Posted on 07/14/2014 2:21:33 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Hey, Jack - f off.
You are wrong, too.
The U. S. Constitution, in the 1st Amendment, forbids Congress from passing any law that has anything to do with the establishment of religion, or the free exercise of religion.
“Respecting” in the text means having anything to do with. In other words, Congress is forbidden to pass a law that has anything to do with the establishment of religion, in either direction. Laws cannot establish or forbid an establishment of religion. Laws also cannot allow or forbid the free exercise of religion.
Congress has violated the 1st Amendment many times, probably more than a thousand times, but certainly more than a hundred times.
Translation
The TEA Party doesn’t worship the black messiah and put him on a pedestal as a god, therefore the TEA Party must be of another religion.
And the left also loves Islam, which is a religion of Satan. The left can have religion, but the right can’t?
The author is clueless….but there are some local TP groups that do have an emphasis on social issues and faith.
Ummm, it takes two sides refusing to bend on legislation to shut down the government.
Somehow, to this guy, refusal to go along with the tea party isn't a part of the problem.
That's because leftism and continual expansion of government is just taken for granted.
If I think government should be reduced in power and size, and Jack thinks it should be enlarged, then compromise and moderation would consist of leaving it where it is now.
Yet to Jack that constitutes extremism. "Moderation" and "compromise" consists of moving just a little less rapidly in the direction Jack prefers.
With the exception of a few neo-Confederates, I don't know of any conservatives who long for this period in history.
It was an interesting time, and not nearly as bad for most as this guy would like to believe, but it's not my ideal.
I'd settle for a more libertarian 50s, with enforced civil rights for all Americans.
BTW, the subtext behind all this verbiage is that Jack and his crew are intent on fundamentally changing America, and they are outraged that anybody dares to resist this change. No hint in here that his side is the aggressor. To Jack, resistance to his aggression is what really constitutes aggression.
I don’t even call it a religion, but an all-encompassing malevolent political ideology (that it worships Satan goes without saying, and of course, the last Democrat convention booed God, so obviously they’re both in bed together). Calling it all religion only serves to give it the legitimacy it simply doesn’t have.
I wouldn't call it projection, because it is pre-meditated and planned, not spontaneous and in-denial.
This is good old-fashioned communist agit-prop.
You accuse the enemy of doing what you are doing to deflect any accusations from yourself.
They know what they are doing here. It is very purposeful. And in a country that elected an American-hating, Muslim-loving communist for president twice, it is also very effective
Guy seems ignorant of constitutional originalism, which is precisely about understanding the Constitution in light of what the framers were thinking at the time. That is, it’s not just about the text itself as with strict constructionism. Scalia is an originalist, and I’d say most tea partiers and conservatives in general are in that camp. We want the kind of government that the framers envisioned, for the same reasons that they envisioned it. This means we must insist on limited government, which is of course what really bugs him.
I wonder if this person has heard of Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn. Years ago, he warned the West that our basic problem was spiritual; and he knew of which he spoke.
How about
Dear Jack:
With all due respect, I find it extremely offensive (white straight people can be offended, too) that you are debasing those of us who prefer a government that abides by the Constitution, that piece of paper which established this nation many years ago.
And Jack, many of our Founders were Christians who wanted to honor God and to worship Him freely in this new land. Those who reject God (democrats) are free to not worship. However, for you to denigrate American citizens who wish to stand up to the federal government that has trampled our Constitution and try to minimize their rights at every turn, we will not allow that.
So Jack, while I believe you have every right to criticize what you don’t understand, it would behoove you to open your mind to other’s opinions.
Sincerely,
A concerned Freeper
P.S. - Jack, f off
But the fact is that, as usual, the Left has things completely backwards. The Constitution says that the government may not establish a religion, not that I cannot establish one. And in fact, it says that the government cannot prevent me from establishing a religion.
You nailed it. Marxism/progressivism is more a religion than most religions!
Jesus described the religious (=self-righteous) in Luke 18:9 - and there are few better descriptions of the left anywhere!
It was King James’ persecution of the protestants who were using the Geneva Bible created so that the masses could read the Word and not rely on the Bishops and the rule of the King in their accordance to tell the masses what the Word was according to the church and the King. So much did the actual Word counter their power hold that King James commissioned his version cleverly “translated” to focus not on the actual Hebrew meanings but to bolster his need to keep the masses dependent on the state, in this case the Kingdom, and not individualism.
At the founding of this nation, the Geneva Bible was the Bible of choice long into and after the revolution. Is it not ironic how so many today see the Kings James version of the Bible as the template?
It is also important to understand that in those times, there was a much more black and white division between right and wrong than there is today. The writer of this piece will find an audience because such a consensus no longer exists.
Many examples could be cited - legal theft via the taxing power and legal murder via abortion on demand would be a start.
Don’t you love it when Marxists define the Tea Party? He only describes his own political cult.
Pray America wakes up
Exactly. The Progressive movement has long been described for its religious traits, now confused they are using the tried and true playground approach, "no, you are".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.