I like the Constitution Party, and I am voting for Chuck Baldwin. I tell all my friends about him. I even have a Baldwin bumper sticker on my car.

But I am not a Christian. That puts me at odds with the Constitution Party platform, which makes frequent references to "Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ," and the Bible as the Word of God, two dogmas specific to the Christian religion.

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

I have no problem with acknowledging the existence of God and how individual rights come from God, just as the Declaration of Independence acknowledges the existence of a Creator, but specifically including Jesus Christ and the Bible in the party platform prohibits every non-Christian from joining the Constitution Party.

Does the CP need to revise their platform to appeal to more Americans sympathetic with constitutionalism, or should they stick to their guns?

This post was last modified: Sat Sep 20, 2008 09:23 PM by Punisher.

I personally think it should be downplayed because of the fact that many view the Constitutional Party as attempting to create a theocracy. I think God should be included in the platform(as well as social values that have their basis in the Bible), but I think any reference to Jesus Christ should be a footnote.

I hope my fellow Christian brothers and sisters will respect this point of view. It is just my opinion, and I hope no one will judge me because of that. It's definitely not a major issue at all in my book.

I'm new and haven't seen anyone talking about Christ on the forums yet. So, to me it doesn't look like anyone's thinking theocracy here. If they were that would turn me off and I'm a Christian. When I saw Palin on the video of her church, I found that a little bit scary because it appeared she was speaking as governor and religion as one. That sort of thing might be more appealing to people who like her. That's my opinion as of now. If I saw anyone acting like that here I would sure point some things out to them from the words of Christ in the Bible.

I am not that the revision would fly with some of the members. I never been to an actual meeting but hearing people talk this party seems to be a mix of ultra-social conservative, libertarians, and Alex Jones fans. I am personally more of a libertarian/Alex Jones guy. The only social conservative position I hold is being pro-life. The point is if we revise the platform it might upset the ultra-conservative members. I personally believe they should revise the platform but only if that will attract more members then it upsets.

When I mentioned the theocracy bit, I was mainly referring to those OUTSIDE the party that I know. It's a misconception that people have about this party.

That's why I was saying that it should be altered. I have nothing personally against the wording myself as a Christian.

Yes theocracy is a term that is thrown around a lot, but it is really an unfounded accusation. I was at the National Convention, nobody was there to discuss theology. We were there to further the cause of freedom.

Nobody in the party is trying to use it to force their particular brand of Christianity on anybody. I have been involved with this party in two states starting right before the 2004 election and I have not encountered any of the supposed "theocrats" that is feared by many. I have never even heard theology or religious topics discussed.

I would add that usually when the term theocrat is thrown around its because someone is trying to scare people away from the CP and toward their party,usually the LP (I know you did not mean it that way Motor_City_Christian).

I would answer "no" to revising the national platform. It is a known fact that the majority of people who are pro-life are Christian. There are secular pro-life people, but there are very few of them. The following article will say in detail what I'm talking about:

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jul/08071510.html

I am in basically the same camp. I am a pro-life libertarian. In fact, I think the term "pro-life libertarian" is redundant, and I rarely describe myself as such. A libertarian, by definition, values the inalienable right to life, liberty, and property. At my present state of understanding, I don't see how being pro-choice is compatible with libertarianism.

I don't mean to get too far off topic, though.

This post was last modified: Sun Sep 21, 2008 04:50 PM by Punisher.

Perhaps not their particular brand of Christianity (Baptist, Methodist, Catholic, etc.), but Christianity in general must be accepted for someone to fully endorse the party platform.

For me to carry around a Constitution Party membership card, I'm essentially saying that I endorse the whole of the party platform, including Jesus Christ as my savior and the Bible as the foundation of moral law, both explicitly stated in the platform.

Because of that, I as a non-Christian cannot join the Constitution Party out of principle, regardless of how much I agree with the substantive part of the platform.

As Thomas Paine wrote, "Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what one does not believe."

I never meant to imply that the Constitution Party is theocratic. Theocrats want to combine state and religious authority, which does not appear at all to me to be the agenda of the Constitution Party.

I am merely talking about the mentions of various Christian dogmas in the platform.

This post was last modified: Sun Sep 21, 2008 04:59 PM by Punisher.

I fail to understand why explicitly mentioning Jesus Christ and the Bible in the National Platform is necessary to be a pro-life party. For example, the Republican Party platform is pro-life without mentioning any specific Christian dogma.