Third Party & Independents Archives

Atheists Need Not Join

In doing some local organization of Libertarians I have come across some of my fellow party members that are latching onto the 912 Project of Glenn Beck’s.  Not knowing much about it I did some research and found that not only was it ‘phony’ Libertarianism but I was definitely not a person it is directed towards or included in.

The idea behind it is intriguing at first.  Principles.  Libertarians, as members of the Party of Principle, can easily be lured into this movement if they are frustrated with the discourse in DC and getting little response for their concerns as is the case with both the left and right these days.  It is easy to jump to a large group of people who seem to share the same concerns and think that finally the tide is turning and people are understanding!

The problem is, in the case of the 912 Project, they miss the road.  They seem to be close to understanding but swerve at the end of the driveway and drive headlong into the weeds.

I won't get into the whole list of 9 Principles and 12 Values, I'm sure a search on the Internet will provide the answers, but as I started to read this 21 'items' it only takes me 2 of them before I realize that this movement is not speaking for me, nor should it be for any Libertarian.

The first principle is easy enough.  "America Is Good".  Ok, it is a bit simplistic.  'America' can mean a lot of different things to different people, sometimes good, sometimes bad and it all depends on how 'America' is behaving at the time.  Most likely both good and bad at the same time!  But, as a simplistic opener it could be worse, I suppose.  Actually, it does get worse.

#2 - I believe in God and He is the center of my life.

*sigh*  And into the weeds it goes.  Now, if you DO believe in god, great, then you probably don't see much of a problem with this.  Well, if you weren't in a good understanding of Libertarian values.  There is nothing at all wrong with believing in a god if you want to.  But to list it as one of the guiding principles of a political movement?

Now, understand that Glenn is definitely not trying to win over the Libertarian voter.  I'm sure he doesn't care if he offends and alienates anyone who fervently believes that if you want to believe in a god or which god you choose should not be the business of politics.  But anyone who is searching for a philosophy and gravitate to the project should take heed.  This is NOT part of Libertarian thought.

The bad part is that a lot of the other principles are very much Libertarian values.  Such as having a right to pursue happiness but not the guarantee of achieving happiness.  That the individual should be the ultimate authority over themselves.  Although, he slips up here as well by making the principle about the family.  You know, marriage, between a man and a woman, considering you were listening to that second point.

It is frustrating to talk to some of the people who are getting together for Libertarian organization when they start talking about the 912 project.  It is as if you were talking to your brother about football and all is going well until they point out that they think it is obvious that they should change they way pro's decide overtime.  You have that momentary flash of 'Do I *know* you?' 

Pushing your religion onto others is definitely NOT a Libertarian principle and anyone falling for such obvious manipulation should expose it as what it is, one of the first violations of human rights by a group bent on keeping you ignorant and obedient.  But, that may just be me and how I view the history of religion to begin with.

The worst part is that Glenn Beck is 'going away' to develop 'The Plan', much in the way Moses went away from his flock and returned with the 10 Commandments.  This plan will be 'revealed' to us in Washington DC in August of next year, just in time for the mid-term elections.

On August 28, 2010, I ask you, your family and neighbors to join me at the feet of Abraham Lincoln on the National Mall for the unveiling of The Plan and the birthday of a new national movement to restore our great country.

Anyone who doesn't believe in a god or who doesn't believe in the right of a political movement to tell anyone what they can or can't believe, be afraid.  The problem with manipulators such as Glenn Beck is that they are good at manipulation and eventually this goes to their heads and leads to some very unfortunate things, as history has shown us.  Especially when they use religion as the tool for their narcissistic manipulations.

Posted by Rhinehold at December 8, 2009 2:29 AM
Comments
Comment #292259

Glenn Beck is going away….thank, God!!!!

Posted by: gergle at December 8, 2009 3:26 AM
Comment #292263

Along with the recent news that an Atheist Elected to Office Cannot Legally Serve, this is a good reminder of the current state of atheism in American political life.

Posted by: LawnBoy at December 8, 2009 8:18 AM
Comment #292265

Glenn Beck saw Rush Limbaugh’s success on the political front, and emulated it for his own successful accumulation of wealth.

There are a large number Christians out there quickly parted from their money by charlatans like Beck uttering the magic words, God Loves You, and hates everyone who is not like you, and as instruments and followers of God, you must act on that hate, in Christian ways, of course.

It is a tale played out in all the Great Religions for centuries. If it were true, that God has a personal relationship with each of us, if only we would avail ourselves of it, what need would there be for enriching the Churches, Synagogues, and Mosques, and their holy perpetuators? I have always found the concept of having all my life’s needs taken care of by the church in exchange for expanding the Churches reach and wealth, similar to prostitution. Both parties, Church and Supporter, get what they want out of the barter at the basic level, the Church gets money, and the Supporter gets a sense of belonging. But, these ends fall far short of the ideals and aspirations of Jesus Christ. As does the giving of alms to holy persons in Buddhism, and giving one’s life in Jihad to destroy non-muslim’s, fall far short of the ideals established and promoted by their founders.

If the Church had its way, the Sun and planets and stars would still orbit around the Earth, and the Earth would still be flat with precipices at each edge, where humans should not dare go.

The appropriate response to religion has always been education in the scientific and math sciences. Is it any wonder then, that America has been willfully declining in math and science education of our own American students, while inviting ever greater numbers of foreign students to these disciplines in our Universities? When you think about it, it makes perfect sense, given the rise of Republican and conservative ideology since the 1980’s and the rapidly declining real wages of middle and lower class workers since the 1970’s.

Education is significantly correlated with income group, in the U.S.

Posted by: David R. Remer at December 8, 2009 9:37 AM
Comment #292266

Rhinehold, Beck is a conservative in libertarian clothing, sorry to see his brand of conservatism is permeating the libertarian view in the country although it has been for a while. For the more intelligent libertarian it is time to save the libs from his ilk. Fight him and his followers every inch of the way they are not a boon to the libertarian party, they are just disgruntled conservatives/authoritarians looking to infest yet another segment of our society.

Posted by: j2t2 at December 8, 2009 9:56 AM
Comment #292268

I have not read through all of the comments but I would like everyone to know that a person does not have to agree with all 9 prinicples - agree to at least 7 of them and we have common ground. Which two priniciples you “reject” are completely up to you.

Posted by: NancyR at December 8, 2009 11:50 AM
Comment #292269

This country was founded with a good deal of religious perspective in government. A natural occurence since the overwhelming majority of citizens were of Christian bent. In expressing jubilation at becoming an economic success the government threw open the doors to the world and the people did come. While some fully assimilated others kept their language and their religion. As the economy developed business and government saw the need to harmonize laws and regulations between business and government and between federal and state government. Blue laws were seen as an impediment to the GDP an infringed on the rights of other religious sects to work on Sunday, As the non-Christian population grew government and business teamed together to limit religious activities to facilitate a more homogenous workplace and lessen the burden of governing the masses.
Business and government teamed to legalize birth control which was not supported by the religious community. When the U.S. population stabilized business and government teamed to facilitate new waves of immigration to keep the GDP growing. Ignoring Federal immigration law, millions were allowed illegal entry to live and work in the U.S. Today, U.S. population growth is driven by newly arrived immigrants. Attempting to assimilate these millions government and business is working to legalize their presence through fast-track citizenship.
In looking for still more growth, government and business has teamed together to facilitate the New World Order. This is being accomplished by harmonizing trade, immigration, administrative and security law around the world. Government and business worked to form trade organizations, an international monetary system and world courts while ignoring national sovereignty. Similarly, a North American Union was formed between government and business to provide for the unimpeded movement of workers within the borders of Mexico, Canada and the U.S. The NAU has been put on the back burner due to public backlash against this latest breach of sovereignty.
The people realize that government and business is operating as a Corpocracy and without regard for the people, our Constitution and national sovereignty. The single goal of the Corpocracy has not changed, keep the GDP growing. The level of frustration will surely give rise to one or more third parties looking to the 2012 election cycle.
We can point to several issues that impede a strong coalescing of the people around a single political party. In order of import to political cohesion; religious belief, abortion, stem cell research, right to bear arms and immigration. The Corpocracy has been unable to successfully harmonize laws relating to these issues and they still remain hot button issues in the political sense. These issues divide the nation and weaken any effort at coming together to form a single, powerful political party that could replace the Corpocracy.
Therefore, IMO, in order to wrest power from the Corpocracy the better approach is to design a political party that, once founded, cannot be co-opted by the money influence. Additionally, the Party should put forth a pure reform agenda, void of all social and hot button issues. The primary goal for all voters should be to replace the Corpocracy with a governing body that respects and represents our Constitution, our sovereignty and the democratic principles we have lived by. The social issues can be sorted out post government reform. These issues may, or may not, be resolved to every person’s desire but their aspirations for reform will have been achieved.

Otherwise, we have the Corpocracy we deserve.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at December 8, 2009 11:57 AM
Comment #292272

“This country was founded with a good deal of religious perspective in government. A natural occurence since the overwhelming majority of citizens were of Christian bent.”

Our founding fathers realized that the separation of church and state was the only way for the country to exist, Roy. Most of the separate colonies had many laws and restrictions regarding religion and government that made it rather easy to see that combining the two would not work. In fact many of those that came over from England, where there was a state church knew of the problems that are incumbent in a theology. Even today the theological driven countries are just another name for dictatorship. Think Iran.

Posted by: j2t2 at December 8, 2009 1:42 PM
Comment #292273

“I would like everyone to know that a person does not have to agree with all 9 prinicples - agree to at least 7 of them and we have common ground.”

Are you serious? Why just 2 can I agree with 3 instead and throw out the other 6 that seem to be irrelevant to governing the country? Or is this 912 project more of a social club where we can all sit around and complain about those not there?
Beck and his ilk are just Murdoch henchmen and are being used to sway election results towards the uber conservatives and other far right ideologues.

http://www.benton.org/node/7203

Posted by: j2t2 at December 8, 2009 1:54 PM
Comment #292275
“I would like everyone to know that a person does not have to agree with all 9 prinicples - agree to at least 7 of them and we have common ground.”

Don’t really sound like ‘principles’ to me, but just ‘suggestions’ then. j2t2 is right, why not just 6, why 7? Can I just disagree with the first one that “America is Good” and still be a ‘member in good standing’ in this movement?

What is this movement if not everyone agrees with each other on the core principles of it? Something to inflate Glenn’s already overinflated ego?

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 8, 2009 2:27 PM
Comment #292277

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_States#Religion

j2t2, a wiki url that suggest 49 of the 55 who attended the convention was religious.

It is what it is. My question is, are we willing to let religion and hot button social issues continue to divide us in our quest for government reform?

Maybe Beck will start a 3rd party. Maybe Sarah will take over the TEA party movement. Should we not establish a political party in rules that prevent inteference by the money influence? A party that puts forth a reform agenda, void of social issues? Should we not coalesce around such a party to ensure the Corpocracy is thrown out and government is reformed?

Otherwise, we have the Corpocracy we deserve.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at December 8, 2009 2:40 PM
Comment #292278

Roy,

Not sure why you keep pushing for the creation of such a party when one already exists…

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 8, 2009 3:42 PM
Comment #292292

Is the 912 project supposed to be a 12 step program like AA? You have to surrender yourself to a higher power? Maybe there are a lot of people who take a lot of medication who would be interested.

Glen Beck is a mentally deranged individual. Anyone who would follow this guy anywhere would have to have taken leave of their senses. He may claim to believe in god, but I don’t think a god would believe in him, not even Mercury.

In 1775, there was an established church. The king was it’s Supreme Head. People had to pay tithes whether or not they believed in anything. Ref the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom.

Buddhism is a philosophy, not requiring belief in anyone, but a set of principles based on the way the world works, like an early version of Physics.

Posted by: ohrealy at December 8, 2009 10:26 PM
Comment #292300

“j2t2, a wiki url that suggest 49 of the 55 who attended the convention was religious.It is what it is.”

Roy I don’t disagree with the religious persuasions of the founders. My point is they had the good sense and wisdom to separate church and state in the US constitution. At the time many states had religious restrictions in place. It wasn’t until many years later that these restrictions were removed. The “religious” among us seem to have a tendency to favor their own brand of worship as being superior to all others and then take the step to try and legislate their religious beliefs over the beliefs of others. It always seems to cause trouble.

“My question is, are we willing to let religion and hot button social issues continue to divide us in our quest for government reform?”

Yes we will as we have demonstrated for the past 30 years. Organizations and corporations have grown up around many of the hot button issues which will perpetuate these issues for many years. Who among us that have labored and profited due to any of the hot button issues want to see an end to them? Petty but that is the way it appears to be.

“Maybe Beck will start a 3rd party.”
To what ends Roy? He is part of the problem (see principle 2 of 9)He is just a spokesperson for those that use the hot button issues to divide us. I wouldn’t follow that man down the street let alone allow him to influence political decisions. I have a hard time thinking of anyone worse to follow.

“Maybe Sarah will take over the TEA party movement.”
Oh thanks, I guess it wasn’t that hard after all. Tea baggers have very little validity with me. Most of them came on board under the false pretenses that Obama is the socialist messiah yadayada…. They are just the far right extremist that left the repubs because McCain was not extreme enough in his politics. If they take Palin seriously they are part of the problem.

” Should we not establish a political party in rules that prevent inteference by the money influence?”

Yes but when you make this statement in the same paragraph as Beck and Palin I don’t see the relevence of the causes you mention and these people.

“A party that puts forth a reform agenda, void of social issues?” Palin, nuff said?

“Should we not coalesce around such a party to ensure the Corpocracy is thrown out and government is reformed?”

Roy IMHO big government is the result of big business, and until big business is put in it’s place we need a big government. To think Beck and/or Palin is the answer is well… just plain weird to me.

Posted by: j2t2 at December 9, 2009 11:26 AM
Comment #292301

Rhinehold said: “Don’t really sound like ‘principles’ to me, but just ‘suggestions’ then. j2t2 is right, why not just 6, why 7?”

This is a classic fundamental issue for political parties, requiring math skills to solve. The equation to be applied is this, begin with a full set of desirable principles, assess the percentage of the population willing to adopt them all. If that percentage is too low to move the party to power to implement those principles, then reduce the number of principles in the set and reassess the population percentage willing to adopt them all or a sufficient number as to support and vote for that party. Continue this process until the core set of principles equals supporters sufficient to elect that party to power and implement that principle set.

Regrettably, this math is over the heads of nearly all 3rd party founders and their Committees. Which is part of the reason why they remain obscure third parties unable to mount a sufficient challenge to the duopoly Party.

Of course, another reason is ideology which imposes a view of the world which is not based in reality and fails to account for all the variables that shape that reality. One of the reasons I voted for Obama and still support him, is that he is not bound by rigid ideological views, but, remains flexible enough to take into account more complete information and data, and pursue pragmatic solutions which will appeal to no ideological extremes. His health care reform guidelines and Afghanistan policy just announced are cases in point. As was his economic stimulus with much of it targeted for 2010, allowing time for the banking and credit and housing sectors to stablilize and the economy to recover from the Recession before spending so much on jobs, which were going to lag the other economic sectors anyway. Pure pragmatism in wrestling with realities.

Posted by: David R. Remer at December 9, 2009 11:31 AM
Comment #292304

j2t2, apparently I misled you in mentioning Palin and Beck as possible 3rd party movements. The main reason I blog is to try and prevent some fair haird celebrity type such as Perot, Palin, Beck, etc from starting a new political movement that could come to no result other than a flash in the pan and cost us another ten-twelve years in delayed reform. We have to found any new party in rules in deny those that would co-opt the party through the money influence. We should squelch any attempt at a 3rd party unless it is founded in such rules, puts accountability for elected/appointed officials into the political equation. As I’ve expressed numerous times:

It is clear this government cannot, will not reform itself. Real reform must come from a political movement, a third party. But not just any third party. It must come from a political party founded in rules that provide for party membership oversight of elected and appointed officials. This party must advocate for a populist agenda targeted solely at reform issues and void of ‘hot button’ social issues. Also, it is clear that reform could be facilitated by other movements such as VOID and TENURE CORRUPTS. Voting out incumbents would serve to weaken the established oligarchy, helping a third party come to power, but in the final analysis a third party with a different political attitude is the only way, IMO, to achieve real reform of government and keep it that way.
But, while I want reform, I don’t want a TEA party type reform or a one shot revolution where we vote a bunch of people out forcing some modicum of reform. Helpful, but not enough. No, I want the whole enchilada. I want reform through a 3rd political party with rules/laws in place whereby the new political order can’t ever be hijacked by the money influence and where reform will be long lasting. Otherwise, reform will be a whole lot of effort for nothing, IMO.

I refer you to www.republicsentry.com as an example of such a party. I believe we are desperate for reform and we are soon going to get another chance to get it right. I’m suggesting we put aside hot button social issues, design a 3rd party that can never be co-opted, holds elected leaders accountable, and advocates for reform of government.

David, Agree with you mathmatical assessment for a winning strategy. I’m looking forward to the time when enough people will show interest in Republic Sentry to begin to debate and whittle away at the reforms currently presented. I agree, you have to adjust the platform to achieve maximum favor with the voting membership.

Otherwise, we have the government we deserve.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at December 9, 2009 12:14 PM
Comment #292351

Beck strikes me as a guy who enjoys attention but has no real constructive ideas of what to do with his influence.

He’s just stoking and priming the anxieties of his audience so they come back to him for more. But with the nature of his politics, it’s mostly just about opposing the other side, not standing for a consistent, constructive policy.

Beck’s about tearing other people down, more than it is about truly building this country up. If he had his druthers, this country would have been plunged into a great depression to prove the worth of the capitalist system.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 10, 2009 10:38 AM
Comment #292359

Rhinehold: Beck is an interesting character. He’s realized that Bill O’Reilly is too intellectual for Fox (I never thought I’d write that sentence) and so has taken the dumbing down of politics and social issues to new depths. It’s actually quite impressive. In fact, I think I’d go as far as to say that Glenn Beck is the new Jerry Springer, but with an agenda. And given that last line, perhaps it actually IS time to start believing in a god…

Posted by: Jon Rice at December 10, 2009 1:02 PM
Comment #292360

As I see it President Obama is working off the slate of two agendas. One, he is supporting the Corpocracy’s ongoing agenda for a New World Order, aka Global Economy. Had he not signed on to support the Corpocracy he would not have been nominated nor supported for a high office. The same could be said for Clinton, McCain and others who were strongly backed by their party. Two, he is working to implement an agenda he and his Chicago friends have put together over the last several years. This second agenda is all about distribution of wealth. And, Beck is right on in that the President has surrounded himself with those that helped develop and support this agenda. Many of them date back to President Obama’s days as a street organizer working to get people included in the census count, voter registration and drag people to the poles. This group of people were, and are, of the ACORN ilk. Many are radical thinkers, have fought against the ‘system’ and are seeking to level the playing field through wealth distribution. I’ve watched several Beck shows and as I can tell he has the seond agenda of the present administration nailed down. He has done an excellent job of documenting, through video, audio and writings, Obama’s second agenda. In connecting the dots he believes their goal is for government to acquire much more control over the economy and society in general in order to facilitate the distribution of wealth agenda. I take the same position as Beck, see nothing unusual about it. Obama made many speeches during his candidacy and after his election to President that are consistent with this second agenda. How anyone who paid the least bit of attention could not understand that is beyond me.
While I see what he is doing I don’t agree with the rational of wealth distribution in general. For instance, the administration is advocating for green jobs. Some of these jobs will go to imnates who are paid something between .23/hr to $1.15/hr. They will be put in jobs applying weather stripping, using caulk guns and otherwise winterizing/weatherizing homes/businesses. Of course he is implementing many other programs but I see this one as way lame.

It’s just that the whole approach to wealth distribution is wrong. It’s clear that with 10-25% unemployment, 50M without medical insurance, etc. that we have major social problems. Quite clear as well that with a seemingly infinite trade deficit, $12T federal deficit, etc. that we have major economic problems. Quite clear that this has been building up for about 30 years and the government has failed to take proper action so we have major problems with government. In brief, we need reform of government rather than wealth distribution.
Using the inmate example; we need a nationwide low and medium skilled training and certification program. Include inmates and give them reduced time if they compltete (become certified) the training. Provide nationwide job placement for these folks. Go a step further and have the government set a minimum living wage for government work. That would encourage, but no demand that private firms pay workers something close to be competitive in hiring workers.
You can check out www.republicsentry.com to see what a real reform agenda looks like. Then make your thunder heard.

Otherwise, we have the government we deserve.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at December 10, 2009 1:04 PM
Comment #292364

Roy Ellis wrote, in his agreement with Mr. Remer; “I agree, you have to adjust the platform to achieve maximum favor with the voting membership.”

Isn’t this the old which came first…”chicken or egg” argument? Attracting membership by adjusting platform isn’t working now…is it? One must change the mind of the membership to develop a working platform of effective change in governance.

The question that should be addressed is how do we change the mind-set of a majority of the voters to accept a government that is fair, equitable and free of money influence, corruption and greed.

And…the answer is, we can’t. We organize into labor, social and economic unions and organizations to strengthen our position to influence government for our perceived gain.

It is silly to expect people to organize to help defeat their cherished values and unfulfilled economic expectations.

Most of the writers above have, in their own unique way, disparaged those who believe in God. And yet, we find that about 87% of American’s do believe in God. Please explain to me how such an attitude is going to attract membership to any new party.

Nearly all of the writers above even refuse to capitalize the name of God in further evidence of their dismissal of cherished beliefs of others. If they can not be civil in addressing believers…how will they attract them to their cause?

Atheists speak of national morality and yet, can’t explain the foundation of their belief or even what it means. Each, if asked, would have a different explanation. It’s just a nice sounding word and one which fits into their conversation without any need for, or change in their thinking.

Today’s Atheist must deny God to empower themselves and to be freed from accountability. No God puts man in charge of everything…from morality to global warming.

This new political party that the writers yearn for must be man-centric, and those who are centered around a Creator are not welcome.

GOOD LUCK WITH THAT

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 10, 2009 2:17 PM
Comment #292367

I get rather cynical when people start talking corpocracy or duopoly, mainly because I see folks bandying about such populism in support of policies that I know to be corporate in origin, or in the service of politics I know to have originated with one or the other of the parties.

I care about policies, and politics to the extent it gets in the way or helps policy. But I care for a particular policy only to the extent I see some real-world sense to them.

One reason I’m down on Christian takeovers of government, though I’m up on Christians influencing policy for the better, is the fact that I know in the real world, that Christianity gets tangled up in worldly policy disputes. When people make the connection official, I feel that they have trouble separating the worldly policies from the spiritual and moral ones. I feel that a person with the freedom to choose the extent their faith informs their policy ideas, will be a more honest person about where the heavens end and the world begins in their policy decisions.

I harken back to the words in the New Testament about the difference between things done for the sake of God’s approval and those done for Man’s approval, and I think if one’s religious outlook and how it affects policy are a more private affair, people can push policies of conscience with their own conscience leading them to it, rather than their party’s or government’s approval doing so.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 10, 2009 2:48 PM
Comment #292372

One reason I’m down on Atheist takeovers of government, though I’m up on Atheist influencing policy for the better, is the fact that I know in the real world, that Atheism gets tangled up in worldly policy disputes.

My third party aspirations would include both the religious and non-religious and the atheist. When I see writers on this blog show some deference to the belief in God by others, by capitalizing His name, I will begin to believe there is some hope for unity.

I am not advocating, “Christian takeovers of government” as Mr. Daugherty wrote. Our founders knew what they meant by separating church from government and had no problem with using government property for religious purposes. Today’s atheist has become fixated on denying the 87% of our nation’s believers the use of public property for any religious purpose. Is this enlightenment or hatred? Were our founders wrong? Can one separate what they did and believed was correct from what we say we practice today in their name?

When a creche is opposed on the courthouse lawn, when Christian crosses, and the religious symbol of other religions, are seen as objectionable in federal military cemeteries, when the quoting of Biblical writings becomes “hate-speech” in some countries, when believers are called “Jesus Freaks, and when some can not recognize the worth of religious charitable giving I am not encouraged to believe that Atheists respect my beliefs. When a child is prevented from praying in school or using an empty classroom for a religious purpose is this the road to unity and accommodation? Are we sending the message that the 13% of Americans who deny God must be held in higher worth than the 87% who do believe?

One can not have unity and exclude those who believe in, and have great reverence for, God.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 10, 2009 3:41 PM
Comment #292378

More evidence that TEA Party groups will work to influence elections as early as 2010 by channeling money and supporters to convservative candidates. From today Wash Post we learn that several PAC’s are being started. Groups such as Smart Girl Politics, 23k strong, RedState.com, Freedom-Works with 500k members are making plans. The article notes that the TEA Party movement is splintered into hundreds of local and state groups with different rules and goals. For instance the TEA Party Patriots has filed a lawsuit against a founder who signed with a rival, the TEA Party Express. Va. Gov. Kaine said the TEA Parties were savaging the GOP and has sparked a corrosive and consistent fight over the Party’s direction. Conservatives note that in February a national convention will feature Sarah Palin.
I’m hoping the TEA Partiers will be satisfied with supporting conversatives and not try to start up a 3rd party. It would take the GOP about 20 minutes and several millions of dollar to co-opt their Party should they show signs of being an actual threat to the GOP.

Otherwise, we have the government we deserve

Posted by: ROY ELLIS at December 10, 2009 6:38 PM
Comment #292424

Royal Flush,

Is your religion defined by a belief that Mohammed is not a profit? In other words is Christianity just defined by being against Muslims?

Posted by: gergle at December 10, 2009 11:41 PM
Comment #292425

Royal Flush-
You copied the formulation of my argument, the engine block’s design, but you put the wrong parts in the engine of my argument.

A Christian’s supposed to think more in other-worldly terms. An atheist, by definition, is pretty much of the world. So, sticking that in there doesn’t get you real far. But thanks for the imitation, since that is the sincerest form of flattery.

I believe God wants us to show mercy. I believe this is a world where far too many show too little forgiveness. I don’t think the candidate who stands up and brags about the death penalty can be totally ingenuous when they talk about what a commitment they have to Jesus, the guy who not only suffered that penalty, but who encouraged others to seek alternatives to revenge and retribution, to settling scores.

Talking about religion in politics has become too much of a way to disarm people’s skeptical inquiry, to lead them with cries of “onward Christian/religion of your choice Soldiers.” Now I don’t support the informal suppression of religion in society. I don’t think people are any more rational with or without religion.

I think the folks who make big deals out of ten-commandment displays, according to the bible, have already recieved their reward here on Earth. They’ve proven what pious people they are to the people who care about that kind of piety.

I’m not interested in organized religion as mutual appreciation societies for the self-righteous. I’m interested in people considering moral issues from more than just the easy and reflexive POVs that are normal for human nature.

I’m interested in people seeing beyond their own selfish interests, and understanding that society is more than just the sum of its parts. We cannot, either in a conservative or a liberal society, design a system that doesn’t address how people behave together, how they come together to run economies and societies, and then expect it to work.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 10, 2009 11:48 PM
Comment #292434
Nearly all of the writers above even refuse to capitalize the name of God in further evidence of their dismissal of cherished beliefs of others. If they can not be civil in addressing believers…how will they attract them to their cause?

I’m sorry, but the contention that because I don’t follow YOUR convention for typing the word god ONLY when I am speaking of YOUR god I am ‘dismissing’ your belief is a perfect example of the hubris you employ in making your points.

You don’t follow the conventions of MY religion when speaking to me, and I don’t expect you to. It is not for YOU to know, or do. Because you have this assumption that everyone knows that the word is supposed to be capitalized then everyone is supposed to do it in order to PROVE their ‘respect’ for your religion? Do you respect mine? Do you know what mine is?

When someone I help says ‘god bless you’, I smile and thank them. Because I know what that means TO THEM and what they are trying to convey to me. I don’t get upset and tell them that I don’t believe in their god because it is irrelevant, it is what THEY believe when they are conveying the idea that matters. In the same way, when I am writing, I am not going to be concerned that you might read it without a capital and take offense. If you get offended by me following the tenets of MY religion (and there are many religions that would now allow people to capitalize ‘god’ unless they are speaking of their own, btw) because you feel that I am not respecting yours, it is not my problem, but your problem. And until christians can get over their selfish and self-righteous attitude about it, I’m not sure why non-christians are going to rush out to respect them…

And nearly every christian writer here has ‘dismissed the cherished beliefs of my religion’ by telling me that I am wrong. So, if you want respect from me you will have to follow that convention, that I am infallible and always right, and then I would consider capitalizing the word god when speaking of YOURS over anyone else’s that apparently doesn’t deserve the capitalization.

My wife believes in many gods, if you type back to me about those gods, are you going to capitalize the word god?

I didn’t think so. Do you think that is fair? Do you think that is mutual respect? Or is the convention not about believing or non-believing in a god but WHICH god and which one is ‘approved’ by the society as being the only true one?

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 11, 2009 2:29 AM
Comment #292442

j2t2
Exactly where in the Constitution does it say anything about “separation of church and state”.
I will help you along. It doesn’t period.
The first amendment only says that Congress cannot make any laws prohibiting the free exercise of any religion. That is being being taken away slowly and surely.

Posted by: Tom Humes at December 11, 2009 5:35 AM
Comment #292445
That is being being taken away slowly and surely.

How exactly? Can you not attend church anymore? Can you not have all kinds of religious icons in your home? Can you not have a bumper sticker with a fish on it? Can you not wear a t-shirt or buy a billboard or put up large crosses on the side of roads on private property.

When it comes to public property, sorry, but using tax funds to pay for or support a specific religion is a bit, well, UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 11, 2009 5:50 AM
Comment #292451

Tom no need to help me along.”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” is the actual wording of the first amendment.

“The first amendment only says that Congress cannot make any laws prohibiting the free exercise of any religion. That is being being taken away slowly and surely.”
Seems to me you have only the piece of the amendment you want to hear.

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/religiousliberty/a/establishment.htm

I agree with Rhinehold that you really haven’t lost any rights despite what you may think. In fact it seems to me this backlash against Christians is self inflicted for the most part.

Posted by: j2t2 at December 11, 2009 9:17 AM
Comment #292454

Tom Humes-
It works like this: The first clause says that government cannot favor one religion above others. The second clause says that government cannot disfavor any one religion among all of them.

Therefore, Goverment can’t do anything to favor or disfavor religion. Americans self-regulate on that, and so the church is separate from our state.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 11, 2009 9:58 AM
Comment #292457

j2t2, Rhinehold,
Notice my post did not have quotes around the 1st amendment paraphrase. I fully understand the first amendment. Putting the 10 commandments in the public ssquare is not the establishment of any religion. That is only an ACLU spin on their deceived minds. The establishment of an organization is the start and promotion of that organization. There are a number of religious displays that are not Christian that are not challenged. Only Christianity is challenged. Christianity does not pursue the government’s endorsement of any of the church organizations nor the practice of Christianity.
The practice of Christianity is being taken away slowly and surely is a fact. No, it has not been taken away fully, or course. The recent hate crime law will show a dramatic increase of not allowing preachers to preach against sin. Joel Osteen will be fine with that because he does not preach against sin. Others fit the same ilk. Some churches are forced to close because of zoning laws that are twisted agaist the church after it has been in operation for a substantial period of time. Some day every knee will bend and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. Until then practice what you will, but for me and my life I will serve the Lord.

Posted by: Tom Humes at December 11, 2009 10:18 AM
Comment #292468

Tom Hume,

Some day every knee will bend and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.

I confess to you now that this is both insanity and idiocy, in my opinion.

It is this vile tyranny you preach that makes people, including our founding fathers, fearful of giving any religion preference or position in government. That you do not understand that the separation and preference issue described in the 1st amendment was directly due to Christian influences in England being used that to justify their tyranny on the colonies.

Posted by: gergle at December 11, 2009 11:21 AM
Comment #292469

The idea is to put religion and a host of narrow range social issues on the back burner for a few years until we can come together in a strong political movement and reform government. Post reform we can go back to sorting out our social interest.
The Government has put up some billions to build the new electric grid. The Government is also authorizing rate increases for the so-called power companies to improve their infrastructure toward green and the new grid. Double whammy for the taxpayer in the middle of a recession. Who will own the new grid? Who will maintain the new grid? Will government lease all or parts of the grid to foreign entities as they are doing with our federal highways? What about State’s rights in all this? If the Fed controls transportation, education, energy, healthcare, water and mineral resources, etc, why do we need State governments? I don’t have a problem with the Fed running the space program, but I do have a problem with the government operating the TVA, REA, and a bunch of other ‘A’s. Today Congress will debate on a bill to create yet another ‘A’. The Consumer Protection Financial Agency. Because several ‘A’s have failed to do their regulatory duty the Fed wants to create yet another agency and that one will work fer shure. No plans to downsize or absolve the failed agencies.
We The People have also failed. Failed our Founders, those who fought gave their all for their Republic, failed ourselves and future generations to come. While we have indulged our pet ideology and hot button issue the Corpocracy has trashed our Constitution, our sovereignty and the nation.

Otherwise, we have the government we deserve.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at December 11, 2009 11:30 AM
Comment #292472

“I fully understand the first amendment. Putting the 10 commandments in the public ssquare is not the establishment of any religion.”

Tom it seems you and Justice Thomas share this more extreme Christian dominion view. Perhaps your interpretation of the first amendment is to literal, especially in view of Jefferson’s , who as we know wrote this amendment, Dansbury letter describing the separation of church and state. IMHO I would be thankful that it works both ways in that government cannot interfere with your church and religious beliefs.

“There are a number of religious displays that are not Christian that are not challenged. Only Christianity is challenged.”

Now now Tom vague accusations without any information to back it up makes one think that perhaps there is more than a little paranoia and persecution in these comments. Myself I don’t believe that taxpayers should be paying for any religious displays for any religion. I believe Churches and religious organizations can do an excellent job on religious displays without any need for government funds. The problem I see is if you put one on display you need to put them all on display and who needs it in the public square?

“The practice of Christianity is being taken away slowly and surely is a fact. No, it has not been taken away fully, or course.”

Fact Tom? Show me the proof as I consider it to be opinion at this point. Who is taking the practice away? It is my understanding that attendance in churches is up. Again because your particular religious persuasion is not held up as dominant to all others does not mean it is slowly being taken away. Perhaps it is the aggressive manner in which the more extreme Christian dominionist and literalist have behaved the past 30 years that has turned people away from their exclusionary actions. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction after all.

” The recent hate crime law will show a dramatic increase of not allowing preachers to preach against sin.”

Well I wouldn’t hold my breath over this, however should Pastor’s Preacher’s and Priest start going to jail over sermons from the pulpit I would defend them and their right to their religious beliefs. I don’t know where you are getting this information but I would ask if the source has a vested financial interest in keeping these kinds of accusations going for their own personal benefit.

“Some churches are forced to close because of zoning laws that are twisted agaist the church after it has been in operation for a substantial period of time.”

Once again Tom can you provide some specifics? I would not doubt that an occasional injustice happens to a church but without the facts…

“Some day every knee will bend and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. Until then practice what you will, but for me and my life I will serve the Lord.”

Isn’t that what this is all about, the right to worship or not as one deems best without being forced to worship the beliefs of others?
I find it offensive that some states still persecute those of different religious beliefs as lawnboy linked to earlier and as Rhinehold has demonstrated is part and parcel of the 912 project.

Posted by: j2t2 at December 11, 2009 11:43 AM
Comment #292475

Mr. Jefferson to the rescue again put him back to no.4

Posted by: Rodney Brown at December 11, 2009 12:34 PM
Comment #292476

Royal Flush,

Is your religion defined by a belief that Mohammed is not a profit? In other words is Christianity just defined by being against Muslims?
Posted by: gergle at December 10, 2009 11:41 PM

No. My definition of religion is a positive one.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 11, 2009 12:51 PM
Comment #292477

It sounds like you believe that the 912 project is being forced upon someone. It is a voluntary project. Nobody is making anybody do anything. There are people that want to shut down anything that is done in public in the name of Jesus. Aga in, I know of no Biblical Christian organization who is trying to force their beliefs upon anybody. There are people who say they are Christian but the results of their actions are not what Christianity is. I think an example that probably all of us agree with is Fred Phelps. No other comment is necessary to show that is is an evil person and does not practice Christianity.

Posted by: Tom Humes at December 11, 2009 1:06 PM
Comment #292479

Mr. Daugherty writes; “A Christian’s supposed to think more in other-worldly terms.”

Wrong…you obviously don’t know much about Christianity. History is replete with examples, good and bad, of Christian influence in real world events.

Rhinehold writes; “I’m sorry, but the contention that because I don’t follow YOUR convention for typing the word god ONLY when I am speaking of YOUR god I am ‘dismissing’ your belief is a perfect example of the hubris you employ in making your points.”

There are many things that are capitalized by convention. For example…I address you as (R)hinehold…not (r)hinehold. I live in (T)exas…not (t)exas. Get the point.

Sorry you missed the point in my post. In talking about any successful third party I was suggesting that a good starting point is to respect all points of views. If one wishes to attract those who have religious faith one should at least know how to properly address their faith in writing.

It does not diminish me or my God when anyone either knowingly, or unknowingly uses a small g. It is just not correct by conventional terms. One can reveal much about their attitude and intelligence by what and how they write.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 11, 2009 1:19 PM
Comment #292482

“It sounds like you believe that the 912 project is being forced upon someone.”

Not forced Tom but it does make me uncomfortable when any political group has a religious test. It is understandable when overt conservative groups require some sort of a religious test but IMHO Beck tries to be a Libertarian and/or influence Libertarians which I believe is the point of Rhinehold’s article. While Beck and the 912 project has every right to insist upon a religious test I believe I also have the right to oppose these types of groups.

“There are people that want to shut down anything that is done in public in the name of Jesus.”

Perhaps there is Tom but specifically who? How can we discuss the merits/failings of such a group if we don’t know who they are.

“Aga in, I know of no Biblical Christian organization who is trying to force their beliefs upon anybody.”

Well try these links for starters and perhaps you will see how others view some of these organizations and why groups like the ACLU work to keep the wall of separation between church and state.
http://www.publiceye.org/christian_right/cr_intro.html

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/7235393/the_crusaders/


“There are people who say they are Christian but the results of their actions are not what Christianity is.”

I would not argue with that but I would point out that when all of these different groups cannot agree amongst themselves who is a Christian and who isn’t, that by their own proclamation they are taken by their followers to be more Christian than the other groups.
It doesn’t make a whole lot of difference when a few bad apples spoil the whole basket as the basket is still spoiled, but why would you want to allow these self proclaimed Christian groups the ability to dictate their beliefs upon some other group and the public at large through the political process? Thankfully our founding fathers were wise enough to put the first amendment into the bill of rights to help thwart those non-Christian Christians that would try to dictate their religious beliefs upon others.

Posted by: j2t2 at December 11, 2009 1:52 PM
Comment #292501

Rhinehold,

Good Post, thanks!

Posted by: gergle at December 11, 2009 5:30 PM
Comment #292504

Royal Flush,

So is my definition of Atheism as a non-religion. The derivation of the word itself means exactly that: without god or belief in a god.

When you attempt to characterize atheists as a group you are projecting your beliefs, not discussing theirs. Atheist beliefs are varied, just alike in that they are not attached to some belief in a god or gods.

Posted by: gergle at December 11, 2009 5:35 PM
Comment #292510
If one wishes to attract those who have religious faith one should at least know how to properly address their faith in writing

I do not wish to attract those who have religious faith. I wish to attract those who believe in freedom and liberty, whether they are religious or not. The notion that ANYONE can respect every others ideas of what passes as ‘respect’ for their individual religions is an example of the limited thinking that those who demand it.

Here’s the key. I don’t care if people capitalize my name or not. It is irrelevant. Getting upset or feeling ‘disrespected’ for it is a complete waste of time.

The ‘convention’ is one of christian making. Should I follow it just because the majority of people are christian and therefore have set that convention in order to flag THEIR god as more important than other, run of the mill also rans? Or, should I write based on my beliefs that everyone’s gods are equal and none are better than another’s TO THEM. Including those who do not believe in a god.

Because that is the convention you want me to follow.

It’s the same nonsense as Obama and the flag pin. I’ll tell you a secret, I do not say the updated pledge of allegiance either. I say the one without the ‘under god’ added to it during the height of McCarthyism. I don’t care if someone else says it, but I *DO* care if someone else passes a law to force others to say it. Then we will be fighting.

I have never told anyone that they can’t do anything they want to do on their own property. BUT yes, when it comes to land that *I* partially own by being a citizen of this country, then *I* will make sure that no one is forced to partake in any religious symbols or acts. That is not an attack on christianity, that is a defense of our individual freedoms. Something that the right in this country has a hard time coming to terms with…

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 11, 2009 6:51 PM
Comment #292520

Rhinehold,
Give me your definition of “McCarthyism”. That is an overworked word that people use and don’t know anything about the late Sen. McCarthy. Your information is probably re-hashed Murrow hatchet work. I totally despise the use of the word “McCarthyism”. I have studied the McCarthy era. Congress has not changed since that time.

Posted by: Tom Humes at December 11, 2009 9:43 PM
Comment #292526

Tom Humes-
I think at the end of the day, Christians embrace a fear of the secular world at their own peril, because the very heart of Christianity is to forgive as you wish to be forgiven, love as you wish to be loved.

And how can you do that and fight a culture war against that society at the same time? You ultimately end up a hostage to the conflict, to the disharmony.

It is the Grace of God that will lead people to bend their knee to Him. We can either help that grace, or get in its way by acting in ways that bring ourselves to shame. Christ’s message is against sin, but first and foremost, it is against the mindsets that keep us in error, and make us despair of God’s love.

The Christian of America are best advised to tend to their own spirits first before they go trying to correct others.

As far as the 9/12 project goes? Look at your policies. When Sarah Palin talks about going rogue, I have to ask, “From What?” She brought home the bacon, same as many other Republican politicians. The Tea Partisans seem to differ from more moderate Republicans mainly in terms of the audacity of their claims about people like me.

I would jettison that politicized Christianity, first chance you get, because it will only lead you to further despair. I wasn’t converted by some guy pushing religion on me. I chose it. I answered a call that I felt in my heart. I followed my own path there, a path that many folks who seek the ascendance of Christianity, would not have tolerated.

I hew to the words of Christ in regards to where the rewards are. God knows what’s in our hearts. We could no more hide from that than your hand can hide from your arm.

If we set up people to pursue religion to please society, the governing party, or whatever, then we set people up to seek the wrong rewards.

The Ten Commandment monument people need is the one written in their hearts, carved from the words they have read, and then rewritten on the world around them through their actions.

As far as McCarthyism goes?

McCarthy built his crusade against communists up on suspicion and guilt until proven innocence.

People know what they need to know: that differences of opinion should not be persecuted, that crimes must be proved first before folks are declared guilty, and that the charge of some great evil should not be built on the self-serving confessions of those who are merely trying to satisfy the demands of an unbounded executive or judicial authority.

Royal Flush-
Read the letters of Paul, as he talks about being in the world, and being in the spirit. I am not saying that Christian’s faith is not a real thing. I am saying that Christians are meant to follow a higher order set of principles than just those that a political party cultivates.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 12, 2009 1:52 AM
Comment #292535

Stephen,
Your McCarthy comment shows you need to look at the facts. McCarthy never accused those he was trying to expose any name that did not apply. He called the communists the same, he called security risks the same and they all had records to prove it. And almost all were working within the federal government. He never called anybody a communist that was not, nor a security risk that was not.

About Christianity; the Bible teaches me that my enemy is not flesh and blood but against principalities and power in high places. I intrepret that to mean that you, my neighbor, anybody’s congressperson, the President, CEO’s, the homeless, etc. are not my enemy and I practice that. Principalities and power are not people but are tools used by people. The tools are the enemy. I agree that one has to get his own life in order before he tries to assist others. Even then we are not his Savior, only Jesus can be his Savior. We can only live a life that others would like to emulate portions of and teach our own principles to others. To paraphrase Ecl 12:12 It is the whole duty of man to obey God and keep his commandments. None of us is perfect nor even close. So we all have a job to do in our own lives. Thank you for your response.

Posted by: Tom Humes at December 12, 2009 11:16 AM
Comment #292537

Humes, the ignorance pregnant in your comment about Sen. McCarty, et. al. is truly chasmic. Does it come from the school of revisionist history, that panders to those seeking power through fear mongering, and justification of authoritarian dictates via the fear vote?

The difference between McCarthyism and Nazism regarding acquisition of power is hard to find. You do realize nobody would know who McCarthy was were it not for the shame he brought to our nation’s history and our government. Guilt by association was his sharpest instrument, and most devastating to innocent individuals.

There is no crime in being a socialist, nor a communist, in a nation which embraces freedom of ideas and speech. Only those admiring and seeking 1930’s type German uniformity of thought and speech would attempt to defend Sen. McCarthy, et. al of the Red Scare years.

McCarthy attempted to establish thought police, which Orwell warned of in his metaphor work for fascism.

Posted by: David R. Remer at December 12, 2009 11:38 AM
Comment #292551

Rhinehold writes; “Here’s the key. I don’t care if people capitalize my name or not. It is irrelevant. Getting upset or feeling ‘disrespected’ for it is a complete waste of time.”

I would ask…”key” to what? Answer…his personal preference as indicated by the use of the word “I”.

The post I was responding to is about attracting folks of different political and social persuasion to a new political third party. And, I believe a good starting point is by respecting everyone’s belief by at least addressing them in the form that is acceptable to them.

With 87% of our population professing a belief in God (whatever God means to them) it is logical and correct to capitalize the name of God.

One can be stubborn about this and that will gain nothing in attracting folks to a third party.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 12, 2009 2:01 PM
Comment #292553

David,
I have studied the record. I have read Congressional Hearings reports published by the government printing office. I cannot find a single thing to back up your claims, the ones made continually for 50 years, about “guilt by association”. Nothing exists to support that claim. The nazism and McCarthyism claim you make is so outlandish that no rebuttal can be made.
The same thing exists today. People in government that want to remake America. The Constitution needs to be adhered to by all parties, and when it is, the talk of remaking America will be nothing but what it is now and that is a power grabbing scheme by those who do not want to abide by the Constitution.
McCarthy only brought shame on the Murrowites, etc who wanted him destroyed. Let me repeat, the label he placed on people was accurate. He never falsely accused any of the subjects in his investigations. The best word to describe those he pursued was subversive. And that they were.

Posted by: Tom Humes at December 12, 2009 2:08 PM
Comment #292555

Royal Flush-
Read the letters of Paul, as he talks about being in the world, and being in the spirit. I am not saying that Christian’s faith is not a real thing. I am saying that Christians are meant to follow a higher order set of principles than just those that a political party cultivates.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 12, 2009 01:52 AM

Mr. Daugherty will get no argument from me on this.

And, in that regard it is more difficult for those with strong religious beliefs to throw those beliefs aside when pondering political positions and candidates.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 12, 2009 2:16 PM
Comment #292575

Tomas Humes,

So based on your thorough reading of the “record” you see nothing.

I remember another figure of American culture who saw nothing.

His name was Sgt Shultz played by John Banning.

His famous phrase was “I see NOTHING, I know NOTHING!!”

Please feel free to respond to the following, or pound the table, if you prefer.

http://www.english.illinois.edu/maps/mccarthy/blacklist.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism

http://huac.tripod.com/

Posted by: gergle at December 12, 2009 10:40 PM
Comment #292592

Tom you do realize that our Country was founded by subversives such as Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin and George Washington amongst many others don’t you? Your defense of McCarthyism and it’s violation of the bill of rights while telling us “The practice of Christianity is being taken away slowly and surely is a fact. No, it has not been taken away fully, or course. The recent hate crime law will show a dramatic increase of not allowing preachers to preach against sin.” is absolutely amazing to me.
It is the old “it’s not fascism when we do it” attitude so prevalent among those on the far right today. Just like McCarthy you offer nothing to back up your spurious claims yet you justify HUAC type activities by the federal government to destroy those you do not agree with politically while disturbed by the powers of the federal government. Go figure.

Posted by: j2t2 at December 13, 2009 11:19 AM
Comment #292600

Stephen,

I’m not a fan of Sarah, but the reason her book was named ‘Going Rogue’ was answered in her book, if you chose to read it. You ask ‘what did she mean’, she writes that it was a term used against her by the leaders of the McCain campaign whenever she would talk about things that were not ‘on point’ with the message that they wanted her to follow.

Royal,

You are telling me that because I follow MY religious beliefs, which run counter to those of the majority of Americans, it shows a lack of respect. I am wondering what else I am doing that shows this lack of respect? Should I be wearing crosses around my neck? Going to church on Sundays? Worshiping idols?

Why is it not ok for me to ‘disrespect’ your religion by you can disrespect mine? Since I am in the minority I should be the one to have to defer?

What is wrong with people doing what they believe and letting other do, say and write what THEY believe without demanding that they follow a different path?

And this is the perfect example of why I find this type of ‘plank’ to a political movement fearsome. If these basic rights and ideals can be tossed aside, everything else if fair game…

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 13, 2009 12:44 PM
Comment #292601

Tom,

Seriously, Dude, you don’t understand the problem with congress changing the pledge of allegiance to add ‘under god’ in order to ‘ferret out’ any ‘godless commies’ from the country? A country that was founded on the believe that people are free to BELIEVE what they want to believe, it is action upon that belief that is the problem.

According to you, you would have no problem with our government going after all muslims, blackballing them from working and ‘naming names’ of other muslims? Being a communist was never EVER a crime, but it was treated as one during this very very sad time in our history.

Watch the movie ‘The Majestic’ for a bit of an example of what the era was about. The speech at the end should, if you are a good american, get your blood to boil and bring a tear to your eye.

Unless, like you seem to espouse, there is nothing wrong with trampling on the most basic of civil rights of the citizens of the United States…

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 13, 2009 12:49 PM
Comment #292603

Rhinehold writes; “You are telling me that because I follow MY religious beliefs, which run counter to those of the majority of Americans, it shows a lack of respect.”

Sorry Rhinehold…I didn’t know your religious beliefs don’t allow you to capitalize the name of a diety. Once again you missed my original point which was to suggest that any successful third party must respect the earnest beliefs of those whom they wish to attract. I then pointed out one way to respect religious beliefs. That being…to follow the accepted world wide convention of capitalization of the name of a deity.

I have no desire to diminish any belief you hold. Tell me how you would like me to address your deepest held beliefs and I will comply. There is a huge difference between respect and agreement.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 13, 2009 1:20 PM
Comment #292609

Gergle,
Have you studied the transcripts, the published records, the commentary, etc of the McCarthy hearnings? I have.

Lots of rhetorical spin. No factual rebuttal. Dinner is ready and the football game is on and since nothing was said above to comment on have a blessed Sunday (The Lord’s Day).

Posted by: Tom Humes at December 13, 2009 3:02 PM
Comment #292614

Tom,

What a great example of faith over logic, thank you for showing the entire class how one must abandon logic to embrace positions of pure faith.

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 13, 2009 7:11 PM
Comment #292626

“Lots of rhetorical spin. No factual rebuttal.”

Yes indeed Tom,

“The first amendment only says that Congress cannot make any laws prohibiting the free exercise of any religion. That is being being taken away slowly and surely.”

“The practice of Christianity is being taken away slowly and surely is a fact. No, it has not been taken away fully, or course. The recent hate crime law will show a dramatic increase of not allowing preachers to preach against sin.”

“He never falsely accused any of the subjects in his investigations. The best word to describe those he pursued was subversive.”

Yes indeed.


Posted by: j2t2 at December 14, 2009 9:59 AM
Comment #292642

Tom,

So have I.

Where’s your rebuttal? Don’t have one?

Thought so. Stop wasting my time, thanks.

Posted by: gergle at December 14, 2009 8:23 PM
Post a comment