The Tea Party Takes Shape

[yeahwho]

Well this is the final day of the Tea Party Nation Convention in Nashville, here is the schedule of events (http://www.nationalteapartyconvention.com/schedule--topics.aspx) and a quick synopsis of the gathering from NPR (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123439500&ps=cprs).

Sarah Palin will be the big speaker and I think that will be that.

Is this the third party of which the democrats and republicans must beware of?

I am of the belief it's a good thing to see a third party start up but from the schedule of events I see there is no peace movement or weed smoking seminars so more than likely this isn't going to be my teabag. (and I don't smoke weed OK.... just cannot stand outdated outmoded double standard hypocritical bullshit from a land that has legal cigarettes and alcohol).

I predict the Tea Party is a much bigger threat to the Republican Party than the Democrat party.

What do you guys think? Is this significant stuff or just a blip? I mean these folks paid $549 to attend this convention... they seem serious or maybe just well off folks who would rather pony up bucks to bitch than be taxed. They'll be really pissed when they lose and pay taxes anyway.

[yeahwho]

I said, Is this the third party of which the democrats and republicans must beware of (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHkXFsK6UUg)?

[yeahwho]

Palin trash talked Obama during her Tea Party speech. This is some pretty good stuff, if you like this sort of thing.

“To win that war, we need a commander in chief, not a professor of law,” she declared.

And the crowd chanted Forrest Gump like, Run Sarah Run.

Palin Assails Obama at Tea Party Meeting (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/07/us/politics/08palin.html?hp) 2/6/10

[synch]

Yeah, and Palin is just the gal for the job!

[Bob]

i wasn't aware that commanders in chief and professors of law were such hilarious opposites

i mean i of all people would have reasons to believe that law professors are useless and impotent and i do, i promise, but i'm not sure what it has to do with either commander in chiefing skills or a lack thereof

[kaiser soze]

supposedly one of their esteemed leaders said something about literacy requirements for voting

these are the same people who could use spellchecker for the protest signs

Concerning palin's comment -What the fucks don't realize is this.....war = more profits for big oil and she's knee deep in their pockets so of course she's gonna pound the war drums. She probably doesn't give a shit about her son serving in Middle East ---or is he really?

tanks and jets don't run on pixie spit

[cj hood]

palin's a bimbo!

[RobMoney$]

supposedly one of their esteemed leaders said something about literacy requirements for voting

these are the same people who could use spellchecker for the protest signs


Then you should be all for that idea, right?
eliminate all the "redneck" rebuplicans?

[ms.peachy]

I think it's a bit much to say she 'doesn't care' about her son serving in the Middle East. I'm sure as a mother she cares very much. I don't doubt her sincerity at all; I think she, and her supporters, and these 'tea party' people, truly believe that they are in the right (no pun intended) and that their ideas are what is best for America. I just believe, equally sincerely, that they are gravely wrong, and in many cases are taking a very narrow view because on some level they feel threatened, real or imagined.

I tend to agree however that they are more a threat to the Republican party at the moment, and my instinct is that they are a bit of a non-starter in terms of longevity, but I am not 100% convinced of either, so will refrain from making any grand pronouncements.

[saz]

wow

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtcVMTZkTZQ

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stefan-sirucek/did-palin-use-crib-notes_b_452458.html

[Documad]

wow

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtcVMTZkTZQ

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stefan-sirucek/did-palin-use-crib-notes_b_452458.html

That's so odd, it's difficult to believe that it's true. Surely she could remember a few words. How could that even help? It's not like she was cramming for her Spanish final. I'm so confused. But Wow. Weird.

[yeahwho]

Sarah doesn't seem to have a clue about anything other than to exacerbate what problems exist and then assign blame to anyone/anyplace other than where she is and who she is.

Like being the governor of Alaska then quitting. Ominous forces gave her no choice but to quit. Breaking the hand to the Bible oath that she so easily uses to cast judgment on others.... you know between scribbling notes and what have you on that hand.

[travesty]

Classic! Thank you for posting that saz! Freaking hilarious.

[cj hood]

palin's a bimbo!
...

[DroppinScience]

Ariana Huffington has some interesting commentary on the Tea Party movement...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/the-tea-party-600-canarie_b_454105.html

Yes, some of the Tea Party movement is ugly. Yes, some of the Tea Party movement is race-based. Yes, some of the Tea Party movement is being bankrolled by conservative political groups -- and all of it promoted by Fox News. But focusing only on those elements obscures the fact that some of what's fueling the movement is based on a completely legitimate anger directed at Washington and the political establishment of both parties.

[Dorothy Wood]

I'm all for these dumb asses starting their own party. Then when they start losing races all over the country, maybe they'll realize that they aren't the end all be all of public opinion.


sarah palin sucks, she's a disgusting human being motivated by hunger for power and fame. she physically makes me sick.

[saz]

I'm all for these dumb asses starting their own party. Then when they start losing races all over the country, maybe they'll realize that they aren't the end all be all of public opinion.


sarah palin sucks, she's a disgusting human being motivated by hunger for power and fame. she physically makes me sick.

/thread

[RobMoney$]

1. Sarah Palin is a republican.
2. She was an invited guest speaker at their convention.
3. The Tea Party people have not indicated in any way that they are trying to establish themselves as a political party. They're a PAC at nthis point.
4. Sarah Palin has not indicated in any way she desires to leave the GOP for an alternative and non-existant party.
5. The Tea Party folks have absolutely no political leadership whatsoever to speak of.
6. They have not one single politician joining their platform because they aren't a political party.
7. Suggesting they're a new party because they have the word "party" in their name is as dumb as thinking I'm starting a new political party with my neighbors because we had a Super Bowl party this weekend and we breifly discussed politics.

So no, the tea party is not "taking shape" the way you all are suggesting.

[yeahwho]

So they are not taking shape? They are undefining themselves? Due to the historical nature of the terminology they are now thinking of taking the term "Party" out of their movement and becoming "The Tea".

I'm pretty sure that we are all aware of the political nature of the Tea Party. That is why I posed the question.... , Is this the third party of which the democrats and republicans must beware of (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHkXFsK6UUg)?

[HAL 9000]

I don’t follow US politics that closely so please correct me if I am wrong… but this looks to me like a awareness event and rally from the hardcore of the Republican party designed to unite opposition against a particular suite of Obama policies (especially fiscal ones) with which they disagree. The goal being, presumably to demonstrate popular support for a political shift to the right within the Republican Party. The name Tea Party is surely a reference to the Boston Tea Party (also a protest against fiscal policy) rather than a political party (presumably one which is preoccupied by tea).

It would seem crazy and futile if they were considering starting a splinter party. So crazy that they would never do it – have I missed something?

[yeahwho]

I don’t follow US politics that closely so please correct me if I am wrong… but this looks to me like a awareness event and rally from the hardcore of the Republican party designed to unite opposition against a particular suite of Obama policies (especially fiscal ones) with which they disagree. The goal being, presumably to demonstrate popular support for a political shift to the right within the Republican Party. The name Tea Party is surely a reference to the Boston Tea Party (also a protest against fiscal policy) rather than a political party (presumably one which is preoccupied by tea).

It would seem crazy and futile if they were considering starting a splinter party. So crazy that they would never do it – have I missed something?

You are absolutely 99.9% correct.

[HAL 9000]

I'll take that :)

[RobMoney$]

http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/02/04/tea-party-launches-counter-revolution/



Tea Party Launches ‘Counter-Revolution’
February 4, 2010 - 11:02 PM | by: Judd Berger

The first-ever National Tea Party Convention started with a bang Thursday, as conservative firebrand Tom Tancredo used his kickoff speech to rail against "the cult of multiculturalism" and the country's "socialist ideologue" president -- and declare that the tea party movement is here to stop it.

"The race for America is on right now," the former GOP Colorado congressman told the crowd in Nashville. "You have launched the counter-revolution."

And so it begins. According to convention organizer Judson Phillips, the event's 600 tickets have sold out. Tea party supporters from all across the country arrived at the Gaylord Opryland hotel Thursday for a weekend of strategy sessions, workshops and speeches.

The convention is much, much smaller than the party-sanctioned Democratic and Republican ones, but the opulence of the Opryland grounds -- and the $500+ ticket price -- give it the air of something more official.

The convention-goers who traveled here range from the mere fiscal conservative to the all-out President Obama basher.

"To me, Obama's the enemy of this country, and he's not the only one," said Harley Clinton, who traveled from Maryland with his wife, who sported an OBAMA T-shirt -- with the letters spelling out "One Big Awful Mistake America."

Tancredo, a former presidential candidate known for his opposition to illegal immigration, drew the battle lines between the tea party movement and the leadership in Washington in his opening speech.

"People who could not spell the word vote or say it in English put a committed socialist ideologue in the White House -- name is Barack Hussein Obama," he said. "The revolution has come. It was led by the cult of multiculturalism aided by leftist liberals all over who don't have the same ideas about America as we do."

Arguing that American "culture," one based on "Judeo-Christian principles," is under attack, Tancredo said the tea party movement would be non-existent if Obama hadn't won the election and pushed the country swiftly to the left.

It's unclear whether the convention will result in a more unified tea party movement, or a more loose-knit and multi-faceted one. Some activists showed up to learn how to better organize local chapters at home.

Tracey Anderson, a real estate broker from Indianapolis, said that's why she came. And she said, so far as she can tell, this isn't the start of a whole new party.
"It's a movement of, we're sick of it -- listen to us. We're sick of you making decisions without listening to the people who you work for," she said. "It's conservatism. ... It's not a new party. It is a movement."

The tea party movement has been effective in disrupting the balance of power from within the GOP. Some tea party-supported candidates are gaining steam in various GOP primary races across the country. But Scott Brown, who had the support of both tea party and non-tea party in his successful run for senator in Massachusetts, appeared to be the de facto guest of honor in Nashville -- though he was hours away getting sworn in to the Senate.
Tancredo gave Brown a shout-out in his speech, which drew ecstatic applause and cheers from the audience. And he even borrowed Brown's pitch line.

"I'm Tom Tancredo ... and I drive a Harley," Tancredo said.


Well, that pretty much sums it up, doesn't it?
"It's a movement of, we're sick of it -- listen to us. We're sick of you making decisions without listening to the people who you work for," she said. "It's conservatism. ... It's not a new party. It is a movement."

This has nothing to do with new political parties.

The "Tea Party" is a movement.

Libertarian is the political party that the movement is loosely based upon.

The GOP would love to sway these folks to their side, but this movement caught fire way before Fox News started to cover it.

It's people united behind the cause of fiscal conservatism.

Sure some people bring lots of other baggage, but the central theme of this movement is a pushback to the out of control expansion of government spending and power under Obama.
People do not want this country to become more socialist than it already is.
That is what the tea party is about.

I know the left is wetting their pants trying to redefine it and cast them off as kooks, but the cause is reasonable and just.
The federal government is getting way too big and it is time to say enough is enough.

[Dorothy Wood]

reasonable, just, and racist as hell.

[saz]

I know the left is wetting their pants trying to redefine it and cast them off as kooks, but the cause is reasonable and just.
The federal government is getting way too big and it is time to say enough is enough.

no, i'm not wetting my pants, but rather laughing my ass off, while at the same time disgusted.

however, i think they should seek out their own political party, as america desperately needs more parties. and hopefully liberals will pick on this and start to pay more attention to the green party.

[kaiser soze]

funny how many in the tea party thought HOMELAND Security was a good idea

but now they want small government, all they want is a fucking tax break. Too bad the wars they support cost money which equal more taxes----thanks a bunch!

The Tea Party = The Taliban

all about god and guns

[saz]

exactly, and the fact that they seemed to have no qualms about the bush administration's lies about the illegal invasion of iraq, the trillions borrowed from china, the billions of tax payer dollars squandered on private contractors and lost in iraq, the outing of cia covert operative valerie plame, the patriot act etc. where were they all during the last eight years? where was the tea party? the protests? if these people are so concerned about freedom and their rights, you'd think they would've taken to the streets when the patriot act was passed. but then again, they're so hooked to glenn beck and fox news, and of course during this time fox news' hosts were telling anyone who disagreed with the administration to "shut up", that they "hated america", "didn't support the troops", were "al qaeda sympathizers" et al.

[RobMoney$]

exactly, and the fact that they seemed to have no qualms about the bush administration's lies about the illegal invasion of iraq, the trillions borrowed from china, the billions of tax payer dollars squandered on private contractors and lost in iraq, the outing of cia covert operative valerie plame, the patriot act etc. where were they all during the last eight years? where was the tea party? the protests?


And where were they 1866 when the Republican Chester A. Arthur left Grover Cleveland with a 47% tariff rate that was crippling American business, not to mention the whole Civil Rights disaster.

They didn't seem to mind then, did they?
White Racist Devils.

[saz]

weak

[kaiser soze]

Has been ever since he was busted for plagiarism

The Tea party is becoming the radical wing of the right wing - brandishing guns, I mean assault weapons to make a statement - and what statement is that?

It will push away some of the moderates

[travesty]

What? Brandishing guns? Oh, you mean that one idiot....one. And I assume that he was trying to make the statement that owning an assault rifle is still legal in the US whether you like it or not. Kapeesh? If you don't like it then maybe you can call Obama and try and get him to take up that cause for you. He's been really successful with all of this other issues so far.(n)

Radical? I'd love to hear your explanation of that comment. What is so "radical" about tea partiers other than the left hates them. Was Ronald Reagan a "radical". I don't see tea partiers supporting anything outside of what old Ronnie did. Don't you think the militia types, KKK and such are the real "radical wing" of the right? Fucking A Soze, Sarah Palin straight scares the living shit out of you doesn't she? Just admit it. If her face hadn't shown up at that conference, you wouldn't be all wound up about this would you? It's laughable to me that a woman who you despise and ridicule so vehemently as ignorant and stupid can, with one crib noted speech, bait you into fearing a movement that you had previously deemed irrelevant. I think she has done her job. I appluad her and I scoff in your general direction.

What Obama, Reid and Pelosi are doing with their policies is "pushing away some of the moderates" and it doesn't seem to bother them or you so why should it bother the tea baggers?

[saz]

sorry man, but it was more (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/08/gun-carried-into-dem-congressmans-town-hall-but-not-pose-any-threat.php) than (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2S2IFw972uE) one (http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/showpost.php?p=1688599&postcount=70). and there was also all of the mob mentality (http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/showpost.php?p=1688191&postcount=32), the intimidation and threats of violence (http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/showpost.php?p=1688195&postcount=35), and death threats (http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/showpost.php?p=1688540&postcount=64), ditto what transpired with florida representative davis scott (http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/showpost.php?p=1689291&postcount=88).

actually, the tea partiers would not support much of what ronald reagan did, such as raising taxes multiple times, exploding the national debt, cutting and running from lebanon, granting amnesty to illegal immigrants, bailing out social security etc. these clowns fail to comprehend that reagan at times could be pragmatic and practical. he wouldn't have passed their purity test.

now certainly the militia types are the radicals of the right, however the tea partiers aren't helping their cause by storming town hall meetings and intimidating those inside who support reform and being so vitriolic and full of rage, nor embarrassing themselves to such epic proportions by continually questioning obama's legitimacy, by alienating intellectual and moderate conservatives and carrying on with paranoid delusions about nazism, fascism, socialism and communism.

sarah palin doesn't scare me, but if she were ever elected president (which will never happen (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/01/18/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6113291.shtml)), i'd be scared, as would the rest of the world, and i know you would be as well ("i'm sarah palin, now show me the launch codes"). you hold the same view of her as i do, yet you can applaud her? dude, her only priorities are fame and her ego. if rosie o'donnell suddenly became as politically active as palin, i wouldn't want anything to do with her as well.

and obama and reid aren't pushing away the moderates. in fact, all they've been doing is kissing their asses, kowtowing to whatever joe lieberman, ben nelson, mary landrieu, kent conrad and evan bayh want, to the extent that they cut backroom pork deals with them.

[RobMoney$]

The funny thing is not that long ago the Republicans were in control of the federal government and screwed up badly. Their failed policies are the very reason why the Democrats have control now. It won't be long before the Republicans are back in control and the Democrats will be forming a "counter revolution" of their own to take the country back.

The truth is these politicians care more about themselves and their parties than they do about America, and when someone appears to be standing up to that status quo and saying enough is enough, people want to tear them down and label them nutjobs.
It's disappointing to see people take such glee in tearing down the tea partiers.
It makes you think they'd prefer the status quo in Washington?

Perhaps the left will only see what it wants to see in this movement.
They will find the one nutjob in the crowd and use him to paint the entire movement with the same brushstroke.
They want to dismiss the fact that there are well meaning fiscal conservatives who are sincerely worried about government spending.
The left will try to force those folks to play second fiddle to the birthers and other nuts.

The only thing this administration has shown us is it's a whole lot easier to complain about the people running the show than to run the show yourself.
That's why they still use the "Bush" crutch as an excuse for everything.

[travesty]

I appluad her for getting under the skin of the left so well. I think it's HIGHLY entertaining. Funny like Dennis Rodman screwing Madonna not funny like Brittney shaving her head.:D

Make all you want to about the "gun at a meeting" idea but none of those instances were at all threatening or ILLEGAL, so in my mind it's a non-issue and it's not radical or crazies or nutjobs. It's Americans, obeying the law. Period. If you want to be scared of people carrying guns, be scared of the police. Why is it not an issue for them to have guns at political rallies? If there is no reason to have a gun at one of these events, why do the police and secret service have them? Care to compare the number of violent instances at tea party gatherings to police brutatility and violence committed at political gatherings in general? It amazes me that people would consider a holsetered handgun on the hip of one person an imminent threat to their life, yet the same gun on the hip of another person is considered crucial to our public safety. Does that make sense?

[saz]

yes, none of them were illegal, however who in their right mind, despite these laws (which are incredibly fucked up from my perspective) brings a loaded gun to an event where a member of congress or the president of the united states is speaking? especially considering the violent history of assassinations, and assassination attempts on american political figures. also, consider the rantings and ravings, the hysteria and vitriol of the tea partiers, and with all of that rage in mind, then consider that some protestors are showing up to events with loaded weapons. and just think about the people who attended the town hall meetings who supported reform and aren't into guns, who were being yelled at, as well as hearing the mob rantings of communism, nazism etc, being intimidated and bullied, and then hearing in the news about loaded guns being brought to similar town hall events across the country, plus the threats of violence and death threats. now do you see where myself and others are coming from on this? and this is isn't sweeping condemnation of everyone on the right appreciate guns. people like yourself are level-headed and aren't knee-jerk reactionaries who are unable of controlling their emotions, or rather don't let their emotions control them. the tea partiers are met with disgust by people like myself because they not only give sensible conservatives and conservatism in general a horrible image, but they're frankly idiots, downright hysterical idiots who believe everything glenn beck is telling them. they are that constant 25% or so who supported george w. bush to the bitter end, want prayer in schools, the ten commandments on display in and around public institutions, want abortion outlawed etc etc. you know, the john birchers, who do not represent mainstream conservatism and considered dwight eisenhower a communist.

i hear you though about the police and violence at political rallies, excellent point.

[saz]

The truth is these politicians care more about themselves and their parties than they do about America, and when someone appears to be standing up to that status quo and saying enough is enough, people want to tear them down and label them nutjobs.
It's disappointing to see people take such glee in tearing down the tea partiers.
It makes you think they'd prefer the status quo in Washington?

Perhaps the left will only see what it wants to see in this movement.
They will find the one nutjob in the crowd and use him to paint the entire movement with the same brushstroke.
They want to dismiss the fact that there are well meaning fiscal conservatives who are sincerely worried about government spending.
The left will try to force those folks to play second fiddle to the birthers and other nuts.

The only thing this administration has shown us is it's a whole lot easier to complain about the people running the show than to run the show yourself.
That's why they still use the "Bush" crutch as an excuse for everything.

i like bob barr and applaud what he's doing. even ron paul to a certain extent. i don't consider barr a nut at all. he is a well meaning fiscal conservative, who had the guts to leave the republican party as well as castigating bush. and i'd also be defending john mccain in certain instances if he won the election, as he'd have to deal with bush's messes as well.

[travesty]

And I hear you about the Tea Partiers. I'm not here to defend them as a movement as I think they don't represent me. However, I certainly feel like I am more indifferent than most about them. I just think it's the same old, same old political wrangling. Whenever one of the political parties wants to stir up some shit, they light the fire under the hardcore base as that's the easiest water to boil. The Republicans got their ass kicked last year, they are getting a lot of distatsteful policies rammed down their throat so they need a little Kumbaya to help ease the pain. So, fire up the hardcores to keep the party and it's main policies in the news while slinging mud on the Dems in power. All the while the core Republican party douchebags keep the movement at arms distance so as to appear more "moderate" and therefore honorable and trustworthy. It's all so calculated. The Republicans use the religious right for this kind of stuff and the Democrats use minority groups. I can neither support nor condemn these types of movements as either would mean that I have taken the bait.

[RobMoney$]

yes, none of them were illegal, however who in their right mind, despite these laws (which are incredibly fucked up from my perspective) brings a loaded gun to an event where a member of congress or the president of the united states is speaking? especially considering the violent history of assassinations, and assassination attempts on american political figures. also, consider the rantings and ravings, the hysteria and vitriol of the tea partiers, and with all of that rage in mind, then consider that some protestors are showing up to events with loaded weapons. and just think about the people who attended the town hall meetings who supported reform and aren't into guns, who were being yelled at, as well as hearing the mob rantings of communism, nazism etc, being intimidated and bullied, and then hearing in the news about loaded guns being brought to similar town hall events across the country, plus the threats of violence and death threats. now do you see where myself and others are coming from on this?

Perhaps you need to consider who and why this country was formed.
travesty was right on.
We the People, have he right to be as armed as law enforcement. It may seem unreasonable or unneccessary to you to feel the need to carry weapons, but we also need to realize that there's a reason our forefathers fought with their lives in order to found this new country for us to have that right.
Consider how our rights are methodically being taken away from us in the name of security and defence.
The right to bear arms is a right the NRA and a lot of people feel strongly about and would give their lives to defend.

We also need to remember that our government isn't there to rule us.
Obviously certain parts of our country wish to live by different gun laws than other parts.
They have a right to live that way.
If the majority vote they desire to carry weapons at all times, then that's the law. You can call them paranoid all you want, it's their right to be paranoid as long as they aren't infringing on anyone else's right to freedom and happiness.
That's why we elect politicians to represent us and our opinions on how we want the laws to be. Not for them to rule us and make the country how they think it should be, or how a bunch of people from another part of the country think it should be.

and this is isn't sweeping condemnation of everyone on the right appreciate guns. people like yourself are level-headed and aren't knee-jerk reactionaries who are unable of controlling their emotions, or rather don't let their emotions control them. the tea partiers are met with disgust by people like myself because they not only give sensible conservatives and conservatism in general a horrible image, but they're frankly idiots, downright hysterical idiots who believe everything glenn beck is telling them. they are that constant 25% or so who supported george w. bush to the bitter end, want prayer in schools, the ten commandments on display in and around public institutions, want abortion outlawed etc etc. you know, the john birchers, who do not represent mainstream conservatism and considered dwight eisenhower a communist.

i hear you though about the police and violence at political rallies, excellent point.

Are they the crazy ones for protesting our government with such vitrol, or is our government just that out of control that it's pushing the people to protest in such extreme ways?
Personaly, I wouldn't want to live in a country I wasn't allowed to protest with vitrol, because that's the only way to truly protest anything.

I hated Bush as much as the next guy, but I don't have a problem with prayer in schools, or having the ten commandments displayed publicly.
Like it or not, this country was founded on judeo-christian principles and beliefs, no matter how much Obama would like to deny that fact (http://www.usnews.com/articles/opinion/2009/05/07/obama-is-wrong-when-he-says-were-not-a-judeo-christian-nation.html).
If you don't believe in God, you have a right to refrain, or you have the right to form a private school that observes a different belief.
If I went to school in a Muslim nation, I would encourage them to express their religious beliefs as long as I had the right to refrain.

[kaiser soze]

We the People, have he right to be as armed as law enforcement. It may seem unreasonable or unneccessary to you to feel the need to carry weapons, but we also need to realize that there's a reason our forefathers fought with their lives in order to found this new country for us to have that right.
Consider how our rights are methodically being taken away from us in the name of security and defence.
The right to bear arms is a right the NRA and a lot of people feel strongly about and would give their lives to defend.

This coming from the guy who defends cops who commit crimes when someone brings it up on a message board. According to your thinking we have every right to defend ourselves from tyranny including using deadly force.

This isn't the Wild West anymore . What amazes me is that Obama wasn't intimidated or his SS would have taken care of the guy - I remember protesters without guns being quarantined for hours under another president.

[travesty]

Thankfully I'm no Constitutional scholar like our President but from what I have read most scholars agree that the main thrust of the second ammendment is for just that reason, for the people to have the ability to defend themselves from tyranny. and overzealous rulers.

No this isn't the Wild West anymore but it can certainly become it rather quickly. Ask anyone who was in New Orleans during Katrina, Compton after the R. King Verdict, Watts in 1965 or any other instance where law and order was temporarily unavailable. No one ever thinks that a complete collapse of the law enforcement system could happen to the US as a whole but History proves that not only is it possible, but very likely, especially as we teeter on the verge of complete bankruptcy. Ask any Muscovite how the ealry nineties were for relying on law enforcement for personal safety. Ask any Czech how well their government provided safety and security for it's citizens in 1993/94. Times of turmoil and unrest are not reserved solely for the third world. We should all be thankful for the relative peace we enjoy, but never forget, and history proves, peace is short lived.

What amazes me is that Obama wasn't intimidated or his SS would have taken care of the guy - I remember protesters without guns being quarantined for hours under another president.
I bet a whole gang of Secret Service agents around you 24/7 can give one a pretty secure feeling rather quickly.

[yeahwho]

I don’t follow US politics that closely so please correct me if I am wrong… but this looks to me like a awareness event and rally from the hardcore of the Republican party designed to unite opposition against a particular suite of Obama policies (especially fiscal ones) with which they disagree. The goal being, presumably to demonstrate popular support for a political shift to the right within the Republican Party. The name Tea Party is surely a reference to the Boston Tea Party (also a protest against fiscal policy) rather than a political party (presumably one which is preoccupied by tea).

It would seem crazy and futile if they were considering starting a splinter party. So crazy that they would never do it – have I missed something?

You are absolutely 99.9% correct.

This is why I reserved that 0.1% Tea Party advocates 'fiercely independent' (http://www.globegazette.com/articles/2010/02/12/news/latest/doc4b75ebea2ccc0123918935.txt)

[saz]

Perhaps you need to consider who and why this country was formed.
travesty was right on.
We the People, have he right to be as armed as law enforcement. It may seem unreasonable or unneccessary to you to feel the need to carry weapons, but we also need to realize that there's a reason our forefathers fought with their lives in order to found this new country for us to have that right.
Consider how our rights are methodically being taken away from us in the name of security and defence.
The right to bear arms is a right the NRA and a lot of people feel strongly about and would give their lives to defend.

We also need to remember that our government isn't there to rule us.
Obviously certain parts of our country wish to live by different gun laws than other parts.
They have a right to live that way.
If the majority vote they desire to carry weapons at all times, then that's the law. You can call them paranoid all you want, it's their right to be paranoid as long as they aren't infringing on anyone else's right to freedom and happiness.
That's why we elect politicians to represent us and our opinions on how we want the laws to be. Not for them to rule us and make the country how they think it should be, or how a bunch of people from another part of the country think it should be.

very eloquent rob, however how'd you like it if you were at a town hall meeting with your family, pertaining to an issue that is important to you, and outside there was an angry mob (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yX4F_cb9AXk), some of whom were carrying loaded guns, were completely opposed to your stance on the issue, all the while banging on closed doors, yelling, screaming, and intimidating those inside?


Are they the crazy ones for protesting our government with such vitrol, or is our government just that out of control that it's pushing the people to protest in such extreme ways?
Personaly, I wouldn't want to live in a country I wasn't allowed to protest with vitrol, because that's the only way to truly protest anything.

there's a huge difference between protesting and expressing yourself at a rally or organized event, and resorting to mob mentality (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yX4F_cb9AXk) and intimidating those who think and believe differently.


I hated Bush as much as the next guy, but I don't have a problem with prayer in schools, or having the ten commandments displayed publicly.
Like it or not, this country was founded on judeo-christian principles and beliefs, no matter how much Obama would like to deny that fact (http://www.usnews.com/articles/opinion/2009/05/07/obama-is-wrong-when-he-says-were-not-a-judeo-christian-nation.html).

wrong. america was founded by men who believed in a god or supreme being, but who also openly scorned christianity and had no use for it. one of their founding priniciples was religious and philosophical freedom, not shoving christianity down everyone's throats.

[RobMoney$]

wrong. america was founded by men who believed in a god or supreme being, but who also openly scorned christianity and had no use for it. one of their founding priniciples was religious and philosophical freedom, not shoving christianity down everyone's throats.



Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, Hancock, or Patrick Henry openly scorned christianity?

What sort of hippie commune were you raised on that taught you this?


They were all devout christians, who all also believed in freedom of religion.
Franklin was a fucking Puritan, which is like a super-christian.

[saz]

Lighthouses are more useful than churches.

-Benjamin Franklin


This would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion in
it.

-John Adams


Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man.

-Thomas Jefferson

[Documad]

It's dangerous to generalize about "the founders" because it's not clear exactly who you mean by that. I've got several strains of family who came over on early ships for various reasons and some of them founded towns in the NE. My family seems to have had a religious bent.

Some of the colonies came about for reasons related to religion. Some had more of a business foundation.

Much is made of that Jefferson quote, but I don't think you can generalize that "the founders" scorned religion. However, I believe that the men who wrote our constitution knew what they were doing when they left "god" and "jesus" out of it, and I think it's a crime the way some modern religious nuts misuse our country's legacy. The version of christian worship going on in the colonies didn't look like the stuff in today's suburban megachurches.

[DroppinScience]

They were all devout christians, who all also believed in freedom of religion.
Franklin was a fucking Puritan, which is like a super-christian.

His parents raised him Puritan, but he rejected those beliefs.

[Documad]

PS -- the US's laws certainly incorporate judeo-christian values (perhaps via old english common law). But the people who formed our laws also intentionally drew lines re freedom to worship or not worship and a prohibition against establishing a government religion. So there's no way the 10 commandments should be posted on government-owned property.

PSS -- I've heard numerous reports that colonial brides were often pregnant and that engaged couples were permitted to sleep together (bundled?) before marriage. I don't think that we have an accurate picture of what puritans were like.

[saz]

Much is made of that Jefferson quote, but I don't think you can generalize that "the founders" scorned religion. However, I believe that the men who wrote our constitution knew what they were doing when they left "god" and "jesus" out of it, and I think it's a crime the way some modern religious nuts misuse our country's legacy. The version of christian worship going on in the colonies didn't look like the stuff in today's suburban megachurches.

not necessarily, as jefferson had some serious beefs. i agree though that they knew what they were doing by leaving "jesus" and "god" out of it. i'm sure though the founding fathers are rolling over and vomiting in their graves regarding megachurches and the entire freak show that goes along with it.



Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.

-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782


But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782


Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787


I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Hopkinson, March 13, 1789


They [the clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion.

-Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Benjamin Rush, Sept. 23, 1800


History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.

-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.


Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

[RobMoney$]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin#Virtue.2C_religion.2C_and_person al_beliefs



Virtue, religion, and personal beliefs

Like the other advocates of republicanism (http://www.beastieboys.com/wiki/Republicanism_in_the_United_States), Franklin emphasized that the new republic could survive only if the people were virtuous. All his life he explored the role of civic and personal virtue, as expressed in Poor Richard's aphorisms (http://www.beastieboys.com/wiki/Aphorism). Franklin was a non-dogmatic believer, who felt that organized religion was necessary to keep men good to their fellow men, but rarely attended church himself. His faith in God was an important factor in his support for the American Revolution. When Ben Franklin met Voltaire (http://www.beastieboys.com/wiki/Voltaire) in Paris and asked this great apostle of the Enlightenment to bless his grandson, Voltaire said in English, “God and Liberty,” and added, “this is the only appropriate benediction for the grandson of Monsieur Franklin.”

Franklin’s parents were both pious Puritans. The family attended the old South Church, the most liberal Puritan congregation in Boston, where Benjamin Franklin was baptized in 1706. The Revolutionary War generation of this historic congregation include Samuel Adams; Samuel Sewall (http://www.beastieboys.com/wiki/Samuel_Sewall), judge and diarist; Thomas Prince, minister and book collector; William Dawes (http://www.beastieboys.com/wiki/William_Dawes), Paul Revere’s fellow rider in 1775. Old South Church played a significant role in the revolution through the bold actions of the Sons of Liberty (http://www.beastieboys.com/wiki/The_Sons_of_Liberty) at the Old South Meeting House. There, in 1773, Samuel Adams (http://www.beastieboys.com/wiki/Samuel_Adams) gave the signal for the “war whoops” that started the Boston Tea Party (http://www.beastieboys.com/wiki/Boston_Tea_Party). As poet John Greenleaf Whittier (http://www.beastieboys.com/wiki/John_Greenleaf_Whittier) wrote, “So long as Boston shall Boston be, And her bay tides rise and fall, Shall freedom stand in the Old South Church, And plead for the rights of all.”
Franklin’s Puritan upbringing was a central factor throughout his life, as a philanthropist, civic leader and activist in the Revolutionary War.[68] (http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=1723754#cite_note-67) Franklin rejected much of his Puritan upbringing: belief in salvation, hell, Jesus Christ’s divinity, and indeed most religious dogma. He retained a strong faith in God as the wellspring of morality and goodness in man, and as a Providential actor in history responsible for American independence.
He often invoked God as being in support of the American Revolution, as did most of the founding generation. Franklin wrote, “Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God.”
Ben Franklin’s father, a poor chandler, owned a copy of a book, "Bonifacius: Essays to Do Good," by the Puritan preacher and family friend Cotton Mather, which “Franklin often cited as a key influence” on his life.“ ”If I have been,” Franklin wrote to Cotton Mather’s son seventy years later, “a useful citizen, the public owes the advantage of it to that book.”
Franklin’s first pen name, Silence Dogood, paid homage both to the book and to a famous sermon by Mather.” The book preached the importance of forming voluntary associations to benefit society. Cotton Mather personally founded a neighborhood improvement group, that Franklin’s father joined. “Franklin picked up his penchant for forming do-good associations from Cotton Mather and others, but his organizational fervor and galvanizing personality made him the most influential force in instilling this as an enduring part of American life.”


It was Ben Franklin who during a critical impasse during the Constitutional Convention, 28 June 1787, introduced the practice of daily common prayer at the Convention, with these words:... In the beginning of the contest with G. Britain, when we were sensible of danger we had daily prayer in this room for the Divine Protection. -- Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a Superintending providence in our favor. ... And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? or do we imagine that we no longer need His assistance. I have lived, Sir, a long time and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings that "except the Lord build they labor in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel: ...I therefore beg leave to move -- that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that service.[75] (http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=1723754#cite_note-74)Franklin briefly belonged to a Presbyterian Church (http://www.beastieboys.com/wiki/Presbyterianism) in Philadelphia. Shortly thereafter, he became an enthusiastic supporter of one of America’s great evangelical ministers, George Whitefield (http://www.beastieboys.com/wiki/George_Whitefield), “the most popular of the Great Awakening’s roving preachers.” Franklin did not subscribe to Whitefield’s theology, but he admired Whitefield for exhorting people to worship God through good works. Franklin printed Whitefield’s sermons on the front page of his Gazette. He arranged to publish all of Whitefield’s sermons and journals. Half of Franklin’s publications in 1739-41 were of Whitefield, and helped the success of the evangelical movement in America. Franklin was a lifelong friend and supporter of Whitefield, until his death in 1770.[77] (http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=1723754#cite_note-76)


When he stopped attending church, Franklin wrote in his autobiography:...Sunday being my studying day, I never was without some religious principles. I never doubted, for instance, the existence of the Deity; that He made the world, and governed it by His providence; that the most acceptable service of God was the doing good to man; that our souls are immortal; and that all crime will be punished, and virtue rewarded, either here or hereafter.Franklin retained a lifelong commitment to the Puritan virtues and political values he had grown up with, and through his civic work and publishing, he succeeded in passing these values into the American culture permanently. He had a “passion for virtue.” These Puritan values included his devotion to egalitarianism (http://www.beastieboys.com/wiki/Egalitarianism), education, industry, thrift, honesty, temperance, charity and community spirit.
The classical authors read in the Enlightenment period taught an abstract ideal of republican government based on hierarchical social orders of king, aristrocracy and commoners. It was widely believed that English liberties relied on their balance of power, but also hierarchal deference to the privileged class.[82] (http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=1723754#cite_note-81) “Puritanism ... and the epidemic evangelism of the mid-eighteenth century, had created challenges to the traditional notions of social stratification” by preaching that the Bible taught all men are equal, that the true value of a man lies in his moral behavior, not his class, and that all men can be saved.[83] (http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=1723754#cite_note-82) Franklin, steeped in Puritanism and an enthusiastic supporter of the evangelical movement, rejected the salvation dogma, but embraced the radical notion of egalitarian democracy.
Franklin’s commitment to teach these values was itself something he gained from his Puritan upbringing, with its stress on “inculcating virtue and character in themselves and their communities.”[84] (http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=1723754#cite_note-83) These Puritan values and the desire to pass them on, were one of Franklin’s quintessentially American characteristics, and helped shape the character of the nation. Franklin's writings on virtue (http://www.beastieboys.com/wiki/Virtue) were derided by some European authors, such as Jackob Fugger in his critical work Portrait of American Culture. Max Weber (http://www.beastieboys.com/wiki/Max_Weber) considered Franklin's ethical writings a culmination of the Protestant ethic (http://www.beastieboys.com/wiki/Protestant_work_ethic), which ethic created the social conditions necessary for the birth of capitalism (http://www.beastieboys.com/wiki/Capitalism).[85] (http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=1723754#cite_note-84)
One of Franklin's famous characteristics was his respect, tolerance and promotion of all churches. Referring to his experience in Philadelphia, he wrote in his autobiography (http://www.beastieboys.com/wiki/The_Autobiography_of_Benjamin_Franklin), "new Places of worship were continually wanted, and generally erected by voluntary Contribution, my Mite for such purpose, whatever might be the Sect, was never refused."[78] (http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=1723754#cite_note-autogenerated1-77) “He helped create a new type of nation that would draw strength from its religious pluralism.”[86] (http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=1723754#cite_note-85) The first generation of Puritans had been intolerant of dissent, but by the early 1700’s, when Franklin grew up in the Puritan church, tolerance of different churches was the norm, and Massachusetts was known, in John Adams' words, as “’the most mild and equitable establishment of religion that was known in the world.’”[87] (http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=1723754#cite_note-86) The evangelical revivalists who were active mid-century, such as Franklin’s friend and preacher, George Whitefield, were the greatest advocates of religious freedom, “claiming liberty of conscience to be an ‘inalienable right of every rational creature.’”[88] (http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=1723754#cite_note-87) Whitefield’s supporters in Philadelphia, including Franklin, erected “a large, new hall, that...could provide a pulpit to anyone of any belief.”[89] (http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=1723754#cite_note-88) Franklin’s rejection of dogma and doctrine and his stress on the God of ethics and morality and civic virtue, made him the “prophet of tolerance.”[90] (http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=1723754#cite_note-89)
Although Franklin's parents had intended for him to have a career in the church, Franklin as a young man adopted the Enlightenment religious belief in Deism (http://www.beastieboys.com/wiki/Deism), that God’s truths can be found entirely through nature and reason.[91] (http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=1723754#cite_note-90) "I soon became a thorough Deist."[92] (http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=1723754#cite_note-91) As a young man he rejected Christian dogma in a 1725 pamphlet A Dissertation on Liberty and Necessity, Pleasure and Pain (http://www.beastieboys.com/wiki/A_Dissertation_on_Liberty_and_Necessity,_Pleasure_ and_Pain),[93] (http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=1723754#cite_note-92) which he later saw as an embarrassment,[94] (http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=1723754#cite_note-Isaacson45-93) while simultaneously asserting that God is “all wise, all good, all powerful.”[94] (http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=1723754#cite_note-Isaacson45-93) He defended his rejection of religious dogma with these words: "I think opinions should be judged by their influences and effects; and if a man holds none that tend to make him less virtuous or more vicious, it may be concluded that he holds none that are dangerous, which I hope is the case with me." After the disillusioning experience of seeing the decay in his own moral standards, and those of two friends in London whom he had converted to Deism, Franklin turned back to a belief in the importance of organized religion, on the pragmatic grounds that without God and organized churches, man will not be good.[95] (http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=1723754#cite_note-94)


At one point, he wrote to Thomas Paine (http://www.beastieboys.com/wiki/Thomas_Paine), criticizing his manuscript, The Age of Reason (http://www.beastieboys.com/wiki/The_Age_of_Reason):For without the Belief of a Providence that takes Cognizance of, guards and guides and may favour particular Persons, there is no Motive to Worship a Deity, to fear its Displeasure, or to pray for its Protection....think how great a Proportion of Mankind consists of weak and ignorant Men and Women, and of inexperienc'd and inconsiderate Youth of both Sexes, who have need of the Motives of Religion to restrain them from Vice, to support their Virtue, and retain them in the Practice of it till it becomes habitual, which is the great Point for its Security; And perhaps you are indebted to her originally that is to your Religious Education, for the Habits of Virtue upon which you now justly value yourself. If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be if without it.[96] (http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=1723754#cite_note-95)According to David Morgan,[97] (http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=1723754#cite_note-96) Franklin was a proponent of religion in general. He prayed to "Powerful Goodness" and referred to God as "the infinite". John Adams (http://www.beastieboys.com/wiki/John_Adams) noted that Franklin was a mirror in which people saw their own religion: "The Catholics (http://www.beastieboys.com/wiki/Catholicism) thought him almost a Catholic. The Church of England (http://www.beastieboys.com/wiki/Church_of_England) claimed him as one of them. The Presbyterians thought him half a Presbyterian, and the Friends believed him a wet Quaker." Whatever else Franklin was, concludes Morgan, "he was a true champion of generic religion." In a letter to Richard Price, Franklin stated that he believed that religion should support itself without help from the government, claiming; "When a Religion is good, I conceive that it will support itself; and, when it cannot support itself, and God does not take care to support, so that its Professors are oblig'd to call for the help of the Civil Power, it is a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one."[98] (http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=1723754#cite_note-97)


In 1790, just about a month before he died, Franklin wrote a letter to Ezra Stiles (http://www.beastieboys.com/wiki/Ezra_Stiles), president of Yale University (http://www.beastieboys.com/wiki/Yale_University), who had asked him his views on religion:As to Jesus (http://www.beastieboys.com/wiki/Jesus) of Nazareth (http://www.beastieboys.com/wiki/Nazareth), my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupt changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and I think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble....[10] (http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=1723754#cite_note-vandoren-9)On July 4, 1776, Congress appointed a committee that included Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams to design the Great Seal of the United States (http://www.beastieboys.com/wiki/Great_Seal_of_the_United_States).[99] (http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=1723754#cite_note-98) Franklin's proposal featured a design with the motto: "Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God." His design portrayed a scene from the Book of Exodus (http://www.beastieboys.com/wiki/Book_of_Exodus), with Moses (http://www.beastieboys.com/wiki/Moses), the Israelites (http://www.beastieboys.com/wiki/Israel), the pillar of fire, and George III depicted as Pharaoh.


You're right, he had rejected some Puritian beliefs at some point in his life, he remained true to many of it's moral teachings, and clearly gives credit to Purtianism for making him the man he was.
And he clearly had those beliefs in mind in his ideas for this country:

Franklin retained a lifelong commitment to the Puritan virtues and political values he had grown up with, and through his civic work and publishing, he succeeded in passing these values into the American culture permanently. He had a “passion for virtue.” These Puritan values included his devotion to egalitarianism (http://www.beastieboys.com/wiki/Egalitarianism), education, industry, thrift, honesty, temperance, charity and community spirit.




I also think this quote says it all,

"...Sunday being my studying day, I never was without some religious principles. I never doubted, for instance, the existence of the Deity; that He made the world, and governed it by His providence; that the most acceptable service of God was the doing good to man; that our souls are immortal; and that all crime will be punished, and virtue rewarded, either here or hereafter."

[RobMoney$]

Jefferson was vehemently against the tyranny of organized religion, but that doesn't mean he didn't believe in the virtues of christianity.
He looked at Priests and Kings in the same way.
Obviously, he was about free-motherfucking-will!


"No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities"

"Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burned, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth... Our sister states of Pennsylvania and New York, however, have long subsisted without any establishment at all. The experiment was new and doubtful when they made it. It has answered beyond conception. They flourish infinitely. Religion is well supported; of various kinds, indeed, but all good enough; all sufficient to preserve peace and order: or if a sect arises, whose tenets would subvert morals, good sense has fair play, and reasons and laughs it out of doors, without suffering the state to be troubled with it. They do not hang more malefactors than we do. They are not more disturbed with religious dissensions. On the contrary, their harmony is unparalleled, and can be ascribed to nothing but their unbounded tolerance, because there is no other circumstance in which they differ from every nation on earth. They have made the happy discovery, that the way to silence religious disputes, is to take no notice of them. Let us too give this experiment fair play, and get rid, while we may, of those tyrannical laws."

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, 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."