Neil Kiernan Stephenson
Member
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2008
- Messages
- 398
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.
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.
Last edited:
