Liberty MavenThe Bible, Baldwin and Bob Barr
June 19th, 2008 9:18 pm | by Marc Gallagher | Published in Activism, Bob Barr, Constitution, Election, Libertarianism, Liberty, Philosophy, Politics, Religion, Ron Paul | 7 Responses
An article published at the Nolan Chart sums up beautifully the problems many of us have with the Constitution Party as an extender of Ron Paul’s liberty message. The article also points out the shortcomings of Bob Barr’s voting record. Here is an excerpt.
To think that freedom is borne from this book as anything more than coincidence is to either not fully understand the Bible or to engage in willful ignorance of its edicts.
Let’s face it – the Bible is a tome of intolerance. It demands complete compliance by virtue of the “fact” that it was supposedly given to us by an unseen, unheard from, absentee-landlord of a god. It condones some of the most despicable acts known to humans, to include genocide (1 Samuel 15:2-3), discrimination against women (too many to mention, but start with I Corinthians 14:34-35), and blind obedience to the state (Romans 13:1-2). To base a “freedom” movement on this book is only slightly better than basing that same movement on the ramblings of Pol Pot.
It is in the shadow of this book not the rights of humanity – that the Constitution Party platform lies.
Follow LM on Twitter
June 19th, 2008 at 9:41 pm (#)
I am not pleased at all with these types of articles. I am the chair for the Libertarian Party in my county…and I am a Christian. You are hurting the Libertarian Party when you post junk like this and I am going to send this article to my state chair. You best stop . You WILL hurt Bob Barr and the LP with this nonsense. Jazzloversinc (free speech with responsibility…would you say this about the TORAH??? which is part of the Holy Bible by the way!!!!!!!)
June 20th, 2008 at 8:02 am (#)
Jazzloversinc,
I’m sorry if it hurts Bob Barr to post links to articles like this. That was not my intent. I also apologize to you personally as it seems to offend you. That also was not my intent.
The article on the Nolan Chart is an opinion piece. It does not speak for anyone’s opinion but the author. While I don’t necessarily agree with some of the author’s points, his overall point is something I do agree with–the Constitution Party makes religion a very important part of their party platform and that is something I have serious questions about.
The author was attempting to point out that liberty and religion can be at odds with one another rather than compliment each other. I think this is an important thing to consider when comparing the Libertarian Party and the Constitution Party.
-Marc
June 20th, 2008 at 9:51 am (#)
Ok…there is a nicer one with the same message that you could post. I will send it to you. It makes the comparison in a gentle way. I don’t want to hurt Bob Barr (who is a Methodist) or the LP. Thank you for your response. jazzloversinc
June 20th, 2008 at 9:58 am (#)
This is from the LP website:
LP vs. CP
posted by Andrew Davis on Jun 13, 2008
We often get emails at Libertarian Party headquarters asking what exactly are the differences between the Libertarian Party and the Constitution Party. The confusion is understandable, especially for party outsiders who are just beginning to look at either as a new political home. The question of the differences in the parties has become even more frequent as Ron Paul supporters are looking for a new home after Paul’s announcement that he is discontinuing his campaign.
After all, there is very little in the Republican Party or Democratic Parties that would make a Paul supporter feel welcome or at home.
On the surface, the LP and the CP appear to be quite similar. The very name of the Constitution Party appeals to the libertarian-leaning voter looking for a political party dedicated towards returning to a government strictly bound by the Constitution–as the Libertarian Party wishes for also. Additionally, the LP and the CP are very close on issues like foreign policy, Second Amendment rights, economic policy and health care.
However, beyond their initial similarities on the surface, a more in-depth look at the two parties shows profound differences in both platform and ideology.
The most acute difference between the two parties, and one that will explain much of the content in this article, can be found in the preambles of the two parties.
Constitution Party:
The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States. We hereby appeal to Him for mercy, aid, comfort, guidance and the protection of His Providence as we work to restore and preserve these United States.
This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been and are afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.
The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries.
Libertarian Party:
As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.
We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.
Consequently, we defend each person’s right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.
From the get-go, the differences of the two parties are quite obvious. At its very roots, the Constitution Party is unabashedly a party of Christian philosophy and spirituality, where as the Libertarian Party remains much more secular in its composition and values.
The best example of this can be found in objectives of the CP and LP, which are “to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations” and “to build [a world] where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power,” respectively.
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).
Take for instance the CP’s views on gambling: “Gambling promotes an increase in crime, destruction of family values, and a decline in the moral fiber of our country.” To their credit, the CP does not say that government should outlaw this behavior although their rhetoric strongly suggests they’d like to see it abolished. Instead, the Constitution Party calls for government to refrain from officially participating in gambling–for apparent moral reasons–by eliminating lotteries and ceasing to subsidize “Indian casinos in the name of economic development.”
Other issues like pornography (”Pornography, at best, is a distortion of the true nature of sex created by God…We call on our local, state and federal governments to uphold our cherished First Amendment right to free speech by vigorously enforcing our laws against obscenity to maintain a degree of separation between that which is truly speech and that which only seeks to distort and destroy”) and the judiciary (”We particularly support all the legislation which would remove from Federal appellate review jurisdiction matters involving acknowledgement of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government) diverge quite distinctly from the LP philosophy.
However, the biggest difference between the two parties, and one that is the best manifestation of the diametric difference of philosophies on the role of government in society, relates to the issue of gay rights.
The Constitution Party, in pursuit of their goal to “restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations,” takes a very different approach towards homosexuality than that of the Libertarian Party. The platform of the CP states that “the law of our Creator defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman,” and “no government may legitimately authorize or define marriage or family relations contrary to what God has instituted.”
The CP also does not believe the government should recognize civil unions for gay couples.
While Libertarians hold many different views on the issue of gay marriage, with some believing marriage, both straight and gay, should not be an issue for government and others believing that gay marriage should be recognized so long as straight marriage is recognized–Libertarians believe “government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships.”
One might remember the saying in grade-school geometry that “all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.” Well, the same can be said of libertarians and Constitution Party members. Many Constitution Party members are libertarians, in some way, shape or form. However, there are very few Libertarians–if any at all–that would comfortably identify themselves as ascribing to the Constitution Party platform.
There is a simple explanation for this: Christian members of the Libertarian Party recognize that the basis of their religion is the idea of free will and volition, and that their morality does not need to be reinforced or supported by government laws or coercion. 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.
Perhaps the Constitution Party has more optimism for the functionality of a quasi-theocracy in regards to respect for the Constitution and the freedom to live, but seeing the corruption of the “Christian right” in the Republican Party, their optimism seems far too romanticized. While it is in the Christian ideology that followers of this faith should be testaments to the power of the message and should evangelize to all people of the earth, none (at least those who believe in a libertarian-element to the religion) believe this call to evangelize can be replaced by a call to legislate.
This, indeed, is the tragic fallacy of most Christians in politics, and one that poisons the Constitution Party’s platform.
For a party that believes so strongly in the Constitution and preserving its authority, it is puzzling that the CP takes the position that God’s law is supreme to Constitutional authority in the government. Many Christians, including myself, do believe that God’s law always is supreme to the law of man when the two conflict; however, the difference is that this belief is made at a personal level, and would not expect the same to apply to government.
In order for the authority of the Constitution to remain intact, there can be nothing in government that undermines its supremacy. It was this very problem that sparked the beginnings of the American Revolution. When the British Constitution no longer was supreme, and parliament could pass laws that trumped the laws of this (unwritten) Constitution, the authority of that document was destroyed.
This is one logical incongruity that the Constitution Party fails to answer when it comes to both religious freedom and the people’s right to be free in their lives from government. The problem is only amplified by the Constitution Party’s lack of positions on privacy issues as it relates to how citizens live their lives.
It should be said that there is some grounds for what the Constitution Party believes that can be traced back to the founding of the nation. The role of religion and government together were widely discussed; however, the general conclusion of our founding fathers may be best encapsulated in this quotation from James Madison:
The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without a legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be supported. A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical Religion, to social harmony, and to political prosperity.
In order for a society to be free, and a religion to remain uncorrupt, there must be a distinct separation between the two. While it is a mistake on one side to believe that our politicians must divorce themselves of all their religious and moral beliefs before taking office, it is another to suggest that our political leaders should use their own personal precept of morality as a template for laws that apply to an entire nation.
Thomas Jefferson said that truth would stand on its own regardless of whether it has the support of the government. Therefore, there is no need for the government to define and establish what this truth is.
The Libertarian Party wants a world where all individual are free to live their lives in peace, without interference from the government or their fellow man. This entails a tolerance of many other lifestyles, though not approval or acceptance (a key distinction), because it will be recognized that nobody should dictate anything else through law but freedom. Should society turn into a Christian society through this freedom, then so be it. It will at least be done through the volition and consent of all others.
There would be no element of coercion, and that is what any true Constitutionalist should strive to achieve.
- – - – -
Author’s Note: I would like to emphasize that this is not an attempt to distort or misconstrue any belief or position of the Constitution Party. I have tried my best to remain objective and present their positions exactly how I believe the Party to stand based upon their platform and messaging. This article is simply to illustrate the ideological differences between two political parties that are often associated together. Comments on this article can be sent to Andrew.davis@lp.org.
June 20th, 2008 at 3:12 pm (#)
Marc, in your article you stated “An article published at the Nolan Chart sums up beautifully the problems many of us have with the Constitution Party” but when questioned by Jazzloversinc you back peddled “While I don’t necessarily agree with some of the author’s points, his overall point is something I do agree with”. Which one is true?
As far as the Christian religion not being compatable with freedom, that is absurd! Where do you think our founding fathers got most of there principles? Certainly not from the French revolution. They took them from the Bible. They acknowledged that our “Rights” were given by the Christian God who this Nolan character wants to liken to Pol Pot. If it were not for Jesus and the christian faith we would be like other heathen countries around the world where human life is of no value and the one who has the power rules. We would have no rights and no liberty.
With true liberty and freedom comes responsibility. You cannot allow people to do what ever feels good no matter how evil and think there will be no consequenses. A wise Frenchman once said America is great because America is good, when America ceases to be good she will cease to be great. Some libertarians carry this idea of freedom to such an extreem that almost anything goes. That is not what our founding fathers had in mind, read there works and examine the laws of their day. The Constitution Party is not trying to write every law into the Constitution but they do stand for what they believe is right and would try and influence local election just as our forefathers did. If you think we should allow homosexual marriages, killing unborn babies, pornography in our schools, polegamy, sex with kids, or who knows what else in America you can think that. I don’t! And I will do what I can to pass laws to stop it.
Geno
June 20th, 2008 at 6:00 pm (#)
Jazzlover… Thanks for that article. That is a good one.
Geno,
You may call that backpedaling. I call it clarifying. I thought the linked article was well written (ie. the use of the adjective “beautiful”). The author backed up his assertions with actual citations from the Bible.
I have no problem with individuals believing in any religion they wish. My own individual view is that those beliefs should not be thrust upon the populace by our elected officials. It’s one thing to be “moral”. It is another to push morality on to others by the force of religion and government. Doing so is not conducive to a “free” society.
One can certainly be individually “moral” without religion. And naturally that means being against “sex with kids”, “pornography in our schools”, and a few of the other things you mentioned.
Here is a highly recommended related essay:
http://thisibelieve.org/dsp_ShowEssay.php?topessays=25&uid=34
Enjoy.
June 20th, 2008 at 7:53 pm (#)
Marc,
Sorry I misunderstood your usage of “beatiful”. When you said “sums up beautifully the problems” I thought you were referring to how he explained the problems and that you agreed with him. Not “beatiful” as in how well written it was.
As to the idea that “It’s one thing to be “moral”. It is another to push morality on to others by the force of religion and government. Doing so is not conducive to a “free” society.” I disagree. Without “pushing” morals on a society it will never be free. What you call “pushing”
morals on society is what is called “LAWS”. Laws protect society from the will of those who would abuse others. Without law and it’s enforcement we have anarchy. Murder is a moral issue, some people feel it is ok to murder for money, drugs and etc. Should we allow people to murder or “push” our morals on them. Many Americans believe killing a baby in the womb is wrong, others disagree. One group or the other is going to be “pushed”. What you are really arguing for is that we accept your interpetation of what is ok and lets ignore those who have a different set of morals. It does not matter wheather we have more moral restraint (we are wrong) or less moral restraint (we are wrong) You want to be god and set the rules. I have a God who set the rules and he is the same God who gave us the “Rights” mentioned in the first ten amendments to our Constitution. If you don’t believe in Him, fine. If you don”t want to follow, fine. But don’t quote someone who says He is no different than Pol Pot and say that is “beatiful”. Our founders knew better and founded this great country on His principiles. Principiles of individual justice, responsibility and yes even freedom.
Geno