Topic: Political Parties
The Constitution Party Preamble: Historically Inaccurate
Because their preamble is inaccurate there are theocratic flaws throughout their platform. Help people learn this is not the party for restoring our Constitution!
by Gary Wood
(libertarian)
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
A growing number of U.S. voters are tired of the two-party strangle hold of the Republican and Democratic Parties. Many are listening to the guidance of Lou Dobbs, CNN Anchor and radio show host, and registering as Independent. Although registering as an Independent may be a good idea there is a need to find candidates which will support the voters’ ideals. Still lacking is a platform for candidates who are in favor of the concepts the United States was founded upon, the Constitutional design for the Federalist Republic. In my on-going search I grew more aware of a fairly young third-party known as The Constitution Party. The name alone spoke to my desire for a return to our roots. My research into this party began in earnest yet lasted a very short time. My first visit to their website was enough to send a warning when I read;
"The Democrats and Republicans have squandered the Founders' legacy of liberty and justice under the Constitution. Countless government officials in the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government ignore their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. Join the Constitution Party in its work to restore our government to its Constitutional limits and our law to its Biblical foundations."
Initially I had a sense of excitement. It is true the Founder’s legacy has been squandered. It is also true countless officials ignore their oath. However, the last two words, "Biblical foundations" sent a minor shock. It is true many of the Founders considered the importance of developing a country which was set in moral convictions based on faith in a creator but to reference the Bible as the foundation is not accurate. This led me to the party’s preamble where I found;
"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."
Sadly, many of the words which followed throughout the preamble and the rest of the platform have an air of real meaning. Within the context is a desire to limit government, restore the rule of law, promote liberty, and support a more accurate form of governing the United States. However, if a foundation is wrong the entire building is at risk of falling and in the case of The Constitution Party the foundation is wrong. Up front there is the establishment of Jesus Christ as Creator. Everywhere the word Creator is used throughout the rest of the text it goes back to this definition and historically it is inaccurate.
Overall I really wanted to embrace this party. Reading through their entire platform there were so many aspects I embrace due to the focus on restoring Constitutional provisions. Many of the platform’s points are well stated and embrace much of the Founder’s legacy which many of us know has been under direct attack for decades. Yet, intermixed within the platform are theocratic considerations due to the foundational belief Jesus Christ is the Creator and the Christian Bible therefore must be intertwined with policies and concepts.
It is a historical fact many of the Founding Fathers did not embrace any of the revealed religions. Among the most influential of the founders most considered themselves to be deist. That is, they believed in a creator based on science and nature, not revelation. The Enlightened age guided our founders to study such writers as Locke, Voltaire, and Rousseau. There was a significant understanding of the importance of faith in a creator yet there was every attempt to insure the Constitution would not be directly influenced by any set religion based on revelations. Although there were Christians among the 55 men assembled debate raged about revealed religion being intermixed and those believing in a deist philosophy won the debates.
Among those we consider Founding Fathers deism can be associated with George Washington, Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison, and Ethan Allen. This is not to say there was no belief within these men’s hearts, it means there was no foundational belief the creator was and is Jesus Christ. To the point, they were not Christian and would not consider themselves to be Christians. As a deist it is likely these and others viewed Jesus Christ as a wonderful teacher but clearly not the Creator. None of them wanted to deny other’s right to follow any religion, revealed or natural, but all of them wanted to insure the Constitution clearly separated church and State. Note there was no desire to separate God and State, merely church or organized religion and State.
It is my hope the members of this new party will see the error in their preamble and in other portions of their platform based on this fundamental, historical mistake. They have come so close to being a party to rally around if a citizen truly wants to restore the Federalist Republic to its Constitutional roots yet foundationally it is a case of being close and at the same time no where near the target. Should this be corrected within the preamble and other areas impacted by this belief within the platform I will gladly look again at joining their party. If it is not corrected I will, with a very careful eye, look uneasily toward any of their candidates. We need to restore our Republic to the Founder’s legacy not implement a theocratic slant upon that very legacy.
©2008 by Gary Wood
- Permission to copy with attribution granted.
©2008 Gary Wood, all rights reserved. You must have written permission from the author in order to republish this work.
Published: Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Last modified: Thursday, January 10, 2008
The views expressed in this article are those of Gary Wood only and do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Gary Wood is solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Report violation by Gary Wood of Nolan Chart LLC's terms of use policy.
| More Articles By Gary Wood |
Reader Comments:
Posted By: Trafford
Date: 2008-02-04 14:23:31
Since you consider yourself a libertarian, it's understandeable that you rankle against the religious and Christian aspects of the Constitution Party, as the Libertarian view is more secular. The Constitution Party does not wish nor will they push for a Theocracy. You have a misunderstanding of the 1st Amendment. There is nothing in it about religion not being allowed in government, only government not being in religion, Federally specifically. Consider that prayers are given before sessions of Congress, that many politicians invoke the name of God, that church services were held in many Federal buildings in D.C. for many years with the blessing of Federalist Presidents. Consider as well that the man so many libertarians love, Ron Paul, is being courted by the Constitution Party in some measure. Get over your secularist bent, the Constitution Party has no designs in turning this nation into a veritable "Iran". The Christian nature and tone of the Constitution Party is primarily due to the disgust at the moral rot and malaise that this great nation has fallen into precisely due to secularism. Libertarianism will not save this nation. A secular worldview will not save this nation.
Posted By: WizarDave
Date: 2008-03-04 21:19:36
Ben Franklin, at the Constitutional Convention, said: "...God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?"
John Adams stated, "The general principles on which the fathers achieved Independence were ... the general principles of Christianity ... I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that the general principles of Christianity are as etemal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God."
John Quincy Adams answered the question "...Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer’s mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity?" Sounds like the founding of a Christian nation to me. John Quincy Adams went on to say that the biggest victory won in the American Revolution was that Christian principles and civil government would be tied together In what he called an "indissoluble" bond.
Belief that this country was not founded on Christian principles is proof anything can be "taught" using the 10th plank of the Communist Manifesto... 10. Free education for all children in public schools
Also Constitutional law is based on Biblical laws, so I see no err in their preamble.
Posted By: Gary
Date: 2008-03-04 23:47:09
We agree our nation was founded on Christian beliefs and Biblical concepts. Many of the founders were Christians, many were deists (who believe in a Creator and natural law). I have no problem with the fact we were founded by men who, whether based in a revealed religion or natural religion, embraced God or the Creator. The challenge I face in the preamble is the clear definition of who the Creator is.
"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."
There are many faiths and faithful who share in the warmth of knowing our world, and our nation, were created by God (whatever form that may be for the individual). Not all who honor and respect this foundation were then, or are now, of the belief Jesus Christ is the Supreme Ruler and Creator. Also, this great nation was founded by a mix of Christian and humble religionists which this preamble clearly denies.
Many misunderstand my stance on this issue by assuming I'm not comfortable or don't agree we have many roots in the law of nature, in Christianity, and in a firm belief we rely on the wisdom, love, and compassion we learn from our Creator. This is not the case. John Adams was a staunch Christian and he may well have believed Jesus Christ to be the Creator yet he may have believed, as many Christians do, he is the Son of the Creator and not the Creator himself. No matter, the founders did not set Jesus Christ as the Supreme Ruler or Creator. This is quite a different view than simply not accepting our religious and our Christian heritage.
Posted By: cindy Mulvey
Date: 2008-05-25 20:00:11
We have to stand united. Divided we will fall.Call me if you do NOT understand or questions 352-528-5287As both of you know United is Liberty (I think)Do I know if on line petition work, NO I DON'T !Did I sign this one, yes I did,The ConstitutionWe the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.As I read the US Consitution it is NOT constitional to have another Party,
wrong wrong
unconstitutional