Tea Party ‘founder’: Palin, Gingrich a ‘joke’

[Trading_Fool]

The biggest problem we have with this discussion is that every time a new party emerges, it takes away from the conservative vote. i.e. libertarian, tea party. The advantage the left wing has had is that they don't divide over issues. Without republican support any tea party members will never get elected, because they are dividing the vote. That being said, the democrats will always win a three party election in a two party government.

 

[awatarius]

Hmmm Tea Party

Hello,

I love politics and I have worked for several politicians on both sides of the isle. I tell you this now and you can take this check and cash it. If the Tea Party becomes the party of the religious right the tea party will be a fad... period. I grew up Christian, and I am Christian but I will be damned if I tell someone they have to be Christian. True students of our history understand what most of our founding fathers understood. And it wasn't the United States of Christ. Sorry... read more history books not written by the religious right. I loved the Tea Party at first... then the religious right stepped in and thought they saw a way of coming back into power. That time is over.. and they are destroying a normally good movement. The majority of this country doesn't want the religious right... no matter how bad they want it. Backman, Palin, and Newt... Awful awful examples. If you are going to run as a family values politician (puke) at least follow your own rules... and all of them have enough laws/indiscretions broken to be easily discredited. Now let's get back to small govt, pursuit of happiness, lower taxes, and a monetary system backed by something!!

 

[SavageEagle]

Some of the politically active social conservatives attempt to use the law to force other people to adhere to a standard of behavior based in religious beliefs. People who don't share those beliefs don't want to have their behavior dictated by force, based on religious beliefs they don't share.

Yea, no, those are Christian radicals. The same type of people who believed that all Native Americans MUST be converted to Christianity. This stems from the crazies that were trying to bring about the Prophecies of Revelations.

No, I'm talking about the Founders belief's, and the Universal Christian Principles that our Country and Constitution were Founded on. It's my belief that those social conservatives trying to use the law to force their beliefs upon people are a small minority, and not of any concern here.

See, while we have freedom to believe in whatever God (or no God at all) we wish, we cannot escape the fact that this Country WAS Founded upon Christian/Anglo-Saxon Principle and that the Founders intended those people with those Principles to be the leaders of this Country. If you want I can throw out some direct quotes from the Founders on this very subject.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Yea, no, those are Christian radicals. The same type of people who believed that all Native Americans MUST be converted to Christianity. This stems from the crazies that were trying to bring about the Prophecies of Revelations.

No, I'm talking about the Founders belief's, and the Universal Christian Principles that our Country and Constitution were Founded on. It's my belief that those social conservatives trying to use the law to force their beliefs upon people are a small minority, and not of any concern here.

See, while we have freedom to believe in whatever God (or no God at all) we wish, we cannot escape the fact that this Country WAS Founded upon Christian/Anglo-Saxon Principle and that the Founders intended those people with those Principles to be the leaders of this Country. If you want I can throw out some direct quotes from the Founders on this very subject.

Won't matter; they don't want to hear it. They're in the grip of revisionist historians. The Founding Fathers had all sorts of examples of government from which to choose; by and large they were learned men. What they chose was to continue the basic Judeo/Christian principles which underlay British Common Law, with enough bindings on the federal government (they hoped) to allow local and State governments the bulk of the say in lawmaking. It was the Judeo/Christian ethic which most of them (if not all of them) espoused and wrote about, and it was under that present morality that they designed their political system to work. In fact, several of the Founders said that without those Christian moral underpinnings, the society would not survive. The religious limitations they put on the federal government were to prevent the establishment of a STATE RELIGION, not to prevent people from practicing their own religion. It always surprises me that the people who can understand what the 2nd Amendment plainly says have trouble with the 1st Amendment.

Restrictions on the federal level aside, there was never any expectation that every man was a moral law unto himself; that he had no responsibility to the community around him and to obey the laws enacted by his neighbors. Of course, at that time, if a man didn't like the neighborhood morals, he could move to where there were no neighbors; we can't do that today.

 

[SavageEagle]

Won't matter; they don't want to hear it. They're in the grip of revisionist historians. The Founding Fathers had all sorts of examples of government from which to choose; by and large they were learned men. What they chose was to continue the basic Judeo/Christian principles which underlay British Common Law, with enough bindings on the federal government (they hoped) to allow local and State governments the bulk of the say in lawmaking. It was the Judeo/Christian ethic which most of them (if not all of them) espoused and wrote about, and it was under that present morality that they designed their political system to work. In fact, several of the Founders said that without those Christian moral underpinnings, the society would not survive. The religious limitations they put on the federal government were to prevent the establishment of a STATE RELIGION, not to prevent people from practicing their own religion. It always surprises me that the people who can understand what the 2nd Amendment plainly says have trouble with the 1st Amendment.

Restrictions on the federal level aside, there was never any expectation that every man was a moral law unto himself; that he had no responsibility to the community around him and to obey the laws enacted by his neighbors. Of course, at that time, if a man didn't like the neighborhood morals, he could move to where there were no neighbors; we can't do that today.

Completely agree with all of that, and AMEN on that last part. Well, actually, I guess you COULD move to where you have no neighbors, but you'd better like living inside a mountain or in Alaska....

 

[ar15junkie]

Secondly, what more do you want. Sarah Palin has endorsed several Tea Party candidates. Heck, while she was in Florida recently she gave a rather nice speech about wanting a smaller, more responsible government and how she would like to return to Reaganism. If some no name tea party protest organizer had said it you all would be enthralled but because it was an "establishment politician" (or anyone you deem less pure than you) it gets the typical pointless internet whining.

I could see the tea party not appreciating any endorsement from the established republicans, Palin included. How can you be so sure that Palin would be any different from the others that have sunk our great country?

IMHO the tea party is sunk anyhow.

 

[SavageEagle]

I don't think she'll be any better, personally. She did leave office, and for what? She is, however, quite sexy holding an .50 AR-15, and has a very hot daughter on Dancing with the Stars.

 

[awatarius]

Hello,

I am not in the grip of anything I am a very well read person. I made my mind up not because I was told to think one way but because I decided to think one way. Our founding fathers did often believe in a moral code, but they were universal principles and not specifically Christian principles. The idea that we need to get back to the original constitution, and by doing so embrace Christianity is extremely flawed.. You said you wanted to throw out some quotes here are a few. All of the founding fathers were religious to some degree and most were deists. The private letters they wrote and have been published (that I have read many books on) prove that fact. The FACT is the rounding fathers both the signers and framers were VERY split on the idea of religion and moral authority.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." (Article 6, section 3)

[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The 1796 treaty with Tripoli states that the United States was "in no sense founded on the Christian religion" (written under Washington signed into effect by Adams).

[/FONT][1787-1788], John Adams wrote: "The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.
". . . Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind."



Madison 1785,
"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."
"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."



Thomas Jefferson
"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."



James Madison
"And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."



Thanks,
Matthew

 

[rooster007]

TEA PARTY MOVEMENT

I'am sorry but I have to ask . What is wrong with the TEA PARTY MOVEMENT I've ask several of my libartard /Democrap friends and no one can give me a real answer.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Hello,

I am not in the grip of anything I am a very well read person. I made my mind up not because I was told to think one way but because I decided to think one way. Our founding fathers did often believe in a moral code, but they were universal principles and not specifically Christian principles. The idea that we need to get back to the original constitution, and by doing so embrace Christianity is extremely flawed.. You said you wanted to throw out some quotes here are a few. All of the founding fathers were religious to some degree and most were deists. The private letters they wrote and have been published (that I have read many books on) prove that fact. The FACT is the rounding fathers both the signers and framers were VERY split on the idea of religion and moral authority.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." (Article 6, section 3)

[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The 1796 treaty with Tripoli states that the United States was "in no sense founded on the Christian religion" (written under Washington signed into effect by Adams).

[/FONT][1787-1788], John Adams wrote: "The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.
". . . Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind."



Madison 1785,
"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."
"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."



Thomas Jefferson
"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."



James Madison
"And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."



Thanks,
Matthew

And yet, the American people were quite satisfied with their local morals and religions until we started stamping religion out of public life, along with the moral foundations which underlay religion. If you wish to see the fruits of government without some sort of moral foundation, look to Soviet Russia and Communist China. Had the nation been formed without a foundation of Judeo Christian principles, you might be justified in your criticism, but that's not the way the country was founded and it has never been that way prior to the 1960s. That's why I believe what you espouse IS revisionist history.

 

[Pocketman]

I'am sorry but I have to ask . What is wrong with the TEA PARTY MOVEMENT I've ask several of my libartard /Democrap friends and no one can give me a real answer.

As I may have already stated, the TEA Party was on the right track in pursuing smaller government. What's happening is the influx of "special interests" with their own agendas beyond the "Taxed Enough Already."

 

[awatarius]

And yet, the American people were quite satisfied with their local morals and religions until we started stamping religion out of public life, along with the moral foundations which underlay religion. If you wish to see the fruits of government without some sort of moral foundation, look to Soviet Russia and Communist China. Had the nation been formed without a foundation of Judeo Christian principles, you might be justified in your criticism, but that's not the way the country was founded and it has never been that way prior to the 1960s. That's why I believe what you espouse IS revisionist history.

Hello,

That's why what you believe is wrong. I am not a revisionist I am a student, and a student of history. Most ideas of morality are universal ideas; thou shalt not kill, covet, and all the other laws there are were based off of laws from Anatolia and Mesopotamia. Those Universal laws kept order on society, and they then were adopted by most religions including Christianity. Again I am Christian but this country was founded with some moral beliefs, but they are older then Christianity. This country was founded on something much larger then religion it was founded on the ideas and principles of Governments that worked in the past. In a type of Government that allows for religion and general laws based on a morality but without a state religion. This isn't me revising history this is what the books, letters, memoirs, and facts say. Believe what you will but you will not be living in reality. Those places you mention fail in so many ways because they prevent certain personal freedoms and one of those is freedom of, and from religion.

Thanks,
Matthew

 

[CorvetteTom]

Hello,

That's why what you believe is wrong. I am not a revisionist I am a student, and a student of history. Most ideas of morality are universal ideas; thou shalt not kill, covet, and all the other laws there are were based off of laws from Anatolia and Mesopotamia. Those Universal laws kept order on society, and they then were adopted by most religions including Christianity. Again I am Christian but this country was founded with some moral beliefs, but they are older then Christianity. This country was founded on something much larger then religion it was founded on the ideas and principles of Governments that worked in the past. In a type of Government that allows for religion and general laws based on a morality but without a state religion. This isn't me revising history this is what the books, letters, memoirs, and facts say. Believe what you will but you will not be living in reality. Those places you mention fail in so many ways because they prevent certain personal freedoms and one of those is freedom of, and from religion.

Thanks,
Matthew

You speak(type) strangely, what appears to be translation. You embellish the 'fact' that you present with your own translation. I call BS!

 

[awatarius]

You speak(type) strangely, what appears to be translation. You embellish the 'fact' that you present with your own translation. I call BS!

Right..

 

[Woodrow]

Hello,

That's why what you believe is wrong. I am not a revisionist I am a student, and a student of history.
Thanks,
Matthew

Careful dropping the "S-word" with this bunch. That translates to brainwashed in their book. I went your route early on, attempted to explain why I believe what I believe, and to demonstrate my conclusions based on historical FACT. It's a no-go, and much to my discredit, I have often ended up angry and infracted (my word). Revisionist history means deviation from the McCarthyism that tried to bastardize history worse that the Bolsheviks. It's also a waste of time quoting the Founders, you'll be blasted back with every fake quote from Washington and especially Jefferson that the Internet can provide. Just stick to the gun conversation, my friend, name-calling comes all too easily to those who don't agree. Denigration of discussion.

 

[dross]

Hello,

That's why what you believe is wrong. I am not a revisionist I am a student, and a student of history. Most ideas of morality are universal ideas; thou shalt not kill, covet, and all the other laws there are were based off of laws from Anatolia and Mesopotamia. Those Universal laws kept order on society, and they then were adopted by most religions including Christianity. Again I am Christian but this country was founded with some moral beliefs, but they are older then Christianity. This country was founded on something much larger then religion it was founded on the ideas and principles of Governments that worked in the past. In a type of Government that allows for religion and general laws based on a morality but without a state religion. This isn't me revising history this is what the books, letters, memoirs, and facts say. Believe what you will but you will not be living in reality. Those places you mention fail in so many ways because they prevent certain personal freedoms and one of those is freedom of, and from religion.

Thanks,
Matthew

Careful dropping the "S-word" with this bunch. That translates to brainwashed in their book. I went your route early on, attempted to explain why I believe what I believe, and to demonstrate my conclusions based on historical FACT. It's a no-go, and much to my discredit, I have often ended up angry and infracted (my word). Revisionist history means deviation from the McCarthyism that tried to bastardize history worse that the Bolsheviks. It's also a waste of time quoting the Founders, you'll be blasted back with every fake quote from Washington and especially Jefferson that the Internet can provide. Just stick to the gun conversation, my friend, name-calling comes all too easily to those who don't agree. Denigration of discussion.

Having cracked the occasional book - one or two without pictures even - I learned that the more you read the less sure you become about many subjects, history being one of them.

Make your case and defend it. No trump cards.

 

[Joe Williams]

History has proven McCarthy was correct.

 

[awatarius]

History has proven McCarthy was correct.

Your perspective of history maybe, but many great minds would disagree. Proof is a funny word.

Thanks,
Matthew

 

[Joe Williams]

Your perspective of history maybe, but many great minds would disagree. Proof is a funny word.

Thanks,
Matthew

Facts are facts, and every allegation McCarthy made has been proven correct. "Great minds" may try to rewrite history, but no honest person can truthfully disagree.

 

[awatarius]

Facts are facts, and every allegation McCarthy made has been proven correct. "Great minds" may try to rewrite history, but no honest person can truthfully disagree.

All these absolutes.. You must think my way or you are a liar, or simply unable to disagree. In debate this is called ad hominem. There are many facets of this subject but to say that history validates McCarthy is certainly debatable and please stop questioning my integrity and attacking my character as you have in other posts. I respect your opinion even if I think you are wrong and I will not call you dishonest or a liar for stating your opinion. So please return the same level of respect to me.

Thanks,
Matthew