Today's Poll: How do you view the Tea Party?

Be interesting to see how this turns out!
If conservatives are smart, we will make the GOP a relic of the past, and will go to the polls and vote the "Jesus Christ" line...
Search out the spiritual life of every candidate, and eliminate those who do not follow the one true God.
Long before November, we should have all of the members of our churches and their families commit to EVERYONE voting... Done properly, the turnout should be about 10% liberal and 90% conservative/Christian/ Tea-Party/etc. It would speak very loudly to have this kind of turnout.
Make a stand for the Republic, since the so-called "Republicans" have not done so for a long time.
All elected need to understand that compromise is finished. We have "compromised" ourselves into receiving the harbingers of God's judgment against America. Our hedge of protection was taken away some time ago, as evidenced by 9/11
If we don't turn out for Christian America this year, expect the end of America as we know it in a VERY short time...

Wow. So much for separation of Church and State, huh?

I am a Roman Catholic and find it offensive that anyone would advocate exclusion. Even Pope Francis would cringe at John's declaration.

It is funny, the nations which we seemingly always are with war with are Theocracies, or nations governed by religions, and someone proposes a Theocracy of our own.

Josh as a Christian you should know, 'Free Will' is the greatest gift of God. Free Will to believe or disbelieve.

Free Will is also one of the greatest consequences of our constitution, the freedom to believe what you will.

Jesus Christ was not about imposing his will on anyone, he was about inviting all to join with him, but Christ always left the choice to the individual.

Government and religion should always be separate. Remember Matthew 22:15-22 and Mark 12:13-17. A personal choice of a candidate and his spirituality is for the most part a factor one should consider based on their own belief.

I am a Roman Catholic, I believe in Jesus Christ, but I distain anyone whether here in this country or abroad that would impose a belief on anyone.

Government's place is not determine morality, or define morality, rather a government should reflect it's people's morality. When you limit choice, you limit everything that we stand for as a nation

The answer to the poll question really rest on where a person's perspective is generated from.

<strong>T</strong>axed <strong>E</strong>nough <strong>A</strong>lready is what the TEA party is based on.

The TEA party contrary to what you hear and read in the media is composed of people from all religions, races and age groups in the US, though the majority of it's composition are white senior citizens.

It is about reduced size of government and less government in our day to day lives, certain groups are attempting to coop the message for their cause, i.e. far right zealots and that bolstered by far left zealots who use the term 'Tea Baggers. Bth of the extreme sides display their total ignorance.

Like a lot of political groups, and the TEA party is actually just several different groups and not an organized party, it is a movement, a movement that again some would like to coop for their own cause. Much like extreme progressives are coopting the environment movement.

So on the basis of a less intrusive government, I support the TEA Party cause, but when factions call for dictating morality or religion, I frown on them as much as I frown on the progressive groups

Well there is no mention in the Constitution of separation of church and state. What is does say is no matter who we are we are free to practice our beliefs. It says that we are NOT to establish a state religion.

Religion makes only one direct and obvious appearance in the original Constitution that seems to point to a desire for some degree of religious freedom. That appearance is in Article 6, at the end of the third clause:

[N]o religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

This statement is simple and straight-forward, and applies to all offices in the entire United States, both state and federal. The clause simply means that no public position can be required to be held by any one of any religious denomination. It would be unconstitutional for there to be a requirement that the President by Lutheran, or even for the mayor of a small town to be Christian. Likewise, it would be unconstitutional for a law to forbid a Jew or Muslim from holding any office in any governmental jurisdiction in the United States. (This having been said, it should be noted that several state constitutions do have a religious test — specifically, they deny office to anyone unwilling to acknowledge God or a Supreme Being.)

In the debates of the Constitutional Convention, religion did not get a lot of sound bites. It should be noted that without exception, the Framers were Christian or, at the very least, deists (generally, deists believe in a single god who set the universe on its course and then stepped back to watch; some deists believe their deity is the same God of Judeo-Christian tradition, some do not). There were no Jews or Muslims, no Hindus or atheists, and only two Roman Catholics. There were members of more than a half-dozen sects of the Protestant side of Christianity, though. Disagreements about style and method of worship between them were nearly as vast and incongruous as any seen today between, say, Jews and Muslims, such that the Framers wanted to ensure that no one sect could ever seize control of a government and start a theocracy.

James Madison, when speaking of the method and manner of the election of the members of the Congress, noted that even "Religion itself may become a motive to persecution and oppression," telegraphing his own desire for no religious test for government service. He had been a prime mover in the efforts of some Virginia lawmakers to ensure that no preference be given to any religion in that state, and that a proposed tax to aid religious efforts be defeated. Madison and one of the Pinkney cousins moved, in the waning days of the Convention, that the Congress be permitted the power to establish a university, with the express stipulation that "no preferences or distinctions should be allowed on account of Religion." The motion was turned down on a six to four vote, but it was another illustration of his desire to extend no preference to any religious sect.

There is one other direct bow to religion in the original Constitution, and it is a bit obtuse. The Presidential Oath of Office is codified in the Constitution in this way:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Again, the reference might be obtuse, but it is the inclusion of language in the oath that allows an incoming President to swear or affirm the oath. This alternate text has been described both as a way of accommodating those religious persons for whom "swearing" was forbidden, and as a way for the unreligious to take the oath with the same force of personal responsibility that swearing would have for a religious person. Either way, the alternate text attempts to make the oath all-inclusive and religion-neutral.

Finally, the Constitution refers to the year that the Convention created the document as "the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven." Some have argued that the use of the term "Lord" in this way is indicative of something, but it is indicative of nothing more than a standard way of referring to years in that time period.

As for the First Amendment...

The Framers thought that they had constructed a very complete and comprehensive document. But many people disagreed, and though the opposition had many issues with the Constitution, they focused on one in particular: the lack of a bill of rights.

Almost all of the state constitutions contained bills of rights — rights that the people of the states were guaranteed to enjoy regardless of any law or rule to the contrary. The supporters of the Constitution felt that a bill of rights was unneeded at best, because the federal government was not allowed to legislate on issues it had no direct mandate to do so, and dangerous at worst, because a list of rights could necessarily limit the rights of the people.

In the end, many supporters of the Constitution, including one of the most prominent, James Madison, agreed to support a bill of rights in the Constitution, if it could be ratified. Several of the states included suggested amendments, including rights of the people, in their ratification documents. The push was on for a bill of rights in the Constitution. Madison was true to his word — on June 8, 1789, Representative James Madison rose and gave a speech in the House where he introduced a series of articles of amendment. One concerned religious freedom:

The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.

Madison's proposal follows the proposals of some of the states. New Hampshire's read:

Congress shall make no laws touching religion, or to infringe the rights of conscience.

Virginia was much more verbose:

That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence, and therefore all men have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the exercise of religion according to the dictates of conscience, and that no particular sect or society ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others.

New Yorkers had the same to say, but more succinctly:

That the people have an equal, natural, and unalienable right freely and peaceably to exercise their religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that no religious sect or society ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others.

Aside from New Hampshire's wide-reaching "no touch" proposal, all of these have a few elements in common. First, no national religion should be established, in contrast to several European nations of the time (and to this day) which have an official state church. Second, that no one sect of any religion be favored by the government. Third, that all persons should be free to worship in whatever manner they deemed appropriate for them.

Through the debates in the House, Senate, and conference committees, the wording of all of these proposals was whittled down to the religion clauses of what is our 1st Amendment:

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

Does this final version have the same effect of all the other proposals? Was it the intent that these clauses of the 1st Amendment the same as that of New Hampshire's "no touching" proposal? Probably. Whereas in Europe, the "establishment of religion" did mean a state church, it took on a whole new meaning in America. Several attempts were made in several states to have and maintain official churches, but the multitude of denominations made it increasingly difficult to do so. If a state established the Congregationalist Church and required taxes be paid to it, it was not long before Lutherans or Baptists began to refuse to pay the tax. By the time the Constitution was ratified, several states had official state churches, but not official state denominations. In other words, a state would charter a church as it would a business today, but it would have no other formal role in the running of the church. Even that practice was waning, with only six states incorporating churches in any way by 1789. Clearly, the trend in church/state relations was towards no relationship at all.

In the end, the 1st Amendment not only prevents the establishment of a national religion, but it also prohibits government aid to any religion, even on an non-preferential basis, as well as protecting the right of the individual to choose to worship, or not, as he or she sees fit.

The Bill of Rights, however, had no effect on how a state treated its churches. Unlike today, the Bill of Rights applied only to the rules and laws of the federal government. The states were still free to establish churches, to direct church taxes be paid, and to even require attendance in church, all within the bounds of the state's own constitution. As noted, many did. While the "free exercise" clause is undoubtedly referring to an individual right, the "establishment" clause refers to a state power. This clause not only prohibited the federal government from establishing a national religion, it prevented the federal government from forcing a state to disestablish any state religion.

So where did separation of church and state come from?...

Often when someone speaks of the constitutionally guaranteed right to religion, they also speak of "the wall of separation between church and state," or simply as "the separation of church and state." What does this mean, and what is the origin of this phrase?

It did not take long after the passage and ratification of the 1st Amendment for people to start interpreting it to simply mean that that federal government had no business getting mixed into religion. Of course, there is more to it than that, especially when it comes to the individual right part of the amendment. But the notion that the government should not become enmeshed in religion is an important concept, too. There is nothing in the Constitution that specifically says that there is a wall of separation between religion and government. The Wall, however, is a nice shorthand metaphor for non-establishment.

One of the founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson, is directly responsible for giving us this phrase. In his 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, then-President Jefferson used the phrase — it was probably not the first time, but it is the most memorable one. He said:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god, [the people, in the 1st Amendment,] 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.

Jefferson did not have a hand in the authoring of the Constitution, nor of the 1st Amendment, but he was an outspoken proponent of the separation of church and state, going back to his time as a legislator in Virginia. In 1785, Jefferson drafted a bill that was designed to quash an attempt by some to provide taxes for the purpose of furthering religious education. He wrote that such support for religion was counter to a natural right of man:

... no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened 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.

Jefferson's act was passed, though not without some difficulty, in Virginia. Eyler Robert Coates wrote that the act was copied in the acts or constitutions of several states, either in words or in concepts. Jefferson himself was in France by the time word of the act reached Europe, and he wrote back to America that his act was well-thought of and admired.

These come from.....
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_reli.html

Christianity is a generic term and like today they all have different interpretations. Since the Constitution forbids considering a person's beliefs when running for office I believe John's solution is a non starter and really has no application to politics. We know it makes a difference in the man who is running. But honestly comparing what the Constitution says vs the "Separation of Church and State" I find the spearation concept to be a fleeting and immaterial. As the Constitution already deals with this very clearly.

Using the word "succinctly" in a post of over 2100 words...just sayin'

"All elected need to understand that compromise is finished."

This is why the Tea Party will be only a temporary blot on democracy.

Kyle, gettin' a bit of cabin fever? We got lots more winter ahead.

Nope no cabin fever.....just a little cut and paste for those who never go read links yet still comment like they have.

John, have you ever heard of Sharia Law? If not, please Google it, for you propose something similar.

The last time Christianity had any bearing upon Western government is now known as "The Dark Ages". For good reason.

One of the basic tenets of our country is the fact that our government is based on fact and reason, and not upon the whims of a deity. It's a big part of what makes our country great. Read Kyle's post carefully, it's full of raw truth.

If you believe that religion should have bearing upon government, well, go live in Saudi Arabia for a couple weeks. That should change your tune.

Using the word "succinctly" in a post of over 2100 words...just sayin'....

Took the time to count word but not actually read it Jeff? Not to mention succinctly was used in context of the stand of NYS on the subject.

Way to distract from the content of the post by making light of it's size and not deal with what it was saying.....

Just sayin ya know.

Oops, I lost focus.

I voted "unfavorable view". I have absolute respect for our Constitution, therefore I think it's great that a group of people can band together and present their view. Taxed Enough Already? I get it. For crying out loud, I'm a small business owner in NYS. Taxes on me are crushing.

But I don't like the way this group operates. President Obama said it best. If you want to change things, WIN SOME ELECTIONS! Don't act like a bunch of three year olds. The ACA is bad! Rather than getting rid of it by electing like-minded people who can change it, let's cause a government shutdown! And it seems to me that the Koch brothers and their ilk have spent a ton of money in churches to brainwash religious people into believing their rhetoric.

So to me, it boils down to the Tea Party not performing their schtick properly. I agree with a lot of their points. I really do. But the manner in which they perform reminds me of the Brownshirts. They act like fourth-grade schoolyard bullies.

In my perfect version of America, the Tea Party would make their changes by voting like minded people into office. I would respect this, it's called democracy.

Unfortunately, they are trying to change things via exclusion. There is no room for that in this country.

Disclaimers: I'm not very happy with Obama. I don't see much difference between him and GWB. The Who said it best. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. And while I live a completely secular life, my best friend is a devout evangelical born-again Christian. We spend hours debating (very enjoyably) over beers. I have no problem with any religious belief, only with exclusion.

Kyle, I was I no way distracting. I agree with the content of your post. I was just adding a little brevity to an otherwise heavy topic. Sorry you took it as disagreement

Sean, 85 of the 226 republicans elected to the house in 2010 were directly elected through the efforts of the TEA party, therefore that was in fact you version of America where changes were brought about by like minded voters. Contrary to common belief, Obama was not re-elected over healthcare, he was re-elected like most two term presidents by the power of incumbency, a vicious often fact deficit campaign and what even his most ardent critic concede was a tremendous political effort.

The TEA party is not one group, it is many groups and that is why they have little effect on presidential elections, however in congressional elections or those closer to home and within the reach of these individual groups, they have been very successful electing members of the house in particular.

The performance you mention, is more that of those attempting to coop the TEA party rather then the TEA party itself, Ted Cruz being one of them. What many miss is, when the government shutdown happened those that backed were exactly doing what they promised those who elected them to do. You know those like minded voters in their districts that put them there.

And finally, the best I remember from middle school, the President is not the Boss, not BO, Not GWB, they are one of three separate branches of government, you know so that no single branch can run rip shot over the rest. While the government shutdown may not and probably wasn't the smartest thing to do, it was well within the congressional rights under the constitution no matter what any given pundit says.

We do not live in a democracy, we live in a democratically elected republic, each representative to vote with his constituencies, their responsibility is to those that elected them, not someone in another district. That is what is getting lost in recent political debate, it is not about Barack Obama's or any other presidents legacy, it is not about the wishes of either major political party rather for members of congress it is about their districts voters and the will of those who elected them.

Mark, thanks for the thoughtful response. I really appreciate it.

"The performance you mention, is more that of those attempting to coop the TEA party rather then the TEA party itself, Ted Cruz being one of them. What many miss is, when the government shutdown happened those that backed were exactly doing what they promised those who elected them to do. You know those like minded voters in their districts that put them there."

These are the Brownshirts. And this is why I vote "unfavorable". I despise racism, misogyny, homophobia, or any other form of discrimination. I just can't get past it. The people that elected Ted Cruz, Michelle Bachman, and their ilk represent everything I hate. I certainly don't think that everyone who considers themselves a Tea Partier thinks along these lines, but the vocal minority sure do. This is what ruins the concept for me.

And I certainly understand our system of checks and balances. I was just quoting a song.

I bet we could have some really fun conversations. If you ever want to grab a beer, I'm buying!

Like so many grassroots, spontaneous movements that have risen above the oppressive quagmire of status quo; the Tea Party movement was respectable up until the point it lost its independent voice, having been assimilated into the din of orthodoxy.

Cruz or Rubio? Who will get the bulk of those 495 favorable votes if there is a primary?

Ted Cruz is not eligible to be The President.

Dave, can you post a link that explains why a child born outside the U.S., but has a parent who is a U.S. citizen, is not eligible? From what I've read, his mother was born in Delaware. Maybe my information is faulty.

I don't believe i can, Bea, because that particular issue has not been addressed by the Supreme Court to my knowledge. If a person was born abroad to 2 US Citizen parents when 1 was engaged in US business, the child is considered "natural born" for example, John McCain. If 1 parent is a US citizen and the other not, the child is not a birthright citizen, in my opinion. I do not accept Cruz as a "natural born citizen" as intended by Article 2 of the US Constitution. I suppose if he is nominated, then someone will and should take the issue before the Supreme Court and settle it.

Since it too stinkin' cold to go out today, I will look for some info on that.

Personally, I find it somewhat hypocritical for a nation of immigrants to not allow a foreign born President, but that is the wording of the Constitution and until an amendment is brought forth and ratified, we have to follow the letter and intent of the Constitution. I think we've seen far more than enough of disregard for our governing document.

@Sean McKellar
"John, have you ever heard of Sharia Law? If not, please Google it, for you propose something similar."
I am proposing the exact OPPOSITE of the Sharia.
(Please don't say "have you heard of Sharia law" as Sharia MEANS 'law'. Saying "...the Law law... in any form just makes one sound.... um... poorly informed? Any Arab-reader/speaker would cringe if he's Christian or laugh at you if he's Moslem... Just an FYI...)
The above comment (and a LOT of others)is (are) quite telling:
If you can make ANY comparisons between true Christians and Muslims in this particular situation, it is only proof of legitimate ignorance of what each of them really is.
Y'all try to explain how having a government full of persons who govern by a conscience begotten through study of the God of Love could be comparable to one filled with persons who govern through obedience to and enforcement of a rigid set of black/white laws with life/death/dismemberment consequences? The Christians may go talk to someone, but the others don't bother... they just chop heads off and let God sort them out. (Oh, and the common behaviour of the average American? Yeah, Sharia would require the beheading of over half of the population...)
Nobody said anyone was going to try pushing Christ on anyone else, or even having Him lifted before the public any more than He already is. Demanding conversion and ensuring compliance is a strictly Islamic ideal... NOT Christian.
What I am saying is that unless we get the deck stacked with moral compasses that point the proper direction, as opposed to those that point to the evil, the consequences will be quite dire. You all DO realize that every aspect of the condition of this Republic is EXACTLY the way those in charge WANT it to be, right? It is. Unemployment? Gas prices? The economy? The debt? Unbelievably high numbers of UNFUNDED money going out to people who CAN work, but CHOOSE NOT TO? Yes... EVERY BIT is EXACTLY as they have planned for it to be! (Try that Google thing again and educate yourselves)
The incessant compromising of the values that were instilled into EVERY person who had ANY part of the founding of our nation, is EXACTLY what is wrong with us to this point. Is God going to bless a nation that has killed 60 million of His children before they are even born? No, He won't. Just look at how He felt about parents in Israel and ALL of the surrounding nations burning their own children. That's just one of many reasons... We as "forward thinking" people need to understand that no matter how hard we want to ignore God, the creator of the earth you live on will ultimately NOT BE ignored, but we all get to learn that in our own ways. (This is the "free will" someone else mentioned.) Just because you don't like the game or the rules doesn't mean that they don't apply to you or anyone else. You WILL answer to Him... What's your answer going to be? (BTW- ridicule of His people DOES count as your answer to Him! and begets the requisite consequences!)
Yeah, I hit it hard. So did others who spoke as I do.
America can rest assured that if what I am suggesting does NOT happen, it's citizens will each be personally and irrevocably giving an answer to the Muslims who are well on their way to conquering your nation... There really is almost no way to stop it from happening anymore, and it will be a done-deal in LESS than the next 50 years. (Do you know that all of their Sharia infrastructure has already been built? All of their "courts" and courtyards for executions exist already? True... use Google for something other than porn or Wastebook or Amazon. Use it to learn what is happening around you, and why the major media outlets won't tell you about it. (You can also use it to discover what the Saudi Arabians have been spending ALL that oil money on... don't be too surprised when you see their percent-ownership in those major media outlets!) (lol@ignorance)
Separation of church and state?
Would anyone have a problem if I requested, nay, simply inserted into the textbooks, my lessons to all American children on the pillars of Christianity? Surely there wouldn't be any problem with it, right? What's that? You don't like that idea? Hypocrites!!!! Pick up your kids' schoolbooks, especially the Geography and Social-Sciences ones... Yeah... the ones produced by those textbook publishers that are ALSO owned by the Saud's... In there you will see the teaching of five of the SEVEN "Pillars of Islam"! (What's that... you have only heard of five? go figure... #6 invites you to become Muslim, and #7 is Jihad (the ONLY way a Muslim stays out of hell... that place their "Profit of Piece(s) said is "Fueled by women"... id to die while taking the lives of ANYONE who is not a Muslim, which does mean you and yours) So including a positive moral direction (Christianity) in schools (The way they used to when this country was actually in GOOD SHAPE) is condemned as pushing religion, yet at the same time, it's OK to force-feed an ideology of hate, intolerance, murder, and institutionalized slavery, rape, and sex-slavery to all of your kids?!? What's wrong with THIS picture?!?
Y'all just need to wake the hell up and you MIGHT have a SMALL chance at saving this Republic. If SERIOUS changes AWAY from immorality are not made, you will SURELY have to make a choice soon: (Possibly you, but DEFINITELY your kids and grand-kids) Will have the JOY of publicly deciding whether to become a Moslem, or to become about eight inches shorter...)
Choose wisely now, or choose out of desperation later... (for choosing more of the same in our governing bodies will only get you the latter... Pick a winner, and most importantly, don't bitch when you get the consequences of your choice...)

There were VERY good reasons for every thing they included in there... The injunction against people like the one who's currently in there, are to protect the Republic from people who might not have the best interests of America as their FIRST priority...
Proof of the need to enforce it? Just look at the state of the Union... (Now, as has been made perfectly clear by the administrations before the current one, this limitation does NOT eliminate the risk of having traitors in the highest seats. The Carter, Bush (both), and Clinton administrations all prove that one does not need to be a Muslim in order to sell-out the nation.) It doesn't really matter what "letter" one has after their name, as we currently have many liberals in government, and many other liberals who call themselves conservatives, but really don't have any resemblance to one... As evidenced by the chief Rino, John Boehner. It does not surprise me in the least that he went off on those people who won't toe the party lines. "D" and "R" are two sides of the same coin... If they get their way, we all will be living in either an oligarchy or under a fascist system... Pick one, because unless we get moral people into office, you WILL get one or the other, and the guys paying for the political campaigns don't care which, because it only effects what title they will rule with. (It really won't matter to their subjects (me and you) either, as both are quite happy to fill trenches with the bodies of dissidents... Doesn't matter who orders your bullets, as they will all do the same job.
So... again, why is it important for the nation to attempt to keep all safeguards in place? See above... Following the Constitution will not assure our safety, but violating it will assure problems for those who are "less fortunate"... (Didja know that in China, when providing this particular government service, they bill the family for the bullet? truth!)

Obama was re-elected by the power of a set of egregious lies. They dummied up the unemployment numbers just before, tweaked economic reports, continued the Benghazi lies, etc., etc., ad nauseum... and the low-info ate it all up... (Election-fraud also helped, but even proof of that doesn't convince the indoctrinated otherwise...)

Not quite accurate, here... I believe that the RIGHT religion should have an (unofficial yet pervasive) bearing upon American (only) government.
You keep improperly comparing Christianity to Islam... One is God's plan, and the other is Satan's... Look up the differences in the teachings of the two, and you will see that there is no similarity. God said "Do not kill" Allah (Satan, according to the scriptures of BOTH) says "kill" God says do not commit adultery, and Allah says "rape", and the list goes on until EVERY aspect is covered. There is only ONE area in which they agree: There is no remission of sin without the shedding of blood. God says Christ's blood sufficed for all, so we don't need to shed ours. Allah says that the ONLY way a Muslim avoids hell is by shedding his OWN blood in the act of killing anyone who isn't a Muslim. (And collateral damage if a Muslim kills another Muslim (even a baby) in that act? It's OK as they both died in Jihad...
I did read Kyle's post quite carefully, and agree wholeheartedly... Christianity, the true one, does NOT force itself on anyone. I am not suggesting anything of the sort. You just made an incorrect assumption that I wanted something I never said!

John, only one question after reading your posts. Who, among any of the viable presidential candidates (all of them, not just one party or another) do you feel will bring the reign of terror you so vividly describe?

John, I have never been able to connect Islam to the word "religion" as I understand it. I see islam as a political system that controls with fear, terrorism,
reprisals, murder, pretty much everything real religions preach against.
Look at Muhhamed, nothing more than a mass murderer, yet to Muslims, he
is Allahs chosen messenger, A real nice guy who was credited with beheading
600 - 900 people. A great role model for generations of muslims to emulate.

As for the Tea Party, I feel they have fragmented way to much to have a solid platform and any shot at the WH.

Historically speaking, mainstream religions that have not mingled with the political realm and have not been connected to "fear, terrorism, reprisals, murder" are rarities.

I do not think that the essential core of religious belief warrants such things. The higher value of any religion may be alien to the motivations that result in intimidation, torture and mayhem, but it hasn't stopped adherents driven by intolerance from purging non-conformists. The mechanics of such purges have almost always involved complicity between governments and organized religion.

In our nation, alone, the government/church sanctioned campaigns against Native-American religion, the Salem Witch trials, the expulsion of Church of Latter Day Saints followers, the banishment of Roger Williams, terror-campaigns launched against Catholics (Benedict Arnold explained his treason as largely due to colonial alliance with Catholic France), Huguenots and Quakers; the 20th Century anti-Communist crusades cannot be disassociated from anti-Semitism. Most recently we have the State of North Carolina passing a law, while not openly so, is designed to prevent their court system from being influenced by Sharia Law.

During my lifetime the religious battles in Northern Ireland, Israel, India/Pakistan, Vietnam, Cyprus, Sri Lanka and Yugoslavia have all manifest as religious as well as political conflicts.

One need only research the Inquisition, Joan of Arc, Henry VIII's Church of England, the Crusades, battles between Catholics and Protestants in France, the Thirty year War, the Ottoman Wars, etc.

Suggesting that organized religion has blood-free hands or avoids political mergers is an uninformed claim. Hasn't everyone listened to late night radio?

I cannot fully express how putrid, evil, and just plain idiotic I feel the teabaggers are.... but I'll try.

The teabaggers didn't come about until "that black muslim socialist nazi kenyan nigra" was elected, complaining before President Obama even took office of his spending, and attacks on "real 'murcans". Yet the white guy from their party (and don't let them try the BS line of "we're non-partisan" on you) who blew up the deficit, and led the fight for the passage of the "Patriot" Act was viewed as an American hero.

I'm sure there are a small portion of Tea Party members who are seriously concerned about spending and deficits, and have been so since 2001. Ditto concerning privacy rights. But the teabaggers have no such basis - they're pissed that not only was the guy who was elected a (gasp) Democrat, but "not one of us" (one of them nigras, donchaknow).

John, you are what Andrew Sullivan refers to as a christianist. He is a Christian, yet he (and I) put christianists at the same level as islamists.

Let's just say that level is not an admirable one.

This country was set up to not just allow for, but to ENCOURAGE religious freedom. I consider it treasonous when some religious nut declares THEIR particular set of myths should control our country, or was the basis of its founding.

If an individual freely decides to live their life based on a particular mythology, well, good for them! Really, good for them (as long as that mythology does not state it is OK to rape children or suppress the rights of any set of people).

But just as I will fight for your right to believe in your mythological system, I will fight for our rights to NOT be commanded by YOUR or any other mythological system.

Tim, I find teabaggers putrid and idiotic as well, the mere thought of it turns my stomach. However, Tea Party members are a varied group of people that contain fringe members who align with the description you offer. On the flip side, I understand that the majority of Occupy Wall Street adherents weren't well funded, psuedo-grassroots, drug induced rapists who defacated on police cars.

That is one of the most ignorant rants that I have read on here in quite awhile, especially disappointing because you Tim, although clearly on the left of most of the readers here normally respond with at least cognitive arguments.

So typical is this dehumanization by the extremes on BOTH sides where political debate, has sunk to moronic chimes and fact less rants garnered from partisan blogs.

The absolute worse is the accusation and blindly racist in itself assumptions that because someone who opposes our current president and well defined supporter of the Social Democracy Movement 'Must be racist because they can't be that stupid"

That kind of self righteous crap from the left, is far more the reason for the infantile image political discourse has these days than does anything.

NEWS FLASH: There are not only prominent Black TEA PARTY members but prominent BLACK WOMEN TEA PARTY members Tim, What next are you going to call them AUNT & UNCLE TOM?

http://globalgrind.com/playlist/black-tea-party-members-you-need-know-p…

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/38558455/#.Uq-RXfco6Hs

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/19/study-uncovers-anti-black-attitud…

You can disagree with the TEA Party, I say OK, that is your opinion, You can disagree with a whole lot of conservative groups, again your opinion. But blatant accusations of racism simply because a group disagrees with you or any other lefty can no longer go unchallenged, not from you or those idiots Larry O' Donnell or Ed Schultz as well.

You lost a ton of stock in my book with that last post.

I;m sure Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh are never challenged by the Tea Party members who post here.After all, they aren't considered idiots but all knowing spokesmen for the movement.

Bea if you read my entire post, not just the headlines, you would know that I clearly said ON BOTH SIDES.

The bottom line is cries of racism and name calling when faced with political disagreement are moronic no matter who cries them out. My reference to O'Donnell and Schultz were exactly because that tends to be the first blurb out of their mouths, to deny that would be less than credible.

#edit typo extra letter in a word

C. M.,

"The higher value of any religion may be alien to the motivations that result in intimidation, torture and mayhem, but it hasn't stopped adherents driven by intolerance from purging non-conformists."

That is a universal truth. It applies to secular faiths as much as it does to religious ones.

Just saying... Knowing history is a "downer".

Something I have ALWAYS wanted to know, but was never ready to ask... Now I will:

WHICH flavor Kool-Aid is used most?

Knowing History isn't a downer. Watching people make the same mistakes over and over is a downer.

Look in your cupboard John and you will have your answer.

Certain responses don't justify a response.
"reign of terror"?!
Sadly, What I have read here is that few people REALLY understand what is going on.
Frank Bartholomew has Islam figured correctly. It's only about 17% religion. The rest is Constitutional "legislation"... kinda. It tells you how to do everything in life, except for inhaling and exhaling...
There is also, evidently, a lot of ignorance regarding what a Christ-like Christian is and how he operates. (These critters really are quite rare anymore...) Y'all seem to have the wrong idea about what I am saying: If we don't get people with some morals into office from the locals on up, this nation is not going to be recognizable for many more years. That this incredibly basic fact is met with so much resistance is really all the proof needed to know the moral fabric of America is threadbare, stained, tattered, and torn. There are actual reasons for this change, even if we don't want to face them or agree with them...
It really doesn't matter if you believe in God or not, as He believes in you, and will ask you about that choice at some point. He has rules that He has set out for people. If they are followed, blessings result, if they are not, the opposite result appears. It really IS that simple, and is as sure as the sunrise...
9/11 happened as a result of God lifting His hedge of protection from around a nation that had once been an upright nation, but is now in need of revival. Read Isaiah 9:10, in context, and then look up video from back then. Arlen Specter, I believe. (?) Word-for-word quote. Someone else did too a while later, then Obama wrote the heart of it on a beam a while back. It had to be repeated by three leaders to be 'official'. Once Israel received its first warning, it was only 14 years before they were ransacked and enslaved. We are well on our way.
He says that there will be a falling-away (from Him) in the last days. That is well on the way. The Tea Party is the last group of critical thinkers. The other party (the D&R dog-n-pony show) is pushing the emotional aspect to the extreme, as they know that emotionally charged people have a hard time thinking deep thoughts. This is why the MSM is always pushing the emotional aspect of stories. They want you to choose a stance when you are outraged at something, as this is the liberal way....

Lots of discussion prompted here... It's good, in a way, as it makes me aware of just how surely this nation is doomed.
A real Christian doesn't force his beliefs on anyone, nor do they demand ANY compliance with their beliefs. I'm just saying that our body-politic is currently populated by people who are trying to be "on the bus" when it all falls apart, and will do whatever they can to get their seat. It's all based on them getting what others cannot get, and results from a corrupt system filled with the immoral.
Y'all just enjoy the fruits of your "tolerance" (of anything non-Christian), as it will bite you... and your children... and their children. Just think! Those persons I just mentioned will have no idea what it is like to live free, and they will be able to rightly blame it on "Progress"...

John wrote that the Tea Party is the last group of critical thinkers. I guess those not in lock step with him and the Tea Party should just fade away. Mark tells us that the Tea Party is a big tent, open to all. John tells us that only those who follow Christ's teachings are the only critical thinkers - thus worthy to be in that tent. Which is it?

Bea asks which is it...It's both, AND it's neither, it's two people's opinion. It's a group that grew quickly and often times without clear boundaries. It's a group that has never been defined by it's intentions but by a media that was stacked against it from the beginning, never giving it fair shake beyond it's most fringe elements. One thing it has created is a much needed dialogue about the size, scope, and role of government in the lives of Americans. Whether or not the Tea Party becomes one cohesive voice in politics is yet to be determined but it's awakening of conversation about how our government should represent it's people is unmistakable.

Well said and exactly the point Jeff, a tip of the hat to you

When the sermon is followed by a survey as to one's Kool-Aid flavor preference. Run.

John, Do you like George Carlin?, I do, and he said it best, "this country is circling the drain". Unlike Mr. Carlin, I don't want to sit back
and watch. I'm all for having another flavor in politics, more choices would seem like a good thing. The tea party isn't a flavor of my liking,
due for the most part, Sarah Palins role in the party. I still blame her for Obama being in office.
I would strongly agree with you that this country is suffering a morals crisis, but we must first ask ourselves, whose morals are in crisis ?.
Soceities morals have been watered down by the actions of the media, the supreme court, and the aclu, religous morals have been
repressed through seperation of church and state, and so it goes, it all comes down to the individual.

Sometimes it scares me when I hear one of the radical clerics call America, "the great satan" COULD THEY BE RIGHT?

Down votes, no comment, = chicken shit.