Libertarian Party = Fail

[AmericasLastHope]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7HJR8jX9Es

[Josh_LA]

not news

[AmericasLastHope]

not news

Is this the news forum?

[DeadheadForPaul]

While I am no Bob Barr fan, he spoke 100% truth

Dr. Paul is human and can make mistakes.

Bob Barr made a mistake by snubbing Dr. Paul and his conference

Dr. Paul made a mistake by endorsing a theocratic candidate and splitting the liberty movement. Really, the LP and CP should have worked together to nominate 1 candidate...a compromise candidate like Dr. Paul

[Kludge]

While I am no Bob Barr fan, he spoke 100% truth

Dr. Paul is human and can make mistakes.

Bob Barr made a mistake by snubbing Dr. Paul and his conference

Dr. Paul made a mistake by endorsing a theocratic candidate and splitting the liberty movement. Really, the LP and CP should have worked together to nominate 1 candidate...a compromise candidate like Dr. Paul

This, though I don't know of any candidates who could have compromised between the CP and LP. The LNC election was quite close and intense in itself.

[nobody's_hero]

Well, I never really agreed that Ron Paul split any liberty movement. Even if you believe he did, if you combine all of the 3rd party candidate votes, there wasn't much to split anyway. What does it add up to? 2%?

Ron Paul didn't damage anything. Dr. Paul could have united all of those 3rd parties and ran as their candidate, and he'd have gotten 2 percent, and still no electoral votes (unless, against all odds, he'd gotten included in the debates, which would never have been allowed by the establishment anyway).

As for Bob Barr, he's slipping back into the prosecuting field and I think it suits him better than a presidency. As long as he prosecutes the government for its infringement of our liberties, I think he'd actually make a promising Constitutional lawyer.

He's still a work-in-progress.

[TruckinMike]

Hate Causes division.

Its not the Constitution Party thats filled with hate for the Libertarians, its the Libertarians that are filled with ANti-Christian hate. And that is exactly what is creating the divide.

Christians don't want to restrict your rights , they want to protect them --- as well as the unborn. I know thats a problem for the non-principled Libertarians. They (the non-principled Libertarians) have Created this issue with all of the hate filled anti-Christian rhetoric. Its the God hating Libertarians that are the divide, they created a divide, and are responsible for Christians like me not even wanting to let other Christian patriots know about the Ron Paul Forums.

Keep up the divide, keep up the constant barrage of anti-Christian sentiment, and watch our nation crumble.

TMike

[heavenlyboy34]

Hate Causes division.

Its not the Constitution Party thats filled with hate for the Libertarians, its the Libertarians that are filled with ANti-Christian hate. And that is exactly what is creating the divide.

Christians don't want to restrict your rights , they want to protect them --- as well as the unborn. I know thats a problem for the non-principled Libertarians. They (the non-principled Libertarians) have Created this issue with all of the hate filled anti-Christian rhetoric. Its the God hating Libertarians that are the divide, they created a divide, and are responsible for Christians like me not even wanting to let other Christian patriots know about the Ron Paul Forums.

Keep up the divide, keep up the constant barrage of anti-Christian sentiment, and watch our nation crumble.

TMike

The people you speak of are not really libertarians. Like neocons, they're trying to hijack the movement for their own agenda. :p There's a wide variety of opinion about religion among libertarians, and plenty of opinions to discuss-if only the loony atheists would stick to placing blame on the state.

I agree with you that there's too much divisive religion chat on RPF. That's why I left them, never to return. :p They're full of trolling and rudeness now-from all sides. :mad: If I were to turn someone on to RP now, I would just refer them to RP's essays and books. The webbernet forums have become a terrible source, IMHO. :(

P.S. there's plenty of blame to go around, so I wouldn't be so hasty to assign blame to just one side of this.

[Pennsylvania]

Too much religious division indeed. :(

[DeadheadForPaul]

Its not the Constitution Party thats filled with hate for the Libertarians, its the Libertarians that are filled with ANti-Christian hate. And that is exactly what is creating the divide.

Christians don't want to restrict your rights , they want to protect them --- as well as the unborn. I know thats a problem for the non-principled Libertarians. They (the non-principled Libertarians) have Created this issue with all of the hate filled anti-Christian rhetoric. Its the God hating Libertarians that are the divide, they created a divide, and are responsible for Christians like me not even wanting to let other Christian patriots know about the Ron Paul Forums.

Keep up the divide, keep up the constant barrage of anti-Christian sentiment, and watch our nation crumble.



1.) The CP is the one that is exclusive. It promotes a government based on their particular interpretation of the CHRISTIAN Bible. That pretty much excludes the majority of our society given that most are not fundamentalist Christians

2.) I know plenty of devout Christians in the Libertarian Party.

3.) Dr. Paul ran as a Libertarian - not as a candidate on the Constitution Party. Do you think he would have done this if he believed what you believe? Unless you would suggest that he is not a Christian...

[acptulsa]

Dr. Paul ran as a Libertarian - not as a candidate on the Constitution Party. Do you think he would have done this if he believed what you believe? Unless you would suggest that he is not a Christian...

I'm not entirely sure the CP was around in 1988, and even if it was I know it was far less well known than the LP.


P.S. there's plenty of blame to go around, so I wouldn't be so hasty to assign blame to just one side of this.

No question of that. As far as I'm concerned, religion and politics don't mix at all. Unfortunately, I've yet to find the crowbar that can get them apart...

[libertarian4321]

Its not the Constitution Party thats filled with hate for the Libertarians, its the Libertarians that are filled with ANti-Christian hate. And that is exactly what is creating the divide.
TMike

Its got nothing to do with "anti Christian hate".

Libertarians believe you should have the right to follow your religion- pray, chant, burn incense, howl at the moon, thump the Bible, whatever- in private or in public.

They do NOT, however, believe that the government should be run based on the Bible or the teachings of the Christian church (or any other church/religion).

That's why some Libertarians, including me, have a big problem with the CP- their platform is brazenly Christian, and indicates that they would rule as a Theocracy.

Theocracy isn't good, folks. Historically, theocracies have not progressed well- whether Muslim theocracies (the Taliban and others up to current times) or Christian theocracies (most of Europe in the middle ages).

The government should allow freedom of religion. The government should NOT be run by a religion.

I hope you can understand the difference.

[DeadheadForPaul]

its got nothing to do with "anti christian hate".

Libertarians believe you should have the right to follow your religion- pray, chant, burn incense, howl at the moon, thump the bible, whatever- in private or in public.

They do not, however, believe that the government should be run based on the bible or the teachings of the christian church (or any other church/religion).

That's why some libertarians, including me, have a big problem with the cp- their platform is brazenly christian, and indicates that they would rule as a theocracy.

Theocracy isn't good, folks. Historically, theocracies have not progressed well- whether muslim theocracies (the taliban and others up to current times) or christian theocracies (most of europe in the middle ages).

The government should allow freedom of religion. The government should not be run by a religion.

I hope you can understand the difference.

+1776

[Peace&Freedom]

Its got nothing to do with "anti Christian hate".

Libertarians believe you should have the right to follow your religion- pray, chant, burn incense, howl at the moon, thump the Bible, whatever- in private or in public.

They do NOT, however, believe that the government should be run based on the Bible or the teachings of the Christian church (or any other church/religion).

That's why some Libertarians, including me, have a big problem with the CP- their platform is brazenly Christian, and indicates that they would rule as a Theocracy.

Theocracy isn't good, folks. Historically, theocracies have not progressed well- whether Muslim theocracies (the Taliban and others up to current times) or Christian theocracies (most of Europe in the middle ages).

The government should allow freedom of religion. The government should NOT be run by a religion.

I hope you can understand the difference.

I hope you understand you have misdescribed the CP (and I speak as a LPer). Acknowledgement of God, and integrating the principles of Christianity in developing a government is NOT the same thing as the authoritarian theocracy you are worried about. It is no more or less the basis from which the American government was created by the Founders, as verified by any number of the founding documents and writings. That government freely acknowledged God and the Christian basis of many of its institutions---and early America was NOT like the Muslim or medieval Catholic regimes. So your stating that Christian concepts of governance necessarily leads to the latter is an overstatement. It is this kind of negative alarmism and overstatement that has caused many in the LP to be called latently hostile to all things Christian.

[libertarian4321]

I hope you understand you have misdescribed the CP (and I speak as a LPer). Acknowledgement of God, and integrating the principles of Christianity in developing a government is NOT the same thing as the authoritarian theocracy you are worried about. It is no more or less the basis from which the American government was created by the Founders, as verified by any number of the founding documents and writings. That government freely acknowledge God and the Christian basis of many of its institutions---and early America was NOT like the Muslim or medieval Catholic regimes. So your stating that Christian concepts of governance necessarily leads to the latter is an overstatement. It is this kind of negative alarmism and overstatement that has caused many in the LP to be called latently hostile to all things Christian.

"The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States. We hereby appeal to Him for mercy, aid, comfort, guidance and the protection of His Providence as we work to restore and preserve these United States.

This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been and are afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.

The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries."

Those are the opening paragraphs of the CP platform- that sounds like more than a mere "acknowledgement" of God.

Maybe you (most likely a Christian) "don't have a problem" with that, but to any non-Christian, that's more than enough to cause serious concern. Frankly, it ought to concern Christians too, but its easy to be blinded when you are of the belief that is being pushed.

Even if you don't believe these guys want a theocracy, they are blatantly pro-Christian- why would Jews, Muslims, atheists, Hindus, agnostics, etc want them in power? If they want to appeal to the non-Bible thumpers in this country, they ought to seriously TONE DOWN the pro Christian rhetoric.

[Peace&Freedom]

Maybe you (most likely a Christian) "don't have a problem" with that, but to any non-Christian, that's more than enough to cause serious concern. Frankly, it ought to concern Christians too, but its easy to be blinded when you are of the belief that is being pushed.

Even if you don't believe these guys want a theocracy, they are blatantly pro-Christian- why would Jews, Muslims, atheists, Hindus, agnostics, etc want them in power? If they want to appeal to the non-Bible thumpers in this country, they ought to seriously TONE DOWN the pro Christian rhetoric.

All I am saying is, compared to the founders, the CP's Christian rhetoric IS vastly toned down. If we don't therefore condemn the founders as 'bible thumpers' because of that, neither should we complain about the CP. Consider:

"Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he
must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the
universe...Religion [is] the basis and foundation of government." ---
James Madison, June 20, 1785

"Religion and Virtue are the only foundations, not only of
republicanism and of all free government, but of social felicity
under all governments and in all the combinations of human society." -
-John Adams, August 28, 1811

"The birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday
of the Saviour [and] forms a leading event in the progress of the
gospel dispensation....The Declaration of Independence first
organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's
mission upon earth [and] laid the cornerstone of human government
upon the first precepts of Christianity." ---John Quincy Adams, 1837

"No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion
must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and
priviledges of a free people." ---Noah Webster, 1828

"Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence
of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits,
and humbly implore His protections and favor...[I recommend] that we
then may all unite unto Him our sincere and humble thanks...for the
peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enabled to
establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness,
and particularly the national one now lately instituted; for the
civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed...

And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers
and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations, and beseech
Him to pardon our national and other transgressions...Given under my
hand, at the City of New York, the 3rd of October, A.D. 1789, G.
Washington."

[libertarian4321]

All I am saying is, compared to the founders, the CP's Christian rhetoric IS vastly toned down. If we don't therefore condemn the founders as 'bible thumpers' because of that, neither should we complain about the CP. Consider:



Yes, I know, you can find a lot of religious quotes from the founders. You can also find quite a few that are somewhat anti-religious. That's a bit surprising given that 1776 wasn't all that far removed from the time when professing anything but devout Christianity would get you put on the rack or burned at the stake.

Also, they did a good job of toning down the religious rhetoric when writing the Constitution- which was a good thing. They didn't sprinkle the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution with references to "Christianity" or the "Bible"- a bold and refreshing move. I expect no less from my political leaders. You can be religious, but don't beat me over the head with it.

The CP, at the very least, is beating us over the head with their blatant Christianity.

That's fine, if they want to be the Christian Party. Hey, maybe they should change from "Constitution Party" to "Christian Party"- since Christianity seems to be their primary selling point.

Just remember, a lot of us, Christian and non-Christian, aren't comfortable with that, and won't vote for them because of it.

When RP endorsed Baldwin, I went to the CP web site to look up their stances (I wasn't real familiar with them since they are a VERY minor party here in Texas and never get on the ballot). I read the "preamble" to their platform- Christian this and Bible that- and that was all it took to drive me away.

[Peace&Freedom]

I just see no evidence that a blatantly Christian party is necessarily repressive, given the early American example, and no evidence whatsoever that a blatantly secular liberty party (like the LP) has acheived any real improvement in vote totals by not embracing Christian principles. Since 90%+ of the American population is Christian, there are likely far more people who "aren't comfortable with that" and won't vote for liberty candidates who seem defacto hostile to acknowledging God. Why aren't you as concerned over that much larger group being alienated? Why insist that the liberty movement must embrace secular humanism as its sole communicative and conceptual framework? I say the fact that Paul's cool with both the CP AND LP should be good enough for all of us.

[LibertyEagle]

I just see no evidence that a blatantly Christian party is necessarily repressive, given the early American example, and no evidence whatsoever that a blatantly secular liberty party (like the LP) has acheived any real improvement in vote totals by not embracing Christian principles. Since 90%+ of the American population is Christian, there are likely far more people who "aren't comfortable with that" and won't vote for liberty candidates who seem defacto hostile to acknowledging God. Why aren't you as concerned over that much larger group being alienated? Why insist that the liberty movement must embrace secular humanism as its sole communicative and conceptual framework? I say the fact that Paul's cool with both the CP AND LP should be good enough for all of us.

Well said.

[heavenlyboy34]

I just see no evidence that a blatantly Christian party is necessarily repressive, given the early American example, and no evidence whatsoever that a blatantly secular liberty party (like the LP) has acheived any real improvement in vote totals by not embracing Christian principles. Since 90%+ of the American population is Christian, there are likely far more people who "aren't comfortable with that" and won't vote for liberty candidates who seem defacto hostile to acknowledging God. Why aren't you as concerned over that much larger group being alienated? Why insist that the liberty movement must embrace secular humanism as its sole communicative and conceptual framework? I say the fact that Paul's cool with both the CP AND LP should be good enough for all of us.

I don't think "hostile" is the word to use in regards to the LP. I would go for "indifferent" or perhaps "neutral". Nothing in the platform sounded hostile to religion when I last read it. I doubt RP would be a lifetime member (as he is) if your assertion is true. btw...side note; I'm cool with the CP and LP too. (I voted Baldwin, in fact)
JMHO.

[Josh_LA]

Too much religious division indeed. :(

no religion = no religious conflict
so if you want an end to racism , you need an end to races too.

[libertarian4321]

I just see no evidence that a blatantly Christian party is necessarily repressive, given the early American example, and no evidence whatsoever that a blatantly secular liberty party (like the LP) has acheived any real improvement in vote totals by not embracing Christian principles. Since 90%+ of the American population is Christian, there are likely far more people who "aren't comfortable with that" and won't vote for liberty candidates who seem defacto hostile to acknowledging God. Why aren't you as concerned over that much larger group being alienated? Why insist that the liberty movement must embrace secular humanism as its sole communicative and conceptual framework? I say the fact that Paul's cool with both the CP AND LP should be good enough for all of us.

Well, maybe you see someone who isn't wearing his religion on his sleeve as "hostile" to Christianity. I do not.

I won't support any candidate who even gives the appearance of being a theocrat. The open pandering to Christians might bring in more votes among hard core Christian zealots (though, so far, it hasn't- the CP isn't even remotely successful- consistently lagging far behind even the poor showing of the LP) that it will drive off, I don't know.

But for me, and for many others as well, the blatant Christianity and appearance of being a party of theocrats is going to keep us from voting for their candidates.

[libertarian4321]

I don't think "hostile" is the word to use in regards to the LP. I would go for "indifferent" or perhaps "neutral". Nothing in the platform sounded hostile to religion when I last read it. I doubt RP would be a lifetime member (as he is) if your assertion is true. btw...side note; I'm cool with the CP and LP too. (I voted Baldwin, in fact)
JMHO.

Exactly. Many Libertarians are religious (Christian and otherwise), but they are NOT theocrats. I've even had Libertarian friends try to "convert" me after meetings. But they don't openly mix their religion with their politics. Thats the difference between the parties- the CP is all about Christianity first, and defending the Constitution second.

That's why I will always vote for a Libertarian over a CP guy (except when the LP candidate is a d-bag like Barr- which hopefully won't happen again). So, in that regard, I agree with the OP- the LP did equal "fail" this year. We need to make sure it doesn't happen again.

[DeadheadForPaul]

I just see no evidence that a blatantly Christian party is necessarily repressive, given the early American example, and no evidence whatsoever that a blatantly secular liberty party (like the LP) has acheived any real improvement in vote totals by not embracing Christian principles.

The LP may not have demonstrated any significant improvement in vote totals, but the CP has not proven a SIGNIFICANT increase in their numbers either. If RP had not endorsed the CP candidate, I doubt he would have even had 2004's numbers

Consider this:

LP Candidate in 2004: 397,265
LP Candidate in 2008: 524,524

CP Candidate in 2004: 143,630
CP Candidate in 2008: 196,461



Since 90%+ of the American population is Christian, there are likely far more people who "aren't comfortable with that" and won't vote for liberty candidates who seem defacto hostile to acknowledging God. Why aren't you as concerned over that much larger group being alienated?

Most people who identify themselves as Christians do not even attend Church on a weekly basis. Far less consider themselves to be hardcore, fundamentalist Christians or evangelicals and far less would identify with "returning America jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations."

Furthermore, probably only about 5% of the American public (most likely less as evidenced by voting - more like 1% at most) agree with our "liberty" movement. To further cut that number down to only fundamentalist Christians is insane. We are small enough as is

[Kludge]

//

[Cowlesy]

Kludge for Chairman of the LP.

[Kludge]

Kludge for Chairman of the LP.

Eh, I'd rather Ruwart head it up if she doesn't run for presidential candidacy next cycle.

Besides, I'm not big on spending money... or doing work... or communicating with people I can't ignore... or being responsible for bothering people for donations... or being scrutinized... or not being able to talk about evil Jooz, Mexicans, whores, and Reptilians.

[Peace&Freedom]

I don't think "hostile" is the word to use in regards to the LP. I would go for "indifferent" or perhaps "neutral". Nothing in the platform sounded hostile to religion when I last read it. I doubt RP would be a lifetime member (as he is) if your assertion is true. btw...side note; I'm cool with the CP and LP too. (I voted Baldwin, in fact)
JMHO.

My point was to say the LP SEEMS defacto hostile to open acknowledgement of God, not that it was hostile. I am, however, skeptical of the concept of a secular 'neutral' approach to government commonly presumed to exist, and view secularism as but another religion, or humanist theocratic order that many non-Christians want to be the standard form of political discourse. I thus do not view that so-called 'neutral' rhetoric as being innately less religious than the Christian language of the founders previously cited. I would personally ask them to stop mixing their secularist religion in my liberty politics, while demanding the exclusion of references to the religion the country is actually founded on.

But a lot of LP members (and posters here) clearly are outright hostile when they insist on ignoring the larger numbers of Christian liberty supporters who are alienated by the stiff arming out of Christian principles, and persist in negatively pigeonholing the concepts as harbringers authoritarian theocracy. Clearly, if the founders were here using the same language I quoted, they would be accused of giving off 'the appearance of theocracy' by those posters, based on their very low tolerance for the use of Christian rhetoric. Clearly, Paul's support for both parties is NOT good enough for them, and indicates their animosity towards the CP's openly Christian platform is more important to them than unity within the movement. It was that intolerance that I addressed.

[Bro.Butch]

All I am saying is, compared to the founders, the CP's Christian rhetoric IS vastly toned down. If we don't therefore condemn the founders as 'bible thumpers' because of that, neither should we complain about the CP. Consider:

"Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he
must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the
universe...Religion [is] the basis and foundation of government." ---
James Madison, June 20, 1785

"Religion and Virtue are the only foundations, not only of
republicanism and of all free government, but of social felicity
under all governments and in all the combinations of human society." -
-John Adams, August 28, 1811

"The birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday
of the Saviour [and] forms a leading event in the progress of the
gospel dispensation....The Declaration of Independence first
organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's
mission upon earth [and] laid the cornerstone of human government
upon the first precepts of Christianity." ---John Quincy Adams, 1837

"No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion
must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and
priviledges of a free people." ---Noah Webster, 1828

"Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence
of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits,
and humbly implore His protections and favor...[I recommend] that we
then may all unite unto Him our sincere and humble thanks...for the
peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enabled to
establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness,
and particularly the national one now lately instituted; for the
civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed...

And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers
and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations, and beseech
Him to pardon our national and other transgressions...Given under my
hand, at the City of New York, the 3rd of October, A.D. 1789, G.
Washington."

The State Constitutions

Do you know the Preamble for your state ?

Alabama 1901, Preamble ~ We the people of the State of Alabama, invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution.

Alaska 1956, Preamble ~ We, the people of Alaska, grateful to God and to those who founded our nation and pioneered this great land.

Arizona 1911, Preamble ~ We, the people of the State of Arizona, grateful to Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution...

Arkansas 1874, Preamble ~ We, the people of the State of Arkansas, grateful to Almighty God for the privilege of choosing our own form of government...

California 1879, Preamble ~ We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom.

Colorado 1876, Preamble ~ We, the people of Colorado, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of Universe.

Connecticut 1818, Preamble ~ The People of Connecticut, acknowledging with gratitude the good Providence of God in permitting them to enjoy.

Delaware 1897, Preamble ~ Through Divine Goodness all men have, by nature, the rights of worshipping and serving their Creator according to the dictates of their consciences.

Florida 1885, Preamble ~ We, the people of the State of Florida, grateful to Almighty God for our constitutional liberty, establish this Constitution...

Georgia 1777, Preamble ~ We, the people of Georgia, relying upon protection and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish this Constitution...

Hawaii 1959, Preamble ~ We, the people of Hawaii, Grateful for Divine Guidance .. Establish this Constitution.

Idaho 1889, Preamble ~ We, the people of the State of Idaho, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings.

Illinois 1870, Preamble ~ We, the people of the State of Illinois, grateful to Almighty God for the civil l, political and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors.

Indiana 1851, Preamble ~ We, the People of the State of Indiana, grateful to Almighty God for the free exercise of the right to choose our form of government.

Iowa 1857, Preamble ~ We, the People of the State of Iowa, grateful to the Supreme Being for the blessings hitherto enjoyed, and feeling our dependence on Him for a continuation of these blessings establish this Constitution.

Kansas 1859, Preamble ~ We, the people of Kansas, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious privileges establish this Constitution.

Kentucky 1891, Preamble ~ We, the people of the Commonwealth are grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties...

Louisiana 1921, Preamble ~ We, the people of the State of Louisiana, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties we enjoy.

Maine 1820, Preamble ~ We the People of Maine acknowledging with grateful hearts the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe in affording us an opportunity ... And imploring His aid and direction.

Maryland 1776, Preamble ~ We, the people of the state of Maryland, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberty...

Massachusetts 1780, Preamble ~ We...the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging with grateful hearts, the goodness of the Great Legislator of the Universe .. In the course of His Providence, an opportunity and devoutly imploring His direction ...

Michigan 1908, Preamble ~ We, the people of the State of Michigan, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of freedom establish this Constitution.

Minnesota, 1857, Preamble ~ We, the people of the State of Minnesota, grateful to God for our civil and religious liberty, and desiring to perpetuate its blessings:

Mississippi 1890, Preamble ~ We, the people of Mississippi in convention assembled, grateful to Al mighty God, and invoking His blessing on our work.

Missouri 1845, Preamble ~ We, the people of Missouri, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and grateful for His goodness . Establish this Constitution

Montana 1889, Preamble ~ We, the people of Montana, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty establish this Constitution

Nebraska 1875, Preamble ~ We, the people, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom . Establish this Constitution.

Nevada 1864, Preamble ~ We the people of the State of Nevada, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom establish this Constitution

New Hampshire 1792, Part I. Art. I. Sec. V ~ Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience.

New Jersey 1844, Preamble ~ We, the people of the State of New Jersey, grateful to Almighty God for civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors.

New Mexico 1911, Preamble ~ We, the People of New Mexico, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty

New York 1846, Preamble ~ We, the people of the State of New York, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings.

North Carolina 1868, Preamble ~ We the people of the State of North Carolina, grateful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of Nations, for our civil, political, and religious liberties, and acknowledging our dependence upon Him for the continuance of those

North Dakota 1889, Preamble ~ We, the people of North Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, do ordain...

Ohio 1852, Preamble ~ We the people of the state of Ohio, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and to promote our common

Oklahoma 1907, Preamble ~ Invoking the guidance of Almighty God, in order to secure and perpetuate the blessings of liberty ... establish this

Oregon 1857, Bill of Rights, Article I. Section 2 ~ All men shall be secure in the Natural right, to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their consciences...

Pennsylvania 1776, Preamble ~ We, the people of Pennsylvania, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly invoking His guidance

Rhode Island 1842, Preamble ~ We the People of the State of Rhode Island grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing

South Carolina, 1778, Preamble ~ We, the people of he State of South Carolina grateful to God for our liberties, do ordain and establish this Constitution.

South Dakota 1889, Preamble ~ We, the people of South Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberties

Tennessee 1796, Art. XI.III ~ That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their conscience...

Texas 1845, Preamble ~ We the People of the Republic of Texas, acknowledging, with gratitude, the grace and beneficence of God.

Utah 1896, Preamble ~ Grateful to Almighty God for life and liberty, we establish this Constitution.

Vermont 1777, Preamble ~ Whereas all government ought to enable the individuals who compose it to enjoy their natural rights, and other blessings which the Author of Existence has bestowed on man

Virginia 1776, Bill of Rights, XVI ~ Religion, or the Duty which we owe our Creator can be directed only by Reason and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian Forbearance, Love and Charity towards each other

Washington 1889, Preamble ~ We the People of the State of Washington, grateful to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution

West Virginia 1872, Preamble ~ Since through Divine Providence we enjoy the blessings of civil, political and religious liberty, we, the people of West Virginia reaffirm our faith in and constant reliance upon God ...

Wisconsin 1848, Preamble ~ We, the people of Wisconsin, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, domestic tranquility

Wyoming 1890, Preamble ~ We, the people of the State of Wyoming, grateful to God for our civil, political, and religious liberties .. establish this Constitution.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Those people who will not be governed by God will be ruled by tyrants." ~ William Penn

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


:) GOD BLESS AMERICA :)

If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land. ~ 2 Chronicles 7:14


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~

America's Prayer (!?)

By Pastor Joe Wright
April 6, 2007

The following is a prayer given by Minister Joe Wright who was asked to open the new session of the Kansas Senate. Everyone was expecting the usual generalities, but this is what they heard:

"Heavenly Father . . .

We come before you today to ask your forgiveness and to seek your direction and guidance.

We know Your Word says, 'Woe to those who call evil -- good' but that is exactly what we have done.

We have lost our spiritual equilibrium and reversed our values.

We have ridiculed the absolute truth of Your Word and called it Pluralism.

We have worshipped other gods and called it multiculturalism.

We have endorsed perversion and called it alternative lifestyle.

We have exploited the poor and called it the lottery.

We have rewarded laziness and called it welfare.

We have killed our unborn and called it choice.

We have shot abortionists and called it justifiable.

We have neglected to discipline our children and called it building self esteem.

We have abused power and called it politics.

We have coveted our neighbor's possessions and called it ambition.

We have polluted the air with profanity and pornography and called it freedom of speech and expression.

We have ridiculed the time-honored values of our Forefathers and called it enlightenment.

Search us, Oh, God, And know our hearts today;

Cleanse us from every sin and set us free.

Guide and bless these men and women who have been sent to direct us to the center of Your will, to open (we) ask it in the name of Your Son, the living Savior, Jesus Christ.

Amen!"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The response was immediate. A number of legislators walked out during the prayer, in protest.

In 6 short weeks, Central Christian Church, where Rev. Wright is pastor, logged more than 5,000 phone calls with only 47 of those calls responding negatively. The church is now receiving international requests for copies of this prayer from India, Africa and Korea.

Commentator Paul Harvey aired this prayer on his radio program, "The Rest of the Story," and received a larger response to this program than any other he has ever aired.

With the Lord's help, may this prayer sweep over our Nation and wholeheartedly become our desire so that we again can be called "one nation under God."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~


:) With all this cut and paste, I still say THEOCRACY is a dangerous thing and must be rejected as much as Obama SOCIALISM !

Chuck Baldwin and Darrell Castle were not theocrats. Do some research before you brand, tar and feather decent men...

[worl]

Hate Causes division.

Its not the Constitution Party thats filled with hate for the Libertarians, its the Libertarians that are filled with ANti-Christian hate. And that is exactly what is creating the divide.

Christians don't want to restrict your rights , they want to protect them --- as well as the unborn. I know thats a problem for the non-principled Libertarians. They (the non-principled Libertarians) have Created this issue with all of the hate filled anti-Christian rhetoric. Its the God hating Libertarians that are the divide, they created a divide, and are responsible for Christians like me not even wanting to let other Christian patriots know about the Ron Paul Forums.

Keep up the divide, keep up the constant barrage of anti-Christian sentiment, and watch our nation crumble.

TMike

The same reason I won't recomend anyone to the RPF forums. Fact is, any christian here will be insulted to no end. Even if Paul run's again he will still have the anti-christian libertairian's to run off any christian that come's here. Not only that we have the legalize all drugs, legalize drunk driving. What we have here is a anti-christian libertairian forum, with Ron Paul's name on it & it will continue to divide people instead of uniting them.

[Conservative Christian]

"This is the bottom line, without equivocation or apology. And I'm not talking about a theocracy. Recognition of the doctrine of the existence of the Creator God and His role in the bequeathing of inalienable rights to the people has no inherent connection to the notion of theocracy as some charge. Freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, and the avoidance of a Congressionally declared State Religion of America are all a part of the package of what I believe, and what the American Constitution teaches, foundationally. The charge that either I or the Constitution Party stand on the premises of governmentally induced notions of theocracy is absolutely false--a complete canard."

Michael Peroutka
2004 Constitution Party Presidential Nominee


.

[Anti Federalist]

Besides, I'm not big on spending money... or doing work... or communicating with people I can't ignore... or being responsible for bothering people for donations... or being scrutinized... or not being able to talk about evil Jooz, Mexicans, whores, and Reptilians.

Slacker.

[Anti Federalist]

The same reason I won't recomend anyone to the RPF forums. . .Not only that we have the legalize all drugs, legalize drunk driving.

And what's wrong with that?

[Kludge]

Slacker.

Treasonous bastard.

[AmericasLastHope]

Obama has a special place reserved in heaven for welfare threads like this...

Enjoy...

[Anti Federalist]

Treasonous bastard.

Prise de Fer et Touche'.

[Eric21ND]

I do wish the Libertarian party would get their act together. I will never vote CP. Overtly religious people give me the willies.

[worl]

And what's wrong with that?

What is wrong is that the goal of the ron paul movement was to get him & other's like him elected to office & that can't be done by running as libertairian's. Mainstream americans will not accept legalizing all drug's or allow drunk driving & christians won't support a campain while being bashed by athiest's. It only hurt's our cause.

[krazy kaju]

While I am no Bob Barr fan, he spoke 100% truth

Dr. Paul is human and can make mistakes.

Bob Barr made a mistake by snubbing Dr. Paul and his conference

Dr. Paul made a mistake by endorsing a theocratic candidate and splitting the liberty movement. Really, the LP and CP should have worked together to nominate 1 candidate...a compromise candidate like Dr. Paul

Bob Barr = Not Libertarian

Although I certainly do not like Baldwin or the CP, Paul did the right thing by not endorsing Barr. He disciplined the LP for choosing a horrid candidate.

[HOLLYWOOD]

Well,

When all the true RP, LP, CP, party members start taking as many local GOP seats as possible around the country.

There's no other way with the 2 party dictatorship and 4th branch of government controlling the elections.

Barr's publicity stunt backfired and wrecked the relationships he had with Allies. Trying to mirror the HUCKABEE/ED Rollins "Sleaze/Slime Balls" media circus stunts.

Libertarian Party needs to open up a bit too...

[Peace&Freedom]

Bob Barr = Not Libertarian

Although I certainly do not like Baldwin or the CP, Paul did the right thing by not endorsing Barr. He disciplined the LP for choosing a horrid candidate.

Barr was flawed but not a 'horrid' candidate, the LP got about the same votes with him as with 'pure' LP candidates in previous election cycles. For the umpteenth time, nobody cares about the September conference except us Paul people; it had no impact on reaching regular voters, with or without Barr's presence at it. Barr told Paul from the start of his campaign he would be avoiding appearing at marginal 'third party' joint events, but Paul scheduled the joint press conference anyway.

Paul did not 'split' the movement by endorsing Baldwin, he just showed he could tolerate backing a liberty party with an alternate conceptual framework than the LP's. We could learn from that example to broaden the movement, furthering the growth of both the CP and LP by endorsing both as Paul has---instead of beating up each other over the 1% of the vote we are currently getting. Let's stop fighting over pieces of a potato chip, and focus on the whole electoral bag!

[torchbearer]

Barr was flawed but not a 'horrid' candidate, the LP got about the same votes with him as with 'pure' LP candidates in previous election cycles. For the umpteenth time, nobody cares about the September conference except us Paul people; it had no impact on reaching regular voters, with or without Barr's presence at it. Barr told Paul from the start of his campaign he would be avoiding appearing at marginal 'third party' joint events, but Paul scheduled the joint press conference anyway.

Paul did not 'split' the movement by endorsing Baldwin, he just showed he could tolerate backing a liberty party with an alternate conceptual framework than the LP's. We could learn from that example to broaden the movement, furthering the growth of both the CP and LP by endorsing both as Paul has---instead of beating up each other over the 1% of the vote we are currently getting. Let's stop fighting over pieces of a potato chip, and focus on the whole electoral bag!

I'm an avid defender of the LP, but everyone keeps making excuses for Barr and his crew.
They fucked up. The quicker the LP admits it and stops trying to cover for him, the better.
Barr fucked up. He is a fuck up, and we made a mistake nominating him.

I propose this as a resolution for the LNC.
Hell I might even propose it at the next LALP central committee meeting.

[Eric21ND]

Well,

When all the true RP, LP, CP, party members start taking as many local GOP seats as possible around the country.

There's no other way with the 2 party dictatorship and 4th branch of government controlling the elections.

Barr's publicity stunt backfired and wrecked the relationships he had with Allies. Trying to mirror the HUCKABEE/ED Rollins "Sleaze/Slime Balls" media circus stunts.

Libertarian Party needs to open up a bit too...
Well Said. Barr lost my vote for acting the douchebag.