Maine Republicans Adopt Tea Party Platform

[Walter Ego]

This is surprising because Maine Republicans are usually known for being moderates (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0510/Tea-party-backed-platform-sails-through-Maine-GOP-convention).

The official platform for the Republican Party of Maine is now a mix of right-wing fringe policies, libertarian buzzwords and outright conspiracy theories.

The document calls for the elimination of the Department of Education and the Federal Reserve, demands an investigation of "collusion between government and industry in the global warming myth," suggests the adoption of "Austrian Economics," declares that "'Freedom of Religion' does not mean 'freedom from religion'" (which I guess makes atheism illegal), insists that "healthcare is not a right," calls for the abrogation of the "UN Treaty on Rights of the Child" and the "Law Of The Sea Treaty" and declares that we must resist "efforts to create a one world government."

Dan Billings, who has served as an attorney for the Maine GOP, called the new platform "wack job pablum" and "nutcase stuff."

http://www.mainepolitics.net/content/maine-republicans-adopt-tea-party-platform

The entire platform can be read here (http://www.mainepolitics.net/sites/default/files/Maine_GOP_platform.pdf) (pdf doc).

Edit:

Tea partiers celebrated two victories this weekend. The first was ousting Sen. Bob Bennett of Utah after 18 years in office at the state's Republican nominating convention. The second was rewriting the Maine Republican Party's platform to read like a Tea Party manifesto, anti-ACORN provisions and all.

Both victories were greeted with shock—and predictions of more Tea Party revolts to come. "It's the beginning of a trend," said Robin Wright of Bennett's defeat on ABC News' This Week. But neither event is likely to be replicated on a large scale. Rather, they were examples of grassroots activists taking advantage of the quirks in two states' electoral processes—in one case, the nominating process, in another, the party platform process—to draw national attention...

Most state GOP conventions accept the party platform approved by the platform committee, which consists of party representatives from each county. When the platform reaches the floor, other delegates sometimes offer minor amendments. This time, [in Maine] though, one county committee offered an amendment that would repeal the original platform and replace it with a whole new document. It passed. Now the official Maine Republican Party platform explicitly opposes the Fairness Doctrine, advocates a "return to the principles of Austrian Economics," and warns against "efforts to create a one world government."

http://www.slate.com/toolbar.aspx?action=read&id=2253502

[Darth Rotor]

Given what happened to Bennet in Utah, this appears to be a survival tactic.

[ponderingturtle]

Well at least the Tea Party is now getting behind actual agenda's. Shame they failed to get Obama deported in Arizona though, that would have been a major victory for them.

[Upchurch]

Given what happened to Bennet in Utah, this appears to be a survival tactic.
It is an interesting situation. The GOP is moving towards the fringe elements of the right to win popular support from their base. In '08, this was at the cost of the general election. A "win the battle, but lose the war" sort of thing.

Maybe I'm being cynical, but I have to think party leaders are aware of the lesson from that last election. Perhaps it is a strategic move: Hold the party together for now, take the lumps, and reposition for a stronger position later on?

[BaaBaa]

The neighbours done lost their minds!

[Thunder]

good. let the GOP destroy themselves. it will ensure Obama's re-election in 2012 and the Democrats keeping Congress in November.

[Upchurch]

let the GOP destroy themselves.
That's what I'm saying. At this point, they may not have much of a choice. Either they bow down the the extreme right fringes and lose the election, or they risk fragmenting the party (possibly, but not likely, loosing out to the rise of a new two party dynamic that doesn't include the GOP) and lose the election.

It's a lose-lose situation, but one loss is better than the other.

[Darth Rotor]

It is an interesting situation. The GOP is moving towards the fringe elements of the right to win popular support from their base. In '08, this was at the cost of the general election. A "win the battle, but lose the war" sort of thing.
When the better strategy might have been to lose a battle but win a war. They ought to take a lesson from the Democrats a few years and decades back, on how giving the fringe too much voice can cost them elections.
Maybe I'm being cynical, but I have to think party leaders are aware of the lesson from that last election.
I doubt it. They are still kilt fitting.
Perhaps it is a strategic move: Hold the party together for now, take the lumps, and reposition for a stronger position later on?
You don't win without the swing voters. What they are doing now seems to be hell bent on alientating same.

DR

[drkitten]

When the better strategy might have been to lose a battle but win a war. They ought to take a lesson from the Democrats a few years and decades back, on how giving the fringe too much voice can cost them elections.

Well, that's the question. Most of the energy, money, and publicity is already coming in from the fringe. If the fringe can't control the Republican party, they have already been making noises about creating a new party they CAN control.

Giving the fringe too much voice can cost them elections. Giving the fringe too little voice might well cost the Republican party its existence.

[ponderingturtle]

That's what I'm saying. At this point, they may not have much of a choice. Either they bow down the the extreme right fringes and lose the election, or they risk fragmenting the party (possibly, but not likely, loosing out to the rise of a new two party dynamic that doesn't include the GOP) and lose the election.

It's a lose-lose situation, but one loss is better than the other.

Depends, if they feel that they can get enough people to vote more against the democratic party instead of for them than they can win. I doubt that they can get that level of hate going on, as Bush II seems to be the only politician to be able to do that in recent history.

Long term this is a bad strategy, but long term thinking is getting more and more passe anyway.

[Darth Rotor]

Giving the fringe too much voice can cost them elections. Giving the fringe too little voice might well cost the Republican party its existence.
I see what you are saying, but I think it's the other way around.

Give the fringe too little voice costs money, costs elections.

Give fringe too much voice and the GOP becomes a fringe party, not one of the major power blocs. See how well that worked out for the Greens and Libertarians.

I wish I had a pithy line about how the Whigs became irrelevant. Maybe it doesn't matter. ;)

DR

[Darth Rotor]

Long term this is a bad strategy, but long term thinking is getting more and more passe anyway.
If you mean in the GOP, seems true at the moment. If you mean generally in politics, I think a notable exception to that perceived trend is President Obama.

I offer a few data points for your condiseration, though this idea isn't original with me. In the past five months, I have read a few articles on people who have worked with him on his campaign, and elsewhere, who each commented on his abilities in strategic thinking.

He took his time, didn't rush, in his decisions on what to do in Afghanistan.

The bailout of GM was seen as a short term fix, but it looked to me more strategic, in terms of his aims and goals for energy efficient cars and the health of the US auto industry. (The decision on Chrysler in the 80's was linked in part to tank production, don't see that link in the GM move).

His patience on the DADT change, and how he's made the DoD take ownership of that change. Very different strategy from Bill Clinton's.

He is patiently engaging with Iran. That play looks to be more long term. (Recent article with Hillary Clinton, Sec State, shows me that the general Iran approach is mid to long term strategic in scope). They are now relooking the regional defense/security umbrella. May not work out to be that big of a change.

His relative patience with the Health Care debate which was almost unnecessary, given that he had both houses of Congress on his side of the aisle already.

This is a slight derail, so back to the Maine Tea Party platform, strategy, and the self immolation of the GOP, which began for my money in 2004.

CT moment: maybe "they" have intended for the GOP to self-destruct all along! :eek:

[Chaos]

That's what I'm saying. At this point, they may not have much of a choice. Either they bow down the the extreme right fringes and lose the election, or they risk fragmenting the party (possibly, but not likely, loosing out to the rise of a new two party dynamic that doesn't include the GOP) and lose the election.

It's a lose-lose situation, but one loss is better than the other.

But what if, in trying to avoid having the extreme fringe split off, they go so far to the extreme that the saner parts of the party split off, because they can´t take the tea-partyism any more?

[Darth Rotor]

But what if, in trying to avoid having the extreme fringe split off, they go so far to the extreme that the saner parts of the party split off, because they can´t take the tea-partyism any more?
Defeat as a habit.

[casebro]

But what if, in trying to avoid having the extreme fringe split off, they go so far to the extreme that the saner parts of the party split off, because they can´t take the tea-partyism any more?

Then merge with the moderate Dems, and become the Centrist Party, with 65% of the power?

[Darth Rotor]

Then merge with the moderate Dems, and become the Centrist Party, with 65% of the power?

Too easy.

[AlBell]

Then merge with the moderate Dems, and become the Centrist Party, with 65% of the power?

Too easy.
Not really. Moderate Dem is a first class oxymoron.

[Chaos]

Defeat as a habit.

If they cause the moderates to split off, then whether or not these moderates join the Democrats, the One True Republican Party will be weaker than it was, and thus in all probability weaker than the Democrats, with or without the moderate ex-Republicans.
However, they *might* cause some nutters, non-Tea-Party variety, to join for whom the original GOP was way too moderate; if they can create the appearance of really meaning the anti-federal-government stuff they spout, they might even catch some Libertarians who are sick of always losing elections with the Libertarian Party.

If they cause the nutters to split off, this will also weaken them, but it *might* cause more middle-of-the-road people to join them, for whom the original GOP was too right-wing, and some of the more conservative Democrats might be persuaded to vote Republican now and then, so the More Sane Republican Party may or may not be stronger than before.

It really depends on the numbers of moderates versus the numbers of nutters out there.

[tyr_13]

Not really. Moderate Dem is a first class oxymoron.

That statement really says more about you than about Dems.


--------------------------------------------------------------------

The real reason why a centrist party is unlikely to form in the US is that the two major parties are defined by their fringe. Every Centrist has an opinion on one of the more contentious policy issues that aligns with the fringe more closely than the 'centist' position. Couple this with the US 'all or nothing' political system which awards no power to second or third place, and you have a system very resistant from changing away from two parties that are for the most part and in most times, just left of center and just right of center. That currently the Republicans are moving towards the right, or even the far right, will mean trouble from them if they don't play it right.

[AlBell]

That statement really says more about you than about Dems.


--------------------------------------------------------------------

..... two parties that are for the most part and in most times, just left of center and just right of center.
A belief that the Democrat party is 'just left of center' says more about the usual far-left social-progressive atheist who posts here rather than reality.

We'll discover who's 'right' in 2010.

[Cleon]

A belief that the Democrat party is 'just left of center' says more about the usual far-left social-progressive atheist who posts here rather than reality.

Be sure to wipe the spittle off your keyboard.


We'll discover who's 'right' in 2010.

No, it doesn't work like that. Facts are not decided by election.

[Brainster]

The fringe-type people can get things done at events like party caucuses because so few people actually show up for those things. Remember how the Ronulans disrupted the Nevada Republican Party convention in 2008? But when it comes time for people to actually vote, the Tea Party gang has been largely impotent (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/richard-adams-blog/2010/may/05/primaries-ohio-indiana-north-carolina).

[AlBell]

Be sure to wipe the spittle off your keyboard.
None there.



No, it doesn't work like that. Facts are not decided by election.
One of the few 'political facts' is that winning elections is how politicians take office. After that, what facts have I missed?

[Cleon]

None there.

Must've gotten in on the monitor, then.


One of the few 'political facts' is that winning elections is how politicians take office. After that, what facts have I missed?

:confused: Yeah, ok.

As a reminder:


A belief that the Democrat party is 'just left of center' says more about the usual far-left social-progressive atheist who posts here rather than reality.

We'll discover who's 'right' in 2010.

No, 2010 will not decide whether the Democrats are "just left of center." Nor will it validate your ridiculous notion that "moderate Dem is a first class oxymoron."

[mhaze]

A belief that the Democrat party is 'just left of center' says more about the usual far-left social-progressive atheist who posts here rather than reality.

We'll discover who's 'right' in 2010.I've seen little evidence that most Democrats "get it".

It's about big vs small government, at this point.

[Cleon]

I've seen little evidence that most Democrats "get it".

Depends on what "it" is.


It's about big vs small government, at this point.

"At this point?" I've heard people ranting about "big vs. small government" since at least the 1980s.

It's irrelevant, though; "big vs. small government" is vague, undefinable language, which works great for an "us vs. them" mentality but does little to suggest actual policy.

[AlBell]

None there.

Must've gotten in on the monitor, then.
Nope. Must be your problem.


One of the few 'political facts' is that winning elections is how politicians take office. After that, what facts have I missed?

:confused: Yeah, ok.

As a reminder:


A belief that the Democrat party is 'just left of center' says more about the usual far-left social-progressive atheist who posts here rather than reality.

We'll discover who's 'right' in 2010.

No, 2010 will not decide whether the Democrats are "just left of center." Nor will it validate your ridiculous notion that "moderate Dem is a first class oxymoron."
Ridiculous? Only to you far-lefties who have the mistaken notion they are 'just left of center'. Most Republicans currently in congress are 'just left of center', as typified by McCain and Crist in FL.

And I'm still waiting for one of those 'facts' you think I'm missing.

[tyr_13]

Nope. Must be your problem.


Ridiculous? Only to you far-lefties who have the mistaken notion they are 'just left of center'. Most Republicans currently in congress are 'just left of center', as typified by McCain and Crist in FL.

And I'm still waiting for one of those 'facts' you think I'm missing.

Well that explains it. You're one of those people who accuse your opponent of your almost exact tactic before they can point it out of you. You're so far to the left that centrists like McCain are 'just left of center'. You redefine the American political landscape so that 'most real Americans' are on your side, regardless of their actual political views.

Remember the last election? Yeah, most Americans would disagree with your assessment, and more importantly, most people who actually understand politics would disagree.

And that's as far as I'll go into this minor derail.

[Cleon]

Ridiculous? Only to you far-lefties who have the mistaken notion they are 'just left of center'. Most Republicans currently in congress are 'just left of center', as typified by McCain and Crist in FL.

I can only conclude from the above that either:

1. You are completely off the register Edited for rule 12 or
2. You are completely ignorant of what the words "left" and "right" mean in this context.


And I'm still waiting for one of those 'facts' you think I'm missing.

Once again:


No, 2010 will not decide whether the Democrats are "just left of center." Nor will it validate your ridiculous notion that "moderate Dem is a first class oxymoron."

Why you think 2010 will decide such a thing is a mystery to me, but the fact that you haven't even bothered trying to reassert it (much less justify it) tells me that you don't really believe it, either.

Which means you're just spewing crap, really.

[AlBell]

You're so far to the left that centrists like McCain are 'just left of center'.
What a truly odd thought.


You redefine the American political landscape so that 'most real Americans' are on your side, regardless of their actual political views.
I find the phrase 'real Americans' humorous.

Remember the last election?
Yes, I do. I suspect the next will have quite a different outcome.


Yeah, most Americans would disagree with your assessment, and more importantly, most people who actually understand politics would disagree.
We will find out Nov 2010 and 2012.

[MikeMangum]

1: legislation must adhere to the constitution
2: States should join together to fight unconstitutional encroachments of the Federal government on the powers of the states
3: support the 2nd amendment
4: Pass a "read the bill" act
5: oppose the fairness doctrine, or any other name under which speech restrictions might be imposed
6: Reject the Orwellian "Employee Free Choice Act" to remove the secret ballot requirement to start a union
7: Prohibit government funding of advocacy groups; ensure proper voter registration and ID requirements; resist efforts to allow foreigners to vote
8: Oppose any foreign treaties that limit US sovereignty
9: Assimilate legal immigrants into society; change Maine to no longer be a sanctuary state; no benefits or citenzship for illegal immigrants; deport illegal immigrants
10: term limits; no pension for members of congress; congress cannot vote themselves pay raises; congress must use the same healthcare plan as the general public under the same rules; congress must abide by all the laws they impose on the general public
11: Freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion
12: promote marriage (they include a definition of marriage as between a man and woman); parents make the decisions for their children, not government; "we recognize the sancity of life, which includes the unborn"
13: take the war on radical Islam seriously; seal the border
14: encourage saving and investing
15: cut spending, balance the budget, pay off the debt - "generational debt shifting is immoral"
16: audit the Fed
17: stop political manipulation of economic statistics
18: require the government to follow the same accounting rules as businesses
19: restore the part of welfare reform that was removed with the stimulus bill
20: no cap and trade
21: freeze stimulus spending and apply it to the debt
22: remove roadblocks to energy resource use and extraction, including nuclear
23: implement zero based budgeting
24: "Espouse and follow the principle: It is immoral to steal the property rightfully earned by one person, and give it to another who has no claim or right to its benefits"
25: healthcare is not a right, it is a service, and the healthcare bill is unconstitutional - allow purchase of insurance across state lines, implement tort reform, some Main specific healthcare stuff
26: Eliminate the Dept of Ed and restore full control to local authorities
27: "b. Repeal and prohibit any participation in efforts to create a one world government"

The only things in there that seem to me be a bit "out there" is the part about auditing the Fed (which is a shame*), abolishing the Dept of Education, and the pablum about "one world government". The rest of it seems to me to be policy issues that, at the very least, a significant minority of people would not find objectionable, individually.

By the way, this platform was not proposed by a tea partier.
Mr. Dyer says he and his co-authors aren’t members of the tea party, although some have attended such events. They were motivated by disappointment with the party’s “progressive” wing, which had “forgotten what it means to be a Republican,” he says.

He agrees that the document is vague in parts, but that was because they had expected it to be merely a draft to begin negotiations with less-conservative party members. To their amazement, it passed with the support of not only tea-party groups, evangelical Christians, and Ron Paul libertarians, but also a large number of presumably rank-and-file conventioneers.

Keep in mind that this is Maine, where there actually IS a progressive wing of the Republican party.

If it was a tea party platform, it wouldn't have anything in there about marriage, abortion, or other social issues.


* The Fed is being given greater and greater power to regulate the economy but is not accountable to the electorate. The financial regulation legislation before Congress has the Fed becoming a regulator, for instance. Keep in mind that the Fed is not part of any of the 3 branches of government. Giving pushback against making the Fed a regulator doesn't seem whacky to me, but those gold bugs who simply want to attack the Fed any way they can because they hate fiat money are not the sort of people to bring real concerns about the role of the Fed before the public simply because they have little credibility on the issue. It's like a mid 70s Jane Fonda saying she wants to streamline the military's procurement system - you just assume hostility. The "crying wolf" aspect will innoculate the Fed against real criticisms. The Fed should stay what it was designed to be, a central bank whose purpose to maintain a stable currency.

[MikeMangum]

BTW, all the **** hand waving about who is left, right, far left, far right, centrist etc. is a waste of time. Those are all relative terms.

[MattusMaximus]

The fringe-type people can get things done at events like party caucuses because so few people actually show up for those things. Remember how the Ronulans disrupted the Nevada Republican Party convention in 2008? But when it comes time for people to actually vote, the Tea Party gang has been largely impotent (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/richard-adams-blog/2010/may/05/primaries-ohio-indiana-north-carolina).

True, but this is going to be a big embarrassment for the Maine GOP. My guess is that once word of this gets out, a great number of moderates & independents in Maine are going to start scratching their heads and considering other options.

The implosion continues...

[MattusMaximus]

I've seen little evidence that most Democrats "get it".

Yup, that whole 2006 and 2008 election cycle was meaningless :rolleyes:

It's about big vs small government, at this point.

Uhhhh, where have you been, mhaze? As has been pointed out already, this particular horse has been beaten to death. Good grief.

[Puppycow]

This is nice to know, but platforms have always been mostly meaningless and politicians are free to ignore any controversial parts of them.

Senator Bennet losing at a convention is "an exception that proves the rule." This couldn't happen in most states where nominations are decided by primary.

[Ladewig]

11: Freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion


You may not realize that the claim that "Freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion" is frequently used by the Religious Right to justify school prayer.


24: "Espouse and follow the principle: It is immoral to steal the property rightfully earned by one person, and give it to another who has no claim or right to its benefits"

If anyone thinks that the Tea Party protesters are angry now, just wait until they get their wish and Medicare is eliminated.

[elbe]

parents make the decisions for their children, not government; "we recognize the sancity of life, which includes the unborn"

They government shouldn't be allowed to tell it's citizens what they can or cannot do, so make it illegal to get abortions!

[Darth Rotor]

11: Freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion

While true, that rather misses the point. The First Amendment addresses the freedom of religion, and freedom from (mandatory State) religion.

Put another way, point 11 is empty.

DR

[PixyMisa]

This is surprising because Maine Republicans are usually known for being moderates (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0510/Tea-party-backed-platform-sails-through-Maine-GOP-convention).

The entire platform can be read here (http://www.mainepolitics.net/sites/default/files/Maine_GOP_platform.pdf) (pdf doc).
I read through it: Okay, that's just affirming the Constitution. That's just affirming the Constitution. That and that and that, just affirming the Constitution. This and this are defensible postions. Then it went insane.

[ponderingturtle]

I read through it: Okay, that's just affirming the Constitution. That's just affirming the Constitution. That and that and that, just affirming the Constitution. This and this are defensible postions. Then it went insane.

See it all depends on what they think the constitution means.

[CORed]

Given what happened to Bennet in Utah, this appears to be a survival tactic.

I think it's more an "out of the frying pan, into the fire" tactic. At least I hope so. If the Tea Partiers actually gain control, the US is in deep doodoo.

ETA: I had really hoped that the defeat in 2008 would have pushed the Republican Party closer to sanity. Instead, I think it has had the opposite effect. I'm beginning to think that that the only hope for a sensible conservative/libertarian party is for the GOP to die out and a new party to form. The GOP seems to be working hard on the dying out part. I think the second half of that will be the inevitable result of that.

[CORed]

Well, that's the question. Most of the energy, money, and publicity is already coming in from the fringe. If the fringe can't control the Republican party, they have already been making noises about creating a new party they CAN control.

Giving the fringe too much voice can cost them elections. Giving the fringe too little voice might well cost the Republican party its existence.

I disagree. I think letting the fringe take control will cost the party its existence (as a party that has any influence anyway, a fringe "Republican Party" may still be around for a long time). I think it is inevitable that there will be a lunatic fringe right wing party and a more mainstream conservative party. I think the question is which one of those the Republican Party will be, and it's starting to look like the Republican Party will be the lunatic fringe party.

[Darth Rotor]

I had really hoped that the defeat in 2008 would have pushed the Republican Party closer to sanity. Instead, I think it has had the opposite effect.
Yes. Maybe Thomas Friedman's tired and overused cliche of "creative destruction" (Pre 9-11) will apply here. :rolleyes:

[WildCat]

It's a combination of Alex Jones and Ron Paul, and taken over the whole party!

Eventually this will spawn a viable 3rd party, I'm hoping! Though we'd quickly be back to 2 parties, because the crazy one like the Maine GOP has turned into won't have much long-term appeal.

[dudalb]

Can't wait to see what Maine's most famous citizen. Stephan King has to say about this since his more recent novel, "Under the Dome" has some not very subtle attacks on The Far Right.

[MattusMaximus]

I think it's more an "out of the frying pan, into the fire" tactic. At least I hope so. If the Tea Partiers actually gain control, the US is in deep doodoo.

The hard right elements a la the Tea Party won't gain control per se, or at least if they did it would make the ham-fisted governance by the GOP from 2000-2006 look desirable - then they'd get their asses kicked rather quickly in the next election cycle. My guess is, at most, they'll serve as a kind of "nutty uncle" within the Republican party for a time, basically making embarrassments of themselves.

ETA: I had really hoped that the defeat in 2008 would have pushed the Republican Party closer to sanity. Instead, I think it has had the opposite effect. I'm beginning to think that that the only hope for a sensible conservative/libertarian party is for the GOP to die out and a new party to form. The GOP seems to be working hard on the dying out part. I think the second half of that will be the inevitable result of that.

I think there's something to this. The long term demographic trends look very grim for the GOP, and its strategists know it. That's why you're seeing a schism within the party, despite the fact they're trying to hide it, on issues concerning immigration. The black vote is lost to the Republicans, and with the Tea Party types banging the anti-immigration drum so loudly of late (with a tinge of racist perception in for taste) the GOP can pretty much count out the Hispanic population as well. All the data I've seen indicate the GOP is only really popular with older, white Americans.

Not a good sign for a party that wishes to remain relevant in the long term. My guess is they'll get some victories in the 2010 cycle, crow long and loud about it, take it as "a sign" that they should continue playing the obstructionist role, and they'll get pwned in 2012 by a pissed off electorate.

In the meantime, I think they'll also lose a good number of moderates - not necessarily people who would go vote for the Dems, but people the GOP needs in order to stay competitive. Take a look at what happened in NY Dist. 23 and what's happening now in Florida for lessons on this.

[dudalb]

The more legitimate points the Tea Party has,like the Deficit, is being drowned out by the growing emphasis on race and "social issues".There is already a bad split in the movement between the Libertarian wing and the "Christian Conservative" wing.

[MikeMangum]

While true, that rather misses the point. The First Amendment addresses the freedom of religion, and freedom from (mandatory State) religion.

I've never seen the phrase used to mean 'you are free to choose your religion, but you still must participate in religious activities'. I'd be appreciative if someone could actually find the phrase used in that way - and not just by people who are asserting motives for others. I've always seen the phrase in the context of 'you are free to choose your religion, or no religion, but you have no right to restrict others from practising their religion because it offends your sensibilities'.

Things like bans on the colors red and green for an elementary class' Christmas mid-winter party, bans on students giving each other religious items on school grounds, schools making classrooms available after school for all sorts of groups but banning a bible study group, etc.

[MattusMaximus]

The more legitimate points the Tea Party has,like the Deficit, is being drowned out by the growing emphasis on race and "social issues".There is already a bad split in the movement between the Libertarian wing and the "Christian Conservative" wing.

I never could have seen this coming... oh wait, I did.

Color me surprised. What do you expect when there is a group of people (social/religious conservatives) who simply pay lip service to "small government" when what they really mean is "big government that we want to control in order to force our religious beliefs on the rest of you."

It's only a matter of time before this Tea Party fad implodes.

[Ladewig]

I've never seen the phrase used to mean 'you are free to choose your religion, but you still must participate in religious activities'. I'd be appreciative if someone could actually find the phrase used in that way - and not just by people who are asserting motives for others. I've always seen the phrase in the context of 'you are free to choose your religion, or no religion, but you have no right to restrict others from practising their religion because it offends your sensibilities'.

Things like bans on the colors red and green for an elementary class' Christmas mid-winter party, bans on students giving each other religious items on school grounds, schools making classrooms available after school for all sorts of groups but banning a bible study group, etc.

Is your first paragraph referring to "freedom of religion" or "freedom from religion"?

[drkitten]

I've never seen the phrase used to mean 'you are free to choose your religion, but you still must participate in religious activities'. I'd be appreciative if someone could actually find the phrase used in that way - and not just by people who are asserting motives for others.

Happy to help. (http://www.deaconforchrist.com/cevents.php?cevid=1)

From that site:


Two hundred years ago, our founding fathers wanted religious freedom. So they put into our constitution that Congress shall pass no law establishing a religion. By this they meant that no one Christian religion would be the official religion of the United States. Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to a Baptist group describing the “wall of separation” of church and state. The purpose of that wall was to protect religion from the overpowering control of government. This “wall of separation of church and state” is not in our constitution. The right to practice religion freely without government interference is one of our basic rights and is found in our constitution. If you’ve heard of freedom of the press, you should also have heard of freedom of religion. For the first 150 years of this country, religion and government were not at odds with each other. About 55 years ago, secularists and atheists challenged prayer in school. The Supreme Court took prayer out of school and since that time, prayer has been removed from graduation ceremonies and football games.
[...]To promote the religious dimension of the Ten Commandments is to ask to have them removed from public areas. Religion in America is flat out under attack by atheists. There is no freedom from religion in our constitution, but there is freedom of religion.

The whole reason for bans on prayer at graduation and football games is precisely because (as the SCOTUS has held), the spectators are compelled to participate as listeners. This person is specifically demanding the authority to so compel the spectators.

ETA also note the misinterpretation of the Establishment clause. Somehow, the author got from the concept of no official religion to the idea of "no one Christian religion" (by which of course, they mean "sect"). Apparently the author is just peachy with the idea of establishing interdenominational Christianity as a state religion, as long as it's no one specific sect.

[cwalner]

Happy to help. (http://www.deaconforchrist.com/cevents.php?cevid=1)

ETA also note the misinterpretation of the Establishment clause. Somehow, the author got from the concept of no official religion to the idea of "no one Christian religion" (by which of course, they mean "sect"). Apparently the author is just peachy with the idea of establishing interdenominational Christianity as a state religion, as long as it's no one specific sect.

It is also (in my mind) a very willful misinterpretation. from your quote
So they put into our constitution that Congress shall pass no law establishing a religion.
yet the actual text is:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Yeah, I know its semantics, but sometimes semantics are important.

[Darth Rotor]

I've never seen the phrase used to mean 'you are free to choose your religion, but you still must participate in religious activities'.
Nor have I.

[cwalner]

In all fairness, from drkitten's post, it seems as if those who argue against 'Freedom from Religion' see it differently from us.

We see it as freedom to chose no religion. They see it as a phrase we evil atheists use to justify a state-enforced lack of religion.

Think of it like how we rail against discriminatory practices under the guise of 'Freedom of Religion" (ie landlord refusing to rent to homosexuals).

I am not saying that they are correct, but there seems to be a very strong disconnect between the way use the phrase and the way the hardcore theists do. Understanding that may help move the discussion in more productive directions.

[Walter Ego]

:eye-poppi :eek:

The Republican convention was at the Portland Expo, but participants went to the nearby King Middle School to hold their caucuses. While there, they went through eighth-grade teacher Paul Clifford’s items, opened sealed boxes, stole a prized poster, and vandalized the room with Republican slogans.

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/05/14/maine-classroom-gop/

More:

http://www.pressherald.com/news/call-it-class-struggle-how-politics-went-too-far_2010-05-12.html

http://www.pressherald.com/news/incident-spurs-call-for-school-use-review_2010-05-13.html

http://www.bangordailynews.com/detail/143328.html

[tyr_13]

– Republicans opened a “closed cardboard box they found near Clifford’s desk” and later objected to the fact that it contained copies of the U.S. Constitution donated to the school by the American Civil Liberties Union.

These Tea Party leaning GOP members rifled though someone elses stuff, and objects that there are copies of the Constitution?

Let me get this right, they object to copies of the US Constitution.

[Cleon]

These Tea Party leaning GOP members rifled though someone elses stuff, and objects that there are copies of the Constitution?

Let me get this right, they object to copies of the US Constitution.

I imagine it was the source of those copies, not the copies themselves. The fact that the ACLU supplied them must taint them with evil or something.

[Alareth]

No, the evil liberal was hiding the Constitution handed directly to the Founders by God himself from the children.

He didn't want them to know all the stuff about us being a Christian nation it talks about.

[tyr_13]

To be fair, I think that the GOP officials are handling this nicely. They apologize for what the delegets did, and are not backing up some of the trouble makers claim of 'the ebil libreal' infesting the school.

[Walter Ego]

To be fair, I think that the GOP officials are handling this nicely. They apologize for what the delegets did, and are not backing up some of the trouble makers claim of 'the ebil libreal' infesting the school.

In other words a typical PR playbook response from the Maine GOP. Note also that the GOP spokesman couldn't resist adding this:

The chairman of the Knox County Republican Party, William Chapman, agreed that it was inappropriate for anyone to remove items or leave the GOP materials. Chapman said he was unaware who took the poster or left the sticker. He said he understands the poster would be returned or replaced.

“The school administration was kind enough to let us use the facility,” Chapman said in an interview. “We should have left it in the same condition that we found it.”

But Chapman acknowledged that he and others were disturbed by some of the posters they saw in the room, several of which he said obviously were made by professionals, not students. He described some of the posters as anti-American, anti-free enterprise and anti-religion.

“I saw nothing in the room — and nobody pointed out anything in the room — that appeared to give a more balanced view,” Chapman said.

http://www.bangordailynews.com/detail/143328.html

Read: "Yes, our delegates acted like Goths in town for a weekend in Rome and stole and rifled through private property but the teacher is a liberal commie pinko who should be fired when we take back America, elect Sarah Palin as president and install God back in our public classrooms. Did we mention the teacher is a pinko?"

[MattusMaximus]

Wow, blame the victim.

Classy :rolleyes:

ETA: Read the comments in the Bangor Daily News article. I think this idiocy is going to backfire badly on the Maine GOP. Good.

Btw, it would be interesting to know whether or not any charges are going to be filed in this case.

[tyr_13]

In other words a typical PR playbook response from the Maine GOP. Note also that the GOP spokesman couldn't resist adding this:



Read: "Yes, our delegates acted like Goths in town for a weekend in Rome and stole and rifled through private property but the teacher is a liberal commie pinko who should be fired when we take back America, elect Sarah Palin as president and install God back in our public classrooms. Did we mention the teacher is a pinko?"

Ouch, I withdraw my claim that they are handling it nicely.

[MattusMaximus]

Ouch, I withdraw my claim that they are handling it nicely.

Well, some of them (read: the moderates who realize how bad this looks) are trying to be nice and apologetic, but the wingnuts who seem to be taking over the Maine GOP are probably planning their next scorched-earth move.

I think these Tea Party goons have picked the wrong fight in Maine :popcorn1