To be sure, not all believers agree on the subject of Israel. Christians are divided between pre-millennialism, post-millennialism, and even amillennialism. For the most part, pre-millennialists (such as me) believe that God will yet fulfill the Davidic Covenant with the nation of Israel. Post-millennialists, on the other hand, believe that the Church, which is the Body of Christ, is the complete fulfillment of God's promises to Abraham and David.
As a pre-millenialist, Baldwin had a positive view of Israel. He simply didn't believe in foreign entanglements.
First, I am pleasantly surprised. One would not know from Baldwin's passive acceptance of the Constitution Party's anti-Israel foreign policy position that he was pro-Israel.
However, the party still has an anti-Israel foreign policy, and there are other problems as well. From the Baldwin quote above, he seems to assume that every potential CP voter is a chr*stian. Though not a liberal (and probably to the right of Baldwin, since I'm a Theocrat), I am not a chr*stian. I certainly have no objections to voting for a devout chr*stian, but the ideology of the CP seems to be that the United States is corporately a "chr*stian nation." I have no problem acknowledging that the US is historically a chr*stian nation so far as population and culture is concerned, but The CP, like the JBS, seems to believe (however "unofficially") that the United States has taken over from Israel as the "chosen nation": that the US is a special, unique, chosen nation founded by chr*stians (like Thomas Jefferson, the bible mangler?). This is both Anglo-Israelism and henotheism, two ideologies to which I am adamantly opposed.
Please understand that I am not one of those people who thinks that the First Amendment forbids the states from having official religions of their own. But any "gxd" worshiped by people who believe that the United States is now "the chosen people" is a false "gxd" and not the True G-d.
I could vote for such a person if he didn't represent a party that held this as a quasi-official belief, but that isn't so with the CP.
Most importantly, the CP has no chance and will accomplish absolutely nothing other than splitting off conservative votes. I realize that the current Republican party has rejected conservatives and that we have to do something. However, voting for the candidate of an anti-Israel party that has no chance of winning an election in such a crucial year strikes me as not the thing we need to do.
At any rate, thank you for the information.
I have word-searched their entire platform and the word “Israel” does not appear anyplace.
Replacement theology is the bankrupt invention of Martin Luther who, after having been rejected by those Jews whose support he was seeking, cooked up totally unsupported teaching in a fit of pique. It was a total misinterpretation of Rav Shaul in both Romans, Corinthians, and Galatians.
Please understand that I am not one of those people who thinks that the First Amendment forbids the states from having official religions of their own.
Your interpretation is both legally and historically correct. I'm all for people instituting rules among them by which they prefer to live as a blessing of liberty... except the Muzzies of course, who have no intention of respecting the rights of those practicing any other religion. By violating that social contract, they are undeserving of its protections.
However, voting for the candidate of an anti-Israel party that has no chance of winning an election in such a crucial year strikes me as not the thing we need to do.
In States like California where there is no chance a Republican would carry the State, voting for the CP candidate is worth more than a wasted vote on a RINO.