The case against Chuck Baldwin...

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
So do i still vote for Baldwin? Hmmm? We are running out of choices here... :)
 
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".
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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!".
 
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
 
Guess What, Neil

Congressman Paul has officially endorsed Dr. Chuck Baldwin. 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.
 
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
 
wow.

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:
 
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.
 
Back
Top