The Tea Party: WWJD?

[Jack Russell]

What's up, guys.

I apologize in advance as I'm sure this topic has been covered ad nauseum here, but I personally am a newbie here, and I have yet to see what my fellow Christians think about this subject and I'm curious about it.

I guess I'm a little bit conflicted with the idea of the Tea Party to start off with. I initially support them in part because I assume they are socially conservative, but when it comes to an issue-specific party, I would prefer something like the Pro-Life Party or the Protect Marriage and Children Party (we seriously need this now) rather than a party who's main issue seems to be a problem with taxation, which Jesus obviously had no problem with when he told the Pharisees to "render unto Caesar" and when He told Peter to pay the Temple tax "so as not to offend them".

So this is kind of a poll topic I'm interested in starting. When it comes to the Tea Party, what would Jesus think, in your opinion?

I don't have an internet connection at home so I'll see you in a week, Lord willing. I look forward to your responses, and thanks in advance. God bless.

 

[Sketcher]

Jesus wasn't a political figure. Generally speaking I support the Tea Party, but those are just my political leanings. There are Christians who are against the Tea Party, but that's just their political leanings (or they've swallowed the left-wing talking points hook, line, and sinker rather than find out for themselves what the Tea Party is really about). I can't think of anything in Scripture that is for or against the Tea Party.

 

[BryanW92]

What's up, guys.

I apologize in advance as I'm sure this topic has been covered ad nauseum here, but I personally am a newbie here, and I have yet to see what my fellow Christians think about this subject and I'm curious about it.

I guess I'm a little bit conflicted with the idea of the Tea Party to start off with. I initially support them in part because I assume they are socially conservative, but when it comes to an issue-specific party, I would prefer something like the Pro-Life Party or the Protect Marriage and Children Party (we seriously need this now) rather than a party who's main issue seems to be a problem with taxation, which Jesus obviously had no problem with when he told the Pharisees to "render unto Caesar" and when He told Peter to pay the Temple tax "so as not to offend them".

So this is kind of a poll topic I'm interested in starting. When it comes to the Tea Party, what would Jesus think, in your opinion?

I don't have an internet connection at home so I'll see you in a week, Lord willing. I look forward to your responses, and thanks in advance. God bless.

Taxation in the modern context is a tool to control the people and to encourage certain behaviors in the population while discouraging others. Look at the recent IRS scandals to see how the taxation bureaucracy can be used as a weapon against the people.

Caesar did not allow deductions for activities deemed to be beneficial to the regime. He also did not set up an entitlement system that effectively makes tens of millions of people into permanent wards of the state from cradle to grave. The Tea Party is not against taxation. They are just opposed to excessive taxation and the unconstitutional redistributive schemes that taxes finances.

In earlier times, a ruler was considered a tyrant to be violently overthrown if his subjects were taxed at a 25% rate. Today, the average American works until May just to pay his taxes. That is well over 25%. If we truly rendered unto Caesar what is Caesars, then our Caesar would deserve an armed mob, followed by a new Caesar.

 

[revolutionist90]

Honestly, I believe Jesus was an apolitical figure so in present times he probably would really choose a party line. However, I do believe he would want Christians to obey his/his father's commands. Personally I like the tea-party since so far they are fairly socially conservative and I really do believe the gov needs to get out of just about everything. But there are also other parties that I like such as the Frederick Douglas Republicans. In terms of Republicans themselves there are about 1 person that I actually like so far. At the end of the day when all these parties fail we must lean on the teachings of our Father.
So in a nutshell, maybe you should be the one to bring more social issues to the forefront in the Tea Party group in your area. Since they get a lot of bashing from the media (racist,sexist etc) already and they seem fairly on the side of religion I wouldn't expect much opposition.

 

[revolutionist90]

Honestly, I believe Jesus was an apolitical figure so in present times he probably would really choose a party line. However, I do believe he would want Christians to obey his/his father's commands. Personally I like the tea-party since so far they are fairly socially conservative and I really do believe the gov needs to get out of just about everything. But there are also other parties that I like such as the Frederick Douglas Republicans. In terms of Republicans themselves there are about 1 person that I actually like so far. At the end of the day when all these parties fail we must lean on the teachings of our Father.
So in a nutshell, maybe you should be the one to bring more social issues to the forefront in the Tea Party group in your area. Since they get a lot of bashing from the media (racist,sexist etc) already and they seem fairly on the side of religion I wouldn't expect much opposition.

 

[Jack Russell]

I appreciate the replies, everyone. :]

 

[Jack Russell]

Hm, some interesting remarks there, Bryan.

But I wonder if you might lose a lot of people, including probably most of the entire Tea Party itself, with your last line.

If we truly rendered unto Caesar what is Caesars, then our Caesar would deserve an armed mob, followed by a new Caesar.

Are you saying you believe Jesus would advocate an armed uprising against our current government?

 

[Albion]

Jack, I agree with the sentiments already expressed that Jesus would probably not take sides on this. But I think that most Tea Partiers are sincere, ethical, willing to play by the rules, and not moved by personal ambition...and those are all virtues. So I don't see Jesus as being offended by that.

However, I do disagree with the idea that they are only tax-oriented. Their concerns, from what I see, are Constitution-oriented. Any attack on the Constitution, and any part of it, alarms them, not just taxation. What's more, they aren't against taxation, just excessive or unfair taxation.

 

[A New Dawn]

What's up, guys.

I apologize in advance as I'm sure this topic has been covered ad nauseum here, but I personally am a newbie here, and I have yet to see what my fellow Christians think about this subject and I'm curious about it.

I guess I'm a little bit conflicted with the idea of the Tea Party to start off with. I initially support them in part because I assume they are socially conservative, but when it comes to an issue-specific party, I would prefer something like the Pro-Life Party or the Protect Marriage and Children Party (we seriously need this now) rather than a party who's main issue seems to be a problem with taxation, which Jesus obviously had no problem with when he told the Pharisees to "render unto Caesar" and when He told Peter to pay the Temple tax "so as not to offend them".

So this is kind of a poll topic I'm interested in starting. When it comes to the Tea Party, what would Jesus think, in your opinion?

I don't have an internet connection at home so I'll see you in a week, Lord willing. I look forward to your responses, and thanks in advance. God bless.

I think you are comparing apples to oranges by suggesting that because Jesus said "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" he was suggesting we not take issue with our slavery to the government.

The tax issue is what drove the colonial settlers to war with England. Taxes were being levied against us without our representation in Parliament. The TEA Party (Taxes Enough Already) believes that we are heading back into that same scenario, since the move of Congress away from representation of the people. That is one of the problems with democracy. This country was originally set up as a constitutional republic but has morphed into a democracy, and as a result, is moving away from the power being with the people towards a totalitarian government. I, personally, don't think Jesus' statement about rendering unto Caesar has any bearing in this situation. In Jesus time, the Jews were slaves to Rome, and Rome levied a tax against them. He didn't tell them not to take whatever legal action they could, but he did tell them don't break the law. The TEA Party doesn't advocate breaking the law, so I am not sure where your conflict comes from. In Matthew, Jesus was a bit clearer. "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's", clearly differentiating between temporal and spiritual things.

 

[Jack Russell]

The TEA Party doesn't advocate breaking the law, so I am not sure where your conflict comes from.

Thanks for asking about that, A.N.D.

My personal conflict- and maybe "conflict" is too strong a word- my personal *initial questioning* of what the Tea Party is has to do with wondering where they stand on social issues such as feticide and protecting marriage. My first impression is that the main financial backers and some key representatives seem to be hesitant about taking sides or discussing these issues for some reason. Because their main concern seems to be fiscal issues, specifically taxes, my first thought, possibly kneejerk, was about the Pharisees approaching Jesus in their hatred of paying taxes to occupying pagan Rome.

I actually never did say I personally believe the Tea Party advocates breaking the law, but we do have Bryan here on this very thread seeming to advocate an armed uprising against our current government(?), which would of course be breaking the law. But I'm still not %100 clear if Bryan is saying he believes Jesus advocates that or not, which is why I asked him to clarify.

Thanks for your reply, by the way. And I like the Doctor Who reference in your pic. ;-) I can't wait until August 28!

 

[Jack Russell]

In terms of Republicans themselves there are about 1 person that I actually like so far.

Okay, Revolutionist, you've got me really curious now. Who is the *one* Republican politician that you like? :]

I really like Dr. Ben Carson a lot. (He's not a politician yet, but he should be.)

 

[Albion]

My personal conflict- and maybe "conflict" is too strong a word- my personal *initial questioning* of what the Tea Party is has to do with wondering where they stand on social issues such as feticide and protecting marriage.

While the Tea Parties are a diverse collection of conservatives and Republicans, I think you can find your answer in the candidates they work for and who are identified in every news article as the Tea Party-backed candidates.

They are outspoken in support of the same issues you say are important to you.

 

[A New Dawn]

Thanks for asking about that, A.N.D.

My personal conflict- and maybe "conflict" is too strong a word- my personal *initial questioning* of what the Tea Party is has to do with wondering where they stand on social issues such as feticide and protecting marriage. My first impression is that the main financial backers and some key representatives seem to be hesitant about taking sides or discussing these issues for some reason. Because their main concern seems to be fiscal issues, specifically taxes, my first thought, possibly kneejerk, was about the Pharisees approaching Jesus in their hatred of paying taxes to occupying pagan Rome.

I actually never did say I personally believe the Tea Party advocates breaking the law, but we do have Bryan here on this very thread seeming to advocate an armed uprising against our current government(?), which would of course be breaking the law. But I'm still not %100 clear if Bryan is saying he believes Jesus advocates that or not, which is why I asked him to clarify.

Thanks for your reply, by the way. And I like the Doctor Who reference in your pic. ;-) I can't wait until August 28!

I guess maybe the problem is that I don't know what you mean when you say "Tea Party". The TEA Party I am thinking of is a grass-roots civilian organization that protests issues such as increasing taxes to support programs the majority of the people are not in favor of. Programs that go further to increase the national debt than to balancing the budget. The TEA Party I am thinking of is not a political platform that needs to take a stance on all issues. The reason they focus on fiscal issues is that that is what the TEA Party is about. TEA stands for "Taxed Enough Already". When someone calls a candidate a "TEA Party candidate", it is just that that is the person the members of the TEA Party approve of, who they feel best represents their cause.

BTW, Jack, here is a thread you might be interested in (if you haven't already seen it.) http://www.christianforums.com/t7656824/

 

[Albion]

I guess maybe the problem is that I don't know what you mean when you say "Tea Party". The TEA Party I am thinking of is a grass-roots civilian organization that protests issues such as increasing taxes to support programs the majority of the people are not in favor of. Programs that go further to increase the national debt than to balancing the budget. The TEA Party I am thinking of is not a political platform that needs to take a stance on all issues. The reason they focus on fiscal issues is that that is what the TEA Party is about. TEA stands for "Taxed Enough Already". When someone calls a candidate a "TEA Party candidate", it is just that that is the person the members of the TEA Party approve of, who they feel best represents their cause.

BTW, Jack, here is a thread you might be interested in (if you haven't already seen it.) http://www.christianforums.com/t7656824/

While not disagreeing with you, I would like to point out that the Tea Parties these days tend to say that while they began with the concern that we Americans are "Taxed Enough Already," they have since moved to the effort to restore the Constitution. That takes in all that our friend is concerned to have addressed. And if we look at the members of Congress who were elected with Tea Party backing (or are routinely called "Tea Party favorites") there is no doubt about them supporting conservative social stances as well as contending against irresponsible taxation and spending.

 

[A New Dawn]

While not disagreeing with you, I would like to point out that the Tea Parties these days tend to say that while they began with the concern that we Americans are "Taxed Enough Already," they have since moved to the effort to restore the Constitution. That takes in all that our friend is concerned to have addressed. And if we look at the members of Congress who were elected with Tea Party backing (or are routinely called "Tea Party favorites") there is no doubt about them supporting conservative social stances as well as contending against irresponsible taxation and spending.

I guess they could be moving that way, but I've not really paid that much attention to them lately. I do believe that they lean more conservative, and many of them do hold conservative values, but I haven't noticed them widening their core platform. I see more people who consider themselves Libertarians taking a stand for the Constitution. Lots of these lines are blurred.............

 

[Albion]

I guess they could be moving that way, but I've not really paid that much attention to them lately. I do believe that they lean more conservative, and many of them do hold conservative values, but I haven't noticed them widening their core platform. I see more people who consider themselves Libertarians taking a stand for the Constitution. Lots of these lines are blurred.............

It's certainly true that the Tea Parties don't stick to a specific platform, but neither is it the case that they limit their concerns to tax and spending. As I said, if anyone doubts this, just look at the policy statements of Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, or any of the other "Tea Party" favorites. Better yet, see what platforms they ran on. They are quite in synch with the family values that Jack Russell is concerned about.

This comment of his--

my personal *initial questioning* of what the Tea Party is has to do with wondering where they stand on social issues such as feticide and protecting marriage. My first impression is that the main financial backers and some key representatives seem to be hesitant about taking sides or discussing these issues for some reason.

...strikes me as quite mistaken.

 

[Jack Russell]

...strikes me as quite mistaken.

Actually my initial suspicion is turning out to be dead on, unfortunately. It's probably even worse than I suspected.

You were right that Cruz and Paul say they support traditional marriage. (Remember, Barack Obama said the same thing until he got elected.) But Cruz and Paul say they believe that decision should be left up to the states. Rand Paul said that he would not support a federal ban on sodomy-as-marriage. This is a failure of conviction, because as we've seen, even if a state votes against gay "marriage" a corrupt judge comes along and declares that "un-Constitutional". Cruz and Paul apparently support this.

I know for sure what godly Christian men like Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee, and Dr. Ben Carson believe, because I've seen them suffer the media attacks for it. Not only have I never seen Cruz and Paul suffer for their alleged beliefs about homosexuality, but the Tea Party does not support the godly Christian men I mentioned.

It is clear that groups with longstanding ties to the tobacco industry and the billionaire Koch brothers planned the formation of the Tea Party movement. The Koch brothers themselves have donated millions to this cause and apparently helped found it. Why?

Here's the belief system of one Koch brother, according to Wikipedia (caps mine):

"HE SUPPORTS GAY MARRIAGE and stem-cell research. ...He opposes the war on drugs."

All of the Koch brothers are Libertarians, so they all believe this nonsense, that abortion is just like getting a haircut, that sodomy/sapphism hurts no one, and that all drugs should be legal because "drug users are not hurting anyone." This is naive and foolish nonsense, and yet the Tea Party obviously shies away from addressing any of these issues. That is by design: the founders/financiers don't care about that stuff, only lowering their own taxes!

You have to ask yourself, why would these billionares with obvious LIBERAL BELIEFS(!) donate so much money to, and even found, an organization within the Republican Party?

Furthermore, why would that group only support candidates with nebulous religious beliefs rather than obvious Christian candidates like Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee, and Dr. Ben Carson?

 

[wondrousgnat]

When I first heard of the Tea Party I took interest and almost went to a meeting but it was far away. But there was a heavy emphasis on tax cuts and those cuts were for the rich. The logic being that if the rich pay less they will share more of the wealth with the working class. What about other issues. I am strongly opposed to abortion and that was pretty much a side issue which received little mention. Gay marriage? I don't know. And the support for the writings of author Ayn Rand (militant atheist, racist, pro-abortion) was a true turnoff.
I still voted straight Republican but felt the Tea Party was an embarrassment.

 

[Albion]

The TEA Party people are about as offensive and extreme as the local Rotary or High School Band Boosters. The main reason some people have decided to think of them as Ghengis Khan's fan club is that they are willing to believe anything the Democrats tell them.

 

[Jack Russell]

The TEA Party people are about as offensive and extreme as the local Rotary or High School Band Boosters. The main reason some people have decided to think of them as Ghengis Khan's fan club is that they are willing to believe anything the Democrats tell them.

That's ironic because you were just being offensive in insulting a lot of people's intelligence.