I agree. We are made up of so much more.

What I think is being argued is that by saying in our platform that we want to invoke Jesus' guidance for us - even though that is true - this gives us a false image to non-members. I am not ashamed, since I need Jesus' "mercy, aid, comfort, guidance and the protection of His Providence" for everything that I do throughout eternity.

Again, having said that - maybe we need to use this forum to explain ourselves a little better to non-Christians and non-religious people that share our governmental views. I think our actions - and the conduct of our candidates - scream out the fact that Jesus guides our lives as party members. But again - even if our platform did not have this section, if everything else remained the same, I would still be here and still supporting it. The religious aspect did nothing for my decision - it was all about the Constitution.

Hi all, I'm so glad to find that the CP has a forum!

I too am signing onto the CP, reluctantly.

I have some serious concerns about the amount weight given towards religion (primarily Christianity) in the platform.

I am a Christian, myself.... born and raised. I am not offended by Christians or even by the platform itself.... as it is currently worded.

However, as I understand it.... the intent is to build the "Constitution Party" not the "Christian Party." Correct?

So, can anyone tell me what the harm would be in re-wording the "Constitution Party" platform in a way that respects "all" religions (including Christianity) but provides a more secular, scientific and logical basis for each individual plank?

Example: Abortion. It's my (and many conservatives) number one issue. But, I don't need religion, or a relationship with "God" for me to recognize the biological facts that show that a child's life begins at and by their individual conception... Do you?

And I don't need religion or "God" in my life... in order for me to recognize the faces, fingers and toes and other human attributes of those aborted.... Do you?

And I don't need religion or "God" in my life for me to see that the 4th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution (as written) should be interpreted so as to include and to protect the lives of all... equally; and not be interpreted as a means to exclude the rights of anyone.... Do you?

Does anyone?

So, why not have the platform reflect these realities?

--Chuz Life

(11-25-2008 11:13 AM)Chuz Life Wrote:  Hi all, I'm so glad to find that the CP has a forum!

I too am signing onto the CP, reluctantly.

I have some serious concerns about the amount weight given towards religion (primarily Christianity) in the platform.

I am a Christian, myself.... born and raised. I am not offended by Christians or even by the platform itself.... as it is currently worded.

However, as I understand it.... the intent is to build the "Constitution Party" not the "Christian Party." Correct?

So, can anyone tell me what the harm would be in re-wording the "Constitution Party" platform in a way that respects "all" religions (including Christianity) but provides a more secular, scientific and logical basis for each individual plank?

Example: Abortion. It's my (and many conservatives) number one issue. But, I don't need religion, or a relation ship with "God" for me to recognize the biological facts that show that a child's life begins at and by their individual conception... Do you?

And I don't need religion or "God" in my life... in order for me to recognize the faces, fingers and toes and other human attributes of those aborted.... Do you?

And I don't need religion or "God" in my life for me to see that the 4th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution (as written) should be interpreted so as to include and to protect the lives of all... equally; and not be interpreted as a means to exclude the rights of anyone.... Do you?

Does anyone?

So, why not have the platform reflect these realities?

--Chuz Life

It is exciting to know that the individuals that visit this forum care enough about the details as to read the CST platform. I wonder how many people who join the Democratic-Republican party read the details describing their core beliefs. Thank you for being a student. I, too, am among many who see pro-life as a non-nogotialbe when it comes to voting. I also believe that the wording of the platform can be changed and yet drive home the same points. Since you are a pro-life advocate, you may already know this, but were you aware that the woman's body 'attacks' the foreign body (i.e., the fetus) during pregnancy? This is good support to dismiss the argument that "it is a women's body and she can do as she chooses". Well, if it were her body, why is she attacking it so? I recommend people go to http://www.AmswersInGenesis.org for the science behind my 30,000 flyover.....click on "Get Answers". Just to make it quicker, here is the link: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004...ortion.asp

(11-25-2008 01:03 PM)Constitutional Craig Wrote:  (a) It is exciting to know that the individuals that visit this forum care enough about the details as to read the CST platform. (b) I wonder how many people who join the Democratic-Republican party read the details describing their core beliefs. © Thank you for being a student. (d) I, too, am among many who see pro-life as a non-nogotialbe when it comes to voting. (e) I also believe that the wording of the platform can be changed and yet drive home the same points. (f) Since you are a pro-life advocate, you may already know this, but were you aware that the woman's body 'attacks' the foreign body (i.e., the fetus) during pregnancy?

Hi Craig, I have to address your points like this because it actually saves me a little time.

a: Thanks!

b: I have to admit, I was a republican that never took the time to read the platform, myself. But I'm not that trusting any more.

c: You're welcome.

d: First of all, I am not "pro-life." I am "anti-abortion." There is a significant difference in that I accept that there are (or can be) Constitutional justifications for the taking of a person's life... namely, self defense, defense of others, war, and (after due process) the death penalty. Second to that, I'm not sure what you mean by "non negotiable where voting is concerned." Can you ellaborate?

e: Excellent!

f: Actually, that's only the case if the woman has "Toxemia" as my wife did when our daughter was born. In a normal pregnancy, the mother/baby relationship is known as being "symbiotic"

But as the definition of "symbiosis" states:
1: Biology a. the living together of two dissimilar organisms, as in mutualism, commensalism, amensalism, or parasitism.

2: A relationship of mutual benefit or dependence.

3: Psychoanalysis. the relationship between an infant and its mother in which the infant is dependent on the mother both physically and emotionally.

You can't make much more of a compelling case for your point than that!

--Chuz

Yes, a quick reply. I am 100% pro-INNOCENT life. There is a difference between a new-born baby and the recidivists that we often read about on the news. As far as the mother-babyrelationship is concerned, I would add that the DNA of the mother is not the same as that of the baby. if it is, we have cloning going on Happy Thanksgiving everyone!!!

(11-11-2008 06:01 PM)WhoisJohnGalt Wrote:  2) Get away from being a Christian Party.---- I myself am a Christian however my Christianity is a reflection of my philosophy not the other way around. Taking the Philosophical principles which lead people to believe in Christianity and make that your starting point (otherwise you are putting the cart before the horse). by being a Christian only party we isolate possible allies such as jews or even Atheists who agree with our principles but are put off by our in your face Christian agenda. The fundamental principle of Christianity is the belief in an Objective truth.

This issue has been controversial in my party as well. The Christian Heritage Party of Canada is Christian party where every member has to be a Christian. We still have support from non-Christian religious members who hold family values similar to Christians who are just as fed up with politically correct garbage as the rest of us.

The danger that some in my party are worried about if we were to drop the Christian requirement is that we might end up not taking the moral issues as seriously as we do now and that we would end up being no better than the Conservative Party. If the CP were to drop or water down the Christian aspect, there is a danger that the CP might become Republican party #2 instead of the pro-life, pro-family party that the CP is known for. There is a Family Coalition Party of Ontario that is pro-life, pro-family and anybody regardless of religion can join, so it may be possible, but you would have to find some way to insure that the moral issues are still given top priority if you guys were to decide to become a political party that anyone of any religion could join.

Anyone of any religion can join us. We do not care what religious affiliation you are.

Ray

(11-28-2008 12:55 AM)Raymond Wrote:  Anyone of any religion can join us. We do not care what religious affiliation you are.

Ray

That's good. If the question is whether to tone down the Christian nature of your message, I would say no to that. Many pro-life organizations, even though they accept people of all religions or no religion that agree with their pro-life views, are still predominantly Christian in their membership. That's just a fact of life.

(11-28-2008 12:55 AM)Raymond Wrote:  Anyone of any religion can join us. We do not care what religious affiliation you are. Ray

Thanks for stating that, Ray.

Now, if we could only get the wording of the platform to reflect that sentiment. As it is currently written, it comes off as "the Christian way or the highway." And as I said before.... that's fine with me if the goal is to form a "Christian Party."

But If the goal is to form (and grow) the "Constitution party" I'm afraid the current wording falls short of expressing the sentiment that you have just shown (above.)

I'm just a newbie member... I know that my voice is but one of many on the subject.... But I would like to find a political party that decidedly adheres to the Constitution and embraces the basic tenants of Conservatism and the basic principles all religions equally.... But within the bounds and limits of the Constitution itself.

In my opinion, the "Christians first" crowd (those who can't or won't be convinced that this party has to be (politically) "Constitution first") need to find another home. Or they need to create a "Christian Party."

I don't deny the religious aspects to our nations' history. And I appreciate the importance of having a religious identity that many religious people (of all faiths) seem to have.

In my opinion, The Constitution Party has to make up its' mind really soon as to whether it is going to truly be the "Constitution" party... or the "Christian Party" using the "Conservative party" name as though the two are synonymous.

The tenants of the "Constitution" party should begin and end with the confines of the Constitution itself.... Not the Bible, Koran, Book or Mormons, or any other religious text.

I am part of a Christian political party here in Canada, but there is a big misunderstanding of what a Christian party is. A Christian party is not a church. A Christian party is not trying to convert other people to Christianity (we are politicians, not evangelists). What a Christian political party is, is a party that is trying to restore Christian principles in government. We believe in separation of church and state, but it was never meant to mean separation of morality from government; since that would lead to an immoral government and I'm sure you don't want that.

The Constitution Party may not be a Christian party, but you do use wording that implies that, as it says on your website:

Quote:Join the Constitution Party in its work to restore our government to its Constitutional limits and our law to its Biblical foundations

What direction you all want to take the party is up to you guys. But I warn you. If you water down the Christian aspect to your party (whether it is official or not), your party will end up being one that will take moral issues less seriously and will not be much different from the Republican party. You will pretty much become another Republican party under a different name.