The Constitution Party is not Constitutional.

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

(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.

...

Unbelievable.


"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)!"

Ok, so by your logic, if we don't FORCE people to live by Christian values, we are violating your religious rights. DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA HOW ABSURDLY BACKWARDS THAT IS?

Seriously that is beyond absurd.

So, should we also pass laws to make sure we don't offend Muslims, and Buddists, and Hindu's etc to make sure we don't FORCE them to live in a society where their own views are not practiced by EVERY citizen?

This is EXACTLY WHY THE CONSTITUTION SAYS TO PASS NO LAWS THAT RESPECT THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A RELIGION.

Oh no, you will probably say we only have to do that for Christians. After all, that's fair right?

The issue is, nobody is FORCING you to do anything. You can wear whatever you want, talk however you want, whatever. What you CAN NOT DO is force other people to live their lives according to your religious doctrine.

Oh, and once again, for every statement you made about the founding fathers, myself and others have provided others that refute them.

"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."

I don't need God to guide politicians. I need the Constitution to do so. I know this is hard for you to accept, but someone does not need your religion to understand right and wrong.

"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 encourage you to stop trying to force your religion on others.

 

[nickcoons]

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.

If law is based on morals, and morals are inherently religious, then law is inherently religious.

But... morals are not inherently religious, and therefore law is not inherently religious.

 

[libertarian4321]

These Chuck Baldwin posts are pretty awful. Especially any post talking specifically about the platform of the party rather than the person. Its like calling Ron Paul a warmonger because he is a Republican.

Ron Paul supporters by and large are open-minded and liberty lovers as long as everyone else agrees with their views.

Such hypocrites here.

Ron Paul has made it plain that he opposes certain Republican positions.

Has Baldwin come out and repudiated the "theocratic" parts of the CP Platform?

If not, it ain't the same thing...

 

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

Further information

"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