News The Grassroots movement , and the Tea Party

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Movement
Click For Summary
The discussion highlights the perception that the Tea Party movement is detrimental to the Republican Party, with claims that it panders to irrational fears and anger. Critics argue that the movement's superficial claims and extreme positions, such as those expressed by prominent figures like Rand Paul, alienate mainstream voters and threaten GOP unity. The conversation also touches on the broader implications of the Tea Party's influence, suggesting it could serve as a double-edged sword that might help Democrats in elections. Additionally, there is a critique of the political discourse surrounding the movement, emphasizing a perceived decline in civil dialogue. Overall, the Tea Party is seen as a significant yet controversial force within American politics.
  • #721


Ivan Seeking said:
Just to be clear, in the case of O'Donnell, she obviously had no idea what the first amendment even says. Clearly she had never read it!

She clearly illustrates the drawbacks of the argument that "separation of church and state" isn't in the first amendment.

I actually do understand their argument. Their argument is just mistated - or so obscure that a person of limited intelligence is going to just confuse themselves when they try to use it.

There is some benefit to making the argument a little more clear by directly addressing whether customs should be covered by separation of church and state.

Of course, the drawback to the latter argument is that there are some legitimate issues about whether a public school system should teaching material that is scientifically wrong or whether the government has a right to legislate morality. It gives less than a clear victory to social conservatives. Which is why I believe the argument is intentionally misstated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #722


Ivan Seeking said:
Just to be clear, in the case of O'Donnell, she obviously had no idea what the first amendment even says. Clearly she had never read it!

I listened to the whole exchange (not just the sound bite). She asked him about 2 to 3 times if it was "in the First Ammendment?". To be honest, I couldn't tell if she was asking him to explain a point she was challenging or if she wasn't sure of the topic? :confused:

Either way, I came away with the feeling that he clearly DID understand the actual wording (as discussed in this thread) and tried to distance himself from an explanation.:rolleyes:

I think the bigger question should be - why do we care about a debate in Delaware? Does anyone believe that as O'Donnell goes the Tea Party goes?

The last time I looked, the Nevada race was more interesting.
 
  • #723


BobG said:
I tend to feel the same way towards things like nativity scenes, 10 Commandments in a courthouse, or other issues like that. By time you start sending issues like this to the USSC, you've reached the point where you're demanding that government decide what customs and cultural quirks people are allowed to express, which definitely is a bad thing.

These aren't legitimate separation of church and state issues, however.

I do know there are many people who would consider any kind of religious symbolism in a public building to be infringing on the idea/concept of separation of church and state. Like putting up a Christmas tree in town hall, or the 10 Commandments in a courthouse, etc...

BTW, just so I am clear, is it that the literal phrase "separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution, but as an issue, separation of church and state are in it because the Constitution forbids the government from establishing any religion and people can practice any religion they want? And things like government incorporation religion in policy issues can be seen as government establishing a religion...?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #724


WhoWee said:
The last time I looked, the Nevada race was more interesting.
Want an interesting race? Check the ads for Maine governor. The Tea Party candidate Paul LePage is a tax cheat who chiseled thousands of dollars out of Maine and Florida by having his wife claim permanent residency and and homestead tax exemptions in both states. Both of their kids attended Florida colleges, saving at least $80K in tuition by claiming to be FL residents. He claims to be an "executive" creating good Maine Jobs. He manages a business that retails discount/salvage merchandise, and the jobs are part-time, with no benefits, and pay so low that no family could scrape by on the checks. He has a new ad campaign slamming Libby Mitchel for "smearing" him using taxpayer money. In fact, her ads are the most modest and respectable, and the reason that she gets matching funds for her campaign is that she committed to not accepting outside money. Her campaign is financed by small Maine donations, and that qualified her for matching funds from our state's Clean Election Fund. LePage's ads accuse her of mud-slinging and job-killing votes at least 1/2 dozen times in about 30 seconds, though there is no evidence of either.

Mitchell would walk away with this governorship, but Elliot Cutler (millionaire lobbyist) is running as an Independent, and he is sucking away support from Mitchell, in part because he's not a nuts as LePage and people are ticked off about the status-quo. He is practically handing LePage the governor's office on a platter. We are going to end up with a Tea-Party governor, and it is sad. He wants creationism taught in our public schools and claims that Maine can't afford to embrace green technology or renewable energy. The guy is a dinosaur.
 
  • #725


CAC1001 said:
BTW, just so I am clear, is it that the literal phrase "separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution, but as an issue, separation of church and state are in it because the Constitution forbids the government from establishing any religion and people can practice any religion they want? And things like government incorporation religion in policy issues can be seen as government establishing a religion...?
Correct. The first amendment (1791) states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..." ("establishment" clause + "free exercise" clause). Jefferson interpreted the combination of these two clauses as erecting "a wall of separation between church and state" (1800-ish, in a letter to a Baptist group), and a number of subsequent court decisions have used the same interpretation (e.g., the discussion in Everson v. Board of Education).

In the case of O'Donnell, it is dishonest to claim she was merely arguing that the specific phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution. She was not. She went a whole lot further, and questioned the appearance of the establishment clause in the First Amendment.
 
  • #726


In the case of the Tea Partiers, it would be well to delve a little further back to Roger Williams. The motivation for keeping the state out of religious concerns was established well before the Constitution was written, and was well-respected.

The Tea-Party can clamor about Constitutionality and shout about the "unconstitutional" actions of the current administration, but they have demonstrated a very poor understanding of what is actually in the Constitution, and how it must be applied. No matter how many tea-bags you staple to your tri-corn hat, it would be a good idea to actually read the documents that documented the creation of this country.
 
  • #727


CAC1001 said:
BTW, just so I am clear, is it that the literal phrase "separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution, but as an issue, separation of church and state are in it because the Constitution forbids the government from establishing any religion and people can practice any religion they want? And things like government incorporation religion in policy issues can be seen as government establishing a religion...?

Kind of, except the last is a grey area that depends specifically what the government is doing. Christmas decorations wouldn't fall under that category (Lynne vs. Donne). Celebration of public holidays, which have cultural significance even if they also have religious aspects, is a legitimate secular purpose. (And I believe the "secret code" inferred by social conservatives with the phrase "separation of church and state isn't in the Constitution" refers to Justice Burger's opinion in Lynne v Donne.)

You would have to show that the government was trying to promote or encourage membership in a particular religion; or to alienate non-members of a particular religion.

Acknowledgement that something is a cultural tradition meets neither of those standards unless one really stretches the point to edge of credibility.
 
  • #728


I'll admit I shouldn't have any strong opinions about the Tea Party since I have been avoiding politics for the most part lately.

But I appreciate Christine, for at least giving me the best laugh I've had in a good while when I saw her "I'm not a witch commercial", where she is wearing all black, and appears to be standing in front of a bubbling cauldron.

That one will go down in history as a timeless classic, and is great spoof material.

I thought the "I'm not a werewolf" spoof on youtube was pretty funny. And on the plus side, it's appropriate for halloween.

I can't help imagining her now when I see her, with a green face, and a black hat.

And of all people having to explain she isn't a witch. She is lucky she wasn't around back in the good old days.
 
  • #729


Gokul43201 said:
In the case of O'Donnell, it is dishonest to claim she was merely arguing that the specific phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution. She was not. She went a whole lot further, and questioned the appearance of the establishment clause in the First Amendment.
Do you have a source for this? The "establishment clause" specifically refers to the text of the first amendment.
 
  • #730


BobG said:
You would have to show that the government was trying to promote or encourage membership in a particular religion; or to alienate non-members of a particular religion..

Perhaps this is why people want President Obama to distance himself from Muslim issues?
 
  • #731


WhoWee said:
Perhaps this is why people want President Obama to distance himself from Muslim issues?

What specific "Muslim issues" are you referring to?
 
  • #732


Al68 said:
Do you have a source for this? The "establishment clause" specifically refers to the text of the first amendment.

Are you just trolling here? I would think so if I hadn't just been accused of linking to a "liberal site" when I brought up the first amendment for a tea party fan who was here the other day. When he didn't recognize the text, he assumed it must be some liberal propaganda.

You have read the First Amendment, right?

Edit: Or did I misunderstand your objection? Are you saying that you can't believe O'Donnell didn't know this? In that case, watch the video of the debate in the Delaware thread for the truth about a tea party favorite with a Sarah Palin stamp on her forehead. The alleged savior of the Constitution has no idea what it says.
 
Last edited:
  • #733


lisab said:
What specific "Muslim issues" are you referring to?

The Ground Zero area Mosque debate is one.
 
  • #734


Ivan Seeking said:
Are you just trolling here? I would think so if I hadn't just been accused of linking to a "liberal site" when I brought up the first amendment for a tea party fan who was here the other day. When he didn't recognize the text, he assumed it must be some liberal propaganda.

You have read the First Amendment, right?

Edit: Or did I misunderstand your objection? Are you saying that you can't believe O'Donnell didn't know this? In that case, watch the video of the debate in the Delaware thread for the truth about a tea party favorite with a Sarah Palin stamp on her forehead. The alleged savior of the Constitution has no idea what it says.
Yes, I know what the first amendment says. No, I'm not trolling. Asking for a source for a claim is trolling, now?

Yes, I have watched that video. It does not substantiate in any way a claim that O'Donnell "questioned the appearance of the establishment clause in the First Amendment".

Edit: I watched that video again, and now see how her question might be interpreted that way. I didn't notice it the first time because it seemed so obvious to me that she was referring to "separation of church and state", not the establishment clause. I can't be 100% sure of that, but that's how it appears to me.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #735
Last edited:
  • #736


Gokul43201 said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miwSljJAzqg#t=7m01s

PS: I thought this was already covered here, but it seems I'm remembering a discussion that happened in the other thread. See here: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=2942011#post2942011
OK, thanks for the reference. I haven't been keeping up with that thread, since I'm not from Delaware, but I can now see how her question "That's in the first amendment?" might be construed as her using the word "that" to refer to the establishment clause. It doesn't appear that way to me, since her opponent referred to "separation of church and state" immediately prior to mention of the establishment clause, and her question followed both.

It appears to me that she meant "separation of church and state" by "that", partly because that's in line with the historical view of many Republicans.

But since her opponent mixed them both together, technically it's possible that she could have been referring to either or both, so perhaps we'll never know for sure.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #737


IMO, all the political parties/groups claim to "love the Constitution," that is, until it says something they don't like or prevents something they want. Libertarians (of the Libertarian party) will claim the Federal Reserve is unconstitutional and that there is no protection of the right to vote in the Constitution (apparently they never checked the 14th Amendment), leftists claim the 2nd Amendment is a collective right and that the commerce clause allows the government to force people to purchase health insurance, conservatives claim there is no separation of church and state in the Constitution, etc...
 
  • #738


Gokul43201 said:
Correct. The first amendment (1791) states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..." ("establishment" clause + "free exercise" clause). Jefferson interpreted the combination of these two clauses as erecting "a wall of separation between church and state" (1800-ish, in a letter to a Baptist group), and a number of subsequent court decisions have used the same interpretation (e.g., the discussion in Everson v. Board of Education).
That may have indeed been Jefferson's wish, a "separation", as he was hostile to most forms of organized religion. His wish is also, it seems to me, irrelevant. The words ratified by the colonies were "no ... establishment"; the two phrases are not equivalent, nor did Jefferson's particular turn of phrase see pre-signing debate as did other issues in the Federalist / Anti Federalist debates - an area where the courts frequently go for intent. The ratifiers wanted no repeat of a government coupled Church of England (or of Rome) in America; the establishment clause is an imminently clear and straightforward statement of that desire. The same ratifiers almost certainly would not have gone along with words leading to no prayer to open public meetings (such as in Congress or schools), or no chaplains in the Army, and it seems to me from the differences in Jefferson's semi-private letters and his public writings / pronouncements that Jefferson knew it.
 
Last edited:
  • #739


CAC1001 said:
IMO, all the political parties/groups claim to "love the Constitution," that is, until it says something they don't like or prevents something they want. Libertarians (of the Libertarian party) will claim the Federal Reserve is unconstitutional and that there is no protection of the right to vote in the Constitution (apparently they never checked the 14th Amendment), leftists claim the 2nd Amendment is a collective right and that the commerce clause allows the government to force people to purchase health insurance, conservatives claim there is no separation of church and state in the Constitution, etc...

Couldnt one say that the 14th ammendment was null and void, just on the basis that federal troops kept voters that didnt agree with their views out of the voting booth(by force of arms) during the time it was added? And as far as that goes, couldn't it go for all laws passed between 1860 and 1870(atleast, maybe longer). If the founders were so worried about taxation without representation, wouldn't they feel the same way about lawmaking without representation?
 
  • #740
BobG said:
You would have to show that the government was trying to promote or encourage membership in a particular religion; or to alienate non-members of a particular religion.

WhoWee said:
Perhaps this is why people want President Obama to distance himself from Muslim issues?

lisab said:
What specific "Muslim issues" are you referring to?

WhoWee said:
The Ground Zero area Mosque debate is one.

Obama said:
"This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable," Mr. Obama said. "The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country, and will not be treated differently by their government, is essential to who we are. The writ of our founders must endure."
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20013655-503544.html

Saying religious freedom applies to all religions (including the Muslim religion) is promoting the Muslim religion? Or is it alienating the religions that despise the Muslim religion?
 
  • #741
BobG said:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20013655-503544.html

Saying religious freedom applies to all religions (including the Muslim religion) is promoting the Muslim religion? Or is it alienating the religions that despise the Muslim religion?

Why does Obama ned to be involved in a local building permit issue...perhaps his intent was to act as Chief Religion Policeman?
 
  • #742
WhoWee said:
Why does Obama ned to be involved in a local building permit issue...perhaps his intent was to act as Chief Religion Policeman?

Perhaps you were sleeping while the story was brewing (as most sane people probably were, considering this should have never received national attention at all).

How the "ground zero mosque" fear mongering began

Followed, of course, by the infamous tweet of Sarah Palin which invented the new word "refudiate":
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20010892-503544.html

The issue had become hard to ignore by time Obama commented on it.
 
  • #743
  • #744


Paul's a great candidate in my opinion, leads Conway by http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/kentucky/election_2010_kentucky_senate"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #745


mheslep said:
Paul's a great candidate in my opinion, leads Conway by http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/kentucky/election_2010_kentucky_senate"

Does the poll include non-citizens who will be allowed to vote...opps wrong state.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #746


CAC1001 said:
Libertarians (of the Libertarian party) will claim...that there is no protection of the right to vote in the Constitution (apparently they never checked the 14th Amendment)...
I hate to point this out, being a big fan of voting, but the 14th amendment contains no protection of the right to vote. It in fact acknowledges that a state may prohibit people from voting. It only requires that the state's federal representation be reduced in the same proportion as the proportion of adult males not allowed to vote.

This provides a huge incentive for each state to allow everyone to vote that they possibly can, but it does not actually guarantee the right to vote.
 
  • #747


CAC1001 said:
IMO, all the political parties/groups claim to "love the Constitution," that is, until it says something they don't like or prevents something they want. Libertarians (of the Libertarian party) will claim the Federal Reserve is unconstitutional and that there is no protection of the right to vote in the Constitution (apparently they never checked the 14th Amendment), leftists claim the 2nd Amendment is a collective right and that the commerce clause allows the government to force people to purchase health insurance, conservatives claim there is no separation of church and state in the Constitution, etc...

Al68 said:
I hate to point this out, being a big fan of voting, but the 14th amendment contains no protection of the right to vote. It in fact acknowledges that a state may prohibit people from voting. It only requires that the state's federal representation be reduced in the same proportion as the proportion of adult males not allowed to vote.

This provides a huge incentive for each state to allow everyone to vote that they possibly can, but it does not actually guarantee the right to vote.

AI's right about this. In fact, that's why blacks had to be given the right to vote in a separate amendment (15th Amendment). And why women had to be given the right to vote in a separate amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution[/url ). And why 18-year-olds had to be given the right to vote in a separate amendment (26th Amendment).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #748


BobG said:
AI's right about this. In fact, that's why blacks had to be given the right to vote in a separate amendment (15th Amendment). And why women had to be given the right to vote in a separate amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution[/url ). And why 18-year-olds had to be given the right to vote in a separate amendment (26th Amendment).
Yes, but even after those amendments, it's perfectly constitutional for a state to deny people the right to vote because of their height, weight, length of hair, baldness, shoe size, vegetarianism, lopsided breasts, funny walk, visual acuteness, sharpness of teeth, cavities, fingernail length, or astrological sign. (Not an all-inclusive list) :biggrin:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #749


If a state denies people their right to vote however, then aren't they are denied the ability to send representatives to the federal government...?
 
  • #750


CAC1001 said:
If a state denies people their right to vote however, then aren't they are denied the ability to send representatives to the federal government...?

No. (Was that a trick question?)
 

Similar threads

News Are the Core Beliefs of Republicans and the Tea Party Different?
  • · Replies 75 ·
3
Replies
75
Views
10K
News Richard Dawkins on Rick Perry (and the rest of the Republican Party)
  • · Replies 293 ·
10
Replies
293
Views
35K
News Paul Krugman Explains True Conservatism: Same Old Party
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
News Mr. President: Coffins ? Bring Them On ?
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
News How long until the left labels Zell Miller a traitor?
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
5K