Originally Posted by
Neil Kiernan Stephenson
I have friends in the Constitution Party. The ones who tell me they object to several parts of the platform. Up until last night I was convinced that I was going to cast my vote for Chuck Baldwin. But last night Chuck Baldwin stated that he supports the Constitution Party platform, and that in fact he joined the party because of it. Darrell Castle, his VP running mate said the same thing afterward.
We are now looking at an invasion of what amounts to fascism disguised as religion into the Ron Paul movement. I am absolutely astounded by the reactions I am getting from people who five months ago would of scoffed at the notion that we would ever support a candidate who supports this platform.
People say you vote for the man, not the party. Or the platform. But when a man says that he AGREES with the platform, and more to the point, that he JOINED A PARTY BECAUSE OF IT, I can no longer make this distinction.
I withdraw my endorsement of Chuck Baldwin for President. This also means I will now be casting a vote for no one on the Presidential ballot this November. There are still plenty of Constitution party candidates that I do support, like Jaynee Germond who is running for Congress in Oregon. And I ask that people evaluate each candidate individually, the same I would say of the Libertarian party despite my parties idiotic nominee. (And oddly enough, after this study into the Constitution Party's platform I begin to wonder if Barr was a member of the CP when he was in congress).
What is below, is an analysis of the Constitution Party platform when compared to the constitution. I made some of this argument earlier, and was jumped on right off the bat by people who believe that the Christian religion and the Constitution are one in the same. It is not hard to figure out how this platform violates the Constitution, because almost all of it stems from the violations of the very FIRST amendment.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
FROM THE CONSTITUTION PARTY PLATFORM:
“This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.”
“The U.S. Constitution established a Republic rooted in Biblical law.”
These statements imply that our founding fathers founded this country to be a Christian theocracy. And that the laws in the bible are the roots of the Constitution.
Thomas Jefferson on Separation of Church and state:
“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorized only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.]”
“I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling in religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the United States. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in religious discipline has been delegated to the General Government.”
Clearly, Thomas Jefferson did not believe that religion has any authority in government. Anyone want to argue on Thomas Jefferson being a founding father?
What about these?
Thomas Paine:
"As to religion, I hold it to be the indispensable duty of government to protect all conscientious protesters thereof, and I know of no other business government has to do therewith."
James Madison:
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for is faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."
George Washington:
"I am persuaded, you will permit me to observe that the path of true piety is so plain as to require but little political direction. To this consideration we ought to ascribe the absence of any regulation, respecting religion, from the Magna-Charta [Constitution] of our country"
FROM THE CONSTITUTION PARTY PLATFORM:
“All teaching is related to basic assumptions about God and man. Education as a whole, therefore, cannot be separated from religious faith. [...] We would remove from Federal appellate review jurisdiction matters involving acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.”
Definition of Federal appellate review: Appellate jurisdiction is the power of a court to review decisions and change outcomes of decisions of lower courts. Most appellate jurisdiction is legislatively created, and may consist of appeals by leave of the appellate court or by right. Depending on the type of case and the decision below, appellate review primarily consists of: an entirely new hearing (a trial de novo); a hearing where the appellate court gives deference to factual findings of the lower court; or review of particular legal rulings made by the lower court (an appeal on the record).
This would make their religion part of public education.
This would prevent the FEDERAL government from overruling lower courts rights to acknowledge the Christian god as the sovereign source of law, liberty or government.
This would prevent the FEDERAL government from hearing appeals based on lower courts favoring Christianity.
FROM THE CONSTIUTION PARTY PLATFORM:
“The law of our Creator defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman. [...]. No government may legitimately authorize or define marriage or family relations contrary to what God has instituted. We oppose any legal recognition of homosexual unions”
This states that no government can authorize or define marriage in any way that is contrary to what their religion defines marriage as.
To make this statement asks the government to pass laws that would favor the establishment of a religion.
And in addition, if someone else's religion allows gay marriage, then it states that the government should not be allowed to recognize such unions. This would mean passing laws to prevent the free exercise of another religion.
They say they want the government out of marriage after the fact to try and deflect this point, the problem is, that they oppose legislation that in any way contradicts their religious view on what marriage is.
This issue only gets worse as you continue reading.
FROM THE CONSTIUTTION PARTY PLATFORM:
“We oppose efforts to legalize adoption of children by homosexual singles or couples.”
This calls on the government to make it illegal for people who are gay to adopt, based entirely on their religions opposition to homosexual behavior.
This once again asks for laws to be affected or denied to respect the establishment of a religion.
FROM THE CONSTITUTION PARTY PLATFORM:
“We stand against so-called “sexual orientation” and “hate crime” statutes that attempt to legitimize inappropriate sexual behavior and to stifle public resistance to its expression”
This calls for the government not to legitimize what they oppose about someone else's sexual orientation based on their religious beliefs.
And it calls for an end to “hate crime” statutes that stifle public resistance to it's expression. Meaning that they want it to be legal to resist someone else's “expression” of their sexual exploitation. And apparently to make it legal to gay bash.
FROM THE CONSTITUTION PARTY PLATFORM:
“5. We also oppose all government “legalization” of suicide”
Libertarians talk about people being free to do with their own bodies what they wish. This opposition to suicide is based on their religion. And it would force people who seek to end their lives for medical reasons or any reason for that matter to adhere to THEIR religious beliefs with their own bodies.
FROM THE CONSTITUTION PARTY PLATFORM:
“7. We call on our local, state and federal governments to uphold our cherished First Amendment right to free speech by vigorously enforcing our laws against obscenity to maintain a degree of separation between that which is truly speech and that which only seeks to distort and destroy. [...] Our collective representative body we call government plays a vital role in establishing and maintaining the highest level of decency in our community standards.”
This statement implies that they believe that their “cherished 1st amendment right to free speech” gives them the right to pass and enforce laws against obscenity. “To maintain a degree of separation between that which is truly speech and that which seeks only to distort and destroy.”
So, in other words, based on their religious beliefs, they should be able to invoke THEIR right to free speech by the government which as they put it “Our collective representative body we call government plays a vital role in establishing and maintaining the highest level of decency in our community standards.” to prevent SOMEONE ELSE from speaking profanity. And to separate what IS speech and what is not. This directly states that the government has a VITAL ROLE in doing this. So let me get this straight, it's not ok for the government to tell us what we can and cannot say, unless of course it is profane according to Christian doctrine?
FROM THE CONSTITUTION PARTY PLATFORM:
“Pornography, at best, is a distortion of the true nature of sex created by God for the procreative union between one man and one woman in the holy bonds of matrimony, and at worst, is a destructive element of society resulting in significant and real emotional, physical, spiritual and financial costs to individuals, families and communities. We call on our local, state and federal governments to uphold our cherished First Amendment right to free speech by vigorously enforcing our laws against obscenity to maintain a degree of separation between that which is truly speech and that which only seeks to distort and destroy.
With the advent of the Internet and the benevolent neglect of the previous administrations, the pornography industry enjoyed uninhibited growth and expansion until the point today that we live in a sex-saturated society where almost nothing remains untainted by its perversion. While we believe in the responsibility of the individual and corporate entities to regulate themselves, we also believe that our collective representative body we call government plays a vital role in establishing and maintaining the highest level of decency in our community standards.”
So, in this statement, they say that the true nature of sex itself was created by their god. And that they are therefore empowered to legislate it.
And that once again, THEIR first amendment rights of free speech enable them to legislation the expression of other people based on their religious beliefs.
Then this further gem.
“With the advent of the Internet and the benevolent neglect of the previous administrations, the pornography industry enjoyed uninhibited growth and expansion until the point today that we live in a sex-saturated society where almost nothing remains untainted by its perversion. While we believe in the responsibility of the individual and corporate entities to regulate themselves, we also believe that our collective representative body we call government plays a vital role in establishing and maintaining the highest level of decency in our community standards.”
This calls on the government to regulate the Internet according to their religious beliefs of what is and is not obscenity. And states that the government has a VITAL ROLE in doing this.
This entire concept opens a door to using the bible as means to interpret the Constitution. And more to the point, states that is how it was meant to be, and properly should be. And that the Constitution is rooted in biblical law. History has proven time and again that biblical law is not what anyone could call Libertarian.
Just ask the people put to death for their “heresy”
Ask the people slaughtered in the crusades on both sides.
Ask the women who were told to mind their place in society according to the bible. And to honor and OBEY their husbands.
Ask the slaves that various followers of the Christian God owned.
Ask the girls who are forced to wear skirts to their ankles in some churches.
Ask the people prohibited from seeking divorce in others.
Ask the people who were whipped for being caught dancing.
These people have the right to believe this, and to practice it themselves, but when you want to remove the Constitution's ability to separate church and state, and you start down the road of allowing one religion to be the law of the land for all of the citizens of the United States, you are opening the door for that religion to force it's views on the American people.
Ask Thomas Jefferson why he cautions about the clergy, being involved in government.
*The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man (Letter to J. Moor, 1800).
* The clergy...believe that any portion of power confided to me [as President] will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion (Letter to Benjamin Rush, 1800).
* History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes (Letter to von Humboldt, 1813).
* In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own (Letter to H. Spafford, 1814).
Right now, your asking me to vote a member of the clergy into the highest office in our government.
Why didn't we support Mike Huckabee again?
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us