“The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them.”

It is always a bit ironic when I hear this quotation coming from those that clearly believe in protection of the US Constitution. This famous quote came during the US Constitution ratification process when Patrick Henry was bitterly complaining that the proceedings of the convention were conducted in secrecy and without input from the state legislatures. He believed that the convention went far beyond its mandate to simply modify the Articles of Confederation. In fact, if the convention had not held it’s proceedings in secrecy we likely would have never had a Constitution, Mr. Henry would have made certain of this.

The point is not without its merits though and certainly today our elected representatives are neither great thinkers or have the interest of the country in mind when they legislate.

Finally “Illegitimus non carborundum” is not entirely Latin, “Don’t let the bastards wear you down” is ungrammatical and “carborundum” is not Latin. It is a 20th century joke first spread about by General “Vinegar” Joe Stilwell during the Burmese campaign in WWII. Which simply goes to prove, “Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur”.

Try now DM

Corrected Link

The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them. ~~Patrick Henry
"Illegitimus non Corborundum"

Where are all the Black People, Hispanic and Gays in the Teaparty Keith Oberman asks….

Evidently not on the site that you have provided where citizens are calling the president names. Did you make a mistake? Was this site supposed to answer that question? I thought some persons stated that there were some minorities represented in the Tea Party movement. Oh well. . . .

Might I be so bold to ask which 'Mike' it is that you address? Surely it is not I.

On the surface you seem to have a phobia regarding any religious belief other than your own. While we agree that the USA is predominantly a Christian nation, you would have to agree that those Christian founders established separation of Church and State into the framework of our Constitution, don't you?

Your expectancy of me accepting your beliefs at face value simply will not cut it.

By the way, I am an avid supporter of the Tea Party.

He must be talking about Huckabee!!

Most polls show that nearly 88% of Americans identify themselves as Christians.

If 18 % are unaffiliated this already makes your 88% figure a bit sketchy.. In the 2010 Pew Report, they list;

The 2010 Pew Report
Shows all Christian denominations at about 78% including Catholics, Protestants, Mormons, Jehovah's Witness..
Jewish 1.7
Buddhist .7
Muslim .6
Hindu .4

That means more than 2 of 10 honor your choice to be what you want to be .. Now honor ours to be non christians

Israel by the way -
Religion in Israel is a central feature of the country and plays a major role in shaping Israeli culture and lifestyle, and Israel is the only country in the world where a majority of citizens are Jewish. According to the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics, the population in 2008 was 75.4% Jewish, 20.6% Arab, and 4% minority groups.
Israel has no constitution, but freedom of religion is anchored in law. Legal accommodation of the non-Jewish communities follows the pattern and practice of the Ottoman and British administrations

But Freedom of Religion Does not mean Freedom from Religion..
Why is it that your desire to be free from Religion trumps others rights to Freedom of Religion?

Why do you always feel you can force "Christians" to remove their symbols from any public square just because you don't want to see them? Isn't that forcing your views on them? Something you demand they not do to you?

Smells a little doesn't?

There is a shift in the paradigm coming and this type of foolishness will be curbed as well..

"The majority of Americans identify themselves as Christians (76%), while non-Christian religions (including Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, and others) collectively make up about 4% of the adult population.[3] Another 15% of the adult population identified as having no religious affiliation.[4] According to the American Religious Identification Survey, religious belief varies considerably across the country: 59% of Americans living in Western states (the "Unchurched Belt") report a belief in God, yet in the South (the "Bible Belt") the figure is as high as 86%.[5][6]" Pew Research Center

The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them. ~~Patrick Henry
"Illegitimus non Corborundum"

Religious freedom is the freedom to believe anything you want. It is not the freedom to do anything you want, as we’d otherwise have human sacrifices and pot parties in the name of religion.

If you are not particularly gullible and choose not to believe stories which don’t seem to make sense, you have that right.

After all, the First Amendment protects us from the “establishment of religion.”

Many of those who came to America were seeking to escape religious persecution and looking for religious tolerance.

We are obviously cursed with many intolerant people who seek to impose their so-called Christian views on others, which is most unchristian of them. They have no understanding of American history, no knowledge and respect for the First Amendment, and in fact no understanding of their own professed religion. They are our new Taliban, terrorists from within. Beware of them!

Do you really understand the role of religion in colonial America and the establishment of the colonies? Religion was central in most colonists lives. The more strict and the unorthodox were persecuted in Europe and came over here. The irreligious did not come and did not set up colonies. There was a tacit understanding that Christianity held sway over the populace here during the time of the revolution. For the first 150 years of US history, leaders at the local, state, and Federal level issued proclamations of thanksgiving to God and asking for divine wisdom or deliverence. The establishment clause was set up to keep the state from endorsing one particular segment of Christianity, like the Church of England.

Obviously times have changed and the neutral language of the constitution certainly gives the impression that the founding leaders wanted to keep out religious endorsement or even approval. Maybe we can be strict constructionists on only this aspect of the constitution to suit you, but it certainly isn't historical. I am wary of people that rewrite history to serve their own purposes and care little for the actual truth of the matter.

Some of the Founding Fathers thought the whole concept of Jesus Christ being the son of God was laughable. Most were deists and Thomas Jefferson was about as anti-organized religion as they come. The belief in God permeates all of their writings but that doesn't mean a whole lot besides they acknowledge God as the Creator. They certainly went out of their way in a trailblazing way for those times to separate religion from government. The famous Jefferson quote about how America was in no way founded on the principles of the Christian religion might be only Jefferson's opinion, but it holds a ton of weight when people want to go back and study the origins of this country and exactly what some of these men were thinking at that time.

I understand that a lot of people today are more interested in freedom FROM religion instead of freedom of religion and the concepts get co-mingled to the point it makes serious debate/discussion impossible. There used to be a middle ground in all of this, but some, with the use of the ACLU, got mixed with the fanatical religious right and turned it all into a battlefield instead.

I don't think it takes Nostradamus to predict that pretty soon the USA will have a very secular government that doesn't endorse/repudiate/whatever God or anything else and is simply a "government." If all sides can't agree on that, tough. I see and understand that most fundies think government should promote their religious choice and that's a road to ruin for both their religion and this country.

that an atheist shouldn't embrace. A modern look into how Jefferson operated and led shows great inconsistency. To wit:
1) Jefferson's "Notes on religion" in 1776 held very orthodox christian and religious statements, 2)Jefferson issued a "bible" to the indians in 1804 entitled: "Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth Extracted From the New Testament for the Use of the Indians", 3)Jefferson spent his own money on missionaries to the indians during that time, he did write the 1802 document discussing the "separation of church and state", but he also regularly attended services throughout his presidency. 4) he also authorized the use of the Treasury building and the War Office for church services. 5) and other issues--he signed legislation that gave land to Indian missionaries, put chaplains on the government payroll, and provided for the punishment of irreverent soldiers. He also sent Congress an Indian treaty that set aside money for a priest's salary and for the construction of a church. He also would date official documents with this type of example taken from a signature in 1804"eighteenth day of October in the year of our Lord Christ, 1804".

He repudiated the divinity of Christ in 1813 after he left public office. He seems to be a very typical politician- governing differently and professing differently than he really felt-or maybe evolved into. His governence was not the model of the separation of church and state

Very well said. Should our American 'zealots' for once think outside the box, they would encounter an epiphany by which the similarities between their 'Christianity' and radical Islam are stark. For example, why is it that each wish to force their belief upon others under the veil of violence? For those who would argue this please start by pointing out the disparity between one who would become a suicide bomber in the name of Allah and one who would commit murder at an abortion clinic.

is that the suicide bomber blows himself up while the abortion killer doesn't commit suicide to further his goals.
I definitely understand and agree with your assessment for the radicals. I will say that there is a great difference in scale. A great plurality of Muslims see violence as an acceptable means to achieve their goals-in some areas over 60% of the population. There are far fewer christians that hold that view worldwide. I don't have numbers on that one. To equate the views as the same does not take the average view and motivation of the adherents into account.
Also, hate falls into the nonreligious realm as well. How many liberal pundits and bloggers rejoiced at Tony Snow dying of cancer, or other notable conservative. Cheers to you

While the suicide bomber takes his/her life while taking lives of others, is it that different from being incarcerated for life? I will venture to say that both you and I cherish life as we now know it, but giving up one's basic freedoms for the solitude of confinement, or worse might cause reflection.

Would that same plurality of Christians who conducted the Crusades be any different than present day Muslims?

Anyone liberal or conservative taking pleasure from the suffering and passing of another regardless of affiliation, is but small and weak and deserving of shame.

Cheers back to you-It is getting closer to beer call.

Was officially at 1400 or 2pm for the rest of you.

I yam what I yam....Popeye

your clock. But as a totally retired person, I think mine is somewhat better, as I am able to adjust it to making 0-Beer 30 anytime I want! Ain't life grand!

Actually, I started at 1315, but it wasn't official.

I yam what I yam....Popeye

"Would that same plurality of Christians who conducted the Crusades be any different than present day Muslims?" as far as that statement goes I agree with you. The difference is that the crusades were 800 to 1000 years ago depending upon the crusade. It was also a political movement and had political passions. The Christian world went through the reformation and engaged in the enlightenment. The muslim world is in desperate need of a reformation of thought. There is a pretty interesting read called "What went wrong" by Bernard Lewis that traces the muslim world 1400-2000.

Well said, NUK...our founding fathers would be proud...

(for NUK)

has always amazed me.. They will re-write history to fit their ideology any time they can.

They always point to the Religious of us as being intolerant but you don't see lawsuits TRYING to put Religious symbols in Courthouses now do you..

The Liberty Bell has a quote from Moses.. The Stature of Liberty
has a quote of Moses as well as symbolism from the Mount.. Religion is as much a part of America as Freedom is..

Doesn't mean we cram Religion down everyones throats but they don't get the right to cram their form of Religion downs ours either.

The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them. ~~Patrick Henry
"Illegitimus non Corborundum"

They had a huge problem with something as harmless as Sunday Alcohol Sales in GA. One of your major fundies John Oxendine called it "the Lord's Day" in defense of why he's totally against even giving people the chance to vote it up/down.

The Moral Majority helped get Ronald Reagan elected and were rewarded with an absolute cretin like Edwin Meese as head DA who wants to spend tons of money and resources "investigating porn." Yep, the same loser who thought Reagan shouldn't have mentioned anything about bringing the Berlin wall down and was strongly advising the Prez to not say that in his speech. Later, you get another dimwit in John Ashcroft.

There is a track record of intolerant people like Falwell, Meese, Ashcroft and suddenly other side isn't "tolerant?" Are you really championing government getting out of the lives of its citizens or is it still the usual neo-con/Repub line of "hey, government is too involved in our lives when the opposition party has the majority but it's OK when we are?"

It is easy to label a fundamentalist as intolerant as they want to impose a legalistic interpretation of their beliefs. I agree that many politically active religious folks can be intolerant. But what is new, what group is actually tolerant? The atheists are not tolerant of the "churchy" and like to assault their foes not with ideas, but with invectives such as "dimwits" or attacks on their character. Liberals are intolerant of dissenting views as are conservatives where they hold sway. Most people are intolerant of thoughts that run counter to their own beliefs. Your posting above is an example of that intolerance. Cheers to you as well

These are the facts as I see it: people in general are not good at communication, they are not good at listening, they are not good at understanding, they are not good at empathy, they are not good at cross-referencing, they do not particularly enjoy being aware, and they prefer the kind of intelligence that is not dependent on wisdom.

It's not easy being the carbonunit

people generally treat each other shoddily. It is a true rarity when we find a truly tolerant person. I admittedly am not, some things set me off. It may not be easy, but maybe it is easier being the carbonunit than the wedge. have a good weekend

I was by no means exempting myself. I am on the step that comes after getting past denial. You have a good weekend too, and don't work too hard.

It's not easy being the carbonunit

Please explain why the walls of the Supreme Court Of the United States contain the Ten Commandments and court houses in Alabama are directed to remove those same Ten Commandments. The problem is with interpretation. Common sense would have one believe that if its good enough for the SCOTUS, it would be good enough for the states. The federally funded ACLU forced that one on us!
We simply have too much government, it permeates our daily lives beginning with school breakfasts for children (is it not the responsibility of parents to feed their offspring?), forcing us to pay nearly sixty cents for every gallon of gasoline we purchase (far more than the profit realized by oil companies), or even having an idiot "talk to me' about cutting a tree on my own property here in town. I could go on, but you get the picture.

I am awaiting a liberal definition of the term 'responsibility'.

because I agree with you..

We simply do not need the Federal Government involvement in our lives to the extent it has been or is being planned..

As far as intolerance goes that is a two way street..

The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them. ~~Patrick Henry
"Illegitimus non Corborundum"

The ACLU is not federally funded. Where did you get that mistaken idea?

Too much government for you means,in part,school breakfasts for poor children and the community giving approval before you clear cut your property? My, such oppression.

The United States Congress, roughly thirty years ago, passed a provision in United States Code section 1988 that requires taxpayers to pay attorneys in civil rights cases.

Don't know what our definition of "poor children" is but suggest you do a little personal research outside a schoolhouse and take note of what cars those "poor" children exit when being dropped off--or follow them home and check out where they live. You just might have to change your definition of "poor"---or horror of horrors, make a determination that there are some "moochers" in play! Does happen you know and perhaps more often than you would like to believe. Or maybe you know that and just don't want to admit it.

Hey Mike, if you wanna cut down a tree, come on over to my house, I can probably find one on my property that you can cut down--and I don't have to get permission or a permit from anyone!

You are one of the few who actually "gets it." Of course, having your name and family drug through the mud isn't too appealing I'm sure, but we need a lot more people like you in elected positions.

NUK_1 is absolutely correct.

Mike, you need to run again!

Maybe next time the people will vote for, Mike King, the right candidate for the job!

...Bush Derangement Syndrome, how long are you going to push that agenda? Likely, as long as the the Community Organizer blames the ills of America on his predecessor, you of that ilk will continue to follow like lemmings over a cliff. And you refer to TEA Party folks as hypocrites.

It's been 13 months since Mr Obama has been in office, when do you suppose he intends to accept responsibility? Just asking.

We all know what Obama was left with and, yes, the state of the nation is in his hands now so it's time to move on.

My point was that we sure could have used the Tea Partiers, rallying and picketing when the country was going down the crapper, under Bush. What took them so long to voice their outrage? It doesn't add up and that is why many don't find them very credible.

We agree that certain personal choices, religion being one, has no place within the political arena. The fact that the TEA Party folks did come out finally under Mr Obama's watch can be a positive for him. Removing the old dinosaurs from Congress could be our country's most significant accomplishment of the first half of the 21st Century.

I agree having a religion is a personal choice. Being in a union is a personal choice. Having a dog is a personal choice. Being a commuter is a personal choice. All things are choices and some become politically active on those choices. Does a teacher not have the right to be politically active concerning their profession? Does the gambler have the right to lobby for gaming? Aren't these personal choices?
What you are discussing is the regulating away of personal choices that do not suit you. I understand that having faith may not be your or MS's cup of tea? But why is only faith considered a "personal choice" and outside of what should be allowed to be politiced?

What you are discussing is the regulating away of personal choices that do not suit you.

THAT is the hard right fundie wing of the Repub party right there. They don't believe in the concept of "victimless crimes" and think people are too stupid and too immoral to make decisions on their own. Anything they consider "bad" should be made ILLEGAL. It's not good enough to give people the freedom to make good or bad choices on their own; the government has to legislate that for them.

I think fundies are the leading cause of immorality in America. By taking away the ability of people to make a choice between right/wrong, Americans have lost all sense of morality because they no longer are allowed the choice on their own. Of course, the fundies are positive they are the exclusive holders of values and morals and everyone else is pure evil who needs redemption so they are hardly any different from Progressives who seemingly know what's best for you even if you don't.

I hardly see any effort to regulate away religion going on. I do see a movement that has been happening for a long time of phasing-out religion from government. No one is trying to take away the fundies' rights to organize, lobby, support their candidates, etc. What has happened though is that their ideas are being rejected in droves of younger and not-so-young voters who reject these ideas and make any political party that kowtows heavily to them an also-ran.

Did you even read what the thread is about? Mike and Main Stream are advocating that a group of people be not allowed to discuss a subject or to organize around it. Why would you choose to advocate certain choices --libertine drug use for example, but be against anyone using their faith in a campaign? In issues such as this, people have a right to speak and organize as they see fit. The shreds of what we still how dear in the constitution support this. You are a fine example of an autocrat in a libertarian cloak. What you don't agree with, you shout down and advocate the silence of a certain train of thought.
You do not debate, you attack figures that you do not agree with in a juvenile manner. Have some maturity in your discussion.

Please point out exactly where MS and Mike King state that people shouldn't be allowed to discuss certain subjects or organize around their faith? I don't see anything like that at all but maybe I've missed it.

I have no problem with people using their faith or anything else as their sole 100% political platform. I may think it's a bad idea but that's their choice. Almost worked well for big spender Mike Huckabee so go for it.

apparently most didn't think Kerry was the better answer.

That said, I wish they would leave the Religious views at home.

"..I wish they would leave the Religious views at home."

I've always considered religion, or lack of, a very personal thing...it's like discussing the color of one's own underwear in public....TMI, as my kids would say (too much information).

But it's revealing to know what these tea-partiers are truly rallying for, and also what their "Achilles Heel" is...it will make it that much easier to manipulate and squash them.

Middle Class Moms and Dads. How dare they get together and think they can protest and stuff and actually present Values..We have our own values.. Mao taught us well.. Don't they know their places? I mean really they should SHUT UP and pay the dang taxes so the rest of us can get our Healthcare.

We Progressives need to put the teachings of Mao,Che and Alinsky in practice and get our own gang together and take control of this Government and put into place our plans our Social Utopia.. Oh wait we've done that already.. It's called the Democrat party.

The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them. ~~Patrick Henry
"Illegitimus non Corborundum"

S.Lindsey, why all the anger, what ‘lit your fuse’ and ‘ticked’ you off this time? Some people on the forum dare to express an opinion about their reluctance toward religion and politics and you go off on a rant linking them with two revolutionaries and a community organizer, of all things?

What a joke. Your ‘Teaparty’ is the modern day revolutionaries protesting in the streets, it’s your ‘Teaparty’ doing the community organizing, and it’s your ‘Teaparty’ meeting in cellars and making grand plans to take the country back.

What exactly do you want to take the country back from,…Democracy? And what do you want to replace it with? Do your masters at FreedomWorks even allow you to think that far ahead?

Are you standing so close you can’t see it? You have allowed yourself to become the ‘Mao, Che, and Alinsky’ of modern times!

Gort, you may have hit the nail on the head. Since we are a constitutional republic and have strayed so greatly from the Constitution, perhaps that is our problem. Thanks for your help!

Wedge, you want to take away democracy? What are you going to replace it with?

You can't fix stupid..

The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them. ~~Patrick Henry
"Illegitimus non Corborundum"

S.Lindsey, stupid? It amazes me that you’re so quick to recognize this quality in others yet, you never recognize that quality in yourself. I bring this matter to your attention because you demonstrate the depth of your stupidity so often in this cyber wonderland.

Your friends seam unwilling to point this out to you so I felt it was my responsibility to try and help. There is no need for you to thank me on this public forum. I understand if, your position as the ‘community organizer’ for the ‘Teaparty,’ prevents you from making such a public display of gratitude.

As long as we are on the subject of name calling, I haven’t forgotten, or forgiven, that you called me a ‘snarkie’ a week or two ago. I’ve been perplexed ever since. The problem I have is, I just don’t know if it’s an insult, or a compliment, to be called a ‘snarkie’ by a muck sucking, bile puking, bivalve like you.

Wow did you have your Mother help you or did you actually use a dictionary?

Seems you have little argument only insults.. To bad..

The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them. ~~Patrick Henry
"Illegitimus non Corborundum"