We are planning a Meet The Tea Party event for September 17th at the Cape Public Library where you can hear the truth about the Tea Party and get information on how to get involved.
Our mission is to attract, educate, organize, and mobilize fellow citizens to secure public policy consistent with Fiscal Responsibility, Founding Principles, and Constitutionally Limited Government under God.
We look forward to working with you.
Replies (191)
Hoping not to be here mid-Sept, bebo. Even if I were, though, probably wouldn't attend.
The "Tea Party" sounded good at its inception ... but went a little too far 'right' for me this past year or so. Perhaps if they'd (whoever 'they' are) just concentrated on our growing debt, taxation, etc.? Not sure what I mean, but seems like it all got too radical, or something?
-- Posted by gurusmom on Sun, Aug 28, 2011, at 10:32 PM
It is amazing there are actually people opposed to the basic American values this country was founded upon and has thrived on that the TEA Party movement wants to preserve. Keep in mind there is no TEA party as there are Democrats or Republicans as so referred to in the media. The movement is a basic concensus among citizens that have had enough of the corruption, waste and greed among the people sent to represent the people. We haven't lost faith in our government, just in the people running it.
-- Posted by jadip4me on Sun, Aug 28, 2011, at 11:44 PM
The radical liberal progressive propaganda machine has geared up against the tea party. They charge the folks elected by agreeing with tea party constituents are keeping them from fixing what's wrong.
They intend to convince folks that the tea party is a little too far right. Saying the tea party can go to hell is a little too far the other direction for me.
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Aug 29, 2011, at 12:02 AM
Unfortunately ... and however it came to be ... we don't seem to be able to accept any but the two major parties ... There are Libertarians and (I believe) Independents, many of whom would probably be great in senate, congress, or as president.
What I seem to see, though, is that the Tea Party is sort of fracturing the Republican Party. I'm not real sure that's a good thing, because that could only help the Democratic Party.
Too bad we can't just abolish political parties altogether and just vote for the person, not the party? Thing is, guys ... it's all about the money, always about the money.
Wasn't the basic premise of the 'original' tea party concept about taxation without representation? Now we have the 'representation' and of course the taxation to go along with it. Like it or not, our 'representation' has taken the back seat to several things, one of which is special interest groups, and not necessarily representation for the general populace as a whole.
An aside, jadip ... and I could be thinking wrongly but ... our 'government' actually IS the people running it, isn't it ... Well, that sounds odd, but I don't know how else to say it.
-- Posted by gurusmom on Mon, Aug 29, 2011, at 1:06 AM
gurusmom, would you please give more detail on how the Tea Party has moved too far to the Right?
-- Posted by bebo on Mon, Aug 29, 2011, at 8:12 AM
gurusmom,
The Tea Party isn't trying to become a separate party, to the best of my understanding, but seeks to work within the existing party structure to select candidates that support more conservative-libertarian ideals.
The only way to keep them from straying too far right (or left) is for the people to remain involved. As those who don't devote their lives to politics drift away, the movement will be over-run by those who do, the same as any other political movement.
It is a somewhat sad reality of our republican form of government that it only operates well if we always keep the switch in 'manual', with the people involved regularly in the operation. If we through the switch to 'automatic', then the government begins to operate in a manner inconsistent with the design. We the people have to run the government, or it will try to run us.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Aug 29, 2011, at 8:28 AM
As there is no 'Tea Party' with a set of beliefs an individual must sign on to in order to be a member I do not see how the 'Tea Party' could have moved. However, any movement or organization has individuals who claim membership but whose views do not actually conform to that of the group.
There are also those who would hijack any popular movement. I believe I saw this attempted by some democrats in the past election cycle. And then, there are those with no personal principles which guide them who hold their finger up to the political winds and seek to jump in front of a movement and claim the status of a 'leader'. These will quickly abandon ship with any shift of popular opinion.
I see this movement as one which crosses political party lines and have watched with interest although I have attended no events. It would be interesting to meet those interested in true change at the library and check out the atmosphere of the meeting. I will do all in my power to attend.
-- Posted by Robert* on Mon, Aug 29, 2011, at 8:32 AM
Found this video on the Cape County Tea Party facebook page. It will offend some but I find that it expresses many of my thoughts. And an artist does have the right and even the responsibility to express his thoughts creatively. Listen to Max Rubin and pay close attention to the cartoon at the end.
-- Posted by Robert* on Mon, Aug 29, 2011, at 8:57 AM
Vote Dr. Ism out in 2012.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, Aug 29, 2011, at 9:36 AM
Suggestions...
Don't let the so called republicans hijack your efforts. I think locally you have done a pretty good job.
Also, try to keep the efforts pure. Smaller government, lower taxes, etc. Stray away from religous and socal issues.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Mon, Aug 29, 2011, at 11:19 AM
The radical liberal progressive propaganda machine has geared up against the tea party. They charge the folks elected by agreeing with tea party constituents are keeping them from fixing what's wrong.
They intend to convince folks that the tea party is a little too far right. Saying the tea party can go to hell is a little too far the other direction for me.
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Aug 29, 2011, at 12:02 AM
Disagree. If anything, it was the so called conservative republicans who did more to damage the tea parties reputation than "liberals".
Its hard to take the Tea party seriously when its led by wastefull conservatives.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Mon, Aug 29, 2011, at 11:21 AM
Lumbrgfktr,
From your perspective who leads the Tea Party? There are several out there seeking to be perceived as leaders. But if the grass roots level do not follow are they really leading?
-- Posted by Robert* on Mon, Aug 29, 2011, at 12:22 PM
Lumber, You disagree with something I did not address. I refer to the widely used talking point strategy of the Obama crowd to blame the tea party freshmen for keeping the great one from doing great things.
I expect you to jump on board in condemming the tea party as a politcal party and disregard the the party that is a call from practical citizens for more honest, leaner government that listens to the people.
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Aug 29, 2011, at 1:03 PM
Rick**,
How can a mindless entity have a mental image? :)
-- Posted by Robert* on Mon, Aug 29, 2011, at 2:04 PM
Lumbrgfktr,
From your perspective who leads the Tea Party? There are several out there seeking to be perceived as leaders. But if the grass roots level do not follow are they really leading?
-- Posted by stnmsn8 on Mon, Aug 29, 2011, at 12:22 PM
Good points. Not sure if I really have an answer. I think the tea party should avoid endorsements and avoid affiliations.
If they ever do endorse a canditate, it better be easily explained why they are the better choice.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Mon, Aug 29, 2011, at 2:07 PM
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Aug 29, 2011, at 1:03 PM
Not at all. I think alot of people, like me, pretty much ignore political rhetoric. And its actually people like me who end up swaying elections.
Who does Obama's speaking points really sway? Samething with most Talk Radio. I argue this alot with democrats. Free thinkers generally don't beleive what they are hearing and listen with scepticism. I think the people who are "swayed" by Obama's criticism have no real intrest in the tea party to begin with.
I don't really consider the Tea Party to yet be a viable "party" yet, but I do consider it a viable movement. And I like alot of what the tea party is about. I am a fiscal conservative, so I am not sure why you would say I would condem the tea party.
So what damages the legitimicy of the movement are not political rhetoric, but when established politicians jump on board and publicly say they are protea party when their voting record shows otherwise.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Mon, Aug 29, 2011, at 2:19 PM
actually, a person often gets more attention more quickly by doing something bad. Being good often seems to go unrewarded.
-- Posted by Robert* on Mon, Aug 29, 2011, at 4:27 PM
Lumbrg, Good points you make. Those of us aware of our surroundings seldom let the unicorns tell us where we are.
In the beginning I felt the tea party was a grass roots movement open to all parties with a common theme of less government in our lives, less tax and spend, and representation closer to the people.
I find myself wanting to believe that although there are always truths to deal with.
My perception [forgive me if I'm wrong] was that you always posted against any critisism of the left.
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Aug 29, 2011, at 4:40 PM
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Aug 29, 2011, at 4:40 PM
I don't really condem criticsm of the left. I generally just condem bad criticism.
I still think the tea party is a grass roots movement with lots of potential. But its going to have to emarge as grass roots with new leadership that is currently non-existant and theirfore untainted.
I think both parties are guilty of creating larger, wastefull government. They are not going to be experienced. However, I think that is a good thing and can be used as an advantage.
Part of the problem is that the movement has no clear defined socail policies like other parties. This has been a stumbling block for many who go this route. While many preach less government intrution, on many social agendas they actually seek more intrution.
Also, I want to clarify my comment in an earlier post. When I say people like me sway elections, I meant that people who act like me, not think like me. The party flip floppers.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Mon, Aug 29, 2011, at 5:17 PM
Why does the tea party movement need a supreme leader? As for social agenda, from the start I thought the tea party was inclusive to folks with different social ideas as long as they agreed with less taxes, less regulation and representation of the people over political ambition.
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Aug 29, 2011, at 5:52 PM
"if all politicians had to remove the (R) or the (D) designation from their names ....how the hell would some people know how to vote ? " Posted by Rick Absolutely, Rick! My mom has never voted for anyone but a Democrat in her entire life ... don't think she could handle voting for a person rather than a party. Republican Dad was known to 'cross over' now and then, though.
Let me think about that, bebo ... I liked the 'concept' of it, but somewhere along the way ... I suspect that when they moved from basically financial and constitutional responsibility to other things ... things that I don't feel should be a 'party issue' ... I'll try to get my thoughts together later. I think some of what I see is ... this may not be true ... the ones 'big' in the movement are the more radically inclined. Not very clear, huh?
-- Posted by gurusmom on Mon, Aug 29, 2011, at 5:59 PM
Mom,
Years ago; I think it was the time of Reagan's election, my Dad came home with a story about one of our neighbors. Seems that neighbor had voted a straight Democrat ticket all his life and had to ask one of the workers how to split his ticket.
OJ
Independent minded people do not need a leader. They are able to think for themselves. This confuses some political hacks and news reporters. Independent thinkers scare the h*** out of politicians, bureaucrats, union leaders, etc.
-- Posted by Robert* on Mon, Aug 29, 2011, at 6:57 PM
Why does the tea party movement need a supreme leader? As for social agenda, from the start I thought the tea party was inclusive to folks with different social ideas as long as they agreed with less taxes, less regulation and representation of the people over political ambition.
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Aug 29, 2011, at 5:52 PM
It doesn't need one, it just complicates things.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 8:58 AM
There appear to be two conflicting views of the origin of the T.E.A. Party - one the Ron Paul anti-war group which held 'Tea Party events' at various Ron Paul rallies, and the other an anti-bailout movement that rose when President Obama failed to reverse course on President Bush's missteps in dealing with the financial situation.
In the end, both crowds were left homeless. The people who turned against President Bush either because of the war or because of the bailout found President Obama continuing both, and the Congresses of both parties were willing allies. As a result, they turned to grass-roots activism to start dismantling the existing party structure and selecting candidates they thought would work against the status quo.
Methinks they started working primarily within the Republican party for three reasons:
1), they were in disarray, with large numbers of disaffected conservatives feeling 'nudged out' by the existing party players.
2) their platform, as written, more closely reflected their views, and
3) the Democrat party's power structure is less receptive to revolt and change.
Now, amongst those disaffected numbers will be found a variety of people, from libertarians to religious zealots, both on whom seem to find the current political structure distasteful. Also disaffected are left-leaning anti-war groups, but they are usually still tied to the Democrat Party. They may, however, be persuaded to stay home on election day if the Republican Candidate is not seen to be too 'hawkish' on war. Certainly, Mr. Obama's unwillingness to alter President Bush's war schedules, and to engage in yet another 'kinetic military action', has left a distaste in their mouth for the Nobel Peace Prize winner.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 8:59 AM
Hard to be pro-liberty, pro-smaller govt and simultaneously embrace social conservatism. Social conservatism seeks to promote, or prohibit through force of law, private behaviors and attitudes that do not adversely affect the rights of others. Social conservatism is a form of authoritarianism, of statism.
-- Posted by Spaniard on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 8:43 AM
True.
And its also hard to be pro-liberty, pro-smaller government and embrace social welfare programs.
That is why it appeals to the middle masses.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 9:00 AM
"Why does the tea party movement need a supreme leader?"
They don't. However, once they have rallied behind a presidential candidate, if they do, that candidate will be the de facto supreme leader. The same is true of any political faction during election time and after, if their candidate wins.
Mr. Obama remains the de facto supreme leader of the Democrat Party, by virtue of his position. President Bush remained the de facto supreme leader of the Republican Party until his term ended.
If the Tea Party fails to get their candidate through the primary process, leadership will be up for grabs, with de facto leadership likely falling to the highest profile candidate for lower office.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 9:05 AM
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 8:59 AM
Good points. I also see some backlash in the republican party from the Carl Rove (who was brilliant stratitian) ERA. Fiscal conservatism took a back seat to social and religious agendas.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 9:08 AM
Shape is correct. The people are becoming more involved rather than just accepting the status quo. Our government system is solid. It is the execution by the people elected to operate it under the rules that is flawed. We don't need to change our government. Just the people in it. The TEA party movement is focused on doing that by correcting the behavior of the conservative representatives that have strayed from acting on behalf of the people that voted for them. And yes, it is that simple. Just as with employees, if you can't get the people to change to do what is expected, then change the people.
-- Posted by jadip4me on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 9:09 AM
Social conservatism seeks to promote, or prohibit through force of law, private behaviors and attitudes that do not adversely affect the rights of others. Social conservatism is a form of authoritarianism, of statism.
-- Posted by Spaniard on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 8:43 AM
Kinda agree. Just some questions. So defining marriage as between a man and woman - is that authoritarianism? Allowing an individual speaker to say a prayer at graduation - is that authoritarianism?
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 9:16 AM
Posted by jadip4me on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 9:09 AM
Agreed. One of my complaints with Ross Perot is that he regarded the people as good, but the system that was broken. I have always believed the system was good, but bad people were doing their best to break it.
The system has now come very close to being broken for good. Many of the people sense this, and many are trying to turn things around. They don't all agree on what is breaking it, nor on how best to fix it, but they have realized that it cannot continue as it has.
Those with a vested interest in keeping things as they are will work tirelessly to keep 'the mob' from taking action against them. They will tar those who oppose them, while trying to placate the masses with bread and circuses.
We, however, have to keep our eyes on the goal and not be fooled. We can no longer afford their folly.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 9:18 AM
Kinda agree. Just some questions. So defining marriage as between a man and woman - is that authoritarianism? Allowing an individual speaker to say a prayer at graduation - is that authoritarianism?
-- Posted by Dug on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 9:16 AM
Yes and No. Yes to marriage, no to the prayeer.
Not really sure authoritarian is the correct word though. Totalism maybe? for now, i will use authoritarian.
Defining marriage is authoritarian. However, many find this to be accepted authoritarian. Lets face it, there has to be some government control. A society without rules couldn't exist. Its that level and on what issues people disagree on. So yes, gay marriage is infact more government intrution.
And as far as prayer at graduation, why do you need to say one. Graduation is a ceremony, not a requirement. So why not host a religious based graduation ceremony somewhere else if it is that important. All of it is perfectly allowed. However, being forced to hear religion would be authoritarianism.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 9:30 AM
"However, being forced to hear religion would be authoritarianism."
Being permitted to hear it is not. Being prohibited from hearing it is also authoritarian, is it not?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 9:34 AM
The democrats will have the tea party so tarred and feathered by election time that only the boldest republicans will be associated with them.
Any republican candidate for president that panders for the middle of the road moderate voters rather than running as a true conservative will lessen his chance of beating Obama. [if Obama is the candidate]
IMHO
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 9:44 AM
Being permitted to hear it is not. Being prohibited from hearing it is also authoritarian, is it not?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 9:34 AM
Not at all.
Again, who is saying that that you can't speak religion? Nobody is limiting that. Everyone is welcome to host their own religious based graduation.
My question is, why is that so wrong. What is the need to subject your religion on others?
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 9:44 AM
I think where I get a little steamed about it is not so much forbidding the prayer before graduation, etc. but when a school forbids a valedictorian from thanking God in their speech.
It always amazes me how people can talk about the constitution and separation of church and state when there are many, many references to God and a creator in the very founding documents and writings of the people that created this country. Including that famous statement "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Our rights come from a creator, not the government. Yet we get all twisted in our underpants about mentioning "God" in our life as if some huge constitutional barrier would stop it. Have you looked on a quarter lately? Just some thoughts.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 9:53 AM
When people gather at graduation, they hear speeches. They hear thanks extended to the school board, to the congressman who worked to get them the new gym, the mayor for having the road paved, the Jaycees for donating the land for the practice field, the voters for approving the new bond issue. Though God into that mix, and suddenly the speech is unconstitutional. That is authoritarian. You can talk about anything but God in the school, because the government has decreed it, and yet you find that as unconstitutional.
Yes, requiring a prayer is authoritarian, but permitting one is not. If the valedictorian is religious, and wants to thank God for their success, that should be permissible.
The Constitution merely places a prohibition on the action of Congress regarding religion, it does not extend that prohibition to the states, or to the counties, or to the cities, or to the schools. Authoritarian government edicts have done that. Are you any more harmed by hearing thanks extended to God than by hearing thanks extended to the mayor or the school board?
"...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". That part of the First Amendment appears to be overlooked. Why does 'free exercise' end at the school boundary?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 9:59 AM
-- Posted by Dug on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 9:53 AM
I agree with that.
The valedictorian earned their right to speak.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 10:02 AM
"And its also hard to be pro-liberty, pro-smaller government and embrace social welfare programs."
Not really, if you accept those programmes on a lower level - at the state, county, or municipal level for instance.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 10:08 AM
When people gather at graduation, they hear speeches. They hear thanks extended to the school board, to the congressman who worked to get them the new gym, the mayor for having the road paved, the Jaycees for donating the land for the practice field, the voters for approving the new bond issue. Though God into that mix, and suddenly the speech is unconstitutional. That is authoritarian. You can talk about anything but God in the school, because the government has decreed it, and yet you find that as unconstitutional.
Yes, requiring a prayer is authoritarian, but permitting one is not. If the valedictorian is religious, and wants to thank God for their success, that should be permissible.
The Constitution merely places a prohibition on the action of Congress regarding religion, it does not extend that prohibition to the states, or to the counties, or to the cities, or to the schools. Authoritarian government edicts have done that. Are you any more harmed by hearing thanks extended to God than by hearing thanks extended to the mayor or the school board?
"...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". That part of the First Amendment appears to be overlooked. Why does 'free exercise' end at the school boundary?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 9:59 AM
And this is my point. Its always ok when its Your God and Your Beleif.
Would you sit back and say its ok if a speaker said, Lets praise the one true god for making all this possible...Allah. In his name, and only his name, we pray...
Would you accept that?
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 10:09 AM
There is too much agreement on here. I finally believe that the Mayan calendar is right and the end of the world will come in May of 2012. :-)
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 10:09 AM
-- Posted by Spaniard on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 10:14 AM
So acknowledging God in your valedictorian speech is a) religion in gov't or b) gov't in religion? Is it done to make them feel better about their chosen faith?
Keeping the state as secular as possible would be a turn away from the founding principles of the country. How does that fit with "protected liberty interest"? Putting "In God We Trust" on money is a threat to a free society?
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 10:23 AM
Interestingly, I (or Thomas Jefferson) didn't mention a particular God or Creator. Just that our rights come from and are granted by them, not the state.
I think a valedictorian has a right to thank whomever they please - it is, after all, their speech.
True, all were not treated equal. Slavery, pillage, rape, murder, etc. have been in nearly every single part of the world at one time or another. Including North America before Europeans arrived. Interesting that the one country to fight a war that cost well over 600,000 lives over the issue is the one founded on the belief that all are created equal.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 10:29 AM
lumbrgfktr wrote:
"Would you accept that?"
I have. We used to have a variety of prayers onboard ship for the Evening Prayer (now also forbidden).
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 10:37 AM
There is too much agreement on here. I finally believe that the Mayan calendar is right and the end of the world will come in May of 2012. :-)
-- Posted by Dug on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 10:09 AM
Dug, you may be right;)
I have been sitting back just reading this post and the one on drug testing. These have been 2 interesting and civil discussions. I think Shapely, Dug, Spaniard, lumbrgfktr, Rick and others have done a great job bringing up valid points.
As a life long Baptist, I have always been taught to witness to others the teachings of the Bible. I cant say I have always lived up to those standards throughout my life but I do feel it is important. However, Spaniard brought up a good point that many would be outraged if a Muslim prayer was used at a graduation or other event of that nature. Better in my opinion to make such things neutrel. I also agree with Dug though that if the valedictorian thanks God in a speach along with parents, teachers, etc. that should be allowed no matter who their creator may be. The mere mention of God, Allah etc.
-- Posted by Joe Dirte on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 10:44 AM
sorry last part of sentence was cut off.
The meere mention of God, Allah, etc. in a speach will not bring our government system crashing down or cause us to become astate dominated by anyones religious beliefs
-- Posted by Joe Dirte on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 10:46 AM
"Perhaps if they better understood how and why religious freedom (freedom of and freedom from) came to be a protected liberty interest, they would join the atheists and agnostics fighting to keep the state as secular as possible."
We had school prayers for over two hundred years in this nation. It's only been in recent years, since the federal government has decided it has a stake in our educational facilities that we have decided to evict God from the building. (We've also seen their changing from educational facilities into sports complexes with attached classrooms, though that is not really the federal government's fault).
"One year you would have a jewish prayer, then a muslim prayer, maybe a hindu prayer the following year."
That is more authoritarianism - some sort of edict to be 'all inclusive'. Christian communities would have Christian prayer, Jewish communities would have Jewish Prayer, and so on.
You do know why we have towns with names such as 'Mt. Zion, St. Louis, Los Angeles, and Sacramento, do you not? These communities sprang up around the churches and missions that were founded there. Louisiana is divided into Parishes, rather than counties, and Utah was established as a community for the Mormons. Why, then, when these people seek to establish the same benefits of incorporation and statehood that other citizens obtain, are they required to 'check their religion at the door' before they can receive them? Is that not a form of discrimination?
You might also want to check into the history of the Mormon territories before you get into the definition of 'marriage' debate. Utah's statehood was delayed because they would not conform to the 'union between one man and one woman' definition generally recognized (though not codified) at the time. Utah was not granted statehood until polygamy was outlawed.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 10:49 AM
Rick,
I understand where you are coming from. Spiritual feelings are personal. Many of the Bibles teachings are for Christians to witness to others more through actions and not harassing or forcing their ways onto others. That being said many a person has been "converted" to Christianity and the end of a sword over the years.
-- Posted by Joe Dirte on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 10:57 AM
If I lived in a predominantly Moslem area, I would expect to hear Moslem prayers. If I lived in a predominantly Jewish area, I would expect to hear Jewish prayers. If I lived in a predominantly Buddhist area, I would expect to hear Buddhist prayers.
If I entered a town called Baghdad, NM, I might expect to see a Mosque near the town square. The town of Haifa, MO would likely have a Synogogue, and the town of Nepal, NE might have a Buddhist shrine at the center of the town. But the city of St. Louis has St. Louis Cathedral downtown, and the city of Los Angeles is built on the site of the Mission Los Angeles.
Why does a prohibition on Congress supposedly negate the religious foundation of these places?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 11:04 AM
"In God we Trust" was first put on a 2-cent coin in 1864. Still, it wasn't in 1776 realm when the country was founded.
Agree with most of what you say - we did reject state sanctioned religion for good reason. It does infringe on religious freedom. It's that gray area of religious freedom and individual freedom that seem to cause most of the contentious debate.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 11:07 AM
Rick** wrote:
"you shoulda seen the names of those locations before they were Christianized..."
Most of them did not exist as a city before they were Christianized. Trading posts were established along rivers, frequently near native settlements (not in the midst of them). A church was frequently one of the first permanent buildings to be erected in the town. In many such communities, the church still occupies the town square.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 11:07 AM
It was not until 1940 that the authoritive dicates of the federal government were extended to the states in matters of religion.
Several states had been admitted to union despite their having a state religion. The First Amendment's prohibition was considered to be applicable only to the federal government. It was not until 1940 that the Supreme Court determined that the Fourteenth Amendment required that prohibition to be applied to the states, though extending some prohibitions would seem to be an ex post facto law, also prohibited by the Constitution. I suppose that is the reason no one has thus far challenged the naming of names or the division of parishes.
Just because the courts have ruled it so, does not make it right.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 11:19 AM
Spaniard wrote:
"If minimizing the impact of govt involvment, influence, interference on private life is the goal, why on earth would free people of faith want to invite that same govt to participate in their religion?"
No one is asking them to do so. They are merely asking that the government permit them to do so, unfettered, as the Constitution requires.
We're not asking the state to mandate prayer in school, but to permit it. Why would a nation that believes in free speech seek to restrict that speech when it pertains to religion, if religious freedom was one of the tenets of its foundation?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 11:22 AM
Rick** wrote:
"saloons were the original voting places in towns"
The saloons (taverns, inns, etc.) usually came into being after they were towns. The Churches were frequently built before that, in the form of missions.
Some towns grew up around mills, quarries, or roadhouses, many with secular beginnings. I am not aware of any that grew up around mosques or synagogues, but I suppose there may have been a few. Christianity pushes the missionary motive, which resulted in the establishment of many mission towns.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 11:29 AM
Spaniard wrote:
"If not allowing the christian prayer is a free speech prohibition, so to is allowing the christian prayer but not allowing the jewish or muslim prayer."
And who is proposing prohibiting the Muslim or Jewish prayer? All I've seen thus far is a suggestion to require (mandate) such prayer as a prerequisite for permitting the Christian prayers, at least as I understand the 'rotating prayer schedule' suggested earlier.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 11:32 AM
No one is asking them to do so. They are merely asking that the government permit them to do so, unfettered, as the Constitution requires.
We're not asking the state to mandate prayer in school, but to permit it. Why would a nation that believes in free speech seek to restrict that speech when it pertains to religion, if religious freedom was one of the tenets of its foundation?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 11:22 AM
How is that restricted? Seriously, if somebody were really going to say a prayer in a speech, would they be arrested? So is government restricitng them? What are the actual repercussions? I guess the school board is fearfull of a lawsuit, but would that lawsuit really win?
And isn't it the shool board who hires administrators and helps make decisions? Are they the ones who are elected by the community? If the community wants prayers in speeches, shouldn't they vote out the people who made that decision?
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 11:33 AM
"Because a 2 hour high school graduation ceremony is far from the only place and time a person can pray."
Nor should it be a time and place they can't. 'prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 11:34 AM
Spaniard wrote:
"Actually, in a nation of laws with an independent judiciary, it does make it right."
No. It makes it the law. The law is not always right, which is why laws sometimes get changed.
This entire debate is about a group that wants to change the law, as is their prerogative, if they can muster the votes to do so. Another group wants the law unchanged, as is also their prerogative, if they can muster the votes to overcome proposed changes. That is our system.
Even the Constitution provides mechanism for changing it. The law is not absolute.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 11:44 AM
"Did you feel the same about George W. Bush's "free speech zones"?"
I'm not aware that President Bush prohibited prayer outside of such zones. Or are you just trying to slip in another anti-Bush remark? You make it sound as if President Bush invented the 'free speech zone'. You do realize they used extensively during the Vietnam War, which was outside of President Bush's purview?
Your hatred of President Bush will be your undoing.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 11:50 AM
Rick**
Cahokia's Mounds were abandoned long before European settlers arrived in the area.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 11:55 AM
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 11:55 AM
Don't know about that. See people at Cahokia's mounds.
No wait. That is the Sauget mounds...Never mind.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 11:56 AM
Not at all Dug. Religious freedom is individual freedom. Freedom from religion. Freedom to worship as you want without any interference or influence from the state. Keep them both separate and the chances of one corrupting the other will be kept at a minimum.
-- Posted by Spaniard on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 11:15 AM
So then you agree with me. A valedictorian should be absolutely protected in their desire to acknowledge that God has been an influence in their life and an important factor in their success. Glad we got that cleared up.
Or do you believe the "state" should be allowed to restrict, interfere or influence their individual religious freedom?
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 11:59 AM
No wait. That is the Sauget mounds...Never mind.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 11:56 AM
(-: (-: (-:
-- Posted by Joe Dirte on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 12:07 PM
Lumbrgfktr wrote:
"No wait. That is the Sauget mounds...Never mind."
I thought we were done with the Peter Kinder thread...
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 12:17 PM
WOW! This is a very interesting and prolific discussion. It seems that there are many varying opinions, regarding the Tea Party movement. Anyone who is interested in finding out what the Cape County Tea Party is about, or how it has progressed, is welcome to attend this event.
Meet The Tea Party Conference
Cape Public Library
Saturday, September 17
2:00 to 4:00 P.M.
First come, first serve, as seating will be limited.
-- Posted by Semoan on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 1:49 PM
Theorist wrote:
"I guess with Shaps logic,....He lives in Southern Illinois, Cairo is in Southern Illinois, Cairo must be named for Cairo Egypt....a Muslim community....therefore, Shap is Muslim!"
Cairo was not founded as a Muslim community, since it has been continuously populated since long before the religion of Islam came into being. At its earliest known period, it was populated by those who worship the Sun God, Ra.
Cairo, IL, on the other hand, like many Egyptian-named cities along the river, were named because the early settlers likened the Mississippi River to the Nile, thus cities such as Memphis, Alexandria, Cairo, Thebes, and so on were named. They were not, however, so named by Egyptians or worshippers of the Egyptian religions.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 2:08 PM
Spaniard - you're the best at misquoting. Never said that.
What I did say and would approve of is the Jackson High School valedictorian saying "And I want to thank the Sun-God Ra for the blessing he/she has bestowed upon me in my life". Got no problem with that, do you?
Reread the posts. Either you're intentional in distortion or you've missed something.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 2:53 PM
Spaniard wrote:
"So Shap, should the first amendment apply to states, municipalities, and public school districts or not?"
No. The First Amendment very specifically puts restrictions only on what the U.S. Congress can do.
The Fourteenth Amendment extends that restriction to State government, but we're not talking about a state law permitting said prayer, we're actually talking about an injunction against it, not passed by the state but rather extended by virtue of state ownership of land, via the courts.
In the case of prayer in schools, we're not talking about states imposing religion if they permit prayer, they are merely upholding the right of the people to exercise it freely, even if the ground on which they exercise it happens to be owned by the State, county, or municipality.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 3:10 PM
Theorist wrote:
"Shap...St. Louis is named after King Louis of France....Laughing!"
It was named after King Louis IX of France, the only canonized king of France, hence the use of 'Saint' in the name. This means it was named after a Catholic Saint. What's so funny about that?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 3:14 PM
The proper name of the old St.Louis Cathedral is the Basilica of St. Louis, King of France.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 3:28 PM
Again with the misquote. Here is my original post. Follow slowly.
"A valedictorian should be absolutely protected in their desire to acknowledge that God has been an influence in their life and an important factor in their success." Should the state be allowed to stop them from acknowledging this in THEIR SPEECH? Just like the quote above ""And I want to thank the Sun-God Ra for the blessing he/she has bestowed upon me in my life".
Does that sound like a prayer to you? If so I can only conclude your atheism is a disservice to your understanding. You just don't get it.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 3:30 PM
There was the case of the Student at Washington Community High School in Washington, IL. Told that no form of prayer would be permitted at the commencement, he sneezed during his speech, which prompted a large number (many pre-arranged) to yell "God Bless You". The prohibition on prayer was the result of an ACLU-sponsored lawsuit which sought to overturn the 80-year tradition of prayer during commencement at the school.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 3:41 PM
-- Posted by Dug on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 3:30 PM
Agree with that.
Same with an assignment. If a teacher were to assign a class an essay on the people who most influenced them, should a student not be allowed to write about Jesus?
Same goes with the Valedictorian.
Seperation of church and state doesn't mean they have to be exclusive, just not required. Requiring a prayer/blessing to begin every commencement is not needed, and the Val talking about God's influence in their life is perfectly acceptable.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 4:02 PM
Posted by lumbrgfktr on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 4:02 PM
That's the whole point. If the principal or the school board call for a prayer before, during, or after, the commencement, that is a long way from having the Congress, or the State, pass a law establishing religion.
The rights of the non-religious are not trampled upon, nor of those of other faiths, by this inclusion, no more so than the students who do not participate in sports are trampled upon by references to sports victories.
To the non-religious, the words are nothing more than empty words, and there are many empty words spoken at such events. To those who are of other religions, it is merely a final lesson in tolerance, as they are taught to tolerate the prayers of the majority faith of the community.
In our area, we have non-Christians attending Catholic and other Christian Schools. Some schools permit them to 'sit out' religious instruction and ceremonies, some permit their parents or religious leaders to provide their own religious instruction during such activities, but some require attendance at those activities, regarding them as part of the curriculum.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 4:12 PM
Shapley Hunter
To some, its not just empty words. I would not say its empty words.
Saying the prayer is fine, until somebody complains. Then you have an obligation to stop.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 4:23 PM
"Saying the prayer is fine, until somebody complains. Then you have an obligation to stop."
How so? People drone on about other subjects, and they seem to feel no obligation to stop droning if someone complains. What makes prayer unique in that regard? Methinks it is curious that religion, which is specifically protected by the Constitution, is uniquely singled out as being obligatorily silenced if someone complains about it.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 4:38 PM
lumbrgfktr wrote:
"To some, its not just empty words. I would not say its empty words."
If one doesn't believe in God, then words praising Him, beseeching Him, or imploring him, are empty words. They would be no more than words hoping it doesn't rain or wishing upon a star.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 4:41 PM
How so? People drone on about other subjects, and they seem to feel no obligation to stop droning if someone complains. What makes prayer unique in that regard? Methinks it is curious that religion, which is specifically protected by the Constitution, is uniquely singled out as being obligatorily silenced if someone complains about it.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 4:38 PM
Interesting thought. But lets be rational, religion is not like most subjects.
And the courts have ruled I do not have to be subjected to it. Lot of times its also the person giving the message and not just the message.
Their are some clergy men in my home town that I would not want speaking about religion to my kids.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 4:47 PM
If one doesn't believe in God, then words praising Him, beseeching Him, or imploring him, are empty words. They would be no more than words hoping it doesn't rain or wishing upon a star.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 4:41 PM
But look at the other side of the coin.
I tell a class of 1st graders their is no God and he doesn't exist. What was said shouldn't matter right becaus its just words.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 4:50 PM
I don't like to hear people blaming President Bush for all the ills of the World, but I am powerless to prevent them from doing so. I can offer my comments to the contrary, but I have to tolerate their freedom to speak their mind. This is true even at commencement ceremonies. I can complain that the ceremonies are 'too political', but I cannot force them to change their comments.
This would put me in a similar frame of mind to those who belong to other faiths. By and large, however, efforts to silence prayer are not coming from other faiths, but rather from those of no faith. That, I believe, is curious, as it indicates that they are not merely non-religious, but rather anti-religious. As such, it is wrong to give them such power over religion as the ability to silence it. That brings us back to authoritarianism, which is the beginning of this discussion - using government mandates to oppress that which one opposes.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 4:57 PM
Kinda agree. Just some questions. So defining marriage as between a man and woman - is that authoritarianism? Allowing an individual speaker to say a prayer at graduation - is that authoritarianism?
-- Posted by Dug on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 9:16 AM
Don't know about authoritarian, but gov't has no business being involved in either one.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 5:03 PM
lumbrgfktr wrote:
"But look at the other side of the coin.
I tell a class of 1st graders their is no God and he doesn't exist. What was said shouldn't matter right becaus its just words."
Now you are talking about teaching religion, or rather anti-religion, in the classroom. Why you picked 1st graders in a discussion about commencement exercises is beyond me.
I will point out that there are many classrooms, albeit usuallly higher grades than 1st grade, in which teachers do tell classrooms there is not God and that he doesn't exist. High Schools are full of them. Their speech is protected, but the opposing view can get a teacher fired. And yet, we argue that we are permitting the 'free exercise thereof'.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 5:04 PM
DTower wrote:
"So defining marriage as between a man and woman - is that authoritarianism?"
Speaking of which, I notice everyone has avoided the issue of Utah's statehood and the nature of marriage...
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 5:05 PM
lumbrgfktr wrote:
"But look at the other side of the coin.
I tell a class of 1st graders their is no God and he doesn't exist. What was said shouldn't matter right becaus its just words."
Now you are talking about teaching religion, or rather anti-religion, in the classroom. Why you picked 1st graders in a discussion about commencement exercises is beyond me.
I will point out that there are many classrooms, albeit usuallly higher grades than 1st grade, in which teachers do tell classrooms there is not God and that he doesn't exist. High Schools are full of them. Their speech is protected, but the opposing view can get a teacher fired. And yet, we argue that we are permitting the 'free exercise thereof'.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 5:04 PM
Because they are both school sanctioned events.
I hardly doubt that their are many classrooms where teacher freely say their is no god, and receive no repercussions.
IS there any way to substanciate that?
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 5:14 PM
The question remains; will the Tea Party challenge the Beltway insiders or the Washington elite? If not, what purpose do they serve?
-- Posted by BCStoned on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 11:43 AM
No. The Tea Party will eventually bow to those that serve their own self interests. Then, as the democrats and republicans melded with one another, the tea party will meld with the republocrats/demopublicans.
The purpose that they serve will be to advance their own self interests.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 5:30 PM
Are you ok with the sun worshipper's brief prayer of thanks to the sun god at the graduation ceremony?
-- Posted by Spaniard on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 2:46 PM
Why would anyone not be OK with it? Someone's brief prayer affects the life of no one.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 5:38 PM
BC
My guess would be that the only person the establishment fears would be.... the individual.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 5:48 PM
Will the Koch brothers be at the tea party event ?
-- Posted by Therealworld on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 7:04 PM
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
Where does our constitution give us freedom FROM religion? Where does it say that it can stop us from practicing our religions wherever or whenever we choose?
Maybe I missed something.
-- Posted by InReply on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 7:38 PM
Why are the liberals so concerned about the Tea Party, which is really a non party, but more a loose collection of citizens?
Could it be that they fear them?
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 7:41 PM
The partisan divided on the Tea Party label is perhaps predictable: 56% of Republicans see it as a positive, while 70% of Democrats think it's a negative. Voters not affiliated with either party also now regard Tea Party as a negative label by a 42% to 25% margin.
Fifty-six percent (56%) of non-Tea party members see the label as a negative.
That's only a small part of the survey's 'break down.'
Do I understand what you may be getting at, BC ... the 'Tea Party leaders' (if you will) for the most part are ... politicians, wannabe politicians, etc.? The idea of 'Tea Party' sounds as good as 'Hope and Change' once did ... so guess perhaps that's one of the reasons I'm skeptical? Dream up a catchy title and they will come?
-- Posted by gurusmom on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 8:44 PM
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
(Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.) Cicero
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 8:55 PM
"I hardly doubt that their are many classrooms where teacher freely say their is no god, and receive no repercussions.
IS there any way to substanciate that?"
I do not know how to substantiate it. My information comes mostly from hearsay. A quick Google turned up reports only of those who faced repercussions, which is expected. They're hardly going to make news if there are none.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 9:06 PM
"It was just a charade, a guise for the Republican party."
What made it a charade? Provide details based on your experience that would lead us all to believe that the Tea Party in SE Missouri is a charade?
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 9:12 PM
Theorist,
From what I have seen in these threads, I would be hard pressed to find your appraisal of the Tea Party to be objective.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 9:14 PM
Are you ok with the sun worshipper's brief prayer of thanks to the sun god at the graduation ceremony?
-- Posted by Spaniard on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 2:46 PM
Has anyone tried?
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 9:34 PM
Many are in the tea party both democrats and republicans the problem I have with some of the tea party people is they want to turn things back to the 1800's.
-- Posted by swampeastmissouri on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 9:37 PM
Theorist, does one rally truly represent a movement? You paint with a broad brush.
Let me know when this 'party' has a convention and elects delegates or candidates. At this point, some individuals are attempting to claim 'leadership' of this undefined group, some traditional Republicans are trying to discourage the 'populist' movement, and Democrats are throwing mud at any Republican who demonstrates any ability to rally popular support.
It is now fourteen months before the election and most people have yet to pay serious attention to the candidates. That which you call a charade today may be a formidable opponent this time next year.
-- Posted by Robert* on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 9:45 PM
Theorist, Were you ofended by who spoke at the tea party of the ideas expressed?
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 9:54 PM
Swamp,
What makes you think they want to take the county back to the 1800's? I really would like to know that.
What I have heard they want to take our country back from the crooked politicians we have been electing, not necessarily that thy want things to be as they were in the 1800's. The establishment, both Democrats and Republicans are going to fight that tooth and toenail. They have us by the, well let's not go there, and they do not want to loosen the grip.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 10:02 PM
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
Where does our constitution give us freedom FROM religion? Where does it say that it can stop us from practicing our religions wherever or whenever we choose?
Maybe I missed something.
-- Posted by InReply on Tue, Aug 30, 2011, at 7:38 PM
It doesn't.
But that doesn't mean you have carte blanche do do what ever you want under the guide of "religious freedom".
You are welcome to worship on your own. Its when you subject others to your worship, you start to get into a touchy area. Especially if a government entity is paying for the assembly.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Wed, Aug 31, 2011, at 10:37 AM
"...free exercise thereof;" seems to be less free if we start saying you can't exercise it here or at this time.
The mere fact that a government entity is paying for the assembly, or the facility at which the assembly occurs, remains a far cry from the Congress (or the State Legislature) passing a law, and moves into the realm of prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
You can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre, but can you yell 'God' in a crowded gymnasium?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Aug 31, 2011, at 10:44 AM
You can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre, but can you yell 'God' in a crowded gymnasium?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Aug 31, 2011, at 10:44 AM
Sure you can.
And the prayer is fine until a school gets a complaint. Then the school needs to be respectful.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Wed, Aug 31, 2011, at 10:47 AM
Wheels...
Well I went to the rally, did you? At least I made an attempt to get a first hand picture of what they are about instead of preaching for or against something I am not remotely familiar with...
-- Posted by Theorist on Wed, Aug 31, 2011, at 6:02 AM
Actually Theorist I went to two of them. One in Downtown St. Louis and one in Washington, MO., do not remember the dates. While there was at least one Republican Politician who spoke at each, it was not dominated by politicians.
What I saw was a well behaved crowd of mostly ordinary people who were very well behaved and did not trash the area.
It appeared to me that their biggest concern was going after the establishment in Washington DC who are spendthrift politicians. If that is the liberal left, that I guess is who they were dedicated to defeat. However I saw it as a method of going after all spendthrift politicians Democrats or Republicans.
I went because my daughter asked if we would go with her as she thought we should take a look at them and see what they were about. I have not been back since, but I will support the ideals of anyone who goes after the tax and spend politicians in our government.
Will the Tea Party be made up of more people from the right of center rather than the left... I certainly think so. Not well versed on them but I believe you would find the same thing to be true of Libertarians. Big difference, the Libertarians are an organized party and the Tea Party is little more than a loose group of people with ideas of moving America back to sanity.
You should be afraid of them Theorist, they are diametrically opposed to your views.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Aug 31, 2011, at 10:52 AM
lumbrgfktr wrote:
"Then the school needs to be respectful."
Respect should not be legislated or forced, for then it becomes symbolic.
I would suggest that respect is a two-way street. For example, in the Washington Community School example I posted earlier, methinks the atheist should have been respectful and honoured the 80-year-old tradition of prayer. The school might then have returned the respect and held it at a time before or after the actual event. However, to overturn such a community tradition out of ones' own selfish desires seems a tad ... disrespectful.
Respect is generally given to those who earn it.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Aug 31, 2011, at 10:56 AM
I seem to recall that the Tea Party's first official victory was the defeat of incumbent Republican Senator Robert F. Bennet in Utah's Republican primary.
Similarly, Rand Paul was the 'dark horse' in the Kentucky contest against the Republican 'establishment' pick of Trey Grayson.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Aug 31, 2011, at 11:01 AM
Although I expect that many Republicans will be/are represented in the tea party movement I also expect there are many people who are concerned with the economic policies of this country but not affiliated with either major political party. Hopefully this movement will not be merged with either major party but will offer a legitimate third choice. It is time that the electorate be offered something besides an either/or choice.
-- Posted by Robert* on Wed, Aug 31, 2011, at 11:18 AM
lumbrgfktr wrote:
"Then the school needs to be respectful."
Respect should not be legislated or forced, for then it becomes symbolic.
I would suggest that respect is a two-way street. For example, in the Washington Community School example I posted earlier, methinks the atheist should have been respectful and honoured the 80-year-old tradition of prayer. The school might then have returned the respect and held it at a time before or after the actual event. However, to overturn such a community tradition out of ones' own selfish desires seems a tad ... disrespectful.
Respect is generally given to those who earn it.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Aug 31, 2011, at 10:56 AM
So respect is based upon opinons that you agree with?
I don't think so.
I also don't find it "respectful" when religous people come knocking on my door, though some agree with the actions.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Wed, Aug 31, 2011, at 2:02 PM
Comparing polygamy with gay marriage fails. I explained this in previous threads. Apparently it was ignored.
-- Posted by Spaniard on Wed, Aug 31, 2011, at 2:09 PM
Well if you explained it Ike... I suppose that is the final word.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Aug 31, 2011, at 2:18 PM
Spaniard wrote:
"Comparing polygamy with gay marriage fails. I explained this in previous threads. Apparently it was ignored."
Apparently, it was. Or it was overlooked.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Aug 31, 2011, at 2:42 PM
I didn't ignore it, I just didn't read it.
-- Posted by Acronym on Wed, Aug 31, 2011, at 2:51 PM
"So respect is based upon opinons that you agree with?"
I said no such thing. I respect many people with whom I disagree, because I recognize the courage of their convictions, and becuase they show respect even in their disagreement.
I do not respect those who show no respect.
"When you are content to be simply yourself and don't compare or compete, everybody will respect you." - Lao Tzu -
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Aug 31, 2011, at 3:00 PM
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Aug 31, 2011, at 3:00 PM
You did say such a thing.
The person objected to the prayer. It was asked to be stopped and you considered that to be disrespectful.
So like I mentioned earlier, It disagreed with your opinion and you claim that to be disrespectful.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Wed, Aug 31, 2011, at 3:37 PM
I still say I said no such thing, nor did you. YOu didn't say 'asked', you said 'complaint'. That is not the same thing. A request is respectful, a demand less so.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Aug 31, 2011, at 3:47 PM
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Aug 31, 2011, at 3:47 PM
So now when sombody demands theirs rights are observed its disrepectful?
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Wed, Aug 31, 2011, at 3:51 PM
"So now when sombody demands theirs rights are observed its disrepectful?"
When did having other people shut up become a right? We don't have a right not to be offended.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Aug 31, 2011, at 3:52 PM
When did having other people shut up become a right? We don't have a right not to be offended.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Aug 31, 2011, at 3:52 PM
Call it what you want want to call it, still doesn't change the facts. The courts are siding on not saying the prayer.
Its an interesting stance you take.
You must listen to my Religion (Respectful)
Asking somebody not to preach to them (disrespectful)
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Wed, Aug 31, 2011, at 3:59 PM
Well, there you go again. I've said 'asking' is respectful.
I never said they had to listen. The Constitution supports our freedom of speech. It also supports our freedom not to listen, even when we're in the audience.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Aug 31, 2011, at 4:41 PM
I've had to sit through many speeches I'd rather not have heard. I've also sat through many I didn't.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Aug 31, 2011, at 4:43 PM
Well, there you go again. I've said 'asking' is respectful.
I never said they had to listen. The Constitution supports our freedom of speech. It also supports our freedom not to listen, even when we're in the audience.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Aug 31, 2011, at 4:41 PM
Ok. They did ask. It was obviously ignored. So what again was disprepectful?
And again, why should they have to ask? If you are going to engage in an activity you know will be deemed disrespectful and insulting, why do you have to be asked not to do it?
But that is the problem. Its a school sponsered function...Hence the gray area. Its their right not to be subjected to it.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Wed, Aug 31, 2011, at 5:46 PM
In California there are airports that have feet washing stations for Muslims that were built on the taxpayers dime. Why?
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Wed, Aug 31, 2011, at 6:14 PM
In California there are airports that have feet washing stations for Muslims that were built on the taxpayers dime. Why?
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Wed, Aug 31, 2011, at 6:14 PM
Just a guess.... but a feel good move made by the liberal, and broke, State of California.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Aug 31, 2011, at 6:23 PM
In California there are airports that have feet washing stations for Muslims that were built on the taxpayers dime. Why?
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Wed, Aug 31, 2011, at 6:14 PM
Good question.
But I don't mean to correct you, but for some reason I think that was actually in Missouri and not California. Maybe something to do with the tornado improvements at Lambert?
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Wed, Aug 31, 2011, at 6:29 PM
Google this:
feet washing stations for Muslims
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Aug 31, 2011, at 6:41 PM
Respect is not hanging your hat over grandma's bonnett.
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Aug 31, 2011, at 9:15 PM
"And again, why should they have to ask? If you are going to engage in an activity you know will be deemed disrespectful and insulting, why do you have to be asked not to do it?"
For 80 years it wasn't disrespectful, and it has never been insulting. Why is the disrepect shown by one student for an 80-year tradition acceptable. One student wants the entire graduation ceremony revamped so he'll not have heard a discouraging word? That hardly seems just to me.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Aug 31, 2011, at 10:02 PM
"In October 2007, the state of Illinois passed a law requiring its public schools to lead students each morning in a moment of silence for "reflection and student prayer."1 Illinois already had a law on the books permitting schools to lead such moments of silence. But the Illinois General Assembly, overriding Gov. Rod Blagojevich's veto, decided to strengthen the law by making moments of silence a requirement. Atheist Rob Sherman and his daughter, Dawn, a freshman at Buffalo Grove High School in Buffalo Grove, Ill., sued her school district, claiming that the new state requirement violated the U.S. Constitution."
By Lumbrgfktr's reasoning, since someone objects, the moment of silence has to stop.
Will the school have to provide a mandatory shouter to ensure that no illegal silence is occuring?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Sep 1, 2011, at 8:46 AM
Rick** wrote:
"now that i found my Etch-A-Sketch again...seems like if the Tea Party were diverse along all caring citizens , it would be way more popular with the overall public than it is ."
It's open to anyone. There is no membership qualification. Bebo issued an open invite when he posted the meeting time. I don't see any exclusions in the post.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Sep 1, 2011, at 8:53 AM
For 80 years it wasn't disrespectful, and it has never been insulting. Why is the disrepect shown by one student for an 80-year tradition acceptable. One student wants the entire graduation ceremony revamped so he'll not have heard a discouraging word? That hardly seems just to me.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Aug 31, 2011, at 10:02 PM
80 year old tradition?
Slaverly lasted longer. Does that mean it wasn't disrespectful?
Actually it was. It was just never included somebody with differnt beleif.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Thu, Sep 1, 2011, at 10:44 AM
By Lumbrgfktr's reasoning, since someone objects, the moment of silence has to stop.
Will the school have to provide a mandatory shouter to ensure that no illegal silence is occuring?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Sep 1, 2011, at 8:46 AM
Actually, that is not what I am saying at all.
It has to stop not because sombody objected, but because the State of Illinois said so.
And that very well might be a violation of somebody's rights. People can take it to court.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Thu, Sep 1, 2011, at 10:48 AM
Is Muslim Foot Washing in public a form of Religious Expression? If so is our government supporting organized religion by furnishing public facilities for this purpose at our expense?
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Sep 1, 2011, at 10:48 AM
The gospel is what the state says. Children belong to the state thus the state has say so on what they learn and if they can pray.
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Sep 1, 2011, at 10:54 AM
Is Muslim Foot Washing in public a form of Religious Expression? If so is our government supporting organized religion by furnishing public facilities for this purpose at our expense?
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Sep 1, 2011, at 10:48 AM
I beleive so. What common purpose does the foot station provide?
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Thu, Sep 1, 2011, at 10:56 AM
I plead ignorance on this subject but does anyone know if/how Muslim school children perform their daily prayers in public schools? I have always understood their 5 daily prayers to be a must in their religion.
-- Posted by Joe Dirte on Thu, Sep 1, 2011, at 11:02 AM
If the Muslims are performing religious ceremonies publicly, should the ACLU not raise their ugly heads in the fray?
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Sep 1, 2011, at 11:06 AM
If I remember right, NYC schools have prayer rooms for Muslims.
Some children were interviewed by CBS [or another] about wittnessing the 911 attacks from their prayer room.
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Sep 1, 2011, at 11:14 AM
Old John,
If that is true.... this country is off it's rocker.... totally!!
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Sep 1, 2011, at 11:35 AM
I'm not known for remembering details but I do know it was a topic discussed quite a lot a time back.
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Sep 1, 2011, at 12:49 PM
Old John,
That is a real crock of BS in my opinion. If a Christian of Jew had asked for the same consideration there would be nine kinds of hell raised about it. More politically correct BS.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Sep 1, 2011, at 1:25 PM
Theorist,
I have been waiting for you to compare notes on our Tea Party experiences. Mine seemed to differ somewhat from your own. I have pictures as well, if we are going to have "Show and Tell".
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Sep 1, 2011, at 1:30 PM
Spaniard, If you have no further opinion on prayer rooms in schools, you could always start another thread in the defense of liberalism. :)
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Sep 1, 2011, at 1:33 PM
Spaniard, If you have no further opinion on prayer rooms in schools, you could always start another thread in the defense of liberalism. :)
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Sep 1, 2011, at 1:33 PM
Not sure what your point is.
You are comparing apples to oranges. Christians are allowed to pray in school. Nobody is stopping them.
The difference between the 2 is that some christains want to force all kids to pray with them.
So if you child wants to pray, go for it. Nobody is stopping them.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Thu, Sep 1, 2011, at 1:54 PM
What Christians want to force all kids to pray with them?
My overall point is the federal constitution prohibits congress from making laws in favor of a religion. The ACLU and others have based arguments against any prayer in school by pointing to federal spending to support schools that allow prayer to be unconstitutional.
So if specific spending is to facilitate a particular religion exclusive of another, it should be noted in the same context be it unconstitional or not.
In this case apples and oranges should be the same in the eyes of the courts.
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Sep 1, 2011, at 2:07 PM
" Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen."
Sharing the Word is a commandment of Christians. That is why they insist upon public prayer. To prohibit it is to prohibit the free exercise of their religion.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Sep 1, 2011, at 2:23 PM
So long as there are tests being given in schools there will be praying.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Sep 1, 2011, at 2:27 PM
Lumbrgfktr, you nailed it. The theocrats want state respect and recognition. Theocrats are the original politically correct crowd. They want and need govt help and recognition. Why they cannot observe their faith without a high five from the gubmint.
-- Posted by Spaniard on Thu, Sep 1, 2011, at 2:00 PM
The two of you spin everyone's point to something totally unrelated. Back to the MAIN point of this which has never been addressed by either of you.
I believe that a valedictorian student in a speech at graduation about their experiences has a right to acknowledge their God as an influence on their life. No prayer here. Yet the school forced her to take it out of her speech.
Simple question. Is that right or wrong? And please don't post anything in your response about Muslims or Christians or Theocrats. Simple question here.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Sep 1, 2011, at 2:31 PM
The public school I attended did not insist on public prayer but it was allowed.
Sounds to me that most of us agree that public schools should not endorse one religion over another. How ever when considering the roll of government, I don't think the federal government should be involved in public schools at all.
These dissagreements should be confined to the states.
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Sep 1, 2011, at 2:38 PM
My overall point is the federal constitution prohibits congress from making laws in favor of a religion. The ACLU and others have based arguments against any prayer in school by pointing to federal spending to support schools that allow prayer to be unconstitutional.
So if specific spending is to facilitate a particular religion exclusive of another, it should be noted in the same context be it unconstitional or not.
In this case apples and oranges should be the same in the eyes of the courts.
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Sep 1, 2011, at 2:07 PM
No they don't. They argue against ciricumlum dedicated to it. That is a huge difference.
Where is a space religously exclusive?
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Thu, Sep 1, 2011, at 3:03 PM
Did not know there were any theocrats on these threads! THEOCRATS.................identify yourselves.
-- Posted by Robert* on Thu, Sep 1, 2011, at 3:03 PM
The two of you spin everyone's point to something totally unrelated. Back to the MAIN point of this which has never been addressed by either of you.
I believe that a valedictorian student in a speech at graduation about their experiences has a right to acknowledge their God as an influence on their life. No prayer here. Yet the school forced her to take it out of her speech.
Simple question. Is that right or wrong? And please don't post anything in your response about Muslims or Christians or Theocrats. Simple question here.
-- Posted by Dug on Thu, Sep 1, 2011, at 2:31 PM
I don't spin anything. I just call out most people's spin.
I beleived I mentioned it earlier. I agree with you about the valedictorian. I think if that person wanted to make a case of it, they could and could probably win.
But remember, it was the school's decision to do this, not the courts. When the valeditorian does it, it is no longer a school sanctioned.
I see the difference between the valedictorian talking about it versus the school inviting a preacher to give a prayer.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Thu, Sep 1, 2011, at 3:08 PM
I thought Theocrats were supporters of Teddy Roosevelt...
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Sep 1, 2011, at 3:08 PM
Sharing the Word is a commandment of Christians. That is why they insist upon public prayer. To prohibit it is to prohibit the free exercise of their religion.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Sep 1, 2011, at 2:23 PM
Now we get back to it. Its not about expressing religion, its about forcing religion on others.
They are allowed public prayer, Just like the Muslim kids.
My question is, why can't they at recess? Why does it have to be during class time when other kids are forced to participate.
Would you be fine with a ruling that said yes, Muslim children not only have the right to pray to Allah, everyone in their class must to the same.
And you would accept that?
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Thu, Sep 1, 2011, at 3:11 PM
"And you would accept that?"
I've already answered that once.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Sep 1, 2011, at 3:16 PM
lumbrg - Thanks for clearing that up. I missed that.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Sep 1, 2011, at 3:16 PM
Theorist,
Nowhere did I say it was the only way to share but, as you note, it is one way, which is why thy insist upon it.
Another reason for calling for prayer in public assemblies is also found in the teachings of the Bible: "For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them."
Since Christians clearly want God in the midst of such proceedings, they wish to gather 'in his name', which is the purpose of the prayer, which usually asks his blessing upon the event.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Sep 1, 2011, at 3:55 PM
Theorist,
Methinks you are confused again, because you assume that you understand the varieties of religious experience, and how each Christian understands their obligation to share the Word.
Are you now suggesting that the state should be telling the Christians how they are to interpret their Bibles? Are you telling them how they should do so?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Sep 1, 2011, at 4:10 PM
Theorist,
Methinks you are confused again, because you assume that you understand the varieties of religious experience, and how each Christian understands their obligation to share the Word.
Are you now suggesting that the state should be telling the Christians how they are to interpret their Bibles? Are you telling them how they should do so?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Sep 1, 2011, at 4:10 PM
Nobody is saying they can't intrpret it. But they can dictate areas where you can't preach it.
Just because I have the right to scream out scripture at the top of my lungs doesn't mean i have the right do it outside your bedroom window at 3 AM.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Thu, Sep 1, 2011, at 4:14 PM
Lumber,
If you cannot run faster than about 1000 ft per second... I would recommend you be very careful about the window you choose to do that under. Some people are not as kind and understanding as I would be.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Sep 1, 2011, at 4:24 PM
Lumber,
If you cannot run faster than about 1000 ft per second... I would recommend you be very careful about the window you choose to do that under. Some people are not as kind and understanding as I would be.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Sep 1, 2011, at 4:24 PM
Why? Do they hate cristians?
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Thu, Sep 1, 2011, at 4:27 PM
lumbrgfktr,
"Just because I have the right to scream out scripture at the top of my lungs doesn't mean i have the right do it outside your bedroom window at 3 AM."
While you can pass a general prohibition against noisemaking at 3 AM, you cannot pass a specific prohibition only on scripture reading at that hour. That is, more or less, what the debate is all about.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Sep 1, 2011, at 4:30 PM
Lumber,
Delivering the Reader's Digest Sweepstakes prize in that manner could create you a problem. I think a lot has to do with time and plACE. Next would be... who gets to determine time and place, and I believe that could vary.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Sep 1, 2011, at 4:32 PM
Lumbr wrote
"Where is a space religously exclusive?"
A space?
Shap, Put your best reading comprehension skills to work and I think you will find Theorist has a good point in there somewhere.
When three of us gather in His name the first purpose is to worship Him. The second is to thank Him for His blessings. The third is to ask for His forgiveness and further blessings. Those who are gathered in His name are not gathered to spread His word, for that they would be elsewhere.
Blessings are not [IMHO] scattered upon events but upon the people and the land.
I thus conclude that my thoughts and opinions about religion are not something the government should endorse nor suppress in school or elsewhere.
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Sep 1, 2011, at 4:42 PM
While you can pass a general prohibition against noisemaking at 3 AM, you cannot pass a specific prohibition only on scripture reading at that hour. That is, more or less, what the debate is all about.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Sep 1, 2011, at 4:30 PM
That is what we are exactly talking about.
While you can have a specific prohibition on scripture reading as part of a class, you cannot pass a specific prohibition reading at school.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Thu, Sep 1, 2011, at 5:03 PM
freedom of personal religion is a very cool thing..and rightfully so...
but it is free personal , not free public has to agree ...if prayer in school bothers some and not others , let the offended have the right to get up and leave if they chose to do so
peeping tom doesn't surprise me a bit....
-- Posted by Rick ** on Thu, Sep 1, 2011, at 4:31 PM
You may think its fine to have your kids be forced to pray to Allah, I don't.
Peeping tom...Why am I not suprised you have to add another layer of ignorance to a conversation.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Thu, Sep 1, 2011, at 5:07 PM
All the great wisdom and skills, superior reasoning, logic and understanding of Old John doesn't enable him to follow that which Lumbr espouses in recent posts.
That doesn't mean we couldn't be a dynamite stand-up comedy team. Imagine that. The first act would be aimed at getting Spaniard and Me'lange to smile!
No offense intended, just that too many serious discussions call for a humor break. :)
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Sep 1, 2011, at 5:33 PM
So Jews and Christians in Tehran are no longer free to worship? Tehran has more Jews than any other city in the Mideast outside of Israel.
-- Posted by BCStoned on Wed, Aug 31, 2011, at 2:19 PM
BC, I kept thinking something I remembered about the Muslim faith should promp a question. Maybe the question is this: Is worship free considering jizra?
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Sep 2, 2011, at 11:52 PM
Iran is 98% Muslim. Israel is 16% Muslim. I wonder where minorities are treated best.
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Sep 3, 2011, at 12:16 AM
BC, You probably know more about this than I, but in thinking out loud I come to this: Islam is less a religion than a way of life, complete with legal, political, economic, social and military components.
When politically correct countries agree to Muslim demand regarding religion, the other components will trickle in.
We all like to think of ourselves as tolerant to all religions, but what happens as the minority religion grows demanding Sharia law?
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Sep 3, 2011, at 1:00 AM
BC, Thanks for the link, a good read. I'll postpone my thinking out loud.
Looking forward to the free lecture on the constitution upcoming. It's advertised to be an hour per week. Can't beat free!
Good Night
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Sep 3, 2011, at 2:08 AM
-- Posted by Old John on Sun, Sep 4, 2011, at 1:31 PM
EOS,
That is the key for those of us who support changing the political system: identifying the true local Tea Parties and exposing those which have been hi-jacked and are being used as fronts.
-- Posted by Robert* on Mon, Sep 5, 2011, at 7:51 AM
As I reread the original posting on this thread, the whole purpose of the Sept. 17 meeting is to allow the public to meet the local group and ascertain their purpose. I intend to make use of this opportunity rather than allow a few posters on threads such as this to form my opinion for me.
-- Posted by Robert* on Mon, Sep 5, 2011, at 8:19 AM
Posted by stnmsn8 on Mon, Sep 5, 2011, at 8:19 AM
That is as it should be. Those who try to tar the Tea Party as a bunch of radicals and hatemongers hope, through their posts, to keep those who aren't radicals and hatemongers from attending, in order to create a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Sep 5, 2011, at 8:37 AM
Shapely - true. This would be the equivalent of listening to some democrats and their hate-filled, anti-women, racists speeches and claiming that they are all "women bashing, Christian hating, racists".
We could list examples - 1000's of them with video. But to tar an entire party that way is wrong. I'm more interested in their ideology and policy than a few people standing around with Uncle Sam hats or a couple of speakers at a rally.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Sep 5, 2011, at 8:41 AM
Theorist - take off the blinders. I was referring to both parties. Reread the post.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Sep 5, 2011, at 10:40 AM
reactionary, knee-jerk postings......sigh........ I guess I will get accustomed to them, but they do not contribute to a discussion.
-- Posted by Robert* on Mon, Sep 5, 2011, at 11:24 AM
Rick**,
As there is no formal party with membership rolls, constitution, platform, or such........Most of the tea party members I know desire limited government, local and state control, and a balanced budget.
-- Posted by Robert* on Mon, Sep 5, 2011, at 11:27 AM
Theorist - list my hate-filled posts. I'm passionate, but you'll find no hate. List them.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Sep 5, 2011, at 11:47 AM
Theorist - wheres the hate speech? Saying that democrats have "hate filled" speech is referring to democrats, not me. What do you think when your party leader Maxine Waters tells the Tea Party to "go to hell". I characterize that as hate speech.
I do hate prunes. There, now you can say I'm a "hater". That's all you got. For someone as educated as you your arguments are weak. Is that a hate statement?
-- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Sep 5, 2011, at 4:32 PM
Rick**,
Now you have my attention!
-- Posted by Robert* on Tue, Sep 6, 2011, at 12:47 PM
Caddy always brightens everyone's day with his rant.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Sep 6, 2011, at 12:57 PM
And if not............we will find someone or some other group that will step forward.......Or we will form a group ourselves.
Hope we do not wait too late!
-- Posted by Robert* on Tue, Sep 6, 2011, at 1:56 PM
I'm leaning towards the Bourbon Party, but I'm not writing off the Tea Party, just yet.
There is a concerted effort on the part of those with a vested interest in the continuation of big government to keep people away from the Tea Party. The must sense a threat there, or they would just ignore it. I don't see the same kind of hatred spewed at other grassroots political organizations, so this one must really have struck a chord with them.
Methinks people ought to find out what the Tea Party is really about by checking it out themselves, and not listen to Democrats telling them what it is about.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Sep 6, 2011, at 2:25 PM
People are always trying to box me in. They want to define me within certain boundaries so they can address me as a member of a group rather than as an individual. I resent that.
-- Posted by Robert* on Tue, Sep 6, 2011, at 2:33 PM
I will walk with you as long as we have the same destination in common. I am not so desperate for your approval that I would turn out of my way just so I could have your company.
-- Posted by Robert* on Tue, Sep 6, 2011, at 2:51 PM
Yes, the dirty tricks, the people who claim to be supporters of a person or a cause but are just positioning themselves in order to do that person/cause the most harm.
And the stories that are released on the eve of an election knowing there is no time for the truth to be revealed but also knowing that a certain number of voters will be swayed by that smear campaign.
-- Posted by Robert* on Tue, Sep 6, 2011, at 6:59 PM
Chelsea Clinton is only important because of an accident of birth. She is important for no other reason and her parentage should nolt be held against her if you happen to not like them.
The accident of birth comment, I stole from Gurus's Mom. She used it in a conversation she and I had a while back. Hope she doesn't hold me responsible.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Sep 6, 2011, at 11:03 PM
Don't know about Chelsea but my birth was no accident! My conception... well that's another story.
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Sep 7, 2011, at 12:23 AM
Old John,
I think I know what you mean.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Sep 7, 2011, at 12:25 AM
Plausible deniability; look it up in the dictionary, Theorist. It is an old strategy.
-- Posted by Robert* on Wed, Sep 7, 2011, at 3:24 PM
Every movement/candidate does have some overzealous members who bring disgrace on that which they claim to support.
But I have come to realize that that which is seen is not always what it appears to be.
-- Posted by Robert* on Wed, Sep 7, 2011, at 4:35 PM
Meet The Tea Party Conference
Cape Public Library
Saturday, September 17
2:00 to 4:00 P.M.
First come, first serve, as seating will be limited.
-- Posted by bebo on Mon, Sep 12, 2011, at 11:12 PM
Menu
The Cape County Tea Party is gearing up to continue it's effort to complete its mission.
If you would like to join in the effort, contact capecountyteaparty@yahoo.com.
We are planning a Meet The Tea Party event for September 17th at the Cape Public Library where you can hear the truth about the Tea Party and get information on how to get involved.
Our mission is to attract, educate, organize, and mobilize fellow citizens to secure public policy consistent with Fiscal Responsibility, Founding Principles, and Constitutionally Limited Government under God.
We look forward to working with you.
Replies (191)