Brad’s Interview with Pro-Life (part 2)

This is the second half of Brad’s interview with Pro-Life, the man formerly known as Marvin Richardson. To read the first half of this interview click here!

————————————————————————

TPW: You have described yourself as a very devout member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints until “the Church liberalized its position on baby murder.” Could you talk about that a bit? What was their position before, what is it now, when did it change, and why?

Pro-life: The LDS church had no official policy on abortion (baby murder) until the mid ‘80’s. The first published policy I have seen is dated 1989. This policy allows for exceptions for “rape, incest, health of the mother… severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.” We wrote letters to the LDS First Presidency (the prophet and his counselors) and told them their policy was fatally flawed. The church told us we could oppose the policy privately, but they would hold a church court if we continued to publicly criticize it. I told the church that we would sue them for harming our reputation if they held a church court. The church officials tried to keep us in the church. We later resigned. As I recall, it took about two years before we received our letters saying we were no longer LDS. Mormons live in fear of offending their church authorities. I refuse to be fearful so I get into trouble wherever I go. I am kind, compassionate and very un-compromising. The church refuses to discuss why they have this strange policy, and it makes almost all Mormons uncomfortable.

————————————————————————

TPW: You have said that you “still retain some LDS theology.” What does that mean? What LDS theology do you retain and what do you reject? For example, do you believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet? Do you accept the doctrine of the Trinity, or do you believe that Jesus, His Father, and His Spirit are three distinct gods?

Pro-Life: The LDS idea on the nature of God is different from Trinitarian Christians. Even before I was LDS the Trinity mystery made no sense to me. Mormons believe God is a polygamist. Our family believes that polygamy is sick. We were created in God’s image and likeness. We believe in the pre-existence of Mankind. We believe Joseph Smith was a selfish leader and that he started the infallibility of the prophet to cover his polygamy (adultery). This idea of infallibility of the prophet has caused the LDS people great harm. It is their greatest strength and also their greatest weakness. Polygamy, blacks not worthy of priesthood, and now, excusing baby murder creates a sad history for Mormons. My wife and I grieve that our families and friends cannot be honest about this. Peer pressure rules every society. I could have avoided this question but thanks for asking. We believe that Jesus Christ the Son, God the Father, and the Holy Ghost are separate Gods, one in unity, purpose , and power. Why would there be a Father and Son without a Mother and Daughter? We visit many churches and we have many friends there. We have friends who are LDS. One example is my Lieutenant Governor running mate, William Wellisch, who is active LDS and received 3% of the vote. CP ‘damage control’ is not gong to tell you this. They want to get rid of people who challenge their ballot access and power agenda. CPer’s say, “We must save the Constitution before we can stop the baby murder, etc.”

————————————————————————

TPW: What is your current church/religious affiliation?

Pro-Life: We have home church. We are not interested in 501( c) 3 churches. We accept Jesus as our Savior. When churches allow themselves to be taken out of moral and political activism they are not following Christ. They are following Satan. We try to go straight to Jesus for our example and leadership but He is hiding right now, so we use our fee will, the Bible, and conscience.

————————————————————————

TPW: What is your view of the so-called “life of the mother” exception for abortion?

Pro-Life: Personhood begins at fertilization. Roe v. Wade, footnote 54 explains this. The Supreme Court said because Texas had an exception for life of the mother, it was admitting to lack of personhood in the child. I promised that as Governor of Idaho, I would declare personhood at fertilization and my first act as Governor will be to stop all baby murder in Idaho. Court rulings are not law. God’s law always trumps man’s rulings.

————————————————————————

TPW: There are other nations besides America that permit abortion. Do you favor deploying America’s military overseas to save the lives of the pre-born in other lands?

Pro-Life: A great question, never heard it before. As I campaign, I will try to bring it up. We kill unborn babies and other innocents in our illegal and un-Godly wars. Our war employees carry emergency contraception pills, so they can commit adultery and fornication, and then commit ‘emergency murder’ if needed. We kill more babies every day with ‘emergency murder’ in the USA than the terrorists kill in ten years. If pro-life people were truly pro-life you would hear about “Emergency Contraception” (EC) at church and from ‘pro-life’ politicians. Our so-called pro-life leaders are responsible for this baby murder holocaust. The first thing we all can do is to stop using the word ‘abortion’ when we mean murder. If the United States was baby murder free, we could declare war on baby murder elsewhere. Jesus said “whosoever shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.” Matt. 18:6 We need a millstone manufacturing industry in this country.

————————————————————————

TPW: You have been critical of the Constitution Party not only on the life issue but also on the issue of education. The Constitution Party’s platform is opposed to government schools. Where has the Constitution Party gone wrong on the issue of education as far as you’re concerned?

Pro-Life: When you compromise on baby murder you will compromise on anything. I notice CP candidates talk about reforming public education. The AIP of California used to allow for socialized (communist) education on a state basis. I say that public education is religious education. The religion is Humanism/Atheism. Their biggest denomination is public education. In short, we are being taxed to support a church - the Devils’ church.

————————————————————————

TPW: You have said that you never compromise. Do you believe that a political party should never endorse a candidate who disagrees even slightly with even just one plank of their platform? Where do you draw the line?

Pro-Life: I do not compromise on my beliefs. I honor others who I may disagree with, if I am convinced they have a pure heart. People with pure hearts do not differ on God’s basic moral law. They may differ on theology. If you are selfish you have a hard time understanding this.

————————————————————————

TPW: Two issues that you have mentioned are right to life and education. Are there other issues that are important in your campaign? How much emphasis do you place on each issue when you campaign? Would you ever vote for a candidate who is 100% pro-life, but who does not make baby murder the main focus of his campaign?

Pro-Life: Every moral issue is important. I speak to all of them. Democratic Socialism is collective theft. What other method would the Devil use to finance his religion than theft through deceit?

————————————————————————

TPW: How can people help your campaign?

Pro-Life: I need help with a website. The best thing you can do to help me is run for the highest office you can handle. You do not need a party. I can give you advice. A candidate for Federal office cannot, by law, have his ads refused by the media. I plan to show pictures of murdered babies. There are only two attitudes or Spirits, the Spirit of Christ and the Spirit of Lucifer. If a government is not Christ’s, then His opponents control it. May we give up our selfish desires to amount to something in this, the devil’s world.

Our responsibility is to use politics to make people accountable for hearing the truth. There is actually more freedom to speak at the Devil’s church (political forums) than at so-called Christian churches.

Go figure.

82 Responses to “Brad’s Interview with Pro-Life (part 2)”

  1. John Chance Says:

    So..he in his self appointed “church” rejects the Truths of Nicea?? Separate Gods/ They cannot be Father/Son as they have no mother?

    I see he still has some twisted Mormon theology, as if God was once human and needed a mother. God is omnipotent and always has existed. One God, 3 persons. Simple and end of story, unles you think Christ failed, as do Mormons, Jack Chick, etc.

    As a supporter of the CP, I have to ask-has he (hopefully) left the CP??

  2. Brad Winthrop Says:

    Yes, he has left the Constitution Party. My interview with him was inspired by this news article: http://www.idahopress.com/articles/2006/12/27/news/news6.txt

  3. matt Says:

    I’m not crazy about his theology either, and he has all the charm of a badger. That being said, he cares about life and liberty, so I’d vote for him.

  4. Tom Bryant Says:

    “One God, 3 persons. Simple and end of story.”

    There is nothing simple about such a statement, and while you may have yourself convinced, the story continues on, with or without you. Anyone who thinks that theology is simple is just parroting what he has been told.

    Christianity is not simple, it is a combination of many various Pagan and Jewish traditions mixed with some teachings of Jesus. I would wager that Christian is one of the most complex religions out there.

  5. Anthony Distler Says:

    Wow…..just…wow.

  6. Trent Hill Says:

    I agree with Tom. Theology is not simple, and to deny that his theology COULD POSSIBLY be true, is ignorant,as you have no proof that it is false. You can say it is less likely, but again,with no evidence.

    I also agree with Anthony. WOW. Just. ....WOW.
    This guy IS clearly devoted to Life and Liberty.

    However, I would never vote for him. Because he is crazy as all get out. I’d ten times rather vote for a socialist than a person THIS crazy. I appreciate some of his pro-conservative, pro-libertarian beliefs. But he takes them over the edge.

  7. Tom Bryant Says:

    “If a government is not Christ’s, then His opponents control it.”

    I find that statement really baffling. Doesn’t the Bible state that Christ rejected political authority when it was offered to him? Christ stated “render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s” and submitted to government authority knowing it would ultimately kill him.

    The lesson I get from reading the story of Christ is that morality should be taught through reason and persuasion, not through goverment force. This guy seems to be taking the opposite approach, using government force to uphold a moral code.

  8. paulie cannoli Says:

    Tom Bryant,

    Correct.

    http://www.anti-state.com/redford/redford4.html

  9. Joe Says:

    I get the opposite lesson from Matthew 22:21. People often say “render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s” but leave out the rest of the verse. It comes down to a question of what is rightly Caesar’s and what is God’s. As a Christian, I believe that Jesus Christ is Lord in all aspects of life, including civil government. Thus, the civil ruler is to be a servant of God, deriving his authority from God and duty-bound to govern according to the expressed will of God. The civil government of our nation, its laws, institutions, and practices must therefore be conformed to the principles of Biblical law as revealed in the Old and New Testaments.

  10. Tom Bryant Says:

    Thanks for that article Paulie…

    As I mentioned in a previous thread, my religion is LDS, and the LDS religion naturally led me to the Libertarian Party. Every religion can be picked apart, mine included. The value in a religion is not believing that certain facts are true, but rather the lessons that stories teach. I believe many things are true based on faith, and I understand that many others will not believe those things without having my faith.

    But it doesn’t really matter, what matters are the lessons. Whether Jesus was the Son-of-God, a Prophet, or a fictional character does not change what he taught. His statements should be judged on their own merit, and not succumb to the argument from authority fallacy.

    One of the teachings of the LDS church that influenced me greatly was their version of a “War in Heaven” between Christ and Lucifer before humans were on the Earth.

    Lucifer proposed to God his plan, which involved forcing everyone on Earth to obey every Heavenly law - guaranteeing everyone’s return to Heaven after Judgement.

    Christ propsed to God his plan, which involved giving everyone free will to do as they see fit, right or wrong.

    The LDS religion teaches that God went with Christ’s plan, and put in some measures to allow sinners to return to Heaven (Christ’s whole atonement).

    The story teaches that the root of all evil (Lucifer) is taking away free-will and using force to achieve goals, and the root of all good (Christ) is to fight for free-will.

    I don’t care if you believe like I do that this event really took place, the only thing that should matter is whether the moral of the story is true.

    Too often religious debate is all about arguing over the truthfulness of historic events and the divinity of certain individuals. That is missing the whole point of religion, and is especially foolish because religious facts can not be proven to the point of removing all doubt.

  11. Tom Bryant Says:

    Joe,

    The statement

    “As a Christian, I believe that Jesus Christ is Lord in all aspects of life, including civil government. Thus, the civil ruler is to be a servant of God, deriving his authority from God and duty-bound to govern according to the expressed will of God.”

    is remarkably similiar to the ancient-world beliefs that the rulers were either Gods themselves (Pharaohs) or were chosen by God (many Kings).

    Replacing the words Jesus Christ and Bible with Allah and Koran casts a whole new light on this belief, one which I doubt you would be so willing to accept.

    This quickly leads to unproductive “My God Can Beat Up Your God” debate, which I don’t wish to engage in. I think you understand my point.

  12. paulie cannoli Says:

    Joe, did you actually read the article and if so, what is your rebuttal to the arguments Redford makes against that interpretation?

    Really read the whole thing and think about it before you answer.

  13. Joe Says:

    Tom.

    Atheists, liberals, and secular humanists often criticize Christian involvement in politics by equating us with the Taliban. In my opinion that criticism only makes sense if you are willing to equate the Koran and the Bible. I would not want to live in a sharia-dominated state. I would want to live in a state where civil law was conformed to Biblical Law.

  14. Tom Bryant Says:

    Joe,

    Wouldn’t it be better to live in a state where reason, ethics, and logic are used to create laws independent of a religious text?

    The Bible is not a clear cut document, as there are many versions of “the Bible”. Some Bibles include more or less books than others. When Bibles do share the same included books, there are various opinion on what that means. Each different Bible and each different interpretation of the Bible leads to a slightly different religion. It would be a huge mistake to take one person’s, or one religion’s, version and interpretation of the Bible and convert it into civil law.

    The Taliban was not wrong because they conformed civil law to the Koran. The Taliban was wrong because they conformed civil law a religious document.

  15. Joe Says:

    Tom,

    No I do not think it would be better that has been tried a few times as I recall and the results did not turn out so well.

    I don’t agree with you about the Taliban either.

  16. Trent Hill Says:

    Joe,

    “As a Christian, I believe that Jesus Christ is Lord in all aspects of life, including civil government. Thus, the civil ruler is to be a servant of God, deriving his authority from God and duty-bound to govern according to the expressed will of God.”

    Wow. To derive your issues from biblical teachings is one thing. To claim that you/your party/you president has the Devine Mandate to rule the United States of Jesusland is quite another. A Theocracy is not conducive to liberty.

  17. Joe Says:

    Trent,

    What is the difference between the two (blasphemy and flippery aside) ? Does not deriving issues from biblical teachings imply a biblical mandate to conform civil law to Biblical Law? Is that not what the platform of the Constitution Party at least strongly implies - “The U.S. Constitution established a Republic rooted in Biblical law” ?

    Few things are more commonly misunderstood than the nature and meaning of theocracy. It is commonly assumed to be a dictatorial rule by self-appointed men who claim to rule for God. In reality, theocracy in Biblical law is the closest thing to a radical libertarianism that can be had. From the days of the Caesars to the heads of the democratic states and Marxist empires, the ungodly have seen what Christians too often fail to see, namely, that Biblical faith requires and creates a rival government to the humanistic State. Defective faith seeks to reduce Biblical faith to a man-centered minimum, salvation. Now salvation, our re-generation, is the absolutely essential starting point of the Christian life, but, if it is made the sum total thereof, it is in effect denied. Salvation is then made into a man-centered and egotistical thing, when it is in fact God-centered and requires the death, not the enthronement, of our sinful and self-centered ego. We are saved for God’s purposes, saved to serve, not in time only, but eternally (Rev. 22:3). To be saved is to be working members of that realm. In a theocracy, therefore, God and His law rule. The State ceases to be the over-lord and ruler of man. Isaiah 9:6-7 tells us that when Christ was born, the government was to be on His shoulders, and that “Of the increase of His government and peace, there shall be no end.”

  18. matt Says:

    To say that you’re allowing your view on human rights and governance to be formed by the Christian faith is to place yourself in the mainstream of Western Civilization. That isn’t to say that our founding fathers were Christians or anything like that, but it’s undeniable that they were working with presuppositions based on the Christian worldview.

    Theocracy has become a dirty word, and perhaps that’s only fair, since people use it to justify all sorts of garbage. The problem is that our whole concept of human rights and equality is rests philosophically on our equality before our Creator. That’s about the only way that “all men are created equal and endowed with inalienable rights” makes any sense. We certainly aren’t all born intellectually or physically equal. Why shouldn’t the strong and the smart rule the weak and the dim? The best reason, our American reason, is that God is the Creator and He’s also a Judge, and He demands impartiality.

    No lasting free societies have been built upon the Koran, the Hindu Gitas or the Zoroastrian writings. I don’t think that’s a coincidence.

  19. Cody Quirk Says:

    I thought we’re supposed to only work to restore our origional Constitutional Government and not start a new Theorcratic ‘utopia’?

    Joe Elred, Reed Heustis, John Lofton, Angela Wittman and the others don’t care about how our government used to be, what they care about is establishing a new American Government based on their religious beliefs.

    ...I’m starting to get a little quesy at the thought.

    -But with their attitudes, It will not happen.

  20. matt Says:

    Well, if you need some comfort, remember that their quest is pretty much impossible. These people might have some success in dismantling the present system, but they don’t have the popular support or the clarity of mind to build their theocratic utopias, Probably they’ll just clear away some of the garbage from our present system, and then we’ll all decide for ourselves how to replace it.

  21. Joe Says:

    Cody, you thought wrong. The platform of the Constitution Party says “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. 9emphasis added) Two goals, not one. Would you agree that if something in the Constitution conflicts with scripture, scipture must take precedence?

  22. Joe Says:

    Matt,

    I don’t understand your last comment. Earlier you wrote, “The problem is that our whole concept of human rights and equality is rests hilosophically on our equality before our Creator.” That sounds to me rather like a theocratic utopia. Do you have clarity of mind enough to help us try, or not?

  23. paulie cannoli Says:

    Atheists, liberals, and secular humanists often criticize Christian involvement in politics by equating us with the Taliban. In my opinion that criticism only makes sense if you are willing to equate the Koran and the Bible. I would not want to live in a sharia-dominated state. I would want to live in a state where civil law was conformed to Biblical Law.

    What about those people who don’t?

    Maybe someone else would not want to live in a state where civil law was “conformed to Biblical law,” but would not mind living in a state where it conformed with sharia law; and someone else again might not want to live in a state which enforces either one. Why would any of it be the state’s business? Keep your religion in your religion. Unifying church and state is bad for both the church and the state, and doubly bad for the people. In an increasingly muti-cultural society such as ours, it’s also a recipe for religious wars, such as have racked Europe, the Middle East, etc., for many centuries. Do we really want that in America?

    What business do you have using the force of the state to enforce your religion on me, and why would you want an extremely inefficient, destructive institution like the government, that messes up everything it touches - think DMV or schools for example - determining what is Biblically correct? When you put power like that into the hands of the state, you create the power for another religious faction or denomination to win the next election and use the power of the state - which you helped put in the state’s hands - to persecute your religion.

    Is this not the same power that Jesus rejected when Satan offered to make him an earthly king? If you now want to take power over worldly government in the name of Jesus, are you following His teachings or perhaps actually falling into the evil temptations of power yourselves? Think about it.

  24. paulie cannoli Says:

    Is that not what the platform of the Constitution Party at least strongly implies - “The U.S. Constitution established a Republic rooted in Biblical law” ?

    Sounds like a major flaw in the platform. When you stand on the wrong platform, no wonder you can’t catch the right train.

  25. paulie cannoli Says:

    Theocracy has become a dirty word, and perhaps that’s only fair, since people use it to justify all sorts of garbage. The problem is that our whole concept of human rights and equality is rests philosophically on our equality before our Creator. That’s about the only way that “all men are created equal and endowed with inalienable rights” makes any sense. We certainly aren’t all born intellectually or physically equal. Why shouldn’t the strong and the smart rule the weak and the dim? The best reason, our American reason, is that God is the Creator and He’s also a Judge, and He demands impartiality.

    We’re created equal by the fact that we have the power to reason. Whether that creation is the result of a conscious plan (and if so, which plan) or natural evolution is a different matter, and not one that belongs in any discussion of government. It is, in fact, self-evident to reason that the nature of humans is to seek life, liberty, and happiness.
    Wikipedia, “there are also more secular forms of natural law theory that understand human rights as derivative of the notion of universal human dignity.”

    Wikipedia also notes that “The development of this tradition of natural justice into one of natural law is usually attributed to the Stoics.” A philosophical sect in the Greco-Roman world, not Biblically based.

    No lasting free societies have been built upon the Koran, the Hindu Gitas or the Zoroastrian writings. I don’t think that’s a coincidence.

    No lasting free societies have ever been built, period.

  26. Joe Says:

    Paul,

    You ask “what about those that don’t?”

    I can only use my vote to try to create the kind of government I believe in. Many of those who disagree with me are certainly doing the same. In the kind of government I want to create there would be no government schools and no DMV. Those institutions try to force their religion on me. As I have already made clear I have no interest in unifying church and state. The word for that is ecclesiocracy, not theocracy. Those are separate institutions with separate functions. However, as a Christian, I do believe that Jesus Christ is Lord of both.

  27. Trent Hill Says:

    Point is this.

    Brad wants to establish a theocracy, based upon Biblical LAW.

    The CP does not want to establish a theocracy. They do, however, want to put Christians in office (due to what the CP percieves as a higher moral standing and clarity) and return the government to its Constitutional boundaries which were somewhat formed around a basic mixture of Republicanism, Democracy, Chrstian moral-code (Regardless of Ben Franklin or Jefferson’s beliefs, they grew up in a Judeo-Christian atmosphere), and British Common-law.

  28. Joe Says:

    If the Constitution Party does not want the establish a theocracy why does their platform say “The U.S. Constitution established a Republic rooted in Biblical law” ? What is the point of electing Christians to office if they are not going to govern according to the expressed will of God as revealed in the Old and New Testaments? What is the higher moral clarity if it is not the expressed will of God as revealed in the Old and New Testaments? “somewhat formed around a basic mixture of Republicanism, Democracy, Chrstian moral-code and British Common-law is political polytheism - otherwise known as gobbledy-gook. It makes me want to vomit. Theocracy means “God rules.” Do you believe that he does or don’t you?

  29. matt Says:

    Joe,
    I’ll fight tooth and nail for equality under the law and personal liberty, but I know for a fact that it won’t create utopia. I won’t fight to make everyone adhere to Christian moral teaching, but I will insist on personal rights, which presuppose that teaching. Christians can’t make “sin” illegal across the board. They have nothing to gain (and much to lose) by trying. What we can do is fight to make sure no-one is opressed by our laws. To me, that’s Libertarianism.

    Anyone who advocates stoning homosexuals needs to deepen their Jesus-Consciousness anyway. That type of thing isn’t for relevant under the new covenant.

  30. Trent Hill Says:

    Joe,
    It says the U.S. Constitution is rooted in Biblical law, not that it IS Biblical law, or is even BASED on biblical law. To get to roots you have to dig. Apply this appropriately. No, they are NOT going to govern as the Old and New Testament dictate. That would be to create a theocracy,which is anti-liberty. Allow me to pull up a Chuck Baldwin article for you. Chuck Baldwin is a leader in the CP.
    http://www.covenantnews.com/baldwin020111.htm
    “The fact is, when it comes to politics, religious rhetoric means next to nothing!”

    “I personally do not care whether my president is a professing believer or not. He certainly needs to be a moral man. Bush appears to be that - now. For that matter, some Democrats appear to be moral. He should be a man who understands and appreciates America’s Christian heritage (which Bush seems to have only a rudimentary knowledge concerning). Most of all, however, my president should be a man who knows and is determined to follow the principles of the Declaration of Independence and one who is willing to chain himself to the U.S. Constitution. In this regard, Bush appears to be a total ignoramus.”

    As iv stated MANY times, the CP (as demonstrated by this article) merely wants to uphold a high Moral standard. More importantly is Constitutionalism.

  31. Angela Wittman Says:

    Dear Brad and Third Party Watch,

    Thank you so much for posting the interview with Pro-Life. I plan to tell others about it and would like to use it in my Christian Activist Pro-Life Newsletter. I will be sure to provide a link to this website with all credit to be given to Brad.

    I am impressed with your fair-minded objectivity, which can be rather hard to find in today’s world of politics.

    Please keep up the good work and may the LORD continue to bless this endeavor.

    Sincerely,
    Angela Wittman, editor
    Christian Activist Pro-Life News
    http://prolifenews.blogspot.com/

  32. Joe Says:

    Matt,

    The Constitution Party may not advocate stoning sodomites, but they did call for the impeachment of most of the Supreme Court for their decision in Lawrence v. Texas declaring unconstitutional a state law against sodomy. As far as making everyone adhere to Christian moral teaching and making sin illegal, the Constitution Party platform calls on “local, state and federal governments” to vigorously enforce laws against obscenity. It is also opposed to gambling and states that “The law of our Creator defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman.” If that is not theocratic, what is?

  33. Trent Hill Says:

    Um. Why is THAT theocratic Joe?
    “endowed by our Creator” those are words in the Constitution that Thomas Jefferson wrote. And it didn’t do much to establish a theocracy. Respecting a heritage of Christianity is not to advocate theocracy.

    Besides Joe, considering your a dissafilliator (and probably linking up with TAV and the AHP) , aren’t you a theocratic?

  34. matt Says:

    The Constitution Party may not advocate stoning sodomites, but they did call for the impeachment of most of the Supreme Court for their decision in Lawrence v. Texas declaring unconstitutional a state law against sodomy. As far as making everyone adhere to Christian moral teaching and making sin illegal, the Constitution Party platform calls on “local, state and federal governments” to vigorously enforce laws against obscenity. It is also opposed to gambling and states that “The law of our Creator defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman.” If that is not theocratic, what is?
    =======================================
    Was the federal government set up to enforce people’s anuses? I think not. Is the CP pushing harder on this breach of federalism than on others for religious reasons? Probably. The CP isn’t perfect, which is why I vote LP 90% of the time.
    I think there’s a difference between having a theocratic worldview and opposing liberty to enforce said worldview. I’ll turn on the CP when they start opressing people. That hasn’t happened yet, and I don’t think it will happen for some time.

    quote:
    No lasting free societies have been built upon the Koran, the Hindu Gitas or the Zoroastrian writings. I don’t think that’s a coincidence.

    No lasting free societies have ever been built, period.
    ======================================
    Good point, Paulie, you have me there. Christianity has, however, been a factor in every human rights advance in the past 500 years. I would also agree that many natural law constructions posit human equality and dignity. Christianity, however, is and has been the primary motivation behind shifting these ideas from the abstract plane to the real world.

  35. Trent Hill Says:

    Matt,

    i’d have to disagree. Christianity has not. The christian WORLD has. That is to say, the Judeo-Christian INFLUENCED western world. This is different.

    Matt, i’d like to connect with you on the CP.

  36. matt Says:

    I think we agree on substance, Trent.
    I’m not saying that the Christian creeds contain an overt “Liberty teaching”, nor that the organized Church has consistently stood up for freedom (it hasn’t, unfortunately). I think giving Christianity the credit is warranted since that “Christian World” is the direct product of Christian Faith. Influence, even indirect influence is what changes the world. Humans are creatures of influence, and creatures who are susceptible to influence. The influence of one man, who we call Jesus, changed the conversation so drastically that we are now able to build freedom. The greeks could talk about freedom, perhaps the egyptians could too, I don’t know. But the Church frees people to take risks in defense of freedom. It does this by taking them outside themselves and allowing them to, by faith, fit into God’s Story, which has a scope much larger than this life.

    I’d love to connect up too, Trent. I’d post my email if things were a little more low-key around here. Do you facebook? If so, look me up, my name’s matt swartz and I have a beard in the picture.

  37. Trent Hill Says:

    We’ve connected, obviously.

    I can agree with you on the Christianity issue.

  38. Cody Quirk Says:

    I think Joe takes whats written in the CP platform a little too of the deep end.

    How about explaining these:

    “The Constitution of the United States provides that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” The Constitution Party supports the original intent of this language. Therefore, the Constitution Party calls on all those who love liberty and value their inherent rights to join with us in the pursuit of these goals and in the restoration of these founding principles.”

    -Whenever you bring up the Preamble, you always leave this part out.

    And also there’s:

    “Article I of the Bill of Rights reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
    Our Constitution grants no authority to the federal government either to grant or deny the religious expressions of the people in any place. Both the First and Tenth Amendments forbid such tyranny.
    We call upon all branches of government to cease their attacks on the religious liberties of the people and the states, regardless of the forum in which these liberties are exercised.”

    You actually think the CP literally wants to go by the Bible? Ha!

    And the reason why the language in the platform is so religious is because a lot of compromise was made to make people like you in the Party happy.

    And while our own Constiution was Divinely inspired, it was NOT made to conform to the bible. Look at the 1st Amendment.

    The majority of the signers and our Founding Fathers did not want to have any form of Religious Tranny take place on this land.

    One thing’s for sure, I can’t wait until our next National Convention.

  39. Cody Quirk Says:

    And Joe, the reason why the CP called for the Supreme Court is because the SC over-rided states rights, or went against the 10th Amendment. Not because of Sodomy.

    And the word ‘Obscenity’ doesn’t specify Homosexuality, it mainly relates to obscene matters like pornography, flag-burning, perverse art displays, etc.

    Man you really got a lot of things wrong about the CP!

    You should’ve joined the AHP sooner right then and there! What where you thinking?!

  40. Cody Quirk Says:

    Hope you liked the rebuttal Angela!

  41. Joe Says:

    Cody, I understand that the pornography plank is not specific to homosexuality. I was using it as an example, along with the family and gambling planks, to refute those that claim that the Constitution Party does not want to make people adhere to Christian moral teaching. As far as the Constitution Party going by the Bible, some constitutionalist here have ridiculed the idea of Biblical Law, ignoring the fact that the Constitution Party platform states that their intention is to conform civil law to Biblical Law.

    Cody do you think sodomy is lawful?

  42. Angela Wittman Says:

    Dear Cody,

    I have not read your rebuttal as you are too emotional, immature and not nearly objective enough to look at the facts. I think you have had your head turned by Bill Shearer and Chris Hansen. What type of leadership position have they given you to keep you blind to the truth?

  43. Trent Hill Says:

    Cody Quirk is County Chairman of Riverside in California.
    I believe he held that position long before the little split over Nevada.
    As far as your assertion, Angela, that someone is being too emotional. Your entire league of dissafilliators were far too rash when considering what to do. Your group could have “positively” (in your eyes) affected the CP, and instead you simply left. It would have been far more affective for you to stay within the organization and help to encorage a no-exceptions stance,wouldn’t have been? Furthermore, to not even READ Cody’s rebuttal indicates that you have no knowledge of wether he is “too emotional”, “Too immature” or “Objective enough to look at the facts” as you are not looking at the facts yourself.

    Joe,
    I’ll attempt to answer the question you put forth to Cody
    “Is sodomy lawful?”
    The answer is easy. Yes, it is.
    Not that I think that is RIGHT, but yes Sodomy IS lawful right now. Perhaps you should have worded the question more appropriately. But wether Sodomy is lawful is not an opinion. Its a fact. It is not against the law, presently.

  44. Joe Says:

    Trent,

    My state party voted to disaffiliate from the Constitution Party after years of trying to rectify the situation within the Constitution Party. You may disagree with our decision but it is insulting to say that we did so rashly. We did so only after months of prayer and discussion.

    Fourteen states, Puerto Rico, and the military have laws against sodomy. But that is not what I am talking about. Civil “law” that is in violation of God’s law is not law.

  45. Trent Hill Says:

    Yes. It is.

    You may not LIKE it. Heck, God might not like it. But it is still the law.

    Law is defined as a set of legislation that is set by a government.

    If you are asking if it against the law of GOD to sodomize, you should state that. Law, in a general sense, pertains to Governmental law.

  46. Joe Says:

    Like I said fourteen states, Puerto Rico, and the military have laws against sodomy. “Law” in a general sense does not pertain to governmental law. In a speech given at the August 2003 rally in support of Chief Justice Roy Moore Howard Phillips said, “The overarching question we face today is: “Who is America’s Sovereign?” and “What is His law?”. The Holy Bible makes clear that Jesus Christ is our Sovereign. He is King of Kings, Lord of Lords, the Ruler of all nations. America’s Founding Fathers understood and acted on this Biblical truth.”

  47. Trent Hill Says:

    Howard Phillips is correct.
    They acted on this Biblical truth.
    They did not,however, instate laws that advocated the stoning of adulterers. Nor did they think this was prudent.

  48. Barry Kroeker Says:

    Trent Hill is quite correct that the Founding Fathers “did not,however, instate laws that advocated the stoning of adulterers. Nor did they think this was prudent.”

    However, those same founders were generally active in state and local politics and continued a strong Biblical tradition in which the sexual sins were proscribed, and punishable by a variety of methods.

    A helpful background on sodomy can be found at:
    http://www.sodomylaws.org/history/history.htm

    And those with even a passing familiarity with The Scarlet Letter are well aware of the serious LEGAL repercussions for the more common sexual sins in the America of our forefathers. One must look to the very, very recent past, historically speaking, to see the revolution in law that has taken place with the exit of God from America’s public square.

    I encourage Mr. Hill (and others inclined to pooh-pooh notions of Biblical morality as the appropriate foundation for Constitutional law) to study a bit of history, including Mr. Thomas Jefferson’s very public views on appropriate punishment for homosexual offenders.

    Ultimately all law is religious; a nation’s laws are nothing if not a reflection of the god(s) that nation serves.

    Sincerely,
    Barry Kroeker
    American Heritage Party, Pennsylvania

  49. Trent Hill Says:

    Whoa Kroeker,

    I completely agree that the Constitution and most laws were derived from Biblical law, or were a result of the high level of morality introduced by Christianity.

    Where we disagree is on the freedom of religion, the fact that the laws were based on Biblical morality/Christian morality teachings does not mean that Freedom of Religion is any less important. I do not advocate Theocracy.

  50. Joe Says:

    Nobody was talking about freedom of religion. We were talking about your claim that sodomy is lawful. Do you consider sodomy some form of religious worship? There were many laws against adultery in America, often enforcable by capital punishment, well into the nineteenth century. Like sodomy, laws against adultery remain on the books in some places in America. http://www.worldnet daily.com/ news/article. asp?ARTICLE_ ID=53782

  51. Angela Wittman Says:

    How blessed I am to see Mr. Kroeker’s comments on this forum. For those of you who do not know, he was instrumental in the writing/ revising of the platform during the Constitution Party platform committee meeting in 2004. Mr. Liberty and I were also there… But I don’t recall seeing Cody Quirk.

  52. Cody Quirk Says:

    I couldn’t afford to make it, so I sent in my vote by proxy with Bill Shearer
    And Barry is no longer with the Party.

  53. Cody Quirk Says:

    Joe, the SC, I believe, over-ruled state sodomy laws in Lawence V. Texas, so there’s really no laws against it anymore.

    The Party believes in uphold morals and values of the Bible, but not to impose Biblical law on the American people. The Founding Fathers never wanted Theocracy. And to advocate for government to enforce the laws and punishments of the bible is simply unconstitutionalist.

  54. Cody Quirk Says:

    Dear Cody,

    I have not read your rebuttal as you are too emotional, immature and not nearly objective enough to look at the facts. I think you have had your head turned by Bill Shearer and Chris Hansen. What type of leadership position have they given you to keep you blind to the truth?

    =Dear Anglea,

    I really don’t care what you think because as a woman, you are too hot-headed, ignorant, and in denial about the truth. Especially that you surround yourselves with men that want to take away your voting rights and civil rights in general. Has John Lofton and Frank Kellam warped your mind to where the Devil fills your head with lies? I hope you will see the light someday.

  55. Cody Quirk Says:

    My state party voted to disaffiliate from the Constitution Party after years of trying to rectify the situation within the Constitution Party. You may disagree with our decision but it is insulting to say that we did so rashly. We did so only after months of prayer and discussion.

    =The old NYCP caused the national Party a lot of grief and division, as did the ex-CP of Ohio.

  56. Cody Quirk Says:

    Angela, I highly reccomend you start building your AHP state affiliate rather then wasting your time here. You’re the Chairwoman, so how come you haven’t done a thing politically for Illinois since you left the CP?

  57. Cody Quirk Says:

    Joe, you may need to repost your link.

  58. Joe Says:

    Cody, Lawrence v. Texas only makes sodomy lawful if you believe United States Supreme Court decisions are law. Court decisions are not law and are invalid if they conflict with Biblical Law. “The Party believes in uphold morals and values of the Bible, but not to impose Biblical law on the American people,” makes no sense to me and sounds like double-talk. How do you do one without the other? They are synonymous. Scripture says that murder is unlawful. Is it unconstitutional for civil government to punish murderers?

    http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53782

  59. Cody Quirk Says:

    Whatever Joe.

    -I think the LDS view of Government sums it up:

    “We believe that all governments necessarily require civil bofficers and magistrates to enforce the laws of the same; and that such as will administer the law in equity and justice should be sought for and upheld by the voice of the people if a republic, or the will of the sovereign.
    We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others; but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish guilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul.”

    D&C 134:34

    Nothing hypocritical about that.

    And the langauge in the Party Platform was based on compromise. In fact I recall that the CP Preamble before 1999, the words ‘Jesus Christ’ was not included in the old Preamble, in fact the language of the AIPCA Preamble was in the CP Premble before 1999.

    Murder is indeed unlawful, except when one is defending him or herself or that person’s family, and to punish those for shedding innocient blood.
    There is nothing wrong with capital punishment, in my opinion, and I think it’s best left up to the states.
    ‘he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword.’ Is that not correct?

  60. Joe Says:

    I agree that the civil magistrate should restrain crime. Another word for that is Biblical Law, or “theocracy.” You said, “to advocate for government to enforce the laws and punishments of the bible is simply unconstitutionalist” yet you acknowledge that murder is unlawful and should be punished - just as scripture says. There is a conflict between these two assertions of yours. My point is that fornication, including adultery and sodomy, are unlawfu - just as murder is.

  61. Cody Quirk Says:

    I agree that the civil magistrate should restrain crime. Another word for that is Biblical Law, or “theocracy.”

    =How is that Theocracy? “that the civil magistrate should restrain crime”, how is that Theocracy Joe? Even China and Cuba have such laws. EVERY country has such laws. You are not making any sense.

    “to advocate for government to enforce the laws and punishments of the bible is simply unconstitutionalist” yet you acknowledge that murder is unlawful and should be punished - just as scripture says. There is a conflict between these two assertions of yours.

    =You’re still not getting it. Even by Secular standards it is wrong and must be punished. I think its universal that there must be punishment for murder. There is no conflict with what I said.

    My point is that fornication, including adultery and sodomy, are unlawfu - just as murder is.

    =Yet the SC outlawed state laws on Sodomy. And the SC is the Judicital Branch of Government still.
    Personally such laws are best left up to the states only.

  62. Joe Says:

    Cody,

    “Theocracy” simply means “God Rules.” I believe that he does. It it not a question of whether civil law is going to conform to a religious view. That is inevitable. The question is what religion is it going to conform to. In the case of China and Cuba, there laws conform to the religion of socialism. The idea that murder should be punished is not a universal. Satanists, for example, would argue otherwise. Christians believe that the state has a duty to prosecute murderers, just as they believe that fornication should be prosecuted.

    I agree with you that such laws are best left up to the state and local governments. And state and local governments should conform state laws to Biblical Law and prosecute fornicators. The Supreme Court’s decision in Lawrence v. Texas was contrary to Biblical Law because it overturned a state law that conformed to Biblical Law. Such court decisions, just like Roe v. Wade, are not “law” and Godly magistrates ought to ignore them.

  63. Angela Wittman Says:

    Dear Cody,

    I like this website and as the owner has not told me to leave, I plan to visit as often as time permits.

    Thank you for linking my name with John Lofton and Frank Kellam. They are noble Christian men who are a good influence on me.

    As far as your erroneous statement that I am the chairwoman for AHP in Illinois, that is untrue. It is unbiblical for women to lead men and I refuse to do this. However, we do have men in Illinois working toward the formation of an AHP affiliate and I encourage their work in the LORD.

    For Christ’s Crown and Covenant,
    Angela Wittman

  64. Centurion Says:

    Cody, thanks for remembering how to spell my name.

    Your recent posts reminded me of that one of my granddaughters received a Cairn Terrior puppy for Christmas. Every time the petite, eight-inch-high toy greets me, she nips at my ankles, jumps up and down and yaps like a baby chimp, incessantly.

    The other dog in that family is an old Border Collie who lumbers around in her majesty, marking her territory, and swatting at the Terrior when she gets out of line, which is about every 15 minutes or so.

    Guess which two of my favorite Californians comprise that picture?

    Cheers for another wasted year in the public square,

    Frank Kellam

  65. Teno Groppi Says:

    Matt said: I won’t fight to make everyone adhere to Christian moral teaching

    Then what basis do you have for determining that murder is wrong? How about rape? Bestiality? Theft? Incest? Assault? Adultery? Treason? Homosexuality? Pedophilia?

    Some cultures consider some of those things as permissable. If we don’t adhere to Christian moral teaching, we still will adhere to SOMEBODY’S moral teaching, if we are to have any laws prohibiting any wrongs at all.

    Without the Bible, there is no static basis for determining right and wrong. Abortion, homosexuality, and pedophilia used to be considered wrong in our culture. Today abortion and homosexuality are accepted, and pedophilia is next. Who’s to say rape won’t be considered a “sexual orientation” and we will be violating the “civil rights” of rapists if we prevent them from paracticing their “sexual preference”?

  66. Cody Quirk Says:

    “Theocracy” simply means “God Rules.” I believe that he does. It it not a question of whether civil law is going to conform to a religious view. That is inevitable. The question is what religion is it going to conform to. In the case of China and Cuba, there laws conform to the religion of socialism. The idea that murder should be punished is not a universal. Satanists, for example, would argue otherwise. Christians believe that the state has a duty to prosecute murderers, just as they believe that fornication should be prosecuted.

    =Joe, read my lips- our country was NOT founded as, or ever will be, (untill Jesus’s return), a Theocracy! A Theocracy and a Constitutional Republic are NOT the same thing. And even non-Christians believe that the state has a duty to prosecute murders.
    A state can pass whatever laws, as long as they are not in conflict with the US Constitution. Or course back in the old days, state sovereignty was seen as superior to anything else, even to the Constitution.

    I agree with you that such laws are best left up to the state and local governments.

    =Same here.

    And state and local governments should conform state laws to Biblical Law and prosecute fornicators.

    =Nope, that’s a violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and a few others.

    The Supreme Court’s decision in Lawrence v. Texas was contrary to Biblical Law because it overturned a state law that conformed to Biblical Law.

    =Our govenment, even when first founded, does not go by biblical law.

    “If I could conceive that the general government might ever be so administered as to render the liberty of conscience insecure, I beg you will be persuaded, that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution.”—George Washington, letter to the United Baptist Chamber of Virginia, May 1789

    Such court decisions, just like Roe v. Wade, are not “law” and Godly magistrates ought to ignore them.

    =If wishes were horses…

  67. Cody Quirk Says:

    Dear Cody,

    I like this website and as the owner has not told me to leave, I plan to visit as often as time permits.

    =And I will rebuke you every time. I may not be the only one either.

    Thank you for linking my name with John Lofton and Frank Kellam. They are noble Christian men who are a good influence on me.

    =Your version of wolves in sheep’s clothing, basically. I know were they are headed, and its a four-lettered word.

    As far as your erroneous statement that I am the chairwoman for AHP in Illinois, that is untrue. It is unbiblical for women to lead men and I refuse to do this. However, we do have men in Illinois working toward the formation of an AHP affiliate and I encourage their work in the LORD.

    =So while you have used ‘AHP Illinois’ under your name, you’re not head of it in any way? I understand why the AHP is confined mainly to one state and hasn’t ran a candidate since 2002. So it may time a few more decades or longer before the AHP in your state becomes organized I take it.

    For Christ’s Crown and Covenant,
    Angela Wittman

    For Christ and Common Sense,
    Cody Quirk

  68. Cody Quirk Says:

    Frank,

    You remind me of a Chihuahua, one of the smallest dogs in the world that shivers at the slightest breeze.

    I’ve heard such dogs actually think they are large ferocious canines that are equally matched with any opponent. Of course that is not true.

    One time, when I came home from work, I heard something running behind me and saw a Chihuahua that had gotten out of somebody’s yard.
    I assumed that thing was coming to bite me, so, with my tall height, I jumped in the air and roared like a monster, charging at it- Hahaha! That dog took off screaming at 60 mph towards it’s owner’s house! And looking closer, I noticed a trail of piss leading in the dog’s direction.
    I know one stupid Missourian that’s like that…

    Here’s to the reorganized Missouri affiliate and another year for people like you that are going to waste their time gnashing their teeth in vain in chatrooms because you can’t do anything useful in politics.

    Take your meds, Frank!

  69. Cody Quirk Says:

    Interesting points Teno,

    But that does not mean we should impose inquisition-style Biblical Justice on people.

  70. Joe Says:

    Cody,

    What do you mean by “inquisition-style Biblical justice?” How about fair trials with fully-informed juries for those suspected of murder, rape, bestiality, theft, incest, assault, adultery, treason, homosexuality, and pedophilia?

  71. Teno Groppi Says:

    Cody Said: Interesting points Teno, But that does not mean we should impose inquisition-style Biblical Justice on people.

    Well then Cody, what kind of justice should be imposed on people? YOUR idea of justice? My idea? The president’s idea? A majority vote? Opinion polls?

    SOMEBODY’S justice will be imposed - unless you are advocating anarchy?

  72. Cody Quirk Says:

    Well then Cody, what kind of justice should be imposed on people? YOUR idea of justice? My idea? The president’s idea? A majority vote? Opinion polls?

    =Constitutional Justice.

    SOMEBODY’S justice will be imposed - unless you are advocating anarchy?

    =I advocate for a Constitutional Republic. NOT a theocracy.

  73. Joe Says:

    Cody,

    What kind of crimes and criminal penalties do the United States Constitution and the various state constitutions mandate? Don’t they generally leave that up to legislators and jurors?

  74. Cody Quirk Says:

    Plenty.

    Doesn’t the Constitution set down laws and guidlines for crimes and punishments? Or you don’t even know your own Constitution?

  75. Teno Groppi Says:

    Cody, where does the Constitution set down laws for rape and bestiality - or should they be legal?

    Where did “Constititutional justice” come from? Might it have been from the Bible?

    Is the Constitution the most Supreme document on earth? Or in America?

  76. Cody Quirk Says:

    Cody, where does the Constitution set down laws for rape and bestiality - or should they be legal?

    = I believe that’s left up to the states. (10th Amend.)

    Where did “Constititutional justice” come from? Might it have been from the Bible?

    =From God Himself, not from a book.

    Is the Constitution the most Supreme document on earth? Or in America?

    = Yes. Inspired by God.

  77. Joe Says:

    Cody,

    First you said that the Constitution of the United States sets down laws for rape and bestiality. Now you say that the Constitution leaves that to the states. Which is it?

    How can the Constitution of the United States be the most supreme document on earth when it does not have jurisdiction over most of the earth? And how can it be superior to scripture when it can be changed. You have already agreed that the sixteenth amendment is flawed, but presumably most of the other amendments are good. On what basis do you decide if a constitutional amendment is good or not, if not the Word of God. The Constitution has changed and is changeable. God and His Word are eternal.

  78. Teno Groppi Says:

    Rape and bestiality are left up to the States? So if a State decides rape is an alternative sexual orientation and to prohibit rapists from practicing their sexual preference is a violation of their civil rights, a husband should be prosecuted for trying to prevent someone from raping his wife or daughter?

    The Constitution is “inspired by God” even though you acknowledge it has some errors and can be amended (meaning either the original or the amendment was in error)? What kind of addle-minded god is that?

    Where does the Constitution claim to be inspired by God? How do you know it’s the real God and not a Satanic imposter (called an angel of light in scripture).

    Constitutional justice came from God Himself? Says who? Without a Book, it’s just somebody’s claim and cannot be substantiated. The Bible is recorded. It can be checked out.

    The Constitution is the most supreme document on earth? Do the Chinese know this? The Cubans? The Iraqis? The Jews? The Egyptians?

    Does the Constitution make prophecies so we can substantiate its Divine origin? Does it make historical statements and scientific statements that can be checked out for accuracy?

    What was the supreme document before the Constitution was written? Was it inspired by God? Did it disagree with the Constitution?

  79. Cody Quirk Says:

    First you said that the Constitution of the United States sets down laws for rape and bestiality. Now you say that the Constitution leaves that to the states. Which is it?

    =In which post?

    How can the Constitution of the United States be the most supreme document on earth when it does not have jurisdiction over most of the earth?

    =No founding set of laws of any other nation is more pure then the US Constitution. I think all nations should base their government and laws on the US Constitution.

    Not by force, of course.

    And how can it be superior to scripture when it can be changed.

    =Did I say it’s more superior to scripture, or are you putting words in my mouth as usual?

    You have already agreed that the sixteenth amendment is flawed, but presumably most of the other amendments are good. On what basis do you decide if a constitutional amendment is good or not,

    =If it remains true to the ideals of a constitutional Republic. And personally, my litmus test on the constitution is my Church Scripture- D&C Sec. 134

    =Even if I disagree with a constitutional amendment, I still abide by it as it is listed by the law of the land. Yes, I do pay income taxes and will continue to do so until the 16th is abolished.

    if not the Word of God. The Constitution has changed and is changeable.

    =The Constitution is not supposed to be a living document- you may add upon it, but you cannot change its origional intent.

    =And BTW the Bible has been changed and rewritten many times by many people.

    God and His Word are eternal.

    =How about you admit you’d rather have government, and I mean our federal and state governments based on your “Biblical Law” rather then the Constitution? If you admit that then we’ll agree to disagree.

  80. Cody Quirk Says:

    Rape and bestiality are left up to the States? So if a State decides rape is an alternative sexual orientation and to prohibit rapists from practicing their sexual preference is a violation of their civil rights, a husband should be prosecuted for trying to prevent someone from raping his wife or daughter?

    =I don’t think that scenario is ever going to happen, even if this was Holland. Try again.

    =And where in the US Constitution does it say that the federal government can pass laws criminalizing sodomy or even fornication?

    The Constitution is “inspired by God” even though you acknowledge it has some errors

    =The “errors” were put there in the 20th Century, when our government started to become corrupt, I didn’t say that the Constitution was more superior then the bible. You forget the Bible is a book and not a document!
    And even some have translated and re-translated the bible over and over again and even made a few errors in a translation of scripture.

    and can be amended (meaning either the original or the amendment was in error)? What kind of addle-minded god is that?

    =Obivously you confuse ‘inspired by God’ with the ‘word of God’.

    Where does the Constitution claim to be inspired by God?

    “Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the states present the seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the independence of the United States of America the twelfth…”

    =And don’t forget the Declaration of Independence.

    How do you know it’s the real God and not a Satanic imposter (called an angel of light in scripture).

    =A bad tree does not bear good fruit, nor a good tree bear bad fruit.
    At one time our government was the best in the world in liberty and virtue, more so then the governments of Europe.

    Constitutional justice came from God Himself? Says who?

    “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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

    Second Paragraph of you-know-what

    Without a Book, it’s just somebody’s claim and cannot be substantiated. The Bible is recorded. It can be checked out.

    =Then again you can say the Bible is just a bunch of prehistoric Jewish guys claiming this and that…

    =Sad how you view everything in black and white.

    The Constitution is the most supreme document on earth? Do the Chinese know this? The Cubans? The Iraqis? The Jews? The Egyptians?

    =Does anyone know the wisdom of God? Does everyone know that Jesus is the only way to Heaven?

    Does the Constitution make prophecies so we can substantiate its Divine origin? Does it make historical statements and scientific statements that can be checked out for accuracy?

    =You are confusing ‘Inspired by God’ with the ‘Word of God’ again.

    What was the supreme document before the Constitution was written? Was it inspired by God? Did it disagree with the Constitution?

    =So basically you believe we should conform to your interpretation of the Bible, rather then to the US Constitution?
    I recall there are a few verses in the Bible that says we should uphold the laws of the land that we reside in.
    Thank God you people do not have any power.

  81. Cody Quirk Says:

    Teno, Joe,

    If you give me your addresses, I will send you some 3-D glasses that may help your black & white color blindness.

    ...It’s really impairing your arguments.

  82. Rob A Says:

    John Chance, as a Latter-day Saint (Mormon) I agree that this Pro-Life guy’s theology is a bit twisted. To clarify, we LDS believe in one God, 3 persons/personages/beings. Not because of Nicea but because of God’s word contained in scripture and revealed to prophets. We do not believe that Christ failed.

Leave a Reply