The Constitution Party?

[Guest WDfrmTN]

I've been checking into the Constitution Party, and like quite a bit of what I see. There's also a few things I don't like. I know there's no "All of it will please me" party, but has anyone else been dissuaded by their politicising of the Christian Faith?

Here is their platform:

http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php

Edited July 29, 2009 by WDfrmTN

[G27]

I've looked at it and it has some real positives, but the theocratic approach is wrong, imo - and I'm a devout Christian.

The country needs a sense of morality, yes, but tying it to a specific religion is dangerous and quite ignorant of the history of the country.

[Guest WDfrmTN]

I'm awaiting some word back from the Nat'l and TN HQ's. I'd like to work towards a platform change that would be welcoming to all, regardless of religious faith affiliation.

[Guest PapaB]

I have a few issues with them. I tend to distrust groups that misrepresent things. I'm no authority on the founding fathers and their beliefs but I have studied them and I think this group misrepresents those beliefs.

They also changed the wording of some things like adding property to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The way they did it sounds like the government should provide property to people. There's more but this isn't a book.

Take a look at this group, the American Conservative Party, also.

Platform

I still haven't decided on them but I like a lot of what they say.

[G27]

I think maybe we, as a group of constitution-loving conservatives, should form a party that will represent the conservatives of this country without these glaring deficiencies...

[Guest bkelm18]

I looked into the party, found it to be a little too heavy on the religious side for a political party. I've settled on the Libertarian Party personally.

[mousegunner]

I like the Constitution party. But lets face it, 99% of the American population, if they vote at all, will vote Republican or Democrat. Third parties don't stand a chance. I vote third party anyway.

[Kelemvor]

I do like their attempt to stick to the Constitution and take unnecessary power away from the federal government. I don't however like their desire to legislate morality. Religion and government have no business being anywhere near one another.

Nobody tells me what to believe, especially if it only affects me.

[DaveTN]

Basic moral principals are not tied to religion.

Of course I only had to read their preamble to see that they will never get anyone elected.

[Wingshooter]

I'm ready to do away with all the parties and let Americans vote based on the candidate. Let them be judged by their character, past actions and alignment with the Constitution, but that's dreaming....

BTW, who would of thought that America would have elected someone from the Communist party?

[Glenn]

I have a few issues with them. I tend to distrust groups that misrepresent things. I'm no authority on the founding fathers and their beliefs but I have studied them and I think this group misrepresents those beliefs.

They also changed the wording of some things like adding property to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The way they did it sounds like the government should provide property to people. There's more but this isn't a book.

Take a look at this group, the American Conservative Party, also.

Platform

I still haven't decided on them but I like a lot of what they say.

In the early drafts of the constitution it was property but was changed to pursuit of happiness because they didn't want the slave states to be guaranteed their property(slaves)

Glenn

[Guest 3pugguy]

I looked into the party, found it to be a little too heavy on the religious side for a political party. I've settled on the Libertarian Party personally.

+1. I want less government, but know the odds of a Libertarian getting elected is slim...still, I can hope.

[Guest PapaB]

In the early drafts of the constitution it was property but was changed to pursuit of happiness because they didn't want the slave states to be guaranteed their property(slaves)

Glenn

And in todays climate the liberal members of SCOTUS will read it as a right to property whether or not you earned it. Those living on the government dole would have to be given property by the taxpayers. Not a good choice of wording IMHO. I like it as it stands.

[eapking]

I've looked at it and it has some real positives, but the theocratic approach is wrong, imo - and I'm a devout Christian.

The country needs a sense of morality, yes, but tying it to a specific religion is dangerous and quite ignorant of the history of the country.

Agreed - and I consider myself a devout Christian as well. However, the separation of church and state is a good thing. The founding fathers had a lot right, besides 2A. Personally, I think the hardline Christian right is doing the Republican party more harm than good. I hate to see another party go down that road.

[DaveTN]

Our founding fathers probably weren’t as simple minded as some legislators and Judges today.

Separation of Church and State was not intended to be abused as it is today. They were talking about the role of the Catholic Church in England. They in no way intended for that phrase to be turned against Christians. We were a Christian nation; we were founded on Christian principals and morals. That may not set well with some; but those are the facts.

We have lost that…. How’s that working out for us?

Christians don’t separate their religion from anything they do. Neither do Muslims or most any other religion.

[Steelharp]

tying it to a specific religion is dangerous and quite ignorant of the history of the country.

What "religion" is it tied to? Catholicism? Methodist? Baptist?

"Religions" are denominations. Christianity is not a religion. And Christianity IS what we were founded on.

[G27]

What "religion" is it tied to? Catholicism? Methodist? Baptist?

"Religions" are denominations. Christianity is not a religion. And Christianity IS what we were founded on.

As soon as you tie the country to a specific religion - Christianity IS a religion (it's is one of the six major religions of the world) - you've climbed upon a slippery slope. It's only a matter of time until some non-Christian group becomes the majority and rewrites the rules in their favor.

Sharia law anyone?

And while the country was founded on very general Judea-Christian principles, there's a reason there's no specific mention of ANY religion in the foundational documents of this country.

Hard to argue with the Treaty of Tripoli...

[Warbird]

Our founding fathers probably weren’t as simple minded as some legislators and Judges today.

Separation of Church and State was not intended to be abused as it is today. They were talking about the role of the Catholic Church in England. They in no way intended for that phrase to be turned against Christians. We were a Christian nation; we were founded on Christian principals and morals. That may not set well with some; but those are the facts.

We have lost that…. How’s that working out for us?

Christians don’t separate their religion from anything they do. Neither do Muslims or most any other religion.

Not quite correct. They were referrng to the Anglican Church. The Catholic church was run out of England nearly 2 centuries before by King Henry VIII.

At the time of the revolution here in the colonies everyone paid tribute to the Anglican Church. A couple of the colonies in the northeast had managed to minimize this, but not completely. Back then you could worship pretty much as you pleased, but had to attend the Anglican church once a month, if not you were fined. Everyone was expected to "tithe" to the Anglican church whether they gave to their own church or not. This was the cause of the "establishment clause" in the constitution, then end to this practice.

[Warbird]

I have a few issues with them. I tend to distrust groups that misrepresent things. I'm no authority on the founding fathers and their beliefs but I have studied them and I think this group misrepresents those beliefs.

They also changed the wording of some things like adding property to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The way they did it sounds like the government should provide property to people. There's more but this isn't a book.

Take a look at this group, the American Conservative Party, also.

Platform

I still haven't decided on them but I like a lot of what they say.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness was in the Declaration of Independence, not the constitution as an above poster said.

The phrase life liberty and property goes back to John Locke's 2nd treatise on gov and the rights of man. Locke was one of the father's of the enlightenment age and the liberty movement. His words inspired much of the Founding Father's of our country to act.

As a British subject the property part referred to the lack of ability to own private property. Everyone essentially had to pay tribute or rent from the King or one of his personally selected Lord's.

I am certain you are right people would distort this just as they distort the all created equal part to their own justifications. naturally we are not all created equal, except in the eyes of God, and all have certain natural rights.