Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Tea Party video

Tea Party video (Page 2)
Thread Tools
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 23, 2010, 03:42 PM
 
Still waiting for someone to show me where the U.S. Constitution tells me that the Christian God is the sole proprietor of my rights.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 23, 2010, 03:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by Macrobat View Post
Very simple, I have personally attended Tea Party events. I am also aware of "provocateurs" pretending to be Tea Party event attendees who attempt to get on camera with all the stereotypes fronted here.

I do not personally know of anyone who has uttered a single racial or sexual epithet - and I was there.

So you are basing an argument about the mere possibility of an epithet being used based on your empirical evidence? If you haven't seen this this is impossible?

I can understand how your attendance makes this an emotional thing for you if you feel connected to this party, but it is entirely possible that this could have happened at this or at virtually any other protest of any kind.
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 23, 2010, 03:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
As it's been pointed out, here in the US they are. You can choose not to believe it, but by law that's who our government officially gives credit for our freedoms.
Where does it say that?
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 23, 2010, 03:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Doofy pissed me off one time with a personal attack and I leveled one right back at him. I got myself a warning from a Mod for that one ... my first ever BTW. I imagine he got one too.
Correct.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 23, 2010, 05:15 PM
 
It appears that the group hallucination is continuing ....

House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) received racist faxes Monday in the wake of Sunday's House vote approving health care reform legislation.

Clyburn, a veteran of the civil rights movement, told Keith Olbermann Monday that faxes sent to his office had racist images including a noose. "If you look at some of the faxes that I got today, racial slurs, nooses on gallows, and I'm telling you, some very vicious language. This stuff is not all that isolated. It's pretty widespread. I hope it's not too deep."
An anti-reform protester called Rep. Ciro Rodriguez (D-Tex.) a "wetback" last week at a townhall meeting in his home district, according to a staffer.
OAW
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 23, 2010, 05:17 PM
 
It's okay. Conservative chatter about Biden dropping the F-bomb vaguely makes up for it.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 23, 2010, 05:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey View Post
It's okay. Conservative chatter about Biden dropping the F-bomb vaguely makes up for it.
Won't somebody think of the women and children?
     
Macrobat
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Raleigh, NC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 23, 2010, 05:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
So you are basing an argument about the mere possibility of an epithet being used based on your empirical evidence? If you haven't seen this this is impossible?

I can understand how your attendance makes this an emotional thing for you if you feel connected to this party, but it is entirely possible that this could have happened at this or at virtually any other protest of any kind.
Obviously not, have you even bothered to read the thread? Even the people who claim it happened can produce NO concrete proof it did.
"That Others May Live"
On the ISG: "The nation's capital hasn't seen such concentrated wisdom in one place since Paris Hilton dined alone at the Hooters on Connecticut Avenue." - John Podhoretz
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 23, 2010, 06:00 PM
 
In the spirit of distressing videos:

Marion Barry reality show trailers

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
Macrobat
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Raleigh, NC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 23, 2010, 06:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
It appears that the group hallucination is continuing ....





OAW
And you have seen the faxes? Have proof of the "wetback" statement? Have proof anyone associated with the Tea Party had jack-all to do with either, if they DO exist?

You should also know that there are known provocateurs infiltrating the Tea Parties specifically to generate this kind of crap. And have been for more than a year now:

Confederate Yankee: MoveOn.Org, SEIU, ACORN To Infiltrate/Disrupt Recess Protests

They're pretty easy to spot, but of course, the news media and mongers (not to name any names) ignore that fact,
"That Others May Live"
On the ISG: "The nation's capital hasn't seen such concentrated wisdom in one place since Paris Hilton dined alone at the Hooters on Connecticut Avenue." - John Podhoretz
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 23, 2010, 06:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by Macrobat View Post
And you have seen the faxes? Have proof of the "wetback" statement? Have proof anyone associated with the Tea Party had jack-all to do with either, if they DO exist?
No I haven't. I suggest you ask those "liars" Rep. Clyburn and Rep. Rodriguez's staffer about all that.

I will say, however, that your knee-jerk defensiveness continues to run amok. Neither I nor Rep. Clyburn said anything about the Tea Party in relation to this particular incident. The only thing the Majority Whip said was that he had received racist faxes since the passage of the bill. So why are you arguing a point that's not in dispute?

OAW
     
Macrobat
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Raleigh, NC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 23, 2010, 06:35 PM
 
Dude, you posted it in a thread ABOUT the Tea Party - not even a good attempt on your part.

Difference is, you think you're being funny calling them liars, whereas, judging from MULTIPLE past performances on the "D" side, I have no problem whatsoever believing JUST that.

Kinda funny coming from someone who's "knee-jerk offense" about racism is driving the entire conversation. Here's your moronic stick back.
( Last edited by Macrobat; Mar 23, 2010 at 06:48 PM. )
"That Others May Live"
On the ISG: "The nation's capital hasn't seen such concentrated wisdom in one place since Paris Hilton dined alone at the Hooters on Connecticut Avenue." - John Podhoretz
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 23, 2010, 08:19 PM
 
I've not seen any substantive proof of nor do I believe the Tea Party is racist at all. Besides, the screaming, spitting racists are the ones to fear the least.
ebuddy
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 23, 2010, 09:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by Macrobat View Post
Dude, you posted it in a thread ABOUT the Tea Party - not even a good attempt on your part.
I'm well aware of that. As I'm sure you are aware that threads sometimes diverge off onto a subtopic. For instance, you said ...

Originally Posted by Macrobat
Given the FACT that I have NO reason to trust and MULTIPLE reasons to distrust people who have EVERYTHING to gain from a false accusation of this type, I could care less about his background.
So YOU opened the door to that particular subtopic that wasn't about the Tea Party in particular. YOU made a blanket statement. All I did was cite yet another example of an African-American congressman "lying" about racial epithets. So again, on that particular point neither Rep. Clyburn nor I said anything about the Tea Party.

Originally Posted by Macrobat
Difference is, you think you're being funny calling them liars, whereas, judging from MULTIPLE past performances on the "D" side, I have no problem whatsoever believing JUST that.
Actually I don't think I'm being "funny". What I was being was "sarcastic". But I'll tell you something that is "funny" though. What is beyond question is the fact that there's a lot of anger in the Tea Party crowd. From the townhall meetings last summer to the various protests we see plenty of vitriol and venom being thrown about. About healthcare reform. About spending and deficits. Etc.

But on the planet you live on the following ....

1. 3 separate Congressmen "manufacture" a story of racial epithets and/or spitting.
2. Capitol Police make an arrest in this "nonexistent" situation.
3. House Republican leaders denounce this "nonexistent" situation.
4. Tea Party organizers of the protest in question denounce this "nonexistent" situation.
5. A demonstrator is seen holding a sign saying, "All tea partiers: If you hear a racial slur, step away, point, boo and take a picture of the rat bastard." ... even though things like that neeeeevvvveeeeerrrrr happen at Tea Party events.

..... is more likely than the following ....

1. A small group of yahoos out of the thousands of angry people in the Tea Party crowd at the rally actually used racial epithets.

Apparently, you are more than willing to take those odds ... even though it defies basic probability and simple common sense. Yeah ... that's freaking hilarious!! So I strongly suggest that you keep your a*s out of Vegas!!

Originally Posted by Macrobat
Kinda funny coming from someone who's "knee-jerk offense" about racism is driving the entire conversation. Here's your moronic stick back.
I'm "driving the conversation"? Oh that's even funnier. Because as I recall I didn't even raise the topic. I've been responding to YOU. And not counting this post, you've accumulated 14 posts on this particular topic to my 10. So I'll take the stick back. I'm sure you'll eventually adopt another inane position and it'll come in handy.

OAW
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 23, 2010, 09:20 PM
 
Here's a relevant aside:

Last general election in the UK, everyone was expecting the Tories to mention immigration. They didn't. The press kept hounding them about immigration. Tories continued to keep their mouths shut. In a peculiar turn of events, at some point the press started really harassing them and it turned into the press asking them "why do you keep banging on about immigration?!?!". Which they hadn't. Not once.

And that, OAW, is what can lead to groups warning their people not to make racial slurs and the like when none have been previously made.

I'm not saying it's the case here. I don't know. But I know it can happen.
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 23, 2010, 10:24 PM
 
Macrobat, stupendousman, I'm still waiting for you to show me where in the U.S. Constitution it says your God is the sole proprietor of human rights.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 23, 2010, 10:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
Macrobat, stupendousman, I'm still waiting for you to show me where in the U.S. Constitution it says your God is the sole proprietor of human rights.
It is in the Declaration of Independence.
hen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
     
Rumor
Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the verge of insanity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 23, 2010, 11:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I've not seen any substantive proof of nor do I believe the Tea Party is racist at all. Besides, the screaming, spitting racists are the ones to fear the least.
I agree. However, it doesn't mean they do not have racists/bigots among them*. Damn near every group does.

*One bad apple can ruin the whole box type of thing. Which is sad. One person being an ass can make the entire movement look bad.
I like my water with hops, malt, hops, yeast, and hops.
     
Rumor
Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the verge of insanity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 23, 2010, 11:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
It is in the Declaration of Independence.
That isn't denomination specific, now is it? Nature's God and Creator aren't specific to any religion. Nature's God could possibly be interpreted as the Goddess of Pagan belief since around the time of the document women weren't considered much more than baby makers and house cleaners by most.
I like my water with hops, malt, hops, yeast, and hops.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2010, 07:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by Rumor View Post
I agree. However, it doesn't mean they do not have racists/bigots among them*. Damn near every group does.

*One bad apple can ruin the whole box type of thing. Which is sad. One person being an ass can make the entire movement look bad.
I think this is what annoys me about the whole thing. The Tea Party is as grass-roots as it gets; which is an organic, and at times unsightly display. It represents folks from all walks of life be it prominent or poor, black, white, latino, Democrats, Republicans, Independents, etc... unfortunately included in this display are back-woods dumbasses, bigots, and racists.

Politicians and media who feel challenged by this movement have caught wind of its lowest common denominator and continue to attempt painting the entire movement itself as one of racist intention. You'll see words like "angry" (what protest isn't "angry", it's a protest), "bigoted", "anti-Obama", etc... when in reality this always has and always will be a minority of any bunch of people. This is not about anti-black or anti-Obama or anti-gays or even anti-healthcare reform. It is anti-growing government, back door dealing, lacking transparency, pork, taxation... and naturally it is as directed at white members of Congress as it is any other.

Let a black member of the GOP express his or her view and watch how he or she is regarded by the left and yet- this will get nary a word of rebuke. It will get almost no coverage at all. Insults hurled at Colin Powell calling him a "house 'n'", "Uncle Tom", racially-charged criticism of Clarence Thomas, Michael Steele, Condi Rice, JC Watts, etc... it exists on both sides.
ebuddy
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2010, 08:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
Macrobat, stupendousman, I'm still waiting for you to show me where in the U.S. Constitution it says your God is the sole proprietor of human rights.
What ever happened to people doing their OWN research?
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2010, 09:21 AM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
What ever happened to people doing their OWN research?
The way an argument works is:

1. Person A makes a claim
2. Person B challenges the claim
3. Person A introduces evidence to support the claim.
4. The evidence is discussed.

It's not olePigeon's responsibility to do Macrobat and stupendousman's work for them in backing up their claim. If they can't back up their claim, naturally, their argument is invalid. I presume olePigeon is asking them for this evidence because he might have checked and doesn't think it exists.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
Macrobat
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Raleigh, NC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2010, 09:44 AM
 
It IS however, OlePigeon's responsibility to exercise reading comprehension, and stop playing for a "gotcha" where none exists.

Here is EXACTLY what I said:

The Tea Party's stance is exactly what the Founders said - Rights are conferred by God, not the government.
I simply clarified, nowhere did I make any such claim for myself. I simply pointed out that it is their stance

Their's is - indeed - based on the Declaration.

As much as the Left would like to pretend they can treat the two as irrelevant to each other, the two documents are NOT entirely separate entities. Especially considering they were composed by the EXACT same people, the Constitution is a clarification of the Declaration - plain and simple.
"That Others May Live"
On the ISG: "The nation's capital hasn't seen such concentrated wisdom in one place since Paris Hilton dined alone at the Hooters on Connecticut Avenue." - John Podhoretz
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2010, 09:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by Macrobat View Post
As much as the Left would like to pretend they can treat the two as irrelevant to each other, the two documents are NOT entirely separate entities. Especially considering they were composed by the EXACT same people, the Constitution is a clarification of the Declaration - plain and simple.
Not exactly. The Declaration was authored chiefly by Thomas Jefferson with minor input from a few others. The Constitution was "authored" by a much larger group, although the agenda driving the Constitutional Convention was organized chiefly by James Madison. Jefferson wasn't even present at the Convention.

I wouldn't describe the two documents as "irrelevant to each other," but I also wouldn't refer to the Declaration as in any way legally binding. The Constitution deftly "clarified" that all men are not created equal, for example.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2010, 10:43 AM
 
The Federalist Papers will explain why something was done in a certain way.
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2010, 10:47 AM
 
And Anti-Federalist writings will explain why other things were done in other ways.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2010, 12:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
It is in the Declaration of Independence.
Declaration of Independence has no legal baring.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2010, 01:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I think this is what annoys me about the whole thing. The Tea Party is as grass-roots as it gets; which is an organic, and at times unsightly display. It represents folks from all walks of life be it prominent or poor, black, white, latino, Democrats, Republicans, Independents, etc... unfortunately included in this display are back-woods dumbasses, bigots, and racists.
You see this is what I respect about you ebuddy. You will at least acknowledge the obvious and I commend you for that. And you are right, you can find people from all walks of life in the Tea Party. But I hope you would also acknowledge that it is an overwhelmingly white, conservative thing. The people you see outside of that mold are sprinklings ... few and far between. This isn't a criticism ... just an observation I'm making because the way you presented it here sort of implies that diversity is a hallmark of the Tea Party when that simply is not the case.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Politicians and media who feel challenged by this movement have caught wind of its lowest common denominator and continue to attempt painting the entire movement itself as one of racist intention. You'll see words like "angry" (what protest isn't "angry", it's a protest), "bigoted", "anti-Obama", etc... when in reality this always has and always will be a minority of any bunch of people. This is not about anti-black or anti-Obama or anti-gays or even anti-healthcare reform. It is anti-growing government, back door dealing, lacking transparency, pork, taxation... and naturally it is as directed at white members of Congress as it is any other.
I feel you on this. And I don't disagree in the sense that the anti-government, anti-taxation, etc. sentiment is definitely genuine. But the evidence is pretty clear that there's a lot of other "anti" sentiment all up in the mix as well. Even if one is concerned about spending and deficits ... one loses credibility when you are out in the streets screaming about it under a Democratic Administration when that phenomenon simply did not exist under the previous Republican Administration that had massive deficits of its own. One loses credibility when you are out in the streets frothing at the mouth about "Socialism" because of Healthcare reform under the Obama Administration when you were as silent as a church mouse about Medicare Part D under the Bush Administration. Now we can quibble about numbers and the details (as we have on many occasions ), but I hope you can acknowledge my overall point here? There is a considerable lack of consistency regarding the stated concerns ... and it's readily apparent. Not to say that many weren't concerned during the Bush Administration. But clearly they weren't getting as bent out of shape about it as they are now. So that leads people to question what the "anger" is really all about? It makes people wonder what else ... in addition to the concerns you listed ... is fueling that fire?

Now personally I think it has two basic components. Race is a factor as you have acknowledged yourself. But contrary to what some around here might like to believe .... my take on that is that while it is likely more of a factor than the typical conservative would care to admit ... it's not the primary factor. IMO, the primary, dominant factor seems to be simple blind partisanship exacerbated by a severe economic malaise and politicians stoking the flames of fear and divineness for their own political benefit.

Originally Posted by ebuddy
Let a black member of the GOP express his or her view and watch how he or she is regarded by the left and yet- this will get nary a word of rebuke. It will get almost no coverage at all. Insults hurled at Colin Powell calling him a "house 'n'", "Uncle Tom", racially-charged criticism of Clarence Thomas, Michael Steele, Condi Rice, JC Watts, etc... it exists on both sides.
Well black members of the GOP are a drop in the bucket of the overall black population for a reason my friend. A reason that goes back decades to the civil rights era. But be that as it may, I actually agree with you. Insults like that do cross the line.

Now personally I like Colin Powell. Would have likely voted for him if he had run for President. But he didn't because he's part of an "endangered species" ... a moderate Republican .... so getting through the primary was dubious at best. And of course, his wife was concerned that he would be killed despite the fact that he was a "war hero" and was the highest ranking military officer in the country as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Which is pretty sobering when you think about it. But I digress. I respect Condi Rice too. Her politics are pretty obscure though I get the impression she is pretty moderate as well. She certainly served the President she worked for admirably and I can't fault her for that. J.C. Watts was a bit of a mixed bag. He's definitely politically conservative which put him at odds with the vast majority in the black community. And his "race hustling poverty pimps" comment in reference to civil rights activists that most people in the black community respected certainly didn't gain him many fans in that crowd. However, he was known to oppose Confederate Flags on state capital buildings and urged the GOP to moderate its opposition to affirmative action. He also urged the GOP to alter the party's message and to be more inclusive ... which, of course didn't happen since he was the last African-American Republican member of Congress (out of a grand total of 1 senator and 3 congressmen in the entire modern era) when he retired in 2003. Clarence Thomas? Well he consistently votes against the interests of the black community (and the poor, and the disenfranchised, and the consumer, etc.) on the Supreme Court. Which is why he is persona non grata among the overwhelming majority of those who look like him. So to paraphrase Chris Rock, "I ain't saying there should be racially charged criticism of Clarence Thomas, but I understand!" No but seriously ... as African-Americans in the 21st century we should be past resorting to such insults ... even in the case of one such as Thomas. I also disagreed with such statements being made about Rep. Cleaver of Kansas City, MO (and others) who supported Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama during the 2008 Democratic Presidential Primary (until she ended her campaign that is). He was simply being loyal to a political ally. Besides, if African-Americans were going to support someone simply because they were black then we would have rolled with Alan Keyes the umpteen times he has run. Hell even Al Sharpton didn't win a majority of the black vote when he ran!

So while I agree with you in principle on this, I have to take a bit of issue with your "it exists on both sides" comment. While "racially charged criticism" may exist on both sides, there is simply no equating the two from the perspective of "scope" and "motivation". You don't see nearly as many examples of what you cited considering the fact that the number of black GOP members is just slightly above "nonexistent". Also the motivation behind such criticism isn't "racial hatred" ... it's because there are those who consider some of these individuals to be "sellouts" who put their own personal interests above those of the larger community. That is the origin of those terms after all. I'm not saying that it's "right" ... I'm just saying that it's "different".

OAW
( Last edited by OAW; Mar 24, 2010 at 04:40 PM. )
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2010, 02:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by Macrobat View Post
I simply clarified, nowhere did I make any such claim for myself. I simply pointed out that it is their stance.
Originally Posted by Macrobat View Post
Say it all you want - it's in the Constitution AND the Declaration of Independence.
Contradictions aside, it is not in either document. First of all, The Declaration of Independence makes no reference to religion, and, in fact, precisely states that we are to be governed by our own principles, not a god's. Secondly, the entire purpose of the Declaration of Independence was to set a moral case for dissolution from the British empire; after accomplishing that, it's roll was over, hence the Constitution of the United States.
Originally Posted by Macrobat View Post
Their's is - indeed - based on the Declaration.
Originally Posted by Macrobat View Post
OlePigeon, read the Constitution - THAT's what teh Tea Party wants...
The Declaration of Independence was drafted by a deist, a man who believed that God has nothing to do with our physical universe anymore. The first sentence is not about your Christian god, it's an assertion of Natural Law. The Creator is purposefully ambiguous, given the nature of the men signing it. As I mentioned earlier, it also clearly states that the government is derived by the governed, not from any gods.

Considering that the Constitution makes no mention of any god or gods, your entire argument falls on your misinterpretation of Declaration of Independence; a document, by the way, that has no legal authority in any court of law.

It's no wonder the f**ktards in the Texas Board of Education eliminated Thomas Jefferson from their curriculum, they had to if they wanted to rewrite history and "emphasize the importance of Christianity" in the founding of this nation.

Originally Posted by Macrobat View Post
Especially considering they were composed by the EXACT same people...
The Tea Party has a Disneyland view of our founding fathers, and not one containing any sort historical accuracy. For some strange reason they think that persons wanting to escape religious tyranny would invoke it upon themselves.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2010, 02:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
Declaration of Independence has no legal baring.
Indeed. It's has no bearing on the situation at hand. From a legal standpoint only the Constitution matters. And the Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it means for all practical purposes. So olePigeon is correct. There is no mention of "God" in the Constitution. As for the whole "founding principles" question ... women weren't included and millions who built the foundations of this country were in chains. Perhaps that will shed some light on why there are those who do not bow down at the altar of the "Founding Fathers". Real life is a tad bit more nuanced than that.

OAW
     
Macrobat
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Raleigh, NC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2010, 02:46 PM
 
Like his Deism made any difference:

deism |ˈdēizəm|
noun
belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe. The term is used chiefly of an intellectual movement of the 17th and 18th centuries that accepted the existence of a creator on the basis of reason but rejected belief in a supernatural deity who interacts with humankind. Compare with theism .
He STILL clearly stated rights came from a Deity - "their Creator" (see, that's why Creator is capitalized in the DoI.

And you are full of crap. The base of the Tea Party is a belief in the small government the Founders intended, with powers in the hands of the states, not the federal government.

Keep throwing the straw.
"That Others May Live"
On the ISG: "The nation's capital hasn't seen such concentrated wisdom in one place since Paris Hilton dined alone at the Hooters on Connecticut Avenue." - John Podhoretz
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2010, 02:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by OlePigeon
Originally Posted by Macrobat
I simply clarified, nowhere did I make any such claim for myself. I simply pointed out that it is their stance.

Originally Posted by Macrobat
Say it all you want - it's in the Constitution AND the Declaration of Independence.
Contradictions aside ....
>>>> Macrobat.

Told you it would come in handy.

OAW
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2010, 03:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW
So that leads people to question what the "anger" is really all about? It makes people wonder what else, in addition to the concerns you listed is fueling that fire?
It appears that things may be getting even more out of hand ...

A severed gas line at the home of a Democratic lawmaker's brother is being investigated as a possible act of retaliation for the representative's vote in favor of health care reform, the Charlottesville Daily Progress reported Wednesday.

The slashed gas line leading to a propane tank at the home of Bo Perriello was discovered one day after Tea Party activists posted the address online and suggested that opponents of the reform bill should "express their thanks" to Rep. Tom Perriello, D-Va.

The FBI is working with local officials to investigate the incident.

Conservative activists in Virginia posted the home address of Perriello's older brother — believing it to be the congressman's address — when suggesting in Web postings that those who disagreed with the Democratic lawmaker's vote should "drop by" to make their opposition clear.


OAW
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2010, 04:31 PM
 
Jeez, it's the Tea Party, not the Gas Party!

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2010, 05:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by Macrobat View Post
Like his Deism made any difference...
Since he believed that a god or any supernatural entity has no active role in this universe, why would he contradict himself and then say that your Christian god is the sole proprietor of our unalienable rights? Deism does make a difference.

Originally Posted by Macrobat View Post
He STILL clearly stated rights came from a Deity - "their Creator" (see, that's why Creator is capitalized in the DoI.
Out of respect for any belief. Thomas Jefferson was adamant about not having one specific religion represented as the only religion in America, especially since many of the signatories were atheists like George Washington.

Originally Posted by Macrobat View Post
And you are full of crap. The base of the Tea Party is a belief in the small government the Founders intended, with powers in the hands of the states, not the federal government.
From the Tea Party Manifesto:

I. Spirituality above all
III. Unalienable rights - from God
VII. Equal, by God's gift, in sight of God and law

When you put your spirituality above all, you're creating a theocracy. I don't want people's self venerability, rights, and equality judged by your Christian mythology.

The Tea Party is not upholding anything except bigotry and their own warped views of history, they're trampling on the very principles our forefathers fought and died for. We didn't escape religious persecution from a God-fearing King to be replaced by a God-fearing caribou Barby.

So I'll say it again, Tea Party can go themselves.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 25, 2010, 07:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
You see this is what I respect about you ebuddy. You will at least acknowledge the obvious and I commend you for that. And you are right, you can find people from all walks of life in the Tea Party. But I hope you would also acknowledge that it is an overwhelmingly white, conservative thing. The people you see outside of that mold are sprinklings ... few and far between. This isn't a criticism ... just an observation I'm making because the way you presented it here sort of implies that diversity is a hallmark of the Tea Party when that simply is not the case.
Thanks for the kudos OAW.

80% of the country is white and most of the country is centre-right to right. When you say "overwhelmingly white and conservative" it only follows logically given the demographics of this country. Then consider a measure of reaction to an Administration's degree of push left or right. More later...

I feel you on this. And I don't disagree in the sense that the anti-government, anti-taxation, etc. sentiment is definitely genuine. But the evidence is pretty clear that there's a lot of other "anti" sentiment all up in the mix as well. Even if one is concerned about spending and deficits ... one loses credibility when you are out in the streets screaming about it under a Democratic Administration when that phenomenon simply did not exist under the previous Republican Administration that had massive deficits of its own. One loses credibility when you are out in the streets frothing at the mouth about "Socialism" because of Healthcare reform under the Obama Administration when you were as silent as a church mouse about Medicare Part D under the Bush Administration. Now we can quibble about numbers and the details (as we have on many occasions ), but I hope you can acknowledge my overall point here? There is a considerable lack of consistency regarding the stated concerns ... and it's readily apparent. Not to say that many weren't concerned during the Bush Administration. But clearly they weren't getting as bent out of shape about it as they are now. So that leads people to question what the "anger" is really all about? It makes people wonder what else ... in addition to the concerns you listed ... is fueling that fire?
Agreed, but this is a reactionary human nature my friend. Again, it's a numbers game. I don't recall a great deal of outrage over Iraq while Clinton was lobbing missiles, but Bush sure got their attention with shock and awe and the taking of Saddam. I could as easily say most of the vocal opposition to this action were incapable of locating Iraq on a map, but I don't think it's useful, necessary, or fair to try to frame people as "blindly" following anything. BTW, Bush also lost most of whatever legacy he had left with plummeting approval ratings and seeing his party out of the House and Senate in the meantime. The movement had already begun to ratchet up OAW. This conservative, right-leaning country began to lose real faith in the Republican party and grew to resent it. What was there left to take the streets over? Bush was on his way out and they knew if they had anything to do with it, so were a whole bunch of Republicans. This is one of the primary reasons why I don't think you can peg the Tea Party as "overwhelmingly" anything. Naturally, the lion's share of Obama's drop in approval ratings have been among independents. I also believe they're the ones that had the greatest impact on Obama's election. I think this movement is much more diverse than many on the left would be willing to acknowledge. In reality all you're really seeing is an increasing lack of trust or regard for Congress and government in general. The only reason the Tea Party owns this rap is because they are exercising their freedom of speech. If they allow any attempt to paint them as "overwhelmingly" anything, they will be marginalized and eventually silenced. In other words, they do exactly as the left would have them; shut up already. You must know a great many on the left would love nothing more.

Now personally I think it has two basic components. Race is a factor as you have acknowledged yourself. But contrary to what some around here might like to believe .... my take on that is that while it is likely more of a factor than the typical conservative would care to admit ... it's not the primary factor. IMO, the primary, dominant factor seems to be simple blind partisanship exacerbated by a severe economic malaise and politicians stoking the flames of fear and divineness for their own political benefit.
My take is that caracatures have had more bearing on this view than reality.

I never acknowledged that "race is a factor". I can't think of a single contribution or impact racism has had on the Tea Party movement or its collective ideology/world view. For one thing, I think the racists know for certain they're defiling an otherwise reasonable display of dissent against leftist policy and I sometimes wonder if that's not their MO. Concerted attempts to hijack these events and defile their reputation has been cited in this thread. I see the Tea Party movement itself as a measure of reaction to a degree of push... left. When you vote all, but a silent minority of one party out of office only to have them replaced by those willing to double-down on the former's folly, you'd expect to see people react in no other way. Truly grass roots.

Well black members of the GOP are a drop in the bucket of the overall black population for a reason my friend. A reason that goes back decades to the civil rights era. But be that as it may, I actually agree with you. Insults like that do cross the line.
If party platform during the civil rights era were truly causal of racial sensitivity toward the GOP, they'd be running full steam away from the Democratic party. Period. The dixiecrats who tried to hijack the Republican party were unelectable on the Republican ticket and eventually turned with tail between their legs back to the Democratic party. How many former clansmen are allowed in the GOP OAW? I think too many have been bamboozled here.

... and I've long maintained that blacks on the whole are far more conservative than they vote; fiscally and socially. I also believe conservatism offers the best opportunity of producing the most equitable society, but that's a thread for another time. If Republicans allow themselves to be painted as owning the "reason there are so few blacks in the Republican party" they empower those who would marginalize and silence them. Now, should everyone have to acknowledge conviction for the exploitation of minorities in this country? Absolutely. Republicans can't win for losing and IMO blacks lose when Dems win. What I've always wanted to see Republicans do more effectively is acknowledge that while there have been racially unsavory characters amongst them throughout history, racism has never been an integral or necessary part of conservatism. Conservatism in the US is the comparatively new ideal on this globe. Conservatism does not give a man a fish, it teaches a man to fish, etc... Can the Republican party be more effective at reaching out to the black community? Absolutely, but it's not for lack of trying. They've been effectively painted with a broad brush of antiquated sentiment that permeates both parties. Republicans need to muster the courage to tackle this issue head-on as opposed to running from it out of fear of how the left will twist what they're saying and doing.

Now personally I like Colin Powell. Would have likely voted for him if he had run for President. But he didn't because he's part of an "endangered species" ... a moderate Republican .... so getting through the primary was dubious at best. And of course, his wife was concerned that he would be killed despite the fact that he was a "war hero" and was the highest ranking military officer in the country as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Which is pretty sobering when you think about it. But I digress. I respect Condi Rice too. Her politics are pretty obscure though I get the impression she is pretty moderate as well. She certainly served the President she worked for admirably and I can't fault her for that. J.C. Watts was a bit of a mixed bag. He's definitely politically conservative which put him at odds with the vast majority in the black community. And his "race hustling poverty pimps" comment in reference to civil rights activists that most people in the black community respected certainly didn't gain him many fans in that crowd. However, he was known to oppose Confederate Flags on state capital buildings and urged the GOP to moderate its opposition to affirmative action. He also urged the GOP to alter the party's message and to be more inclusive ... which, of course didn't happen since he was the last African-American Republican member of Congress (out of a grand total of 1 senator and 3 congressmen in the entire modern era) when he retired in 2003. Clarence Thomas? Well he consistently votes against the interests of the black community (and the poor, and the disenfranchised, and the consumer, etc.) on the Supreme Court. Which is why he is persona non grata among the overwhelming majority of those who look like him. So to paraphrase Chris Rock, "I ain't saying there should be racially charged criticism of Clarence Thomas, but I understand!" No but seriously ... as African-Americans in the 21st century we should be past resorting to such insults ... even in the case of one such as Thomas. I also disagreed with such statements being made about Rep. Cleaver of Kansas City, MO (and others) who supported Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama during the 2008 Democratic Presidential Primary (until she ended her campaign that is). He was simply being loyal to a political ally. Besides, if African-Americans were going to support someone simply because they were black then we would have rolled with Alan Keyes the umpteen times he has run. Hell even Al Sharpton didn't win a majority of the black vote when he ran!
While I think your assessment is mostly reasonable, I wasn't as interested in breaking down each character because there are a number of redirects involved. For example, you don't seem to acknowledge that a great many conservatives truly believe conservatism offers the best opportunity for an equitable society; instead claiming Thomas "votes against the interests of the black community". I and many others do not believe leftist policy is in the best interests of blacks, but seeks to engineer society and create a dependancy class. Our entitlement society has only continued to grow showing absolutely no appreciable decline in wealth disparity. Entitlements like Social Security for example that when facts of life expectancy are taken into account, tilt decidedly away from the black male in this country. It does not seek to lift the poor up, it seeks to drag the wealthy down. I think you can judge ideology by its fruits or at least, you should.

So while I agree with you in principle on this, I have to take a bit of issue with your "it exists on both sides" comment. While "racially charged criticism" may exist on both sides, there is simply no equating the two from the perspective of "scope" and "motivation". You don't see nearly as many examples of what you cited considering the fact that the number of black GOP members is just slightly above "nonexistent". Also the motivation behind such criticism isn't "racial hatred" ... it's because there are those who consider some of these individuals to be "sellouts" who put their own personal interests above those of the larger community. That is the origin of those terms after all. I'm not saying that it's "right" ... I'm just saying that it's "different".
I think you're missing the numbers game in two ways here. Again, you're not acknowledging the simple fact that most of the country is white and right or right-leaning. Secondly, what percent of Congress is black OAW, 8%? The "anti" in this is not bolstered by racism in any way that could be deemed meaningful. Again, there's absolutely no reason Republicans have to eat what's being spooned up for them. I think this view is partially driven by an attempt to marginalize disagreement and illustrates what conservatism has to overcome for a fair hearing in the black community. I think this is among the Republicans' best opportunity in future elections.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 25, 2010, 07:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
So I'll say it again, Tea Party can go themselves.


Your ANGRY left ladies and gentlemen.
ebuddy
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 25, 2010, 07:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
Since he believed that a god or any supernatural entity has no active role in this universe, why would he contradict himself and then say that your Christian god is the sole proprietor of our unalienable rights? Deism does make a difference.
Are we talking about Jefferson here? He himself considered himself a Christian, not a deist. He said so himself.

Out of respect for any belief. Thomas Jefferson was adamant about not having one specific religion represented as the only religion in America, especially since many of the signatories were atheists like George Washington.
Any specific religious denomination. He realized though that most all of America believed in God and considered our rights granted by God which is exactly why that was put in. And of course, while Jefferson did compile most of the document, it wasn't without input from others and the idea that it would have to be voted into existence by a majority of his peers, a good deal of which may disagree with his personal points of view.

It's funny how people have to mangle history in order to prove that what clearly exists and was intended isn't relevant.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 25, 2010, 07:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Are we talking about Jefferson here? He himself considered himself a Christian, not a deist. He said so himself.
Jefferson is only taken seriously when he can be painted in a particular way by the left. For example, Jefferson felt that Scripture should be read in the classroom each and every day. LET'S DO IT! C'mon you Jeffersonians, grab your Bibles, class is in session!
ebuddy
     
sek929
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 25, 2010, 07:50 AM
 
If some of the founding fathers (not Franklin or Adams for sure) wanted to create a Christian country then they were wrong, dead wrong. What is the point of escaping religious persecution only to set up a country ruled by god?

The founding fathers were human beings, and made plenty of mistakes. The notion these men were infallible gods needs to stop.
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 25, 2010, 09:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Jefferson is only taken seriously when he can be painted in a particular way by the left. For example, Jefferson felt that Scripture should be read in the classroom each and every day. LET'S DO IT! C'mon you Jeffersonians, grab your Bibles, class is in session!
Of course, this was before the emergence of public education (primarily a mid-19th century phenomenon). Who is to say that Jefferson would not recognize the inherent contradiction between that statement and his view about a "wall" between church and state if he knew that taxpayer-funded schools would dominate in the future? This is the problem with deifying the "founding fathers," on all sides. The historical context cannot be ignored.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
Macrobat
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Raleigh, NC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 25, 2010, 10:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by sek929 View Post
If some of the founding fathers (not Franklin or Adams for sure) wanted to create a Christian country then they were wrong, dead wrong. What is the point of escaping religious persecution only to set up a country ruled by god?

The founding fathers were human beings, and made plenty of mistakes. The notion these men were infallible gods needs to stop.

Samuel Adams:

"If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or
give up any natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end
of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to
freedom being the gift of Almighty God, it is not in the power of man
to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave."
Benjamin Franklin:

“The longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?”
"That Others May Live"
On the ISG: "The nation's capital hasn't seen such concentrated wisdom in one place since Paris Hilton dined alone at the Hooters on Connecticut Avenue." - John Podhoretz
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 25, 2010, 10:11 AM
 
I few tid bits from a pre constitution document, the Northwest Ordinance.
Our Documents - Transcript of Northwest Ordinance (1787)
Sec. 13. And, for extending the fundamental principles of civil and religious liberty, which form the basis whereon these republics, their laws and constitutions are erected; to fix and establish those principles as the basis of all laws, constitutions, and governments, which forever hereafter shall be formed in the said territory: to provide also for the establishment of States, and permanent government therein, and for their admission to a share in the federal councils on an equal footing with the original States, at as early periods as may be consistent with the general interest:
Art. 3. Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 25, 2010, 10:13 AM
 
Originally Posted by Macrobat View Post
Samuel Adams:



Benjamin Franklin:
I'm pretty sure he meant John Adams. Sam makes good beer, though.

Franklin surely believed that Christianity is a basis for virtue, but I don't know what that quote has to do with Christianity as fundamental to the state.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
Macrobat
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Raleigh, NC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 25, 2010, 10:21 AM
 
Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey View Post
I'm pretty sure he meant John Adams. Sam makes good beer, though.

Franklin surely believed that Christianity is a basis for virtue, but I don't know what that quote has to do with Christianity as fundamental to the state.
Fine, have it your way:

We recognize no sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus.
- John Adams and John Hancock

The Declaration of Independence laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity.
- John Adams

The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.
- John Adams

The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected, in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.
- John Adams

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
- John Adams

I have examined all religions, and the result is that the Bible is the best book in the world.
- John Adams

The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity.
- John Adams

[The Fourth of July] ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty.
- John Adams

As the safety and prosperity of nations ultimately and essentially depend on the protection and the blessing of Almighty God, and the national acknowledgment of this truth is not only an indispensable duty which the people owe to Him.
- John Adams
"That Others May Live"
On the ISG: "The nation's capital hasn't seen such concentrated wisdom in one place since Paris Hilton dined alone at the Hooters on Connecticut Avenue." - John Podhoretz
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 25, 2010, 10:29 AM
 
Look, no one is debating the fact that these men were Christians, or the fact that part of their justification for revolution was inherent in this piety. What is being disputed is that references to God, the Almighty, the Creator, etc. in America's founding documents are intended to be read as prescription for government. This is why God is not mentioned in the Constitution.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
Macrobat
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Raleigh, NC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 25, 2010, 10:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey View Post
Look, no one is debating the fact that these men were Christians, or the fact that part of their justification for revolution was inherent in this piety. What is being disputed is that references to God, the Almighty, the Creator, etc. in America's founding documents are intended to be read as prescription for government. This is why God is not mentioned in the Constitution.
Um, the aforementioned John Adams quite obviously disagreed with you - or did you bother to read the quotes?

Little icing for you, James Madison - Father of the Contitution:

It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage. Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe.

We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self government; upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.
( Last edited by Macrobat; Mar 25, 2010 at 10:39 AM. )
"That Others May Live"
On the ISG: "The nation's capital hasn't seen such concentrated wisdom in one place since Paris Hilton dined alone at the Hooters on Connecticut Avenue." - John Podhoretz
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 25, 2010, 10:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by Macrobat View Post
Um, the aforementioned John Adams quite obviously disagreed with you - or did you bother to read the quotes?
I did. Can you point out where he says that the state should govern according to Christian doctrine?

EDIT Re: your James Madison quote: Again, he is writing about the "duty of every man" (emphasis mine). He is stressing the need for a virtuous society if the experiment in self-government is to be successful. As Christians, God naturally figures in their concept of personal virtue. But nowhere in anything you are quoting is a concept that the Christian God should figure prominently in the decisions of state.
( Last edited by SpaceMonkey; Mar 25, 2010 at 10:45 AM. )

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
Macrobat
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Raleigh, NC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 25, 2010, 10:44 AM
 
Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey View Post
I did. Can you point out where he says that the state should govern according to Christian doctrine?
Can you point out where anyone else has either?

What was said was that rights were conferred by God. Your strawman that we should be governed according to doctrine is in your own skull.

But - to answer you directly - see the Madison quotes and this particular Adams one:

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
- John Adams
"That Others May Live"
On the ISG: "The nation's capital hasn't seen such concentrated wisdom in one place since Paris Hilton dined alone at the Hooters on Connecticut Avenue." - John Podhoretz
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 25, 2010, 10:54 AM
 
Originally Posted by Macrobat View Post
Can you point out where anyone else has either?

What was said was that rights were conferred by God. Your strawman that we should be governed according to doctrine is in your own skull.

But - to answer you directly - see the Madison quotes and this particular Adams one:
See my answer to your Madison quote above (also relevant to this Adams quote).

We began this line of argument because you seemed to disagree with sek29's position that "If some of the founding fathers (not Franklin or Adams for sure) wanted to create a Christian country then they were wrong, dead wrong. What is the point of escaping religious persecution only to set up a country ruled by god?" (emphasis mine)

I agree with the notion that many of the founders believed that the natural rights of men are the result of God, inasmuch as they believed God created man in the first place. However, I do not think that they felt that this should necessarily be a common belief as a prerequisite for governing the country. Natural rights are natural rights, whether they come from God or somewhere else.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:47 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,