Our Christian Constitution

I was a Ron Paul supporter in the recent campaign.  When Ron Paul endorsed Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party as his preferred presidential candidate, I looked up both candidate and party.

Their view is that the U.S. Constitution is a Christian document, which to me seems implausible but pretty harmless — a good deal more harmless, at any rate, than the current liberal-elite opinion that the Constitution is a sort of vague Mission Statement cooked up by a bunch of slave-owning plutocrats and festooned with “penumbras” that you need a pair of magic spectacles to see.

Chuck and his party are also nutty about abortion and euthanasia, but I can live with that (so to speak). I agree with them about pretty much everything else, and decided to vote for Baldwin on November 4. Alas, he didn’t show on the ballot in New York (whatever Wikipedia says), and when I enquired about a write-in, the procedure was more than I could be bothered with. Political-passion-wise, I’m in the second quartile. Just barely.

I therefore read with interest Chuck Baldwin’s recent VDARE column. It’s basically an attack on
George W. Bush for not being Christian enough, another attack on James Dobson, Pensacola Christian College (no, me neither), and the rest of the “official” Religious Right for having let GWB sucker them when he doesn’t even believe in the literal truth of the Bible!

George Bush took a prosperous and robust economy, and led America to the verge of a second Great Depression. He has taken a (relatively) free and independent republic to the brink of becoming a globalist Police State. He has pushed the envelope of executive power; he has trampled individual liberty; he has made a mockery of justice; and he has made America the laughingstock of the world. In addition, Bush has misused and abused our nation’s bravest and finest by his illegal and inexcusable invasion of Iraq.

No matter. The Religious Right still loves him. Why? Because he is a “Christian” Republican.

There is also a strong endorsement of Thomas Jefferson for having embraced the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” even if he wasn’t much of a a Christian otherwise. I’m not convinced they have quite got Jefferson right here, but any friends of ol’ Tom are friends of mine.

Do I regret having spoken up for Baldwin and having tried, in my feeble way, to vote for him? Not at all. The Constitution Party’s positions on large policy issues seem to me sound, and accord closely with my own. The Christian stuff seems harmless. Unless they go off the rails in some way, as Third Parties tend to do, I shall try harder to vote for them in future. I should change my party registration, too. I will … when I have time …

This entry was posted in politics, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to Our Christian Constitution

  1. Jon Rowe says:

    I follow the research of another fundamentalist Christian (a young earth creationist!), Dr. Gregg Frazer, but one whose theology is explicitly anti-dominionist (and whose literal interpretation of Romans 13 doesn’t jibe with the Declaration of Independence’s call for revolt). His research earned him a PhD from Claremont Graduate School (in Poly Sci.) and is in the slow process of (hopefully) being turned into a book by a respectable academic publisher. (It’s already been cited by some prominent academics.)

    In my opinion he aptly refutes the notion of a “Christian Constitution.” Here is a taste that he reproduced from his thesis on a discussion thread:

    The fact that some parts of the Declaration and/or Constitution are not in conflict with verses in the Bible does not mean that the Bible was the source. This is especially important when — as in the case of the Declaration and the Constitution — the authors claim other sources, but do not claim the Bible as a source!

    In a May 8, 1825 letter to Henry Lee, Jefferson identifies his sources for the Declaration’s principles. He names as sources: Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, and (Algernon) Sidney — he does not mention the Bible. Then again, the terminology in the Declaration is not specifically Christian — or even biblical, with the exception of “Creator.” The term “providence” is never used of God in the Bible, nor are “nature’s God” or “Supreme Judge of the world” ever used in the Bible.

    In the hundreds of pages comprising Madison’s notes on the constitutional convention (and those of the others who kept notes), there is no mention of biblical passages/verses in the debates/discussions on the various parts and principles of the Constitution. They mention Rome, Sparta, German confederacies, Montesquieu, and a number of other sources — but no Scripture verses.

    In The Federalist Papers, there is no mention of biblical sources for any of the Constitution’s principles, either — one would think they could squeeze them in among the 85 essays if they were, indeed, the sources; especially since the audience was common men who were familiar with, and had respect for, the Bible. The word “God” is used twice — and one of those is a reference to the pagan gods of ancient Greece. “Almighty” is used twice and “providence” three times — but neither is ever used in connection with any constitutional principle or influence. The Bible is not mentioned.

    See more here:

    http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2008/06/bible-as-source-for-founding-documents.html

  2. I was also a Ron Paul supporter this cycle. My biggest disappointment in him was the day he announced that he didn’t believe in evolution. I understand that he is a religious man, even if he keeps it out of his politics, but the statement still struck me as incongruous coming from someone who makes a career out of pointing out inconvenient truths to a theocracy of shallow thinkers.

    On write ins: Whether you agree with their mission statements or not, the two party system is to blame for a great number of our problems. The combination of their bickering for the sake of hurting their rival and their presumptuous implication that there are only two candidates that matter highlights our need for a third party in the fray. I’d sooner vote for the communist party than support the continuation of this nonsense. We need another voice in the fray in order to return to the days when politicians have to make sense in order to pull swing votes, and I’m not talking about the 8% composed mostly of morons that are still ‘undecided’ on election day. Make sure your vote counts for something and don’t be dissuaded by the inconveniences the two party system throws in your way in order to retain control.

  3. y81 says:

    So if the United States had three or more parties we would be as well-governed as Italy or France? Hmmm.

  4. Cascadian says:

    I struggled with this one as well. I concluded that though I preferred Baldwin to any of the other finalists, the dominionism in the party platform was too much for me. I eventually held my nose and voted for Barr. I’m not a Barr fan or even a “real Libertarian” but I was more comfortable supporting them as a third party than the Constitution Party. I can’t imagine voting Democrat or Republican (with their current fixation on populism) in the near future. I’m sure I’ll get the chance to go through this conundrum a few more times.

  5. @Y81: Maybe the separation of powers, or ‘trias politica’ is too European a concept for you as well? Should we have a two tiered system of checks and balances? Maybe get rid of that pesky Supreme Court?

  6. PaganTemple says:

    It’s too bad the founders couldn’t think of a way to legally outlaw political parties in a way that wouldn’t conflict with the First Amendment. Parties-factions, as Washington called them-are the cause of at least eighty percent (my estimate) of the country’s problems.

    Without parties, while things would still be far from perfect, at least you could vote for candidates who were independent and so could more accurately reflect the wishes of their constituents in all matters, without having to compromise their principles on myriads of issues in order to get the needed backing and support of party bosses.

    It would also keep candidates close to the people. The only way such a candidate could achieve electoral success under a non-party system, if he or she was not independently wealthy or “in the tank”, would require them to rise from the local level on through service at the state level, gradually gaining the support needed for an eventual run for national office.

    How many national politicians have that level of experience anymore, especially at local area (city and county) politics?

  7. Baldwin in 2007:

    “What we need is an old-fashioned AMERICAN President. A President who will put the interests of America above the interests of internationalists. …[other paleocon stuff elided]… Show me a President that will do this, and I will be happy to support him, whether he tells me he prays or attends church or calls himself a Christian or not.”

    From: http://www.vdare.com/baldwin/070824_president.htm

    Although I don’t share his religious beliefs, that’s good enough for me.

    But I ended up voting for Barr anyway, because he was on the ballot in my state and Baldwin wasn’t. Write-in votes are essentially ignored in the post-election analysis, so you’re not even really sending a message that anyone will hear by writing somebody in. At least voting for Barr added some miniscule fraction of a percentage point to the fringe-right vote count in my state.

    Looking at the comments, it’s good to know that there’s at least one other person who isn’t even a libertarian who voted for Barr.

  8. Jacob says:

    Derb,

    Have you ever given thought to the Libertarian Party? They’re a lot more secular than the Constitution Party and slightly less kooky (yes, I know that is hard to believe, given the LP’s penchant to run candidates with blue skin). Ron Paul ran for President on the LP ticket in the past, and other people whom you would probably agree with, such as Harry Browne, have ran on the Party’s nomination.

    Personally, I am willing to vote for a few down-ticket Republicans, but I find that the quality of candidate fades nearer the top. So, I voted LP for President this year.

  9. David Hume says:

    So if the United States had three or more parties we would be as well-governed as Italy or France? Hmmm.

    Chill on the sneering non-sequiturs.

    It’s too bad the founders couldn’t think of a way to legally outlaw political parties in a way that wouldn’t conflict with the First Amendment. Parties-factions, as Washington called them-are the cause of at least eighty percent (my estimate) of the country’s problems.

    First, faction is part of human nature. Second, a robust two-party system existed only periodically in the first 70 years of the republic. There was a long phase of one-party rule by “Democratic Republicans,” as well as the united government of Washington.

  10. David Hume says:

    More precisely, faction naturally emerges from human social propensities.

  11. Preventing people from forming parties in this country was never realistic. Even beyond the human tendency to herd, there is power in numbers.

    Groups like governments, religions, unions, political parties, etc. are rarely any better than their constituents. Especially in the case of committee controlled groups, they only get worse over time, and the only way to fix them is revolution. There are plenty of things that could be done from within, but it is generally an uphill battle every step of the way as the leadership struggles to stay in control. In the case of the two parties, there is a Mexican standoff. Not even those in the party who would prefer a third party will vote for them for fear of giving advantage to their current rival. I don’t see it happening until we have simultaneous large scale scandals for both parties, or a third party contender with a lot of money and charisma. I find myself in an odd position; I’m willing to vote for a third party candidate not because I’m too centrist to care which one wins, but because I’m too much of an extremist to let the system win. I think the attitude that is needed in all of these groups is one of internal challenge, not one of Jingoism.

  12. ◄Dave► says:

    There was a long phase of one-party rule by “Democratic Republicans,”

    By my lights, it has returned. In a piece entitled, “Incumbrepublocrats” I wrote a few years ago, I offered this:

    We used to laugh at the notion that the Soviet Union only had one political party and their citizens were only allowed to choose from a slate of competing Communist Party members. Their candidates might differ over how best to achieve the Party’s goals, but Communism itself was not permitted to be questioned.

    At this point, I truly fail to see the difference. Communists and Incumbrepublocrats are single parties consisting of nominal left/liberal and right/conservative caucuses. The only real difference between the caucuses is a minor disagreement over how much of our money to confiscate, and where best to spend it to buy votes. It seems that all they really care about is getting reelected. Even their lust for majority status, for which they will forsake all principles, is all about better office space and committee positions from which to shovel reelection pork, rather than anything ideological. Most politicians would switch sides in a heartbeat if that is what it took to get reelected.

    I posit that it is only worse today. We either need a third party, to break up the cabal; or we need to hijack one of the supposed two, and seriously change the game. Living in California, I voted none-of-the-above this year, by the simple expedient of not voting at all… and it certainly wasn’t out of apathy. ◄Dave►

  13. I considered Baldwin, but his conspiracy theorizing was far too much for me. I wrote in Barr. Had to, because of Connecticut’s very weak reasoning for not including him on the ballot (there’s no time to reprint the ballots!).

  14. Donna B. says:

    I voted for McCain on the lesser of two evils principle. Perhaps this was not wise as I’m perpetuating the two-party tradition. I must ask why we cannot have a third party that doesn’t have some truly nutty ideas at its core?

    Actually, why can’t we have even one party that isn’t nuts?

  15. Blode0322 says:

    PaganTemple :It’s too bad the founders couldn’t think of a way to legally outlaw political parties in a way that wouldn’t conflict with the First Amendment…. Without parties, while things would still be far from perfect, at least you could vote for candidates who were independent and so could more accurately reflect the wishes of their constituents in all matters, without having to compromise their principles on myriads of issues in order to get the needed backing and support of party bosses

    Some hindsight suggestions for the founders, for suppressing partisanship without the extreme step of outlawing parties:

    A. Use secret ballots instead of the variety of non-secret systems the country began with. Non-secret voting allows proof of party loyalty – a way the system encouraged partisanship in the early days.

    B. Don’t label party affiliation on the ballot. Cut parties out of the ballot access process. Use either petitions or deposits, preferably the latter, given the litigation that seems to follow most petition matters in this country. If nominating petitions are used, prohibit any signature collector from collecting for more than one candidate at the same time.

    C. Use the nominating deposit to provide publicity to the candidate. Ensure that the candidate alone – not an organization – controls how the money is spent. Best to let an independent agency adjust the required deposit (between clear limits) to achieve an optimal average number of candidates on each ballot … say, five.

    D. Return money to the candidate if the candidate performs well enough in the election. In France and the UK, which use nominating deposits, the funds are returned to the candidate if they get 5% of the vote, but those countries use the same single-voting system America uses, which I’m against.

    E. Discard single-voting in favor of approval voting. Each voters votes or doesn’t vote for each candidate. In this case, only the winner should get the nominating deposit returned.
    Approval voting – no spoilers, no tactical voting, no lessers of n evils

    F. In legislatures, don’t allow members to choose their seating and don’t allow parties to affect the seating process. Seat members geographically, by age, or in alphabetical order or something. Committees could be selected randomly or by pure seniority.

    G. Elect executives and legislators in different years, to suppress the natural tendency to form alliances between different types of government.

    Measure E is probably the most important. In a multiparty environment, the least partisan candidate is given an advantage by approval voting. In a single-party environment like the aforementioned Jeffersonian / Democratic-Republican era, the candidate least associated with any faction has the advantage. Any faction/party which felt it was the natural party of government could of course tell its supporters it’s anathema to vote for anyone on the outside, but this would just pit all of the other candidates against it – and in approval voting allied candidates don’t help or hurt each other.

  16. Blode0322 says:

    I thought of another way to suppress political parties. With the above measures, political parties could still carry some weight by endorsing candidates and saying nice things about them in their newsletters. If they had no legal status even as non-profit organizations (the government wouldn’t have to let them register as such), then they would have no intellectual property rights. Some legal interpretations would make it so there was no legal consequence for even intentional misstatements about them. To wit: persons A, B, and C could form the Conservative Liberal Party but there would be nothing to prevent persons X, Y, and Z from forming a party of exactly the same name, while persons P, Q, and R could claim that party endorsed their favorite candidates. In contrast, individuals would retain all their legal rights, and lying about them would have consequences.

    In that environment, it would be foolhardy to even listen to parties, much less pay party dues. Much more sensible to just listen to trusted individuals, and the candidates themselves.

  17. WTF? says:

    Why would someone writing for the “Secular Right” vote for Chuck Baldwin? The Constitution Party is a blatantly Christianist organization. That “Christian stuff” isn’t just harmless window dressing (as it is in many ways for the GOP). It’s the heart and soul of the party. They are paleoconservative theocrats openly desirous of a Christian republic.

  18. David Hume says:

    Why would someone writing for the “Secular Right” vote for Chuck Baldwin? The Constitution Party is a blatantly Christianist organization.

    Ever heard of tactical voting? The chances that the CP would impose a Dominionist order on the USA is 0.

  19. Blode0322 says:

    @WTF?
    A good secular rightist should oppose irrational thought patterns and the bad policies they lead to. Baldwin’s religion isn’t really compatible with secular rightism, but for many his poliices are. The major-party candidates, in contrast, are infected with a profound fervor to reengineer American civilization, derived from a nameless and nominally secular worldview which in most ways is less rational and clear-eyed than Christianity.

    The scholarly left spends plenty of time highlighting the ways Christian fundamentalists are unscientific – this is why evolution vs. ID is so important to them. This is pure tactics. The left hates one of the most obvious implications of evolution and genetics – human biodiversity. Reading Jared Diamond, you see that the left can right an entire book, not a very short one, on the subject of why some cultures develop civilization and technology and others don’t, barely mentioning the differences in average IQs, which can top a standard deviation. All he wrote about IQ in Guns, Germs, and Steel was an assertion, and an explanation, about why people from New Guinea are smarter than people from North America – television. Assertion, explanation, no proof – it’s not necessary, because leftists love so much to read about how stupid Americans are.

    These attitudes have permeated the major parties. Lots of people believe that if you only raise minority self-esteem (through social engineering, naturally) the IQ differences will go away, even though minority self-esteem is not uniformly lower than white. In that context it’s only easy to avoid religious parties if you take a hyper-nominalist approach to the word “religious”. Obama, McCain, Nader, and their ilk are much more zealous and given to believing things on pure faith than Baldwin.

Comments are closed.