The Constitution Party is NOT interested in establishing "Christian nation," as LP claims.

Supposedly it all started because the LP received emails asking the difference between their party and the Constitution Party. Maybe so. Or maybe the LP is, as usual, giving in to their addiction. For indeed, it is a debilitating addiction to always need to prove you are so much different and so much better than everyone else.

Andrew Davis, the LP's illusion spinner, writes: 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).

Of Course Andrew Davis never explains what other-worldly logic has him making the quantum jump in his mind to concluding from the Constitution Party's desire to "restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations" that somehow this means "establishing a Christian nation." For example, restoring a law that says "thou shalt not kill," is hardly establishing a Christian nation. Davis does try to cover his illusion spinning in the above paragraph by putting "Christian" within quotation marks, but this is a device he later conveniently drops.

Having made this first quantum jump, Davis feels no obligation to refrain from making further quantum jumps. Citing no evidence whatsoever (because there is none), he writes: 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.

Nice try, Andrew, but people are not dumb ... a fact libertarians apparently still have a hard time grasping. Men and women announcing they are looking to Christian values to guide their political party does not mean they desire to establish a Christian nation any more than atheist libertarians announcing they look to Ayn Rand for philosophical guidance means they want to establish a Randian dictatorship. It simply does not follow by earthly logic.

So we see once again a potentially valuable political party, the LP, sabotaging itself with self-righteous arrogance. We favor a healthy Libertarian Party, so we ask: when do you think they will ever grow up?

For the last election year studied (1998) some of the highest percentage of votes for Libertarian Party candidates were for candidates who had been studying free of charge the lessons of: Course in Political Miracles

For a great discussion on Christianity vs. State Socialism see: Christianity vs. State Socialism

“I did not understand what made me free, nor what my freedom is, nor where to look to find it. Father, I have searched in vain until I heard Your Voice directing me. Now I would guide myself no more. For I have neither made nor understood the way to find my freedom. But I trust in You. You Who endowed me with my freedom as Your holy Son will not be lost to me. Your Voice directs me." (Prayer from A Course in Miracles)

  1. Mike September 27, 2008 at 12:01 PM  

    Andrew Davis' comments notwithstanding, the fact that the CP wears religion on its sleeve through its platform is off-putting to many people. If it weren't for that, and their fervent clinging to "moral ideals" such as infringing on my right to gamble myself into bankruptcy, I'd consider them myself.

  2. A Christian Prophet September 28, 2008 at 8:43 AM  

    Agreed. The CP wearing religion on it's sleeve is self-sabatoging. Which is precisely why the LP has no reason to defend against them or work to differientiate themselves (which is a form of defense).

    The question is: when is the LP going to look at ITSELF and see what is off-putting to millions of voters?

    For example, you mention your "right" to gamble yourself into bankruptcy. You certainly are free to do so, but is it "right" to do so?

    If you answer, "No, it would really be a mistake to do so. But the government shouldn't be protecting me from my mistakes," that's a reasonable answer.

    But to campaign on a "right" to ruin your life gambling is off-putting to reasonable people and will keep you from winning elections.

    Study the lessons of "Course in Political Miracles: