The Constitution Party is not Constitutional.

[Kade]

Most of this is far too complicated to give it the detail it deserves.

This book is a great read, and I'll point you to the most relevant two chapters in regards to this discussion:

http://books.google.com/books?id=OgmO06LHLrIC&pg=PA184&lpg=PA184&dq="

There is not doubt that Protestants would have us believe that this is a Protestant Nation, or a "Christian" nation as they have taken to calling it recently, but this doesn't change the relevant facts, or the reality of our modern situation. That the early 19th century and beyond saw an increased promotion of blurring the great line of separation, it has not been broken, and people like Theocrat continue to promote the breaking of that line, for reasons that extend far beyond what should be tolerated in a pluralistic and free country, even other Christians, in understanding their own faith. It disgusts me, frankly, and any Christian who supports it is an enemy of freedom, an enemy of consciousness, and enemy of thought, and they wear a cloak of deception and self-promoting righteousness that is borderline madness. They are evil.

 

[Theocrat]

Blinded by Evidence

The assumptions of an author who is clearly biased on the subject do not constitute proof.

I am also not seeing anything in there that somehow justifies legislation being drafted based on religious beliefs.

Thanks, Neil, for demonstrating your own bias towards the information which goes against your beliefs about the founding era.

Here's some evidence from the Library of Congress to show you that the Christian religion was legislated during our early Republic:

Congressional Fast Day Proclamation

Congress proclaimed days of fasting and of thanksgiving annually throughout the Revolutionary War. This proclamation by Congress set May 17, 1776, as a "day of Humiliation, Fasting and Prayer" throughout the colonies. Congress urges its fellow citizens to "confess and bewail our manifold sins and transgressions, and by a sincere repentance and amendment of life, appease his [God's] righteous displeasure, and through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ, obtain his pardon and forgiveness." Massachusetts ordered a "suitable Number" of these proclamations be printed so "that each of the religious Assemblies in this Colony, may be furnished with a Copy of the same" and added the motto "God Save This People" as a substitute for "God Save the King."

Aitken's Bible Endorsed by Congress

The war with Britain cut off the supply of Bibles to the United States with the result that on Sept. 11, 1777, Congress instructed its Committee of Commerce to import 20,000 Bibles from "Scotland, Holland or elsewhere." On January 21, 1781, Philadelphia printer Robert Aitken (1734-1802) petitioned Congress to officially sanction a publication of the Old and New Testament which he was preparing at his own expense. Congress "highly approve the pious and laudable undertaking of Mr. Aitken, as subservient to the interest of religion . . . in this country, and . . . they recommend this edition of the bible to the inhabitants of the United States." This resolution was a result of Aitken's successful accomplishment of his project.

Christianizing the Delawares

In this resolution, Congress makes public lands available to a group for religious purposes. Responding to a plea from Bishop John Ettwein (1721-1802), Congress voted that 10,000 acres on the Muskingum River in the present state of Ohio "be set apart and the property thereof be vested in the Moravian Brethren . . . or a society of the said Brethren for civilizing the Indians and promoting Christianity." The Delaware Indians were the intended beneficiaries of this Congressional resolution.

If that doesn't suffice, then I guess I'll just leave you to the folly of your own ignorance.

Why do you quote obscure founders so often? Uncomfortable with the more intelligent ones?

The Founding Fathers were in great disagreement in many things that they did... but nobody in their right mind would suggest that the most important of them ever would consider the flamboyant abuse of Christianity in this country as anything that they intended. They most certainly wanted a secular country. Sorry about this Theocrat, but you have been wrong about it from day one, and you remain wrong.

Hmmm. The Founders that disagree with your worldview are considered "obscure" and "unintelligent." I see how it is. Since you don't agree with the evidence or material given for my major premise, you have to resort to personal attacks. If that's your attitude in the face of obvious proof that our nation was based on Christian virtues, then sadly, I believe there is no hope for you to ascertain any sort of truth in this world.

 

[RockEnds]

The Constitution was predicated on Christian truths that civil government must be restrained, due to the sinful hearts of men (Jeremiah 17:9), and thus, their powers should be enumerated. As a matter of fact, our three branches of government came from the Bible in Isaiah 33:22, where it states, "For the LORD is our Judge [Judicial], the LORD is our Lawgiver [Legislative], the LORD is our King [Executive]; He will save us." It did not come from any "atheistic" interpretation of human nature, that's for sure.

. . . .

I disagree with this wholeheartedly. The Hobbsian idea that mankind was inherently evil was refuted by John Locke who inspired the philosophy behind the founding of our nation and who contended that it was society that corrupted man and therefore it was society (government) which needed restraint.

http://everything2.com/e2node/Hobbe...ife%2C%20the%20Universe%2C%20and%20Everything

If the roots of the Constitution and our form of government can traced back to the Bible at all, it is through the social contract itself. A Christian is allowed into the Kingdom of Heaven because he or she accepts Jesus as their savior. They give their voluntary consent to be governed. Likewise, our government allegedly operates by obtaining the consent of the governed.

 

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

Theocrat, the point here is that no religion can be consulted on crafting legislation as to people's civil rights, as Madison's notes on the Bill of Rights clearly state.

And for everything you have quoted, I have quoted pages of material that states that one of the major motivations was to keep religion out of legislation.

 

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

Hmm....

I notice there is no further discussion.

 

[Brassmouth]

I think it's because we won.

Constitution Party is unconstitutional.

 

[dr. hfn]

Chuck has said that he supports and will uphold the Constitution. He said he would respect and obey the separation of church and state!

RON PAUL ENDORSED HIM! FOR FUCKS SAKE!

 

[Theocrat]

People Are Not Changed By Facts

Theocrat, the point here is that no religion can be consulted on crafting legislation as to people's civil rights, as Madison's notes on the Bill of Rights clearly state.

And for everything you have quoted, I have quoted pages of material that states that one of the major motivations was to keep religion out of legislation.

Are you serious? Did you even read Post #142 of this thread, or are you just turning a willful, blind eye to evidence which you feel uncomfortable with? The ignorance of some members on these forums is astounding. Your comments on this thread prove the title of this post.

By the way, it is noted that you have not produced one iota of original documentation or evidence to prove any of your claims, Neil. I don't think you can, either, which leads me to believe that you're just here to troll.

 

[tonesforjonesbones]

Well, first of all Chuck Baldwin is a minister..a CHRISTIAN minister for goodness sakes! He has a church right down the road from me in Pensacola. What makes ANYONE think he would not be concerned with MORALS...??? If Chuck Baldwin is running on the Constitution Party ticket it would stand to reason that he would have to be a member of that party. A presidential candidate is bound to their party platform. That is why McCain has flip flopped since he became the nominee. I have no real problem with Baldwin on his faith. Why hasn't this Christian bashing thread been moved to Hot Topics? I left the libertarian party due to this OP's worldview. If that is the LP...it's not my place. I am a paleoconservative...I like some of the libertarian ideals...but I find the LP attracts those with very loose morals and values. I won't support ANY libertarian candidate that has these sort of morals and values..sex, drugs etc...How do we know the Libertarian candidates wouldnt' force their LACK of moral compass on the rest of us? Forget that! Religious issues, if you want to get right down to it, are a state issue. it says CONGRESS shall make no law...in other words...the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT will not mandate any sort of state religion. The 10th amendment applies. Here is a quote from Thomas Jefferson you forgot Neil:

" 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 Inaugeral Address

http://www.homeofheroes.com/presidents/inaugural/3_jeff_2.html

Jefferson made it clear...matters of religion are not for the Federal Government to decide, but left to the states , churches and the people. tones

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I won't support ANY libertarian candidate that has these sort of morals and values..sex, drugs etc..

sex and drugs are morals and values? Hmmm...didn't know that! I think you'll have trouble finding any party whose members don't indulge in sex or drugs ("illicit" and otherwise). The "problem" with drugs is that their legality is determined by the leviathan state. In a laissez-faire/libertarian society, the government has no business in these matters. In fact, past government involvement in these has led to mass death, injury, and general discontent. (see the war on drugs, poor FDA prescription drug regulation, government schools distributing condoms and birth control, etc.)

You should do some more reading about libertarianism before throwing these kinds of statements around, tones.

 

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

Chuck has said that he supports and will uphold the Constitution. He said he would respect and obey the separation of church and state!

RON PAUL ENDORSED HIM! FOR FUCKS SAKE!

You obviously haven't been reading.

Read the first post in this thread, and tell me if you still think that him saying he will uphold and defend the Constitution is enough for you?

You can say that all you want, if you think it means you can prevent gay people from getting married because your god says so, or that you can decide what is speech and what is not with the 1st amendment, your word doesn't mean much.

 

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

Are you serious? Did you even read Post #142 of this thread, or are you just turning a willful, blind eye to evidence which you feel uncomfortable with? The ignorance of some members on these forums is astounding. Your comments on this thread prove the title of this post.

By the way, it is noted that you have not produced one iota of original documentation or evidence to prove any of your claims, Neil. I don't think you can, either, which leads me to believe that you're just here to troll.

Oddly enough, I have begun to feel the same way about most Baldwin supporters.

Aside from the ones who were already Theocrats like you.

The original "documentation" I presented is more then enough.

You are wrong.

 

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

Well, first of all Chuck Baldwin is a minister..a CHRISTIAN minister for goodness sakes! He has a church right down the road from me in Pensacola. What makes ANYONE think he would not be concerned with MORALS...??? If Chuck Baldwin is running on the Constitution Party ticket it would stand to reason that he would have to be a member of that party. A presidential candidate is bound to their party platform. That is why McCain has flip flopped since he became the nominee. I have no real problem with Baldwin on his faith. Why hasn't this Christian bashing thread been moved to Hot Topics? I left the libertarian party due to this OP's worldview. If that is the LP...it's not my place. I am a paleoconservative...I like some of the libertarian ideals...but I find the LP attracts those with very loose morals and values. I won't support ANY libertarian candidate that has these sort of morals and values..sex, drugs etc...How do we know the Libertarian candidates wouldnt' force their LACK of moral compass on the rest of us? Forget that! Religious issues, if you want to get right down to it, are a state issue. it says CONGRESS shall make no law...in other words...the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT will not mandate any sort of state religion. The 10th amendment applies. Here is a quote from Thomas Jefferson you forgot Neil:

" 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 Inaugeral Address

http://www.homeofheroes.com/presidents/inaugural/3_jeff_2.html

Jefferson made it clear...matters of religion are not for the Federal Government to decide, but left to the states , churches and the people. tones

Yes but the CP platform states REPEATEDLY that they believe that the Federal level should be influenced by their religion as well.

 

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

sex and drugs are morals and values? Hmmm...didn't know that! I think you'll have trouble finding any party whose members don't indulge in sex or drugs ("illicit" and otherwise). The "problem" with drugs is that their legality is determined by the leviathan state. In a laissez-faire/libertarian society, the government has no business in these matters. In fact, past government involvement in these has led to mass death, injury, and general discontent. (see the war on drugs, poor FDA prescription drug regulation, government schools distributing condoms and birth control, etc.)

You should do some more reading about libertarianism before throwing these kinds of statements around, tones.

Actually it's the point that YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to force what you believe to be moral or immoral based on your religious beliefs on me.

It's not to be pro drugs, it's to be pro people having the right to decide for themselves. Ron Paul backs that. The CP platform does not.

It's not for being pro-sex, it's for being allowed to make your own decisions about sex, including what gender the person you have sex with is. Your religion should influence what YOU DO, not what the government legislates that everyone can or cannot do.

 

[Kade]

Jefferson made it clear...matters of religion are not for the Federal Government to decide, but left to the states , churches and the people. tones

Wrong. Try again. Jefferson was strongly against State Sanctioned Theocracies.

 

[btimsah]

So the christianist's have their hands in both the Republican and Constitutional party?

I've had this very argument with my brother before, about how were "a Christian nation". While we are, it's still not supposed to be brought heavily into government. And as we've all learned, not brought into foreign policy...

So there goes our election. We literally have nobody to vote for.

 

[Theocrat]

There is No Religious Neutrality in Civics

Actually it's the point that YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to force what you believe to be moral or immoral based on your religious beliefs on me.

It's not to be pro drugs, it's to be pro people having the right to decide for themselves. Ron Paul backs that. The CP platform does not.

It's not for being pro-sex, it's for being allowed to make your own decisions about sex, including what gender the person you have sex with is. Your religion should influence what YOU DO, not what the government legislates that everyone can or cannot do.

(Emphasis mine)

You can't have your cake and eat it, too, Neil. You say that us Christians do not have a right to "force" what we believe to be moral or immoral based on our religious beliefs, but do you see what you've done in making that statement? You have "forced" your own moral beliefs upon Christians by saying that it's wrong for us to inculcate our religious beliefs upon the moral welfare of society, due to your own anti-Christian religious beliefs (which are essentially secular humanistic)!

No, my friend. You are just as religious about inculcating your morality and religious worldview upon others as we Christians are. The only question is which worldview is the correct one to be imposed upon society in matters of morality, civil government, law, etc.: secular humanism or Christianity? I've already proven to you many times in this thread that it's the latter, at least according to our Founding Fathers.

Today, our leaders in government act just like they're secular humanists because they don't use the Bible to influence their policies and laws, as did our Founders, and look at where our nation is today as a result. If there is no God (no absolute standard of right or wrong as revealed by an Absolute Moral Being), then our politicians can decide what's right and wrong for the nation as they see fit, being the gods of their own consciences.

That's why I'm so shocked at the "atheists" who complain daily about our politicians who enact policies which erode human rights. If there is no God, then the politicians have every right to infringe upon the rights of others, as they deem morally acceptable, since they don't have an Almighty and Absolute God to tell them how and why they should objectively behave morally when it comes to the protection and preservation of human rights. I guess "atheism" is okay in society, until someone actually does it, especially in civil government.

The Constitution Party wants to get our country back on track to the moral and religious principles which were paramount in our nation's founding. If you don't like that, then I'm sorry you feel that way, but that is not going to change the facts about our nation's Christian heritage. I encourage you to study more on the subject or remain silent when speaking about this issue, lest your continual ignorance is deformed into utter folly.

 

[Kade]

The Constitution Party wants to get our country back on track to the moral and religious principles which were paramount in our nation's founding. If you don't like that, then I'm sorry you feel that way, but that is not going to change the facts about our nation's Christian heritage. I encourage you to study more on the subject or remain silent when speaking about this issue, lest your continual ignorance is deformed into utter folly.

I've studied the subject, as you well know by now, and although you haven't detailed what sort of Christian heritage this country might have, you have somewhat implied that it was the modern manifestation of Christianity, which it was not.

We are a nation of over a hundred different Christians, Two major Muslim sects, Atheists, Agnostics, Jewish, Jainist, Buddhists, Hindu, etc..etc..etc...

Nothing you say or do changes this fact. We as a people decide what is moral and what is not, a few of you have decided that these "rules" were already written in an ancient book. Fortunately for the rest of us, those people do not decide for the rest of us.


Freedom transcends further than whoever claims to speak for the invisible daddy the loudest.

Freedom is not what you think your god says it is. You are a close-minded bigot. That is all anyone has to know about you, and there is nothing you can really do to shed that label, unless you decide to open your fucking mind.

Cheers.

 

[Theocrat]

Autonomous Kade

I've studied the subject, as you well know by now, and although you haven't detailed what sort of Christian heritage this country might have, you have somewhat implied that it was the modern manifestation of Christianity, which it was not.

Why is that true? Because you say so?

Nothing you say or do changes this fact. We as a people decide what is moral and what is not, a few of you have decided that these "rules" were already written in an ancient book. Fortunately for the rest of us, those people do not decide for the rest of us.

Why is that true? Because you say so?

Freedom transcends further than whoever claims to speak for the invisible daddy the loudest.

Why is that true? Because you say so?

Freedom is not what you think your god says it is. You are a close-minded bigot. That is all anyone has to know about you, and there is nothing you can really do to shed that label, unless you decide to open your fucking mind.

Why is that true? Because you say so?

 

[Brassmouth]

Why is that true? Because you say so?



Why is that true? Because you say so?



Why is that true? Because you say so?



Why is that true? Because you say so?

This amounts to "I know you are, but what am I?"

You're a child.

The things Kade said are true, because the fictitious events in an outdated book written by humans just you and me is no better a moral guidebook than "The Cat in the Hat." And I think they both make just about as much sense.