Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Let me get this straight, based on this statement you consider taxes to be an issue that is equal or more important than the murder of an unborn child?
No wonder you don't understand what is going on within the tea parties.
Abortion, is a personal liberty issue. From what the previous poster stated, the Tea Party is about personal liberty to him, and most of the others in the tea party. Low taxation, and low government spending are the major issues guiding them now.
I know many tea party members. Most of the ones I know, are Christian conservatives, simply upset about their taxes. However, they have no problem telling others what they can do with their own bodies, if the bible says so.
They wouldn't be today's conservatives, they'd be today's libertarians.
Ok, well that doesn't account for humaninty's natural tendency to live in a city. Whether it hurts the brain or not, it isn't discouraging people from living in a city.
And for libertarianism, the wiki defintion quotes "Libertarian author and politician Harry Browne wrote: "We should never define Libertarian positions in terms coined by liberals or conservatives – nor as some variant of their positions."
It might be slightly disengenuious to categorize them as such. We know each founding father had varying views on government, as well as economy.
I will site John Adams as an example. He wrote the Massachusetts Constitution in 1780, 8 years before the federal one. In it, he outlines a central government, three branches, checks and balances, and separation of powers among the three branches. The Mass Cons. became the direct model for the US one.
"Many historians argue that Thoughts on Government should be read as an articulation of the classical republican theory of mixed government. Adams contended that social classes exist in every political society, and that a good government must accept that reality. For centuries, dating back to Aristotle, a mixed regime balancing monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy, or the monarch, nobles, and people was required to preserve order and liberty."
Prior to the Constitution we had the Articles of Confederation, which maintained a weak central government and the loose agreement of the many states. It proved very inept after a short few years. The Constitution was the compromise.
Most of our Founding Fathers led by John Adams advocated for a mixed government--which is what the Mass Con and subsequaently the US one manifests. They saw it as the best defense for liberty and freedom.
A weak central government isn't much of a government at all. And would ultimately serve no purpose. But a government organized around checks and balances would be able to stave off attacks from tyranny of any one of the estates.
I wonder what the tea party patriots would say when they are confronted with the fact that many of the founding fathers suscribed to the teachings of the Unitarian Church, which everyone knows promotes liberal theology.
A quarter of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were Freemasons, Washington and Franklin included, thereby confirming a belief in Diety. Their practice in apply that belief was entirely up to them.
I suspect many if not most Tea Party'ers would be satisfied with that.
A quarter of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were Freemasons, Washington and Franklin included, thereby confirming a belief in Diety. Their practice in apply that belief was entirely up to them.
I suspect many if not most Tea Party'ers would be satisfied with that.
Actually it doesn't mean a belief in deity, it confirms belief in a creator, or "Master mason"
It doesn't have to be a Christian God, or anything of the like, just that you believe that the Universe was created by something or someone.
Irrelevant. Unitarianism is still a belief in a Christian God. But, according to the liberals of the nation, the United States is not a Christian nation, therefore liberal ideology rooted in any sort of liberal theology is a moot and inconvenient point to them. They'd rather not acknowledge that this nation has any basis in Christian belief. In contrast, Tea Partiers are by-and-large Christian believers who see this nation as being lured away from its Christian principles by a government out of control. Tea Partiers generally celebrate the Christian Majority...I see no reason to believe that they'd be turned off by our founding fathers having their thoughts and beliefs rooted in Christianity. They've known it all along.
You should be asking LIBERALS how THEY'D react to the founding fathers subscribing to Christianity. It would surely get in their crawl.
I think you meant to say according to "The Treaty of Tripoli".
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
Just as the people that do not understand the difference between "climate" and "weather", I see some of you do not get the difference between population/demographics and what the United States was founded on. If there is in fact, a larger population of Christians in the U.S. that does not make it a Christian nation. We were never and hopefully will never be a Christian nation as that would make us a theocracy. Why don't you get this?
The United States Constitution serves as the law of the land for America and indicates the intent of our Founding Fathers. The Constitution forms a secular document, and nowhere does it appeal to God, Christianity, Jesus, or any supreme being. (For those who think the date of the Constitution contradicts the last sentence, see note 1 at the end.) The U.S. government derives from people (not God), as it clearly states in the preamble: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union...." The omission of God in the Constitution did not come out of forgetfulness, but rather out of the Founding Fathers purposeful intentions to keep government separate from religion.
A quarter of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were Freemasons, Washington and Franklin included, thereby confirming a belief in Diety. Their practice in apply that belief was entirely up to them.
I suspect many if not most Tea Party'ers would be satisfied with that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979
Actually it doesn't mean a belief in deity, it confirms belief in a creator, or "Master mason"
It doesn't have to be a Christian God, or anything of the like, just that you believe that the Universe was created by something or someone.
I'm sure there's plenty of room in Freemasonry to delve into the allegories of the Creator. For the purpose of this forum and Tea Party'ers, Diety seemed simple enough.
Are you basing your reply on some blue lodge or appendant body experience - or other educated familiarities?
I'm sure there's plenty of room in Freemasonry to delve into the allegories of the Creator. For the purpose of this forum and Tea Party'ers, Diety seemed simple enough.
Are you basing your reply on some blue lodge or appendant body experience - or other educated familiarities?
My grandfather is a Mason, and I myself am a student of history. I find the age in which our founding fathers to have been in fascinating.
I once wrote a speech about separation of church and state, which also set me on a path of studying the founding fathers religious beliefs, and why many of them felt that religion needed to be kept out of politics. Many of their beliefs at the time were based on Christian religious differences. Differences between catholics, quakers, and baptists. I find parallels in todays world, in which we have questions about differences between Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. Seeing as many of the Christian lines are now blurred, to the point where its almost "are you a Christian" and it doesn't matter what kind you are. Then, that some seem to want to legislate that Christian morality, something that I believe our founders would be railing against.
Ok, well that doesn't account for humaninty's natural tendency to live in a city. Whether it hurts the brain or not, it isn't discouraging people from living in a city.
But it's not natural. A natural habitat doesn't cause such health problems.
Quote:
And for libertarianism, the wiki defintion quotes "Libertarian author and politician Harry Browne wrote: "We should never define Libertarian positions in terms coined by liberals or conservatives – nor as some variant of their positions."
That's once again referring to today's useage of those words, not the classical liberals of the 1700's.
Quote:
I will site John Adams as an example. He wrote the Massachusetts Constitution in 1780, 8 years before the federal one. In it, he outlines a central government, three branches, checks and balances, and separation of powers among the three branches. The Mass Cons. became the direct model for the US one.
"Many historians argue that Thoughts on Government should be read as an articulation of the classical republican theory of mixed government. Adams contended that social classes exist in every political society, and that a good government must accept that reality. For centuries, dating back to Aristotle, a mixed regime balancing monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy, or the monarch, nobles, and people was required to preserve order and liberty."
Prior to the Constitution we had the Articles of Confederation, which maintained a weak central government and the loose agreement of the many states. It proved very inept after a short few years. The Constitution was the compromise.
Most of our Founding Fathers led by John Adams advocated for a mixed government--which is what the Mass Con and subsequaently the US one manifests. They saw it as the best defense for liberty and freedom.
A weak central government isn't much of a government at all. And would ultimately serve no purpose. But a government organized around checks and balances would be able to stave off attacks from tyranny of any one of the estates.
They created in the Constitution the least government practical. It strictly limits the government to those areas seen as necessary, such as national defense, ensuring trade between states, protecting the American economy (tariffs), etc.
[quote=arctichomesteader;13608548]But it's not natural. A natural habitat doesn't cause such health problems.
I still fail to understand how cities are unnatural. When human development is traced by the development of cities.
Mesopotamia
Egypt
Phonecia
Greek City States and their colonies
Rome and her military settlements (Paris and London for example)
the rise of the Eastern Empire and Byzantine
The decline of western european cities during the Dark ages
the rise of the cities during the Rennaissance as seen by places like Florence, Venice, Paris
the massive growth of cities following the Industrial Revolution
humans live and move to cities. I only argue because one study like that doesn't really matter. Cities exist not by accident or force but by human nature to congregate.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
