Look at the prominent assaults against Separation of Church and State.
On the "teaching Evolution" thread, wandeljw has posted Christine Odonnells debate speech about this very item. She feels that the public schools should be able to tech religious doctrines as science. In history programs , the TExas Ed Board has been considering changing the very view of Jefferson who was responsible for coining the term "Se[paration of church and state" (ina sense that he was merely interpreting what the1st Amendment was saying in the "Establishment and Free Expression" clauses.
I know that you are not ignorant of those facts so why deny them?
OH, a minor oversite revellette. I didnt ignore you, I just now noticed that those clothes were made OuT of TEABAGS. I think that their favorite tea flavor is actually catnip.
0 Replies
Cycloptichorn
1
Reply
Mon 25 Oct, 2010 11:59 am
@CoastalRat,
Quote:
Eventually you will meet tea party members who are athiest, agnostic, jewish, or whatever and you will be forced to keep adding adjectives until you whole argument falls apart.
Oh, I don't know about that. The truth is that the VAST majority of so-called 'tea partiers' - I prefer to refer to them by their traditional name, Republicans - are WASPS. The fact that there are a few tiny percentage points of other races doesn't change the fact that it is entirely a construction of frustrated white Americans.
Quote:
But that does not indicate any desire on the part of the members to keep rights granted under the constitution from anyone else.
Unless you're Gay or Muslim, in which case, yeah. Not so much.
On the "teaching Evolution" thread, wandeljw has posted Christine Odonnells debate speech about this very item. She feels that the public schools should be able to tech religious doctrines as science.
I've not been in that thread so I of course have no knowledge of what wandeljw has posted there. As for O'donnells' thoughts on this, I don't see how one can equate her belief as being the belief of the tea party movement. (BTW, I think she was one lousy candidate from the get-go and cannot believe that fellow republicans managed to hand her the nomination.) Also, for the record, even though I am a conservative republican who also happens to be a Christian, I do not agree with teaching religious belief as science in public schools. That can lead to crossing the line into state sponsored religion which I am firmly against. Which leads to your other point.
As for the Texas Bd. of Education, I did not know it was made up of tea party members. I'm not sure what that has to do with the tea party movement unless it is made up of tea party members. So I'll defer comment on that until such time that I can figure out how what they are trying to do relates to the tea party, which is the point of discussion here.
Christine O'Donnel is the Republican candidate for the Senate because of Tea Party support. Her idiotic comments about the first amendment are a part of the public record, and not just something which Wandel posted in another thread.
There is a constant theme that is found in the voices coming out of the Tea Party movement that shared with general conservative voices and Republican politicians.
The narrative that I hear is that America is under attack. This narrative, that some minority or other is taking from real Americans, is repeated in issue after issue. Homosexuals are ruining marriage. Latinos have turned Miami into a third world nation. Muslims are building mosque to bring Sharia law.
Time after time it is the threat, portrayed as not real Americans, are overrunning the monoculture. This is not even a secret, prominent Tea Party supporters from Newt Gingrich to Sarah Palin will tell you directly that they consider other cultures in the US a threat.
The flaw with this is Muslims, homosexuals and Latinos are Americans, we are a multicultural society.
0 Replies
CoastalRat
1
Reply
Mon 25 Oct, 2010 12:37 pm
@Setanta,
You misunderstood me Set. I did not mean to imply she had not said it. I acknowledge that she did. I should have separated my comment about not reading wand's post and my comments on O'donnell's statement. I can see how you would think I was questioning wand's post. Sorry for any confusion.
0 Replies
Setanta
1
Reply
Mon 25 Oct, 2010 12:40 pm
No problem, Boss. It is important to keep in mind, though, that she got where she is with Tea Party support, and if what she says publicly does not indicate their beliefs, people from the Tea Party need to make that plain.
0 Replies
maxdancona
1
Reply
Mon 25 Oct, 2010 12:43 pm
@CoastalRat,
Quote:
What rights does the tea party wish to take from muslims or gay/lesbian individuals?
You are joking, right?
There are two point made against same sex marriage. First, that it poses a threat to real American marriages. Second, that it is against American values.
This is monoculturalism. American values are the values of the tea party demographic. Only marriages that fit a narrow view of values are real American marriages.
There are two points made against the mosque. First that Islam poses a threat to real Americans. Second that Muslim Americans represent the 9/11 attacks.
This is also monoculturalism. Muslim Americans aren't considered Americans because they aren't Christian. They aren't assumed to be loyal and their actions are automatically assumed to have foreign influence.
And, CostalRat, what do you make of the claims from the right about Sharia law? They actually have names of American cities that they claim are under Sharia law (although the Americans who run or live in these cities don't know what the hell they are talking about).
This is an odd fear tactic designed to make diversity scary.
the other main problem i see, who is the tea party, it isn't a legitimate election option is it, ie, will the candidates have TP after their name on a ballot, until that happens and the party can monitor who represents it, it runs the risk of being identified by it's most obvious and probably worst representatives
Not to worry, farmerman. I am presently scratching my head over the catnip and how ties in with tea bag uniform/clothes..but I have never been all that fast on the jokes around a2k (or anywhere else for that matter)
0 Replies
CoastalRat
1
Reply
Mon 25 Oct, 2010 01:15 pm
@maxdancona,
Quote:
There are two point made against same sex marriage. First, that it poses a threat to real American marriages. Second, that it is against American values.
I think you are not quite stating the argument properly as it concerns gay marriage, but I won't contest that explanation. It is not just the tea party, nor just republicans, nor just Christians who are against gay marriage. Pinning that as a tea party thing is not going to get me to agree that simply believing that is indicative of being monocultural. (I don't consider being gay a culture in the sense that being latino is a culture, or being muslim is a culture, etc. So the whole gay argument is moot as far as your multicultural angle goes as far as I'm concerned. Feel free to disagree.)
Quote:
There are two points made against the mosque. First that Islam poses a threat to real Americans. Second that Muslim Americans represent the 9/11 attacks.
Your first point I have never heard mentioned as a reason for not wanting the mosque built where it is proposed. In fact, I've not heard anyone that is against the mosque being built in NYC, only against the proposed building spot. So your first point is pure fantasy on your part, in my opinion. Your second point may have some validity except that I do not believe a majority of Americans, including tea party members, believe that muslim americans represent (I assume you mean were responsible or supported) the 9/11 attacks. I won't say that some people don't have this belief, but it is a very small percentage, again in my opinion. I'll look for numbers to back that up, but I think most Americans can separate the extremist muslims who were responsible from the moderate ones who were not.
Quote:
Muslim Americans aren't considered Americans because they aren't Christian.
I won't dignify this piece of tripe with any lengthy refutation.
Coastal, are you really making the argument that there isn't a virulent anti-Muslim hatred being fed from the right and utilized by Republican politicians?
Would you dignify this piece of tripe?
What about Sharon Angle (running for NV Senate seat) claiming that Dearborn Michigan and Fairmont TX are "under Sharia" law. Do you dignify that tripe?
What about Newt Gingrich comparing American Muslims to Nazi's.
Then there are constant attacks on Obama that he is a "secret" Muslim, as if it really would matter if he were and the conservative outcry over Keith Ellison for taking his oath of office on a Quran instead of a Bible and it goes on and on.
I could also bring up the increasing violent attacks on Muslims and Muslim places of worship. Of course you will rightly say that these are being perpetrated by the fringe extremists.
But when you listen to the rhetoric coming from conservative politicians and pundits, it is awfully clear that they mean to paint all Muslims as a foreign threat.
0 Replies
Finn dAbuzz
0
Reply
Mon 25 Oct, 2010 05:40 pm
I consider myself a supporter of the Tea Party movement. I am, without question, white. I am also, without question, not a Christian. If there is anything to Christianity then I'm in for an eternity of hurt.
I have been to Tea Party rallies and the fact is that while they have never been attended exclusively by whites, whites have been the majority. What a surprise, whites represent the majority of our population. Would you somehow believe their message to be more legitimate if the majority of their attendees were non-white?
Or do you think that the opinions of whites are perforce illegitimate?
Your posted crap is just that: bigoted tripe based on assumption and prejudice. It passes as enlighted thought among your insular liberal crowd.
You and Farmerman are, on this topic, biased fools who know virtually nothing about what you are mouthing off.
Sounds a bit like what you imagine the Tea-baggers to be.
I have been to Tea Party rallies and the fact is that while they have never been attended exclusively by whites, whites have been the majority. What a surprise, whites represent the majority of our population. Would you somehow believe their message to be more legitimate if the majority of their attendees were non-white?
Or do you think that the opinions of whites are perforce illegitimate?
You are completely missing the point. The issue here is monoculturalism, the idea that experiences outside of a narrow range are discredited as non-American, un-patriotic, etc. etc. The rhetoric of "defending America" and "perserving the Republic" are coming only from people related to the Tea Party movement. The problem with this is that the Muslims, homosexuals and minorities they are defending the nation from are, in fact, Americans.
My issue with the tea party is not that they are white (although historically I think that this is relevant in explaining the Tea Party Movement). The issue is that they want to exclude so much of the experiences of Americans from what it means to be American.
I have never once questioned that the Tea Party movement is anything other then American.
0 Replies
Setanta
1
Reply
Mon 25 Oct, 2010 07:08 pm
@farmerman,
One of the problems i had with Coons is that he misquoted the "establishment" clause. It reads Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . . Personally, i don't think it helps if he sneers at her, and then screws it up himself.
0 Replies
Brandon9000
0
Reply
Mon 25 Oct, 2010 09:04 pm
@revelette,
revelette wrote:
A person would have to have blinders and their ears stopped up not to be able to glean the truth of everything the author of this thread said given the last few years and the loud mouths of the Tea Party and today's republicans.
You liberals love that wild claims with no evidence thing.
A person would have to have blinders and their ears stopped up not to be able to glean the truth of everything the author of this thread said given the last few years and the loud mouths of the Tea Party and today's republicans.
Brandon9000 wrote:
You liberals love that wild claims with no evidence thing.
That 's because thay EMOTE, instead of reason; thay don 't need evidence to emote.
