The case against Chuck Baldwin...

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

Now that election day is finally drawing near, I feel compelled to update my position on Chuck Baldwin and the Constitution Party he is part of.

There are people I think are great who happen to be members of the Constitution Party, Jaynee Germond, and Travis Maddox are the first two that come to mind.

I have given my analysis of the platform itself. That can be found here:

http://databird.com/political/vtv-constitutionparty.html

Recently I have added a couple things to it that I will detail here. Under the comments from Thomas Jefferson, I was compelled to add the following:

"The error seems not sufficiently eradicated that the operations of the mind as well as the acts of the body are subject to the coercion of the laws. But our rulers can have authority over such natural rights only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XVII, 1782. ME 2:221

"I like the old idea that you can do whatever you want as long as you don't harm anyone."

Ron Paul from "Freedom to Fascism"

And under James Madison:

"the civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext infringed."

I want to make this clear. I do not hate or even dislike Christians. And I do feel they have a right to be in the movement. But the Constitution Party favors an intrepetation of the Constitution that is not consistent with freedom.

First of all, recently Chuck Baldwin during a debate we had on RevolutionBroadcasting.com made it clear he would fight to keep illegal drugs out of our country, using the power of the executive to do this. Even if he allows the states to make their own laws concerning drugs, this would still continue the drug war and the violence it causes. And is not respective of the rights of individuals to do with their own bodies as they like.

Chuck Baldwin is not in favor of allowing gays to marry. His reasoning is clearly religious. The CP platform is very explicit in these things. And this position is in no way Libertarian. If the people of the Christian religion oppose gay marriage, they have the right to not perform the ceremony if they are a pastor/preist etc. And they have the right to choose not to marry someone of the same gender themselves. THEY DO NOT have the right to tell two other people what they can do with their own bodies, how they can contract with one another, or how their own religions might define marriage. If another religion permits gays to marry, then the CP position and Chuck Baldwin's position would violate the 1st amendment. Because it would prevent people of that religion from allowing gays to marry.

The CP platform that Chuck Baldwin says he supports, and joined the party because of (And that his VP Darrell Castle sat on the platform commitee that wrote it) makes it clear that the 1st amendment gives them the right to determine what is speech and is not, according to their religion. It says the same thing about profanity. And it calls on the government to regulate the internet towards this end as well.

I have been told over and and over again the following statements in these debates.

"But he says he will uphold and defend the Constitution!"

This means nothing if he believes the Constitution empowers him or his party to do what I listed above.

"But these are states rights issues, he is running for federal office!"

This also means nothing, as Baldwin and the CP platform have both made it clear they want to affect these changes on the Federal level as well.

"But you vote for the man! Not the party!"

When the man says he embraces the platform of the party, and was motivated to join the party because of it, then we do have to judge the man according to that decision. Just as we judge the Nazi party on Mein Kamph. If you say you embrace a party's platform then you are stating that platform is part of your own beliefs.

"Don't take the platform so seriously!"

So we are just supposed to vote for a man because of peer pressure from other people in this movement despite the fact that their platform blatantly violates the concepts of freedom?

"But Ron Paul endorsed him! Are you going to argue with Ron Paul?"

I love Ron Paul, but if we are to be sheeple and just do whatever he says just because he said it then I question this movement's ability to follow it's own principles. When people finally pull this card in the argument the usually wait for you to speak blasphemy of daring to disagree with Ron Paul. Ron Paul taught me to think for myself, and to make my own decisions.

So now I am asking you to do the same. People want to know what I am worried about. Why is this so important to me?

It is important to me because I signed on for this revolution to uphold the rights of gay people, and non-Christians, as much as Christians. Our endorsement of this man and his platform will alienate those people. And maybe it's easy for some people to cast that aside, but it is not so for me. I listen as people justify and try to tell me that these things are not important and that worries me even more still.

The CP platform represents a mindset that is shared by the extreme Christian right. You cannot be for true religious liberty and also support that platform. What if Muslims (whom I do not dislike either, I might add) took a majority in Congress and passed a law that forced women in the United States to wear veils?

The above arguments that I quote generally get repeated as if on a broken record and recycled over and over and over even though I had already shown them to be invalid. This also shows signs to me that this movement is losing it's way. We are not even thinking clearly if Ron Paul can say jump and we say "how high?". Shortly thereafter the Ad hominem attacks start to come. People say I am lying, or spreading disinformation yet when I challenge them to show me where, they cannot provide any examples. The hero worship is getting out of hand.

I am not saying vote for McCain/Obama. And I am not saying vote for Barr either. Barr's voting record looks like he was part of the CP when he was in Congress. I absolutely feel people should vote third party this year. The problem is if we cast all our support behind Chuck Baldwin we are sending a message to the people that his platform alienates that they are not welcome in this movement. And I cannot abide that. At all.

[DAFTEK]

:D

[angelatc]

Gee, I am sort of sorry that I donated to you.

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

Gee, I am sort of sorry that I donated to you.

Why is that? Do you believe the Christian religion has authority over our government?

[mport1]

He is also a protectionist and for closing the borders...

[tonesforjonesbones]

Well...I am for abolishing the state being involved in marriage at all. That's a goal to work for. marriage belongs to the churches. I am for common law...like it used to be. Here is my latest letter to my newspaper editor: (my local newspaper is libertarian)

"I have noticed the uprisings against this newspaper because they said the state should get out of the marriage business.

Marriage is based on common law...remember common law marriages? Why should the state impose a tax on marriage?

Before the War of Northern Aggression there were no marriage licenses. A beau asked permission from the family of a gal for her hand, they set a date and went off to the church and got married. Simple.

After the war, the issue of interracial marriages came about and the couple had to ask permission from the state to marry which imposed a fee and granted permission (a license). Rather than abolish the misegenation law, the states decided they liked the dough and forced the tax on everyone. Fair is fair, right?

WRONG! Why must we the people be forced to enter into a contract with our spouse AND the state? Not only does this impose a tax, but it allows the state access to your finances and also your DNA (kids), but the divorce lawyers love it!

Abolish the marriage license now! It is a violation of everyones civil rights! "

TONEZ!

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

Gee, I am sort of sorry that I donated to you.

No qualifiers, no reasoning. Just a mild attack. Clearly I am not a candidate worthy of your support because I do not agree with Chuck Baldwin.

I am not angry with you, but this just further proves my point.

[Brassmouth]

Great post, Neil. If I had any confidence in the Baldwin supporters, I'd say this should finally shut them up. But I know better.....

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

Well...I am for abolishing the state being involved in marriage at all. That's a goal to work for. marriage belongs to the churches. I am for common law...like it used to be. Here is my latest letter to my newspaper editor: (my local newspaper is libertarian)

"I have noticed the uprisings against this newspaper because they said the state should get out of the marriage business.

Marriage is based on common law...remember common law marriages? Why should the state impose a tax on marriage?

Before the War of Northern Aggression there were no marriage licenses. A beau asked permission from the family of a gal for her hand, they set a date and went off to the church and got married. Simple.

After the war, the issue of interracial marriages came about and the couple had to ask permission from the state to marry which imposed a fee and granted permission (a license). Rather than abolish the misegenation law, the states decided they liked the dough and forced the tax on everyone. Fair is fair, right?

WRONG! Why must we the people be forced to enter into a contract with our spouse AND the state? Not only does this impose a tax, but it allows the state access to your finances and also your DNA (kids), but the divorce lawyers love it!

Abolish the marriage license now! It is a violation of everyones civil rights! "

TONEZ!

As a Libertarian I am completely for getting the state out of marriage. That would be great.

The issue I take, is that is not what the CP asks for. What the CP platform states is that no government can acknowledge marriages that are contrary to their own religion. This being their motive I cannot abide that.

[tonesforjonesbones]

I believe you do hate Christians. As long as the libertarians continue this...they will make no impact. Tones

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

Great post, Neil. If I had any confidence in the Baldwin supporters, I'd say this should finally shut them up. But I know better.....

Thank you. I would hope that they could actually entertain debate on the subject. Productive debate. This issue has been driving a wedge in the movement that I fear we cannot recover from. Theocrats are coming out of the woodwork into the various chat rooms and forums that used to be secular in nature telling us that now the Ron Paul movement is theocratic. And if we are not, then we don't belong here.

[tonesforjonesbones]

I would rather work to abolish the state being involved in marriage . I consider marriage to be a religious institution not a state thing. tones

[Wendi]

Can you point me to the actual quotes that you are referring to? I am a Christian, and I was planning on voting for Baldwin, but I am disturbed by the allegations you have made. I would like to research this matter more before I make a final decision. Links would be great... :D

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

I believe you do hate Christians. As long as the libertarians continue this...they will make no impact. Tones

I do not hate Christians. This is another one of those ad hominem attacks that always comes next.

Please explain to me what data you have that states that I hate Christians? Me asking that I not be forced to live according to laws based in Christianity is not me saying I hate Christians.

I don't hate Muslim's either, but I don't wish to be forced to live my life according to their doctrine, and I doubt you do either.

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

Can you point me to the actual quotes that you are referring to? I am a Christian, and I was planning on voting for Baldwin, but I am disturbed by the allegations you have made. I would like to research this matter more before I make a final decision. Links would be great... :D

http://databird.com/political/vtv-constitutionparty.html

Wendi some time ago I made this report. I was motivated to do so based on the statements that Chuck made during interviews and debates on RevolutionBroadcasting.com

1. "I have no problem with the platform, I support the platform and joined the party because of it."

Chuck Baldwin when asked about the Constitution Party Platform.

2. "I will support the defense of marriage act, and will never allow marriage to be defined as anything other then between a man and a women."

Chuck Baldwin during the recent debate on RevolutionBroadcasting when the issue of gay marriage was broached.

3. "I will do everything within my power as President to keep these illegal drugs out of our country."

Chuck Baldwin in that same debate.

4. "I support the Constitution Party platform and was on the comitee that wrote the platform."

Darrell Castle when the subject of the Constitution party platform was brought up in an interview on RevolutionBroadcasting.

You can research the CP platform on their site. If you find anything inaccurate in my report please let me know.

[LABELtheTRAITOR]

great post.
i agree wholeheartedly... i believe Ron Paul would be disappointed if we BLINDLY followed his endorsement and went against what we believe as individuals...
i am an agnostic and i couldn't live with myself supporting a Theocratic Platform, any more than if i supported "McBama"...
i joined this rEVOLution as and 'independent", re-registered as a Republican (mostly to vote for Dr. Paul) but I'm more and more realizing that I'm a Libertarian at heart!:D

[micahnelson]

Why is that? Do you believe the Christian religion has authority over our government?

Neil, I don't know who you are or the office for which you ran. Your response is illogical, snappy, and overly defensive.

Just because someone is sorry they donated to you doesn't mean they are a theocrat. A false dichotomy is a poor way to change someone's mind, but it is a good way to show your lack of interest in honest discussion.

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

Neil, I don't know who you are or the office for which you ran. Your response is illogical, snappy, and overly defensive.

Just because someone is sorry they donated to you doesn't mean they are a theocrat. A false dichotomy is a poor way to change someone's mind, but it is a good way to show your lack of interest in honest discussion.


I think you are adding venom where there is none. I am not angry as I clarify later. I want an explanation. There is nothing illogical in my questioning her as to her position when you consider that she said it in response to my post.

[micahnelson]

I think you are adding venom where there is none. I am not angry as I clarify later. I want an explanation. There is nothing illogical in my questioning her as to her position when you consider that she said it in response to my post.

Perhaps, I just get tired of people jumping to conclusions and painting people into corners where they may not belong. It comes across as smugness, and it does little to your credibility.

If you truly meant no malice, then I apologize for jumping to my own conclusions.

[tonesforjonesbones]

We must have a moral society or it will become Babylon..is that what you want? Christianity was the glue. The founders knew it. Jefferson's bible fully advocated the Teachings of jesus...he just took out the miracles. I believe in them...but the Teachings of jesus is what I try to follow. The communists knew they had to destroy christianity in the USA to acheive takeover. What they have done is minimized the fact that the founders were christians...and honored christianity...to brainwash people to believe we should be a state of no religion. They have pushed the "separation of church and state" which is nowhere in the constitution. Due to religious persecution, people migrated here so they could practice their religion. If the framers didn't consider religion important...why is the issue of religion the FIRST thing on the list of the Bill of Rights?

"CONGress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF"

If you keep pushing religion out of government aren't you prohibiting the free exercise of it??? Tones

[John E]

If you keep pushing religion out of government aren't you prohibiting the free exercise of it??? Tones

The issue I, and many others, have is that certain groups feel they have the right to spread the word of Christ through any means they can and they use the government itself in an attempt to force their beliefs upon non-Christians. This is why the founders said that the government shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

I believe that all those pushing for Christianity in government policies would feel differently if it was Judiasm or Islam or Wicca or Bhuddism.

The government should honor and allow the free expression of all religions while at the same time holding favor to none.

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

We must have a moral society or it will become Babylon..is that what you want? Christianity was the glue. The founders knew it. Jefferson's bible fully advocated the Teachings of jesus...he just took out the miracles. I believe in them...but the Teachings of jesus is what I try to follow. The communists knew they had to destroy christianity in the USA to acheive takeover. What they have done is minimized the fact that the founders were christians...and honored christianity...to brainwash people to believe we should be a state of no religion. They have pushed the "separation of church and state" which is nowhere in the constitution. Due to religious persecution, people migrated here so they could practice their religion. If the framers didn't consider religion important...why is the issue of religion the FIRST thing on the list of the Bill of Rights?

"CONGress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF"

If you keep pushing religion out of government aren't you prohibiting the free exercise of it??? Tones

No.

However if we allow any religion to make laws to govern the way that others will live their lives then we are prohibiting others from making those choices for themselves then we are not pushing for freedom.

Are you suggesting by this post that you are in favor of a theocratic government?

Separation of church and state IS in the constitution.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,"

If that is not plain enough, then take Jefferson's statement about this.

"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."

This states in plain English that Jefferson believed that the 1st amendment established the wall between Church and state.

Further:

"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.”

This further drives the point home.

In addition, you must consider Madison's notes on the Bill of rights:

Madison used this outline to guide him in delivering his speech introducing the Bill of Rights into the First Congress on June 8, 1789. Madison proposed an amendment to assuage the anxieties of those who feared that religious freedom would be endangered by the unamended Constitution. According to The Congressional Register, Madison, on June 8, moved that

"the civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext infringed."

This makes it clear that nobody's rights should be abridged on the account of religious belief or worship. This means that your religious beliefs cannot be used to abridge my civil rights. Or the civil rights of gay people, or the civil rights of those who might say or watch something that your religious belief considers to be profane.

It all comes back to this statement made by Jefferson:

"The error seems not sufficiently eradicated that the operations of the mind as well as the acts of the body are subject to the coercion of the laws. But our rulers can have authority over such natural rights only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XVII, 1782. ME 2:221

It does you no injury for someone else to have the right to marry in a way that is not in accordance with your religious beliefs. It does you no injury for someone to say or watch things your religion does not agree with. However it WOULD do that person injury if you were permitted to infringe on their rights to do so.

"I like the old idea that you can do whatever you want as long as you don't harm anyone."

Ron Paul- "Freedom to Fascism"

We do not need Christianity to have a good and moral society. Or any other religion for that matter. My children are not going to be raised Christian, but they will still grow up to be good and honest people even without the threat of eternity in a lake of fire for "wickedness" or any other religion's version of hell. They will be good people because I taught them to be.

The rights of human beings, and the concept of equality can be established through LOGIC.

[John E]

We do not need Christianity to have a good and moral society. Or any other religion for that matter. My children are not going to be raised Christian, but they will still grow up to be good and honest people even without the threat of eternity in a lake of fire for "wickedness" or any other religion's version of hell. They will be good people because I taught them to be.

well said

[angelatc]

Why is that? Do you believe the Christian religion has authority over our government?

Since you asked, I believe you should be spending more time on your campaign and less time worrying about his.

I like Chuck Baldwin better than I like the CP platform, that's for sure. But I like Chuck Baldwin. Get over it.

[yongrel]

oi vey...

[angelatc]

Great post, Neil. If I had any confidence in the Baldwin supporters, I'd say this should finally shut them up.

You mean supporters like Ron Paul?

The Baldwin supporters are actually pretty subdued. It's the anti-religion ...oops! I mean the anti-Baldwin crowd that is fanatical about randomly, aggressively and sporadically shouting their beliefs from their soapbox.

[DAFTEK]

So do i still vote for Baldwin? Hmmm? We are running out of choices here... :)

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

Since you asked, I believe you should be spending more time on your campaign and less time worrying about his.

I like Chuck Baldwin better than I like the CP platform, that's for sure. But I like Chuck Baldwin. Get over it.


You did not answer the question at all. Do you believe that the Christian religion should have authority over our government?

If you like Chuck Baldwin, you should probably consider the fact that he has made it plain that he likes, and agrees with the CP platform. This would make it kind of difficult to like him more the the CP platform.

I have nothing to "get over".

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

You mean supporters like Ron Paul?

The Baldwin supporters are actually pretty subdued. It's the anti-religion ...oops! I mean the anti-Baldwin crowd that is fanatical about randomly, aggressively and sporadically shouting their beliefs from their soapbox.

I don't think we are anti-religion. We are anti-being forced to live according to someone else's religion.

[LABELtheTRAITOR]

i wish i lived in the 10th of Michigan so i could vote for Neil... i like this guy!:D

[angelatc]

You did not answer the question at all. Do you believe that the Christian religion should have authority over our government?

If you like Chuck Baldwin, you should probably consider the fact that he has made it plain that he likes, and agrees with the CP platform. This would make it kind of difficult to like him more the the CP platform.

I have nothing to "get over".

No, but the President doesn't have the authority to rewrite the Constitution, so it's a moot point, which is something that perhaps you should consider.

You apparently do have something to get over, because you seem to be endlessly hung up on Chuck Baldwin for no real good reason - it's not like he stands a chance of winning.

You're abnormally fixated, and it's starting to look manic.

It's not like you're running against him.

[angelatc]

I don't think we are anti-religion. We are anti-being forced to live according to someone else's religion.

Like Ron Paul? Should he shut up?

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

No, but the President doesn't have the authority to rewrite the Constitution, so it's a moot point, which is something that perhaps you should consider.

You apparently do have something to get over, because you seem to be endlessly hung up on Chuck Baldwin for no real good reason - it's not like he stands a chance of winning.

You're abnormally fixated, and it's starting to look manic.

It's not like you're running against him.

Actually I would say that you are the one who is abnormally fixated. You are refusing to answer my simple question. Do you feel the Christian religion should have authority over our government?

As for his ability to re-write the Constitution, he wouldn't have to. The intrepetation of the Constitution his party advocates would give him justification to do whatever he wants.

People tend to forget that Presidents sign things into law as well.

Is violation of my 1st Amendment rights not a good reason?

Is unequal treatment and in some cases outright bigotry against homosexuals not a good reason?

Is the war on drugs not a good reason?

Adolf Hitler if he ran for president of the United States would not have the right to re-write the Constitution either. That doesn't mean I would vote for him.

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

Like Ron Paul? Should he shut up?

The last I checked, Ron Paul does not advocate his religious beliefs being forced into law. If for some reason that changes then I will no longer support Ron Paul either.

This is that ad hominem I told you about in the first post where I lay out the arguments that would come. "HOW DARE YOU SPEAK AGAINST RON PAUL!".

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

i wish i lived in the 10th of Michigan so i could vote for Neil... i like this guy!:D

Thank you.

[tonesforjonesbones]

Thomas Jefferson also said this:

In matters of religion I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the General Government. I have therefore undertaken on no occasion to prescribe the religious exercises suited to it, but have left them, as the Constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of the church or state authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies.
Thomas jefferson, 2nd inaugural address


So, he obviously believed that the CENTRAL government (general government) had no place to dictate religion....but the STATES and churches DID. States Rights ya know? Tones

[Theocrat]

Congressman Paul has officially endorsed Dr. Chuck Baldwin (http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=547). I guess this means you shouldn't be supporting Dr. Paul anymore, since he's supporting a theocrat (which you consider detestable). If that's the case, then I question why you're still posting on these forums.

[tonesforjonesbones]

Dear mr stevenson...I guess ya better mark Ron Paul off your list. ToNes

Ron Paul: Against Gay Marriage But For States’ Rights

By Douglas Burns 8/31/07 4:07 PM

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul firmly believes marriage should be between one man and one woman, communications director Jesse Benton tells Iowa Independent.

But Paul, a Texas congressman with a raft of libertarian viewpoints, consistently opposes efforts to amend the Constitution to deal with gay marriage.

While he’s opposed to the substance of a high-profile Polk County Iowa judge’s ruling that set aside the Hawkeye State’s ban on same-sex marriage, Paul wants the matter right where it is: with the states in the process now under way in Iowa, Benton said.


Ron Paul is a "one man one woman" kinda guy but he says leave it to the states and to the people...on this I agree..although I would like to see government OUT of the marriage business all together and leave marriage to the churches as a ceremony before GOD..where it belongs. property, etc can be dealt with through contracts of other types. Tones

[LABELtheTRAITOR]

i can't believe some people don't even seem to actually get the point, they just see it as an attack on their religion!
I don't think Neil is Anti-Christian, but just pointing out that Chuck Baldwin (and the CP) are for personal liberty.... as long as it doesn't go against THEIR religious beliefs!

"I like the old idea that you can do whatever you want as long as you don't harm anyone." -Ron Paul
(he didn't say "EXCEPT if you gamble, swear, use drugs, believe in prostitution, or want to marry another man/woman")

and to question why Neil is still here if he doesn't support Dr. Paul's "choice" is very "REPUBLICRAT" of you....:rolleyes:

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

Well when you consider that one of the posters named themselves "Theocrat" I guess that should figure wouldn't it?

These people are not even trying to deny that Chuck Baldwin is a theocrat.

As for why I am posting here, I believe Dr. Paul made an error supporting Chuck Baldwin. And I believe anyone who would support theocratic government is not truly for freedom at all.

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

Congressman Paul has officially endorsed Dr. Chuck Baldwin (http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=547). I guess this means you shouldn't be supporting Dr. Paul anymore, since he's supporting a theocrat (which you consider detestable). If that's the case, then I question why you're still posting on these forums.

That statement you quoted does not denote an official endorsement.

[tonesforjonesbones]

Dear mr stevenson...I guess ya better mark Ron Paul off your list. ToNes

Ron Paul: Against Gay Marriage But For States’ Rights

By Douglas Burns 8/31/07 4:07 PM

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul firmly believes marriage should be between one man and one woman, communications director Jesse Benton tells Iowa Independent.

But Paul, a Texas congressman with a raft of libertarian viewpoints, consistently opposes efforts to amend the Constitution to deal with gay marriage.

While he’s opposed to the substance of a high-profile Polk County Iowa judge’s ruling that set aside the Hawkeye State’s ban on same-sex marriage, Paul wants the matter right where it is: with the states in the process now under way in Iowa, Benton said.


Ron Paul is a "one man one woman" kinda guy but he says leave it to the states and to the people...on this I agree..although I would like to see government OUT of the marriage business all together and leave marriage to the churches as a ceremony before GOD..where it belongs. property, etc can be dealt with through contracts of other types. Tones

[DAFTEK]

I don't care what you people say!

I'm still voting for Chuck Baldwin! Unless i hear otherwise from the good doctor all this bullshit back and forth is stupid!

Would you rather i vote McCain, would that make you happy? cuz i sure wont vote for Crackhead Obama!

Dushbag Barr lost all respect from Ron Paul so unless you say what exactly the fuck you want out of this QUIT FUCKING POSTING ALL THIS BULLSHIT!!!! :rolleyes:

Thank You! :)

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

Spoken like someone in an angry mob.

You just proved my point too. You are not thinking, unless Dr. Paul says "jump" you won't do anything on your own.

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

Dear mr stevenson...I guess ya better mark Ron Paul off your list. ToNes

Ron Paul: Against Gay Marriage But For States’ Rights

By Douglas Burns 8/31/07 4:07 PM

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul firmly believes marriage should be between one man and one woman, communications director Jesse Benton tells Iowa Independent.

But Paul, a Texas congressman with a raft of libertarian viewpoints, consistently opposes efforts to amend the Constitution to deal with gay marriage.

While he’s opposed to the substance of a high-profile Polk County Iowa judge’s ruling that set aside the Hawkeye State’s ban on same-sex marriage, Paul wants the matter right where it is: with the states in the process now under way in Iowa, Benton said.


Ron Paul is a "one man one woman" kinda guy but he says leave it to the states and to the people...on this I agree..although I would like to see government OUT of the marriage business all together and leave marriage to the churches as a ceremony before GOD..where it belongs. property, etc can be dealt with through contracts of other types. Tones

Who's God?

[Brassmouth]

Thank you. I would hope that they could actually entertain debate on the subject. Productive debate. This issue has been driving a wedge in the movement that I fear we cannot recover from. Theocrats are coming out of the woodwork into the various chat rooms and forums that used to be secular in nature telling us that now the Ron Paul movement is theocratic. And if we are not, then we don't belong here.

Yes, I've seen this too. I've always believed that liberty is an abstract concept that only thinking men and women can fully grasp. Unfortunately, thinking is not something religious zealots do very well.

It's ok though, religion is dying is almost all the other civilized nations of the world, and my generation seems to be (at least from what I've seen) particularly secular and hostile to religious dogma. Maybe the internet is the cause?

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

Well I am not an atheist and I don't hate religion. I just have seen the horrors of theocracy and read about it extensively on this soil. During the time that the Constitution was drafted, the various sects were committing acts of violence and sometimes murder on one another. It is no wonder they went out of their way to keep religion out of the constitution.

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."

[Brassmouth]

Well I am not an atheist and I don't hate religion. I just have seen the horrors of theocracy and read about it extensively on this soil. During the time that the Constitution was drafted, the various sects were committing acts of violence and sometimes murder on one another. It is no wonder they went out of their way to keep religion out of the constitution.

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."

I have no problem with religious people in general, just the zealots who are audacious enough to believe that they have a right to impose their beliefs on others. This is why I could never support Baldwin on principle.

I'm sure he's a good guy, with good intentions, but he just doesn't understand what liberty means.

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

That is my point as well. As George points out in the quote that I just put above. The path to true piety needs little political direction. The point being, TRUE PIETY is not something forced on someone by law.

[H Roark]

We had debated this issue pretty extensively in the forums, but someone thought it would be the opportune time to erect strawmen in the room and attempt to compromise confidence in the only pro-liberty candidate left running for president. This person has brought forward several arguments that I've seen pop up and I will address them here...



First of all, recently Chuck Baldwin during a debate we had on RevolutionBroadcasting.com made it clear he would fight to keep illegal drugs out of our country, using the power of the executive to do this. Even if he allows the states to make their own laws concerning drugs, this would still continue the drug war and the violence it causes. And is not respective of the rights of individuals to do with their own bodies as they like.

I've read the quote from Chuck Baldwin stating this and you falsely link keeping illegal drugs from entering our country through foreign sources to infringing on a states right to legalize drugs. Have you ever heard of sanctions? They can include prohibiting goods from entering the US through a foreign source, but are still legal to manufacture and purchase within our borders.

"I support the Constitution Party platform and was on the comitee that wrote the platform."

Since you've done a great job affirming how Baldwin is such a stickler to the CP platform, I encourage people to look at what it says about drugs... http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php#Drug%20Abuse

You will see that throughout the CP platform the 10th amendment is frequently referenced (even in dealing with drugs and gambling). The 10th Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."



If another religion permits gays to marry, then the CP position and Chuck Baldwin's position would violate the 1st amendment. Because it would prevent people of that religion from allowing gays to marry.

WRONG! You forgot to mention the little detail about the state's sanctioning of this hypothetical marriage. The CP or Chuck Baldwin could care less if a couple of guys conducted a ceremony and got "married" via some type of religion. The problem lies in with the state's involvement.

Baldwin is totally correct in simply expressing the definition of marriage. Oh the audacity! :eek: Seriously, I hope we're smarter than that to be attacking someone for stating the obvious!

Even Ron Paul when asked about this issue at a debate basically said that we don't need to legislate marriage and that all you need to do is "look it up" [the definition of marriage]. Personally, I am also of the contention that government has no business in recognizing ANY type of marriage (which inherently is heterosexual). Of course there is a difference between marriage and civil unions however.


The CP platform that Chuck Baldwin says he supports, and joined the party because of (And that his VP Darrell Castle sat on the platform commitee that wrote it) makes it clear that the 1st amendment gives them the right to determine what is speech and is not, according to their religion. It says the same thing about profanity. And it calls on the government to regulate the internet towards this end as well.

I will concede that the CP platform does call for the regulation of pornography, and I disagree with this stance as well. But the practicality of implementing such a regulation nullifies the idea, especially when we're talking about the realm of the internet. If flipping through a porno is that important to you that you will overlook all of Baldwin's positive positions such as...


ABOLISHING THE FEDERAL RESERVE
Ending the federal income tax and IRS
Opposing the NAU, UN and other globalist bodies threatening our sovereignty
Withdrawing troops from Iraq and putting a STOP to our empire building
Getting US out of all the managed trade deals ie NAFTA and CAFTA...
Opposing the Patriot Act and REAL ID

Then maybe you should reaccess your priorities. And please tell me how wanting to repeal the Patriot Act is not a matter of 1st amendment rights? Its obvious you place some social issues that also happen :rolleyes: to run counter to Christian doctrine higher up on your list of priorities.

Its easy to be critical when you don't offer any solutions...



I am not saying vote for McCain/Obama. And I am not saying vote for Barr either. Barr's voting record looks like he was part of the CP when he was in Congress. I absolutely feel people should vote third party this year. The problem is if we cast all our support behind Chuck Baldwin we are sending a message to the people that his platform alienates that they are not welcome in this movement. And I cannot abide that. At all.

WTF are you saying anyways? This worthless little conclusion of a post is nothing but a masquerade to try to legitimize your attack. You have a problem if everyone on here supports Chuck Baldwin? Well don't worry, I can be the first to tell you thats not going to happen (and you know it). Sorry if you're a sensitive pussy but my voting for Baldwin shouldn't have any affect on you or anyone else here, because after the election is over its back to the drawing board. Alienation? Hah! Your silly thread has done a fine job of doing just that.

You offer no solution, in fact voting for Baldwin seems to satisfy what your asking for [see bold].

[DAFTEK]

Spoken like someone in an angry mob.

You just proved my point too. You are not thinking, unless Dr. Paul says "jump" you won't do anything on your own.
http://www.pointytriangles.com/bongrips4obama/yabbfiles/Attachments/hillaryblackniggaplease.jpg

[LibertyEagle]

Well I am not an atheist and I don't hate religion. I just have seen the horrors of theocracy and read about it extensively on this soil. During the time that the Constitution was drafted, the various sects were committing acts of violence and sometimes murder on one another. It is no wonder they went out of their way to keep religion out of the constitution.



Actually Neil, you're Wiccan, aren't you, and that is one of the reasons you hate God and Christians?

Baldwin isn't a theocrat, anymore than Ron Paul is.

Leave people to their own faiths, Neil. Just like you want to be left to yours.

[LibertyEagle]

Yes, I've seen this too. I've always believed that liberty is an abstract concept that only thinking men and women can fully grasp. Unfortunately, thinking is not something religious zealots do very well.

It's ok though, religion is dying is almost all the other civilized nations of the world, and my generation seems to be (at least from what I've seen) particularly secular and hostile to religious dogma. Maybe the internet is the cause?

Yes, Oh Happy Day! Because destroying Christianity has been a long-standing agenda of the powers that be and a prerequisite for a one-world religion to be ushered in, along with world government.

Looks to me like the government brainwashing programs have paid off. Just dandy.

[tonesforjonesbones]

Amen Libery Eagle..way to go. The communists knew they had to destroy Christianity in the USA in order to take it over from within. Communists don't like religion at all...but because Christianity was the glue in the UsA..they had to get rid of it, and they have done a damn fine job of it. I swear not to vote for a libertarian EVER..i'm so sick of the libertarian atheists on this thread it has made me turn my back on the libertarian party. They obviously dispise christians...and I think they need to seek medical help for their bigotry. TONES (I notice there are a lot of wiccans in the LP..is mary ruwart a wiccan??)

[LibertyEagle]

Amen Libery Eagle..way to go. The communists knew they had to destroy Christianity in the USA in order to take it over from within. Communists don't like religion at all...but because Christianity was the glue in the UsA..they had to get rid of it, and they have done a damn fine job of it. I swear not to vote for a libertarian EVER..i'm so sick of the libertarian atheists on this thread it has made me turn my back on the libertarian party. They obviously dispise christians...and I think they need to seek medical help for their bigotry. TONES (I notice there are a lot of wiccans in the LP..is mary ruwart a wiccan??)

Uh, that's not really fair to group all Libertarians like that. Anymore than it is for all Christians to be grouped like the brainwashed who believe that it is fine to kill innocent Muslims.

I have no problem with the Libertarian party as a whole. I will continue to vote for the individual whom I think is best, regardless of the party they belong to.

P.S. What difference does it make whether Ruwart is a wiccan? If we could just all respect each other's personal religious choices and let it be, things would work out much better. Don't ya think?

[tonesforjonesbones]

uh...i was trying to support your words...you won't be getting that from me anymore. tones

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

Its easy to be critical when you don't offer any solutions...



WTF are you saying anyways? This worthless little conclusion of a post is nothing but a masquerade to try to legitimize your attack. You have a problem if everyone on here supports Chuck Baldwin? Well don't worry, I can be the first to tell you thats not going to happen (and you know it). Sorry if you're a sensitive pussy but my voting for Baldwin shouldn't have any affect on you or anyone else here, because after the election is over its back to the drawing board. Alienation? Hah! Your silly thread has done a fine job of doing just that.

You offer no solution, in fact voting for Baldwin seems to satisfy what your asking for [see bold].

There is nothing useless about this post. There is something useless about your reply. It seems to me that you are just trying to attack me to detract from the hard data being offered. Thank you for proving that you bring nothing to the table as far as actual debate.

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

Actually Neil, you're Wiccan, aren't you, and that is one of the reasons you hate God and Christians?

Baldwin isn't a theocrat, anymore than Ron Paul is.

Leave people to their own faiths, Neil. Just like you want to be left to yours.

I think I have maintained over and over in this thread that I do not hate Christians, or their God.

I do hate tyranny. And that includes Tyranny brought on by religious theocracy.

I haven't asked anyone to change their faith at all. I have asked people to find a candidate for President to vote for who is not going to try and force their religious beliefs into law.

Your lashing out only proves my point again I am afraid. You have no logical debate. Your ad hominem's are also out of control. Your losing. And it shows.

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

Yes, Oh Happy Day! Because destroying Christianity has been a long-standing agenda of the powers that be and a prerequisite for a one-world religion to be ushered in, along with world government.

Looks to me like the government brainwashing programs have paid off. Just dandy.


What the hell are you talking about? Nobody said anything about destroying Christianity. If someone tries to harm the rights of Christians to practice their religion I will be right there next to them protesting.

I think the Romans feeding Christians to Lions is just as offensive as Christians burning heretics. Both are great reasons to seperate church and state, and never allow the government to persecute or legislate to respect a specific religion.

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

Amen Libery Eagle..way to go. The communists knew they had to destroy Christianity in the USA in order to take it over from within. Communists don't like religion at all...but because Christianity was the glue in the UsA..they had to get rid of it, and they have done a damn fine job of it. I swear not to vote for a libertarian EVER..i'm so sick of the libertarian atheists on this thread it has made me turn my back on the libertarian party. They obviously dispise christians...and I think they need to seek medical help for their bigotry. TONES (I notice there are a lot of wiccans in the LP..is mary ruwart a wiccan??)

You are so off base it is not even funny. I have several Christian friends. It is not a sign that I despise Christians just because I don't want their religion OR ANY OTHER RELIGION to be a force in our Constitution's intrepretation. I want this country to be a place where people of any religion can live free.

But that also includes making no laws based in any one of them. Not my religion, not your religion, not Islam, not Buddism, none. Period.

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

Uh, that's not really fair to group all Libertarians like that. Anymore than it is for all Christians to be grouped like the brainwashed who believe that it is fine to kill innocent Muslims.

I have no problem with the Libertarian party as a whole. I will continue to vote for the individual whom I think is best, regardless of the party they belong to.

P.S. What difference does it make whether Ruwart is a wiccan? If we could just all respect each other's personal religious choices and let it be, things would work out much better. Don't ya think?


He is trying to default to the "US against THEM" mentality. Bigotry is coming to the surface when frustration gets out of hand. Let's hate what we do not understand.

If you really mean what you said in your PS, then you should understand where I am coming from. And that includes no religion being allowed to influence our legislation or our Constitution.

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

Its easy to be critical when you don't offer any solutions...



WTF are you saying anyways? This worthless little conclusion of a post is nothing but a masquerade to try to legitimize your attack. You have a problem if everyone on here supports Chuck Baldwin? Well don't worry, I can be the first to tell you thats not going to happen (and you know it). Sorry if you're a sensitive pussy but my voting for Baldwin shouldn't have any affect on you or anyone else here, because after the election is over its back to the drawing board. Alienation? Hah! Your silly thread has done a fine job of doing just that.

You offer no solution, in fact voting for Baldwin seems to satisfy what your asking for [see bold].

My solution is that the CP is not a freedom party, and that Baldwin is not a freedom candidate. There are some in the CP who are. But they are all people who have problems with the CP platform and do not endorse it. Baldwin does. Vote for someone else.

[TurtleBurger]

Spoken like someone in an angry mob.

You just proved my point too. You are not thinking, unless Dr. Paul says "jump" you won't do anything on your own.

Heaven forbid that anyone should pay attention to anything that crackpot Paul says.

[LibertyEagle]

He is trying to default to the "US against THEM" mentality.

The thing is Neil, I don't think you understand that you are furthering that mentality, with your posting. :(

[JosephTheLibertarian]

The thing is Neil, I don't think you understand that you are furthering that mentality, with your posting. :(

Why don't you send yourself a warning, CensorshipEagle? That's all you christians are good for.

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

The thing is Neil, I don't think you understand that you are furthering that mentality, with your posting. :(


I am pointing out the facts. There are many people who were simply unaware of Baldwin's real stance on the issues, and that the Constitution Party is in no way Libertarian.

If that causes division, that is not my fault. I didn't write the Constitution Party Platform, nor did I tell Baldwin to support it. If his own policies cause division in the movement blaming me is like shooting the messenger.

[youngbuck]

And I do feel they have a right to be in the movement.

That speaks volumes right there.

That's all I needed to hear from you to realize you're a douche.

[The_Orlonater]

Congressman Paul has officially endorsed Dr. Chuck Baldwin (http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=547). I guess this means you shouldn't be supporting Dr. Paul anymore, since he's supporting a theocrat (which you consider detestable). If that's the case, then I question why you're still posting on these forums.

Great, let's be sheeple. :rolleyes:

[The_Orlonater]

Actually Neil, you're Wiccan, aren't you, and that is one of the reasons you hate God and Christians?

Baldwin isn't a theocrat, anymore than Ron Paul is.

Leave people to their own faiths, Neil. Just like you want to be left to yours.

He never said he hated Christains or religions. Just leave it out of the government.

[The_Orlonater]

Amen Libery Eagle..way to go. The communists knew they had to destroy Christianity in the USA in order to take it over from within. Communists don't like religion at all...but because Christianity was the glue in the UsA..they had to get rid of it, and they have done a damn fine job of it. I swear not to vote for a libertarian EVER..i'm so sick of the libertarian atheists on this thread it has made me turn my back on the libertarian party. They obviously dispise christians...and I think they need to seek medical help for their bigotry. TONES (I notice there are a lot of wiccans in the LP..is mary ruwart a wiccan??)

Everyone is a communist to you neocon.

[LibertyEagle]

I am pointing out the facts. There are many people who were simply unaware of Baldwin's real stance on the issues, and that the Constitution Party is in no way Libertarian.

This movement is not a "Libertarian" movement.

[LibertyEagle]

He never said he hated Christains or religions. Just leave it out of the government.

We are supposed to have freedom OF religion; that is not the same thing as freedom FROM religion.

If a candidate planned on making Christianity the sanctified religion, that would be wrong. I have not seen Baldwin suggesting that at all.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

This movement is not a "Libertarian" movement.

Then you're not for individual liberty. Your actions has already proved that to me though.

[LibertyEagle]

Then you're not for individual liberty. Your actions has already proved that to me though.

Individual liberty is not limited to members of the Libertarian party.

Good thing too, because kiddie porn and smoking dope are not on the top concerns of many in this movement. :p

[Theocrat]

Yes, I've seen this too. I've always believed that liberty is an abstract concept that only thinking men and women can fully grasp. Unfortunately, thinking is not something religious zealots do very well.

It's ok though, religion is dying is almost all the other civilized nations of the world, and my generation seems to be (at least from what I've seen) particularly secular and hostile to religious dogma. Maybe the internet is the cause?

Yes, I agree with you. Liberty is a concept which only thinking men and women can fully grasp, and liberty is only understood rightly if men and women trust in their Creator for its security. True liberty comes from God, and it begins when men become free from their own sinful nature, which is a necessary precondition for self-government. If men cannot overcome sin (by making themselves slaves to sin through living in unrighteousness), then they will never be free. Their acts will be done without any moral restraints, and thus, immorality and chaos will ensue society until it collapses into utter ruin.

Our Founders understood this principle so well. Consider the words of John Qunicy Adams when he stated,


There are three points of doctrine the belief of which forms the foundation of all morality. The first is the existence of God; the second is the immortality of the human soul; and the third is a future state of rewards and punishments. Suppose it possible for a man to disbelieve either of these three articles of faith and that man will have no conscience, he will have no other law than that of the tiger or the shark. The laws of man may bind him in chains or may put him to death, but they never can make him wise, virtuous, or happy.

(Source: John Quincy Adams, Letters of John Quincy Adams to His Son on the Bible and Its Teachings [Auburn: James M. Alden, 1850], pp. 22-23.)

Fisher Ames, the framer of the First Amendment, even had this to say about the foundations of liberty:


Our liberty depends on our education, our laws, and habits...it is founded on morals and religion, whose authority reigns in the heart, and on the influence all these produce on public opinion before that opinion governs rulers.

(Source: Fisher Ames, An Oration on the Sublime Virtues of General George Washington [Boston: Young & Minns, 1800], p. 23.)

If a man rejects true religion, then morality will be decimated. If there is no morality, then liberty cannot exist. The true thinking man or woman understands this, and those who would oppose such a principle are simply mistaken in their understanding of what liberty is and where it comes from.

Many on these forums would have us believe that liberty can exist without God. All one has to do is turn back the pages of history to catch a glimpse of nations which once believed that. What happened in those nations was that man's vain attempt to decide what liberty their people should have (i.e. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc.) led to the slaughter and suffering of millions of others whom they deemed not worthy of liberty. This was accomplished all under the self-righteous "atheistic" state. By removing God, they removed the only sure foundation for liberty to flourish, and the end result was total destruction of their regimes.

Liberty without God is only libertinism, and that is simply not the way for any rational, moral person to live.

[jmdrake]

*Yawn* Another stupid "lets bash Chuck Baldwin - Bob Barr - Ralph Nader - Cynthia McKinney" thread. It seems some people have nothing better to do then to attack the people Ron Paul supports. Look you stupid morons who attack patriot presidential candidates. NONE OF THEM HAVE A CHANCE TO FREAKING WIN ANYWAY! IT'S ONLY A PROTEST VOTE! SO SHUT UP ALREADY!

Regards,

John M. Drake

[jmdrake]

No qualifiers, no reasoning. Just a mild attack. Clearly I am not a candidate worthy of your support because I do not agree with Chuck Baldwin.

I am not angry with you, but this just further proves my point.

That you're an idiot? Yes. That proves your point quite nicely. The fact that your wasting precious time and energy attacking a candidate that agrees with Ron Paul on the important issues and also HAS NO CHANCE OF WINNING ANYWAY shows you are not worthy of political office. You have no political savvy. If you were attacking Cynthia McKinney or Bob Barr or Ralph Nader I would say the same thing. Those of us with any common sense are either A) aiming are guns and McCain and Obama (you know, the two socialist candidates THAT ACTUALLY HAVE A CHANCE AT WINNING) or B) doing what we can to support liberty minded candidates. Hey, if you don't like the Ron Paul presidential slate, find a congressional candidate support. (BJ Lawson for example?) Otherwise you're wasting your time and everyone else's.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[LibertyEagle]

GREAT post, Theo. :)

[Peace&Freedom]

Yes, I agree with you. Liberty is a concept which only thinking men and women can fully grasp, and liberty is only understood rightly if men and women trust in their Creator for its security. True liberty comes from God, and it begins when men become free from their own sinful nature, which is a necessary precondition for self-government. If men cannot overcome sin (by making themselves slaves to sin through living in unrighteousness), then they will never be free. Their acts will be done without any moral restraints, and thus, immorality and chaos will ensue society until it collapses into utter ruin.

If a man rejects true religion, then morality will be decimated. If there is no morality, then liberty cannot exist. The true thinking man or woman understands this, and those who would oppose such a principle are simply mistaken in their understanding of what liberty is and where it comes from.

+1776. The modern LP is too hostile to the acknowledgement of God and often too univocal, "one size fits all" in its application of liberty principles. The current CP is too protectionist, and often too indelicate in the way it emphasizes Christian concepts of government. The LP talks about liberty without natural follow-up activity to actually realize or restore it to the real world. The CP promotes concrete actions to regain personal and national sovereignty, the needed precondition for exercising liberty, but often at the expense of taking the time to directly promote liberty.

The way out of useless wrangling over these points was shown by Ron Paul, who bonded the two parties behind his quest for the Republican nomination, and who would have gotten both parties nomination had he asked for it. This by itself shows the supposed gap is bridgable, if we focus on rallying around Paulite candidates in the future (Christian Libertarians who promote the constitution) there is no need for the schism over these secondary issues to keep dividing us.

[angelatc]

Well when you consider that one of the posters named themselves "Theocrat" I guess that should figure wouldn't it?

These people are not even trying to deny that Chuck Baldwin is a theocrat.

As for why I am posting here, I believe Dr. Paul made an error supporting Chuck Baldwin. And I believe anyone who would support theocratic government is not truly for freedom at all.

You're free to think whatever you want.

Just stop whimpering about what we think already.

Go knock on some doors or something.

[LibertyEagle]

The way out of useless wrangling over these points was shown by Ron Paul, who bonded the two parties behind his quest for the Republican nomination, and who would have gotten both parties nomination had he asked for it. This by itself shows the supposed gap is bridgable, if we focus on rallying around Paulite candidates in the future (Christian Libertarians who promote the constitution) there is no need for the schism over these secondary issues to keep dividing us.

It's amazing how Ron did that, isn't it?

Somehow, we've gotta figure out how to pull back together again.

:)

[JosephTheLibertarian]

It's amazing how Ron did that, isn't it?

Somehow, we've gotta figure out how to pull back together again.

:)

You're not accomplishing anything by slinging attacks at me allday.

[LibertyEagle]

You're not accomplishing anything by slinging attacks at me allday.

Joseph, you were only banned for TWO days for your lascivious comment about a forum member. It's over. Get over it and go on. :rolleyes:

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Joseph, you were only banned for TWO days for your lascivious comment about a forum member. It's over. Get over it and go on. :rolleyes:

You oppose free speech. I never said I jerked off to it, you crazy fascist.

[LibertyEagle]

You oppose free speech. I never said I jerked off to it, you crazy fascist.

Really?
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1759471&postcount=16

[DAFTEK]

You're not accomplishing anything by slinging attacks at me allday.

Joe has no frends... lol... :eek:

http://www.katnoodle.com/wp-content/imgcache/200-Jesus-dumbass.jpg

[DAFTEK]

Really?
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1759471&postcount=16


More idiotic attacks from someone with a Satan tattoo on his arm.......:rolleyes:
http://bp3.blogger.com/_mupm2BmIjtc/SIvVsEhyjLI/AAAAAAAACOQ/fckfqvZLSz4/s200/dumbass.jpg

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

That you're an idiot? Yes. That proves your point quite nicely. The fact that your wasting precious time and energy attacking a candidate that agrees with Ron Paul on the important issues and also HAS NO CHANCE OF WINNING ANYWAY shows you are not worthy of political office. You have no political savvy. If you were attacking Cynthia McKinney or Bob Barr or Ralph Nader I would say the same thing. Those of us with any common sense are either A) aiming are guns and McCain and Obama (you know, the two socialist candidates THAT ACTUALLY HAVE A CHANCE AT WINNING) or B) doing what we can to support liberty minded candidates. Hey, if you don't like the Ron Paul presidential slate, find a congressional candidate support. (BJ Lawson for example?) Otherwise you're wasting your time and everyone else's.

Regards,

John M. Drake

The important things? The 1st amendment is not important? Equal rights for people to do with their bodies and their lives as they please is not important?

You fail.

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

This movement is not a "Libertarian" movement.

Is it a Theocratic movement?

[jmdrake]

It's amazing how Ron did that, isn't it?

Somehow, we've gotta figure out how to pull back together again.

:)

There is a different dynamic now. People purposefully choose to ignore positions that the disagreed with Paul on or worse "Jedi mind tricked" themselves in to asserting positions on Dr. Paul that he never took. Case in point people have attacked Chuck Baldwin for being pro life since that is "not a libertarian position". But Ron Paul had an entire Slim Jim devoted to promoting himself as a pro life candidate! It's funny. When the campaign was in full swing we did a march downtown on New Years Eve with about 150 supporters. We passed out Slim Jims and other campaign materials. There was a goth party goer who was cheering us on....until she got a "Ron Paul conservative" Slim Jim. (The one with a picture of Ron Paul and Ronald Reagan). She immediately started whining "Ron Paul isn't a conservative. He's a libertarian." There was no reasoning with her. It didn't matter to her that this was official material straight from the campaign!

Or take the gay marriage issue. Ron Paul said 1) leave it to the states and 2) if he were in a state legislature he would vote against gay marriage! But you have people desperately clinging to the idea that Ron Paul "supports gay marriage" based on one statement about his supporting "free association" and "people can call it whatever they want". Well, that's not really saying anything. Currently in ANY STATE people can through contract set up things like hospital visitation rights, "palimony" etc. and the first amendment gives them the right to call that "marriage" if they wish.

So what's the difference between then and now? Well then there was only one real choice for people who were anti war and anti big government. Now there are (at least) two choices. The SMART thing to do would be for each of us to pick the choice that best suits us. In fact that's what Ron Paul was trying to get across with his "third party candidate" press conference. But some people just can't get it. It doesn't matter how many votes any ONE 3rd party candidate gets because none of them have a real shot. All that REALLY matters is the combined total. The votes Barr and Baldwin get are helpful. The votes Nader and McKinney get are helpful. We need a 3rd party vote that's larger than the margin of victory. Let the pundits trip all over themselves trying to figure out "who was hurt the most". Deny BOTH candidates a 51% popular vote majority and whoever wins will have a hard time claiming a "mandate" for whatever fascist - socialist policies he wants to put forward. But alas (some) people are too worried about the margin of loss of their own favorite non winning candidate to see the need to cut the margin of victory for tweedle dee and tweedle dumber. :mad:

Regards,

John M. Drake

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

We are supposed to have freedom OF religion; that is not the same thing as freedom FROM religion.

If a candidate planned on making Christianity the sanctified religion, that would be wrong. I have not seen Baldwin suggesting that at all.

The CP platform calls for the Constitution to be intrepreted as though the Christian religion is the national religion. When you look at it in context it makes a lot of sense. They feel that the founding fathers were all Christian, and therefore the Constitution must be intrepeted according to Christian principles. This is not religious freedom.

And you cannot have freedom of religion without freedom from religion. This concept contradicts itself. If I have freedom of religion then I have the right to live my life according to my own religion's principles. In order for that to work I cannot be forced to live my life according to the religion of someone else.

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

Individual liberty is not limited to members of the Libertarian party.

Good thing too, because kiddie porn and smoking dope are not on the top concerns of many in this movement. :p

Well it is obvious that individual liberty cannot be found in the Constitution Party either.

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

Yes, I agree with you. Liberty is a concept which only thinking men and women can fully grasp, and liberty is only understood rightly if men and women trust in their Creator for its security. True liberty comes from God, and it begins when men become free from their own sinful nature, which is a necessary precondition for self-government. If men cannot overcome sin (by making themselves slaves to sin through living in unrighteousness), then they will never be free. Their acts will be done without any moral restraints, and thus, immorality and chaos will ensue society until it collapses into utter ruin.

Our Founders understood this principle so well. Consider the words of John Qunicy Adams when he stated,



Fisher Ames, the framer of the First Amendment, even had this to say about the foundations of liberty:



If a man rejects true religion, then morality will be decimated. If there is no morality, then liberty cannot exist. The true thinking man or woman understands this, and those who would oppose such a principle are simply mistaken in their understanding of what liberty is and where it comes from.

Many on these forums would have us believe that liberty can exist without God. All one has to do is turn back the pages of history to catch a glimpse of nations which once believed that. What happened in those nations was that man's vain attempt to decide what liberty their people should have (i.e. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc.) led to the slaughter and suffering of millions of others whom they deemed not worthy of liberty. This was accomplished all under the self-righteous "atheistic" state. By removing God, they removed the only sure foundation for liberty to flourish, and the end result was total destruction of their regimes.

Liberty without God is only libertinism, and that is simply not the way for any rational, moral person to live.

Morality is taught by parents. I know kids who are not in any way Christian who are still moral and good people. I am sorry, but it is not nessacary to believe you will go to hell if you do bad things to be a good and moral person.

[Theocrat]

The CP platform calls for the Constitution to be intrepreted as though the Christian religion is the national religion. When you look at it in context it makes a lot of sense. They feel that the founding fathers were all Christian, and therefore the Constitution must be intrepeted according to Christian principles. This is not religious freedom.

And you cannot have freedom of religion without freedom from religion. This concept contradicts itself. If I have freedom of religion then I have the right to live my life according to my own religion's principles. In order for that to work I cannot be forced to live my life according to the religion of someone else.

Neil, have you e-mailed your complaints to the Chuck Baldwin Campaign, asking them about his party's platform? If you haven't, then I suggest you do so because your immature whining on Ron Paul Forums is quite annoying.

[LibertyEagle]

Is it a Theocratic movement?

No. To me, it is a freedom movement. That should be generic enough for everyone.

[jmdrake]

The important things? The 1st amendment is not important? Equal rights for people to do with their bodies and their lives as they please is not important?

You fail.

No. You fail. You fail because you don't understand that the need to protect individual rights when the individual in question just hasn't escaped the womb yet. That's the libertarian argument against abortion. Ron Paul understands this. You don't apparently.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[jmdrake]

no. To me, it is a freedom movement. That should be generic enough for everyone.

+1776 * 1776

[tonesforjonesbones]

These libertarian types REFUSE to admit that Ron Paul is PRO LIFE and for ONE MAN one WOMAN. tones

[Mini-Me]

+1776 * 1776
I prefer 1776^26, because it ends in 1776:
30585599507191377430535267085007536804286721734548 44470344170759711129330969556811776 :D

[Mini-Me]

These libertarian types REFUSE to admit that Ron Paul is PRO LIFE and for ONE MAN one WOMAN. tones

Half right. Ron Paul is indeed pro life (at the state level, to be specific), but he isn't necessarily for "one man and one woman" marriage only. Rather, he's for allowing churches and other organizations to define for themselves which marriages they consider valid and which they choose to recognize. On a personal level, he's probably only in favor of heterosexual marriages within his own church, but he wouldn't codify that into law...unlike the vast majority of those who take the "one man and one woman only" position.

In any case, I'm sure Ron Paul is not for wanton and gratuitous abuse of the caps lock button.

[Brassmouth]

These libertarian types REFUSE to admit that Ron Paul is PRO LIFE and for ONE MAN one WOMAN. tones

Who cares if he's pro-life and morally opposed to gay marriage? He believes in an invisible man, what else do you expect?

Rational people don't think RP is some sort of Messiah. He is a man. That is all.

[Brassmouth]

Neil, have you e-mailed your complaints to the Chuck Baldwin Campaign, asking them about his party's platform? If you haven't, then I suggest you do so because your immature whining on Ron Paul Forums is quite annoying.

I suppose he would annoy you, especially since the Baldwin theocrats can't seem to come up with any argument that can justify their candidate's anti-liberty beliefs.


No. You fail. You fail because you don't understand that the need to protect individual rights when the individual in question just hasn't escaped the womb yet. That's the libertarian argument against abortion. Ron Paul understands this. You don't apparently.

Regards,

John M. Drake

Libertarians are just as split on abortion as every other ideology. Most of us are pro-choice, though, because we are not sexist and we realize we don't have any authority to tell women what they can and cannot do with their bodies. You fail.

[jmdrake]

I suppose he would annoy you, especially since the Baldwin theocrats can't seem to come up with any argument that can justify their candidate's anti-liberty beliefs.



Libertarians are just as split on abortion as every other ideology. Most of us are pro-choice, though, because we are not sexist and we realize we don't have any authority to tell women what they can and cannot do with their bodies. You fail.

Ron Paul isn't libertarian nor is this a "libertarian movement". But the main reason you fail is because you refuse to admit the fact that reasonable people (like RON PAUL) can believe that a six month old fetus is an individual. Thus you fail to protect the rights of ALL individuals. Really abortion comes down to this one belief. No sane person would argue that a woman had a right to kill a premature infant. But some people such as yourself take the arbitrary view that a six or even 9 month old viable "fetus" isn't an individual. Sure you have the right to believe that, as illogical as it may be. But it colors the facts. It's like people who thought African slaves were not "human". Some who opposed slavery did so because of religious reasons, but others did so because the (rightly) realized that people of African descent are individuals and their right to freedom overrides the slave owners right to property. But the ultimate reason that you fail is that you've proven to me why I could never be a libertarian. I briefly considered it because of my (some) positive interactions with libertarians during the campaign. But the post campaign actions of (many though not all) libertarians here has been deplorable and an actual affront to the liberty they claim to uphold. Also as for the stupid "sexism" charge, you should realize that women are by in large more anti abortion then men.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[jmdrake]

Who cares if he's pro-life and morally opposed to gay marriage? He believes in an invisible man, what else do you expect?

Rational people don't think RP is some sort of Messiah. He is a man. That is all.

True. But this is the man you CLAIM to have supported. It's irrational to say you can't support another candidate because he takes the views that you apparently didn't find too objectionable about the candidate you supported. It's like an Obama supporter attacking John McCain for supporting the bailout or vice versa.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[Mini-Me]

True. But this is the man you CLAIM to have supported. It's irrational to say you can't support another candidate because he takes the views that you apparently didn't find too objectionable about the candidate you supported. It's like an Obama supporter attacking John McCain for supporting the bailout or vice versa.

Regards,

John M. Drake

I think the main difference here is simply that more people trust Ron Paul not to legislate his personal views than Chuck Baldwin. Chuck Baldwin was chairman of the Moral Majority, wears his religion on his sleeve, and apparently spent most of an entire campaign speech talking only about religion (though I did not personally hear the speech), so it should not be difficult to understand why many people do not place as much trust in his self-restraint as they do in Ron Paul. Furthermore, Chuck Baldwin wholly endorses the platform of the Constitution Party - something I don't think Ron Paul does - and as I mentioned in another post, that platform includes some doublespeak and...

...some black marks, such as, "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." This is under their section on Pornography, and they're talking specifically about banning it here, even at the federal level. What else falls under "obscenity" rather than "speech" to the Constitution Party? I do not like the idea of the federal government deciding what counts as free speech and what does not. The First Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law..." and I'm not sure what part about "no law" is really so hard to understand.

In other words, no matter their similarities, Chuck Baldwin and Ron Paul are two totally different animals. I like Chuck Baldwin as a person, but there's really no debating that he's much farther down Bible Lane than Ron Paul has ever been.

[strapko]

These libertarian types REFUSE to admit that Ron Paul is PRO LIFE and for ONE MAN one WOMAN. tones

You [Personal insult redacted]... if you ever listened to Ron Paul you will clearly understand that he doesn't want to tell people how to run their lives! YES he has his own views, and I respect them, but what I respect more is that he doesn't want to force his agenda on others. Unlike your christian fascist ass. That is why we 'libertarian', 'Anarchist', 'Agnostics', 'Atheists' and individuals alike support Ron Paul, because he would never use the law to put a ban on what You see morally wrong.

[WillieKamm]

The important things? The 1st amendment is not important? Equal rights for people to do with their bodies and their lives as they please is not important?

You fail. No you fail. Your good and well taken points, and you have some are totally overshadowed by your miserable nagging personality which manages to shine through even on the internet. If you are on the front line of shock troops that will save us all from our one world fate then we are all truly doomed. Vilify Chuck Baldwin, as if we have all kinds of great choices in this nasty election. Baldwin plays to a constituency that is big in the Constitutional Party. Are you so narrow in your thinking to assume that even if Baldwin had a viable chance to win that he would force us all to become born agains or Baptists 5 minutes after his inauguration? You have no knowledge or appreciation for the religous roots of this country that held it in such good stead for generations. A big part of the societal breakdown and hideous dumbing down of this country results from us tearing away from our religious moorings. I see this, and I'm not even a regular churchgoer. Lastly, you remind me of Trotskyites and Stalinists in my youth, who would argue over every niggling little point in a futile effort to prove who was more ideologically pure. Go find a secure vacuum packed bubble and go crawl in it.

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

No. You fail. You fail because you don't understand that the need to protect individual rights when the individual in question just hasn't escaped the womb yet. That's the libertarian argument against abortion. Ron Paul understands this. You don't apparently.

Regards,

John M. Drake

I am kind of curious where you got the idea that I was pro choice? As I have never said anything like that.

We talked about gay marriage, we didn't talk about abortion. My stance on abortion is the same as Ron Paul's.

Please don't ASSume.

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

I think the main difference here is simply that more people trust Ron Paul not to legislate his personal views than Chuck Baldwin. Chuck Baldwin was chairman of the Moral Majority, wears his religion on his sleeve, and apparently spent most of an entire campaign speech talking only about religion (though I did not personally hear the speech), so it should not be difficult to understand why many people do not place as much trust in his self-restraint as they do in Ron Paul. Furthermore, Chuck Baldwin wholly endorses the platform of the Constitution Party - something I don't think Ron Paul does - and as I mentioned in another post, that platform includes some doublespeak and...


In other words, no matter their similarities, Chuck Baldwin and Ron Paul are two totally different animals. I like Chuck Baldwin as a person, but there's really no debating that he's much farther down Bible Lane than Ron Paul has ever been.

Well said.

[LibertyEagle]

Baldwin advocates following the Constitution. There's no need to freak out that he's a Christian and you're not.

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

No you fail. Your good and well taken points, and you have some are totally overshadowed by your miserable nagging personality which manages to shine through even on the internet. If you are on the front line of shock troops that will save us all from our one world fate then we are all truly doomed. Vilify Chuck Baldwin, as if we have all kinds of great choices in this nasty election. Baldwin plays to a constituency that is big in the Constitutional Party. Are you so narrow in your thinking to assume that even if Baldwin had a viable chance to win that he would force us all to become born agains or Baptists 5 minutes after his inauguration? You have no knowledge or appreciation for the religous roots of this country that held it in such good stead for generations. A big part of the societal breakdown and hideous dumbing down of this country results from us tearing away from our religious moorings. I see this, and I'm not even a regular churchgoer. Lastly, you remind me of Trotskyites and Stalinists in my youth, who would argue over every niggling little point in a futile effort to prove who was more ideologically pure. Go find a secure vacuum packed bubble and go crawl in it.


And your miserable personality strikes me even across the internet as being the little pipsqueak who would run his mouth like that over the internet and not have a word to say if you ever met me in person.

Your ad hominem's don't make me wrong. You fail.

[LibertyEagle]

Ok guys... COOL IT with the personal insults.

Keep it civil please.

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

Baldwin advocates following the Constitution. There's no need to freak out that he's a Christian and you're not.


Is this the part of the conversation where we repeat that Baldwin says that he will follow the Constitution and then I have to repeat that is MEANINGLESS when he and his theocratic fascist party believe the constitution is an extension of biblical law? And that their understanding of what following the Constitution means is a horrible perversion of the 1st amendment?

Thought so.

[LibertyEagle]

Is this the part of the conversation where we repeat that Baldwin says that he will follow the Constitution and then I have to repeat that is MEANINGLESS when he and his theocratic fascist party believe the constitution is an extension of biblical law?

Thought so.

Neil, he believes that the Constitution was founded upon biblical principles. It was, in my opinion too. However, the Founders were also very clear that all Americans should have freedom OF religion and to my knowledge, that is what Baldwin believes too. It's only my opinion, but I think you are blowing this all out of proportion. Reminding people that the Constitution was founded upon biblical principles doesn't hurt you. It is to remind people of some basic facts, such as our rights are not granted by government, they are owned by US. Whether you believe they are natural rights or something God gave to you, is not important. What is important is that YOU OWN THEM. If we concede that government granted them, then we give them the power to take them away.

Look, I wouldn't vote for a Falwell either, or that nutjob preacher that wants to escalate war so that the world will end. I forget his name right now. I wouldn't be for these type of people, because I do think they would promote what you seem to be concerned about. But, I honestly do not think Baldwin is that way. He spends a lot of time talking about Christianity, because he's trying to knock some sense into all the Evangelicals who are promoting unconstitutional wars, etc. I've read Baldwin's articles for a couple of years and he has been taking them to task for quite awhile.

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

Neil, he believes that the Constitution was founded upon biblical principles. It was, in my opinion too. However, the Founders were also very clear that all Americans should have freedom OF religion and to my knowledge, that is what Baldwin believes too. It's only my opinion, but I think you are blowing this all out of proportion. Reminding people that the Constitution was founded upon biblical principles doesn't hurt you. It is to remind people of some basic facts, such as our rights are not granted by government, they are owned by US. Whether you believe they are natural rights or something God gave to you, is not important. What is important is that YOU OWN THEM. If we concede that government granted them, then we give them the power to take them away.

Look, I wouldn't vote for a Falwell either, or that nutjob preacher that wants to escalate war so that the world will end. I forget his name right now. I wouldn't be for these type of people, because I do think they would promote what you seem to be concerned about. But, I honestly do not think Baldwin is that way. He spends a lot of time talking about Christianity, because he's trying to knock some sense into all the Evangelicals who are promoting unconstitutional wars, etc. I've read Baldwin's articles for a couple of years and he has been taking them to task for quite awhile.

Read the report I linked earlier.

Baldwin said he supported the platform, and had no problem with it, and joined the party because of it.

Until he comes forward and says he does not agree with the parts of that platform that are flat out theocratic fascism, then he is not taking anyone to task.

[LibertyEagle]

Neil, you seem to be so blinded with hate for God, that you can't see past it.

It's not people like Baldwin that you need to be afraid of.

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

Neil, you seem to be so blinded with hate for God, that you can't see past it.

It's not people like Baldwin that you need to be afraid of.

People keep saying that, even though it is a total fallacy. I don't hate "God". You fail to see the point.

I don't want ANY religion having authority over the Constitution. PERIOD. Not mine, not yours, not Islam, not Hindu, not Shinto. NONE.

Who do I need to be afraid of?

Is it the Christian Judge who told two Wiccans that they were not allowed to teach their child their own religion as a condition of their divorce where the issue of their child's religious upbringing was in no way being contested?

What about the Congressmen who tried to have the religion of Wicca banned from the Military, because after all, Wiccan's who are fighting for the country don't deserve to practice their constitutionally protected rights to freedom of religion. (This was Bob Barr by the way)

What about the politicians in the Christian Coalition who fought to prevent Wiccan Veterans who die honorably defending this country from having their own headstone at Arlington? After all, even though they died for their country they don't deserve a memorial that reflects their beliefs right?

Is it the people who protest the funerals of soldiers because they say that deaths in Iraq is their God punishing the United States for it's tolerance of Homosexuals?

Is it the people who live in Islamic theocracy's who beat women for not wearing their veils?

What about the Romans who fed Christians to lions?

Is it George Bush telling us that his foreign policy was influenced by "God" telling him to invade Iraq?

Or maybe Sarah Palin telling us that war is "God's war"?

What about the Shinto Theocracy in Japan that convinced men to fly their planes into aircraft carriers? And justified horrible atrocities against the people of China?

My opponent is not your God, or any other God. It is MEN who want to remove the freedom of choice of others to choose to live their lives and worship as THEY choose.

I know it would be easier to try and say I just irrationally hate Christians, but that is very far from the truth. The truth is however, that Chuck Baldwin's party platform that he says he totally supports advocates a Theocracy. Theocracy is not compatible with religious freedom. Or freedom at all unless your lucky enough to be of the same religion as the Theocracy is governing by. I would be just as against any other theocracy based on any other religion. Including my own.

[LibertyEagle]

That's not Christianity, Neil. Those are people who are using Christ's name in vain. Do you honestly believe Christ would agree with blowing up innocent people? Of course he wouldn't. These are some of the same people that Baldwin has been trying to wake up.

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

That's not Christianity, Neil. Those are people who are using Christ's name in vain. Do you honestly believe Christ would agree with blowing up innocent people? Of course he wouldn't. These are some of the same people that Baldwin has been trying to wake up.

Who is Baldwin trying to wake up when he advocates no equal rights for gays?

Who is he trying to wake up when he advocates a Party's platform that calls for censorship? And the war on drugs?

So which Christians get to be in charge of the Theocracy that the CP platform advocates? There are so many to choose from after all.

That is why the founding fathers fought to keep religion out of the Constitution. Because there where so many Christians who believed they were the only REAL Christians and that anyone else should be dunked in water, tortured, or burned as heretics.

The fact that religion is so up to individual intrepretation is EXACTLY why it does not belong in government, but "between a man and his God" as so many of the founding fathers said.

No religion in government. That is the only safe and fair way.

[Unspun]

Who's God?

Your grammar is terrible.

[DAFTEK]

You're not accomplishing anything by slinging attacks at me allday.

So what exactly do you accomplish when you attack the whole forum daily?:eek: :rolleyes: Joe? lol.....:D

[Unspun]

Your grammar is terrible.
Oh yeah, also forgot something. You're wasting your time. Another thing. It's past your bed time.

[LibertyEagle]

Personally, Neil, I personally don't agree with special rights for ANYONE. Gays, straight couples, singles, hermaphrodites.... ANYONE.

re: War on Drugs. I'll have to check into that further, because I have heard different things.

I don't see how Baldwin is trying to put religion IN government, Neil. I think you're just freaking out because he talks about Christianity so much. At least that's what it seems like to me.

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

Your grammar is terrible.

lol right. Because this forum is the paradigm of perfect spelling and grammar.

Got any other ad hominems to add?

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

Oh yeah, also forgot something. You're wasting your time. Another thing. It's past your bed time.

Oh also, you forgot something, your wasting your time and proving you have nothing constructive to add. You fail.

And no, it is not past my bed time.

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

Personally, Neil, I personally don't agree with special rights for ANYONE. Gays, straight couples, singles, hermaphrodites.... ANYONE.

re: War on Drugs. I'll have to check into that further, because I have heard different things.

I don't see how Baldwin is trying to put religion IN government, Neil. I think you're just freaking out because he talks about Christianity so much. At least that's what it seems like to me.

Not at all. Ron Paul is a Christian that I wouldn't mind in charge of my country. Unless all this conflicting information I am hearing about him being a theocrat is true.

The CP platform that Baldwin says he supports whole heartedly, calls for religion IN government. Read the report.

Who said anything about "special" rights? I said EQUAL.

If there is such a contract as marriage, then people should have a right to it. Period. Regardless of what any religions intrepetation of marriage is.

[tonesforjonesbones]

Ron Paul endorsed Chuck Baldwin...therefore it doesn't seem to bother Ron Paul that Baldiwn is a MINISTER with his own church in pensacola...and a member of the Theocratic Constitution Party. Take your blinders off. This is NOT a libertarian movement. Ron Paul is a REPUBLICAN and a paleoconservative...NOT a libertarian. Now, go vote for Bob Barr! TONES

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

Ron Paul endorsed Chuck Baldwin...therefore it doesn't seem to bother Ron Paul that Baldiwn is a MINISTER with his own church in pensacola...and a member of the Theocratic Constitution Party. Take your blinders off. This is NOT a libertarian movement. Ron Paul is a REPUBLICAN and a paleoconservative...NOT a libertarian. Now, go vote for Bob Barr! TONES

Nope. Bob Barr is a theocrat too.

[Theocrat]

Neil, have you done what I suggested in Post #94 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=1795438#post1795438) of this thread? I'm just curious because you seem to just want to stir up trouble and not deal with the issue at the fundamental level.

[LibertyEagle]

Nope. Bob Barr is a theocrat too.

Calm down, Neil. Neither one of them is going to win.

I hope you enjoy Obama.

[tonesforjonesbones]

If Komrade obama wins...he will reconstruct the government ...and the movement will be dead. i am distressed that Ron Paul is not speaking out on the danger of Barak Obama..and a democrat sweep. he did mention that it was dangerous...but , not enough from Ron Paul on this very important election. That is a real bummer. ToneS

[LibertyEagle]

If Komrade obama wins...he will reconstruct the government ...and the movement will be dead.

Oh bullshit, Tones. In reality, the traditional conservatives who are left in this country should wake the hell up. They are much more alert when a Republican is NOT in office. That's a fact.

[tonesforjonesbones]

Liberty...YOU wake up...if Obama wins...we will have no leverege..he is already talking about the fairness doctrine...and other marxist-leninist ideas. TONeS

[The_Orlonater]

Liberty...YOU wake up...if Obama wins...we will have no leverege..he is already talking about the fairness doctrine...and other marxist-leninist ideas. TONeS

Keep sucking McCain's fascist propaganda.

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

Neil, have you done what I suggested in Post #94 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=1795438#post1795438) of this thread? I'm just curious because you seem to just want to stir up trouble and not deal with the issue at the fundamental level.

Theocrat, I speak to people involved with the Baldwin campaign every day. I also spoke to Darrell Castle about this issue, and listened to Chuck talk about it.

That's what got us here in the first place.

[DAFTEK]

Screw this forum, IF BALDWIN IS BAD NOW, WHO THE HELL DO YOU WANT PEOPLE TO VOTE FOR? BOB BARR? FUCK THAT! No wonder people are now throwing their hands up in the air for McBama!

30 Minutes I'm out the door to get this shit done with! This place is now full of idiots who are not the true RON PAUL supporters we once had a year ago!

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

Screw this forum, IF BALDWIN IS BAD NOW, WHO THE HELL DO YOU WANT PEOPLE TO VOTE FOR? BOB BARR? FUCK THAT! No wonder people are now throwing their hands up in the air for McBama!

30 Minutes I'm out the door to get this shit done with! This place is now full of idiots who are not the true RON PAUL supporters we once had a year ago!

No. Bob Barr sucks too.

My suggestion would be to throw all of your energy, support, prayer, whatever you have behind a great candidate like BJ Lawson, who could very well be the next Ron Paul. Get behind local candidates. Run for office yourself.

[WillieKamm]

Liberty...YOU wake up...if Obama wins...we will have no leverege..he is already talking about the fairness doctrine...and other marxist-leninist ideas. TONeS I agree. Obama is the death knell of the late great USA. I don't think most people have any idea how totally rotten the situation is. It will not be great for conservatives if this left wing loony gets elected. We're going to go from the half assed socialism we now have to the real deal. Particularly with the heavily Democratic Congress that appears to be also on the horizon. The best I hope for is that some states will decide they want no part of this mess, and will be able to make it stick this time. I have pretty much given hope that the Federal Government of the USA can be fixed.

[Natalie]

Chuck Baldwin owns, and I can't wait to vote for him on tuesday.

[Mesogen]

This place is now full of idiots who are not the true RON PAUL supporters we once had a year ago!

Yes. But I do believe that there are many True Scotsmen here. ;)

[LibertyEagle]

Liberty...YOU wake up...if Obama wins...we will have no leverege..he is already talking about the fairness doctrine...and other marxist-leninist ideas. TONeS

Tones, the Communist Manifesto is in place NOW in the U.S. Still, the people sleep. I don't support Obama one bit, but here's the thing... if McCain wins, the Republicans will go back to sleep. Just like they did with Bush. Remember? If a Democrat had tried to do one fraction of what Bush has done, the Republicans would have raised holy hell. But because it was a Republican, they frickin' cheered it on. Unbelievable!

Look, I'm scared of Obama too. I truly am. And a couple of times, I even considered whether I should vote for McCain because of it. When I came to my senses, I realized that I just could not do it. McCain may take us into Communism a little more slowly than Obama, but we're almost there anyway. In my opinion, one of our only hopes is to take back the GOP. It will be very hard to do with a sitting Republican president. History shows that.

Note to others: The thought of voting for McCain only lasted about 5 minutes. :D

[tonesforjonesbones]

I don't like mccain either..but I'd rather buy some time. You know, our liberty movement is very young...we didn't have enough time this go round to change enough hearts and minds. I really fear Obama and the democrats sweeping..what will happen with Ron Paul? They might take him off his important committees and replace him with democrats. Will Ron Paul be allowed to address the house floor? He will be in a worse position than he is now. That would stink. Tones

[mitty]

Gee, I am sort of sorry that I donated to you.

+1

this guy would rather waste his time on the internet than actually do something meaningful.

loser

[The_Orlonater]

No. Bob Barr sucks too.

My suggestion would be to throw all of your energy, support, prayer, whatever you have behind a great candidate like BJ Lawson, who could very well be the next Ron Paul. Get behind local candidates. Run for office yourself.

Yes, Barr.

I want a stronger LP, it's not like he'll win anyway. Besides, I don't care about a stronger Consitution Party.

[The_Orlonater]

+1

this guy would rather waste his time on the internet than actually do something meaningful.

loser

And what the fuck are you doing you hypocritical jackass?

[NewFederalist]

Chuck Baldwin owns, and I can't wait to vote for him on tuesday.


Remember, you will have to write him in since he is NOT on the ballot in TX. I suggest you make sure how to do it in advance to avoid confusion.

[tonesforjonesbones]

Zbig's puppet obama will win. The trilateral commission is running things. I don't think it's bad to vote for whatever candidate you want...I'm back to my former position...who cares..both the same. I am going to work at the local and state level..just forget the presidency for now. it's corrupt and corruptable. Tones

[worl]

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/search/search.php?q=religion Neal It seems you have a problem with religion. Our laws are based on christian principles, by christian people. Take a look at the supreme court bld. that has the comandments written on them. If the secular left has'nt had them removed. This country is under attack by the secular left & the christian people are only trying to preserve our freedom of religion & you can look up ron paul's wrighting's on the link above & he makes it verry plain that this freedom does'nt end at the school the courtroom or city hall. Our gov. has removed this right & Ron has tried to defend it, as have most christians. As for gay's marrying this is not religious. It may be a cult or some false religion but I know of no true religion that allows gay marrage & marrage is only a religious ceramony. As for drugs I agree the drug war is useless but I also will tell you that they hurt more than the user. I have seen the effects of meth & cocaine & others on the user's children & famialy. In the case of some drugs they hurt other people so alowing all drugs would be wrong.

[mitty]

And what the fuck are you doing you hypocritical jackass?

lol. you're calling me a hypocrite yet you don't know anything about me. i can see why you're voting for such a dumbass like barr. i didn't beg people for donations and run for office while wasting time online. mind your own business jackass

[heavenlyboy34]

Zbig's puppet obama will win. The trilateral commission is running things. I don't think it's bad to vote for whatever candidate you want...I'm back to my former position...who cares..both the same. I am going to work at the local and state level..just forget the presidency for now. it's corrupt and corruptable. Tones

One of the few things I agree with you about. :D

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/search/search.php?q=religion Neal It seems you have a problem with religion. Our laws are based on christian principles, by christian people. Take a look at the supreme court bld. that has the comandments written on them. If the secular left has'nt had them removed. This country is under attack by the secular left & the christian people are only trying to preserve our freedom of religion & you can look up ron paul's wrighting's on the link above & he makes it verry plain that this freedom does'nt end at the school the courtroom or city hall. Our gov. has removed this right & Ron has tried to defend it, as have most christians. As for gay's marrying this is not religious. It may be a cult or some false religion but I know of no true religion that allows gay marrage & marrage is only a religious ceramony. As for drugs I agree the drug war is useless but I also will tell you that they hurt more than the user. I have seen the effects of meth & cocaine & others on the user's children & famialy. In the case of some drugs they hurt other people so alowing all drugs would be wrong.

You obviously have not read the rest of this thread where I debunk just about everything you said.

[worl]

You said in your first post baldwin was wrong to stop the illegal drugs from coming in our country. I said that some drugs hurt others & this is where the libertairian belief of what you put into your body is your choice is wrong. As for marriage baldwin believes the same as Ron Paul & that is the traditional marrage bettween a man & woman & it is religious not political. He did say he would vote not to allow marriage bettween gay's if it came up.

[Theocrat]

You obviously have not read the rest of this thread where I debunk just about everything you said.

You obviously have not read the information provided on his link because it debunks everything you stand for on these forums, as it relates to religion and government.

[worl]

You have debunked nothing. This is still the Ron Paul forums & if you don't like his explaination on religion then it's your problem. Your view is the same as the secular left that wants religious people to go & hide & don't even wear a cross in your presence. Ron Paul also mentioned this separation of church & state which is not even mentioned in the constitution as being bogus & only used to take away the rights of religious people. If your anti-religious thats ok, its your right but don't try to tell me about the separation bull that you people have dreamed up.

[LibertyEagle]

I said that some drugs hurt others & this is where the libertairian belief of what you put into your body is your choice is wrong.

Please explain further here. I was with you, until I saw this. How is it government's business to tell us what we can and cannot put into our OWN bodies? Whether it is dangerous for us or not, they are our bodies and OUR lives and unless we infringe on the liberty of someone else, we should be free to do as we damn well please.

[worl]

Don't children have rights, have you ever seen what meth does to a family. I have seen children loose their homes & parents. Most have to be taken by other family members because their parents could care about nothing but more drugs. Not only the damage to their family but most people try to get off the stuff & can't. In most cases you either go to jail & get help or to the morgue. I don't know about other drugs but this is one that I don't want legalized. As for the drug war, It is just a way for gov. to make money & should be changed.

[LibertyEagle]

Don't children have rights, have you ever seen what meth does to a family. I have seen children loose their homes & parents. Most have to be taken by other family members because their parents could care about nothing but more drugs. Not only the damage to their family but most people try to get off the stuff & can't. In most cases you either go to jail & get help or to the morgue. I don't know about other drugs but this is one that I don't want legalized. As for the drug war, It is just a way for gov. to make money & should be changed.

I agree that the stuff is really bad and it does wreck families. But, it's dangerous to look to government to save us from doing harm to our bodies. I mean, where do you draw the line? Who ordained government with the knowledge to know what IS and WHAT IS NOT good for us? Who ordained ANYONE to decide how we should live our lives, as long as we are not infringing upon another's liberty?

[worl]

I understand & I don't want gov. in my personal buisness either, but in this case I have seen parents get their children arested to save their lives. 50 & 60 years old & trying to raise their grandchildren. I'm just saying without this one being illegal, there would be no way for a person to get help because they can't stop without force.

[LibertyEagle]

I understand & I don't want gov. in my personal buisness either, but in this case I have seen parents get their children arested to save their lives. 50 & 60 years old & trying to raise their grandchildren. I'm just saying without this one being illegal, there would be no way for a person to get help because they can't stop without force.

Think this through. There are a lot of things out there that I personally would like to see stopped, but government is rarely the answer. Freedom is messy, but it's always the best way. To do otherwise, is to willingly leave the door open for government to decide how we should live our lives.

If nothing else, it should be a state issue and not a federal issue. Legislating drugs is not in the Constitution.

[worl]

I agree that with this gov. everything is screwed up & they have used the drug war for profit. If we had a gov. that was controled by the people we could work out a lot of the problems we have & hopefully this is in the neer future. I will also agree that it should be a state issue & get the fed out entirely since they are most of the problem.

[Mesogen]

I think I see a pattern here.


Non-Fundie: "I wish people would stop trying to get the government to force their religion on everyone.

Fundie: "You just hate Christians and want to make all religion illegal."

Non-Fundie: "No. I just don't want someone else's religion shoved down my throat."

Fundie: "You'll never rest until every Christian is dead and everyone is worshiping Satan and praying to Osama bin Laden 5 times a day."

Non-Fundie: "You're being ridiculous. I just don't want to live in a theocracy."

Fundie: "You hate Jesus."

That seems about it.

[hypnagogue]

The principles defined in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence find their origin, not in the Bible, but in the writings of men such as John Locke and Adam Smith. Our founding doctrine was a Liberal(classical) one, not Biblical. This is simply a matter of history. The period in which these men lived has been titled the Enlightenment specifically because of it's contrast with the Christian dogma of the middle ages and even Renaissance.

I'm not quite sure why I bother to speak up on this point when these threads pop up. The people who know this, already know it. The people who don't want to know it, don't care.

[LibertyEagle]

The principles defined in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence find their origin, not in the Bible, but in the writings of men such as John Locke and Adam Smith. Our founding doctrine was a Liberal(classical) one, not Biblical. This is simply a matter of history. The period in which these men lived has been titled the Enlightenment specifically because of it's contrast with the Christian dogma of the middle ages and even Renaissance.

I'm not quite sure why I bother to speak up on this point when these threads pop up. The people who know this, already know it. The people who don't want to know it, don't care.

Oh geez. Our Founding Fathers themselves said that it was based on biblical principles. Isn't that enough for you?

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

You obviously have not read the information provided on his link because it debunks everything you stand for on these forums, as it relates to religion and government.

Nope Theocrat. I have already debunked you. You lost weeks ago man.

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

I think I see a pattern here.


Non-Fundie: "I wish people would stop trying to get the government to force their religion on everyone.

Fundie: "You just hate Christians and want to make all religion illegal."

Non-Fundie: "No. I just don't want someone else's religion shoved down my throat."

Fundie: "You'll never rest until every Christian is dead and everyone is worshiping Satan and praying to Osama bin Laden 5 times a day."

Non-Fundie: "You're being ridiculous. I just don't want to live in a theocracy."

Fundie: "You hate Jesus."

That seems about it.

Yep. My mission was accomplished however, the people who don't like theocracy now know that Baldwin is not a freedom candidate. Those who like theocracy will go on trying to say they somehow "won" even though they have only managed to fracture the movement further with their bigotry against Gays and interest in forcing others to live by their religious beliefs.

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

You have debunked nothing. This is still the Ron Paul forums & if you don't like his explaination on religion then it's your problem. Your view is the same as the secular left that wants religious people to go & hide & don't even wear a cross in your presence. Ron Paul also mentioned this separation of church & state which is not even mentioned in the constitution as being bogus & only used to take away the rights of religious people. If your anti-religious thats ok, its your right but don't try to tell me about the separation bull that you people have dreamed up.


Actually, you have that backwards. Jefferson made it plain what the 1st amendment was about. Washington made it clear that he agreed there should be no laws respecting religion in the Constitution.

“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.”

Madison:
"the civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext infringed."

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."

So I guess Jefferson "dreamed" this up?

I fail to see how preventing you from passing laws to force others to live their lives according to YOUR religion somehow hinders the rights of religious people.

The point is to protect the rights of non-religious people.

You fail.

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

Oh geez. Our Founding Fathers themselves said that it was based on biblical principles. Isn't that enough for you?


Even the Christians involved didn't want religion in the Constitution.

[krazy kaju]

Hey NKS, aren't you running for office in Michigan?

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

Hey NKS, aren't you running for office in Michigan?

Yep.

http://www.nks2008.com

[krazy kaju]

^ Cool, I helped out a little with the Michigan LP, though I've been a bit too busy lately to do anything. I'm from Plymouth.

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

^ Cool, I helped out a little with the Michigan LP, though I've been a bit too busy lately to do anything. I'm from Plymouth.

Well make sure you get out and vote. :) We have a lot of good candidates here in Michigan.

[Theocrat]

Nope Theocrat. I have already debunked you. You lost weeks ago man.

Neil, you're just willingly ignorant towards the impact the Christian religion had in our early republican government. You have not debunked anything, nor have you dealt with this evidence in any rational nor objective way. I'll just let the Library of Congress put you to silence once and for all.


The Liberty Window

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/vc006409.jpg

At its initial meeting in September 1774 Congress invited the Reverend Jacob Duché (1738-1798), rector of Christ Church, Philadelphia, to open its sessions with prayer. Duché ministered to Congress in an unofficial capacity until he was elected the body's first chaplain on July 9, 1776. He defected to the British the next year. Pictured here in the bottom stained-glass panel is the first prayer in Congress, delivered by Duché. The top part of this extraordinary stained glass window depicts the role of churchmen in compelling King John to sign the Magna Carta in 1215.

Congressional Fast Day Proclamation

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/f0404s.jpg

Congress proclaimed days of fasting and of thanksgiving annually throughout the Revolutionary War. This proclamation by Congress set May 17, 1776, as a "day of Humiliation, Fasting and Prayer" throughout the colonies. Congress urges its fellow citizens to "confess and bewail our manifold sins and transgressions, and by a sincere repentance and amendment of life, appease his [God's] righteous displeasure, and through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ, obtain his pardon and forgiveness." Massachusetts ordered a "suitable Number" of these proclamations be printed so "that each of the religious Assemblies in this Colony, may be furnished with a Copy of the same" and added the motto "God Save This People" as a substitute for "God Save the King."

Morality in the Navy

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/vc006525.jpghttp://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/vc006526.jpg

Congress particularly feared the navy as a source of moral corruption and demanded that skippers of American ships make their men behave. The first article in Rules and Regulations of the Navy (below), adopted on November 28, 1775, ordered all commanders "to be very vigilant . . . to discountenance and suppress all dissolute, immoral and disorderly practices." The second article required those same commanders "to take care, that divine services be performed twice a day on board, and a sermon preached on Sundays." Article 3 prescribed punishments for swearers and blasphemers: officers were to be fined and common sailors were to be forced "to wear a wooden collar or some other shameful badge of distinction."

Aitken's Bible Endorsed by Congress

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/vc006472.jpghttp://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/vc006473.jpg

The war with Britain cut off the supply of Bibles to the United States with the result that on Sept. 11, 1777, Congress instructed its Committee of Commerce to import 20,000 Bibles from "Scotland, Holland or elsewhere." On January 21, 1781, Philadelphia printer Robert Aitken (1734-1802) petitioned Congress to officially sanction a publication of the Old and New Testament which he was preparing at his own expense. Congress "highly approve the pious and laudable undertaking of Mr. Aitken, as subservient to the interest of religion . . . in this country, and . . . they recommend this edition of the bible to the inhabitants of the United States." This resolution was a result of Aitken's successful accomplishment of his project.

Christianizing the Delawares

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/vc006403.jpghttp://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/vc006404.jpg

In this resolution, Congress makes public lands available to a group for religious purposes. Responding to a plea from Bishop John Ettwein (1721-1802), Congress voted that 10,000 acres on the Muskingum River in the present state of Ohio "be set apart and the property thereof be vested in the Moravian Brethren . . . or a society of the said Brethren for civilizing the Indians and promoting Christianity." The Delaware Indians were the intended beneficiaries of this Congressional resolution.

The Old House of Representatives

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/f0607s.jpg

Church services were held in what is now called Statuary Hall from 1807 to 1857. The first services in the Capitol, held when the government moved to Washington in the fall of 1800, were conducted in the "hall" of the House in the north wing of the building. In 1801 the House moved to temporary quarters in the south wing, called the "Oven," which it vacated in 1804, returning to the north wing for three years. Services were conducted in the House until after the Civil War. The Speaker's podium was used as the preacher's pulpit.

Neil, I can go on and on for days with evidence like this.

[revolutionist]

Who else is there to support?

McBama is out of the question.

Barr has revealed himself to be not a freedom lover at all.

Nader and McKinney are just to progressive for my liking.

That leaves Baldwin. Baldwin isn't perfect, but he's better than any of the others.

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

Neil, you're just willingly ignorant towards the impact the Christian religion had in our early republican government. You have not debunked anything, nor have you dealt with this evidence in any rational nor objective way. I'll just let the Library of Congress put you to silence once and for all.



Neil, I can go on and on for days with evidence like this.

Yes, and you are not putting me to silence for as I already pointed out, for everything you produce, I can produce information that counters it. What I would ask you to explain is that if we were meant to be a theocracy then why is there no mention in the Constitution of such?

Why did they go to the trouble to SPECIFICALLY ensure that there would be NO religious test for office?

You are really big on links. Here is one for you.

http://www.theocracywatch.org/separation_church_state2.htm

You are wrong. I am not "willfully ignorant", your just full of manure on this subject.

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

Who else is there to support?

McBama is out of the question.

Barr has revealed himself to be not a freedom lover at all.

Nader and McKinney are just to progressive for my liking.

That leaves Baldwin. Baldwin isn't perfect, but he's better than any of the others.


Baldwin is not better then any of the others for someone who actually believes in freedom.

I will tolerate a little socialism in exchange for no religious fascism.

[heavenlyboy34]

I will tolerate a little socialism in exchange for no religious fascism.

A good reason for you not to vote at all! :)

[Peace&Freedom]

I will tolerate a little socialism in exchange for no religious fascism.

The problem is "a little socialism" IS religious fascism, of the secular-humanist variety. What you 'tolerate' is the current regime of statist humanism imposing its myth of secular neutrality upon a largely Christian country, while accusing the latter of the very thing you are decrying. Such prattle is little different from the know-nothing cant of neo-cons who talk about 'Islamofascism.' Fascism is historically a secularist expression of the state as the ultimate authority, that subordinates all other sources of authority. Traditional faith is thus fundamentally incompatible with fascism---and so the mash-up of the terms ends up not to inform, but to brainlessly inflame.

I frankly wonder if the posters who keep writing loudly divisive posts to keep the liberty movement at odds with each other, are paid operatives for the other side, trying to break this movement by reasserting the factionalism that Ron Paul so readily disposed of in his candidacy. I reject your mischaracterization of the acknowledgement of God as 'fascism' and see through state-enforced secularism as the false new religion that it is.

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

The problem is "a little socialism" IS religious fascism, of the secular-humanist variety. What you 'tolerate' is the current regime of statist humanism imposing its myth of secular neutrality upon a largely Christian country, while accusing the latter of the very thing you are decrying. Such prattle is little different from the know-nothing cant of neo-cons who talk about 'Islamofascism.' Fascism is historically a secularist expression of the state as the ultimate authority, that subordinates all other sources of authority. Traditional faith is thus fundamentally incompatible with fascism---and so the mash-up of the terms ends up not to inform, but to brainlessly inflame.

I frankly wonder if the posters who keep writing loudly divisive posts to keep the liberty movement at odds with each other, are paid operatives for the other side, trying to break this movement by reasserting the factionalism that Ron Paul so readily disposed of in his candidacy. I reject your mischaracterization of the acknowledgement of God as 'fascism' and see through state-enforced secularism as the false new religion that it is.

Actually almost the entire neo-conservative movement is part of the Christian coalition.

If anyone's using christian theocracy to their benefit it's our opposition. They used it to disarm the people in LA during the Katrina disaster with their "clergy response teams".

There is a lot of danger in any reasoning that says that our 1st amendment rights can be silenced in the name of anything. (CP has that)

[SimpleName]

Baldwin is a sketchy figure, but Barr is nearly as sketchy. I voted for Barr more for the fact that he was an alternative with the closest to my ideals. His past War On Drugs that it appears he may still support and signing of the Patriot Act (no matter his suggestions) makes it hard for me to see him as a true positive. But, Baldwin is much worse. His push for religion to be more involved in government scares me deeply, especially since I'm an atheist. He talks about the "sanctity of marriage" and the "sanctity of life", which should, by the Constitution which his party is named after, not be an issue of the federal government. Plus, his own personal beliefs I'm sure he shares with the Constitution party. All that stuff about how the United States was founded on the Bible and whatnot. I realize the country was founded by religious men, but it was in no way formed by religion itself. The founders were vehemently against such rule. They just came from a nation that was ruled for hundreds of years by a mega-corrupt church and kings who used "divine right". Religion is the absolute last thing these men wanted to be part of the new republic

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

Baldwin is a sketchy figure, but Barr is nearly as sketchy. I voted for Barr more for the fact that he was an alternative with the closest to my ideals. His past War On Drugs that it appears he may still support and signing of the Patriot Act (no matter his suggestions) makes it hard for me to see him as a true positive. But, Baldwin is much worse. His push for religion to be more involved in government scares me deeply, especially since I'm an atheist. He talks about the "sanctity of marriage" and the "sanctity of life", which should, by the Constitution which his party is named after, not be an issue of the federal government. Plus, his own personal beliefs I'm sure he shares with the Constitution party. All that stuff about how the United States was founded on the Bible and whatnot. I realize the country was founded by religious men, but it was in no way formed by religion itself. The founders were vehemently against such rule. They just came from a nation that was ruled for hundreds of years by a mega-corrupt church and kings who used "divine right". Religion is the absolute last thing these men wanted to be part of the new republic

Yep.

Thankfully it doesn't look like it mattered much. The Theocratic message was clearly not very popular. Chuck Baldwin polled lower then Barr in every state I believe. Mind you, Barr is just as theocratic as Baldwin, he is just more subtle about it.

[jmdrake]

Yep.

Thankfully it doesn't look like it mattered much. The Theocratic message was clearly not very popular. Chuck Baldwin polled lower then Barr in every state I believe. Mind you, Barr is just as theocratic as Baldwin, he is just more subtle about it.

I'm glad your happy moron. I'm glad you temporarily got what you wanted. Baldwin is no more theocrat than Ron Paul. That's why Paul endorsed him and that's why before that Paul asked Baldwin to cut a commercial for him. Both men are deeply religious but both men understand the need to stick with the constitution. Ignorant people like yourself think just because someone uses the term "nation founded on Christianity" they mean "nation where Christianity is the only allowed religion." That's not the point and never was.

[heavenlyboy34]

+1 Tonesy speaks the truth! :D


Well...I am for abolishing the state being involved in marriage at all. That's a goal to work for. marriage belongs to the churches. I am for common law...like it used to be. Here is my latest letter to my newspaper editor: (my local newspaper is libertarian)

"I have noticed the uprisings against this newspaper because they said the state should get out of the marriage business.

Marriage is based on common law...remember common law marriages? Why should the state impose a tax on marriage?

Before the War of Northern Aggression there were no marriage licenses. A beau asked permission from the family of a gal for her hand, they set a date and went off to the church and got married. Simple.

After the war, the issue of interracial marriages came about and the couple had to ask permission from the state to marry which imposed a fee and granted permission (a license). Rather than abolish the misegenation law, the states decided they liked the dough and forced the tax on everyone. Fair is fair, right?

WRONG! Why must we the people be forced to enter into a contract with our spouse AND the state? Not only does this impose a tax, but it allows the state access to your finances and also your DNA (kids), but the divorce lawyers love it!

Abolish the marriage license now! It is a violation of everyones civil rights! "

TONEZ!