The Constitution Party is not Constitutional.

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

How dare the Constitution Party think that our Founding Fathers were Christians.

Whether they were Christian or not, is not releveant. What IS releveant is that they did not believe for a second that their FAITH belonged in the government. AT ALL.

 

[Theocrat]

Oh, Really?

Whether they were Christian or not, is not releveant. What IS releveant is that they did not believe for a second that their FAITH belonged in the government. AT ALL.

Is this relevant?

 

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

Because well-thought-out posts don't come from agent provocateurs!! Oh wait...

Are you implying that I am an agent provocateur?

I did not endorse any candidate. In fact I said I am not for any of the candidates running for President.

If I am an agent, I am an agent for FREEDOM. Not freedom to be interpreted by Christianity OR ANY OTHER RELIGION. But FREEDOM.

 

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

Is this relevant?

Yes it is releveant. I have debated with you Theocrat, and you specifcally state that you cannot have laws without morals, that that morals are all based in YOUR religion.

Your name, Theocrat implies already that you stand for Theocracy. That is not Constitutional. It also is NOT FREEDOM.

 

[Theocrat]

Are You Still Not Persuaded, Even in the Face of Proof?

Yes it is releveant. I have debated with you Theocrat, and you specifcally state that you cannot have laws without morals, that that morals are all based in YOUR religion.

Your name, Theocrat implies already that you stand for Theocracy. That is not Constitutional. It also is NOT FREEDOM.

If my link is relevant, then what are you debating about? You've already lost the argument, based on the proof I've provided that our country was influenced by the Christian religion.

As far as laws being based on morals, you are correct. Laws are based on some moral code or standard, and that, in turn, is founded on some beginning religious belief or philosophy. Law is inherently religious.

 

[Grimnir Wotansvolk]

I was ready to support Baldwin, until I caught a video of him at the National Press Club praising Jerry Falwell and talking up his time spent as a Moral Majority member.

Fuck that. Nader 2008.

 

[bojo68]

In defense of RP I'd like to say that he wasn't given much of a choice by the alleged Libertarian and Constitution party's. The constitution party I can understand having somebody like Baldwin, he's representative of what they are, not up to snuff in many ways the way I see it. The Libs, on the other hand, repeated what they often do, pick somebody really stupid, unethical, self centered, and largely antithetical to their own supposed beliefs over any number of reasonable
people from within their own midst.
Anyhow, nice to see some others admitting that our ideals have been eliminated through our own malfeasance. With that said, I've got some 50# dog food bags I'm taking to the polls for people to puke in while voting for Ralph.

 

[gaazn]

I don't think Ron Paul vetted Baldwin enough. He should've stayed with his message of voting for any third party candidate.

 

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

If my link is relevant, then what are you debating about? You've already lost the argument, based on the proof I've provided that our country was influenced by the Christian religion.

As far as laws being based on morals, you are correct. Laws are based on some moral code or standard, and that, in turn, is founded on some beginning religious belief or philosophy. Law is inherently religious.

You can claim that I have lost the argument all you want. The reality is that despite their faith, they did not feel that faith should be taken into account when making laws or governing this nation.

 

[Theocrat]

There Can Only Be One

In defense of RP I'd like to say that he wasn't given much of a choice by the alleged Libertarian and Constitution party's. The constitution party I can understand having somebody like Baldwin, he's representative of what they are, not up to snuff in many ways the way I see it. The Libs, on the other hand, repeated what they often do, pick somebody really stupid, unethical, self centered, and largely antithetical to their own supposed beliefs over any number of reasonable
people from within their own midst.
Anyhow, nice to see some others admitting that our ideals have been eliminated through our own malfeasance. With that said, I've got some 50# dog food bags I'm taking to the polls for people to puke in while voting for Ralph.

The Libertarian Party is not a party of principle (or morality, for that matter), in my opinion. Their principles are too vague, and rarely do they substantiate any of their views by the Constitution. Many Libertarians were frustrated that Bob Barr was chosen as the party's Presidential nominee, especially with his poor voting record from his days in Congress. It just seems inevitable that a party of the Libertarian's caliber and record is destined for perpetual failure.

Fortunately, there is still one party of principle available for people to support, which has the wisdom and insight from our Founders in the past to make appropriate changes towards restoring the principles of our once-loved republic. That party is the Constitution Party, in my opinion. The endurance and unwavering principle of Dr. Chuck Baldwin has been a national testimony that the Constitution Party will deliver candidates who are of moral integrity and Constitutional principle in preserving life, liberty, and property, among other God-given, self-evident rights.

 

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

Actually Theocrat for your link. Religion did indeed influence this country. As in, FREEDOM FROM PERSECUTION.

Now allow me to quote from it.

"The religious persecution that drove settlers from Europe to the British North American colonies sprang from the conviction, held by Protestants and Catholics alike, that uniformity of religion must exist in any given society. This conviction rested on the belief that there was one true religion and that it was the duty of the civil authorities to impose it, forcibly if necessary, in the interest of saving the souls of all citizens. Nonconformists could expect no mercy and might be executed as heretics. The dominance of the concept, denounced by Roger Williams as "inforced uniformity of religion," meant majority religious groups who controlled political power punished dissenters in their midst. In some areas Catholics persecuted Protestants, in others Protestants persecuted Catholics, and in still others Catholics and Protestants persecuted wayward coreligionists. Although England renounced religious persecution in 1689, it persisted on the European continent. Religious persecution, as observers in every century have commented, is often bloody and implacable and is remembered and resented for generations."

More to come.

 

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

This is an example of what it was like before the 1st Amendment protected people of this nation. This was before the Constitution.

Now, read this and tell me if this sounds like a FREE STATE to you?

"The Continental-Confederation Congress, a legislative body that governed the United States from 1774 to 1789, contained an extraordinary number of deeply religious men. The amount of energy that Congress invested in encouraging the practice of religion in the new nation exceeded that expended by any subsequent American national government. Although the Articles of Confederation did not officially authorize Congress to concern itself with religion, the citizenry did not object to such activities. This lack of objection suggests that both the legislators and the public considered it appropriate for the national government to promote a nondenominational, nonpolemical Christianity.

Congress appointed chaplains for itself and the armed forces, sponsored the publication of a Bible, imposed Christian morality on the armed forces, and granted public lands to promote Christianity among the Indians. National days of thanksgiving and of "humiliation, fasting, and prayer" were proclaimed by Congress at least twice a year throughout the war. Congress was guided by "covenant theology," a Reformation doctrine especially dear to New England Puritans, which held that God bound himself in an agreement with a nation and its people. This agreement stipulated that they "should be prosperous or afflicted, according as their general Obedience or Disobedience thereto appears." Wars and revolutions were, accordingly, considered afflictions, as divine punishments for sin, from which a nation could rescue itself by repentance and reformation.

The first national government of the United States, was convinced that the "public prosperity" of a society depended on the vitality of its religion. Nothing less than a "spirit of universal reformation among all ranks and degrees of our citizens," Congress declared to the American people, would "make us a holy, that so we may be a happy people."

Do you want to live in a country where they can force religion on you?

 

[Theocrat]

What I've Been Trying to Say

Actually Theocrat for your link. Religion did indeed influence this country. As in, FREEDOM FROM PERSECUTION.

Now allow me to quote from it.

"The religious persecution that drove settlers from Europe to the British North American colonies sprang from the conviction, held by Protestants and Catholics alike, that uniformity of religion must exist in any given society. This conviction rested on the belief that there was one true religion and that it was the duty of the civil authorities to impose it, forcibly if necessary, in the interest of saving the souls of all citizens. Nonconformists could expect no mercy and might be executed as heretics. The dominance of the concept, denounced by Roger Williams as "inforced uniformity of religion," meant majority religious groups who controlled political power punished dissenters in their midst. In some areas Catholics persecuted Protestants, in others Protestants persecuted Catholics, and in still others Catholics and Protestants persecuted wayward coreligionists. Although England renounced religious persecution in 1689, it persisted on the European continent. Religious persecution, as observers in every century have commented, is often bloody and implacable and is remembered and resented for generations."

More to come.

You're right. Our nation's earliest settlers were fleeing the State's imposition or jurisdiction over the Christian Churches in Europe, but they were not fleeing from the Christian religion itself. They wanted to worship God freely without the civil magistrate telling them they had to do it in a certain way (which was often done unbiblically). Thus, the Puritan pilgrims, and subsequently, our Founders, formed their whole jurisprudence and society predominantly around the teachings of the Bible, even though they did glean from other non-Biblical sources. To deny that is simply an act of willful ignorance.

 

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

"James Madison, the leading opponent of government-supported religion, combined both arguments in his celebrated Memorial and Remonstrance. In the fall of 1785, Madison marshaled sufficient legislative support to administer a decisive defeat to the effort to levy religious taxes. In place of Henry's bill, Madison and his allies passed in January 1786 Thomas Jefferson's famous Act for Establishing Religious Freedom, which brought the debate in Virginia to a close by severing, once and for all, the links between government and religion."

Thanks for this link Theocrat. It's really helping me out.

 

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

"In Virginia, religious persecution, directed at Baptists and, to a lesser degree, at Presbyterians, continued after the Declaration of Independence. The perpetrators were members of the Church of England, sometimes acting as vigilantes but often operating in tandem with local authorities. Physical violence was usually reserved for Baptists, against whom there was social as well as theological animosity. A notorious instance of abuse in 1771 of a well-known Baptist preacher, "Swearin Jack" Waller, was described by the victim: "The Parson of the Parish [accompanied by the local sheriff] would keep running the end of his horsewhip in [Waller's] mouth, laying his whip across the hymn book, etc. When done singing [Waller] proceeded to prayer. In it he was violently jerked off the stage; they caught him by the back part of his neck, beat his head against the ground, sometimes up and sometimes down, they carried him through the gate . . . where a gentleman [the sheriff] gave him . . . twenty lashes with his horsewhip."

The persecution of Baptists made a strong, negative impression on many patriot leaders, whose loyalty to principles of civil liberty exceeded their loyalty to the Church of England in which they were raised. James Madison was not the only patriot to despair, as he did in 1774, that the "diabolical Hell conceived principle of persecution rages" in his native colony. Accordingly, civil libertarians like James Madison and Thomas Jefferson joined Baptists and Presbyterians to defeat the campaign for state financial involvement in religion in Virginia."

Wow, couldn't of thought of a better reason to seperate church and state.

Imagine a place where the church made THIS legal.

"Dunking of Baptist Ministers
David Barrow was pastor of the Mill Swamp Baptist Church in the Portsmouth, Virginia, area. He and a "ministering brother," Edward Mintz, were conducting a service in 1778, when they were attacked. "As soon as the hymn was given out, a gang of well-dressed men came up to the stage . . . and sang one of their obscene songs. Then they took to plunge both of the preachers. They plunged Mr. Barrow twice, pressing him into the mud, holding him down, nearly succeeding in drowning him . . . His companion was plunged but once . . . Before these persecuted men could change their clothes they were dragged from the house, and driven off by these enraged churchmen."

 

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

"In response to widespread sentiment that to survive the United States needed a stronger federal government, a convention met in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787 and on September 17 adopted the Constitution of the United States. Aside from Article VI, which stated that "no religious Test shall ever be required as Qualification" for federal office holders, the Constitution said little about religion. Its reserve troubled two groups of Americans--those who wanted the new instrument of government to give faith a larger role and those who feared that it would do so. This latter group, worried that the Constitution did not prohibit the kind of state-supported religion that had flourished in some colonies, exerted pressure on the members of the First Federal Congress. In September 1789 the Congress adopted the First Amendment to the Constitution, which, when ratified by the required number of states in December 1791, forbade Congress to make any law "respecting an establishment of religion." "

 

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

"Many Americans were disappointed that the Constitution did not contain a bill of rights that would explicitly enumerate the rights of American citizens and enable courts and public opinion to protect these rights from an oppressive government. Supporters of a bill of rights permitted the Constitution to be adopted with the understanding that the first Congress under the new government would attempt to add a bill of rights.

James Madison took the lead in steering such a bill through the First Federal Congress, which convened in the spring of 1789. The Virginia Ratifying Convention and Madison's constituents, among whom were large numbers of Baptists who wanted freedom of religion secured, expected him to push for a bill of rights. On September 28, 1789, both houses of Congress voted to send twelve amendments to the states. In December 1791, those ratified by the requisite three fourths of the states became the first ten amendments to the Constitution. Religion was addressed in the First Amendment in the following familiar words: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." In notes for his June 8, 1789, speech introducing the Bill of Rights, Madison indicated his opposition to a "national" religion. Most Americans agreed that the federal government must not pick out one religion and give it exclusive financial and legal support."

 

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

"Madison's Notes for 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."

 

[Danke]

Neil,

You have brought up some valid points. I see Ralph Nader as having views that are unacceptable too. But if he were the only 3rd party candidate, I'd vote for him. Barr may have attached himself with a party I mostly agree with, but the man himself has proven time and again not to be trust worthy. So while I don't like everything about Mr Baldwin, he has my vote from my judging him by his past actions.

Non are perfect, and non will ever be.

But are you really worried about a 3rd party candidate for president when the House and Senate will remain almost entirely from the 2 major parties?

Vote for whom ever you wish, but support the 3rd candidates that signed on to the 4 common points Ron Paul brought up in the News Conference.

 

[mediahasyou]

Is it better than the Republicrat party? Yes, ok, so get the f out of my way, I am voting for something better than what we have....

The lesser of two evils is fail.