The Constitution Party's Religious Tolerance

On October 9th, 2008 BugMan says:
I believe...in ABSOLUTE separation of church and state. The state should protect our rights to have a church but should not have any bias toward any religion. Those who want to practice their religion are free to do it in their church, there is no need for this to spill over into government."

The founders disagreed with you.

"I dont want government recognition of any intimate relation".

Here are again some 'intimate acts' (that do not include heterosexuality) that the government recognizes (in the sense that they control them)
:Bestiality, pedophile, necrophilia., exhibitionism, fetishism, frotteurism, masochism, sadism, transvestitism, voyeurism. They recognize them by outlawing them and throwing these people in jail. WHERE IS THE HEW AND THE CRY FOR THEM! their isnt one, for you see even though americans went nuts along time ago they still retain enough sanity to understand (you do understand all this dont you?) the harm these acts cause to society. fags though, they sneak in under the radar. If you discriminate against any of these, you're a hypocrite. These "sexual orientations" are generally known as "paraphilias", and are mental disorders - just like homosexuality used to be (29). Someone here called me hateful. no i'm honest. You call a murderer a murderer. A theif a theif etc. You dont say 'he was a deprived minority or socially underprivliged. Aman and a woman living together outside marriage are shacking up. That truth and social stigma protects marriage. It doesnt bother me though if someone calls me hateful . he just has hetero-phobia. We've got some people here who suffer from hetero-hetero-phobia Which is an irrational fear normal people have of themselves. I want copyright on that one especially if they put it in a dictionary next to a bunch of other disneyland terms like homo-phobia. ha ha ha. You think i'm angry i'm having fun.

I dont believe in marriage licenses. The first people to be licensed to be married were multi-cultured couples. this expanded until almost everyone has one.Of course the marriage license today is used to get control of the family. the n.w.o. took great steps to undermine and change our laws to allow people to divorce easily like they do today. It took them 50 years to do it. It was financed and run in the same way, basically as Kinseys studies.
Before,a couple would marry and record it in the family Bible. That was all that was needed as far as the government was concerned. They literally saw and treated marriage as a DIVINE COVENANT outside thier juristiction.. they could not easily grant divorces.

Thier is an excellent on-line book , a one of a kind, written ,I think by anthony sutton that I will try to find a link to. It was apparently not a best seller but should have been.

So you see government does and has always recognized God and his juristiction. government does not recognize the god of the Mormons who believes in polygamy. Lets see, Lets take a wild quess ,What Gods juristiction and moral precepts does our government recognize protect
and enforce. I will give you a hint. It is the God of our Lord and saviour Jesus Christ. We are a Christian nation. There like dead shrimp in the sunlight is the oderous truth that some of you 'broad-minded people here
wouldnt consider for a second. let alone study to find out the truth.You act like the smell would put a blister in a brick wall at fifty feet!
Thanks to the media some of you folks here at the dailypaul are still (STILL!) so narrowminded a fly could sit on the bridge of your nose and kick you in both eyes at the same time.
You are free (dont worry to much) to be Mormon. but you are not free (dont worry) to marry like one. YOU WILL MARRY LIKE A CHRISTIAN (that is a protestant. no pope involved. he dosent have to recognize it)OR YOU WILL GO TO JAIL! (AMEN AMEN AND AMEN). Councidental aint it. WHERE DOES THE GOVERNMENT GO TO GET ITS DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE! TO THE POPE? TO THE PEOPLE. (HA THIER AS DUMB AS A BOX OF ROCKS). NO, DEARHEART THEY GO TO GODS WORD THAT CONTAINS HIS LAW. THEN HIS LAW BECAME OUR LAW. THAT LAW WE STILL ENFORCE AND FOR THE MOST PART OBEY.

so you see you never really were 'free' and you didnt even notice.
That was our heritage that some of you so-called americans reject. But dont worry Baldwin or no Baldwin were not going back.

Yes.. the Constitution Party is not perfect.. but you have to wonder: with them choosing Chuck Baldwin, it means they are open and willing to address Libertarian ideas. Let's get some more libertarian-leaner rEVOLutionaries working in the party.. One day we will have a party that represents the balance of libertarian and constitutional and (yes) faith and integrity that our Dr. Paul represents. Let's don't write off the religious ideals and zealous Biblical standards of the Constituion Party too soon and write off all of the party's platforms. They are not the party that they will become. The next generation CP leaders (if managed right) will demand a higher political statement that is both more effective and more inclusive.

Oh and don't forget God and Scripture are not our enemy but our ally in our pursuit of Liberty..

Never forget the rEVOLution!

- JH

Chuck Baldwin for '08 Prez!

They believed in God and His righteousness as guiding principles for a nation built on law. Okay, so you don't. Just vote 3rd party and at least deprive the NWO of another vote.

As far as I can tell from their platform they also advocates using the military to control the flow of drugs to our Country (the war on drugs),

They do not believe in a true free market as they support tariffs on goods from Countries whos wages are not up to par with ours. In essence they support a free market if it benefits them.

They support using our military on our soil to alleviate immigrants.

They interpret the Constitution as defining the beginning of life at conception, something I do not think modern science has even done.

They support archaic barbaric capital punishment for crimes they will not even define.

I want my elected officials to be moral people. I realize one does not have to be religious to be moral, and I also realize there are "religious" people who have claimed to be moral but aren't. In this election I trust Chuck Baldwin and my candidate for Congress, George Lilly: http://www.georgelillyfor... to be both religious and moral people, and never impose their beliefs on anyone. I firmly believe they both understand the Christian way is to lead by example and engage in nothing more forceful than gentle persuasion.

I feel the same way and I am still not sure who I will be voting for in KY. The CP's position on religion is something I can't get past.......

In ABSOLUTE separation of church and state. The state should protect our rights to have a church but should not have any bias toward any religion. Those who want to practice their religion are free to do it in their church, there is no need for this to spill over into government.

In a free country, which is what we all want, consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want in the privacy of their homes as long as they don't harm others.

If this is counter to the Constitution Party, then I'll surely vote for somebody else.

--------
We don't know how to mind our own business
'Cause the whole worlds got to be just like us
Now we are fighting a war over there
No matter who's the winner
We can't pay the cost
-Steppenwolf 1969

You 'do-gooders' are so fanatical your dangerous. I cant see much difference between you and real revolutionaries. Your trying to dismantle 500 years worth of laws, culture and traditions that have kept our families together. You strain at a nat and swallow a camel.
I think the constitution party libertarian party and the republicratic party all agree in supporting the LAW. and I think we should to. People at the dailypaul should too. And the law was up until several years ago sex perversion as well as polygamy is against the law. If you think that is anti-freedom and we should do away with that here are some more acts people commit (sometimes between consenting adults that supposedly are not hurting anyone else), that are routinely apprehended by the local vice squad in your neighborhood. sometimes between consenting adults that supposedly are not hurting anyone else. these are people who are labeled as having a mental illness.you must not discriminate against any of the following. Bestiality, pedophile, necrophilia., exhibitionism, fetishism, frotteurism, masochism, sadism, transvestitism, voyeurism. If you discriminate against any of these, you're a hypocrite. These "sexual orientations" are generally known as "paraphilias", and are mental disorders - just like homosexuality used to be (29).

Homosexuals prey on children.

* 33% of homosexuals ADMIT to minor/adult sex (7)
* There is a notable homosexual group, consisting of thousands of members, known as the North American Man and Boy Love Association ( NAMBLA). This is a child molesting homosexual group whose cry is "SEX BEFORE 8 BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE." This group can be seen marching in most major homosexual parades across the United States
* Homosexuals commit more than 33% of all reported child molestations in the United States, which, assuming homosexuals make up 2% of the population, means that 1 in 20 homosexuals is a child molestor, while 1 in 490 heterosexuals is a child molestor (19)
* 73% of all homosexuals have had sex with boys under 19 years of age (9) you can find a similair statistic from the fags own magazine the advocate.
* Many homosexuals admit that they are pedophiles: "The love between men and boys is at the foundation of homosexuality" (22)
* Because homosexuals can't reproduce naturally, they resort to recruiting children. Homosexuals can be heard chanting "TEN PERCENT IS NOT ENOUGH, RECRUIT, RECRUIT, RECRUIT" in their homosexual parades. A group called the "Lesbian Avengers" prides itself on trying to recruit young girls. They print "WE RECRUIT" on their literature. Some other homosexuals aren't as overt about this, but rather try to infiltrate society and get into positions where they will have access to the malleable minds of young children (e.g., the clergy, teachers, Boy Scout leaders, etc.) (8). See the DC Lesbian Avengers web page, and DC Lesbian Avengers Press Release, where they threaten to recruit little boys and girls. Also, see AFA Action Alert.

Sexual Orientation

• A phrase that has come up recently in this earth is "sexual orientation." This is a phrase made up by homosexuals to try to make themselves look less filthy than they really are. The purpose of the phrase is to take the spotlight from what these perverts do, and put it on the notion that they are just poor, mistreated people, who simply are attracted to members of the same sex - as if they aren't engaging in activity forbidden by God Almighty. "Sexual orientation," as used today, has nothing to do with sexual activity (yeah, right), but only refers to who or what a particular person is attracted to. If you think that people of other "sexual orientations" are just fine, let's see what other "sexual orientations" you would necessarily have to accept as wholesome and pure. If you're not going to discriminate based on "sexual orientation", then

People who dig up dead folks have them over for sex then dinner .(literally)should be free to practice their 'lifestyle' too. Its not a lifestyle its a deathstyle.
actually those are classed as separate mental illnesses. but strange as it may seem people that have one usually have the other.

People who engage in consuming scat. funny as it may seem the incidence is like 1,000 times greater in queer vs. non-queer. sometimes these mental illnesses overlap.

Some statistics about the Homosexual lifestyle:

* Many homosexuals don't pay heed to warnings of their lifestyles: "Knowledge of health guidelines was quite high, but this knowledge had no relation to sexual behavior" (16) oh then its a public health threat.
* Homosexuals got homosexuality removed from the list of mental illnesses in the early 70s by storming the annual American Psychiatric Association (APA) conference on successive years. "Guerrilla theater tactics and more straight-forward shouting matches characterized their presence" (2). Since homosexuality has been removed from the APA list of mental illnesses, so has pedophilia (except when the adult feels "subjective distress") (27)
* Homosexuals account for 3-4% of all gonorrhea cases, 60% of all syphilis cases, and 17% of all hospital admissions (other than for STDs) in the United States (5). They make up only 1-2% of the population
* Homosexuals live unhealthy lifestyles, and have historically accounted for the bulk of syphilis, gonorrhea, Hepatitis B, the "gay bowel syndrome" (which attacks the intestinal tract), tuberculosis and cytomegalovirus (27)
* 73% of psychiatrists say homosexuals are less happy than the average person, and of those psychiatrists, 70% say that the unhappiness is NOT due to social stigmatization (13)
* 25-33% of homosexuals and lesbians are alcoholics (11)
* Of homosexuals questioned in one study reports that 43% admit to 500 or more partners in a lifetime, 28% admit to 1000 or more in a lifetime, and of these people, 79% say that half of those partners are total strangers, and 70% of those sexual contacts are one night stands (or, as one homosexual admits in the film "The Castro", one minute stands) (3). Also, it is a favorite past-time of many homosexuals to go to "cruisy areas" and have anonymous sex
* 78% of homosexuals are affected by STDs (20)
* Judge John Martaugh, chief magistrate of the New York City Criminal Court has said, "Homosexuals account for half the murders in large cities" (10)
* Captain William Riddle of the Los Angeles Police says, "30,000 sexually abused children in Los Angeles were victims of homosexuals" (10)
* 50% of suicides can be attributed to homosexuals (10)
* Dr. Daniel Capron, a practicing psychiatrist, says, "Homosexuality by definition is not healthy and wholesome. The homosexual person, at best, will be unhappier and more unfulfilled than the sexually normal person" (10). For other psychiatrists who believe that homosexuality is wrong, please see National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality
* It takes approximately $300,000 to take care of each AIDS victim, so thanks to the promiscuous lifestyle of homosexuals, medical insurance rates have been skyrocketing for all of us(10)
* Homosexuals were responsible for spreading AIDS in the United States, and then raised up violent groups like Act Up and Ground Zero to complain about it. Even today, homosexuals account for well over 50% of the AIDS cases in the United States, which is quite a large number considering that they account for only 1-2% of the population
* Homosexuals account for a disproportionate number of hepatitis cases: 70-80% in San Francisco, 29% in Denver, 66% in New York City, 56% in Toronto, 42% in Montreal, and 26% in Melbourne (8)
* 37% of homosexuals engage in sadomasochism, which accounts for many accidental deaths. In San Francisco, classes were held to teach homosexuals how to not kill their partners during sadomasochism (8)
* 41% of homosexuals say they have had sex with strangers in public restrooms, 60% say they have had sex with strangers in bathhouses, and 64% of these encounters have involved the use of illegal drugs (8)
* Depending on the city, 39-59% of homosexuals are infected with intestinal parasites like worms, flukes and amoebae, which is common in filthy third world countries (8)
* The median age of death of homosexuals is 42 (only 9% live past age 65). This drops to 39 if the cause of death is AIDS. The median age of death of a married heterosexual man is 75 (8)
* The median age of death of lesbians is 45 (only 24% live past age 65). The median age of death of a married heterosexual woman is 79 (8)
* Homosexuals are 100 times more likely to be murdered (usually by another homosexual) than the average person, 25 times more likely to commit suicide, and 19 times more likely to die in a traffic accident (8)
* 21% of lesbians die of murder, suicide or traffic accident, which is at a rate of 534 times higher than the number of white heterosexual females aged 25-44 who die of these things(8)
* 50% of the calls to a hotline to report "queer bashing" involved domestic violence (i.e., homosexuals beating up other homosexuals) (18)
* About 50% of the women on death row are lesbians (12).

The homosexual agenda.

* The homosexual agenda includes desensitizing the public: "The first order of business is desensitization of the American public concerning gays and gay rights.....To desensitize the public is to help it view homosexuality with indifference instead of with keen emotion. Ideally, we would have straights register differences in sexual preferences the way they register different tastes for ice cream or sports games....At least in the beginning, we are seeking public desensitization and nothing more. We do not need and cannot expect a full 'appreciation' or 'understanding' of homosexuality from the average American. You can forget about trying to persuade the masses that homosexuality is a good thing. But if only you can get them to think that it is just another thing...then your battle for legal and social rights is virtually won" (25)
* Part of the homosexual agenda is to get the public to affirm their filthy lifestyle, as one homosexual admitted in the October 1987 homosexual rally on Washington: "We are no longer seeking just a right to privacy and a protection from wrong. We also have a right -- as heterosexual Americans already have -- to see government and society affirm our lives" (27)
* Part of the homosexual agenda is to turn people from Christianity: "The teaching that only male-female sexual activity within the bounds and constraints of marriage is the only acceptable form should be reason enough for any homosexual to denounce the Christian religion" (1)
* Homosexuals knowingly lied (and still lie) about the 10% figure (i.e., homosexuals make up 10% of the population). As Tom Stoddard (formerly of the Lambda Legal Defense Fund) said, "We used that figure when most gay people were entirely hidden to try to create an impression of our numerousness" (17).

The true number of homosexuals.

* The Kinsey study of 1948, which homosexuals often cite to say that 10% of the population is homosexual, actually says that only 4% of the population is EXCLUSIVELY homosexual. This study involved a disproportionate number of people who had been in jail for sex crimes (hardly a random sample of the population). Kinsey also did perverse studies involving young boys and pedophiles. Information on Kinsey
* Current research shows that the true percentage of homosexuals is in the 1-2% range (15,23,26,28). Consider how small this number is when compared to most of the numbers above.

Homosexuals aren't discriminated against in employment, so why should they be a protected class?

* The average yearly income of a homosexual is $55,430.00 (most of which is disposable because no children to take care of!). The average of the general population is $32,144.00. The average of blacks is $12,166.00 (24)
* 59.6% of homosexuals are college graduates. 18.0% of the general population are college graduates (24). Too bad they aren't smart enough to listen to God. "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools" (Romans 1:22)
* 49.0% of homosexuals hold professional/managerial positions. 15.9% of the general population hold such positions (24). Where's the job discrimination?

•
* One study reports 70% of homosexuals admitting to having sex only one time with over 50% of their partners (3)
* One study reports that the average homosexual has between 20 and 106 partners per year (6). The average heterosexual has 8 partners in a lifetime
* Many homosexual sexual encounters occur while drunk, high on drugs, or in an orgy setting (7)

REFERENCES

(1) Advocate, 1985
(2) Bayer, R. Homosexuality and American Psychiatry
(3) Bell, A. and Weinberg, M. Homosexualities: a Study of Diversity Among Men and Women. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1978
(4) Cameron et. al. ISIS National Random Sexuality Survey. Nebraska Med. Journal, 1985, 70, pp. 292-299
(5) "Changes in Sexual Behavior and Incidence of Gonorrhea." Lancet, April 25, 1987
(6) Corey, L. and Holmes, K. "Sexual Transmission of Hepatitis A in Homosexual Men." New England J. Med., 1980, pp. 435-38
(7) Family Research Institute, Lincoln, NE
(8) Fields, Dr. E. "Is Homosexual Activity Normal?" Marietta, GA
(9) Jay and Young. The Gay Report. Summit Books, 1979, p. 275
(10) Kaifetz, J. "Homosexual Rights Are Concern for Some," Post-Tribune, 18 December 1992
(11) Kus, R. "Alcoholics Anonymous and Gay America." Medical Journal of Homosexuality, 1987, 14(2), p. 254
(12) Lesbian News, January 1994
(13) Lief, H. Sexual Survey Number 4: Current Thinking on Homosexuality, Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality, 1977, pp. 110-11
(14) Manlight, G. et. al. "Chronic Immune Stimulation By Sperm Alloantigens." J. American Med. Assn., 1984, 251(2), pp. 237-438
(15) Morton-Hunt Study for Playboy (16) MsKusick,

Let's be fair.

___________

Lisa C.

Boston Tea Party
"Time to Party Like It's 1773!"

Charles Jay 2008!

yea

http://www.lp.org/blogs/a...

Libertarian Party vs. Constitution Party

posted by Andrew Davis on Sep 22, 2008
We often get emails at Libertarian Party headquarters asking what exactly are the differences between the Libertarian Party and the Constitution Party. The confusion is understandable, especially for party outsiders who are just beginning to look at either as a new political home.

On the surface, the LP and the CP appear to be quite similar. The very name of the Constitution Party appeals to the libertarian-leaning voter looking for a political party dedicated towards returning to a government strictly bound by the Constitution--as the Libertarian Party wishes for also. Additionally, the LP and the CP are very close on issues like foreign policy, Second Amendment rights, economic policy and health care.

However, beyond their initial similarities on the surface, a more in-depth look at the two parties shows profound differences in both platform and ideology.

The most acute difference between the two parties, and one that will explain much of the content in this article, can be found in the preambles of the two parties.

Constitution Party:

The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States. We hereby appeal to Him for mercy, aid, comfort, guidance and the protection of His Providence as we work to restore and preserve these United States.

This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been and are afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.

The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries.

Libertarian Party:

As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.

We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.

Consequently, we defend each person's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.

From the get-go, the differences of the two parties are quite obvious. At its very roots, the Constitution Party is unabashedly a party of Christian philosophy and spirituality, where as the Libertarian Party remains much more secular in its composition and values.

The best example of this can be found in objectives of the CP and LP, which are "to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations" and "to build [a world] where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power," respectively.

Though the Constitution Party has a very real and intense dedication to Constitutional provisions--made clear by the fact that they support many of their platform planks with citations from both the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence--their raison d'etre is to essentially establish a "Christian" nation, and somehow maintain religious tolerance (though this latter portion is never explained).

Take for instance the CP's views on gambling: "Gambling promotes an increase in crime, destruction of family values, and a decline in the moral fiber of our country." To their credit, the CP does not say that government should outlaw this behavior although their rhetoric strongly suggests they'd like to see it abolished. Instead, the Constitution Party calls for government to refrain from officially participating in gambling--for apparent moral reasons--by eliminating lotteries and ceasing to subsidize "Indian casinos in the name of economic development."

Other issues like pornography ("Pornography, at best, is a distortion of the true nature of sex created by God…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") and the judiciary ("We particularly support all the legislation which would remove from Federal appellate review jurisdiction matters involving acknowledgement of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government) diverge quite distinctly from the LP philosophy.

However, the biggest difference between the two parties, and one that is the best manifestation of the diametric difference of philosophies on the role of government in society, relates to the issue of gay rights.

The Constitution Party, in pursuit of their goal to "restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations," takes a very different approach towards homosexuality than that of the Libertarian Party. The platform of the CP states that "the law of our Creator defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman," and "no government may legitimately authorize or define marriage or family relations contrary to what God has instituted."

The CP also does not believe the government should recognize civil unions for gay couples.

While Libertarians hold many different views on the issue of gay marriage, with some believing marriage, both straight and gay, should not be an issue for government and others believing that gay marriage should be recognized so long as straight marriage is recognized--Libertarians believe "government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships."

One might remember the saying in grade-school geometry that "all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares." Well, the same can be said of libertarians and Constitution Party members. Many Constitution Party members are libertarians, in some way, shape or form. However, there are very few Libertarians--if any at all--that would comfortably identify themselves as ascribing to the Constitution Party platform.

There is a simple explanation for this: Christian members of the Libertarian Party recognize that the basis of their religion is the idea of free will and volition, and that their morality does not need to be reinforced or supported by government laws or coercion. The Constitution Party, for whatever reason, finds that government should be a model for morality--that is, Christian morality--and all semblances of behavior and lifestyles contrary to this behavioral model should be eliminated through "Constitutional" government methods, with the end goal of establishing a Christian nation.

Perhaps the Constitution Party has more optimism for the functionality of a quasi-theocracy in regards to respect for the Constitution and the freedom to live, but seeing the corruption of the "Christian right" in the Republican Party, their optimism seems far too romanticized. While it is in the Christian ideology that followers of this faith should be testaments to the power of the message and should evangelize to all people of the earth, none (at least those who believe in a libertarian-element to the religion) believe this call to evangelize can be replaced by a call to legislate.

This, indeed, is the tragic fallacy of most Christians in politics, and one that poisons the Constitution Party's platform.

For a party that believes so strongly in the Constitution and preserving its authority, it is puzzling that the CP takes the position that God's law is supreme to Constitutional authority in the government. Many Christians, including myself, do believe that God's law always is supreme to the law of man when the two conflict; however, the difference is that this belief is made at a personal level, and would not expect the same to apply to government.

In order for the authority of the Constitution to remain intact, there can be nothing in government that undermines its supremacy. It was this very problem that sparked the beginnings of the American Revolution. When the British Constitution no longer was supreme, and parliament could pass laws that trumped the laws of this (unwritten) Constitution, the authority of that document was destroyed.

This is one logical incongruity that the Constitution Party fails to answer when it comes to both religious freedom and the people's right to be free in their lives from government. The problem is only amplified by the Constitution Party's lack of positions on privacy issues as it relates to how citizens live their lives.

It should be said that there is some grounds for what the Constitution Party believes that can be traced back to the founding of the nation. The role of religion and government together were widely discussed; however, the general conclusion of our founding fathers may be best encapsulated in this quotation from James Madison:

The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without a legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be supported. A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical Religion, to social harmony, and to political prosperity.

In order for a society to be free, and a religion to remain uncorrupt, there must be a distinct separation between the two. While it is a mistake on one side to believe that our politicians must divorce themselves of all their religious and moral beliefs before taking office, it is another to suggest that our political leaders should use their own personal precept of morality as a template for laws that apply to an entire nation.

Thomas Jefferson said that truth would stand on its own regardless of whether it has the support of the government. Therefore, there is no need for the government to define and establish what this truth is.

The Libertarian Party wants a world where all individual are free to live their lives in peace, without interference from the government or their fellow man. This entails a tolerance of many other lifestyles, though not approval or acceptance (a key distinction), because it will be recognized that nobody should dictate anything else through law but freedom. Should society turn into a Christian society through this freedom, then so be it. It will at least be done through the volition and consent of all others.

There would be no element of coercion, and that is what any true Constitutionalist should strive to achieve.

The Basics:
Libertarian Party founded in 1971.Constitution Party founded in 1992 (changed name in 1999) Libertarian Party Avg. Vote Since Founding: 368,000Constitution Party Avg. Vote Since Founding: 117,460 Libertarian Party Highest Presidential Vote Total: 921,128 (1.1%)Constitution Party Highest Presidential Vote Total: 189,820 (.2%)- - - - -
Author's Note: I would like to emphasize that this is not an attempt to distort or misconstrue any belief or position of the Constitution Party. I have tried my best to remain objective and present their positions exactly how I believe the Party to stand based upon their platform and messaging. This article is simply to illustrate the ideological differences between two political parties that are often associated together. Comments on this article can be sent to Andrew.davis@lp.org.

Ron Paul for Peace!

voting for Chuck Baldwin - I support the Constitution Party.

This is what bothered me when I went to the Constitution Party site. It's full of contradictions. Yes, we want to follow the Constitution, but we want to legislate morals? Christianity is a tolerant belief, but that doesn't mean that all Christians are. The Constitution Party is against homosexuality and think it is a sin. Their entire basis for wanting to treat homosexuals as not equal is entirely based on religion. So how can you say you support the Constitution, yet miss one of the biggest rights of all - freedom of religion.

People can live their lives according to their beliefs, and I would expect their religion to even influence their voting, but this is where the government needs to come in and say a law that goes against the Constitution is void. I don't trust anyone from the Constitution Party to think in that manner, including Baldwin. They have an agenda and I would bet they would see electing Baldwin as a chance to further that agenda.

As far as marriage goes, I don't see why the government has anything to do with that at all. If it's a divine union, then everyone should be able to celebrate that union according to their beliefs. If it is divine, why do we put it in the hands of the government? The only suitable union the government should register is a legal union, which it shouldn't matter if it was between a man and woman, or two men, or whatever. Leave the definition and commitment to marriage to the individual.

Let's wipe out single parents, homosexuals, and drug users, as if they are the cause of all our problems. The Constitution Party believes there is a moral crisis in America and they intend to "fix it". Perhaps the moral crisis is the erosion of our personal liberties.

Sorry, but for all the good Baldwin would do, I can see him doing just as much harm, and if you think he's going to go against the core of the Constitution Party and be "tolerant" then you have more faith than I do.

I side with Jefferson on religion and the right of religious beliefs:

The Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom

Thomas Jefferson, 1786

Well aware that Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burdens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time; that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporal rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labors for the instruction of mankind; that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that, therefore, the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to the offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which in common with his fellow citizens he has a natural right; that it tends also to corrupt the principles of that very religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing, with a monopoly of worldly honors and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles, on the supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency, will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.

Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

And though we well know this Assembly, elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no powers equal to our own and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable would be of no effect in law, yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right.

I do not therefore, believe that it is in anyone's interest to co-mingle any one religion, doctrine or belief system within the government. After all, Christians are broken up into over 38,000 different denominations, each of them declaring their own particular version of "the truth".

Rags make Paper; Paper makes Money; Money makes Banks;Banks make Loans; Loans make Beggars; Beggars make Rags

Some members of the Constitution Party worry me, because I believe that they have some theocratic ambitions, but that being said Chuck Baldwin has affirmed the right to religious liberty for non-christians and even non-believers.

As long as the CP will affirm that gay marriage, drug policy, abortion, and these other social issues properly belong at the state level under the constitution, then I'd feel fine supporting them, and I'm an atheist.

I realize that the abortion issue is a very emotional one for many people, but I've read that at the time of the founding, most of the colonies did not ban the practice entirely. I realize that the same could be said about slavery or not allowing women to vote, so the fact that the colonists did it doesn't make it OK, but it is interesting from an historical perspective, regardless of how you come down on the issue.

is not accepted by all

FITNA http://www.clipser.com/wa...

http://www.youtube.com/wa...

establishing a religion is a very good thing. But that is a different thing from recognizing the Bible as the foundation for our legal system. Look, if we have NO basis, then we have no law. How, then, can we even begin a discussion on the issues? I think we have allowed atheism to drag us far from our philosophical moorings.

If you read the ancient philosophers, a great deal of their thought was devoted to defining and promoting "virtue". Read Socrates, Aristotle, or Plato. But classical, pre-Christian thinking was strangely akin to the standards of Christendom. The qualities of justice, charity, temperance, honesty are all recognized as social goods. This leads me to believe that, although the Bible may be the articulation of God's law, it is a law that transcends "religion" and is written in the human heart. Even Eastern (Confucian, Buddhist) disciplines and Native American mythology, without exception, honor the universal "virtues".

So, when the Bible is cited as the source of the moral and legal code, maybe we need to think of it as a source book, rather than an imposition of religious thought. That which is sectarian should never be part of the civil discourse. But, there needs to be an objective source for law. The Founders, who were not all Christians by the way, agreed that the Bible was a bastion against the relativism which ultimately destroys the very concept of law. As anyone who studies the past 40 years in this country can see, rejecting the authority of the Judeo-Christian ethic has wrought havoc with all law and order and dragged our moral standards through the mud.

I find the Constitution Party to be way too intolerant and, in a two party system, think they would be superb adversary to the Libertarian party which is too tolerant.

That said, party tolerance or not, Chuck Baldwin is a good man and a Constitutionalist. Right now he is our best bet and would be VERY likely to offer Treasury to Ron Paul.

Libertarianism is not concerned with the difference between state rights and federal ones.

Free and Brave
or Cradle to Grave
You can't have both

freedoms are being taken away by having a society that allows gay marriage and abortion. Why can't they have an opportunity in their state to convince people to pass laws that would forbid same-sex marriage and abortion? If people don't like the laws of one state, then they can move to another state. It is a paradigm, I know, but I think eventually christians and states will evolve to allow gay marriage.

The Constitution Party is about states-rights.

To gain some perspective on the christian movement listen to the following audio files:

The Reason for God

you don't have to agree with everything. You're just not going to find another "Ron Paul" to vote for.

Just vote third party as a protest statement against the 2-party monopoly. The person you vote for is not going to win anyway, it's just a protest, SEE??????