Is The Constitution Party Similar To The Taliban?

[WinePusher]

There is not one shred of evidence that the Constitution Party is equivalent to the Taliban. Where in their party platform would it be equivalent?

Calling the Constitution Party an American Taliban is obviously a hyperbole. However, there are aspects of the Constitution Party which are chillingly like the Taliban.

Is The Constitution Party Similar To The Taliban?

[otseng]

First of all, I know of no agreed upon non-religious set of morals.

Yes, that is true. But there still exists a personal standard for the non-religious.

For example I, as an atheist, have a moral problem with abortion, while other atheists support abortion from a moral point of view.

I'm glad that we are in agreement on this issue.

And as for there being a moral standard that comes from a religion, I honestly hope that doesn't happen again, let alone a system that turns religious morality into the law. History is not on the side of this type of law.

And I would say that history is not on the side of atheist regimes either.

[otseng]

As long as they claim that the law of the U.S. is based on 'Blbilcal laws' and "Jesus Christ', it is getting religion mixed in with government.

Well, religion has been mixed in with the US Federal and State governments (as well as the entire society) from the very start. So, whether one likes it or not, it is what it is.

As long as the specifically mention 'The bible, and the Savior Jesus Christ, they want to shove their religion down my throat. End of story.

Though I agree in principle with the CP, one thing I will admit is that their current platform will not attract enough members who are not Christians. Their strong pro-Christian stance will most likely keep them from ever being a major party and keep voters away such as yourself.

When you also see that the constitution party also wants to eliminate all education standards, and get rid of any kind of oversight into education, as well as 'biblical law'.. well, one does not have to see it actually written in plain black and white to see the implication of that.

I see nothing wrong with simply following what the Constitution says.

[otseng]

Under US Constitutional Law, any area of responsibility not specifically granted to the Federal government is a State responsibility. Oddly, education is not mentioned in the Constitution.

This is exactly the point I'm making.

I don't think that education was an oversight of the founding fathers. The intention was for the States, local and private citizens to assume the responsibility of education.

[Lux]

Yes, that is true. But there still exists a personal standard for the non-religious.

We all have our personal moral standards, don't we? And since we agree that moral standards can be personal, why should any of us try to make our morality the law?

I'm glad that we are in agreement on this issue.

I'm either lousy at being liberal, or a closet moderate

And I would say that history is not on the side of atheist regimes either.

And you would certainly be right to say so. That's why I oppose State Atheism every bit as much as I oppose institutionalized religious law. I simply don't think any good comes from forcing religiousness or non-religiousness on people.

[otseng]

Yes, that is true. But there still exists a personal standard for the non-religious.

We all have our personal moral standards, don't we? And since we agree that moral standards can be personal, why should any of us try to make our morality the law?

Since the law states what is wrong (murder, stealing, etc) and seeks to curb wrong behavior, I would say that the law is in fact imposing morality. The standard of morality might match a personal morality or a codified morality. But I do not think the standard can be rejected simply because of what it matches. Also, laws will inevitably have some conformance to the personal standard of morality of the authors of the law. So, in a sense all laws are imposing a person's (or a group of people) personal sense of morality on others.

[McCulloch]

So, in a sense all laws are imposing a person's (or a group of people) personal sense of morality on others.

No, I do not believe that is the role of law in modern society. The purpose of law is for the collective benefit of the society under those laws. For example, we benefit from the expectation that contracts will be kept and that reasonable efforts towards safety are to be made. Any law which only has a person's or a group of people's personal sense of morality to justify it, to my way of thinking is inappropriate.

The law enforces a prohibition against murder, not because we all feel badly about murder, but because we cannot run a successful society where the killing of people is unregulated.

[otseng]

Any law which only has a person's or a group of people's personal sense of morality to justify it, to my way of thinking is inappropriate.

Certainly one has to think of the common good, and not just for the interests of a select few. But, do you agree though that one cannot separate law and morality?

[Lux]

Since the law states what is wrong (murder, stealing, etc) and seeks to curb wrong behavior, I would say that the law is in fact imposing morality. The standard of morality might match a personal morality or a codified morality. But I do not think the standard can be rejected simply because of what it matches. Also, laws will inevitably have some conformance to the personal standard of morality of the authors of the law. So, in a sense all laws are imposing a person's (or a group of people) personal sense of morality on others.

Not outlawing murder is clearly and observably detrimental to society. This is not a matter of personal opinion or morality, like McCulloch said, the law doesn't forbid murder because we feel it's wrong, it forbids it because a society could not function otherwise.

Laws will have some bit of personal standard of morality in them, because we are human and we are incapable of seeing things 100% objectively. This doesn't mean we shouldn't try to keep them as objective as possible.

[nygreenguy]

And I would say that history is not on the side of atheist regimes either.

seeing as how first defining one is tricky, AND there has been so few its impossible to make some sort or significant conclusion, you are jumping the gun with your statement.

[McCulloch]

Any law which only has a person's or a group of people's personal sense of morality to justify it, to my way of thinking is inappropriate.

Certainly one has to think of the common good, and not just for the interests of a select few. But, do you agree though that one cannot separate law and morality?

Except for the broadest sweeping principles of fairness and justice, one must separate law and morality. Morality is subjective and difficult to nail down. Law must be objective and well defined.

And I would say that history is not on the side of atheist regimes either.

On this you have my unqualified agreement. Good government neither endorses nor prohibits religion. This is the brilliance of the now oft imitated experiment in secular government, in the American Republic. Unlike the subsequent French and Russian revolutions which sought to establish atheism and unlike the ironically named Constitution Party which seeks to overturn the first amendment freedoms by establishing Christian theology into American law.