Constitution party?

[Manedwolf]

To Derek: Got that one covered, too.

They do call Jesus the creator. Seems this might alienate some Christians (as well as Muslims and Jews), Nicean creed or not.

Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.
-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom

 

[Derek Zeanah]

Manedwolf:

I was talking about the statement on the Constitution Party's page, not to the origins of the Republic. I'm of the opinion that most of the founders were Diests, anyway.

 

[CAnnoneer]

Any theocrats will get my boot in their marble factories.

Libertarians allow too many anarchist ideas in their creed to be ever taken seriously. Gov is a necessary evil and better than the alternative, but the trick is to keep it minimal and competent. National security and border control are some other issues the Libertarians are abysmal due to anarchistic tendencies. If they expunge the anarchists from their ranks and take a more balanced position, they will become a meaningful party that can threaten the Marsian Brothers.

If you are shopping for a party, consider the Conservatives. It seems the only thing I dislike about them is their stance on abortion.

 

[mp510]

I will give it to you that they do show excessive support to Christianity, but their mission statement does fall way short of forced Christianity, where I believe that the Founding Fathers fell.

For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been and are afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.

I also consider this to include persons who have no religious belief, and who practice that by their decision to not practice religion.

The Founding Fathers most certainly did believe our nation and liberties had Divine right, though as you pointed out, they did not have interest in mandating any beliefs like the Constitution Party.
Please examine this quote from the Decleration of INdependence, which is our establishing document.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

I interpret Creator, with the emphasis to be a reference to the God recognizd by Christians Jews and Muslims. Under the Christian belief, Jesus is God ("God in three persons, blessed Trinity..."). That is why I don't see there being anything alienating about saying that Jesus Christ was responsible for our creation, when He is the same person recognized by the Ddecleration of INdependence.

, Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports

George Washington

I have lived,sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth-- that God governs in the affairs of men

Ben Franklin

Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only law-book, and every member would be obliged, in conscience, to temperence and frugality and industry; to justice and kindness and charity towards his fellow men; and to piety, love and reverence towards Almighty God. In this commonwealth, no man would impair his healht by gluttony, drunkenness, or lust; no man would sacrifice his most precious time to cards or any other trifling and mean amusement; no man would steal, or lie, in any way defraud his neigbor, but would live in peace and good will with all men; no man would blaspheme hi Maker or profane hi worship; but a rational and manly, a sincere and unafected piety and devotion would reign in all hearts. What a utopia; what a paradise would this region be!

John Adams

 

[Biker]

"Beer is proof that God loves us".
Ben Franklin

Biker

 

[Manedwolf]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

I interpret Creator, with the emphasis to be a reference to the God recognizd by Christians Jews and Muslims. Under the Christian belief, Jesus is God ("God in three persons, blessed Trinity..."). That is why I don't see there being anything alienating about saying that Jesus Christ was responsible for our creation, when He is the same person recognized by the Ddecleration of INdependence.

That's YOUR belief speaking. That's the very reason they didn't specify any names. If someone thought the Flying Spaghetti Monster was their Creator, then that'd apply as well.

You just applied the Christian flavor to the entire menu and said it must be an ingredient in all the other dishes. And that's not the case. At all.

You can interpret what the founding fathers said, but you can't say they meant what they didn't say. All that is is YOUR opinion being projected.

How would you feel if you said "I like hamburgers", and someone else came along and said "Well, because hamburgers are often served with french fries, that means that he approved of potatoes, and therefore I'm going to say that he said he wholeheartedly endorsed potatoes."

See?

 

[Manedwolf]

"Beer is proof that God loves us".
Ben Franklin

The ancient Egyptians had a goddess of beer, Tenenit, whose duty it was to serve beer to those newly arriving in the afterlife.

I think they knew what was important.

 

[mp510]

That's YOUR belief speaking. That's the very reason they didn't specify any names. If someone thought the Flying Spaghetti Monster was their Creator, then that'd apply as well.

I guess you would be correct. I had believed my inerpretation was correct due to the religious beliefs of the founding fathers, but I see your point. None of them were (flyingspaghettimonster)ites/ians.

You are also correct in your demonstration that transativity can be misapplied.

 

[xd9fan]

I dont want more religion in Govt.....I WANT LESS GOVT!!!!!!!

 

[afsnco]

Maned,

How do you explain the fact that biblical morality and American secular legality were pretty much indistinguishable for much of our history? For instance committing or receiving an abortion could land one in prison or worse, just as engaging in homosexuality could land one in prison or worse.

What I'm saying is, there may have been an effort by some of the founders to keep the US government secular and non-sectarian, but for all practical purposes, criminality-wise, this nation was a Judeo-Christian nation for most of its history.

Practically of this nature extends to other things too, such as RKBA. I know there's a lot of controversy about whether the 2A confers an individual or a collective right, but hasn't that really been decided already? Haven't Americans individually owned firearms in the past, all the way to our founding, and don't 70 million of us individually own them now? Don't past behaviors prove past attitudes?

 

[SnP]

I'll take a Libertarain over a Constitutionalist anyday, but if given no other option, I would choose a Constitutionalist over Republicans or Democrats. Especially Democrats.

 

[RealGun]

As do most of us. It is a shame the Libertarian and Constitution Parties could not merge into one party. They could each agree to eliminate from their respective planks two items that the other find most offensive, and they'd probably be in 98% agreement and could form into one much larger and more effective party accurately reflecting the values of more than half of our population.

Both parties are too specific about what they stand for. They become exclusionary and also set up the prospect of a schism over one point of doctrine. I believe the libertarians quarrel over maintaining a strict platform. The Constitution Party will surely quarrel over religion in government as a priority.

If you want the two parties to merge for the sake of pro-gun stances, I think you are dreaming.

You see the proliferation of church congregations within the same general family for the same reason. Even the Lutherans have different synods, created by one point of contention. That sort of division often traces to a power struggle between two leaders. Too many want to be chieftains instead of indians, leaders rather than submissive followers. Baptists have problems because they supposedly don't believe in doctrine, defying human nature, yet divide often based upon doctrinal differences.

Generally, I think those who believe the Constitution Party is about the Constitution are not reading the fine print.

 

[seeker_two]

Anyone who wants to know what a true, God-run theocracy is like should read the book of Judges in the Bible---or just watch part of BIBLE BATTLES next time it's on the History Channel....

Local governments ran things. No centralist federal government. No king. No taxation or politicians. If a threat to the Hebrews came up, God called up a "judge" (champion/leader/organizer) to unite the tribes and smite the enemies. Worked great until the Hebrews wanted a king like the Jones' had... :banghead:

I'd go for it. Until then, I'll keep voting Constitution Party...



P.S. And can ANYONE point out anything in the CP platform that indicates that non-Christians would be officially oppressed or prohibited from their Constitutional freedoms?

 

[torpid]

(sigh) seeker_two- your sig is almost the size of your posts.
_________________

JUST...
THOUGHT...
I'D POINT IT OUT FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION...

!!!LIKE YOU DIDN'T KNOW IT ALREADY!!!

Something to reflect upon in a quiet moment.
(Not that I disagree with your giant red "Vegas-neon" statement.)

 

[WayneConrad]

TheArchDuke said, "Haha did you see their party symbols page?!"

Would you be so kind as to poste a link to the page you got those images from? I just did some digging on the Constitution Party's web site and can't find 'em. There must be an obvious link I missed.

 

[WayneConrad]

We like free speech if it's speech we like

In order to preserve free speech, we must prevent free speech. Says so right here in the party platform:

"We call on our local, state and federal governments to uphold our cherished First Amendment right to free speech by vigorously enforcing our laws against obscenity to maintain a degree of separation between that which is truly speech and that which only seeks to distort and destroy."

It's just a fancy way of saying that we like free speech if it's speech we like.

 

[robert garner]

havent missed an election yet

McGovern/Nixon was my first

I may not in good conscience vote for either party again.
I must vote for AMERICA
and will vote
NONE OF THE ABOVE!

 

[blaydeman]

Now then, if however you took the Constitution Party and Libertarian party and they had a bouncing baby boy you would have a real winner provided they properly climb the ladder any third party has to climb in my opinion. A party with great personal freedoms, but with basic morals and only to a certain point. Some drugs legalized, but not all namely extremely dangerous ones like PCP and Meth and Crack. Social Security and welfare reined in and reformed but not totally abolished. Abortion, but not on demand and used as a form of birth control. Most understand the need for taxes, but not being taxed into the ground. Protect the environment, but not overkill making peoples lives harder. Government not interfering with your business, but basic zoning. Easy immigration, but that is controled and not open borders. Morals sure, but not strict Christian ones governing you.

In short a party that gives minimum government and allows for great personal liberty, but that is reined in to some extent in areas most people can agree on.

I like this. Where do I sign up?

 

[Sistema1927]

Would you be so kind as to poste a link to the page you got those images from? I just did some digging on the Constitution Party's web site and can't find 'em. There must be an obvious link I missed.

The images were from the Christian Falangist site, not from the Constitution Party. Of course, the original intent for posting them was to smear the Constitution Party as a far out extremist group like the wacked out Falangists.

I don't see anything from the Constitution Party that they would establish a theocracy, deny rights to any person, or trample on any person's rights. It is their belief that a majority of the Founding Fathers were orthodox Christians, and thus understand their writings within a Christian framework. As a Baptist, I am a defender of religious freedom, but recognize that God has instituted His laws for our benefit, and that any nation that flaunts God's laws doesn't last. I am an RLC Republican, but it is sometimes tempting to change parties. The Constitution Party would be near the top of the list.

 

[Manedwolf]

It is their belief that a majority of the Founding Fathers were orthodox Christians, and thus understand their writings within a Christian framework.

Well, that's kinda wrong. Most were Deists. Someone there needs to study their history a bit more, unless they're into the revisionist flavor.

 

[Sindawe]

Of course, the original intent for posting them was to smear the Constitution Party as a far out extremist group like the wacked out Falangists.

Horse puckey! TheArchDuke posted the images from the Christian Falangist site as a response to my comment about the Falangist site. Nowhwere did TheArchDuke claim they were from the Constitution Party site.

 

[afsnco]

Maned,

If they were Deists, they were Deists whose belief system pretty much adhered to the Judeo-Christian paradigm, as I mentioned above. If they talk like a Deist, but walk like a Christian, that sounds like they were Deists in name only.

 

[WayneConrad]

Said Sindawe, "TheArchDuke posted the images from the Christian Falangist site as a response to my comment about the Falangist site. Nowhwere did TheArchDuke claim they were from the Constitution Party site."

Ah, that explains it. I missed your message and so didn't have the right context for TheArchDuke's. I was the one who assumed he meant the Constitution Party site. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[TheArchDuke]

 

[utahminirevolver]

Jim Gilcrist of the Minutemen may run as the Constitution Party's presidential candidate. He indicated that if the Republicans run Rep. Tancredo of Colorado for president, then he'd vote for him (so would I!), but if they run someone such as McCain, then he intends to run with the CP.

As already noted in this thread, the Democrats are by far the least desirable party to have running our country, not counting the Communists or Hezbollah who thankfully do not yet have any immediate prospects of taking over. Ideally, I'd like to see a President Tancredo or Gilcrist who would finally enforce our borders and immigration laws. But if the only choice on the ballot is between Hillary and some RINO, then we'd have to hold our noses and vote for the lesser of two evils, whichever one seems least likely to abolish the Second Amendment.