Comments on: Ron Paul Endorses Chuck Baldwin for President

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 04:48:17 +0000

Of course that was supposed to say “denominations that did not agree.” I started phrasing the point with “disagree” and botched it during editing.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 04:46:28 +0000

Craig, regardless of what each man may have personally believed, they were trying to unite colonists that had a wide variety of beliefs behind the promise of liberty and justice for all. Many of the colonists held beliefs that truly were Christian in nature, but there were a wide variety of denominations that did not degree on many fundamental religious issues. I’m sure if it was the intent of the framers to construct a nation that was bound to religious doctrine then this would’ve been codified in the actual legal documents they produced. Instead we find little or no reference to religion in these documents, and the primary reference to God is the profound point made in the Declaration of Independence that we each have natural rights simply because we are alive. That our very existence grants us each the sovereign right to control our own destinies, and that our lives and our fates are not to be dictated or decided by Kings, Emperors, and Despots.

By: Craig M.

Craig M. — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 14:07:55 +0000

Dear Anonymous, I only have one source and I should have two, but when the Founders spoke of false religions, they were referencing any religion other than that of Jesus of Nazareth. All but Jefferson and Franklin believed in the God of the Bible as One who had a personal interest in the affairs of man. The source is David Barton. I am sure the mere mention of his name will have people flocking in vehement disagreement or agreement. Dear Katie, you make a lot of sense and we welcome more of you on here that do. Too often the postings turn into “the CP is for a theocracy, etc, etc.” There was only one theocracy in history and when the 1,000 year reign starts, there will be another. At this time we just need to keep our hand on the plow and don’t look back….

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 13:41:34 +0000

“Christian principles are what are laws are based on.”

Basic Christian concepts, maybe, but not the religion itself.

Whenever the founders and framers mentioned “God” or “the Creator” this did not automatically equate to a reference to The Father of Jesus. These were generalized references to a higher power, which allowed them to refer to whatever the reader may consider that higher power to be.

I acknowledge and understand your point, though.

By: Katie

Katie — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 13:20:57 +0000

some of you guys are ignoring the importance of God-given rights. If they are not God-given and cannot be taken away, then they are assumed granted by governent which can take them away. To perpetuate liberty, then this is important, and Christian principles are what are laws are based on. I know it sounds old fashioned, but when you are trying to protect liberty, this is a critical point.

By: bolshevik-leninist

bolshevik-leninist — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 04:33:36 +0000

“Bob Barr made several attempts during the â€™90s to have the practice banned in the Armed Forces.”

Untrue. He wouldn’t allow people to have Wiccan headstones and he probably wanted to not have Wiccan chaplans, I don’t remember exactly on the last point, but he certainly did not advocate the banning of a religion.

By: Rosalea

Rosalea — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 03:50:06 +0000

NotaBarrFan said:
“Please, RP doesnâ€™t support this. What happened to Freedom of Religion? RP did not just find Jesus and forgot about the Constitution.”

Well, I guess one might argue about whether Wicca is a religion, but Bob Barr made several attempts during the ’90s to have the practice banned in the Armed Forces. Doesn’t seem like he supports freedom of religion, either, yet the Libertarians chose him as their candidate.

At least Chuck Baldwin is honest.

By: John B

John B — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 02:45:16 +0000

The Campaign for Liberty site has an MP3 posted of an interview Ron Paul had in LA today. About 12 mins into the interview he was asked about the endorsement of Chuck Baldwin. Here it is from the man himself.

The endorsement is for real.

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog/?p=592

By: Jonathan

Jonathan — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 22:58:19 +0000

who cares really. If an endorsement from 1 person can change your vote that’s pretty sad.
More so if that endorsement comes from a Republican

By: Robert Simon

Robert Simon — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 17:11:37 +0000

I want to know if he backs him or not…..?