America's Own Taliban

[Bliss Sage]

More right-wing religious nutcases.
Maybe all of the religious nutcase groups will all just kill each other off before any one of them can take over anything.

Watch out for the governor of Texas, Rick Perry, in the next American presidential elections.

America's own Taliban - Opinion - Al Jazeera English

IMO, it's now official - sanity is abnormal, which means that insanity is normal, and thus sane.

[Mariana Trench]

I grew up with people like this. This is what "religion is harmful" means, and they indoctrinate their kids with it, and most don't get out of it (for reasons that if you have left it, you understand). It is a serious problem: and has repercussions beyond just the people you hear saying this sort of thing publicly. This is why things like the Tea Party have so much traction.

[James Fletcher]

LOL

A tobacco company could take over America before any of these tiny fringe groups.

[scorpio1980]

Originally Posted by Mariana Trench

I grew up with people like this. This is what "religion is harmful" means, and they indoctrinate their kids with it, and most don't get out of it (for reasons that if you have left it, you understand). It is a serious problem: and has repercussions beyond just the people you hear saying this sort of thing publicly. This is why things like the Tea Party have so much traction.

Just because some people in the tea party are religious nut cases, doesn't mean most are. Most could care less about your religion. Like me I am not at all religious, but I support what the tea party stands for which is limited government.

[Mariana Trench]

Originally Posted by scorpio1980

Just because some people in the tea party are religious nut cases, doesn't mean most are. Most could care less about your religion. Like me I am not at all religious, but I support what the tea party stands for which is limited government.

The Tea Party is not the libertarian party. The Tea Party also stands for just about every religiously driven socially conservative issue you could think of, and puts those at the forefront. (And all those screams of "Real Americans taking back the country!" and "We are a Christian nation!" are part of that.) That's the reason it exists in the first place: certain religious republicans weren't happy with how that party was serving them, neither were they comfortable with the even slightly secular leanings of the libertarian party that didn't want to interfere in gay rights or abortion (even though Ron Paul does hold an anti-abortion position, it's not the official party one)--often they were uncomfortable with the anti-war and pro-drug legalization leanings of the libertarian party as well. Rand Paul is only superficially like his father when you look at the policies he supports as a result of the group he panders to (ie, the Tea Party).

The Tea Party differs very little from mainstream Republicanism except that it's masquerading as a grassroots social movement, and ends up catering more to religious extremism because it doesn't have the entrenched understanding of politics that the Republican party does. For instance, the Tea Party would be more likely to hold an anti-science position than the Republican Party, because the Tea Party would focus more on the concerns that most of it's base have about evolution contradicting their religious beliefs, while the Republican party would superficially pander to that while understanding that advances in science drive our economy.

[Cado]

Originally Posted by scorpio1980

Just because some people in the tea party are religious nut cases, doesn't mean most are. Most could care less about your religion. Like me I am not at all religious, but I support what the tea party stands for which is limited government.

If you think that you haven't been paying attention. Mariana said it well.

[scorpio1980]

Originally Posted by Mariana Trench

The Tea Party is not the libertarian party. The Tea Party also stands for just about every religiously driven socially conservative issue you could think of, and puts those at the forefront. (And all those screams of "Real Americans taking back the country!" and "We are a Christian nation!" are part of that.) That's the reason it exists in the first place: certain religious republicans weren't happy with how that party was serving them, neither were they comfortable with the even slightly secular leanings of the libertarian party that didn't want to interfere in gay rights or abortion (even though Ron Paul does hold an anti-abortion position, it's not the official party one)--often they were uncomfortable with the anti-war and pro-drug legalization leanings of the libertarian party as well. Rand Paul is only superficially like his father when you look at the policies he supports as a result of the group he panders to (ie, the Tea Party).

The Tea Party differs very little from mainstream Republicanism except that it's masquerading as a grassroots social movement, and ends up catering more to religious extremism because it doesn't have the entrenched understanding of politics that the Republican party does. For instance, the Tea Party would be more likely to hold an anti-science position than the Republican Party, because the Tea Party would focus more on the concerns that most of it's base have about evolution contradicting their religious beliefs, while the Republican party would superficially pander to that while understanding that advances in science drive our economy.

I am totally against certain things that some of the tea party advocate. Such as those mentioned by you. Yet the only logical candidates for president seem to have come from the tea party, or at least support the view point of limited government. I don't consider myself a tea party follower myself, I am libertarian. I just think to judge all tea partiers as you have described does not give them justice. They elected officials to go to Washington to lower our deficits, and get the spending under control. Not everything is ok with the tea party I agree. They do tend to be a little more christian than I like, but I have to look at where the best candidates come from. Ron Paul is my first choice, Gary Johnson is my second, Herman Cain is my 3rd. They all 3 have ties to the tea party, yet none have the ideology of which you portray the tea party. The original roots of the tea party were started by libertarians such as Ron Paul, yet The elitist GOP republicans have took over a big part of the tea party, which is why people are looking at them as republicans. The true original tea partiers are true libertarians such as myself, not the repub drones that mass media portrays them to be.

No matter what I'm tired of watching this country get destroyed by it's leaders from within. Obama, Bush, and the rest are not after the best interest of the country. Cut military, cut welfare, cut foreign aid, cut education, cut it all until we get our finances in order then we can talk about bringing some of those things back in a more reasonable manner.

[Scipio]

Originally Posted by Mariana Trench

The Tea Party is not the libertarian party. The Tea Party also stands for just about every religiously driven socially conservative issue you could think of, and puts those at the forefront.

LOL @ You telling us what the Tea Parties are about.

I belong to a Tea Party group and the issues that we advocate are *ALL* economic issues /electoral reform issues. We have agreed to put social issues on the back burner until the country is fixed economically.

There are many religious individuals in our group and they are allowed to voice their opinions as individuals, but that is not what our local group is about. If we support a candidate it is not based on their social positions.

The Tea Parties are essentially a revolt against overburdening economic controls and a movement to go back to the constitution. I mean just look at the name to find our roots. People hold various social positions, some of them horrific, but those are not why we are brought together.

By the way, I am an Objectivist and an atheist.

[Mariana Trench]

Originally Posted by scorpio1980

I am totally against certain things that some of the tea party advocate. Such as those mentioned by you. Yet the only logical candidates for president seem to have come from the tea party, or at least support the view point of limited government. I don't consider myself a tea party follower myself, I am libertarian. I just think to judge all tea partiers as you have described does not give them justice. They elected officials to go to Washington to lower our deficits, and get the spending under control. Not everything is ok with the tea party I agree. They do tend to be a little more christian than I like, but I have to look at where the best candidates come from. Ron Paul is my first choice, Gary Johnson is my second, Herman Cain is my 3rd. They all 3 have ties to the tea party, yet none have the ideology of which you portray the tea party. The original roots of the tea party were started by libertarians such as Ron Paul, yet The elitist GOP republicans have took over a big part of the tea party, which is why people are looking at them as republicans. The true original tea partiers are true libertarians such as myself, not the repub drones that mass media portrays them to be.

This seems to have echoes of "No true Scotsman". "True" Tea Partiers are defined by what they've made the movement, not by the ideal of some of the members of it's founding. In fact, you could probably say the media defined and brought about the movement in its present form. And no, I'm not just talking about the ones liberally biased: whether they were for the Tea Party (like Fox) or ridiculing it, that's what brought about public perception and recruited members.

Look, if someone identifies as a Tea Partier and presents well reasoned arguments for tenable positions, then the only thing that calls into question is their ability to label themselves. I am "judging", or evaluating, the Tea Party on the content of it's rhetoric and attitudes of its adherents; and I wouldn't expect any less for the evaluation of any socio-political movement. I actually have some libertarian sympathies, but any Tea Partiers I've ever met in person or read from on official sites don't do the association any favors. The disguise of grassroots libertarianism is very thin, and it doesn't take long to figure out many don't know what they're talking about--unless they're the Coch brothers organizing the event.

I find the idea that there's a logical presidential candidate problematic, but that's beside the point.

[ChrisGinsburg]

Originally Posted by Bliss Sage

More right-wing religious nutcases.
Maybe all of the religious nutcase groups will all just kill each other off before any one of them can take over anything.

Watch out for the governor of Texas, Rick Perry, in the next American presidential elections.

America's own Taliban - Opinion - Al Jazeera English

IMO, it's now official - sanity is abnormal, which means that insanity is normal, and thus sane.

Religious nutcase groups blame others for problems of the world. You blame religious nutcases. The cycle of hate goes on. Is this the sanity you speak of or are you simply participating in the same insanity but with a more supportive audience here on this forum?