Religious Parties

[VoteForRonPaul]

Is there anything in the constitution or in the law that forbids religious groups from creating religious parties?
I was thinking about Evangelical Christians and their choice to be Republicans and nobody can deny that they are a massive power on the ground, so I was wondering why they would not start a new religious party that express their Biblical views and understandings?
What do you guys think? Why this did not happen?

[hypnagogue]

Because I think a sufficient portion of the nation would reject any openly religlious parties as being unamerican. It's better for them to channel their influence through a nominally secular institution, the Republicans.

There are essentially no laws regarding the formation of political parties. All platforms are fair game, as they should be. However, I do like to point out that originally, most of the founders looked down on the concept of political parties.

[sophocles07]

I wish they would do that and get their asses out of "mainstream" politics.

[Tdcci]

The Constitution Party is a Christian party.

[Mini-Me]

Because I think a sufficient portion of the nation would reject any openly religlious parties as being unamerican. It's better for them to channel their influence through a nominally secular institution, the Republicans.

There are essentially no laws regarding the formation of political parties. All platforms are fair game, as they should be. However, I do like to point out that originally, most of the founders looked down on the concept of political parties.

Years later, it's looking more and more like the Founders were right on this account, too.

[VoteForRonPaul]

The Constitution Party is a Christian party.
That was truly a big surprise to me. I mean the name is very deceiving. I have no problem with mentioning the Lord, but just be honest about it and do not hide it under the table.

[VoteForRonPaul]

However, I do like to point out that originally, most of the founders looked down on the concept of political parties.
Ooops, I guess I need to take some lessons in history! :(

[bj72]

Excerpts from the Federalist Papers below. No. 10 is more relevant to the topic on this thread...


FEDERALIST No. 8

This picture is not too highly wrought; though, I confess, it would not long remain a just one. Safety from external danger is the most powerful director of national conduct. Even the ardent love of liberty will, after a time, give way to its dictates. The violent destruction of life and property incident to war, the continual effort and alarm attendant on a state of continual danger, will compel nations the most attached to liberty to resort for repose and security to institutions which have a tendency to destroy their civil and political rights. To be more safe, they at length become willing to run the risk of being less free.

…They would endeavor to supply the inferiority of population and resources by a more regular and effective system of defense, by disciplined troops, and by fortifications. They would, at the same time, be necessitated to strengthen the executive arm of government, in doing which their constitutions would acquire a progressive direction toward monarchy. It is of the nature of war to increase the executive at the expense of the legislative authority.

…This, at least, would be the natural course of things; and our reasonings will be the more likely to be just, in proportion as they are accommodated to this standard.

These are not vague inferences drawn from supposed or speculative defects in a Constitution, the whole power of which is lodged in the hands of a people, or their representatives and delegates, but they are solid conclusions, drawn from the natural and necessary progress of human affairs.

FEDERALIST No. 10

…Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

In the next place, as each representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens in the large than in the small republic, it will be more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice with success the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried; and the suffrages of the people being more free, will be more likely to centre in men who possess the most attractive merit and the most diffusive and established characters.
The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter. The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression. Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other. Besides other impediments, it may be remarked that, where there is a consciousness of unjust or dishonorable purposes, communication is always checked by distrust in proportion to the number whose concurrence is necessary. (Doesn’t seem two support a two party system, does it?)

…A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State.