this is what I see in the TEA Party movement...

1. 65

   SparklingJewelposted 14 years ago

   listen carefully to what is said...its not a religious takeover of the country/government...BUT an understanding that spiritual values (not a particular religion) of how God "works" in life's aspects.
   
   It is what the Founding Fathers were saying in the Declaration of Independence and in all components of the Constitution...
   
   http://blogs.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/archi … bring.aspx
   
   this is where all the problems come from...perceptions by individuals...those that don't believe in or have a concept of what God means to them, hence they can't understand what others that do have a concept mean, so they condemn them...
   
   and those that do have a concept of God, but still have steps to understanding what the concepts of the Christ Love for all means, and condemn others for not having Christ...we all have stuff to work on

   replyreport
   1. 70

      rhamsonposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      If what you state is correct, then are you in favor of a theocratic form of government to take over this country?

      replyreport
      1. 65

         SparklingJewelposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         you seem to be missing the whole point I am making in asking that question...
         
         no, to a theocratic state...what Senator deMint is saying in the video is that there is a spiritual awakening happening in the country and that is what the TEA party people are representing.
         
         they are not saying a religious takeover for government, but are saying what the Founding Fathers were saying in the writing of the Declaration, that God is in everything and is meant to be in the hearts of those in government and citizens, no matter what their particular "religions" are...and specifically that there is not to be any state religion

         replyreport
         1. 71

            getitriteposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            
            
            That is not separation of church and state.

            replyreport
            1. 65

               SparklingJewelposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               separation of church and state is not in the Declaration or the Constitution...it was in a letter from Jefferson to a particular church about the US government not having a state religion...as far as the people that are in government making it a theocracy...look it up...
               
               it was never intended to be interpreted that there was some kind of wall between government and religion, he was not saying that the people in government are not suppose to have God in their lives and decisions that they make while they are in government.
               
               there has been a lot written about founding fathers spiritual perspectives, and everyone of them said that having God in ones life is great and that the best people to have in governments were those that had God in their lives...of course, except extreme fanatics, don't you think???

               replyreport
               1. 59

                  Doug Hughesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  "Erecting the 'wall of separation between church and state,' therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society."
                  
                  Thomas Jefferson

                  replyreport
   2. 72

      Jeff Berndtposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      "It is what the Founding Fathers were saying in the Declaration of Independence and in all components of the Constitution..."
      
      Really? Show me the components of the Constitution where God is mentioned.
      
      I'll give you a dollar for every mention of God that you can find in the Constitution. I will. Honest. This is a serious offer.

      replyreport
      1. 65

         SparklingJewelposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         ...the perception of the "framers'"concept of God and how God works in life is in the Declaration...which is basically the "cover letter" so to speak for everything the Constitution outlines for government.
         
         the framers never intended for God to be forgotten in government, just not for government to ever formally accept one particular religion only, as in a state religion above all others

         replyreport
         1. 59

            Doug Hughesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            "Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination. "
            
            -Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom
            
            Now you link to an article on the Christian Broadcasting Network, an interview with a devout (or rabid, depending on your perspective) who speaks of a 'spiritual' awakening, but in context means a Christian awakening. And my reaction is - NO, Thank You.

            replyreport
            1. 71

               ledefensetechposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               Again you miss the point.  Jefferson was never against the free exercise of religion, he was against a state mandated religion.  Which if you think about it, also applies to atheism.  Religion is one of those rare quirky things in that the absence of religion is the same thing as espousing a religious belief.
               
               By the way, Jefferson was only one of 55 delegates.  While he may have had reservations about the nature of God, few of his peers did.  You can cherrypick the one guy to make your point, but the fact remains that it's only one guy.  You cannot say that one guy makes the case for the entirety of the US system to be purely secular.  That just shows an amazing amount of ignorance of history.

               replyreport
         2. 72

            Jeff Berndtposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Again. Show me where God is mentioned in the Constitution. I'll up the offer: ten dollars for every mention of God that SparklingJewel can find in the Constitution.
            
            Ledefensetech is however correct in that the framers weren't interested in abolishing religion. Far from it. They were, however, interested in ensuring that no single religion would ever become the state religion, that people of a minority religion wouldn't be persecuted by the majority, and that members of the majority religion would never claim special privileges over those who were not members of said majority religion.
            
            "the framers never intended for God to be forgotten in government, just not for government to ever formally accept one particular religion only," No, they intended for government never to formally adopt any religion at all.
            
            "You cannot say that one guy makes the case for the entirety of the US system to be purely secular." No, you can't. You can, however, say that since the entire Constitutional Convention approved a document that makes no mention of God or Christ whatsoever, that the US government is officially secular. To do anything else shows an amazing amount of disrespect for the Constitution and the writers thereof.

            replyreport
            1. 71

               ledefensetechposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               Jeff, you'll not find mention of God in the Constitution because that was not the purpose of the document.  The purpose of the Constitution is to give certain express powers to the federal government and tell it what it cannot do. 
               
               As I said before, the problems we have between "separation of church and state" all come from the intrusion of the government into traditionally private areas of national life, like education and religion.  Why do you think that we have local school boards?  Education was supposed to be a community affair.  Each community would establish its own standards of education and teach their own children without interference from outsiders.  In reality such a decentralized system would, over time, become more standardized as the best standards are discovered and adopted by communities.  Those communities, after all, have a vested interest in providing the best education for their kids, so they'd most likely be willing to adopt those standards even if they included things like evolution.  It all comes down to what you believe.  Do you believe people do the right thing naturally or do you think they have to be forced to do the right thing.  I believe the former.

               replyreport
               1. 72

                  Jeff Berndtposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  "Do you believe people do the right thing naturally or do you think they have to be forced to do the right thing."
                  
                  You mean like teach science in science class? Most people will do the right thing. Some people will try to put religion into science class, though, and in so doing, do a disservice to the kids who are meant to be learning about science.

                  replyreport
                  1. 71

                     ledefensetechposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                     No that's not what I meant at all.  By people doing the right thing, I mean people acting civilly towards one another and "doing the right thing".  There are basically two schools of thought on this matter.  You either believe people are intrinsically good and decent or you believe that there has to be some outside force that compels people to be good and decent towards one another.
                     
                     The whole teaching science and religion thing is a different topic entirely.  Honestly I don't care what someone teaches their kid.  I know what I want my kid to know and I also know I have a vested interest in making sure they have the best information possible, so I'm going to talk to them not only about science but religion and how the intertwine and how they are separate.  But that is my job as a parent, no school, teacher or textbook can do that.  Speaking about scholastic matter we'd be better off teaching the three R's and leaving it at that.  Once you know how to read, write and do arithmetic, you have the foundation to teach yourself.  That is the least and most we can do for kids as a people.
                     
                     rebekah, not all ideas are created equal.  You like to talk about deism but I'm not so sure you understand what deists believed.  It's a modern misconception to equate deists with proto-atheists like many seem to do.  A deist believes in a God, but unlike someone who believes in in a Christian sect, a deist does not believe that God interacts with Creation other than the act of creation itself and setting the universe on it's way.  Deists though of God as some sort of celestial clockmaker who wound up the Universe and set it running.  Not quite the same thing as an atheist.
                     
                     In addition deists believed that the world was set up according to certain rules and that through the use of reason, humanity could understand those rules.  Those rules not only governed the natural world, ie physical sciences like physics, biology and chemistry; but also human society and how individuals treat one another.  Therefore it is very likely that a deist would believe in the 10 Commandments as those are primarily commandments that govern how people act towards one another.
                     
                     I've noticed you've posted information on the Masons.  Masonry, at it's heart, is based on Christian ideals.  Indeed the mythology of the Masons claims to go back to the building of the Temple of Solomon.  How that author can claim that Masons have nothing to do with Judeo-Christian beliefs is hard to fathom unless the author has no idea of the history of the Masonic Order.
                     
                     I, for one, find it odd that so many people today have a problem with a religion that, at it's core, espouses a belief in universal brotherhood and the belief that we should treat each other as we wish to be treated.  While it is true that throughout history so-called Christians have failed to live up to that ideal, that is due to the failure of the person not that core belief.

                     replyreport
                     1. 71

                        getitriteposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                        
                        
                        You eloquently stated all this to promote the belief in nonsense!  Fascinating!

                        replyreport
   3. 58

      Beelzedadposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Really, from an outsiders perspective, it looks more like an old, outdated and deep seeded hatred of black people, especially when they are running the country.

      replyreport
      1. 71

         ledefensetechposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Ah racism.  The one of the last refuges of ignorant people who don't really bring any facts to the table.

         replyreport
         1. 58

            Beelzedadposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            That seems to be your response to everyone with whom you don't agree. That would be the last refuge of a coward.

            replyreport
            1. 71

               ledefensetechposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               Not really. If people did really have a deep seated hatred of people of color as you seem to think, Obama would not have lasted the week.  You might want to get out of the 1960's and into the present day. 
               
               You also don't seem to understand the significance of Dr. King's movement.  Rather than use violence to fight injustice, he used nonviolence.  Why?  Because he knew that when people saw the injustice being perpetuated against people who were peaceably resisting, that any and all support for racist laws would disappear.  I wonder if you can understand the significance of that fact.
               
               Can you bring anything to the table or are you just full of hot air?

               replyreport
               1. 58

                  Beelzedadposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  Yes, really,
                  
                  
                  
                  You might want to take off those rose colored glasses.  
                  
                  
                  
                  I wonder if you understand the significance of a strawman argument, like the one you just provided.
                  
                  
                  
                  Would that be a table in which your opinions are chiseled into granite as the arbiter of all things?
                  
                  Have you thought of being a stand up comedian?

                  replyreport
            2. 60

               Padrinoposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               Racism is always the refuge that the liberal seeks, no argument so you attack the imaginary racist because you think you will garner support.
               
               Cowardly!

               replyreport
               1. 58

                  Beelzedadposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  I need no support on what I observe.

                  replyreport
                  1. 57

                     Sab Ohposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                     Or what you imagine?

                     replyreport
      2. 57

         Sab Ohposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         "Really, from an outsiders perspective, it looks more like an old, outdated and deep seeded hatred of black people, especially when they are running the country"
         
         That's not an 'outsiders' perspective, it's a 'no idea what you are talking about' perspective.

         replyreport
         1. 58

            Beelzedadposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            I've sensed from reading your posts that you're an expert on that topic.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Harvey Stelmanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               Bee,
               
               Don't you understand; everyone here is an expert!

               replyreport
            2. 57

               Sab Ohposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               Does nothing to mitigate your ridiculous statement.

               replyreport
      3. 71

         getitriteposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Correct, but it seems to go deeper than that.  From an outsiders perspective they seem to hate Muslims, democrats, and anyone who isn't a fundamentalist zealot.

         replyreport
2. 61

   readytoescapeposted 14 years ago

   Actually what I think the op is attempting to say is that the concept “god” via whatever faith one chooses to follow present a set of values that were included and respected by the Founding Fathers. In that they recognized many divinity belief systems no matter how differently expressed or celebrated all had a base in societal cooperation.  So these founding documents expressed these general moral values and guaranteed rights, basic freedoms and pursuits whether an individual is devout, agnostic or atheist.

   replyreport
   1. 70

      rhamsonposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      I don't know how Gods hand is being shown in the clearly racist and anarchist posters and threats we see.  Maybe there is something we have not seen that would change the general knowledge that this movement came out of anger towards the government and statistically from a large contingent of right wing republicans soured after the election of Barak Obama.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         readytoescapeposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         The souring came not from the election of the man but the policies and philosophies the man holds and endorses in conjunction with a nonfunctioning governmental body that refuses to listen to its constituents and proceeds only with its own agenda of power and control.
         The anger has come from the total abandonment of the core definition of representation and it being construed by those elected to represent into an attitude of, “ I know what best for you, so shut up your too stupid to know what you need.”

         replyreport
         1. 70

            rhamsonposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            You could say the same thing was true towards the Bush White House and the swing was predictable what with a failed foreign policy, failing economy and outrageous government growth and expense.
            
            Isn't it souring just from the other side of the isle that enough was enough.
            
            I don't see a problem with reeling in some of the big business corruption and helping the country recover from the drunken orgy the Bush years showed us.
            
            The problem isn't that they are making decisions for us as much as there needs to be some order made from it and decisions need to be made with  us in mind.

            replyreport
3. 90

   habeeposted 14 years ago

   Hi, Ready!!

   replyreport
4. 71

   ledefensetechposted 14 years ago

   Here we go with all the asinine remarks like "so you're in favor of a theocratic government".  That's like saying all atheists are committed Communists.  SJ, rhamson is not misconstruing the point, he's trying to use sophistry and clever wording to make you sound like a kook.  Typical left wing nonsense.
   
   getitrite, separation of church and state only meant that the United States would never have an established religion, like the Church of England.  It would have remained so, except that by intruding into areas that were originally off limits like education, the federal government has made it an issue.  Even so, in decades past it was not much of an issue because it was felt that parents would teach their kids about religion or not, as they so chose and "public" education would only teach kids about the three R's.  Unfortunately there has been a push from ivory tower eggheads to remake society in an image that does not condone any "superstition" or religious belief.
   
   So today we find ourselves with an out of control elite who wish to impose their vision of how things should be on us and you're seeing pushback from average citizens.

   replyreport
   1. 70

      rhamsonposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      You really do read a lot into things.  Perhaps you are too smart.
      
      My musing was merely requiring a statement as to how SJ reasoned the statement and what it would mean to the average citizen with regards to rights and priviledges for the non Christian.
      
      I agree with the second part of your response completely.
      
      It is a shame you have to relate to people by placing them in pigeon holes.  Convenient for you but counter productive to understanding issues.

      replyreport
   2. 71

      getitriteposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      "So today we find ourselves with an out of control elite who wish to impose their vision of how things should be on us"
      
      But I guess you found no problem with religious despots imposing their visions on us for centuries.
      
      And when I was in school we had the 4 R's, reading, riting, rithmetic, and religion.  It wasn't just my parents who promoted this nonsensical and erroneous concept, but the school system as well. 
      
      Why should a government support the mental disease of its citizens?

      replyreport
      1. 71

         ledefensetechposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Religious despots?  Like whom, exactly?  It says interesting things about you that you consider (Christian?) religious instruction to be a mental illness.  I'm sorry you disagreed with your parents and they made you study religion.  I'm sure they had their reasons, but that's really an issue between you and them, is it not?
         
         Leaving that aside, you also don't seem to comprehend the significance of the freedom to worship as you choose or not at all.  Again this only became an issue when total government nutjobs began insinuating themselves in areas that are, rightly, private and personal. 
         
         You really don't get it.  It's not the government's job to educate anyone.  In fact when you allow the government to educate people, sooner or later, you get indoctrination by some form of political belief or other.  That's what this fight over "religion in school" is really about.  It's about whose form of indoctrination becomes "official" and which becomes heretical.

         replyreport
         1. 71

            getitriteposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            I understand the freedom to worship as you choose, or not at all, but since I regard religion as a disease, I think no one has the right to infect their children or anyone else with their disease.  In other words, people have the right to be insane, I agree.  I just don't agree with the act of being indoctrinated by insane parents, then, you, telling me I have a "choice."
            
            Religion is a mental disorder.  That does not require an explanation.  You just need to think about it for a few seconds, and, even you would agree, that is, if you could stop being intellectually dishonest.

            replyreport
            1. 71

               ledefensetechposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               Well that seems to be a personal problem you have.  You might consider religion a mental illness, but few people seem to disagree.  I don't see religion listed under the DSM IV, for example, so it's not really a mental illness.  It must be hard being on the minority fringe. 
               
               As for being indoctrinated by your parents, the notion is patently stupid.  You claim to have been forced by your parents to attend religious instruction, but if anything it has made you anti-religious not a slave to it.  So really your whole position is stuff and nonsense.
               
               Your claim that religion as a mental illness doesn't need explaining is just a sad attempt to duck the issue.  You can't bring anything to the table, so you're trying to limit the scope of the discussion.  Sad.

               replyreport
               1. 71

                  getitriteposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  
                  
                  YOU HAVE PROVEN MY POINT THAT RELIGION IS A MENTAL DISORDER.
                  
                  Your delusion prompted you to dismiss everything I said, because it did not fit your distorted reality.  Thus, you create a strawman, and continue with nonpertinent nonsense.
                  
                  Yes, I'm lucky, because I'm not a slave to religion, but most never recuperate from the trauma.
                  
                  So prove your religion to be logical, and I will stop saying that it is a mental disease.
                  
                  I hope this country will soon move in the direction of reason instead of superstitious nonsense regarding reality.

                  replyreport
                  1. 71

                     ledefensetechposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                     Wow, good job shouting and throwing a tantrum.  As an aside, I worked with the truly mentally ill for years.  Your behaviors tally very much with those of a disturbed individual.  The yelling, drama, false accusations, etc.  You may wish to take a closer look at your own behaviors and ask yourself some tough questions.
                     
                     
                     
                     No you and your ilk are engaged in a pathetic attempt to try to guilt trip those who don't believe as you do.  Why is it the left is so morally and intellectually bankrupt that they have to project their own failures on their opposition?
                     
                     Fundamentalist?  Me?  Laughable.  Where have I ever said that the Bible is the One True Font tm of all human knowledge?  It's just a sad attempt by you and your fellow fringe loonies to paint anyone who believes as a religious zealot.  Perhaps you'll allow a small religious quote:  By your actions you shall be known.  A wise dictum no matter if you're a believer or not.

                     replyreport
                     1. 71

                        getitriteposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                        When I first started this exchange with you, I believed you were an intelligent thoughtful human being.  That has deteriorated.  Your behavior is now bordering on obnoxious.  I'm not going to put up with the personal attacks, and if you feel this is the way you can conduct a debate, then you are seriously misinformed.
                        
                        Since you have resorted to analyzing me(quite erroneously) I no longer wish to engage in any rational discussion with you, because if you push me too far, I will surely be banned.
                        
                        So take your teabaggers, your god, and your delusional nonsense elsewhere.

                        replyreport
                        1. 71

                           ledefensetechposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                           Of course it has.  A supposed intellectual like yourself hates the idea that there might be other intelligent people who hold beliefs that are entirely opposite of your own.  Sorry you can't handle real debate, but all you've brought to the table is stuff and nonsense with few facts.  So get all huffy, take your toys and go home.  Childish.

                           replyreport
                           1. 58

                              Beelzedadposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                              Self-appointed intellects? LOL.

                              replyreport
                              1. 61

                                 JWestCattleposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                 Self-appointed Intellects....Is that not the left wing liberal Democratic Party?  You must be an expert in our midst.

                                 replyreport
                     2. 58

                        Beelzedadposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                        Too bad one must fabricate things in order to support an insult.

                        replyreport
5. 85

   rebekahELLEposted 14 years ago

   many of the early founders were Deists, Freemasons, who accept other religious differences without contempt. all we can look at are historical records and documents. no one here knew any of these men.
   
   America's most famous Freemason is also a Deist, George Washington. Not only did he allow Universalists to serve in his army, he had Jewish and Deists officers as well along with Enlightened Christians. In the Freemason lodges Protestants, Jews, Deists, Unitarians, and all who believed in God, liberty, etc. put aside their theological differences and joined together. Half the signers of the Constitution were Freemasons as was Francis Scott Key who wrote our National Anthem and Frances Bellamy who wrote the Pledge of Allegiance. Not all Deists are Freemasons with Thomas Jefferson as one example. The claim that Freemasons are all Jews is also false.

   replyreport
   1. 71

      ledefensetechposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      No they weren't. 
      
      http://hubpages.com/forum/post/reply/965390
      
      
      
      There were 55 delegates to the convention.  As we see from the above quote, 28 were Episcopalian, 3 Catholic. 8 Presbyterians, 7 Congregationalists, 2 Lutherans 2 Dutch Reformed, 2 Methodists.  That gives us a grand total of 52 delegates who espoused some sort of religious affiliation.  Only 3 were of other beliefs.  That's a far cry from the majority of them being deists.  You may wish to listen a little less to your teachers, who are obviously wrong, and a little more attention to what those men really said and what they wrote.
      
      http://earlyamericanhistory.net/founding_fathers.htm
      
      Where the confusion comes in is ascribing a set of beliefs to a particular delegate.  Which is about impossible because belief is, at base, a very personal issue.  Which is why you are better served by going to the source of the matter and not reading "history" written about it.  A history book is only as good as the author.  Many, if not most, have their own ideas about what really occurred and that may or may not have anything to do with reality.

      replyreport
      1. 85

         rebekahELLEposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         well, it always amazes me that some people, no matter what is written, always portend to know the true facts. I don't why what you would write is any more accurate than what a history book or other documents say.
         
         the debate still remains, this thread talks about a spiritual awakening among the tea partiers... well a spiritual awakening would imply they had been asleep before...
         
         it would encompass a true awakening, not just a christian awakening as doug also pointed out. everyone is going to see life from their own perspective. there's really no need to argue who is right or wrong.
         
         here's an interesting link http://watch.pair.com/mason.html
         
         signing off, bedtime.

         replyreport
   2. 60

      Harvey Stelmanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      reb,
      
      Wow, he sounds like a real American.

      replyreport
6. 85

   rebekahELLEposted 14 years ago

   actually led, I don't really have a problem with any religion, it's simply a belief. I guess that's why there are so many of them. while in college I studied comparative religions and learned a lot about many of the main, and some of the not so popular beliefs. where the problems come in are when a group of people espouse their belief as more superior than others. 
   my point in mentioning the Masons is that they believe in universal brotherhood. whether what the article contained is all true I would not know. that was my second point. we don't know.
   even historians will slant facts/findings accordingly. we see that problem with our textbooks.
   my grandfather was a 33 degree mason and while he didn't really talk about it, he was an extraordinarily intelligent man.
   you would do well not to be so quick to elevate your knowledge above others. we all have access to immense knowledge, but it's how we use it that makes us smart.

   replyreport
   1. 71

      ledefensetechposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      He was?  Fascinating.  You may not believe it but we agree on the penchant of historians to slant their writings to fit a certain point of view.  I've been reading a biography of Woodrow Wilson that is, largely, an apologetic slanted history of the man.  It doesn't do good things for my digestion, but in the spirit of searching for truth, sometimes you have to read stuff you totally disagree with.
      
      From what I understand of the Masons, they were a group that attempted to better individuals and bring them to enlightenment.  Not exactly in an orthodox Christian way, but many of the core beliefs of Freemasonry and Christianity coincide.  Unfortunately it was this secrecy, much as your grandfather exhibited, and the inclusion of so many Freemasons in high office of this country in its early years that led to its downfall.
      
      It's a bit interesting that over 150 years after the fact that there are still so many anti-Masonic beliefs out there, when much of the reason for anti-Masonic hatred has been forgotten by history.
      
      I do, however, believe in the primacy of reason.  Because I believe that, I also believe there is Truth out there.  We discover it through reason.  So that's why I have such a hard time believing the current nonsense about [b]all[/i] things being relative.  Many things are relative, especially when talking about human interactions, but there are a few bedrock truths even concerning human interaction.
      
      Ah, getitrite, ridicule.  The last refuge of an ignorant person who has nothing to back up their claims.

      replyreport
   2. 60

      Harvey Stelmanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      reb,
      
      If religion is only a belief; why have so many died for their belief?

      replyreport
7. 85

   rebekahELLEposted 14 years ago

   just like any religion, I'm sure much of it is misunderstood.
   it's easy to tear apart something we don't understand. as a public, we tend to believe what the masses say instead of questioning and finding out for ourselves. maybe that innate curiosity I have is from my grandfather as he always told us to find out for yourselves, educate your minds, ask questions. I remember many times visiting him he was sitting there reading the encyclopedias. I think this article is interesting in light of the current belief about the all-seeing eye being masonic.
   http://web.mit.edu/dryfoo/www/Masonry/E … yepyr.html

   replyreport
8. 68

   Ralph Deedsposted 14 years ago

   Here's what I see in the Tea Party--
   
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbc064Uwax4

   replyreport
   1. 66

      Arthur Fontesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      That looked like a party of one?

      replyreport
      1. 68

         Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         A representative sample. Perhaps a Hubber?  :-)

         replyreport
         1. 66

            Arthur Fontesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            If it is I want to read his hubs.  Probably would be great comedy.

            replyreport