Freedom rally - april 17th

[30ashopper]

Our country was founded by people who sought freedom OF religion - not freedom FROM religion. If you have read any history of our country's founding, you would have seen innumerable references to our Christian heritage. Just take a look at the monuments in Washington, DC and all of the references to Christianity incorporated in their construction. When the Constitution was being written, a citizen wanted to get a glimpse of George Washington and asked someone how he could distinguish Washington from the other members at the gathering of patriots, he was told to look for the man who kneels to pray to God.

Our country was founded on Christian principles, but we have always allowed others to worship as they wished. Now, we are at a crossroads where our freedom to worship as we desire is being threatened - if not downright outlawed. If ever there was a freedom to fight for, it is our freedom to worship God as we desire - just as every other religion is allowed to do.

Now wait a minute. You originally stated -

"who are peacefully trying to return our country to its former ideals of Consitutional government, Christian values, smaller government, lower taxes and less government intrusion into our everyday lives."

What exactly did you mean by that? In your post above you mention that people who choose to follow a christian faith are having their individual rights threatened -

"our freedom to worship as we desire is being threatened"

Those are two completely different statements. If you fear your right to practice your faith is being threatened, I'll be the first person in line backing you up. But in your first post, it seemed to me you were stating that christian values should be forced upon the citizenry. That would be a direct violation of the Constitution and individual rights. Something I seriously doubt the founders would agree with.

So which is it?

Generally, I don't think "christian values" is a central plank in the tea party platform. (It's definitely a "social conservative" plank though.) The tea party movement is all about "individual liberty, limited government and economic freedom". (I took that from the newly unvailed "Contract from America" by the way.)

Tea Party Activists Unveil 'Contract From America' - ABC News

This is the group I'm associated with. I sense you accidentally let some of your own personal views leak into your original post. Tea partiers generally don't align with social conservatives on a number of issues. For example there are a lot of libertarians in the tea party movement (like myself), and we do not feel religious beliefs should be enforced by government upon the people.

 

[LuciferSam]

Now wait a minute. You originally stated -

"who are peacefully trying to return our country to its former ideals of Consitutional government, Christian values, smaller government, lower taxes and less government intrusion into our everyday lives."

What exactly did you mean by that? In your post above you mention that people who choose to follow a christian faith are having their individual rights threatened -

"our freedom to worship as we desire is being threatened"

Those are two completely different statements. If you fear your right to practice your faith is being threatened, I'll be the first person in line backing you up. But in your first post, it seemed to me you were stating that christian values should be forced upon the citizenry. That would be a direct violation of the Constitution and individual rights. Something I seriously doubt the founders would agree with.

So which is it?

Generally, I don't think "christian values" is a central plank in the tea party platform. (It's definitely a "social conservative" plank though.) The tea party movement is all about "individual liberty, limited government and economic freedom". (I took that from the newly unvailed "Contract from America" by the way.)

Tea Party Activists Unveil 'Contract From America' - ABC News

This is the group I'm associated with. I sense you accidentally let some of your own personal views leak into your original post. Tea partiers generally don't align with social conservatives on a number of issues. For example there are a lot of libertarians in the tea party movement (like myself), and we do not feel religious beliefs should be enforced by government upon the people.

Now do you understand? There's no getting away from the teahadists.

 

[Arkiehawg]

Tea party leaders anxious about extremists while preparing for tax-day rallies | KMOV.com | St. Louis news, Missouri news & breaking news | KMOV.com | News for St. Louis, Missouri

FOXNews.com - Oregon Teacher Panel Probes Educator Determined to 'Demolish' Tea Party

School officials investigate Beaverton teacher who urged people to crash the tea party | OregonLive.com

Many of those misspelled signs have admittedly been from tea party infiltrators. They know many folks will see a picture and generalize about the entire movement. The liberal press is all too quick to show them.

Like I said, it reveals their desperation when these tactics come to light. This teacher is encouraging his people to try and collect SSN's from tea party participants. He teaches 6th-8th grade!

Each one of those articles are for events that haven't even happened. Who knows if they will carry out the "threat". Also, the GOP has operatives in the Tea Party events as well. See earlier postings.

Now for your latest statement (SEE BOLD). Where's the proof on it?

 

[Arkiehawg]

Now wait a minute. You originally stated -

"who are peacefully trying to return our country to its former ideals of Consitutional government, Christian values, smaller government, lower taxes and less government intrusion into our everyday lives."

What exactly did you mean by that? In your post above you mention that people who choose to follow a christian faith are having their individual rights threatened -

"our freedom to worship as we desire is being threatened"

Those are two completely different statements. If you fear your right to practice your faith is being threatened, I'll be the first person in line backing you up. But in your first post, it seemed to me you were stating that christian values should be forced upon the citizenry. That would be a direct violation of the Constitution and individual rights. Something I seriously doubt the founders would agree with.

So which is it?

Generally, I don't think "christian values" is a central plank in the tea party platform. (It's definitely a "social conservative" plank though.) The tea party movement is all about "individual liberty, limited government and economic freedom". (I took that from the newly unvailed "Contract from America" by the way.)

Tea Party Activists Unveil 'Contract From America' - ABC News

This is the group I'm associated with. I sense you accidentally let some of your own personal views leak into your original post. Tea partiers generally don't align with social conservatives on a number of issues. For example there are a lot of libertarians in the tea party movement (like myself), and we do not feel religious beliefs should be enforced by government upon the people.

Service Ace: 15-Love 30aShopper......

 

[Desso]

Watch out condomimi, when you enter this den, you do so at your own peril. My suggestion would be not to use this forum to promote, discuss, or debate the political, social, or economic experts. We even have constitutional scholars on the board. Each word, idea, and statement will be scrutinized, insulted, and/or dismissed by someone or everyone. They even know what you are thinking. I will be at the rally mainly out of curiosity. I hope to photograph the numerous racist signs and record the racist epithets I am sure will be yelled out during the rally. I will especially be looking for gun-toting rednecks and the white robes and hoods. A rebel flag thrown in for color would be great. I do hope there will be no actual tea-bagging. I've only learned recently, from Sex and the City, what it actually involved. I was shocked

 

[Andy A]

When did people start mistaking ridicule for hate?

You might call it ridicule, I call it hate and 30Ashopper is absolutely correct. And, also, when is ridicule called for when some one announces a function on SoWal?

 

[AndrewG]

That wouldnt surprise me about the GOP. Ith appens on the left and right.

There's an image floating around from a previous tea party event with a mispelled slanderous sign. I'll search for it when I get home. He was identified and found to be sporting 3 Obama bumper stickers and a registered democrat. He later admitted he was hired to do it.

 

[LuciferSam]

You might call it ridicule, I call it hate and 30Ashopper is absolutely correct. And, also, when is ridicule called for when some one announces a function on SoWal?

Ridicule is always called for by everyone except the target. And by the way it turned out to be quite appropriate in this case. Deal with it!

 

[Andy A]

Clearly a lively debate is in order with someone who can't spell "govrnmnt", "taxtion", "thinks the government doesn't run medicare", or plenty of other issues. You can't debate someone who's mind is already made up to the point that they resort to name calling such as "socialist", "commie", "anti-American", etc.

You're right about that, SWGB!! You can't debate someone such as you whose mind is already made up, such as you. I readily admit mine is as well but mine is made up of years of experience and learning while yours is due to your vast experience and education. Oh, and by the way, have you ever hear of "typographical errors"? I thought not. They are beyond yours and many others comprehension.

 

[Andy A]

Ridicule is always called for by everyone except the target. And by the way it turned out to be quite appropriate in this case. Deal with it!

And, as usual, you are being a snark. I am dealing with it, it is you that causes the problems. Also, your idea of appropriate and mine differ greatly. I am anything but a religious bigot but I will defend until my dying day anyone's right to express their religious belief or non-belief. You and others, on the other hand, seem intent on denying them that right because it doesn't cotton to whatever your beliefs might happen to be.