Religious Coercion of the Fiscal Basis of the Tea Party. A look at our Constitution through the First Amendment.

Statement:  The fiscal future of our county is of paramount concern.  The Tea Party evolved in 2009 from a view that taxes and economic law’s written and being debated in congress was destined to collapse this county.  Some labeled the Tea Party as Taxed Enough Already and other labeled the Tea Party as reviving the image of the Boston Tea Party Revolt against exorbitant taxes on imports.  That was why this organization was founded and why I helped organize the group to battle the big government trend for over a year.  Now I have seen in the last few months the debate shifting to one of Judeo-Christian Conservatism.  I recognize that the media and debate moderators are directing this movement from sound economic principles to social issues that are not widely accepted in 21st Century Politics.  They are doing it because it will hurt the Republican nominee in the general election.

Belief in the Supernatural by a fundamental minority never ends well in our human history.  Below is a link to a well known media icon and organizer of the 9/12 project.  His fall into obscurity can be assured with his belief in supernatural entities manipulating events for causes that he deems “Evil”.  You can hear later speaking during his radio broadcasts of how “evil is taking over the world”.  This kind of talk has No Merit in a Free Nation of Rational Thought.  THIS 2 MINUTE SEGMENT DELVES INTO HIS DEPRAVED MIND AND SHOULD WAKE YOU UP.

Let us take a look at the First Amendment.  Discussion from the below link is discussed.

“”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.””

A look at freedom of religion and freedom from religion

“”Religious freedom is an absolute right, and includes the right to practice any religion of one’s choice, or no religion at all, and to do this without government control.””

Conclusion:  Social issues are outside of the Constitutional and Fiscal Conservative debate.  You can believe in whatever you like or are free to not believe in whatever you like.  But you can’t write a law over-ruling the freedom of people to make choices because of religious dogma.  The first amendment over-rules any decision of a lower state.  Just as no state can ban guns because of the second amendment.  No state can write a religious order and impose their version of morality on other people.  This is where we get to the social issues, either it be drugs, marriage, or sex control.

Views: 134


You need to be a member of Arapahoe Tea Party to add comments!

Join Arapahoe Tea Party

Comment by Yvonne Michelle Gerhardt on March 8, 2012 at 7:57pm

I do agree that this great nation was based on a Republic, though today's politicians would have this society believe differently.  You quote Polybius and Cicero ... it is important to note that our founding fathers were quite critical both Roman and Greek philosophers and governments, primarily due to the lack of balance within the Republics and Democracies.  While great insight resulted from such contributions, our forefathers (well versed in classical education) were aware of both sides--the positives and the negatives--and as a result resolved to create that balance -- "a more perfect union."  They did this through the separation of powers, with much debate.

Individual freedoms and liberties are a must in a Republic.  However, when such freedoms and liberties bring about undue harm on others (who are entitled to the same freedoms), there must be restraint.  Order in a civil society demands a code of ethics, laws that are both internal and external in nature.  I think we may both agree on this matter.

Regarding your implicating Glenn Beck in the attempt to "shut down old faiths or separate faiths as the purpose of evil," I think you have misunderstood him, or you ascribe to an amoral society and suppose that evil is not a factor.  I listened to the links and do not interpret his remarks as somehow trying to shut down any religion.  He was speaking in metaphoric terms, comparing the goings on of today with those of the ancients,  and pointing to the real evil that exists today, even and especially within the American government.  Comparing his statements to souring milk caused by his neighbor's witchcraft does not really convey a valid point, if that was what you were trying to do.  It doesn't really fit the scenario.  

Also, you mention that "If Glenn were to blame the ... for evil ... it is wrong and should be judged as so."  Be careful not to divert attention away from the real issue.  That having been said, Beck did not say such.  

However, I will interject a Biblical perspective.  Buddists, Native Americans, etc. are not evil in themselves.  But, their philosophy does not lead them to personal salvation to the one and only living God according to Christianity.  They are, by Christian Biblical definition, lost. One can easily argue that while they are not evil (in the sense we know it), their lack of understanding that sin is inherent, a willingness to recognize it along with a need for the removal of such sin, and their inability to attain this action on their own is vital to the redemption of the human soul, according to Christian principles.  This is another discussion for another day.

With this in mind, one's view that such opposing beliefs should be judged as wrong is a contradiction to the meaning of tolerance.  It is advisable to stay on the real issue ... which, as I recall, is the protection of our First Amendment rights.

When one assumes that others are attempting to force Christianity on another, he is making an illogical argument.  One can no more coerce an unwilling and unbelieving person to become a Christian than he may coerce another in to benevolent giving.  Both, by definition, must be acts of understanding, acceptance, and free will.  

Now that is the problem I have with taxation for projects such as the new healthcare law.  It takes without consent the wealth of some to redistribute to others by coercive means.  For our government to pass this off as a benevolent act mandated by a good society is a contradiction and lie.  This is not necessarily a 1st Amendment issue.  

On the other hand, mandating by the same law that those who would object to services provided under this law because of religious conviction is a violation of our 1st Amendment.  It essentially interjects its own brand of religion (secular humanism?) in to the lives of those who do not espouse the same and demands

Comment by Fredrick Lindner on March 8, 2012 at 3:46pm

Our Constitution was also, in majority of the large part of the Founders own writing and historical Constitutional Studies provides, based on the REPUBLIC.  A form of govenment which allowed for "INDIVIDUAL FREEDOMS and LIBERTIES" in writings from such as Polybius and Cicero

Comment by Fredrick Lindner on March 8, 2012 at 1:40pm

Freedom is absolute in the case of Religion in our country.  The Content of this forum is to identify a direct shift in the basic discussion to a blame of aspects of supernatural and mythological consequence.  Please listen to the discussions and links that I have provided with Glenn Beck.  I have observed his fall of superstition on the “Baal”, pronounced bail, as a supernatural entity at work in the world.  As a student of anthropology and archeology I can provide some further discussions into the origins of Canaanite, Babylonian, and other Asian cultures that had a diverse theology from which an ancient form of Yehweh theology was derived.  Beck’s arbitrary attempt at biblical persecution of near extinct ancient forms of theologies as the reason or parallel of modern political instability is what I was attempting to draw attention to.  In many cases throughout our human history, whenever a visible figure has attempted to attribute negative outcomes to the supernatural, there has been a human rights atrocity.  Using some metaphor if Glenn suspects his milk went sour to his neighbor’s witchcraft, what good will come of this.  There we draw back to the first amendments limits to freedom of speech in which I have a separate forum.  Glenn's attempt to shout down old faiths or seperate faiths as the purpose of evil in the world is wrong.  If Glenn were to blame the Buddist's for evil, blame the native american earth faiths for evil, or blame any other of a thousand theologies for evil in the world, it is wrong and should be judged as so. 

Comment by Yvonne Michelle Gerhardt on March 8, 2012 at 11:28am

You may have, in fact, just projected your own brand of religion (or the lack thereof) by excluding it entirely from the discussion ... except to demean anyone of an alternative conviction by stating that they are somehow obscure.  By doing so, you have discredited your position.  Tolerance can be a good thing as long as it, by definition, respects the opposing viewpoint without relinquishing one's personal views.  Please be careful not to exclude a large part of the Tea Party with such rhetoric.  Despite what you have blogged, there are in fact a vast number of people who happen to believe that Glenn Beck has rightfully articulated the state of this nation and its goings on.  Evil IS an absolute.  If you would like to discuss such absolutes and the law, according to the Constitution, then let us do so.  I welcome a legitimate and sound argument.

Getting back to the issue of taxes, healthcare, etc.  Every argument made in opposition to these can be made on a Biblical level.  When wealth that is earned honestly by hard working people is taken from them by coercive means and then redistributed to others, against the will of those for whom it has been taken, then THAT is immoral because it is STEALING.  I think in those terms, we may agree.

Comment by Yvonne Michelle Gerhardt on March 8, 2012 at 10:55am

One may argue that all liberties and protections outlined in the Constitution are based exclusively on God-given rights, hence "religion."  Our Constitution was designed, in part, on common law principles defined in the Magna Carta and brought to the New World. Often people argue that early colonists were fleeing religious persecution.  This is only a fraction of the history.  In fact, most people who came to America on the Mayflower, etc., did so not for "religious freedoms," but for God and country (England).  

There was a great deal of strict religious order then.  It was believed that government was ordained by God as a means to restrain an otherwise chaotic people.  However, that government would have to operate within Biblical principles to be authorized by God.  

When writing the Constitution, after seeing that the Articles of Confederation were inadequate to justly organize and maintain a civil society, our forefathers were careful to include in the equation the liberties given by God to all men.  

Now we have the issue of the separation of church and state, which is often incorrectly translated to mean that church and state can never be intermingled.  This was not the purpose of such statements ... which were never even formally mentioned until Thomas Jefferson's address to the Danbury Baptist Association.  The purpose of the 1st Amendment is, in part, to ensure that the federal government can never mandate a state religion.

This Amendment was NEVER written to ensure that social issues would not be a factor.  In fact, all social issues are based on some degree of morality.  ALL laws are based on some level of morality.  

The crux of objection to social issues being discussed is that one's level of morality may be challenged, and hence the Constitutional debate goes array.  This is a fallacy.  Life is not relative to one's perspective.  There are absolutes.  Otherwise, we would have no need for the law.  Perhaps the difficulty stems from those who are incapable of articulating the their position in a way that aligns with the Constitutionality of laws?

What we see today is the deliberate erosion of Biblical principles in our government.  

Comment by Fredrick Lindner on March 2, 2012 at 1:04pm

Freedom of Religion, Excerpts from the Complete Idiots guide to the US Constitution, by Timothy Harper 2007.


“Many early colonists came to the New World to escape religious persecution, but once they got here they did not necessarily practice religious freedom or tolerance.  Many early American communities ostracized and sometimes punished people for not following their religion or even their sect of a shared religion.”…

“The First Amendment guarantees that the government will not prefer one religion over another.  It also guarantees that the government will not prefer religion in general over nonreligion or the lack of religion, and that it will not prefer nonreligion over religion.”


*In common terms you can practice in the faith of your following however you cannot force your religion onto other people through force of law.  This applies to any Judeo-Christian faith of monotheism.  There are a multitude of pantheons in the United States that share the same Constitutional freedoms of religion.  This freedom also applies to the scientific evidence of evolution.

Comment by Fredrick Lindner on February 28, 2012 at 6:20pm

Freedom From Religion link.


Its origins in the Virginia bill on religious freedom:

The roots of the First Amendment can be traced to a bill written by Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) in 1777 and proposed to the Virginia Legislature in 1779. 1It guaranteed freedom of (and from) religion. After an impassioned speech by James Madison, and after some amendments, it became law in that state on 1786-JAN-16. 2""

© 2021   Created by Chairman's Committee.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service