we rely on the fact that our Christian teachers and preachers speak words that are in line with God's standards everyday. So to say that the opening of the constitution, drawn partly from John Locke (the last part is unique to our Constitution), would be disallowed because of its source is untrue. Even if, and Huckabee never insinuated this, he wanted to overhaul the entire Constitution, Locke's phrase wouldn't automatically be eliminated. In philosophy we call this the genetic fallacy - judging a proposition by its source and not by its content - and a fallacy it is.
I respect and admire former Governor Huckabee and I think that, rather than call for an overhaul of the Constitution as Boyd fears, he is merely stating the need to bring moral value back into America. I would hope that those who try to bring their lives into line with God's standards wouldn't be the ones criticizing a leader for wanted to bring those he leads into line with God's standards.