See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: Why some people are terrified of CHUCK BALDWIN
Source:
LibertyPost
URL Source: http://libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=234674&Disp=9#C9
Published: Aug 16, 2008
Author: thangdatrang
Post Date: 2008-08-16 21:56:43 by Rotara
Keywords: None
Views: 1852
Comments: 171
Because Chuck Baldwin says: I PUT THE AMERICAN ECONOMY FIRST, NOT THE GLOBAL ECONOMY Poster Comment: Come, anti-Christians, and spew your bile here you sorry mixed bag of LOSERS! ;-)
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-102) not displayed.
.
.
.
#103. To: buckeye (#102)
buck, I used the phrase "constitutionally inappropriate" not unconstitutional - and a pastor as President, as head of state, is constitutionally inappropriate - it would not be in keeping with the spirit, the vision of our Founding Fathers for our fair nation
The American revolution was preached from pulpits across the colonies. The First Great Awakening had a strong role in firing the colonial mind. A pastor who could raise similar awareness today would be invaluable.
But a pastor in the Oval Office would make him part of the establishment rulers, right, as opposed to the scenario you described wherein religious leaders were outside the establishment and were not part of the problem that needed to be changed . Furthermore a pastor in the Oval Office would alienate not coalesce the public at large - in America today, there are people of different faiths, different versions of Christianity itself.
I'm talking about the ideal pastor with a true commitment to liberty, including a solid and proven track record of criticizing government meddling in cases of religious liberty, as well as governments being used as tools for achieving religious dominionism. In practice, I might tend to side with you.
Indeed. ...Revolutionary America's most famous orator, Patrick Henry, called patriots to arms in cadences borrowed from itinerant evangelists. Religion played other important roles in mobilizing support for Revolution regardless of whether it was evangelical or not. Colonists often encountered Revolutionary themes for the first time when local ministers announced the latest news from the pulpit or when parishioners exchanged information after Sunday meetings. Ministers occupied an important place in the colonial communications network throughout the eighteenth century, especially in towns where few people had access to newspapers and official information was dispensed from the pulpit or lectern. Sunday afternoons provided a convenient time for men who had already gathered for worship to form militia units and drill, and many ministers used their sermons to motivate the minutemen. Israel Litchfield, a young Massachusetts minuteman, recorded that his local minister keyed biblical texts and sermon themes to the great events of 1775. Reverend Ebenezer Grosvenor situated the people of Scituate within a cosmic drama pitting the New English Israel against red-coated enemies of God, and urged the militiamen who would drill that afternoon to prepare well for the conflict. In Virginia's Shenendoah Valley the Lutheran minister John Peter Gabriel Muhlenberg concluded a Sunday sermon of 1775 by throwing back his ministerial robe to reveal a military uniform, rolling the drum for Patriot recruits, and leading them out for drill. Few ministers matched Muhlenberg's flair for drama, but many throughout the colonies used their pulpits to mobilize resistance. THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION AND THE RELIGIOUS PUBLIC SPHERE The fact is that preachers played a major role in the American Revolution against England. Anyone who denies this doesn't know much American history.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Do you assume that there is not even one honorable man who, if elected to office, would not roll over and play dead or go along to get along? I sincerely doubt that Chuck Baldwin could be controlled by the folks who control Bush and who will control McCain and/or Obama.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Imo, they're all state issues. They all are like honey to single issue knuckle-draggers, have nothing to do with economics or defense. They provide fodder for demagogues thereby allowing fringers to decide elections.
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
In practice, I might tend to side with you. But buck, Pastor Baldwin is not an intellectual ideal construct. He is a real person, who is a pastor of a specific congregation. He carries very distinct biases and priorities as a result of his religious affiliation that are in conflict with constitutional principles, both against the spirit, the vision of the Founding Fathers who themselves were largely deists as well as against the legal applications of the constitution today. He could not represent America or Americans as a result. He represents his religious flock very well and that's the venue where he'd be best to stay, imo.
You honestly believe that Chuck Baldwin is not a better man and that he would not make a much better president than Obama or McCain???
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Yes I honestly believe that Pastor Baldwin is unsuitable for the Oval Office, a leadership position. He is not an AmericaFirster, frankly. His deficits are different from McCain's or Obama's but a vote for any of the 3 men would be a vote for a lesser of the 3 evils depending on one's perspective on evil.
I strongly suspect that you have read very few, if any, of Chuck Baldwin's articles. He stands head and shoulders above Obama and McCain and would even if they were ten times the men they are (which still wouldn't be a lot).
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. You are correct. I have read little of what the good Baptist pastor has written. What I have read was the article link that robnoel inserted to this thread, wherein Pastor Baldwin defended Ron Paul's position on Israel. But in the course of Pastor Baldwin's argument, he presents half-truths about Israel and about our current government's relationship with Israel. This shows to me that Pastor Baldwin struggles with what he would do, as opposed to what he says should be done. Since Pastor Baldwin could not tell the full truth in the article cited by robnoel, I find that dishonesty disturbing. Our current ME foreign policy is AmericaLast/IsraelFirst. I have no confidence in Pastor Baldwin changing the course that has been set for America starting with LBJ's Administration. Baldwin's religious outlook would interfere and cloud his judgment when it came to reversing America's current ME foreign policy. I have no doubt whatsoever. Obama and McCain have been coopted by lobby groups to maintain status quo in our AmericaLast ME foreign policy. Baldwin has been compromised by his religious mindset. Different influences but the end result is the same in all 3 men. For me, misguided foreign policy is the greatest single threat to America's future. Protecting the unborn blah blah pales in comparison from my point of view. Abortion is not bleeding US blood and treasure in the ME - foreign policy is.
Only someone without vision can see no difference between Chuck Baldwin and the two establishment lunatics, Obama and McCain. I feel sorry for anyone who is so blind.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. My vision is 20/20. I suggest you get yours re-checked. And just because Pastor Baldwin is not a Beltway establishment candidate does not mean he's free of deleterious connections.
Chuck Baldwin has a chance if enough people mistake him as a Baldwin from the family of actors with that name, that's about it. ;-D
With all due respect the stand for life trumps everything else.... "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness " is one of the most famous phrases in the United States Declaration of Independence. These three aspects are listed among the "inalienable rights" of man. Though the commonly known phrase is "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," as written above, the exact quote, as written in the original document is "life, liberty, and the pursuit of personal happiness." Please note nothing about "foreign policy"
It is very obvious the Religious Right has become little more than a propaganda mill for the GOP. In their lust and hunger to sit at the king’s right hand, they are willing to compromise their principles, no matter how important they are to them. As such, it has become a hollow movement. They are now a movement without a cause, except for the chore they take on of advancing the Republican Party.” James Dobson who once said “I would not vote for John McCain under any circumstances” now supports him. How does this make sense? I mean, if family values are a main focus of his movement, how can he condone the shallow, self serving behavior McCain displayed to his first wife when he dumped her for the younger and very rich beer heiress Cindy Hensley? And how does Obama, a man who has been married to the same woman for nearly two decades with two daughters to show for it, “contradict” and “threaten” Dobson’s view of the family? One thing is certain, he and other leaders of this movement will have at least four years in the socio-religious-political wilderness to reflect on the bizarre spectacle they represent to the rest of us and their flock as they try to figure out what they are doing wrong and how not to repeat their role in this upcoming defeat of the GOP in the general election.
Please note nothing about "foreign policy" And I'm sure you would agree that US Constitution - written in 1787, ratified in 1788, and in operation since 1789 - is the written charter which gives the US government its marching orders, so to speak. In the US Constitution, its first three words – “We The People” – confirms that the government of the United States exists to serve American citizens. Israeli citizens are not American citizens. The US government is constitutionally prohibited from serving any citizens outside its own citizenry - Israel is not a US state and therefore Israel's citizens are not the constitutional responsibility of the US government. Unborn fetuses are not US citizens and therefore the US government is not constitutionally obligated to serve them.
Although I agree with you on this Israeli citizens are not American citizens. The US government is constitutionally prohibited from serving any citizens outside its own citizenry - Israel is not a US state and therefore Israel's citizens are not the constitutional responsibility of the US government. This is pure BS Unborn fetuses are not US citizens and therefore the US government is not constitutionally obligated to serve them.
The Founding Fathers saw the dangers of European influence where church and king were intertwined and that's why the Founding Fathers specifically provided for a separation of church and state in their vision for America. Having a Pastor Baldwin figure, or a Rabbi Baldwin figure, or a Cleric Baldwin figure in the White House is antiethical to the Founding Fathers' conceptual dream for America. Furthermore family values are warm fuzzy mushy watch words for a movie script but how do family values help a President to save America from its single worst threat to its future survival - ie foreign entanglements and 24/7 militarism?
Unborn fetuses - until they are born and become independent living creatures born on US soil or born to US citizens - are the responsibility of a Higher Power and the property of its mother. How does the US government have any constitutional standing with regards to an unborn fetus? Frankly I don't understand where you see the US government's obligation to serving the unborn fetus comes from.
They never called for a for a separation of church and state this was taken from a letter written by Jefferson to a Baptist minister....maybe it would serve you to get a copy of Jeffersons Bible
life begins at inception
In 1791, the first Constitutional amendment came into effect. The 1st Amendment is a de facto separation of church and state because it was written to protect its citizens' religious freedom by prohibiting the establishment of an official or exclusive church or sect. My religious freedom would be threatened if the President of the USA - the face of the most powerful elected office in government - were that of a minister, rabbi, or cleric. Perhaps you need to read the text of the Constitution including its Amendments more carefully.
She's an unborn baby butcher too! No way! -end sarcasm-
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
de facto....OK in your interpretation... however its freedom of religion rather than your view freedom from religion..the constitution does not bar a minister, rabbi, or cleric
Biblically speaking that is so. But the Bible is not the Constitution and it is the Constitution that gives our government its marching orders, defining its powers and responsibilities. According to Amendment XIV, it's all PERSONS BORN [as opposed to fetuses unborn] who are named as being citizens of the United States and of the State they reside. Amendment XIV (1868) Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
How can the freedom of ALL US citizens' religious beliefs not be threatened when the head of state is also a RELIGIOUS LEADER - not merely a practitioner - but a religious leader of ONE specific religion? Hello? Don't you see the problem? Perhaps if it were Cleric Baldwin or Father Baldwin as opposed to Pastor Baldwin we were talking about, you might see the problem more clearly.
Granted...however "it's all PERSONS BORN" if you agree that life begins at inception thats a moot point ...no?
The problem I see with your argument is only "Athieists" need apply
and a round and round we go
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
Haaaahahaha! Now you're catching on. ;-)
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
Yeah, right. You see perfectly and know all things. Gotcha.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. This shiite must be revoked immediately.
And it's precisely because of this type of inflammatory statement, that serves no political discourse purpose but is only put forward to be an insult, that causes you to be perceived and summarily dismissed by most posters as a crude brain-addled headcase. Adding "sarcasm" or " ;-) " qualifiers does not transform your mindless droppings into legitimate thoughtful political opinion, btw.
I think you are mistaking my paleocon political sentiments re: how the Constitution defines US government powers and responsibilities with my personal religious beliefs that dictate how scrapper should and does behave. Actually fyi I am not an atheist. But I do not think my personal religious beliefs or your personal religious beliefs have any bearing on what is defined as our government duties by the US Constitution, which, btw, is the world’s longest surviving written charter of government. The Founding Fathers did a pretty good job in formulating the Constitution. I say we should not mess with success.
Sensitivity to Jews is one of the big motivations for our outright elimination of Christian pageantry and observance in public life in the past 30 years. Before that, we were a publicly Christian nation. It might have been somewhat uncomfortable for people who didn't believe the same doctrines as those being expressed, but at least there was consensus as to what communities wanted to observe on holidays and other notable days.
On this we agree however there is always a however our disagreement as you stated you are a "paleocon" a stand for federalism I am on the other side a anti-federalist
Every time you think about posting a pro-Israel remark, just put this nice lady's face in your mind for a moment. Keep in mind that she's what I see when I read your posts. Just letting you know.
Irrelevant to ANYTHING I have ever posted. I don't agree with James Dobson on his flip flop. I wouldn't and won't vote for McCain but I won't vote for your hero Obama either. McCain doesn't care how many he sends off to kill and be killed and Obama doesn't care how many babies are murdered. They are both nothings of the highest order.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Why not?
Negro parents, as a rule, seem disposed not only to give larger liberty to their children than they ought, but they give absolute license in too many instances. In illustration of this fact, in cities particularly, children are allowed to go from their homes in the night-time and wander the streets amid their baleful associations until nine, ten, eleven o'clock and longer. And when they return home they do so unattended... This condition does not obtain alone among children of ignorant and poor parentage, but absence of good manners is also often found among children and youths who have had fair common and high school advantages. -- John Henry Smyth, 1902
Comments (144 - 171) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestOur Constitution rejects religious tests in federal government, for or against any particular affiliation or non-affiliation, or beliefs.
#104. To: scrapper2 (#103)
#105. To: buckeye (#104)
(Edited)
The American revolution was preached from pulpits across the colonies. The First Great Awakening had a strong role in firing the colonial mind. A pastor who could raise similar awareness today would be invaluable.
#106. To: scrapper2 (#105)
But a pastor in the Oval Office would make him part of the establishment rulers...
#107. To: buckeye (#104)
Lord Acton
#108. To: scrapper2 (#105)
But a pastor in the Oval Office would make him part of the establishment rulers, right, as opposed to the scenario you described wherein religious leaders were outside the establishment and were not part of the problem that needed to be changed .
Lord Acton
#109. To: HOUNDDAWG (#13)
Baldwin supports The Defense Of Marriage Act and and a national abortion ban. But, he (says he) believes that medical marijuana is a state issue and the feds shouldn't get involved.
#110. To: buckeye (#106)
(Edited)
I'm talking about the ideal pastor...
#111. To: scrapper2 (#110)
He is a real person, who is a pastor of a specific congregation. He carries very distinct biases and priorities as a result of his religious affiliation that are in conflict with constitutional principles, both against the spirit, the vision of the Founding Fathers who themselves were largely deists as well as against the legal applications of the constitution today. He could not represent America or Americans as a result. He represents his religious flock very well and that's the venue where he'd be best to stay, imo.
Lord Acton
#112. To: James Deffenbach (#111)
You honestly believe that Chuck Baldwin is not a better man and that he would not make a much better president than Obama or McCain???
#113. To: scrapper2 (#112)
Lord Acton
#114. To: James Deffenbach, robnoel, buckeye (#113)
(Edited)
I strongly suspect that you have read very few, if any, of Chuck Baldwin's articles. He stands head and shoulders above Obama and McCain and would even if they were ten times the men they are (which still wouldn't be a lot).
#115. To: scrapper2 (#114)
Lord Acton
#116. To: James Deffenbach (#115)
Only someone without vision can see no difference between Chuck Baldwin and the two establishment lunatics, Obama and McCain. I feel sorry for anyone who is so blind.
#117. To: scrapper2 (#116)
(Edited)
"You only have power over people so long as you don't take everything away from them. But when you've robbed a man of everything he's no longer in your power -- he's free again. Alexander Solzhenitsyn
#118. To: scrapper2 (#114)
#119. To: James Deffenbach (#115)
(Edited)
"You only have power over people so long as you don't take everything away from them. But when you've robbed a man of everything he's no longer in your power -- he's free again. Alexander Solzhenitsyn
#120. To: robnoel (#118)
With all due respect the stand for life trumps everything else.... "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness " is one of the most famous phrases in the United States Declaration of Independence. These three aspects are listed among the "inalienable rights" of man. Though the commonly known phrase is "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," as written above, the exact quote, as written in the original document is "life, liberty, and the pursuit of personal happiness."
#121. To: scrapper2 (#120)
#122. To: Ferret Mike, robnoel (#119)
their lust and hunger to sit at the king’s right hand...I mean, if family values
#123. To: robnoel (#121)
#124. To: scrapper2 (#122)
Founding Fathers specifically provided for a separation of church and state in their vision for America.
#125. To: scrapper2 (#123)
Unborn fetuses - until they are born and become independent living creatures born on US soil or born to US citizens
#126. To: robnoel (#124)
They never called for a for a separation of church and state this was taken from a letter written by Jefferson to a Baptist minister....maybe it would serve you to get a copy of Jeffersons Bible
#127. To: robnoel (#125)
#128. To: scrapper2 (#126)
(Edited)
The 1st Amendment is a de facto separation of church and state
#129. To: robnoel (#125)
#130. To: robnoel (#128)
however its freedom of religion rather than your view freedom from religion..the constitution did not bar a minister, rabbi, or cleric
#131. To: scrapper2 (#129)
and it is the Constitution that gives our government its marching orders, defining its powers and responsibilities.
#132. To: scrapper2 (#130)
How can the freedom of ALL US citizens' religious beliefs not be threatened when the head of state is also a RELIGIOUS LEADER - not merely a practitioner - but a religious leader of ONE specific religion? Hello? Don't you see the problem?
#133. To: robnoel (#131)
(Edited)
Secular Humanists' argument bump
#134. To: robnoel (#132)
The problem I see with your argument is only "Athieists" need apply
#135. To: scrapper2 (#116)
My vision is 20/20. I suggest you get yours re-checked. And just because Pastor Baldwin is not a Beltway establishment candidate does not mean he's free of deleterious connections.
Lord Acton
#136. To: scrapper2 (#129)
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
#137. To: Rotara, robnoel, christine, rowdee, buckeye, mirage, lodwick, X-15, diana, Original_Intent, All (#127)
She's an unborn baby butcher too! No way! -end sarcasm-
#138. To: robnoel (#132)
The problem I see with your argument is only "Athieists" need apply
#139. To: scrapper2 (#138)
#140. To: scrapper2 (#138)
The Founding Fathers did a pretty good job in formulating the Constitution. I say we should not mess with success.
#141. To: Rotara (#134)
#142. To: Ferret Mike (#119)
James Dobson who once said “I would not vote for John McCain under any circumstances” now supports him.
Lord Acton
#143. To: Old Friend (#30)
But you can't have legal murder in one state and it illegal in another state.
.
.
.