(11-29-2008 10:29 AM)Jemdude Wrote:  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.

Excellent points to be considered Jemdude.

The fact is, our government already "is" immoral or "amoral" with regard to it's historical beginnings. Thus, the need for and the significance of the Constitutional Party's plank that you have just quoted (above.)

I agree that the Constitution Party has to walk on a razors edge to distance itself from the GOP without taking it too far.

As a matter of fact, I believe that the plank you quoted is just such an example of taking it too far.

I would have worded the plank like this; "Join the Constitution Party in its work to restore our government to its Constitutional limits and our laws to a more Constitutionally sound foundation."


--Chuz

The only way to make the party, Tenable...

is to have a better, clear plateform.. with plans.. which solve the underlying problems... and make it possible to restore the constitution without causing an economic colapse...

I can provide this..

Should I run for president?

Who will support me?

-MEMAT

The Constitution Party is very different from the Republican Party. Not just razor thin, Republicans are pro-un-Constitutional Wars, pro-police state, pro-military industrial complex, pro-prison industrial complex, pro-BIG PHARMA.

The Constitution Party is anti-un-Constitutional wars, pro-limited government, pro-military, pro-law support; meaning they would actually put the CIA to work doing other things rather than shipping in drugs to destroy towns and cities with excuses for more police presence.

Let's not forget the Bilderbergers own the Republicans, Democrats and when need be the Libertarians.

I was until May 2008 undecided between the 2 parties Libertarians and Constitutionalists. However that all changed when Bob Barr an ex-Republican ran on the Libertarian Party ticket with little opposition. That pretty much sealed the deal there. That and Alex Jones had Chuck on and he was more in tune with Ron Paul was campaigning on.

---

http://www.cpflorida.com/platform.html

---

http://www.cpflorida.com/platform.html

I agree with the idea of making the CP platform more action-based. Perhaps the national one needs to stay the way it is (with minimal revision, of course) in order to provide an umbrella for the state parties to fall under - sort of like the national constitution vs. state constitutions.

That's why I think every state party needs to create a platform that has action items. We're trying to convince people that were raised with nationalist beliefs into joining state parties - and then our state parties just regurgitate the national party platform. This is unhelpful.

We must find the issues that are unique to our states and put them in a platform in an attempt to unite Republicans, Democrats, and independents. In NJ, we are creating our state platform and I am proposing to make sure we add to take down our tolls, end taxpayer-funding of state pensions, etc. - actual, specific goals that anger ALL the parties.

I am a christian, but after reading the preamble of the cp, it does sound a little to much like the " christian party. " We need to keep our faith in GOD as the founders of the constitution did, but the wording of the preamble, in my opinion, will prevent others interested in finding a platform they can believe in, from joining this one. It just sounds to much like your going to force this faith down their throats. I think we can all have our own religious beliefs, without the threat of offending other beliefs, and still agree on the rest of the platform. Our faith and beliefs will show, by our words and our actions, to defend the constitution, the country, and the people of this great land.

(11-30-2008 05:32 PM)WeWantLiberty Wrote:  I agree with the idea of making the CP platform more action-based. Perhaps the national one needs to stay the way it is (with minimal revision, of course) in order to provide an umbrella for the state parties to fall under - sort of like the national constitution vs. state constitutions.

That's why I think every state party needs to create a platform that has action items. We're trying to convince people that were raised with nationalist beliefs into joining state parties - and then our state parties just regurgitate the national party platform. This is unhelpful.

We must find the issues that are unique to our states and put them in a platform in an attempt to unite Republicans, Democrats, and independents. In NJ, we are creating our state platform and I am proposing to make sure we add to take down our tolls, end taxpayer-funding of state pensions, etc. - actual, specific goals that anger ALL the parties.

Great idea. That is how things were done before the age of massive TV slogan propaganda and Internet Obama-bots.

Also, I have to concur with some of you on the whole Christian theme. I am a Christian myself, but I have to admit that the phrase "original Biblical common-law foundations" in the national party's mission statement can be a turn-off for a lot of people (not for me though!).

Marketing is important. Do not see it as compromising principles, see it as picking battles. It does not matter how principled we are in our own eyes if we put ourselves in a position where we can do nothing to fix our country.

(12-15-2008 11:39 PM)Jim Learn Wrote:  "... We need to keep our faith in GOD as the founders of the constitution did, but the wording of the preamble, in my opinion, will prevent others interested in finding a platform they can believe in, from joining this one. It just sounds to much like your going to force this faith down their throats. I think we can all have our own religious beliefs, without the threat of offending other beliefs, and still agree on the rest of the platform. Our faith and beliefs will show, by our words and our actions..."

Thanks Jim, these have been my sentiments exactly!

we must write... a better preabmble.. which I am attempting to do.

-MEMAT

(12-16-2008 07:25 PM)Mosheh Thezion Wrote:  we must write... a better preabmble.. which I am attempting to do.

-MEMAT

Same here, Memat.

I'm sure that many of us are.

very good.. perhaps.. a colaberation then...

I will post my results and suggestions for a rewrite here, once I send it off to the committee, and hopefully you can do the same, and a larger mutual rewrite ... can be written at that time... or ... I.. we.. could be laughed at.

ha.

-MEMAT