Constitution Party is not a Theological Movement

[Silverback]

In order for the Constitution Party to gain any political traction on the national scene, I believe that we must first take a sincere stab at party solidarity. I don't believe that this will ever be achieved as long as there are columnists within our midst that attack other members based solely on their theology and not their political beliefs.

Since enthusiastically joining the CP, I've noticed on our blogs and websites that Baptists (and others) who hold to a Dispensational theology (such as I) are readily blamed for all the ills of our society. The theory is that since we believe that a "falling away," or apostasy, will precede the Second Coming of Christ, Dispensationalists are busy cowering in their basements singing "oh, woe-is-me" until the End comes.

I am a member of a fundamental Bible church in New Jersey where approximately 400-500 people attend our morning service every Sunday, and I also attend a fundamental Baptist seminary in Pennsylvania. I have had informal conversations with many people within my church and seminary. I don't know a single Dispensationalist who holds to this type of fatalistic view. Actually, many are politically active. In fact, I have spoken with plenty of Baptists who are in 100% agreement with our platform and would feel completely at home within our ranks, if we could only do a better job of persuading them that a "third-party" movement can be successful.

In a recent article by a well-known CP supporter (whose well-written articles I usually enjoy reading), Dispensationalists are alternately described as "schizophrenic" heretics that have "perverse" beliefs and an "aberrant" theology. This kind of bomb-throwing is completely improper and only serves to divide our tiny political movement even further, making our chances for national success impossible.

If you want to make an impact on the theological scene, publish an article in a theological journal or challenge a seminary professor to a debate. But in this setting, divisive theological issues are totally inappropriate and destructive to our political purpose.

I do thank my Lord that I belong to a political party where the membership even knows what Dispensationalism is, however! I'm fairly confident that our current President would not only be unable to identify what Dispensationalism is, but he probably wouldn't be able to spell it correctly either.

I believe that this level of awareness of various Christian teachings is one of the CP's strengths. In other political parties, issues such as this don't even have to be addressed. I just pray that we don't allow this strength to become a weakness, for we don't need to find any further deficiencies to hinder our up-hill battle.

If the Constitution Party is ever going to make an impact on our society, we have to stop attacking other Christians within our own political family on theological issues. The Constitution Party is a political movement, not a theological movement.

[SWhiteman]

First, please be specific. I am not aware of any such comments about dispensationalists on www.theamericanview.com. We are not responsible for the behaviours by others on other sites.

Secondly, www.theamericanview.com is not the Constitution Party. You are right in that the Party is not a theological movement, rather a political entity that can only offer political solutions. However, www.theamericanview.com is not fettered in that way. We are a political commentary website from a specifically Christian perspective. We will comment from that direction.


In Christ,

Scott T. Whiteman
Managing Editor

[Jaime]

Why should Christians not challenge each other on the positions we hold, political or otherwise? Are we that weak?

Your worldview will affect the way you live and how decisions will be made.

A dispensationalist view, at least for the adherents that I know, approve of the foreign policy being pursued by GW, especially in Iraq and the so called "war on terror." Any rational discussion of Iraq, blowback, uS involvement in overthrowing Mossadeh in Iran (circa 1957), British colonialism, coddling of despots, etc, is almost impossible.

After all, the rapture will happen before all heck breaks loose.

Well, read about the persecution of the early Church, which gave rise to the phrase "the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church." Me thinks that what God calls tribulation is not the same as the dispensationalist's.

I wonder how many dispensationalists, who support Bush, have given thought that if Bush succeeds in bringing peace, freedom and democracy to the world, that it makes him looks a lot more like the bad guy in Revelation?

[Patriot 2]

I agree, all the theological battles will wittle down the Party to nothing. The leadership is respectful to all religions. A political party is just that. For theological debates, the church and seminairies are for this purpose

To build the Party, we need to present the Party, period.

As far as being snubbed or attacked for your faith, you should not be. That is your business. Too many may be joining this Party as a not-so-hidden agenda of preaching and evangelization. This attitide will keep the Party down and possibly destroy it, as it has divided the pro-life movement.

Read the American Statesman by Wm Shearer, he has a few good articles on this topic. His articles are reproduced on the NC CP website as well, i found.


As for persecution, try being a orthodox, bible believing Catholic!!

Most of Peroutka's family are Catholics, though it is over looked as too many CP supporters would rather ignore this and attack Catholics. We put individual theological beliefs on the backburner or.....welcome to destruction as a Party.

The radio programs are very fair to all faiths.

BTW, Roberts and Pryor are CINO (Catholic in name only!!)

Good articles on NeoCOns, Zionist, etc on Catholic APologetics International website

[Patriot 2]

Why should Christians not challenge each other on the positions we hold, political or otherwise? Are we that weak?
-Jamie

The GOP/Dems generally have a live and let live approach, that is why they grew and remain, in regard to individual religious beliefs.

Start a religion-vs-religion debate and/or fight, you will tear apart the Party.

[SWhiteman]

Why is this conversation continuing about the "Party" and religion? www.theamericanview.com is not the Constitution Party and any comments for "the Party" will not be delivered over to it.

As for the merits of having a big tent verses relying on God to build the foundations, obviously your faithfulness to Christ will determine where you lie in that debate -- which we are not having here as it relates to "party building."

www.theamericanview.com is a political commentary from a Christian perspective. We are pressing the Crown Rights of King Jesus. The Claim and Interest of that Crown is not ours to broker away. We will advocate for Christian solutions in a pluralistic "United" States no matter the faith of its leaders. We care more for the King of the kings than we do for the king.

[Triton]

The Constitution Party is a political movement, not a theological movement.

I have a feeling that my comments are not going to be popular.

I understand that the CP party is not a theological movement. We live in a nation where not everyone is Christian. The Constitution Party does not do a good job of explaining that Christian values protect even those who are not Christians. The CP platform relates very well to those who are believers, and it assumes that non-believers will convert, then vote. That may not be the case, nor does it have to be.

Funny, coming from the Calvinist side, I have always heard that we, through theonomy or domionism, rather than dispensationalists, are the real danger.

[ADGettis]

Christian perspective. That statement would prove any constitution party's opponents criticism calling them religious fundmentalists.

Good for them. It should concern any Christian much more whether or not God – He to whom ALL of us will be accountable one day – is critical of our actions as individuals and as a party. What is the criticism of man next to that?

The 1910's and 1920's are over. We are in a era of more open minded people.

Regardless of the philosophy du jour of our society, truth will remain truth. The job of a political party is to seek truth, not to cover it up in compliance with the current fad.

If any party is going to succeed they have to be open-minded.

No, a party needs to stand firm by its convictions to survive. What appeal does a party have if it might believe something completely different tomorrow? Plus, at the risk of repeating myself, a party needs to be open-minded only to the truth, and needs to be hostile to lies.

The reason why I am not a member of the constitution party is because of this religious fundamentallist attitude about society. a my way or the highway view does not work in society.

I'm sorry to hear that. Understand that the Constitution Party welcomes members of all faiths, but thankfully its platform recognizes the need for the party to stand fast for the truth. Its recognition of God as the source of liberty affords members of other faiths the surest freedom of conscience of any political party out there!

[SWhiteman]

AGAIN, THIS IS NOT A FORUM FOR THE DISCUSSION OF THE MERITS OF HAVING A RELIGIOUS TEST IN THE CONSTITUTION PARTY. I have my opinion on that, but it is not germane to this forum.

Rather, we are to discuss the application of the Bible to government, or as stated more simply, "The American View of Law and Government." We believe that, not only is Christ the King of kings, but He is in fact Lord over this (and every Country). Each person, and all People and Nations will bow before Him -- the question is simply when and whether it will be freely or by Divine compulsion (men are not given the power to coerce in faith -- it is by conversion by the Holy Ghost).

Thus, even if we are a more "open-minded" society, we are discussing, and I am pressing, the Crown Rights of King Jesus -- so help me, God.

WE ARE NOT DISCUSSING WHETHER THE CONSTITUTION PARTY SHOULD ACCEPT PEOPLE OF ALL FAITHS, OR WHETHER IT PRESENTLY DOES. We are discussing the application of the Christian Faith to politics in America.

[Triton]

AGAIN, THIS IS NOT A FORUM FOR THE DISCUSSION OF THE MERITS OF HAVING A RELIGIOUS TEST IN THE CONSTITUTION PARTY. I have my opinion on that, but it is not germane to this forum.

It is, however, a valid topic. Are you saying we cannot start a thread on it?

[SWhiteman]

Thanks for asking -- seriously.

I do think it is a very valid topic. I hesitate to encourage its discussion on this forum, let me briefly explain why:

1.) The American View (TAV) is not the Constitution Party (CP). Thus, a conversation about the advisability of a religious test in CP is as relevant as a discussion about the advisability of a religious test in the GOP, DNC, Greenies, Libertarians, &c.

2.) TAV is not the CP. Thus, a conversation about the advisability of a religious test in this forum might confuse that distinction.

3.) TAV is not the CP and nothing that is expressed here is "delivered" in any formal way to the CP. Thus, a discussion might make people incorrectly feel that their opinions are being listened to by CP when in fact they are not.

4.) TAV IS a website promoting the Crown Rights of King Jesus by Christians. That is really not up for discussion.

I will seek the advice and counsel of some others on this. If the above four items can be recognised, a conversation about a religious test in the CP may be helpful. I will let you know.

[ADGettis]

Mr. Whiteman,

Thank you for considering the validity of this conversation here. I like to think that the American view applies just as much to politics as it does to any other realm – even moreso to the Constitution Party, since it is the only party to recognize the Source of our laws. At the same time, I can see the very real possibility that the discussion could escalate, this being such a salient topic, and cause embarassment to the party and/or this website. For that reason, I appreciate that you are taking a deliberate, informed look at the issue.

[SWhiteman]

I do wholly support a debate on God in politics, and the necessity of a religious test for elected officials. Consider, the "Religious Test" prohibition in the Constitution was construed by Joseph Story (a Unitarian Universalist -- not a Christian) to mean that no religious test between the denominations of Christianity could be levied.

So, if you want to start something the pros vs. cons. of Christianity in politics, go right ahead. If you want to go on "religion" in politics, go ahead, though the Christians ought to rise up and declare "we are not just one of many religions -- we are THE religion."

I don't work on Sunday, so I'll be back on this on Monday.

[Triton]

It is, however, a valid topic. Are you saying we cannot start a thread on it?

I frequent many fora. Universally, a forum titled, "General Discussion" means you can discuss anything. This is why I posted the essay on my missions trip. Might I suggest changing the name of that forum to something other than "General Discussion" if you don't mean it?

Heavy handed moderation will quickly make for an unpopular forum.

[SWhiteman]

We are permitting this thread to remain open for the time being as the conversations herein are seemingly able to occur with the understanding that The American View is not the Constitution Party and anything expressed from TAV in this forum is only on our behalf, and anything expressed to TAV in this forum is not delivered to CP in any official or systematic fashion.

We fully agree that a conversation about the applicability of the Word of God in politics is appropriate and necessary. That, in our view, is not in debate, though many may try to debate it here -- so go ahead, but let me warn you, the debate has already been decided and God says that His Word matters in Nations and Governments. 6 billion men might disagree, but then there would be a bit of a Psalm 2 problem.

For those soliciting opinions from the Constitution Party, please visit www.constitutionparty.com. If you are soliticing Michael Peroutka's opinion, or mine as a member of the National and Executive Committee of the Party, you may request it here and we may reply -- but we can give you only our opinions on the matter and how we intend to act in our official capacity on the Constitution Party committees.

Thanks.

[wmgreene]

Well, I don't know, but to me the Constitution Party is a Theological Movement towards the goal of Redemption. My views to this effect are published on many forums, and an example of one post is offered here (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/legality-of-income-tax/message/32082) which is also a public document that was delivered to Bob Schulz, Michael Peroutka, and Pope Benedict XVI via Certified Mail. Paragraphs #14 and #15 are provided herewith for your review:

(14) At this time, I am still homeless, living out of the truck I drive, and having only a post office box to receive mail, and although our family financial situation has more than resolved itself to the point where I or at least my wife could afford to buy a rather nice home, awareness of the fact that in most countries, as well as the State of New York, it is now illegal to own property (true ownership requires that the land owner, not the government, hold the allodial title), leaving me with the realization that I would still be homeless no matter where I lived, so at times my promise to defend my rights of citizenship, which I am re-emphasizing through this letter includes my First Amendment Right of religious freedom, seem next to impossible even to me, especially given that my state of homelessness leaves me without even the right to vote. Yet even without the right to vote, I make it a habit to tell others across the country that the promise of the first redemption is that of the perfection of matter (Romans 8:21) whereby the radiance of God’s glory and very imprint of God’s being (Hebrews 1:3) is brought into being thereby freeing of the peoples of the earth by their respective governments and the restoration of the property rights to them, thereby taking the power to finance wars away from the elite in control of the respective governments and thereby instituting a state of global peace, as well as to also inform them of the Constitution Party’s promise to undo the new deal of 1934 to free Americans from this same kind of slavery imposed by agencies like the IRS.

(15) However, even when I explain the events to others that brought about my current state of homelessness relative to the subject of voting rights and my prayers for the efforts in the Constitution Party’s promises, I find myself in a personal quandary as to how it is that anyone could, technically and legally (under the US Constitution that is), as well as traumatically in the event of a future foreclosure upon all of the properties the government holds in allodium, be anything but homeless and therefore without even the right to vote, given that since Reformation Act of 1933 and New Deal of 1934 the government has deemed the people to be incompetent and based upon this proclamation has reclassified the “people” as “persons under the law” and thereby utilized its powers under the Commerce Act to have taken possession of all of the people and allodial titles to the land, water and air, which it uses to collateralize the Federal Reserve with the World Bank/International Monetary Fund.

I know, that makes me a religious nut, but the way I see it I have to almost constantly state the fact that “...I'm not a particularly brave person, so sometimes I'm not really sure why I seem to try to stand up for what I see as right, but, as stated in 1 Corinthians 7:23, I was bought at a price; to not become a slave of men."

Blessings,
Bill

[Joe_Liberty]

Al Cronkite has responded to John Leone:

http://www.etherzone.com/2005/cron081205.shtml

I agree with Mr. Cronkite when he writes

"The middle paragraph affirming "no religious test" is a bit disturbing since it appears to be a reflection of the anti-Christian Deism that had infected the crafters of our Constitution"

I know many of us at Valley Forge argued that attempts to maintain religious neutrality supports humanism and I worry that Constitutional Party members ignore the written intention of the party to apply Biblical Law to American law and government, and wish to "sweep it under the rug."

I admit that his question of why those who believe that social conditions will continue to inevitably decline can enthusiastically work to save America is something I have wondered about too. But I don't spend a lot of time worrying about it. There is too much to do to worry too much about the motivation of others. He acknowledges that there are many active dispensationalists. I am glad that at least one of them is in our party, whatever motivates Mr. Leone.

While it is not stated explicitly, the structure of Mr. Cronkite's essay tends to imply that dispensationalists are responsible for the creeping secular humanism in our platform. If so, I am not sure that is a fair accusation. I did not get a sense at the national convention that the struggle between the "no religious test" clause faction and their opponents was along any dispensationalist/non-dispensationalist fault line. In fact, I still think the existence of any such fault line is exaggerated and much less problematic than Mr. Leone suggested, when compared to other challenges we face. The impression I got is that there were at least some dispensationalists opposing the "no religious test" clause, and perhaps some non-dispensationalists on the other side.

I certainly do not think that theological debates should be confined to scholarly journals or that folks like Mr. Cronkite should cease and desist in the interest of party peace. It seems to me that an essay like Mr. Leone's, coming from a key race candidate of our party, has the potential to alienate more orthodox Christians, than the essay by Mr. Cronkite, who is only marginally connected to our party, has potential to alienate dispensationalists.

[SWhiteman]

I agree with Mr. Cronkite when he writes

"The middle paragraph affirming "no religious test" is a bit disturbing since it appears to be a reflection of the anti-Christian Deism that had infected the crafters of our Constitution"

I know many of us at Valley Forge argued that attempts to maintain religious neutrality supports humanism and I worry that Constitutional Party members ignore the written intention of the party to apply Biblical Law to American law and government, and wish to "sweep it under the rug."

I really appreciate your contributions to the Party and for the Crown Rights of Christ within the Party. However, at the Platform hearing, we were on different sides (as I'm sure you remember).

The Maryland Party offered the "working document" that eventually became the Preamble. I authored it and brought it before other Marylanders for consideration. As originally written, there was no "no religious test" language, but we put it in later to ensure that Christians did not claim a right over each other.

In my view then, as now, it has nothing to do with the bloody Turk, Atheists or other god-haters. It merely meant that within the Party, we would not seek the advancment of one Christian denomination over another. That is what the language meant when offered and how I would interpret it now if asked. We meant it how the Founders meant it. As Joseph Story commented on that provision in the Constitution, it was to keep Christian denominations equal, not all religious. Such is preposterous, since one religion (Christianity) is true and all others are false.

However, if the language doesn't convey what it is intended to say, perhaps it ought to be removed, or clarified, in 2008.

In my view, then and now, the Constitution Party should have only Christians as officers. We, as Christians in the Party, should refuse our vote for non-Christians who seek office within the Party.

[Joe_Liberty]

Thanks for the clarification. I do recall now that was the argument that Michael made in support of the compromise. I did ultimately vote for the current platform on the floor of the convention, but not because I was convinced by that argument. I preferred the preamble as it was pre-Valley Forge and I believe we would have been better off sacrificing members and even state parties than including anti-Christ, Deist, "no religious test" language into our platform. I voted for the compromise because it was clear to me that if the debate continued on much longer we would end up with something far worse than the compromise we have now. I was stunned by the number of atheists, pagans, etc. who openly denounced the Lordship of Jesus Christ on the floor of the convention.

In my experience, the addition of "the no religious test" language has hurt us. I have found in some cases that it is more difficult to recruit orthodox Christians who already think we are too pluralist. Al is an example of those who are reconsidering their support of the party because of it.

I would like to see it removed, but I think than any attempt to do so in the near future will only result in something worse than we have now. When you combine the departure of some orthodox Christians with the fact that our party forbids any religious test for membership, the probable outcome to me seems to me to be an increase of secular humanists in our party over time. It stands to reason that an increase in secular humanism among members will result in an increase in secular humanism among leaders over time.

The only way I see for us to overcome this trend is to dramatically intensify our efforts to actively recruit more orthodox Christians - people like Al Cronkite. Unfortunately, as we have seen they are exactly the people who will be alienated by the anti-Christ, Deist, "no religious test" language. Offering your rationale may help in that regard - but I am not terribly optimistic. We certainly need to make an effort to retain and not alienate the Christian Reconstructionists who are still with us.

[dbman63]

I could not agree with you more. I had not heard of this slander of those who hold to a dispensational view. Let us not elevate all the nuances of eschatology above the gospel.

In a related thought, we should publish some articles that clearly state we do not favor a theocracy. There are some devoted Christians that would not vote CP if that is what it means. I don't think that, but the official platform can easily be misunderstood to mean this. Not to mention that as we gain momentum, we will need to articulate this effectively when atheists and other religions cry "separation of church and state". Better to address this clearly now so we are all on the same page.

[Joe_Liberty]

Dana,

You say you could not agree with me more, but if I understand what you are saying here, I think we completely disagree. But no matter, as I am no longer a member of the Constitution Party as I was when I wrote the post you are responding to. I do not agree with you that "theocracy" is a dirty word.

[exmarine]

A dispensationalist view, at least for the adherents that I know, approve of the foreign policy being pursued by GW, especially in Iraq and the so called "war on terror." Any rational discussion of Iraq, blowback, uS involvement in overthrowing Mossadeh in Iran (circa 1957), British colonialism, coddling of despots, etc, is almost impossible.



Stereotyping.

And there have been plenty of bombs thrown at evangelicals and dispensationalists on this site. And the people who have done it know who they are.

[TimV]

Some stereotypes are true, and that's one of them. You yourself say that Jews and Israel are special. Without the dispensationalist swing voters in the south, that idiotic war never could have happened. All true Christians need to oppose the dispensationalist philosophy.

[Relient J]

^ Why? And how is the stereotyping true when the poster that started this thread is a dispensationalist and at the same time a supporter of the Constitution Party (at least at the time of the post, I can't speak to his current thoughts on that). Pastor Chuck Baldwin also falls into both categories, and based on his writings I believe him to be as opposed to President Bush as anyone on this forum. Clearly not all dispensationalists fall into the stereotype that you believe is true.

[Triton]

Some stereotypes are true, and that's one of them. You yourself say that Jews and Israel are special. Without the dispensationalist swing voters in the south, that idiotic war never could have happened. All true Christians need to oppose the dispensationalist philosophy.On this, we can agree almost 100% - except I wouldn't say that dispensationlists are not true Christians.

[TimV]

On this, we can agree almost 100% - except I wouldn't say that dispensationlists are not true Christians.

I wouldn't say that at all. exmarine is a fine Christian patriot, and that's just one example. They are just following a false teaching which distorts their thinking on certian key issues.

[dbman63]

Joe,

Let me try to better articulate my concerns.

First, I wholeheartedly desire that those holding political power in this country would be Christians, recognizing that they will stand before a Holy God and give account for all they have done.

I am anticipating however that our political foes will accuse us of criminalizing all other faiths. That people will be rounded up and forced into Christian churches by militia. I do not hold such a dim view of Christians, being one myself, doncha know. :) But in order to be able to effectively thwart this argument, rather than remove our claims of being Jesus serving Christians, we need to state that if the CP comes to power that no interference with other religions will be manifest (provided they aren't invovled in terrorism or other practices that break the law).

In essence, I think we need to publicly state how we intend to govern ourselves by the Constitution, how we will apply and abide by the right to assemble, as it applies to religion. We should elaborate on how the government should not establish or endorse one religion for the nation.

How will the CP party apply the first amendment to itself?

[Joe_Liberty]

Joe,

Let me try to better articulate my concerns.

First, I wholeheartedly desire that those holding political power in this country would be Christians, recognizing that they will stand before a Holy God and give account for all they have done.

I am anticipating however that our political foes will accuse us of criminalizing all other faiths. That people will be rounded up and forced into Christian churches by militia. I do not hold such a dim view of Christians, being one myself, doncha know. :) But in order to be able to effectively thwart this argument, rather than remove our claims of being Jesus serving Christians, we need to state that if the CP comes to power that no interference with other religions will be manifest (provided they aren't invovled in terrorism or other practices that break the law).

In essence, I think we need to publicly state how we intend to govern ourselves by the Constitution, how we will apply and abide by the right to assemble, as it applies to religion. We should elaborate on how the government should not establish or endorse one religion for the nation.

How will the CP party apply the first amendment to itself?

The notion that the Constitution Party seeks to establish Christianity or force people to attend church is absurd. Not only does their platform include a religious freedom plank, but in a recent essay (http://www.constitutionparty.org/news.php?aid=283) their national chairman insists

The Constitution Party was founded as an organization for American patriots to join together to save our country. . . One can debate the issue of whether a political party should have an exclusively Christian membership and what form of Christian would be allowed until the cows come home, but the fact remains that it is not part of the mission of the Constitution Party. References to the CP platform as a "covenant" in the purely religious sense, to not being able to be in "fellowship" with people of other faiths, and expressions of discontent at being "unequally yoked" have no place in this party and nothing in our founding or official pronouncements can be taken to indicate otherwise.

I can't imagine how a political party can be any more diverse, tolerant, and pluralist than that, but I will leave it to people like you to try.

[Triton]

The notion that the Constitution Party seeks to establish Christianity or force people to attend church is absurd. You'd never know it after hanging out here for a few days.

[Joe_Liberty]

You'd never know it after hanging out here for a few days.

What does "here" have to do with the Constitution Party? Take a look at some of the recent articles on the homepage. By majority vote in Tampa the Constitution Party pretty soundly rejected The American View of law and government.

[Camp Director]

You'd never know it after hanging out here for a few days.I think I can assume you are speaking about proponents of theonomy, if your postings on other sections of this forum are any indication. If so this is an excellent straw man you've constructed. Theonomy = forced conversions.

Sorry, but theonomists know full well that only God through the Holy Spirit can regenerate depraved man to the point that he can make a true free will decision for Christ. One of the main tenets of Calvinism, which virtually all theonomists hold to doctrinally. No Calvinist believes that anyone could be forced to convert or participate in meaningful worship.

It is only those who believe that all men possess some small innate spark of goodness in their soul that allows them to choose Christ through the act of human reason before regeneration that buy the idea that a forced conversion is possible. Human reason can be swayed by a pragmatic impulse after hearing something like "convert or die," for instance. True conversions as a result of the regeneration of the human spirit by the direct intervention of the Holy Spirit results in converts who would rather die than deny Christ.

[exmarine]

Some stereotypes are true, and that's one of them. You yourself say that Jews and Israel are special. Without the dispensationalist swing voters in the south, that idiotic war never could have happened. All true Christians need to oppose the dispensationalist philosophy.

It's just plain absurd for you to try to justify biased stereotyping. There are few stereotypes, if any, that are true. Stereotyping is a means to group an entire class of people into one homogenous, non-individualistic monolithic group for the convenient purpose of bigotry or persecution.

And the notion that dispensationalists or evangelicals are (as one stereotypical group) fully in agreement with Bush and the Neocons is a bunch of malarkey. Clearly, anyone who loves Israel hates what Bush is doing over there! He's basically selling Israel out to the terrorists. Anyone with one eye open can see that.

[TimV]

No, there are many stereotypes that are useful. Khaki Campbell ducks lay more eggs than Muscovy ducks.

The fact of the matter is that the dispensationalist swing voters in the South allowed Bush to act the way he did. If American Christians left the Christian Zionist cult and submitted themselves to Scripture, we as a country would have treated Israel and the Arab States equally, and 9/11 would never have happened.

Fact, sorry.

[Relient J]

TimV, I'm confused by your statements. Do you believe that all dispensationalists are Bush supporters?

[TimV]

They don't have to support Bush. They support (mindlessly) anyone who supports (mindlessly) Israel. And yes, they got Bush into power.

[awaitHim]

Joe

In essence, I think we need to publicly state how we intend to govern ourselves by the Constitution, how we will apply and abide by the right to assemble, as it applies to religion. We should elaborate on how the government should not establish or endorse one religion for the nation.

How will the CP party apply the first amendment to itself?This thread has taken several turns now and I see it was started back in August. I believe it is imperative though, no matter what our theology (dispensational or covenant) is as Christians, that we resolve this issue of how to relate to forming a political party.

This means that first of all we need to answer the question of whether or not there should be a religious test to join the party. I started a thread on this subject and it went off on rabbit trails in my opinion. But this was something I wanted to learn myself and have devoted some study to it. I believe there was wisdom in our founders not putting in a religious test in the Constitution and wanted to find out why. Those founders who were devoted Christians agreed to that provision, and I believe it was because they recognized the distinction between Church and State.

Additionally, if each sect or denomination of Christianity or Judiaism competed with others to establish its tenets in a religious test of the Constitution- no consensus could be reached and no unity brought about to insure security in civil government. Each sect is fully persuaded in its tenets and will not tolerate the teachings of the other. Hence the freedom of conscience and of other sects (religions) is violated.

A religious test also would not help because people would use it to promote themselves when in their heart they do not believe really believe it. There are those to whom professing Jesus Christ as Saviour means the exact opposite of what the Spirit of the living God really teaches.

So the net effect then to bring about a civil government for protection of liberty for the whole moral Christian community and the freedom of conscience for every man is to have the people of these sects or faith groups come to an agreement on how to do it apart from their "church". Their church, faith group, sect, etc. teaches them what laws (the laws of God) will protect their faith-but is separate from the faith itself. Thus we have separation of church and state, and no religious test in the Constitution.

The same thing should be for a "Christian" political party. It must be separate from the church to be effective in bringing in other churches, sects, within the realm of Christendom and uniting them in unified protection under a civil government.

If a religious sect or church or theological distinctive has its own political party by means of a religious test for its distinctives, it can gain no more adherents than those who believe its tenets. How then could it ever gain any chance of being a protector of the nation and freedom of conscience for others? It would have to establish its own nation, and the nation would have religious law mixed in with civil law. In time corrupt church leaders would have the power of the sword and those disagreeing would have to leave the country.

It is what is in the platform that counts. Allegiance to a church is church business. Civil law, the platform, is the fruit of religious faith, and thus related to it- but it is independent of that faith. The fruit, (the platform) can be recognized as good even by those who are not of that faith. The law is written in men's hearts.(Romans 2:15)

The "Christian" party's platform can be as strict as the law of God is based on the teachings which come from the members church, faith, denomination, theological persuasion, etc.. Again, this teaching though is not church doctrine, i.e. church discipline, baptism, personal salvation, marriage, communion procedures. The party's political policies and laws are there for all to see. If as in the case of Nevada - they don't wish to hold to it- then they must be removed. It is not because they are Mormon, but because they have not adhered to the platform.

[dbman63]

I can't imagine how a political party can be any more diverse, tolerant, and pluralist than that, but I will leave it to people like you to try.

Joe,

I was not accusing the CP of seeking to establish Christianity; I agree that is absurd. But it is an argument that has to be addressed, however absurd it might be. I for one do not intend to blindly assume such things wihtout asking. My intent was to express concerns about some low hanging fruit that opposition would target should we become powerful enough to be a threat.

Thanks for sharing the quote from the National Chairman, that in essence was the assurance I was looking for. One should expect questions like this when the party platform affirms (rightly) Christ's Lordship.

[dbman63]

The party's political policies and laws are there for all to see. If as in the case of Nevada - they don't wish to hold to it- then they must be removed. It is not because they are Mormon, but because they have not adhered to the platform.

Well put. This is a question we must expect to receive and handle gracefully as we reach out to our neighbors. My first concern is their salvation, and I want to ensure that when I speak of my political views, that it does not appear to be one and the same with my religious views.

[DAnde1706]

This thread has taken several turns now and I see it was started back in August. I believe it is imperative though, no matter what our theology (dispensational or covenant) is as Christians, that we resolve this issue of how to relate to forming a political party.

The same thing should be for a "Christian" political party. It must be separate from the church to be effective in bringing in other churches, sects, within the realm of Christendom and uniting them in unified protection under a civil government.

If a religious sect or church or theological distinctive has its own political party by means of a religious test for its distinctives, it can gain no more adherents than those who believe its tenets. How then could it ever gain any chance of being a protector of the nation and freedom of conscience for others? It would have to establish its own nation, and the nation would have religious law mixed in with civil law. In time corrupt church leaders would have the power of the sword and those disagreeing would have to leave the country.

It is what is in the platform that counts. Allegiance to a church is church business. Civil law, the platform, is the fruit of religious faith, and thus related to it- but it is independent of that faith. The fruit, (the platform) can be recognized as good even by those who are not of that faith. The law is written in men's hearts.(Romans 2:15)

The "Christian" party's platform can be as strict as the law of God is based on the teachings which come from the members church, faith, denomination, theological persuasion, etc.. Again, this teaching though is not church doctrine, i.e. church discipline, baptism, personal salvation, marriage, communion procedures. The party's political policies and laws are there for all to see. If as in the case of Nevada - they don't wish to hold to it- then they must be removed. It is not because they are Mormon, but because they have not adhered to the platform.

Here I agree with you, but then there are other things at work within the party. I also don't believe that States pulling out of the Constitution Party since Nevada hasn't been forced out is a way to go since all they will be doing is to weaken the party stance and the platform that they hold dear.
In essence giving folks that have a position similar to Nevada more of a say since they will have less votes against them. I at times have a real problem with some of the things I see within the Constitution Party. Some members believe that this is a Christian only party and have acted in ways to cut out others not of the Christian faith which is not where the Constitution Leads us nor is it where I believe the Constitution Party should be at. I've seen proposals such as to run for office or to hold a state office you would have to uphold that party platform and the bylaws and the Constitution but also you would have to uphold The Holy Bible King James Version. Thank God this proposal was voted down, yet it was passed in a more watered down version. We aren't the Bible Party we are very much so the Constitution Party and as such we need to make certain that our party meets the same criteria that the Constitution does. I'm quite sure that as many faiths have room under our Constitution we must also allow room for many faiths in our party and we can do so without compromising our party and without compromising our platform or any of our planks. Limiting our party to basically one religion is similar to shooting ourselves in the foot. Yet when I requested why couldn't we uphold the biblical principals as put forward by the Constitution I was told that wasn't good enough and that was when the watered down version of if the Bible that you believe in is taught by a church then that is the Bible you'd be expected to uphold. Just as the Government in the United States isn't supposed to uphold one religion over another I don't believe that our political party should uphold one religion over another either.

Here in Montana it was brought up that many feel that the Nevada incident is changing the platform without actually having it changed. Perhaps if the National Party reaffirms that they still plan to be 100% pro-Life then some of the ones that left would breath a bit easier and return though I also see it as some folks now fear a more centralized affiliation since this has happened on one issue could it happen on others. Don't get me wrong in my opinion Nevada should be disafilliated but leaving the party because they weren't is surrendering the ship to those that will sink it.Thanks for letting me put my thoughts out there for comment.

[Joe_Liberty]

The following is excerpted from the July newsletter of Missionaries to the Pre-born I just received. The author is Dan Holman:

Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin. Deuteronomy 24:16



Dear Friends, July, 2006

We have less appreciation for our posterity without knowledge of our ancestry. Mark Humphrys, a genealogy enthusiast and professor of computer science at Dublin City University in Ireland has discovered royal roots in almost every person. "The number of people with unprovable descents must be massive," he says, By the same token, for every king in a person's family tree there are thousands and thousands of nobodies whose births, deaths and lives went completely unrecorded by history. We'll never know about them, because until recently vital records were a rarity for all but the noble classes. Humphrys surmises that It works the other way, too. Anybody who had children more than a few hundred years ago is likely to have millions of descendants today, and quite a few famous ones.

There are no nobodies. A scoundral can be the father or grandfather of a great man or woman. Norman Rockwells Family Tree demonstrates this fact. The boy at the top is the descendant of cowboys and Indians, preachers and pirates, Union and Confederates, good and bad people.

Baby-killing enthusiasts would have us believe that the offspring of a wicked person is also wicked. Yet the Bible shows us that good kings can be the offspring of wicked kings, and wicked kings can descend from good kings. Hezekiah, son of Ahaz, was the son of a very wicked king, Hezekiah was a very good king. Hezekiahs son Manasseh succeed him; Manasseh was a very wicked king indeed!

I know lots of good men and women who came from broken homes and bad parentage; I also know lots of bad people who came from good homes. Humanists presume that bad invironment or bad upbringing is responsible for the ills of human behavior. If a person came from a broken home he is more likely to lead a life of crime, and spawn undesirables like himself. Yet adversity and hardship often contribute to postive attributes to human character.

Planned Parenthood recieves hundreds of millions of dollars every year from private and public funding. Every year more tax money is alloted for Title X, more private funding is giving by Warren Buffet, Ted Turner, Bill Gates and their ilk to fullfill Hitlers dream of ridding the planet of human weeds. They know not what they do. They know what but not who they are aborting.



There are lots of success stories about people who rose from rags to riches, yet a person is not less worthy of the right of life because he is an average or below average Joe. The Bible teaches that God is no respecter of persons. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution affirm that all are entitled to equal protection under the law.

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; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Declaration of Independence

We have abandoned these truths. Most Americans cheerfully support unconstitutional baby-killing policies.

I have worked with the Constitution Party these past 14 years to restore the rights of the unborn. On April 22, 2006 , the Constitution Party betrayed those principals by allowing their Nevada affiliate to embrace rape, incest, life of the mother, and fetal deformity exceptions. Howard Phillips, founder of the Constitution Party, sided with Nevada .

Oregon and New York have disaffiliated from the CP. Ohio has withdrawn, but is still affiliated (???). 32 other states are considering disaffiliation. There are good men and women in each state affiliate. The Constitution Party of Idaho has sided with Nevada on allowing exceptions for abortion. Marvin Pro-life Richardson was voted out of his candidacy for governor of Idaho by what remains of the Constitution Party of Idaho.

Few of us realized that those whom we worked with were willing to sell out the babies for power. It is good to have periodic trials to reveal the hearts of men. Something far more pure should rise out of the ashes of the Constitution Party.



It is disheartening to discover treachery inside our ranks. We become partakers of that treachery when we associate and support those who betray the babies. Do we not make ourselves enemies of God? What sort of violence is wrought not by the abortion industry or deceitful politicians as by those who claim to represent the best interest of the babies, yet support their killers? Pro-life advocates continue to support the Republican Party in spite of its consistent betrayal of the babies. One can only surmise that these pretenders are also traitors. A wolf in sheeps clothing is a wolf still.