Republican Party Raids the Tea Party

florence151

aerial wrote:

If our forefathers did not have a relationship with God how do you explain this?
If our forefathers did not have a relationship with God how do you explain this?
Emblazoned over the Speaker of the House in the US Capitol are the words "In God We Trust."
The Supreme Court building built in the 1930's has carvings of Moses and the Ten Commandments
God is mentioned in stone all over Washington D.C., on its monuments and buildings.
As a nation, we have celebrated Christmas to commemorate the Savior's birth for centuries.
Oaths in courtrooms have invoked God from the beginning.
The founding fathers often quoted the Bible in their writings.
Every president that has given an inaugural address has mentioned God in that speech.
Prayers have been said at the swearing in of each president.
Each president was sworn in on the Bible, saying the words, "So help me God."
Our national anthem mentions God.
The liberty bell has a Bible verse engraved on it.
The original constitution of all 50 states mentions God.
Chaplains have been in the public payroll from the very beginning.
Our nations birth certificate, the Declaration of Independence, mentions God four times.
The Bible was used as a textbook in the schools.

Are you advocating that Christianity should become the official religion of the USA?
If so, there will be different of opinions as to which version of the Bible should be used to determine how the nation is to be governed. Also, would divorce be a crime in this Christian nation?

aerial

florence151 wrote:

aerial wrote:

If our forefathers did not have a relationship with God how do you explain this?
If our forefathers did not have a relationship with God how do you explain this?
Emblazoned over the Speaker of the House in the US Capitol are the words "In God We Trust."
The Supreme Court building built in the 1930's has carvings of Moses and the Ten Commandments
God is mentioned in stone all over Washington D.C., on its monuments and buildings.
As a nation, we have celebrated Christmas to commemorate the Savior's birth for centuries.
Oaths in courtrooms have invoked God from the beginning.
The founding fathers often quoted the Bible in their writings.
Every president that has given an inaugural address has mentioned God in that speech.
Prayers have been said at the swearing in of each president.
Each president was sworn in on the Bible, saying the words, "So help me God."
Our national anthem mentions God.
The liberty bell has a Bible verse engraved on it.
The original constitution of all 50 states mentions God.
Chaplains have been in the public payroll from the very beginning.
Our nations birth certificate, the Declaration of Independence, mentions God four times.
The Bible was used as a textbook in the schools.

Are you advocating that Christianity should become the official religion of the USA?
If so, which version of the Bible should be used to determine how the nation is to be governed?
Also, would divorce be a crime in this Christian nation?

I am not advocating anything....I am making a point ..and answering a question...just because a couple people do not beleive in God does not give them the right to to use made up BS .

FiveB247x

These are all very ambiguous ways to describe religion in government. We as a nation have do not promote one particular sect of religion - we promote religious tolerance and freedom to practice any religion. That's something all these "tea party" people don't seem to acknowledge. A basic understanding of US history easy denounces the combination of church and state as a practice to enhance our republic.

Also, in most of these items on your list, it doesn't state which god we're referring too. Simply because we have traditions, ceremonies and holidays which include religious text or belief, doesn't mean we are or have removed the separation of church and state to become a Christian nation (regardless of some wanting this).

aerial wrote:

If our forefathers did not have a relationship with God how do you explain this?
If our forefathers did not have a relationship with God how do you explain this?
Emblazoned over the Speaker of the House in the US Capitol are the words "In God We Trust."
The Supreme Court building built in the 1930's has carvings of Moses and the Ten Commandments
God is mentioned in stone all over Washington D.C., on its monuments and buildings.
As a nation, we have celebrated Christmas to commemorate the Savior's birth for centuries.
Oaths in courtrooms have invoked God from the beginning.
The founding fathers often quoted the Bible in their writings.
Every president that has given an inaugural address has mentioned God in that speech.
Prayers have been said at the swearing in of each president.
Each president was sworn in on the Bible, saying the words, "So help me God."
Our national anthem mentions God.
The liberty bell has a Bible verse engraved on it.
The original constitution of all 50 states mentions God.
Chaplains have been in the public payroll from the very beginning.
Our nations birth certificate, the Declaration of Independence, mentions God four times.
The Bible was used as a textbook in the schools.

aerial

FiveB247x wrote:

These are all very ambiguous ways to describe religion in government. We as a nation have do not promote one particular sect of religion - we promote religious tolerance and freedom to practice any religion. That's something all these "tea party" people don't seem to acknowledge. A basic understanding of US history easy denounces the combination of church and state as a practice to enhance our republic.

Also, in most of these items on your list, it doesn't state which god we're referring too. Simply because we have traditions, ceremonies and holidays which include religious text or belief, doesn't mean we are or have removed the separation of church and state to become a Christian nation (regardless of some wanting this).

aerial wrote:

If our forefathers did not have a relationship with God how do you explain this?
If our forefathers did not have a relationship with God how do you explain this?
Emblazoned over the Speaker of the House in the US Capitol are the words "In God We Trust."
The Supreme Court building built in the 1930's has carvings of Moses and the Ten Commandments
God is mentioned in stone all over Washington D.C., on its monuments and buildings.
As a nation, we have celebrated Christmas to commemorate the Savior's birth for centuries.
Oaths in courtrooms have invoked God from the beginning.
The founding fathers often quoted the Bible in their writings.
Every president that has given an inaugural address has mentioned God in that speech.
Prayers have been said at the swearing in of each president.
Each president was sworn in on the Bible, saying the words, "So help me God."
Our national anthem mentions God.
The liberty bell has a Bible verse engraved on it.
The original constitution of all 50 states mentions God.
Chaplains have been in the public payroll from the very beginning.
Our nations birth certificate, the Declaration of Independence, mentions God four times.
The Bible was used as a textbook in the schools.

This nation was created as a Christain Nation so there can not be a removal of "separation of church and state" because that is BS...nothing ever said that....Personally I don’t care what God....I just don’t want my culture or history changedbecause some people have a problem that God was involved in the creation of America.....did you know schools were started in churches....so was our congress...

g under p

aerial wrote:

I also don't agree with calling people derogatory names ......

Again aerial this was addressed to me, what derogatory names do you speak of?

Peace

FiveB247x

Not meaning to insult your intelligence, but do you realize when the first settlers of our nation fled Europe it was because of religious persecution? In short, they were all religious fundamentalists in places that did not tolerate religious acceptance of alternative religions/sects or practices in their society. Now let's fast forward to the present time where the supposed enemy of our nation is what... religious fundamentalists who want to combine religion and government. And somehow the very people in our nation most riled up on these issues are the same pushing hate and intolerance in the opposing direction. Pretty ironic wouldn't you say?

Also, you continually say things like you don't want separation of church and state.. what would be your reaction if we started teaching the Koran or some other religious text in schools? Or had political leaders swear on some other text than the bible? Would this still be ok with you? That would be religious tolerance.. not merely the Christian nation stuff you keep saying.

Lastly, you keep harping on the fact of religious impact on our nation - things like Bible in schools. It is a book, written by people, just like Hanzel and Grettel. Both have morals and codes, but you and others take more from it - which you're entitled to do, but this does not mean everyone has to believe, think or learn the same. This is not religious tolerance and acceptance, it is creating a Christian nation.. ie a nation under Jesus...which is at the heart of the tea-baggers and every other fundamentalist christian view in our nation. Not tolerance, but a polite way of transforming into a Christian theocracy...and that is something, we've never, ever believed or were founded upon as a nation.

aerial wrote:

This nation was created as a Christain Nation so there can not be a removal of "separation of church and state" because that is BS...nothing ever said that....Personally I don’t care what God....I just don’t want my culture or history changedbecause some people have a problem that God was involved in the creation of America.....did you know schools were started in churches....so was our congress...

aerial

FiveB247x wrote:

Not meaning to insult your intelligence, but do you realize when the first settlers of our nation fled Europe it was because of religious persecution? In short, they were all religious fundamentalists in places that did not tolerate religious acceptance of alternative religions/sects or practices in their society. Now let's fast forward to the present time where the supposed enemy of our nation is what... religious fundamentalists who want to combine religion and government. And somehow the very people in our nation most riled up on these issues are the same pushing hate and intolerance in the opposing direction. Pretty ironic wouldn't you say?

Also, you continually say things like you don't want separation of church and state.. what would be your reaction if we started teaching the Koran or some other religious text in schools? Or had political leaders swear on some other text than the bible? Would this still be ok with you? That would be religious tolerance.. not merely the Christian nation stuff you keep saying.

Lastly, you keep harping on the fact of religious impact on our nation - things like Bible in schools. It is a book, written by people, just like Hanzel and Grettel. Both have morals and codes, but you and others take more from it - which you're entitled to do, but this does not mean everyone has to believe, think or learn the same. This is not religious tolerance and acceptance, it is creating a Christian nation.. ie a nation under Jesus...which is at the heart of the tea-baggers and every other fundamentalist christian view in our nation. Not tolerance, but a polite way of transforming into a Christian theocracy...and that is something, we've never, ever believed or were founded upon as a nation.

aerial wrote:

This nation was created as a Christain Nation so there can not be a removal of "separation of church and state" because that is BS...nothing ever said that....Personally I don’t care what God....I just don’t want my culture or history changedbecause some people have a problem that God was involved in the creation of America.....did you know schools were started in churches....so was our congress...

first settlers of our nation fled Europe because they did not want the government telling them what religion they had to follow....that’s what amendment one is about....and it's funny how people mistake the word tolerance for the word acceptance, to separate meanings here...people have become more tolerant but as we have now the libs are trying to push people into accepting things that are totally beyond there beliefs...


so now libs are not happy with tolerance, now if the people don’t accept things they are against then they become racist and hate mongers...... Hanzel and Grettel no way compares to the Bible

aerial

g under p wrote:

aerial wrote:

I also don't agree with calling people derogatory names ......

Again aerial this was addressed to me, what derogatory names do you speak of?

Peace

Just a general statement not meant for you personally....just to those that call people names like morons, teabaggers and things like that

FiveB247x

This is a totally vague and non-specific response. Simply blaming liberals for forcing ideas upon society? You can insert any political philosophy into this category.

I also find it funny how you spin this... You think we are a Christian nation, therefore anyone preaching tolerance and religious acceptance is forcing ideas down the throats of society. Do you not recognize by proclaiming we are a christian nation, you are doing exactly what you're complaining about?

The Bible is a book. Some believe it is the word of god, some believe it is passed along stories on the word of god, others believe it was written by man to pass along stories and morals/codes to live by.. and some believe it is merely a book.. no different from science fiction. A good, interesting read no matter how you characterize it, but it is every persons' own opinion and entitlement to decide for themselves how to interpret that.

Lastly, you keep harping on others infringing on society about what to think and believe, but that is exactly what you preach in your commentary here.

aerial wrote:

first settlers of our nation fled Europe because they did not want the government telling them what religion they had to follow....that’s what amendment one is about....and it's funny how people mistake the word tolerance for the word acceptance, to separate meanings here...people have become more tolerant but as we have now the libs are trying to push people into accepting things that are totally beyond there beliefs...


so now libs are not happy with tolerance, now if the people don’t accept things they are against then they become racist and hate mongers...... Hanzel and Grettel no way compares to the Bible

markin ball

FiveB247x wrote:

This is a totally vague and non-specific response. Simply blaming liberals for forcing ideas upon society? You can insert any political philosophy into this category.

I also find it funny how you spin this... You think we are a Christian nation, therefore anyone preaching tolerance and religious acceptance is forcing ideas down the throats of society. Do you not recognize by proclaiming we are a christian nation, you are doing exactly what you're complaining about?

The Bible is a book. Some believe it is the word of god, some believe it is passed along stories on the word of god, others believe it was written by man to pass along stories and morals/codes to live by.. and some believe it is merely a book.. no different from science fiction. A good, interesting read no matter how you characterize it, but it is every persons' own opinion and entitlement to decide for themselves how to interpret that.

Lastly, you keep harping on others infringing on society about what to think and believe, but that is exactly what you preach in your commentary here.

aerial wrote:

first settlers of our nation fled Europe because they did not want the government telling them what religion they had to follow....that’s what amendment one is about....and it's funny how people mistake the word tolerance for the word acceptance, to separate meanings here...people have become more tolerant but as we have now the libs are trying to push people into accepting things that are totally beyond there beliefs...


so now libs are not happy with tolerance, now if the people don’t accept things they are against then they become racist and hate mongers...... Hanzel and Grettel no way compares to the Bible

I am for freedom of religion, & against all maneuvres to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Elbridge Gerry, 1799

florence151

Which version of the Bible is the one true version?
If we are to declare the USA to be a Christian Nation then we should know which Christians are practicing the correct religion.

breath123

aerial wrote:

Separation of church and state is not on any legal document our forefathers created as some believe... It was merely one phrase in a letter from President Jefferson trying to assure a group of Connecticut Baptists that the US would not have a state church.

It is in a legal document, it's in the constitution. Bill of rights amendment 1:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

there it is in black and white.

Do you know any staunchly religious people? If you do, you know they can't say five words without one of them being "jesus" or "god". So since our founding fathers were so religious, God must be mentioned throughout the constitution and the declaration of independence.

not ONE reference.

I rest my case.

Edit: In the DOI, there are three references to a higher power. but It is never mentioned as a christian god. it is called "creator, supreme judge, etc. To me this strengthens my argument. If the christian god is the one and only god, why not say so?

also ariel, the national anthem was not written by the founding fathers. And "God" was was added to the pledge and money in 1951 by Dwight Eisenhower, a republican who would be shunned by the party today due to his pro labor and pro law stance.

g under p

aerial wrote:

g under p wrote:

aerial wrote:

I also don't agree with calling people derogatory names ......

Again aerial this was addressed to me, what derogatory names do you speak of?

Peace

Just a general statement not meant for you personally....just to those that call people names like morons, teabaggers and things like that

Well YES in the past I've used the term Teabagger and have called people in the Tea Party Movement Teabaggers. It was only 6 weeks ago I first learned that the word teabagger had a sexual connotation, which I first learned here at AMT. I'm sort of old school and not quite up to date with these new fang led sexual words.

I will say this much I totally DISAGREE with you and your signature. In that it seems you've been saying that the *N* WORD is similarly a derogatory word as Teabagger is to the Tea Party Movement. Since you appear to sincerely believe that I'll CHALLENGE you to poll the posters here to see if they agree or disagree with your sentiment of those word's equality. Your own Tea Party coined the word so I don't see how you can compare the two as equals.

Peace

aerial

g under p wrote:

Well YES in the past I've used the term Teabagger and have called people in the Tea Party Movement Teabaggers. It was only 6 weeks ago I first learned that the word teabagger had a sexual connotation, which I first learned here at AMT. I'm sort of old school and not quite up to date with these new fang led sexual words.

I will say this much I totally DISAGREE with you and your signature. In that it seems you've been saying that the *N* WORD is similarly a derogatory word as Teabagger is to the Tea Party Movement. Since you appear to sincerely believe that I'll CHALLENGE you to poll the posters here to see if they agree or disagree with your sentiment of those word's equality. Your own Tea Party coined the word so I don't see how you can compare the two as equals.

Peace

Lot’s of Tea party members are old school also...so when they said they were going to Teabag Washington I believe they did not know about the sexual relevance it had just like you and I did not know......So do you really think they like being called teabaggers? I am sure you and everyone on here that uses the word are not try to give a compliment....You have to agree it is use to insult people...just like the N word...just like the B word or the C word........I think all derogatory name calling shows ignorance and lack of empathy for others.....I would think that there is no levels in derogatory name calling.....there is right and there is wrong

aerial

breath123 wrote:

aerial wrote:

Separation of church and state is not on any legal document our forefathers created as some believe... It was merely one phrase in a letter from President Jefferson trying to assure a group of Connecticut Baptists that the US would not have a state church.

It is in a legal document, it's in the constitution. Bill of rights amendment 1:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

there it is in black and white.

Do you know any staunchly religious people? If you do, you know they can't say five words without one of them being "jesus" or "god". So since our founding fathers were so religious, God must be mentioned throughout the constitution and the declaration of independence.

not ONE reference.

I rest my case.

Edit: In the DOI, there are three references to a higher power. but It is never mentioned as a christian god. it is called "creator, supreme judge, etc. To me this strengthens my argument. If the christian god is the one and only god, why not say so?

also ariel, the national anthem was not written by the founding fathers. And "God" was was added to the pledge and money in 1951 by Dwight Eisenhower, a republican who would be shunned by the party today due to his pro labor and pro law stance.

I don't see in your quote were it says "Separation of church and state"

FiveB247x

These are not the same things at all.

The N-word has a historical connotation which refers to a time of slavery, racism and inhumane and unbalanced treatment of blacks.

People who call or make comments regarding the sexual alternative meaning of "tea bagger" is no different from just silly name calling and nothing more than nonsense.

Comparing them is like saying a racial slur is similar to a beavis and butthead joke.

aerial wrote:

Lot’s of Tea party members are old school also...so when they said they were going to Teabag Washington I believe they did not know about the sexual relevance it had just like you and I did not know......So do you really think they like being called teabaggers? I am sure you and everyone on here that uses the word are not try to give a compliment....You have to agree it is use to insult people...just like the N word...just like the B word or the C word........I think all derogatory name calling shows ignorance and lack of empathy for others.....I would think that there is no levels in derogatory name calling.....there is right and there is wrong

aerial

FiveB247x wrote:

These are not the same things at all.

The N-word has a historical connotation which refers to a time of slavery, racism and inhumane and unbalanced treatment of blacks.

People who call or make comments regarding the sexual alternative meaning of "tea bagger" is no different from just silly name calling and nothing more than nonsense.

Comparing them is like saying a racial slur is similar to a beavis and butthead joke.

aerial wrote:

Lot’s of Tea party members are old school also...so when they said they were going to Teabag Washington I believe they did not know about the sexual relevance it had just like you and I did not know......So do you really think they like being called teabaggers? I am sure you and everyone on here that uses the word are not try to give a compliment....You have to agree it is use to insult people...just like the N word...just like the B word or the C word........I think all derogatory name calling shows ignorance and lack of empathy for others.....I would think that there is no levels in derogatory name calling.....there is right and there is wrong

The N word means what it means..teabagger has it's own meaning also....there both derogatory names..... slavery has it's own meaning ...

FiveB247x

I don't think when a teabagger (politically) is called one in an insulting manner, it has anywhere near the derogatory nature of calling someone the N* word in an insulting manner. That'd be like saying if I called you a poopy-head, that's the same as me calling you some cultural insult? I hardly think that's a fair or logical comparison.

aerial wrote:

The N word means what it means..teabagger has it's own meaning also....there both derogatory names..... slavery has it's own meaning ...

g under p

aerial wrote:

g under p wrote:

Well YES in the past I've used the term Teabagger and have called people in the Tea Party Movement Teabaggers. It was only 6 weeks ago I first learned that the word teabagger had a sexual connotation, which I first learned here at AMT. I'm sort of old school and not quite up to date with these new fang led sexual words.

I will say this much I totally DISAGREE with you and your signature. In that it seems you've been saying that the *N* WORD is similarly a derogatory word as Teabagger is to the Tea Party Movement. Since you appear to sincerely believe that I'll CHALLENGE you to poll the posters here to see if they agree or disagree with your sentiment of those word's equality. Your own Tea Party coined the word so I don't see how you can compare the two as equals.

Peace

Lot’s of Tea party members are old school also...so when they said they were going to Teabag Washington I believe they did not know about the sexual relevance it had just like you and I did not know......So do you really think they like being called teabaggers? I am sure you and everyone on here that uses the word are not try to give a compliment....You have to agree it is use to insult people...just like the N word...just like the B word or the C word........I think all derogatory name calling shows ignorance and lack of empathy for others.....I would think that there is no levels in derogatory name calling.....there is right and there is wrong

Well I'm speaking to YOUR signiture and to me it's RUBBISH for you to think they are just the same period. I'm not thinking of any other *ABC or D* worrd I'm talking about your sign and the *N* word only. I'll continue to use it not in the sense of insulting you because I'm not familiar with it's sexual revelance. If you take the term Teabagger as an insult that's on you.

One thing I'll stop using the term/word when you take down your signiture which to me makes ABSOLUTELY no sense to me. Maybe you can reword it in some other fashion just NOT the one you have up there now.

Peace

gimmesometruth27

like i said in a prior thread, i challenge anyone to go up to person at a tea rally and call them a "teabagger" and see what happens....then go up to an african american and call them the n word and see what happens to them....i guarantee the latter will be met with harsher consequences than the former...