PDA

View Full Version : Chuck Baldwin Follows the CP




G-Wohl
09-23-2008, 11:05 AM
Various Baldwin supporters make the claim that he doesn't follow the Constitution Party's platform regarding their Theocratic values, like religious-fueled intolerance (homosexuality and abortion) and freedom of speech (pornography), but this is from his own campaign website:


Once elected you can be sure that President Chuck Baldwin will always give the American people the "Real Deal." He is a conservative who believes that the United States Constitution really is the law of the land and that marriage should always be between one man and one woman.

The Constitution doesn't give the president, nor the federal government, this right. Constitutionalist my ass.


President Chuck Baldwin offers another promise that none of the other candidates will offer. He will never allow what is known as embryonic stem cell research to be conducted by the United States of America. Not only is it wrong it is also unnecessary. Adult stem cell research is already saving lives and promising to save many more. Embryonic stem cell research has produced no cures at all.

Again, he doesn't have this right. Constitutionalist my ass.


Under my administration, we could end legal abortion in a matter of days, not decades. And if Congress refuses to pass Dr. Paul's bill, I will use the constitutional power of the Presidency to deny funds to protect abortion clinics. Either way, legalized abortion ends when I take office.

He's absolutely right that federal funds should not go to abortion clinics. That's Constitutionalist. What's not Constitutionalist is overriding state's rights.

If anybody here claims that Baldwin doesn't necessarily follow every aspect of the party platform, perhaps you should point them to his very own campaign page (or this thread).

Baldwin has the right ideas on some things listed, but not all. Ron Paul's views DO NOT match up with Baldwin's. I don't care who Ron Paul endorsed; Ron Paul holds many views contradictory to this religious nutjob Theocratic pseudo-libertarian.

svf
09-23-2008, 12:04 PM
If anybody here claims that Baldwin doesn't necessarily follow every aspect of the party platform, perhaps you should point them to his very own campaign page (or this thread).

Exactly. Also his columns for "News With Views" contain a treasure trove of alarming statements that should scare the shit out of any vaguley "libertarian" person...

http://newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwina.htm

A sampling...


My personal philosophy regarding social/political issues is quite simple... I believe abortion is America's national holocaust... I believe homosexuality is moral perversion and deserves no special consideration under the law.


If God doesn't miraculously intervene on behalf of our once great nation, we are doomed! And I do not say this lightly or without deliberation.


If America wishes to remain a free and independent republic, if this nation truly desires future peace and prosperity, and if we genuinely aspire to remain a blessed and protected land, we must quickly throw off this devilish attempt to de-Christianize our country and humbly return to the God of our fathers!


Man has a natural headship responsibility to both his family and his community. When men surrender this responsibility, or when women wrestle it away from them, the entire family and social structures collapse. And that is exactly what is currently happening.


Should we be surprised... that despite campaigning as a born again Christian, President Bush has not repealed a single pro-homosexual Executive Order given by President Bill Clinton or that he has appointed as many (if not more) openly gay men to high government positions as did Bill Clinton?... Homosexualists will continue to dominate both major parties and we will continue to be subjected to Larry Craig-type scandals. One would think that, sooner or later, the American people would have enough.

And so on. Just click around... it's all Chuck, in his own words. Then decide if this is the guy who you'd choose to "continue the rEVOLution".

RP4EVER
09-23-2008, 07:14 PM
And Barr is better I suppose?

Wheres the Libertarian belief in Freedom of Speech to chose whom I want?

BKom
09-23-2008, 07:35 PM
And Barr is better I suppose?

Wheres the Libertarian belief in Freedom of Speech to chose whom I want?

Nope. Barr stinks too.

And what does this have to do with any free speech issue? Nothing. Baldwin is a douche and so is Barr. And if you are going to pick between douches, then what does that make you?

And that was my free speech. On a message board that I don't own. And I in no way have the freedom to do that unless the owner of the board allows it. Got it?

Oh, I'm just not voting for a presidential candidate this year because there is no good choice. And not even a mediocre choice.

voytechs
09-23-2008, 07:39 PM
Agreed. He's not a Ron Paul, you won't find many. He is very close though. I should add I'm new to all these parties and their quirks and CP shouldn't use the "constitution" name in it if they don't adhere to constitution 100% IMHO. I guess 90% is what gives them the right, I don't know who sets the thresholds on this stuff.

Baldwin'08!

BKom
09-23-2008, 07:45 PM
Agreed. He's not a Ron Paul, you won't find many. He is very close though. I should add I'm new to all these parties and their quirks and CP shouldn't use the "constitution" name in it if they don't adhere to constitution 100% IMHO. I guess 90% is what gives them the right, I don't know who sets the thresholds on this stuff.

Baldwin'08!

They don't adhere to the Constitution. They are a theocratic party, plain and simple. The Libertarian Party is the only party that actually adheres to the Constitution. Or at least it used to.

90% of the Constitution means you don't adhere to it. If I decided that 9 of the 10 amendments to the Bill of Rights were fine with me, but one of them is going down, would that make me a Constitutionalist? Which right are you willing to give away? See the problem there?

Gin
09-23-2008, 07:56 PM
Exactly. Also his columns for "News With Views" contain a treasure trove of alarming statements that should scare the shit out of any vaguley "libertarian" person...

http://newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwina.htm

A sampling...


sorry to say, but yea... this is exactly the person we need to get this country back on track..

He's saying EXACTLY what he is going to do....

Some won't like it... just like some didn't like that Paul wants to Abolish the FED and End the Dept of Ed...

if you only focus on the parts you don't like, then you won't be happy with anyone... Give the guy a chance... at this point what choice do we have?

In order for us to show our true numbers on election day we have to vote for 1 person...

I believe this is why Dr. Paul stated that he supports Baldwin... (Barr made a hard choice easier)

WE MUST SHOW OUR TRUE NUMBERS.....


We all asked him to tell us who he supports.... He does... Then all he gets is criticism. No wonder he didn't want to announce it.....

Everyone needs to take a step back and take a deep breath... we have more important things to do.... Like get Baldwins name out there.... people will listen...

All the other two are doing is tearing each other down and criticizing... no solutions...

If we get Baldwin elected... Paul will be in the best position to do what he needs to do.... he will be the Secretary of the Treasury... Right where we need him to be due to this financial mess.. he can steer us out...

Lets climb on board with Dr. Paul and Chuck Baldwin and get r done....

Let's Make some more History!!!

The r3VOLution Continues.................................

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WJynIeWkf4

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=1703061#post1703061

svf
09-24-2008, 06:42 AM
And Barr is better I suppose?

Actually, if anyone is still capable of thinking objectively and taking the emotion out of it any more, Barr is better.

He's certainly far from perfect and you'll no doubt have disagreements, but comparing his articles to Baldwin's is instructive. If you didn't know the author and were asked to choose a candidate based solely on content, who would you prefer I wonder?

http://www.bobbarr2008.com/articles/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-barr/
http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/gyrobase/BrowseArchives?searchAuthor=oid%3A12429


Anyway, this is just getting tiresome... Ron Paul endorsement or not, Chuck Baldwin and the "Constitution Party" are never catching on... I'm tellin' ya.

The only 3rd party choices that will get even a trickle of media coverage, be included in some polls, and might approach a 1% showing on November 4th are Barr and Nader. If you want to cast a protest vote that might get a little attention, those are your choices.

If you want to vote for Baldwin, or McKinney, or the "Boston Tea Party", or write in Ron Paul or whatever instead and it makes you feel good, go right ahead.

R.I.P.EVOLution. Better luck next time.

Charles Wilson
09-24-2008, 07:06 AM
Various Baldwin supporters make the claim that he doesn't follow the Constitution Party's platform regarding their Theocratic values, like religious-fueled intolerance (homosexuality and abortion) and freedom of speech (pornography), but this is from his own campaign website:



The Constitution doesn't give the president, nor the federal government, this right. Constitutionalist my ass.



Again, he doesn't have this right. Constitutionalist my ass.



He's absolutely right that federal funds should not go to abortion clinics. That's Constitutionalist. What's not Constitutionalist is overriding state's rights.

If anybody here claims that Baldwin doesn't necessarily follow every aspect of the party platform, perhaps you should point them to his very own campaign page (or this thread).

Baldwin has the right ideas on some things listed, but not all. Ron Paul's views DO NOT match up with Baldwin's. I don't care who Ron Paul endorsed; Ron Paul holds many views contradictory to this religious nutjob Theocratic pseudo-libertarian.

Chuck Baldwin -- like Ron Paul -- wants to get the federal goverment out of our personal lives. Powers not authorized the Federal government by the Constitution belong to the States and the people.

The joint you put in your mouth or stick up your butt is not a federal issue. By maligning Chuck Baldwin as a "nutjob" because of his religious beliefs makes you as despicable as the MSM fascists that call Ron Paul "loopy". He is entitled to his personal beliefs just as much as you are entitled to yours -- that is what freedom is all about.

me3
09-24-2008, 07:29 AM
by maligning chuck baldwin as a "nutjob" because of his religious beliefs makes you as despicable as the msm fascists that call ron paul "loopy". He is entitled to his personal beliefs just as much as you are entitled to yours -- that is what freedom is all about.
+1776, +2008, -1984

Neil Kiernan Stephenson
09-24-2008, 10:22 AM
Various Baldwin supporters make the claim that he doesn't follow the Constitution Party's platform regarding their Theocratic values, like religious-fueled intolerance (homosexuality and abortion) and freedom of speech (pornography), but this is from his own campaign website:



The Constitution doesn't give the president, nor the federal government, this right. Constitutionalist my ass.



Again, he doesn't have this right. Constitutionalist my ass.



He's absolutely right that federal funds should not go to abortion clinics. That's Constitutionalist. What's not Constitutionalist is overriding state's rights.

If anybody here claims that Baldwin doesn't necessarily follow every aspect of the party platform, perhaps you should point them to his very own campaign page (or this thread).

Baldwin has the right ideas on some things listed, but not all. Ron Paul's views DO NOT match up with Baldwin's. I don't care who Ron Paul endorsed; Ron Paul holds many views contradictory to this religious nutjob Theocratic pseudo-libertarian.

No, he does follow the platform. As does his VP. They both said so last night. Chuck said "I have no problem with the platform, and I joined the party because of it."
Mr. Castle in the interview afterward echoed the same thing.

The Constitution Party platform is unconstitutional. This is just a tiny bit of it with my analysis.

In quotes are portions of the platform. Although some of it is fine, these are the points that really screamed out to me that the platform is Theocratic, and in some cases bordering on, or is outright religious fascism.

“This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.”

WRONG: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

(The above statement is obviously religious in nature.)

“The U.S. Constitution established a Republic rooted in Biblical law.”

WRONG: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
(The bible is a religious book. This is a total contradiction.)

“All teaching is related to basic assumptions about God and man. Education as a whole, therefore, cannot be separated from religious faith. [...] We would remove from Federal appellate review jurisdiction matters involving acknowledgement of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.”

WRONG: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

Stating that the Christian God is the sovereign source of law, liberty or government is a BLATANT violation of the 1st Amendment.

“We commend Former Chief Justice Roy Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court for his defense of the display of the Ten Commandments.”

WRONG: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

It is completely inapropriate for any state building particularly that has to do with the law to have any religious symbols. Let alone religious concepts of law.

“The law of our Creator defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman. [...]. No government may legitimately authorize or define marriage or family relations contrary to what God has instituted.”

WRONG: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
(What their religion’s “God” says is not in any way releveant to the law. PERIOD.

“We oppose any legal recognition of homosexual unions [...] We oppose efforts to legalize adoption of children by homosexual singles or couples. [...] We stand against so-called “sexual orientation” and “hate crime” statutes that attempt to legitimize inappropriate sexual behavior and to stifle public resistance to its expression”

WRONG: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
(This belief about homosexuals is ENTIRELY based on their religious beliefs. NO LAW can be made to respect any religion. PERIOD.)

“5. We also oppose all government “legalization” of suicide”

WRONG: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
(Their opposition to suicide comes entirely from their religion.)

“7. We call on our local, state and federal governments to uphold our cherished First Amendment right to free speech by vigorously enforcing our laws against obscenity to maintain a degree of separation between that which is truly speech and that which only seeks to distort and destroy. [...] Our collective representative body we call government plays a vital role in establishing and maintaining the highest level of decency in our community standards.”

WRONG: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech.
(So based on their religion, they object to profanity. So somehow, this means that they have the right through the 1st amendment to BAN what someone would say? This is a sick perversion of the 1st amendment of the highest level. In fact, it is beyond Theocracy and goes into religious FASCISM!)

“Pornography, at best, is a distortion of the true nature of sex created by God for the procreative union between one man and one woman in the holy bonds of matrimony, and at worst, is a destructive element of society resulting in significant and real emotional, physical, spiritual and financial costs to individuals, families and communities. We call on our local, state and federal governments to uphold our cherished First Amendment right to free speech by vigorously enforcing our laws against obscenity to maintain a degree of separation between that which is truly speech and that which only seeks to distort and destroy.
With the advent of the Internet and the benevolent neglect of the previous administrations, the pornography industry enjoyed uninhibited growth and expansion until the point today that we live in a sex-saturated society where almost nothing remains untainted by its perversion. While we believe in the responsibility of the individual and corporate entities to regulate themselves, we also believe that our collective representative body we call government plays a vital role in establishing and maintaining the highest level of decency in our community standards.”

WRONG: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech.
(In order to achieve what they want, one would have to acknowledge their God’s ideas about sex and morality. This therefore violates the 1st Amendment)

Charles Wilson
09-24-2008, 10:58 AM
No, he does follow the platform. As does his VP. They both said so last night. Chuck said "I have no problem with the platform, and I joined the party because of it."
Mr. Castle in the interview afterward echoed the same thing.

The Constitution Party platform is unconstitutional. This is just a tiny bit of it with my analysis.

In quotes are portions of the platform. Although some of it is fine, these are the points that really screamed out to me that the platform is Theocratic, and in some cases bordering on, or is outright religious fascism.

“This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.”

WRONG: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

(The above statement is obviously religious in nature.)

“The U.S. Constitution established a Republic rooted in Biblical law.”

WRONG: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
(The bible is a religious book. This is a total contradiction.)

“All teaching is related to basic assumptions about God and man. Education as a whole, therefore, cannot be separated from religious faith. [...] We would remove from Federal appellate review jurisdiction matters involving acknowledgement of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.”

WRONG: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

Stating that the Christian God is the sovereign source of law, liberty or government is a BLATANT violation of the 1st Amendment.

“We commend Former Chief Justice Roy Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court for his defense of the display of the Ten Commandments.”

WRONG: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

It is completely inapropriate for any state building particularly that has to do with the law to have any religious symbols. Let alone religious concepts of law.

“The law of our Creator defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman. [...]. No government may legitimately authorize or define marriage or family relations contrary to what God has instituted.”

WRONG: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
(What their religion’s “God” says is not in any way releveant to the law. PERIOD.

“We oppose any legal recognition of homosexual unions [...] We oppose efforts to legalize adoption of children by homosexual singles or couples. [...] We stand against so-called “sexual orientation” and “hate crime” statutes that attempt to legitimize inappropriate sexual behavior and to stifle public resistance to its expression”

WRONG: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
(This belief about homosexuals is ENTIRELY based on their religious beliefs. NO LAW can be made to respect any religion. PERIOD.)

“5. We also oppose all government “legalization” of suicide”

WRONG: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
(Their opposition to suicide comes entirely from their religion.)

“7. We call on our local, state and federal governments to uphold our cherished First Amendment right to free speech by vigorously enforcing our laws against obscenity to maintain a degree of separation between that which is truly speech and that which only seeks to distort and destroy. [...] Our collective representative body we call government plays a vital role in establishing and maintaining the highest level of decency in our community standards.”

WRONG: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech.
(So based on their religion, they object to profanity. So somehow, this means that they have the right through the 1st amendment to BAN what someone would say? This is a sick perversion of the 1st amendment of the highest level. In fact, it is beyond Theocracy and goes into religious FASCISM!)

“Pornography, at best, is a distortion of the true nature of sex created by God for the procreative union between one man and one woman in the holy bonds of matrimony, and at worst, is a destructive element of society resulting in significant and real emotional, physical, spiritual and financial costs to individuals, families and communities. We call on our local, state and federal governments to uphold our cherished First Amendment right to free speech by vigorously enforcing our laws against obscenity to maintain a degree of separation between that which is truly speech and that which only seeks to distort and destroy.
With the advent of the Internet and the benevolent neglect of the previous administrations, the pornography industry enjoyed uninhibited growth and expansion until the point today that we live in a sex-saturated society where almost nothing remains untainted by its perversion. While we believe in the responsibility of the individual and corporate entities to regulate themselves, we also believe that our collective representative body we call government plays a vital role in establishing and maintaining the highest level of decency in our community standards.”

WRONG: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech.
(In order to achieve what they want, one would have to acknowledge their God’s ideas about sex and morality. This therefore violates the 1st Amendment)

Wow! I do not know where to start so I will just say horse shit to your interpretation of the Constitution. It always amaze me how those like the atheists and some homosexuals interpret the Constitution to suit their beliefs and life styles. :o

Neil Kiernan Stephenson
09-24-2008, 11:27 AM
Wow! I do not know where to start so I will just say horse shit to your interpretation of the Constitution. It always amaze me how those like the atheists and some homosexuals interpret the Constitution to suit their beliefs and life styles. :o

You don't know where to start, because you know I am right.

The Constitution was NOT written to be an extension of Biblical law.

The Constitution is NOT bound by the Christian theology's analysis of the rights of individuals.

Please explain to me how I am wrong rather then throwing in some swear words like Morton Downey Jr.

By the way, I am neither an atheist or a homosexual. So, keep your ad homs to yourself.

jmdrake
09-24-2008, 11:28 AM
Various Baldwin supporters make the claim that he doesn't follow the Constitution Party's platform regarding their Theocratic values, like religious-fueled intolerance (homosexuality and abortion) and freedom of speech (pornography), but this is from his own campaign website:


Pornography has never been recognized as "speech". And abortion is a human rights issue, not just a "religious" issue. It's no more accurate to call it "religious fueled" as it was to call the abolition of slavery "religious fueled". Certainly some people might be convinced by religion that slavery is wrong, but people can come to that same conclusion without religion. The same is true about abortion. If you believe that a "fetus" at month X (say 6 months?) is a human than the federal government has a right to offer protection. You should look further into Ron Paul's own positions. 1) He supported the FEDERAL ban on late term abortions and 2) he has made the argument that as a physician he is liable to "damage to the fetus" and argues how could that be if the fetus isn't a "person"?

Finally legalized abortion depends almost entirely on Roe v. Wade's abrogation of states rights to protect the unborn. So returning to the "states rights" position would do the most to end legalized abortion.

Regards,

John M. Drake

jmdrake
09-24-2008, 11:36 AM
Chuck Baldwin -- like Ron Paul -- wants to get the federal goverment out of our personal lives. Powers not authorized the Federal government by the Constitution belong to the States and the people.

The joint you put in your mouth or stick up your butt is not a federal issue. By maligning Chuck Baldwin as a "nutjob" because of his religious beliefs makes you as despicable as the MSM fascists that call Ron Paul "loopy". He is entitled to his personal beliefs just as much as you are entitled to yours -- that is what freedom is all about.

Exactly! I'm wondering if some of these people attacking Chuck Baldwin are as aware of Ron Paul's positions as they think? Ron Paul is DECIDEDLY pro life! He also stated that, while he's against a federal marriage amendment, he supports the defense of marriage act, which protects states from being forced to recognize gay marriage in other states, and he said that if gay marriage came up for a vote in Texas and he was in the Texas state legislature he would vote against it! People have attributed to Dr. Paul positions that they WISHED he would take rather than one's he has ACTUALLY taken.

Regards,

John M. Drake

Neil Kiernan Stephenson
09-24-2008, 11:42 AM
I am not talking about pro-life issues. The status of "life" can also be analyzed scientifically. There is merit to that argument that has nothing to do with religion.

I am talking about a party and a candidate who thinks that his 1st Amendment rights can allow him to call for the banning of profanity, and to do so by using the bible as a guide to what is and is not speech!

I am talking about a party and a candidate who feels we should consult what his "God" thinks is right or wrong in the way of marriage and personal rights when writing legislation for this country!

jmdrake
09-24-2008, 11:48 AM
I am not talking about pro-life issues. The status of "life" can also be analyzed scientifically. There is merit to that argument that has nothing to do with religion.

I am talking about a party and a candidate who thinks that his 1st Amendment rights can allow him to call for the banning of profanity, and to do so by using the bible as a guide to what is and is not speech!

I am talking about a party and a candidate who feels we should consult what his "God" thinks is right or wrong in the way of marriage and personal rights when writing legislation for this country!

And the candidate you claim to have supported by your existence on this forum doesn't support gay marriage. Both Chuck Baldwin and Ron Paul would do the same thing on gay marriage. They would leave the issue entirely to the states, and if they were in a particular state legislature they would vote against gay marriage. The positions are the same. Also bans on profanity are based on community standard and not biblical standards. You will not find a verse in the Bible, for example, that says "Thou shalt not say sh*t." Also "p*ss" is used in the King James Version of the Bible.

Theocrat
09-24-2008, 11:50 AM
Exactly. Also his columns for "News With Views" contain a treasure trove of alarming statements that should scare the shit out of any vaguley "libertarian" person...

http://newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwina.htm

A sampling...










And so on. Just click around... it's all Chuck, in his own words. Then decide if this is the guy who you'd choose to "continue the rEVOLution".

What some of the RPF members fail to understand is that true liberty involves moral people living responsibly towards God and their neighbor, in the same spirit as our Founding Fathers. Dr. Chuck Baldwin, like Congressman Paul, is a true libertarian and statesman. Neither are libertines (living as if there are no moral restraints), as many of you obviously are. The anti-Christian members on these forums really need to stop making libertarianism the same as libertinism. It's damaging the movement, if I may say so myself.

RonPaulMania
09-24-2008, 11:53 AM
You know I almost wonder what you would think of the Founders statements on homosexuality, how the Bible should rule the country, and other "religious" statements. Then again, I know what your answer would be.

Theocrat
09-24-2008, 11:57 AM
You know I almost wonder what you would think of the Founders statements on homosexuality, how the Bible should rule the country, and other "religious" statements. Then again, I know what your answer would be.

I like your signature.

Neil Kiernan Stephenson
09-24-2008, 12:07 PM
What some of the RPF members fail to understand is that true liberty involves moral people living responsibly towards God and their neighbor, in the same spirit as our Founding Fathers. Dr. Chuck Baldwin, like Congressman Paul, is a true libertarian and statesman. Neither are libertines (living as if there are no moral restraints), as many of you obviously are. The anti-Christian members on these forums really need to stop making libertarianism the same as libertinism. It's damaging the movement, if I may say so myself.

WRONG.

"Dr. Chuck Baldwin, like Congressman Paul, is a true libertarian and statesman."

You cannot be a "true Libertarian" and be a theocrat at the same time. There is nothing in the Libertarian philosphy that advocates the authority of any religion. Christianity or otherwise.

jmdrake
09-24-2008, 12:17 PM
WRONG.

"Dr. Chuck Baldwin, like Congressman Paul, is a true libertarian and statesman."

You cannot be a "true Libertarian" and be a theocrat at the same time. There is nothing in the Libertarian philosphy that advocates the authority of any religion. Christianity or otherwise.

Well maybe Dr. Paul isn't a libertarian.

svf
09-24-2008, 12:17 PM
And the candidate you claim to have supported by your existence on this forum doesn't support gay marriage. Both Chuck Baldwin and Ron Paul would do the same thing on gay marriage... The positions are the same.

Uh, here's Ron Paul...

http://www.*****ty.com/ron-paul-on-gay-marriage-20071210/


John Stossel: Homosexuality. Should gays be allowed to marry?

Ron Paul: Sure.

Stossel: The State says, we will believe in this?

Paul: Sure they can do whatever they want and they can call it whatever they want , just so they don't expect to impose their relationship on somebody else. They can't make me, personally, accept what they do, but they gay couples can do whatever they want. In fact, I'd like to see all governments out of the marriage question...

vs. Chuck Baldwin...

http://covenantnews.com/baldwin040305.htm


That the United States has chosen to embrace the homosexual lifestyle by granting it legal protection, even political correctness, reveals just how depraved our once great nation has become. Should we now be shocked that homosexual marriage is on the verge of becoming a reality? It was inevitable...

While stating his support for a constitutional amendment prohibiting homosexual marriage, President Bush has enthusiastically endorsed "civil unions" for homosexuals. However, can anyone successfully explain the difference between "marriage" and "civil union?" For all practical purposes, they are one and the same...

By accepting homosexuality, America is now fueling the flames of debauchery. When homosexuality is finally and fully accepted by American law, pedophilia and other more onerous behavior will not be far behind. As such, America is on the verge of a self-induced implosion.

If the American people do not quickly reject the leadership of the two major parties and seek a radical return to moral and constitutional leadership, there is nothing left for America but a steady and certain undoing.

The same...????

berrybunches
09-24-2008, 12:27 PM
Wow! I do not know where to start so I will just say horse shit to your interpretation of the Constitution. It always amaze me how those like the atheists and some homosexuals interpret the Constitution to suit their beliefs and life styles. :o

As a women I guess I can agree. Damned liberal interpretation we have of the document, it says all men are created equal, not all people and certainly not women...excuse my sex's interpretation...we even had the gull to amend it to include voting rights.
Don't get my started on black people, this country was founded on slavery, don't they understand that?!

Sorry, got to go, my white, straight, christian male husband needs me in the kitchen.

jmdrake
09-24-2008, 12:29 PM
Uh, here's Ron Paul...

http://www.*****ty.com/ron-paul-on-gay-marriage-20071210/



vs. Chuck Baldwin...

http://covenantnews.com/baldwin040305.htm



The same...????

Yep. From a legal position they are exactly the same, even if they are rhetorically different.

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=590
Sure they can do whatever they want and they can call it whatever they want , just so they don't expect to impose their relationship on somebody else.

It all turns on what is meant by "imposing their relationship on somebody else". Even a "civil union", if it has the weight of the federal government behind it, is imposing a relationship on somebody else. Please read what Dr. Paul had to say on the house floor.

Mr. Speaker, while I oppose federal efforts to redefine marriage as something other than a union between one man and one woman, I do not believe a constitutional amendment is either a necessary or proper way to defend marriage.

While marriage is licensed and otherwise regulated by the states, government did not create the institution of marriage. In fact, the institution of marriage most likely pre-dates the institution of government! Government regulation of marriage is based on state recognition of the practices and customs formulated by private individuals interacting in civil society. Many people associate their wedding day with completing the rituals and other requirements of their faith, thus being joined in the eyes of their church and their creator, not with receiving their marriage license, thus being joined in the eyes of the state.

If I were in Congress in 1996, I would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, which used Congress’s constitutional authority to define what official state documents other states have to recognize under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a “same sex” marriage license issued in another state. This Congress, I was an original cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act, HR 3313, that removes challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from federal courts’ jurisdiction. If I were a member of the Texas legislature, I would do all I could to oppose any attempt by rogue judges to impose a new definition of marriage on the people of my state.

Having studied this issue and consulted with leading legal scholars, including an attorney who helped defend the Boy Scouts against attempts to force the organization to allow gay men to serve as scoutmasters, I am convinced that both the Defense of Marriage Act and the Marriage Protection Act can survive legal challenges and ensure that no state is forced by a federal court’s or another state’s actions to recognize same sex marriage. Therefore, while I am sympathetic to those who feel only a constitutional amendment will sufficiently address this issue, I respectfully disagree. I also am concerned that the proposed amendment, by telling the individual states how their state constitutions are to be interpreted, is a major usurpation of the states’ power. The division of power between the federal government and the states is one of the virtues of the American political system. Altering that balance endangers self-government and individual liberty. However, if federal judges wrongly interfere and attempt to compel a state to recognize the marriage licenses of another state, that would be the proper time for me to consider new legislative or constitutional approaches.

Conservatives in particular should be leery of anything that increases federal power, since centralized government power is traditionally the enemy of conservative values. I agree with the assessment of former Congressman Bob Barr, who authored the Defense of Marriage Act:

“The very fact that the FMA [Federal Marriage Amendment] was introduced said that conservatives believed it was okay to amend the Constitution to take power from the states and give it to Washington. That is hardly a basic principle of conservatism as we used to know it. It is entirely likely the left will boomerang that assertion into a future proposed amendment that would weaken gun rights or mandate income redistribution."

Passing a constitutional amendment is a long, drawn-out process. The fact that the marriage amendment already failed to gather the necessary two-thirds support in the Senate means that, even if two-thirds of House members support the amendment, it will not be sent to states for ratification this year. Even if the amendment gathers the necessary two-thirds support in both houses of Congress, it still must go through the time-consuming process of state ratification. This process requires three-quarters of the state legislatures to approve the amendment before it can become effective. Those who believe that immediate action to protect the traditional definition of marriage is necessary should consider that the Equal Rights Amendment easily passed both houses of Congress and was quickly ratified by a number of states. Yet, that amendment remains unratified today. Proponents of this marriage amendment should also consider that efforts to amend the Constitution to address flag burning and require the federal government to balance the budget have been ongoing for years, without any success.

Ironically, liberal social engineers who wish to use federal government power to redefine marriage will be able to point to the constitutional marriage amendment as proof that the definition of marriage is indeed a federal matter! I am unwilling either to cede to federal courts the authority to redefine marriage, or to deny a state’s ability to preserve the traditional definition of marriage. Instead, I believe it is time for Congress and state legislatures to reassert their authority by refusing to enforce judicial usurpations of power.

In contrast to a constitutional amendment, the Marriage Protection Act requires only a majority vote of both houses of Congress and the president’s signature to become law. The bill already has passed the House of Representatives; at least 51 senators would vote for it; and the president would sign this legislation given his commitment to protecting the traditional definition of marriage. Therefore, those who believe Congress needs to take immediate action to protect marriage this year should focus on passing the Marriage Protection Act.

Because of the dangers to liberty and traditional values posed by the unexpected consequences of amending the Constitution to strip power from the states and the people and further empower Washington, I cannot in good conscience support the marriage amendment to the United States Constitution. Instead, I plan to continue working to enact the Marriage Protection Act and protect each state’s right not to be forced to recognize a same sex marriage.

Regards,

John M. Drake

Neil Kiernan Stephenson
09-24-2008, 12:29 PM
Uh, here's Ron Paul...

http://www.*****ty.com/ron-paul-on-gay-marriage-20071210/



vs. Chuck Baldwin...

http://covenantnews.com/baldwin040305.htm



The same...????

THANK YOU For finding this. I was told I was a liar when I said that Ron Paul was not opposed to gay marriage.

jmdrake
09-24-2008, 12:33 PM
As a women I guess I can agree. Damned liberal interpretation we have of the document, it says all men are created equal, not all people and certainly not women...excuse my sex's interpretation...we even had the gull to amend it to include voting rights.
Don't get my started on black people, this country was founded on slavery, don't they understand that?!

Sorry, got to go, my white, straight, christian male husband needs me in the kitchen.

I hate to nitpick, but you're not quoting from the constitution. You're quoting from the declaration of independence. That minor (well major actually) discrepancy out of the way, carry on with your straw man argument.

Regards,

John M. Drake

Theocrat
09-24-2008, 12:35 PM
WRONG.

"Dr. Chuck Baldwin, like Congressman Paul, is a true libertarian and statesman."

You cannot be a "true Libertarian" and be a theocrat at the same time. There is nothing in the Libertarian philosphy that advocates the authority of any religion. Christianity or otherwise.

I beg to differ with you that a theocrat cannot be libertarian. I am a theocrat, and I have very libertarian convictions about the authority of the State. I believe that civil government should not regulate the Church's role in evangelism nor worship (separation of Church and State), but I do not believe religion should be separated from government. Our Founding Fathers didn't believe that, either, as this link (http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/religion.html) will show.

Your whole argument is based on the faulty assumption that there is religious neutrality when it comes to one's beliefs about a political philosophy. Everyone has a religious philosophy which they use to explain their views on politics/law/government, whether it's theistic or atheistic. Your statement above assumes that a non-Christian viewpoint is the keystone to understanding libertarian philosophy, and that is inherently a religious viewpoint, to begin with. Essentially, it is a humanistic/atheistic approach to understanding what libertarian philosophy is, and quite erroneously, it is one which was not shared by our Founders in the formation of our country.

The Constitution Party's platform is the shining example reflecting the true intents and sentiments of what our Founders envisioned when they first established a republic for the glory of God and the good of its people. The Libertarian Party's platform is just borrowing off of Christian capital to establish their own principles of what they think liberty is, minus the foundation of those principles. In a sense, they are just being pragmatic.

Conservationist
09-24-2008, 12:36 PM
There are some "Christians" who place symbolic issues before practical ones.

Embracing them is the death of Christianity, the CP and the GOP.

As Ron Paul showed us, what is really needed is a focus on the people who keep America actually running: the mostly-but-not-all Christian, mostly-but-not-all conservative, working middle class.

jmdrake
09-24-2008, 12:36 PM
THANK YOU For finding this. I was told I was a liar when I said that Ron Paul was not opposed to gay marriage.

Did you read the entire quote, or just the part that suits you?

Sure they can do whatever they want and they can call it whatever they want , just so they don't expect to impose their relationship on somebody else.

A gay marriage ban does not prevent anybody from "calling it whatever they want". Based on your first amendment rights you can say that you are married to your pet goat. But your saying that carries no legal weight. (i.e. imposing your relationship with your goat on somebody else.) He said he'd vote for a gay marriage ban if he was in a state legislature and it came up for a vote. You can't get more clear than that.

Regards,

John M. Drake

Conservationist
09-24-2008, 12:38 PM
You cannot be a "true Libertarian" and be a theocrat at the same time. There is nothing in the Libertarian philosphy that advocates the authority of any religion. Christianity or otherwise.

I'm going to call logical fallacy here, on the grounds that there is nothing in Libertarianism that rejects the authority of any religion, or the authority of no-religion.

jmdrake
09-24-2008, 12:41 PM
There are some "Christians" who place symbolic issues before practical ones.

Embracing them is the death of Christianity, the CP and the GOP.

As Ron Paul showed us, what is really needed is a focus on the people who keep America actually running: the mostly-but-not-all Christian, mostly-but-not-all conservative, working middle class.

Yep. Ron Paul showed us this by having Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney and Chuck Baldwin at the same press conference affirming the same key values. I'm not sure why some RP supporters have missed the significance of this. Note that "libertarian" Bob Barr was missing from that conference and attacking Ron Paul for even having it.

Neil Kiernan Stephenson
09-24-2008, 12:46 PM
Did you read the entire quote, or just the part that suits you?

Sure they can do whatever they want and they can call it whatever they want , just so they don't expect to impose their relationship on somebody else.

A gay marriage ban does not prevent anybody from "calling it whatever they want". Based on your first amendment rights you can say that you are married to your pet goat. But your saying that carries no legal weight. (i.e. imposing your relationship with your goat on somebody else.) He said he'd vote for a gay marriage ban if he was in a state legislature and it came up for a vote. You can't get more clear than that.

Regards,

John M. Drake

In a different interview, he was asked about Gay Marriage, and said that there should not be a problem with it. That any two adults can enter into any contract they want and call it whatever they want. I will see if I can find it. I never thought I would ever have to argue this with people in this "movement" but I watch now as the religious fascists take over this movement.

Neil Kiernan Stephenson
09-24-2008, 12:47 PM
I'm going to call logical fallacy here, on the grounds that there is nothing in Libertarianism that rejects the authority of any religion, or the authority of no-religion.

Please show me a quote ANYWHERE that states that Libertarianism believes in the authority of religion in government. And I mean from an actual Libertarian. Not a religious fascist pretending to be one.

Neil Kiernan Stephenson
09-24-2008, 12:48 PM
I beg to differ with you that a theocrat cannot be libertarian. I am a theocrat, and I have very libertarian convictions about the authority of the State. I believe that civil government should not regulate the Church's role in evangelism nor worship (separation of Church and State), but I do not believe religion should be separated from government. Our Founding Fathers didn't believe that, either, as this link (http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/religion.html) will show.

Your whole argument is based on the faulty assumption that there is religious neutrality when it comes to one's beliefs about a political philosophy. Everyone has a religious philosophy which they use to explain their views on politics/law/government, whether it's theistic or atheistic. Your statement above assumes that a non-Christian viewpoint is the keystone to understanding libertarian philosophy, and that is inherently a religious viewpoint, to begin with. Essentially, it is a humanistic/atheistic approach to understanding what libertarian philosophy is, and quite erroneously, it is one which was not shared by our Founders in the formation of our country.

The Constitution Party's platform is the shining example reflecting the true intents and sentiments of what our Founders envisioned when they first established a republic for the glory of God and the good of its people. The Libertarian Party's platform is just borrowing off of Christian capital to establish their own principles of what they think liberty is, minus the foundation of those principles. In a sense, they are just being pragmatic.

You can beg to differ all you want. You will still be absolutely wrong. Libertarianism does not recognize the authority of any religion in government. Period.

Conservationist
09-24-2008, 12:49 PM
In a different interview, he was asked about Gay Marriage, and said that there should not be a problem with it. That any two adults can enter into any contract they want and call it whatever they want.

Here's my take on it...

He's saying that no government-regulated marriage between gays should be allowed.

However, he's also hinting that government shouldn't be regulating marriage -- churches (et al) should. In Dr. Paul's mind, I am conjecturing, marriage via government is a function of health care (avoid inbreeding) and legal status.

In this he avoids being a fanatic about either side of the issue and comes up with a working compromise. Gays can get married in gay churches, but don't get legal status, because it is unlikely that children will come from the union.

svf
09-24-2008, 12:51 PM
In a different interview, he was asked about Gay Marriage, and said that there should not be a problem with it. That any two adults can enter into any contract they want and call it whatever they want. I will see if I can find it. I never thought I would ever have to argue this with people in this "movement" but I watch now as the religious fascists take over this movement.

Also he pretty clearly states government should ideally not be involved in the business of marriage, that it's a religious ceremony. Therefore, if a church chooses to allow same-sex marriage, he presumably has no problem with it.

Yeah, this is a dark day for the rEVOLution. The true colors are really showing now. Does Ron have any idea what this "endorsement" is doing to his movement?

Conservationist
09-24-2008, 12:51 PM
Please show me a quote ANYWHERE that states that Libertarianism believes in the authority of religion in government. And I mean from an actual Libertarian. Not a religious fascist pretending to be one.



Libertarianism is a term used by a broad spectrum[1] of political philosophies which prioritize individual liberty[2] and seek to minimize or even abolish the state.[3][4] The definition of libertarian in a political sense is a contentious issue and there is no single principle or set of principles on which all libertarians would agree. The proper role of government is described from a number of different metaphysical, epistemological, and moral viewpoints.[5] The word libertarian is an antonym of authoritarian.[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism


As I said above, Libertarianism does not prohibit the authority of religion in government.

However, Libertarianism is a spectrum running from Republican to Anarchist. Ron Paul very sensibly tempers his Libertarianism with old fashioned, common sense values.

Conservationist
09-24-2008, 12:52 PM
Yep. Ron Paul showed us this by having Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney and Chuck Baldwin at the same press conference affirming the same key values. I'm not sure why some RP supporters have missed the significance of this. Note that "libertarian" Bob Barr was missing from that conference and attacking Ron Paul for even having it.

The enemies of freedom would like to see us divided, wouldn't they? But the core issues really are the same, compromise can be had, etc.

Not sure what the deal with Bob Barr is, but many libertarians have become extremists who feel uncomfortable with workable solutions.

Theocrat
09-24-2008, 12:53 PM
Please show me a quote ANYWHERE that states that Libertarianism believes in the authority of religion in government. And I mean from an actual Libertarian. Not a religious fascist pretending to be one.

You've just "poisoned the well." (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html)

Neil Kiernan Stephenson
09-24-2008, 12:56 PM
Here's my take on it...

He's saying that no government-regulated marriage between gays should be allowed.

However, he's also hinting that government shouldn't be regulating marriage -- churches (et al) should. In Dr. Paul's mind, I am conjecturing, marriage via government is a function of health care (avoid inbreeding) and legal status.

In this he avoids being a fanatic about either side of the issue and comes up with a working compromise. Gays can get married in gay churches, but don't get legal status, because it is unlikely that children will come from the union.

The CP platform states that they feel that no government can contradict what their god says about marriage. They would seek legislation or oppose legislation according to this belief.

The Constitution's 1st amendment that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

If a religion believes that people cannot marry if they are the same gender, the members of that religion have the right not to perform the ceremony, or they can choose not to marry someone of the same gender themselves. They DO NOT have the right to seek legislation that would ban the marriage of people of the same gender based on their religious beliefs. PERIOD.

You cannot make laws to respect the establishment of a religion.

And you cannot make laws to prevent someone else from practicing theirs. And if their religion permits gay marriage, then that is the end of it.

The Constitution Party platform is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Chuck Baldwin and Darrel Castle have both said they embrace the platform. And it is riddled with unconstitutional intrepetations of the Constitution itself. And an agenda that would call on them to act on their beliefs if they are elected to office.

You guys should of voted for Huckabee.

Saying that the Constitution Party is the party for constitutionalists is like saying the Patriot act is the law for patriots.

jmdrake
09-24-2008, 12:59 PM
In a different interview, he was asked about Gay Marriage, and said that there should not be a problem with it. That any two adults can enter into any contract they want and call it whatever they want. I will see if I can find it. I never thought I would ever have to argue this with people in this "movement" but I watch now as the religious fascists take over this movement.

:rolleyes: By your definition Ron Paul is a religious fascist.

A ban on gay marriage doesn't stop people from entering into contracts between themselves. Again let's go back to the goat marriage example. If you want to write a contract that says that if you leave your goat you have to give it alimony you can do that. But you can't demand that someone else treat your goat as your spouse just because you entered into such a contract.

Now back to reality. Even without the "right" to get married two people can set up many of the "rights" of marriage through contract. Anybody can through contract give anybody else power of attorney. Anybody can through contract give anybody else hospital visitation rights. Anybody can will anything to anybody else. Anybody through contract force themselves to pay "alimony" to somebody else.

The difference with marriage and contracts in general is that by current law marriage imposes a contract on disinterested third parties. That's the difference.

Regards,

John M. Drake

jmdrake
09-24-2008, 01:00 PM
The CP platform states that they feel that no government can contradict what their god says about marriage. They would seek legislation or oppose legislation according to this belief.

The Constitution's 1st amendment that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

If a religion believes that people cannot marry if they are the same gender, the members of that religion have the right not to perform the ceremony, or they can choose not to marry someone of the same gender themselves. They DO NOT have the right to seek legislation that would ban the marriage of people of the same gender based on their religious beliefs. PERIOD.

You cannot make laws to respect the establishment of a religion.

And you cannot make laws to prevent someone else from practicing theirs. And if their religion permits gay marriage, then that is the end of it.

The Constitution Party platform is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Chuck Baldwin and Darrel Castle have both said they embrace the platform. And it is riddled with unconstitutional intrepetations of the Constitution itself. And an agenda that would call on them to act on their beliefs if they are elected to office.

You guys should of voted for Huckabee.

Saying that the Constitution Party is the party for constitutionalists is like saying the Patriot act is the law for patriots.

Ron Paul himself said he would vote against gay marriage if presented with such a vote in a state legislature. By your definition he's "unconstitutional".

Conservationist
09-24-2008, 01:01 PM
Also he pretty clearly states government should ideally not be involved in the business of marriage, that it's a religious ceremony. Therefore, if a church chooses to allow same-sex marriage, he presumably has no problem with it.

I think this is less a dark day than it may appear to be.

First of all, this issue is tiny compared to the big ones facing America and the world. Gay marriage or nuclear proliferation, which to address first?

Second, he's allowing us to pick churches based on their policies. Just like capitalism and democracy, this works by having the most competent people go to churches that reflect their outlooks. It empowers the smart and disorganizes the dumb.

jmdrake
09-24-2008, 01:16 PM
Also he pretty clearly states government should ideally not be involved in the business of marriage, that it's a religious ceremony. Therefore, if a church chooses to allow same-sex marriage, he presumably has no problem with it.

Yeah, this is a dark day for the rEVOLution. The true colors are really showing now. Does Ron have any idea what this "endorsement" is doing to his movement?

What "true colors"? The intolerance towards Christians? Goodness I've yet to see a Christian thread started with "We must not support Bob Barr because he's ok with gay marriage". Ron Paul's position with his "multiple endorsement" should be clear to anyone willing to actually think it through. Pick the candidate the candidate who has embraced the core principles and best fits YOUR positions and support him (or her in the case of McKinney). Quit trying to "cat herd" or "pigeon hole" your fellow RP supporters into one candidate or another. Those complaining about "religious conservatives" being part of the movement really weren't paying attention to the movement. Dr. Paul actively worked to bring them in and he personally asked Chuck Baldwin to lead that movement.

Kade
09-24-2008, 01:24 PM
Various Baldwin supporters make the claim that he doesn't follow the Constitution Party's platform regarding their Theocratic values, like religious-fueled intolerance (homosexuality and abortion) and freedom of speech (pornography), but this is from his own campaign website:



The Constitution doesn't give the president, nor the federal government, this right. Constitutionalist my ass.



Again, he doesn't have this right. Constitutionalist my ass.



He's absolutely right that federal funds should not go to abortion clinics. That's Constitutionalist. What's not Constitutionalist is overriding state's rights.

If anybody here claims that Baldwin doesn't necessarily follow every aspect of the party platform, perhaps you should point them to his very own campaign page (or this thread).

Baldwin has the right ideas on some things listed, but not all. Ron Paul's views DO NOT match up with Baldwin's. I don't care who Ron Paul endorsed; Ron Paul holds many views contradictory to this religious nutjob Theocratic pseudo-libertarian.

+1776

The Constitution Party would make Jefferson shit bricks.

Neil Kiernan Stephenson
09-24-2008, 01:34 PM
+1776

The Constitution Party would make Jefferson shit bricks.

Yep.

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."

Thomas Jefferson.

So much for the theory that the founding fathers wrote the Constitution as an extension of Biblical law.

Neil Kiernan Stephenson
09-24-2008, 01:44 PM
Also, Thomas Jefferson cautions on the Clergy being involved in government.

* The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man (Letter to J. Moor, 1800).
* The clergy...believe that any portion of power confided to me [as President] will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion (Letter to Benjamin Rush, 1800).
* History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes (Letter to von Humboldt, 1813).
* In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own (Letter to H. Spafford, 1814).

Kade
09-24-2008, 01:53 PM
Also, Thomas Jefferson cautions on the Clergy being involved in government.

* The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man (Letter to J. Moor, 1800).
* The clergy...believe that any portion of power confided to me [as President] will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion (Letter to Benjamin Rush, 1800).
* History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes (Letter to von Humboldt, 1813).
* In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own (Letter to H. Spafford, 1814).

I have three of those quotes in frames, on display.

jmdrake
09-24-2008, 01:57 PM
Great. Wonderful. Quote Jefferson and ignore all of the other founding fathers. At the end of the day you're still stuck with the fact that Ron Paul explicitly said he would vote against gay marriage if it came up in a state legislature that he might be a part of.

svf
09-24-2008, 02:07 PM
Great. Wonderful. Quote Jefferson and ignore all of the other founding fathers. At the end of the day you're still stuck with the fact that Ron Paul explicitly said he would vote against gay marriage if it came up in a state legislature that he might be a part of.

Here's a few more for ya...

Thomas Paine:
"As to religion, I hold it to be the indispensable duty of government to protect all conscientious protesters thereof, and I know of no other business government has to do therewith."

James Madison:
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for is faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."

George Washington:
"I am persuaded, you will permit me to observe that the path of true piety is so plain as to require but little political direction. To this consideration we ought to ascribe the absence of any regulation, respecting religion, from the Magna-Charta [Constitution] of our country"

Kade
09-24-2008, 02:13 PM
Great. Wonderful. Quote Jefferson and ignore all of the other founding fathers. At the end of the day you're still stuck with the fact that Ron Paul explicitly said he would vote against gay marriage if it came up in a state legislature that he might be a part of.

Ron Paul is no Thomas Jefferson, sorry to break the news to you.

G-Wohl
09-24-2008, 02:21 PM
Great. Wonderful. Quote Jefferson and ignore all of the other founding fathers. At the end of the day you're still stuck with the fact that Ron Paul explicitly said he would vote against gay marriage if it came up in a state legislature that he might be a part of.

That's fine, because he has that right. He knows that it would be unconstitutional to institute any law or amendment on a federal level banning gay marriage.

The Constitution Party, as quoted, says NO government (state OR federal) should be allowed to implement gay marriages. Ron Paul doesn't think that way - Chuck Baldwin does.

DeadtoSin
09-24-2008, 02:50 PM
Most RPF people are so disappointing. For such supposedly intelligent and "open minded" people we've got the most narrow minded people I've ever seen. Heck, Reddit is better sometimes at getting an idea right and that's sad.

G-Wohl
09-24-2008, 03:53 PM
Most RPF people are so disappointing. For such supposedly intelligent and "open minded" people we've got the most narrow minded people I've ever seen. Heck, Reddit is better sometimes at getting an idea right and that's sad.

Elaborate, please. Are you referring to the narrow minded people that shove Christian values into constitutional government, or the narrow minded people that wish to follow the Constitution as written?

JosephTheLibertarian
09-24-2008, 06:30 PM
Most RPF people are so disappointing. For such supposedly intelligent and "open minded" people we've got the most narrow minded people I've ever seen. Heck, Reddit is better sometimes at getting an idea right and that's sad.

Only when people disagree with you. You're a bigoted homophobe, there's not a libertarian bone in your body. You know, DTS supports the Americans with Disabilities Act [ADA] He's also a religious nut, don't pay him any mind.

DeadtoSin
09-24-2008, 06:48 PM
Only when people disagree with you. You're a bigoted homophobe, there's not a libertarian bone in your body. You know, DTS supports the Americans with Disabilities Act [ADA] He's also a religious nut, don't pay him any mind.

One, you should put me back on your ignore list.

Also, I never said I supported the ADA. I just couldn't stand you making light of disabled people.

I'm not a homophobe in any sense of the word. You should seriously stop talking.

JosephTheLibertarian
09-24-2008, 06:54 PM
One, you should put me back on your ignore list.

Also, I never said I supported the ADA. I just couldn't stand you making light of disabled people.

I'm not a homophobe in any sense of the word. You should seriously stop talking.

Don't back track. You said we need the ada. You're a bigoted liar, go back to your church of sheep.

FindLiberty
09-24-2008, 06:56 PM
Ya know, it's interesting how the "Ron Paul" Revolution can't seem to gain full momentum behind ANY one candidate without this in-fighting.

The Rs and Ds don't have much to worry about (being replaced by another party) in November.

There must be a lot a Libertarians here, 'cause it's "a lot like herding kittens".

DeadtoSin
09-24-2008, 06:58 PM
Don't back track. You said we need the ada. You're a bigoted liar, go back to your church of sheep.

Good job showing how ignorant you are. I don't mean to be rude, but I do want to let you know that you are kind of a joke to a lot of people. You so obviously twist everything and everyone can tell what a liar you are it actually makes it comical.

JosephTheLibertarian
09-24-2008, 07:20 PM
Good job showing how ignorant you are. I don't mean to be rude, but I do want to let you know that you are kind of a joke to a lot of people. You so obviously twist everything and everyone can tell what a liar you are it actually makes it comical.

Was it my imagination that you was supporting ada? No. You just said "I don't mean to be rude" because you fear the mods :)

I never lie. I'm very honest, you don't know me well enough to say anything about me. Weren't you a member of that f3 thing started by HUCKABEE SUPPORTERS??? LOL

Ha. Funny, you reported me. I guess you don't like dissent, eh DTS?

DeadtoSin
09-24-2008, 07:36 PM
Was it my imagination that you was supporting ada? No. You just said "I don't mean to be rude" because you fear the mods :)

I never lie. I'm very honest, you don't know me well enough to say anything about me. Weren't you a member of that f3 thing started by HUCKABEE SUPPORTERS??? LOL

Ha. Funny, you reported me. I guess you don't like dissent, eh DTS?

I don't have to say I don't mean to be rude, because I have no reason to fear the mods. I haven't done anything wrong.

I think it is interesting that I don't know you well enough to say anything about you, and yet you seem to just KNOW that I'm a homophobe among other things.

Also, thats interesting that you bring up F3. You too were a member for a while, and for the exact same reason. You wanted to bring a libertarian perspective to their boards.

It isn't that I don't like dissent, yet again you manage to twist everything. I don't like it when people like you are rude. Of course, the admins would never dare to do a thing about you. I may get in trouble for saying this actually, but I think the admins are pretty bad about enforcing their rules fairly. It seems to me that they only pick and choose what is against the rules, which makes me wonder why we should even have rules at all.

Raul08
09-24-2008, 10:12 PM
Look at it this way....your arguing minor issues that if any of the other canidates argued you would dismiss as not talking about the REAL issues. Im sorry but I support him due to the REAL issues.

Besides, his views on Church and State and Homosexuality will never be enforced were he to enter office. Too much bad press. I speculize that he is trying to draw some of the conservative vote.

berrybunches
09-24-2008, 11:35 PM
I hate to nitpick, but you're not quoting from the constitution. You're quoting from the declaration of independence. That minor (well major actually) discrepancy out of the way, carry on with your straw man argument.

Regards,

John M. Drake

I was just making a joke.

aji
09-25-2008, 09:49 AM
Hi,

I don't post very often, but I do read here. I also have to say that I do also miss Ron Paul as a candidate but we have to have a bit more fellowship and alignment here. Our cause is so important.

I can be guitly of inflammatory posts too, however we are supposed to be the enlightened masses, not like Obama or McCain supporters.

I don't agree with everything that Chuck, Bob and the others say, but the main idea here and the reason that you are on this website is that they are for fixing our country. The others (two major parties) are not. We can work out the smaller issues later.

BKom
09-28-2008, 11:26 PM
Look at it this way....your arguing minor issues that if any of the other canidates argued you would dismiss as not talking about the REAL issues. Im sorry but I support him due to the REAL issues.

Besides, his views on Church and State and Homosexuality will never be enforced were he to enter office. Too much bad press. I speculize that he is trying to draw some of the conservative vote.

If you want to predict which part of any candidate's platform will actually be put into action upon taking office, first look to the parts that make your skin crawl. Further narrow it down to those that give you physical pain. Then narrow it again to the one thing or two things that make you both vomit then weep at the same time. BAM! That's the one or two you'll get.

I always predict based on this, and I've never yet been wrong.

Want to know which things you'll never get? First look to the things that make you love the candidate, make you want to go out and knock on doors for him, make you want to phone call people endlessly for him. Then put a bright red line through them because they'll never happen.

You've just learned politics 101. Next class: What's a conservative? 102.

Neil Kiernan Stephenson
09-28-2008, 11:48 PM
Chuck Baldwin -- like Ron Paul -- wants to get the federal goverment out of our personal lives. Powers not authorized the Federal government by the Constitution belong to the States and the people.

The joint you put in your mouth or stick up your butt is not a federal issue. By maligning Chuck Baldwin as a "nutjob" because of his religious beliefs makes you as despicable as the MSM fascists that call Ron Paul "loopy". He is entitled to his personal beliefs just as much as you are entitled to yours -- that is what freedom is all about.

He cannot want to be out of our personal lives and hate gay people and want to be in theirs.

Neil Kiernan Stephenson
09-28-2008, 11:50 PM
Look at it this way....your arguing minor issues that if any of the other canidates argued you would dismiss as not talking about the REAL issues. Im sorry but I support him due to the REAL issues.

Besides, his views on Church and State and Homosexuality will never be enforced were he to enter office. Too much bad press. I speculize that he is trying to draw some of the conservative vote.


Bigotry in any form cannot be tolerated in someone who is supposed to be fighting for "freedom".

Hitler said bad things about Jews before he was elected too, I doubt anyone expected the holocaust.

Neil Kiernan Stephenson
09-28-2008, 11:52 PM
I have friends in the Constitution Party. The ones who tell me they object to several parts of the platform. Up until last night I was convinced that I was going to cast my vote for Chuck Baldwin. But last night Chuck Baldwin stated that he supports the Constitution Party platform, and that in fact he joined the party because of it. Darrell Castle, his VP running mate said the same thing afterward.

We are now looking at an invasion of what amounts to fascism disguised as religion into the Ron Paul movement. I am absolutely astounded by the reactions I am getting from people who five months ago would of scoffed at the notion that we would ever support a candidate who supports this platform.

People say you vote for the man, not the party. Or the platform. But when a man says that he AGREES with the platform, and more to the point, that he JOINED A PARTY BECAUSE OF IT, I can no longer make this distinction.

I withdraw my endorsement of Chuck Baldwin for President. This also means I will now be casting a vote for no one on the Presidential ballot this November. There are still plenty of Constitution party candidates that I do support, like Jaynee Germond who is running for Congress in Oregon. And I ask that people evaluate each candidate individually, the same I would say of the Libertarian party despite my parties idiotic nominee. (And oddly enough, after this study into the Constitution Party's platform I begin to wonder if Barr was a member of the CP when he was in congress).

What is below, is an analysis of the Constitution Party platform when compared to the constitution. I made some of this argument earlier, and was jumped on right off the bat by people who believe that the Christian religion and the Constitution are one in the same. It is not hard to figure out how this platform violates the Constitution, because almost all of it stems from the violations of the very FIRST amendment.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

FROM THE CONSTITUTION PARTY PLATFORM:

“This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.”

“The U.S. Constitution established a Republic rooted in Biblical law.”

These statements imply that our founding fathers founded this country to be a Christian theocracy. And that the laws in the bible are the roots of the Constitution.

Thomas Jefferson on Separation of Church and state:

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorized only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.]”

“I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling in religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the United States. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in religious discipline has been delegated to the General Government.”

Clearly, Thomas Jefferson did not believe that religion has any authority in government. Anyone want to argue on Thomas Jefferson being a founding father?

What about these?

Thomas Paine:
"As to religion, I hold it to be the indispensable duty of government to protect all conscientious protesters thereof, and I know of no other business government has to do therewith."

James Madison:
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for is faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."

George Washington:
"I am persuaded, you will permit me to observe that the path of true piety is so plain as to require but little political direction. To this consideration we ought to ascribe the absence of any regulation, respecting religion, from the Magna-Charta [Constitution] of our country"

FROM THE CONSTITUTION PARTY PLATFORM:
“All teaching is related to basic assumptions about God and man. Education as a whole, therefore, cannot be separated from religious faith. [...] We would remove from Federal appellate review jurisdiction matters involving acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.”

Definition of Federal appellate review: Appellate jurisdiction is the power of a court to review decisions and change outcomes of decisions of lower courts. Most appellate jurisdiction is legislatively created, and may consist of appeals by leave of the appellate court or by right. Depending on the type of case and the decision below, appellate review primarily consists of: an entirely new hearing (a trial de novo); a hearing where the appellate court gives deference to factual findings of the lower court; or review of particular legal rulings made by the lower court (an appeal on the record).

This would make their religion part of public education.

This would prevent the FEDERAL government from overruling lower courts rights to acknowledge the Christian god as the sovereign source of law, liberty or government.

This would prevent the FEDERAL government from hearing appeals based on lower courts favoring Christianity.

FROM THE CONSTIUTION PARTY PLATFORM:
“The law of our Creator defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman. [...]. No government may legitimately authorize or define marriage or family relations contrary to what God has instituted. We oppose any legal recognition of homosexual unions”

This states that no government can authorize or define marriage in any way that is contrary to what their religion defines marriage as.

To make this statement asks the government to pass laws that would favor the establishment of a religion.

And in addition, if someone else's religion allows gay marriage, then it states that the government should not be allowed to recognize such unions. This would mean passing laws to prevent the free exercise of another religion.

They say they want the government out of marriage after the fact to try and deflect this point, the problem is, that they oppose legislation that in any way contradicts their religious view on what marriage is.

This issue only gets worse as you continue reading.

FROM THE CONSTIUTTION PARTY PLATFORM:

“We oppose efforts to legalize adoption of children by homosexual singles or couples.”

This calls on the government to make it illegal for people who are gay to adopt, based entirely on their religions opposition to homosexual behavior.

This once again asks for laws to be affected or denied to respect the establishment of a religion.

FROM THE CONSTITUTION PARTY PLATFORM:
“We stand against so-called “sexual orientation” and “hate crime” statutes that attempt to legitimize inappropriate sexual behavior and to stifle public resistance to its expression”

This calls for the government not to legitimize what they oppose about someone else's sexual orientation based on their religious beliefs.

And it calls for an end to “hate crime” statutes that stifle public resistance to it's expression. Meaning that they want it to be legal to resist someone else's “expression” of their sexual exploitation. And apparently to make it legal to gay bash.

FROM THE CONSTITUTION PARTY PLATFORM:
“5. We also oppose all government “legalization” of suicide”

Libertarians talk about people being free to do with their own bodies what they wish. This opposition to suicide is based on their religion. And it would force people who seek to end their lives for medical reasons or any reason for that matter to adhere to THEIR religious beliefs with their own bodies.

FROM THE CONSTITUTION PARTY PLATFORM:
“7. We call on our local, state and federal governments to uphold our cherished First Amendment right to free speech by vigorously enforcing our laws against obscenity to maintain a degree of separation between that which is truly speech and that which only seeks to distort and destroy. [...] Our collective representative body we call government plays a vital role in establishing and maintaining the highest level of decency in our community standards.”

This statement implies that they believe that their “cherished 1st amendment right to free speech” gives them the right to pass and enforce laws against obscenity. “To maintain a degree of separation between that which is truly speech and that which seeks only to distort and destroy.”

So, in other words, based on their religious beliefs, they should be able to invoke THEIR right to free speech by the government which as they put it “Our collective representative body we call government plays a vital role in establishing and maintaining the highest level of decency in our community standards.” to prevent SOMEONE ELSE from speaking profanity. And to separate what IS speech and what is not. This directly states that the government has a VITAL ROLE in doing this. So let me get this straight, it's not ok for the government to tell us what we can and cannot say, unless of course it is profane according to Christian doctrine?

FROM THE CONSTITUTION PARTY PLATFORM:
“Pornography, at best, is a distortion of the true nature of sex created by God for the procreative union between one man and one woman in the holy bonds of matrimony, and at worst, is a destructive element of society resulting in significant and real emotional, physical, spiritual and financial costs to individuals, families and communities. We call on our local, state and federal governments to uphold our cherished First Amendment right to free speech by vigorously enforcing our laws against obscenity to maintain a degree of separation between that which is truly speech and that which only seeks to distort and destroy.
With the advent of the Internet and the benevolent neglect of the previous administrations, the pornography industry enjoyed uninhibited growth and expansion until the point today that we live in a sex-saturated society where almost nothing remains untainted by its perversion. While we believe in the responsibility of the individual and corporate entities to regulate themselves, we also believe that our collective representative body we call government plays a vital role in establishing and maintaining the highest level of decency in our community standards.”

So, in this statement, they say that the true nature of sex itself was created by their god. And that they are therefore empowered to legislate it.

And that once again, THEIR first amendment rights of free speech enable them to legislation the expression of other people based on their religious beliefs.

Then this further gem.

“With the advent of the Internet and the benevolent neglect of the previous administrations, the pornography industry enjoyed uninhibited growth and expansion until the point today that we live in a sex-saturated society where almost nothing remains untainted by its perversion. While we believe in the responsibility of the individual and corporate entities to regulate themselves, we also believe that our collective representative body we call government plays a vital role in establishing and maintaining the highest level of decency in our community standards.”

This calls on the government to regulate the Internet according to their religious beliefs of what is and is not obscenity. And states that the government has a VITAL ROLE in doing this.

This entire concept opens a door to using the bible as means to interpret the Constitution. And more to the point, states that is how it was meant to be, and properly should be. And that the Constitution is rooted in biblical law. History has proven time and again that biblical law is not what anyone could call Libertarian.

Just ask the people put to death for their “heresy”

Ask the people slaughtered in the crusades on both sides.

Ask the women who were told to mind their place in society according to the bible. And to honor and OBEY their husbands.

Ask the slaves that various followers of the Christian God owned.

Ask the girls who are forced to wear skirts to their ankles in some churches.

Ask the people prohibited from seeking divorce in others.

Ask the people who were whipped for being caught dancing.

These people have the right to believe this, and to practice it themselves, but when you want to remove the Constitution's ability to separate church and state, and you start down the road of allowing one religion to be the law of the land for all of the citizens of the United States, you are opening the door for that religion to force it's views on the American people.

Ask Thomas Jefferson why he cautions about the clergy, being involved in government.
*The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man (Letter to J. Moor, 1800).
* The clergy...believe that any portion of power confided to me [as President] will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion (Letter to Benjamin Rush, 1800).
* History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes (Letter to von Humboldt, 1813).
* In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own (Letter to H. Spafford, 1814).

Right now, your asking me to vote a member of the clergy into the highest office in our government.

Why didn't we support Mike Huckabee again?

JohnM
09-29-2008, 07:41 AM
Why didn't we support Mike Huckabee again?

1. He believed in big government

2. He did not believe in balanced budgets

3. He supported the war

4. He believed in an interventionist foreign policy

I didn't agree with Dr. Paul about everything, but I supported him. And I respect him. I don't agree with Chuck Baldwin about everything, but I would be happy to support him. And the fact that Dr. Paul has come out and endorsed him indicates, to me, that he is probably the best candidate out there.

I'm a little disappointed that people on here who claim to support the rEVOLution have so little respect for Dr. Paul's judgment.

revolutionman
09-29-2008, 09:03 AM
everyone is entitled to their religious beliefs, but when you enter the political arena, they need to check that shit at the door. you cant use your position as an elected official to proselytize for your religion. Its highly unethical, and it debases the entire political process. you can't use your power to satisfy your own goals. Thats the old way, thats what we are trying to get away from. We're looking for elected officials that adhere to the law of the land, and respect the spirit and tradition of America, not those who seek to use the powers of the executive branch to coerce the public into obeying their edicts.

CERTAINLY not some one who implies the threat of unleashing a horde of Christian radicals on abortion clinics.

Kade
09-29-2008, 10:46 AM
I have friends in the Constitution Party. The ones who tell me they object to several parts of the platform. Up until last night I was convinced that I was going to cast my vote for Chuck Baldwin. But last night Chuck Baldwin stated that he supports the Constitution Party platform, and that in fact he joined the party because of it. Darrell Castle, his VP running mate said the same thing afterward.

We are now looking at an invasion of what amounts to fascism disguised as religion into the Ron Paul movement. I am absolutely astounded by the reactions I am getting from people who five months ago would of scoffed at the notion that we would ever support a candidate who supports this platform.

People say you vote for the man, not the party. Or the platform. But when a man says that he AGREES with the platform, and more to the point, that he JOINED A PARTY BECAUSE OF IT, I can no longer make this distinction.

I withdraw my endorsement of Chuck Baldwin for President. This also means I will now be casting a vote for no one on the Presidential ballot this November. There are still plenty of Constitution party candidates that I do support, like Jaynee Germond who is running for Congress in Oregon. And I ask that people evaluate each candidate individually, the same I would say of the Libertarian party despite my parties idiotic nominee. (And oddly enough, after this study into the Constitution Party's platform I begin to wonder if Barr was a member of the CP when he was in congress).

What is below, is an analysis of the Constitution Party platform when compared to the constitution. I made some of this argument earlier, and was jumped on right off the bat by people who believe that the Christian religion and the Constitution are one in the same. It is not hard to figure out how this platform violates the Constitution, because almost all of it stems from the violations of the very FIRST amendment.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

FROM THE CONSTITUTION PARTY PLATFORM:

“This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.”

“The U.S. Constitution established a Republic rooted in Biblical law.”

These statements imply that our founding fathers founded this country to be a Christian theocracy. And that the laws in the bible are the roots of the Constitution.

Thomas Jefferson on Separation of Church and state:

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorized only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.]”

“I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling in religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the United States. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in religious discipline has been delegated to the General Government.”

Clearly, Thomas Jefferson did not believe that religion has any authority in government. Anyone want to argue on Thomas Jefferson being a founding father?

What about these?

Thomas Paine:
"As to religion, I hold it to be the indispensable duty of government to protect all conscientious protesters thereof, and I know of no other business government has to do therewith."

James Madison:
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for is faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."

George Washington:
"I am persuaded, you will permit me to observe that the path of true piety is so plain as to require but little political direction. To this consideration we ought to ascribe the absence of any regulation, respecting religion, from the Magna-Charta [Constitution] of our country"

FROM THE CONSTITUTION PARTY PLATFORM:
“All teaching is related to basic assumptions about God and man. Education as a whole, therefore, cannot be separated from religious faith. [...] We would remove from Federal appellate review jurisdiction matters involving acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.”

Definition of Federal appellate review: Appellate jurisdiction is the power of a court to review decisions and change outcomes of decisions of lower courts. Most appellate jurisdiction is legislatively created, and may consist of appeals by leave of the appellate court or by right. Depending on the type of case and the decision below, appellate review primarily consists of: an entirely new hearing (a trial de novo); a hearing where the appellate court gives deference to factual findings of the lower court; or review of particular legal rulings made by the lower court (an appeal on the record).

This would make their religion part of public education.

This would prevent the FEDERAL government from overruling lower courts rights to acknowledge the Christian god as the sovereign source of law, liberty or government.

This would prevent the FEDERAL government from hearing appeals based on lower courts favoring Christianity.

FROM THE CONSTIUTION PARTY PLATFORM:
“The law of our Creator defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman. [...]. No government may legitimately authorize or define marriage or family relations contrary to what God has instituted. We oppose any legal recognition of homosexual unions”

This states that no government can authorize or define marriage in any way that is contrary to what their religion defines marriage as.

To make this statement asks the government to pass laws that would favor the establishment of a religion.

And in addition, if someone else's religion allows gay marriage, then it states that the government should not be allowed to recognize such unions. This would mean passing laws to prevent the free exercise of another religion.

They say they want the government out of marriage after the fact to try and deflect this point, the problem is, that they oppose legislation that in any way contradicts their religious view on what marriage is.

This issue only gets worse as you continue reading.

FROM THE CONSTIUTTION PARTY PLATFORM:

“We oppose efforts to legalize adoption of children by homosexual singles or couples.”

This calls on the government to make it illegal for people who are gay to adopt, based entirely on their religions opposition to homosexual behavior.

This once again asks for laws to be affected or denied to respect the establishment of a religion.

FROM THE CONSTITUTION PARTY PLATFORM:
“We stand against so-called “sexual orientation” and “hate crime” statutes that attempt to legitimize inappropriate sexual behavior and to stifle public resistance to its expression”

This calls for the government not to legitimize what they oppose about someone else's sexual orientation based on their religious beliefs.

And it calls for an end to “hate crime” statutes that stifle public resistance to it's expression. Meaning that they want it to be legal to resist someone else's “expression” of their sexual exploitation. And apparently to make it legal to gay bash.

FROM THE CONSTITUTION PARTY PLATFORM:
“5. We also oppose all government “legalization” of suicide”

Libertarians talk about people being free to do with their own bodies what they wish. This opposition to suicide is based on their religion. And it would force people who seek to end their lives for medical reasons or any reason for that matter to adhere to THEIR religious beliefs with their own bodies.

FROM THE CONSTITUTION PARTY PLATFORM:
“7. We call on our local, state and federal governments to uphold our cherished First Amendment right to free speech by vigorously enforcing our laws against obscenity to maintain a degree of separation between that which is truly speech and that which only seeks to distort and destroy. [...] Our collective representative body we call government plays a vital role in establishing and maintaining the highest level of decency in our community standards.”

This statement implies that they believe that their “cherished 1st amendment right to free speech” gives them the right to pass and enforce laws against obscenity. “To maintain a degree of separation between that which is truly speech and that which seeks only to distort and destroy.”

So, in other words, based on their religious beliefs, they should be able to invoke THEIR right to free speech by the government which as they put it “Our collective representative body we call government plays a vital role in establishing and maintaining the highest level of decency in our community standards.” to prevent SOMEONE ELSE from speaking profanity. And to separate what IS speech and what is not. This directly states that the government has a VITAL ROLE in doing this. So let me get this straight, it's not ok for the government to tell us what we can and cannot say, unless of course it is profane according to Christian doctrine?

FROM THE CONSTITUTION PARTY PLATFORM:
“Pornography, at best, is a distortion of the true nature of sex created by God for the procreative union between one man and one woman in the holy bonds of matrimony, and at worst, is a destructive element of society resulting in significant and real emotional, physical, spiritual and financial costs to individuals, families and communities. We call on our local, state and federal governments to uphold our cherished First Amendment right to free speech by vigorously enforcing our laws against obscenity to maintain a degree of separation between that which is truly speech and that which only seeks to distort and destroy.
With the advent of the Internet and the benevolent neglect of the previous administrations, the pornography industry enjoyed uninhibited growth and expansion until the point today that we live in a sex-saturated society where almost nothing remains untainted by its perversion. While we believe in the responsibility of the individual and corporate entities to regulate themselves, we also believe that our collective representative body we call government plays a vital role in establishing and maintaining the highest level of decency in our community standards.”

So, in this statement, they say that the true nature of sex itself was created by their god. And that they are therefore empowered to legislate it.

And that once again, THEIR first amendment rights of free speech enable them to legislation the expression of other people based on their religious beliefs.

Then this further gem.

“With the advent of the Internet and the benevolent neglect of the previous administrations, the pornography industry enjoyed uninhibited growth and expansion until the point today that we live in a sex-saturated society where almost nothing remains untainted by its perversion. While we believe in the responsibility of the individual and corporate entities to regulate themselves, we also believe that our collective representative body we call government plays a vital role in establishing and maintaining the highest level of decency in our community standards.”

This calls on the government to regulate the Internet according to their religious beliefs of what is and is not obscenity. And states that the government has a VITAL ROLE in doing this.

This entire concept opens a door to using the bible as means to interpret the Constitution. And more to the point, states that is how it was meant to be, and properly should be. And that the Constitution is rooted in biblical law. History has proven time and again that biblical law is not what anyone could call Libertarian.

Just ask the people put to death for their “heresy”

Ask the people slaughtered in the crusades on both sides.

Ask the women who were told to mind their place in society according to the bible. And to honor and OBEY their husbands.

Ask the slaves that various followers of the Christian God owned.

Ask the girls who are forced to wear skirts to their ankles in some churches.

Ask the people prohibited from seeking divorce in others.

Ask the people who were whipped for being caught dancing.

These people have the right to believe this, and to practice it themselves, but when you want to remove the Constitution's ability to separate church and state, and you start down the road of allowing one religion to be the law of the land for all of the citizens of the United States, you are opening the door for that religion to force it's views on the American people.

Ask Thomas Jefferson why he cautions about the clergy, being involved in government.
*The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man (Letter to J. Moor, 1800).
* The clergy...believe that any portion of power confided to me [as President] will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion (Letter to Benjamin Rush, 1800).
* History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes (Letter to von Humboldt, 1813).
* In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own (Letter to H. Spafford, 1814).

Right now, your asking me to vote a member of the clergy into the highest office in our government.

Why didn't we support Mike Huckabee again?

Bump for epic post.

Neil Kiernan Stephenson
09-29-2008, 11:05 AM
Dude, that post was EPIC. :)

Thanks Kade.

Theocrat
09-29-2008, 11:20 AM
Dude, that post was EPIC. :)

Thanks Kade.

Yeah. It demonstrates the epic hatred for Christianity which spews increasingly from such religious humanists as yourself on these forums.

revolutionman
09-29-2008, 11:26 AM
If I wanted to be governed by religious law, I'd grow a fkin beard and move to Kabul MMMkay?

jmdrake
09-29-2008, 11:28 AM
Ron Paul is no Thomas Jefferson, sorry to break the news to you.

Right. Ron Paul never owned slaves nor fathered children with an underage slave mistress. Also this isn't the "ThomasJeffersonForums.com", sorry to break the news to you. :rolleyes:

Neil Kiernan Stephenson
09-29-2008, 11:30 AM
Yeah. It demonstrates the epic hatred for Christianity which spews increasingly from such religious humanists as yourself on these forums.

Nope. I don't hate Christianity. I hate ANY religion being in a position to make it's beliefs law.

jmdrake
09-29-2008, 11:39 AM
He cannot want to be out of our personal lives and hate gay people and want to be in theirs.

Except that he doesn't hate gay people any more than you hate Ron Paul. (Actually I wonder....)

Here is a straight (no pun intended) question. Considering that Ron Paul 1) is against abortion 2) is against ending "don't ask don't tell" 3) is against any federal recognition of gay marriage 4) said he'd vote against gay marriage and 5) is against stem cell research then when do you, Kade and others support Ron Paul? Seriously, if you're going to make this a "litmus test" for Chuck Baldwin you are being hypocrites for not applying the same test to Ron Paul. And smartass comments from Kade like "Ron Paul is not Thomas Jefferson" doesn't get you off the hook. Either these positions are so offensive to you that you shouldn't support EITHER candidate or they are not.

Final note. I personally SUPPORT separation of church and state. And sure some of Baldwin's positions give me pause. (Not abortion or gay marriage, but a few others). However Ron Paul gave me pause for those SAME reasons! I threw my support behind Paul because I know he understands the important limiting effects of the constitution and I believe Chuck Baldwin feels the same. People keep throwing out the BS accusation that because someone doesn't support gay marriage they "want to control the bedroom". That's a STUPID argument! If that were true than everyone who is against polygamy is trying to "control the bedroom". But the vast majority of Americans neither wish to criminalize someone having multiple sex partners nor sanction multiple marriage. The same principle carries over to gay sex versus gay marriage. People can do what they want in their own bedroom without society having to put its "seal of approval" on it. Sleep with your goat for all I care.

Regards,

John M. Drake

Theocrat
09-29-2008, 11:47 AM
Nope. I don't hate Christianity. I hate ANY religion being in a position to make it's beliefs law.

Just like your religion of no Christian views being influenced upon any law. That is a view of secular humanism, and it is religious, indeed. Why should we follow your religious beliefs to influence the laws of the land?

Neil Kiernan Stephenson
09-29-2008, 11:55 AM
Just like your religion of no Christian views being influenced upon any law. That is a view of secular humanism, and it is religious, indeed. Why should we follow your religious beliefs to influence the laws of the land?

My religious beliefs have nothing to do with my position on this. My understanding of the Constitution does.

revolutionman
09-29-2008, 11:56 AM
Ron Paul goes out of his way to differentiate between his personal beliefs and his political policy.

Dr. Paul says "I don't support abortion, but more importantly i recognize it to be a states rights issue, the citizens of the individual states should be allowed to reach their own consensus. Its not within the Constitutional power of the federal government to dictate to the states how they regard abortion."

Chuck Baldwin says "I will force America to end abortion. if the law I support does not pass, i will stop funding security for abortion clinics. *. Either way abortion will end."

That asterisk symbolizes the implication that Chuck Baldwin intends on unleashing a horde of fanatics to terrorize abortion clinics if he does not get his way.

he's gonna repeal funding for security and the clinics will automatically shut down?

I've seen abortion clinics before, its not like Ancient China with the Mongols beating at the Great Wall. Some times there are some protesters, but nothing serious. So there would need to be a serious catalyst to shut those clinics down, removing funding will not be enough.

Neil Kiernan Stephenson
09-29-2008, 12:20 PM
When you refer to Homosexuality as a "behavior" and make statements that you will remove laws that designate actions against these people as "hate crimes" because you want to remove restrictions against people voicing their displeasure with homosexuals, that is an indication that you hate them.

Plain and simple, you cannot be "for freedom" and not want equal rights for everyone.

And more specifically, what people decide to do with their own bodies.

jmdrake
09-29-2008, 12:24 PM
When you refer to Homosexuality as a "behavior" and make statements that you will remove laws that designate actions against these people as "hate crimes" because you want to remove restrictions against people voicing their displeasure with homosexuals, that is an indication that you hate them.

Plain and simple, you cannot be "for freedom" and not want equal rights for everyone.

And more specifically, what people decide to do with their own bodies.

You are engaging in circular reasoning of the worst kind. Ron Paul doesn't support hate crimes laws. Does that mean he hates gays, blacks, Jews etc? Or does it mean that he supports the first amendment? Do YOU support the first amendment?

Christianalwaysg124RP
09-29-2008, 12:31 PM
I won't to point out that Ron Paul himself is not only against federal funding of aborition, but he was against Nancy Reagan for asking from federal government money for stem cell research. The statements you have quoted of Chuck Baldwin's only show his similarities in policy to Dr. Paul's.



Also, it is up to debate as to whether Baldwin and Paul actually beleive in seperation of church and state. There are so many different definitions of seperation of church and state. As well as different philosophical statements concerning seperation of church. The question remains, what type of seperation. For example, Paul himself is passionate about the Christian doctrine of a "just war." For believing in it, it is subject to debate as to whether he beleives in seperation of church and state. On one hand, he is bringing the bible and Christian tradition into the issue. On the other hand, he is simply saying that he won't put our whole military in immoral wars. Thomas Jefferson(who didn't believe in Christian idea of God, being a deist) stated similar things as congressmen Paul and Baldwin do on Christian rights in the "Virginia Decleration of Religious Freedom."

Neil Kiernan Stephenson
09-29-2008, 10:07 PM
You are engaging in circular reasoning of the worst kind. Ron Paul doesn't support hate crimes laws. Does that mean he hates gays, blacks, Jews etc? Or does it mean that he supports the first amendment? Do YOU support the first amendment?

Two different reasons.

Ron Paul doesn't want to see hate crime laws because he doesn't want there to be "special" crimes.

The Constitution Party Platform doesn't want to see hate crime laws because they want to be allowed to show hate towards gays.

Kade
09-30-2008, 08:57 AM
Right. Ron Paul never owned slaves nor fathered children with an underage slave mistress. Also this isn't the "ThomasJeffersonForums.com", sorry to break the news to you. :rolleyes:

So, by your logic, Ron Paul has more respect for Blacks because he can't have slaves? Ron Paul may be an intelligent man, but he is no Thomas Jefferson. Sorry again.