Home > 2004 election cycle, Religion > The Jesus and Constitution Party

The Jesus and Constitution Party

So I was watching whoever the Constitution Party nominated to run for President on CSPAN today. It was kind of fun, kind of painful. It’s just really silly. They have a real aversion to social welfare, saying it’s illegal and such. Well, in their platform it’s bad because Jesus says so:

The message of Christian charity is fundamentally at odds with the concept of welfare maintenance as a right. In many cases, welfare provisions by the Federal government are not only misdirected, but morally destructive. It is the intended purpose of civil government to safeguard life, liberty and property � not to redistribute wealth. Such redistribution is contrary to the Biblical command against theft.

And of course, the 16th Amendment is evil:

Since 1913, our Constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property have been abridged and diminished by the assumption of direct taxing authority on each of us by the federal government.

They come so close to saying it’s unconstitutional. Which would be false, obviously. I’m not sure my life has been threatened by not having a flat tax, but hey, that’s just me.

This AIDS statement made me kind of curious:

The first duty of civil government is to protect innocent human life. AIDS and HIV is a contagious disease which is dangerous to public health. It should not be treated as a civil rights issue. Under no circumstances should the federal government continue to subsidize activities which have the effect of encouraging perverted or promiscuous sexual conduct. Criminal penalties should apply to those whose willful acts of omission or commission place members of the public at risk of contracting AIDS or HIV.

So if you have unprotected sex and you have HIV, you should be punished? How does AIDS treatment subsidize “perverted or promiscuous sexual conduct”? Honestly, I’m kind of confused about this passage.

Anyway, I was bored, and these people are entertaining.

  1. June 28, 2004 at 2:08 pm

    It wouldn’t surprise me if they were talking about homosexuals, as though allowing gays to marry is going to encourage the spread of HIV. You wouldn’t think it, but there’s still this awful mindset that HIV doesn’t arise from anything but homosexuals and the sluttiest of heterosexuals. It’s pathetic.

  2. June 28, 2004 at 4:48 pm

    A lot of states already have laws against knowingly exposing someone to HIV. It’s considered first degree assault in Washington. It’s a felony in Virginia for a prostitute to knowingly expose a client to any STD. I’m a little confused on what the Constitution Party means by subsidizing activities that lead to sexual perversion or promiscuity though.

    Also, the 16th Amendment does have a pretty long history of controversy. If I understand correctly there’s some debate over whether it was even correctly ratified into the Constitution, so a person might almost be able to get away with calling it unconstitutional.

  3. June 28, 2004 at 5:28 pm

    A lot of states already have laws against knowingly exposing someone to HIV. It’s considered first degree assault in Washington. It’s a felony in Virginia for a prostitute to knowingly expose a client to any STD.

    I was vaguely aware of that. Do those laws have anything in them about consent, as in if the person is aware the other has HIV, and they still go through with, it’s still a crime? What came to mind when I read their stance was two consenting adults, one with HIV and the other knowing that, but still having unprotected sex.

  4. June 29, 2004 at 11:06 am

    Not sure about the mutual consent thing. It would make sense that if both were aware of the disease, there would be no grounds to prosecute one or the other. But if I know the wonderful world of law (and admittedly, I don’t really :) ), there’s probably some loophole or another. Not to open an entirely different can of worms, but I would guess it’s kind of similar to the situation where there are two consenting adults but one of them is a year, a month, or even a day under the age where they are an adult by the legal definition… the minor could still prosecute the other for rape, even though both were fully aware of the situation. It would come down to one person’s word against another, and the jury would probably feel more compelled to take the “victim’s” word to heart.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: