Group seeks return of ‘Constitutional values’
Written by Mark Hensch | | news@toledofreepress.comScott and Anna Allegrini were lonely.
Born and raised in the Toledo area, the married couple said they have witnessed a gradual erosion of the Constitutional values they hold dear within local politics. Discouraged by this, the Allegrinis founded a group in February 2009 intent on examining classical American values and their application in the modern age. The result is The Children of Liberty, a political discussion group now boasting 207 members.
“The people supposed to be representing us are not,” Scott said. “A light finally went off, and I realized this is not the America it should be. Our founding fathers gave us a road map to follow, and we are deviating. It turned out I wasn’t alone in feeling this way.”
Scott said he and his wife initially invited others to a March 12 meeting at the Sports Venue bar in Sylvania for a Glenn Beck television special. Beck had encouraged viewers to recruit friends for the show, Scott said, and so they did. As the Fox News personality flickered onto television screens, the couple said they were shocked by an attendance of 100 people. Children of Liberty has given a voice to the voiceless ever since.
“It was amazing,” Scott said of the March meeting. “We thought we were the only ones frustrated. It was empowering.”
“A gentleman approached us after the Glenn Beck meeting and said, ‘You need to keep going,’” Anna said. “People are thirsty to have their voices heard and gather information.”
Tapping into frustration
Tapping into citizens’ dormant frustration, Children of Liberty started actively meeting at various local libraries, Scott said. Convening a minimum of once a month, he said the group focuses on educating themselves and others about America, its Constitution and its future. Since the original meeting in March, Scott said, the group has grown so much it now meets twice some months.
Scott and Anna Allegrini
“The best way to have an effect on Northwest Ohio is to be educated on our Constitution and economy,” Scott said. “We all need to learn more about our government system. Our founding fathers were all self-educated and that is what we are. Ideally we would love to get a more informed electorate.”
Scott said previous meetings include a June 18 Constitution education workshop at the Holland Library and a June 29 media education workshop at the Sanger Library. He said future meetings include a July 8 “Economics 101” education workshop at the Maumee Library, a July 14 discussion on Cleon Skousen’s book “The 5,000 Year Leap” at a venue not yet determined and a general meeting July 16 at the Holland Library. Meetings usually start between 6 p.m. and 7 p.m., he said. With each successive gathering, he added, more people’s ideas are heard.
“We grow the group one person at a time,” Scott said. “It has to start locally, it has to be grassroots. In the long term, we’d like to spread our message throughout the state.”
Sounding board
Marketing team member Heather Szymkowiak said such enthusiasm inspired her to follow the Allegrinis’ vision. Since joining, she said, she has found a sounding board for her beliefs she never possessed before.
“It is almost like a fellowship,” Szymkowiak said of the group. “We are all there for the same frustrations. I felt for the longest time I as a person did not have a voice on matters that mattered to me.”
If The Children of Liberty have their way, advocacy team head Jenn Amato said, more people will have expressed themselves by summer’s end. She said the group will host open forums with various gubernatorial, mayoral and Toledo City Council candidates Aug. 3 through 5.
Gubernatorial candidate Kevin Coughlin is scheduled Aug. 3 alongside Republican mayoral candidate Jim Moody and council candidate John Adams, Amato said. On Aug. 4, Democratic mayoral candidate Ben Konop and council candidates Kevin Milliken and David Washington will take questions. Tentatively scheduled for Aug. 5, she added, is Independent candidate Michael Bell.
Scott said the forums would hopefully make the candidates better understand their constituency. As he sees it, this year’s crowded election “is a wonderful thing” as it forces public involvement in choosing Toledo’s leaders.
“I think Toledo is at a crossroads,” he said. “As citizens we need to make a decision whether to keep doing what we have been doing for 40 years or take back our liberty. The best thing that could happen to the city of Toledo is an injection of new blood into the political system.”
Anything goes
Amato said anything goes at the forums, allowing for an honest interaction between candidates and voters.
“We hope people will come and ask the candidates the questions they are dying to ask,” Amato said. “It forces them to listen. Nobody can say we’re one-sided. Everyone deserves the right to speak.”
Lisa Stalhood, head of the group’s research team, said Children of Liberty helped her find like-minded people amidst her political loneliness. With the coming elections, she said, Toledo might teeter on the cusp of great change.
“You are the government,” Stalhood said she tells people. “It is not the other way around. There is an awakening in the city of Toledo. I think the people will come.”
Scott said keeping Toledo’s populace involved in picking its leaders is an integral part of The Children of Liberty’s mission. For too long, he said, area politicians have voted for their parties rather than their people.
“A lot of our members are frustrated with the Republicans and Democrats,” he said. “We all need to stand up and let our representatives know they work for us. Be involved; don’t just sit back and listen.”
In advocating a proactive voting body, Anna said, The Children of Liberty aims at extinguishing the indifference many citizens have toward voting.
“My biggest concern has always been the apathy of people,” she said. “They just stand back and say ‘it doesn’t matter as it doesn’t affect me.’”
Anna said though the group practices a five-point mission statement; any belief set is welcome. The statement said the group promotes the natural law of God, a respect for all human life, adherence to the Constitution, support for limited government and personal and fiscal responsibilities as foundations of freedom.
“If people come to us, they will know we are always honest, always forthright and open to new ideas,” she said.
Douglas Roy, the group’s librarian, said its members come from disparate backgrounds but were all concerned about the state of their country. He said he admired the group’s drive and its unity in opposition toward current trends in American government.
“I like Children of Liberty because it is a group of people actively motivated to do something,” Roy said. “There is no exclusion in our group. If you have dissenting opinions, come on in. The only way to make the government listen is to have a group of voters talk to them.”
Szymkowiak said her efforts in the group aimed toward perpetuating the values of America’s founding fathers. She hopes her work ensures liberty for others.
“I want future generations to have the same freedoms I have enjoyed,” said Szymkowiak.
Anna said it was refreshing to see the political process returned to the people. She said she hoped The Children of Liberty would make the electorate aware of its role in determining the scope of government in the world.
As the election year progresses, Scott said, people feeling disconnected from the political system could learn more about The Children of Liberty at www.meetup.com/The-Children-of-Liberty. He said his group struggles for liberty and freedom in Toledo, and by extension, America.
“Ronald Reagan said freedom is not our birth right,” Scott said. “We have to earn it each generation. If we don’t stand up for it, it will disappear. If you feel something is not right with the way things are going, you are not alone.”
What the article leaves out, from the groups web site; “To reclaim God in our lives, and in so doing, secure His place at the center our country’s social and political conscience. ”
So, really what are the members of the group looking for from the people running for office?
Religious views or a plan of action that moves the city forward.
This comment was posted on July 3rd, 2009 at 9:05 amThe Constitution explicitly forbids religious tests for public officials.
Article VI: “…but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”
Have they read the document or are they just counting on the fact that most other people haven’t read it either? What makes this far-right group so much different than any other far-right group that they deserve front=page treatment?
That their goal is to subvert the religion-neutral status of the Constitution seems to be attack on patriotism, hardly this patriotic celebration the TFP is complicit in advancing.
This comment was posted on July 3rd, 2009 at 11:55 amFrom their site: “A society that does not respect life is doomed to failure. We will respect all human life, and promote the right to life from conception to death.”
Does this mean they are anti-death penalties? No, just more right-wing nuttery.
This comment was posted on July 3rd, 2009 at 12:26 pmThe first part of the group’s mission statement which is paraphrased here “…the group promotes the natural law of God…” seems to indicate that this is predominantly a religious organization. What they mean by God’s natural law, I don’t know, but the quote NT posted from their web site to me indicates they aim to inculcate our nation’s political institutions with their religious views, which relegates those who do not hold their religious views to second class citizenship.
The Founding Fathers most certainly did not want religion at the epicenter of this country’s political discourse. Most were very clear in their writings as to the dangers of religion and politics, using the Anglican church of their time as a prime example of what can go wrong. I just read The Faith of our Fathers, by Alf J. Mapp, which is a good primer on the religious views of each of the founders, although I would suggest something else for deeper study.
In the article Scott said the founding fathers were all self-educated. This is a huge indicator of Scott’s general naivete. The founding fathers were mostly elite aristocrats, with access to the best minds and libraries, and who underwent very thorough schooling at the nation’s elite prep schools, universities and in Europe.
Add the book “The 5,000 Year Leap” to the mix, and Citizens for Liberty looks like a group of religious conspiracy theorists trying to masquerade as a political advocacy group for the common man.
This comment was posted on July 3rd, 2009 at 2:36 pmNC,
The only courteous response to your question is to say, “Yes”.
We want both; a person with a God centered conscience and a person with a plan to move the city forward. This is not an either or proposition. Every group has a constituency. We have developed, in concert with each other, a series of planks to stand upon as a group. If one is truly God centered it is a part of every thing that they do. Part of that is respecting others views that are presented in an even, thoughtful, considerate way. We have never asked if any member is a Christian, Buddhist, or atheist.
We have seen the current political plan of action and its results. For the last 40 years Toledo has lost the headquarters of multiple major corporations, gained national attention for ticketing cars in gravel driveways and suggestions of moving the deaf to airport neighborhoods. From the lack of street maintenance to the malicious enforcement of eminent domain laws, we simply want it to stop. We have decided to base our decisions on the Consitution and God. You are welcome to join us what ever your belief structure. We do not and will never appologize for ours.
This comment was posted on July 3rd, 2009 at 2:47 pmNC,
The only courteous response to your question is to say, “Yes”.
We want both; a person with a God centered conscience and a person with a plan to move the city forward. This is not an either or proposition. Every group has a constituency. We have developed, in concert with each other, a series of planks to stand upon as a group. If one is truly God centered it is a part of every thing that they do. Part of that is respecting others views that are presented in an even, thoughtful, considerate way. We have never asked if any member is a Christian, Buddhist, or atheist.
We have seen the current political plan of action and its results. For the last 40 years Toledo has lost the headquarters of multiple major corporations, gained national attention for ticketing cars in gravel driveways and suggestions of moving the deaf to airport neighborhoods. From the lack of street maintenance to the malicious enforcement of eminent domain laws, we simply want it to stop. We have decided to base our decisions on the Constitution and God. You are welcome to join us what ever your belief structure. We do not and will never apologize for ours.
This comment was posted on July 3rd, 2009 at 2:50 pm“You are welcome to join us what ever your belief structure.”
No, no thanks.
Right off the bat, your reply tends to indicate that your stance is not rooted as well as one would like to believe, “We do not and will never appologize for ours.”, which only begs the question, it’s not about religion?
“We have decided to base our decisions on the Constitution and God.”
It’s not about religion?
Why are people sooooooooo….touchy when they asked questions about the basis of their thoughts and ideals.
What would God, say, about the Economic Development and job creation for the city?
How can we strip away centuries of movement forward and return a simpler time, when the world is much more complex and some are coveting this and stealing that in the whole world we live in, and not just Toledo.
“The only courteous response to your question is to say, “Yes”.”
And for the record, there was nothing discourteous in my question, free speech and all, which is a God given right, yes?
This comment was posted on July 3rd, 2009 at 3:32 pmThis is really piss poor journalism. There is almost nothing in the article describing the beliefs of the group, just a lot of “why-me” crying about how “our rights” have been eroded “over the last 40 years.” To me, that sounds like code for anti-civil rights ideals. Are these folks disappointed that rights have expanded to formerly disenfranchised groups? And I commend the above posters for clearly pointing out the paradox of being for “the Constitution and for God”. Those are mutually exclusive: the founders were Deists, and having witnessed the abuse of human and civil rights in Europe at the hands of glove in hand church-state relations, wanted no part of that for the United States. Read your history: the most churchy president this country has ever had was George W. Bush; most others had little use for organized religion, or even Christianity.
This comment was posted on July 4th, 2009 at 5:52 amNC,
Point #1.: No, I repeat, it is about God, not religion. The founding fathers had various belief structures (read religion), yet freely acknowledged that power comes from God, not man; therefore man (IE government) can not take the power (individual rights) away. The beliefs are very well rooted and have created the greatest society in the history of the world, with all of its flaws.
#2.: We are not “soooooooo….touchy” at all. In fact, we invited you to a meeting, and if you think you can defend your stance, come on. Methinks, it is not our group that is close minded…
Finally, yes, you were discourteous when you equate, in your original question, religious views with the either or proposition of moving the city “forward”. Obviously the nuance is forward is good and religion is backward or bad. That is poli-verbal clap trap and the premise of your question is flawed. It should perhaps be, “Can we make government more efficient and responsive to the peoples needs without a God centered legal system? Then we can have an interesting discussion. Not with veiled innuendo and slight attempts at derision.
God would say let what is Ceasar’s be given unto him and let what is Mine come to Me. We are simply saying that Ceaser has over stepped his bounds.
This comment was posted on July 4th, 2009 at 1:00 pm“yet freely acknowledged that power comes from God, not man; therefore man (IE government) can not take the power (individual rights) away.”
What rights are being taken away?
There are rules to life. We are taught that from a young age. We have rules to follow.
What individual rights are being infringed on?
Nobody seems to list them, just some vague notion, that rights are being infringed on.
“From the lack of street maintenance to the malicious enforcement of eminent domain laws..
Malicious enforcement eminent domain laws? Huh? The last eminent domain conflict was about Jeep.
“In fact, we invited you to a meeting, and if you think you can defend your stance, come on. Methinks, it is not our group that is close minded…”
I am not trying to motivate anyone to do anything, I am not forming a group, I have no stance to defend. I am not out to change minds, after all we are empowered individually to do what we feel is best, for us.
I am just one of the simple folk, that likes to discuss something.
“Can we make government more efficient and responsive to the peoples needs without a God centered legal system? ”
God centered legal system? With what the Ten Commandments as the basis?
Didn’t we throw off the restraints imposed by a state influenced with religion?
There is God with out religion? That would be advocating what the Freedom From Religion Foundation wants, and I dare say that is not in keeping with the goals here.
“The founding fathers had various belief structures (read religion), yet freely acknowledged that power comes from God, not man; therefore man…”
Yes, and they kept people as personal property while advocating, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and a certain Godliness.
“God would say let what is Ceasar’s be given unto him and let what is Mine come to Me.”
Isn’t this the teachings of one of the followers of Jesus, who was and is a religious figure?
Using the words of the Bible to frame the conversation and it is not about religion?
God, is such a broad word and misused by so many to move forth their own cause.
By the very use of biblical quotations, the whole stance becomes clouded as some claim that there is but one God, but yet followers the words of another.
And what if the citizenry does not believe in God, or has a different interpretation of what or who God is? What then?
This comment was posted on July 5th, 2009 at 9:24 amIt is certainly interesting that the learned dissenters all have the same mantra, an exclusion of God/religion/our right to be heard and peaceably gather with like-minded individuals in their rationalization of our positions. Now, of course, no one was crass enough to say we should not be heard, but the innuendo is rampant in his or her postings. If we include religious ideology in our bylaws we must be a religious organization and, “to me [that] indicates they aim to inculcate our nation’s political institutions with their religious views, which relegates those who do not hold their religious views to second class citizenship” IE. they should not be on the front cover of The Free Press. It is the difference between hearing and listening. You may have heard me, but you are not paying attention, a prerequisite of listening.
If I say a prayer it may upset you, but it does not relegate you to second-class citizenry. Get a little tougher skin. The government is not there to salve your wounded pride and/or every little booboo society gives you. The right to pursue happiness does not guarantee it. We say enough, it is time to return to a limited form of government that respects our ideals and beliefs too. God should not be excluded from all forms of public and/or governmental discourse, just as one particular religion should not be promoted, be it Catholicism or man-made global warming.
The attempted slap in our face is that we have not read nor understand the history of our nation or its founders. They were Deists is the statement, therefore they wanted God/religion out of government. They saw the evils inflicted upon the masses by churches and wanted to protect us forevermore from the same. The Deist and Unitarian and traditionalist views of the founders were included in the Constitution to protect us from all forms of rampant abuse of power, but specifically that of the government. Just as you hold us to the standards of inclusion we hold you to the same. Eisenhower finalized the. “In God We Trust” progression, but as a nation we have been using the motto since 1908 on coins and as a statement against the hedonists that wanted slavery. God was included as a part of the discourse in almost every aspect of the creation of this Republic. It was simply not institutionalized; again a way to limit the government’s powers. You may say the inclusion of the Motto is exclusionary, we say its exclusion is.
This comment was posted on July 5th, 2009 at 4:27 pmcont…
Furthermore why is it that only Jefferson and Franklin are quoted in your Deist tune? You may have one letter from Jefferson that mentions the separation of church and state, yet we have many, many examples of God, the holy Trinity, and yes, Christianity as the foundation of our country and its founding documents. George Washington said in his farewell address, “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of man and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice?
And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who, that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?”
This comment was posted on July 5th, 2009 at 10:27 pm(Source: George Washington, Address of George Washington, President of the United States . . . Preparatory to His Declination (Baltimore: George and Henry S. Keatinge), pp. 22-23. In his Farewell Address to the United States in 1796.) And we have many more examples. Even Thomas Jefferson said, “I concur with the author in considering the moral precepts of Jesus as more pure, correct, and sublime than those of ancient philosophers. (Source: Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Bergh, editor (Washington, D. C.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Assoc., 1904), Vol. X, pp. 376-377. In a letter to Edward Dowse on April 19, 1803.)
DRoy, I will agree that God played an important role in the spiritual lives of the founders, but it would be a huge distortion to think that their devotion to God was the primary force behind the ideas of the Constitution. To understand the thoughts and political philosophies of the time, one has to look at the Enlightenment, the age of reason. It was the devotion to reason that was the underpinnning of all our freedoms, not a “God-centered legal system.”
Also, I think it would be helpful to list the freedoms that have been taken away or that are being threatened. I’d also like to know how the government isn’t respecting your ideals and beliefs.
This comment was posted on July 6th, 2009 at 12:56 amThe Declaration of Independence specifically states that, “Goverments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Our elected offices from the President on down are our servants, not the other way around.
Having achieved age 70 last month, I have seen our Constitution trampled upon over the years, and am witnessing its further erosion by our existing President, his administration; and Congress. No one appears prepared to challenge him for mortgaging our future, or for appointing czars who are not elected and thereby reducing the Cabinet to second level status.
I applaud the Children of Liberty for striving to uphold the values that require those elected to be accountable to the people whom they serve, and the ballot box wields great power to sort out who shall best serve our ideals.
This comment was posted on July 6th, 2009 at 9:31 amI wonder how many of the above comments were posted by pro-choice people and atheists/agnostics and liberals who oppose almost anything that has to do with the constitution if it doesn’t suit their narrow-minded views on life??? Here. How’s this for fodder? I am currently reading Glenn Beck’s new book “Common Sense” and when I found this article online about The Children of Liberty I’m thinking HEY! Here’s a group that is trying to establish some of Glenn’s beliefs and help return our country to its original form. I could get into this!
HA! Then I read the comments and didn’t know whether to laugh or cry. To begin with, I am at a total loss to comprehend what ANYONE would have against being “educated on our constitution and our economy” ????????? In this day and age?? Am I blind, deaf and dumb? Being educated in our constitution and our economy is a bad thing WHY???
Then I read something about creating a more informed electorate… again?? and that is a bad thing WHY??? Do you understand what is wrong with our country today??? We have elected officials who honestly and truly believe that the voters know nothing and will vote for whomever spends the most money and looks good/sounds good/and throw around the biggest and best BS. Wake up! I fail to understand what could possibly be wrong with an “informed electorate.” What I do understand is that Congress counts on the voters to be UNINFORMED.
OK, at the risk of rambling on a bit more, here’s one more item I wish to bring up: “any belief set is welcome. The statement said the group promotes the natural law of God, a respect for all human life, adherence to the Constitution, support for limited government and personal and fiscal responsibilities as foundations of freedom.”
Obviously the part about ‘any belief set is welcome’ is confusing to those who have never heard of such a thing, being only accustomed to making use of one-track minds. Pray tell me what is wrong with welcoming those with ‘any belief set’? Is it scary or what?? For that matter, what is wrong with ‘respect for human life, adherence to the constitution, LIMITED government and personal and fiscal responsibilities’??? Why do you think we’re in this economical mess to begin with???
I am amazed at the direction our country is taking and many of the comments here reflect many of the reasons why we’re heading in that direction. You guys had better wake up and smell the stench emanating from Washington… oh, and I’m not talking about any one particular politician or democrat or republican. I’m pretty much talking about all of them. Our country needs groups like The Children of Liberty, if for nothing else than to send out the wake-up call and educate the voters before it’s too late to do either… before it’s too late and the government tells you that you can’t do things like hold meetings to educate the people…
This comment was posted on July 6th, 2009 at 2:22 pmI write to defend The Children of Liberty. I’ve been a proud member of them since March of this year. If I felt at anytime that this was some sort of religous “cult”, I would have left a long time ago. I do not go to church, I do not practice any religion, and I’m sure there are others like me in the group. Do I believe in God? Sure I do, but it’s not a prerequisite. If all you take from this article is that we’re trying to impose religion, then you are sadly mistaken, and sadly close-minded. It sounds to me that some of you are curious about our group, I invite you to come to our next meeting. If you want to bash the group, that’s fine too, but do it responsibly. How can you speak with authority, on which you know nothing about?
This comment was posted on July 6th, 2009 at 4:24 pmI wish someone could tell me what the Children of Liberty propose to actually do then. What policies do they suggest? The article is so vague, and their web site offers few clues either. How can you have a political activist group and not say what you want done?
What freedoms are being taken away? How is the Constitution being trampled? Why is it so hard to get any specifics here?
No one is against educating the public. The question is, who is qualified to do it. Who has a hidden agenda and is twisting and cherry picking history to fit some ideology the framers never possessed? They’re pushing the book “The 5000 Year Leap” for God’s sakes. Jefferson, Adams, Madison et al would have been alarmed and nauseated by how their views and ideas have been hijacked by a jingoistic mob.
As for Glenn Beck, come on now. Anyone that had a little healthy curiosity about his dubious relationship with the truth (and sanity) can do a little checking on him. Try http://www.mediamatters.org for starters. But then again, maybe a high school educated, ADD afflicted ex-alcoholic somehow has a keyhole view to the truth all the experts missed.
Interesting fact about the “respect for life” part of the mission statement. Did you know that at the time of the nation’s founding, abortion was legal up until what was then considered quickening (about 24th week of pregnancy)? So I guess the founders, who didn’t even think women should vote, had enough respect for women’s autonomy to not force them to bear an unwanted child.
This comment was posted on July 7th, 2009 at 12:49 amRourke,
Please stop asking questions that have already been answered multiple times in the earlier posts.
This comment was posted on July 8th, 2009 at 8:32 amNC asks “So, really what are the members of the group looking for from the people running for office?
Religious views or a plan of action that moves the city forward.”
What on earth made you think that these two things could ever be mutually exclusive?
Have you ever read anything about American history? About founding Americans – the overwhelming majority of which were practicing Christians?
This comment was posted on July 8th, 2009 at 2:05 pmIf you mean the mission statement, other than being against abortion, there are no policy statements made. How can one decide whether to join Children of Liberty versus, say, the ACLU or Public Citizen?
Who could possibly be against the Constitution or limited government? Why not define how you interpret the Constitution and say exactly what government should be limited to? If you think there is only one way to interpret the Constitution, then what do we have a Supreme Court for?
Just give me three specific things that this group wants to see done, and why.
This comment was posted on July 9th, 2009 at 1:23 am“Have you ever read anything about American history? About founding Americans – the overwhelming majority of which were practicing Christians?”
Founding Americans? That would be the people who were here first wouldn’t? Ya, know those that had to be killed because they were “savages.”
Or do you mean the Puritans, who were ultra conservative and included, who had public stocks for those that broke the law, that was infused with religious doctrine and who had laws in place that discriminated against the Quakers, reagan tax increasesbecause the Quakers, were not the same thinkers as the Puritans.
“…the overwhelming majority of which were practicing Christians?”
And what does have to do with the price of Tea?
It’s about religion or not?
And kateb, your religion is well known, you have stated on many boards that you are a Christian.
Which is not the point, and never was and never shall be for me, if its not about religion, when do people bring up, God, and the founding fathers religions
People talk about the Constitution and returning to values, okay what Constitutional values, then?
We have the freedom to do as we please, within the constraints of laws, rules, ethics and so on.
So, what else do we want?
The freedom as we please and be free? We already are and we can and do pursue all that we desire.
We don’t want to be taxed? Well, then let the roads and bridges go to pot, stop maintaining the infrastructure, let it all go and let people take care of it, and stop financing wars, and stop giving charitable aid to countries around the world, stop sending people and machines into space, that will surely save some tax dollars.
Oh, and stop caring for the frail, the aged, all the taxes that could be saved by not funding medicare and medicaid, and oh, do away with Social Security, that would save trillions.
People like to quote Reagan and others, and yet they forget that he like others, made government bigger and raised taxes.
Limited form of government means what?
We saw what less got us when it came to financial greed spread globally across the globe and some of the same that reaped the gains, probably sat in pews and confessionals and then went back and reaped all that they could.
We don’t seem to know what we want, but will know when get it.
This comment was posted on July 9th, 2009 at 2:29 pmI certainly value the debate the article about our group has caused. After all, we are Americans, and that is the beauty of our free society…that we can feel free to say what we believe, or to question those with whom we may disagree. So, thanks for the questions. We welcome them.
First of all, let me address some of the concerns that have been mentioned here. A major issue that seems to be a cause for concern is whether we are a “religious” group and even more specifically that we look like ”a group of religious conspiracy theorists trying to masquerade as a political advocacy group for the common man.” Again, the beauty of our Constitution is that everyone has the opportunity to worship as they please, to believe or have faith in their own terms of understanding. As a group, our members come from many religions, and there is no pushing of any religious view. We do come from Judeo-Christian values, the same on which this country was founded. But do we tell you what to believe, to go to church on Sunday, to pray in public? NO! The Constitution allows us to be INDIVIDUALS, and gives us the FREEDOM to worship as we chose, or not worship at all. A belief in God, or a Higher Power, is helpful in the understanding of the principles and foundations of freedom, and we do not apologize for our belief in Natural Law. What our members choose to do with their faith, religious beliefs, etc. is up to them.
Rourke, I will attempt to clarify and answer some of your questions. But I also want to preface this by saying that the article attempted to bring attention to our group, a “teaser” of sorts I guess, not giving every specific. The specifics come from the energy and passion in our group, who value our role as citizens. We acknowledge that for a long time, we have sort of been in the wings, not saying much. Perhaps partially because when we do, we are ridiculed as “right-wing nuttery”, “touchy” “anti-civil rights”…well to name a few stated here. For us, it seems that inasmuch as the more liberal “advocacy” has been speaking out for some time, we as citizens need to start bringing different perspectives to the table. You might admit that most of the media, even Fox news, takes liberties with the dissemination of information that is biased, one way or another. Our argument is that people need to think for themselves, and it is not the media or the government that should tell us what to think, what to eat, what cars to drive, etc. etc. You will note that the entire conversation here seems to have been based on human curiosity that leads you to click on our website and see our core values. The article never said we had requirements. And assumptions were made based on the reading and interpretation of what was listed on our website. With that in mind, we are committed to several things.
1. EDUCATION. How can we expect the electorate to make wise decisions when they vote? On what basis are they voting? Because of the D or the R in front of a candidates name? Or because their union “strongly urges” them to vote one way or another? If I am “pro life” or “pro-choice”, that may be a deal breaker when I am choosing a candidate. The point is that we want people to be educated, on both sides of an issue, so that as an individual who has been given a right to vote, they can make a decision that is informed.
2. FACTS. Between elections, we must deal with the multitude of “votes” that our elected officials are casting on our behalf. The fact of the matter is that whether I voted for a specific candidate or not, that elected representative is paid by you and I. We employ them. We are not their underlings. So, what we think does matter in between times that we hire or fire them in the election process. Information needs to be transparent and available to us, and as a group, we are committed to making sure that we encourage our members to write to their representatives, call and tell them to vote for or against something based on our individual preference. Before we can be active citizens involved in the process, we must be informed. Our goal as a group is to keep track of things that congress and senate, state and local government are doing. For too long, we have let government grow and grow into an untouchable bureaucracy. This is not the America that our founders envisioned. Our freedoms and liberties are being infringed upon by regulations on food and cigarettes, taxes and “revenue enhancement” and the redistribution of our money to the masses…to name a few. Spending is out of control, pork is common pratice. They are bankrupting our children. We have no money, but we are printing it! We believe that our elected officials need to be responsible stewards of our money…if we must give it to them to beign with! It is not theirs to play with or to bail out or to give to someone else.
This comment was posted on July 9th, 2009 at 4:12 pmcontinued…
3. FINDING COMMON GROUND: It is obvious just from these posts that there will always be debate. We can choose to focus on who’s right or wrong, or we can find what things we have in common. For example: Many of you have commented on our seemingly “pro-life” stance. Personally, I cannot say if perhaps our members are pro-life but believe in the death penalty. We do not qualify people. But when you look at that statement, perhaps it would surprise you to know that many of our “respect for life” discussions have been in the perspective of a government run health care plan. Now I know that many will say, as President Obama has, that he does not want to “run health care”. But can someone please tell me how well the government has run Medicare or Medicade? If we allow the government or state to get their hands on healthcare for people, we will have fewer or no choices. And, it is here that our debate comes in with respect for life. What is to say, that when we have a “government run” health care system, and my employer for reasons of cost, drops my employee option and forces me to the government plan..Because it’s “free”. And I get sick. And, I have cancer. And the government can decide my best course of treatment, or whether the stage of my cancer is worth the cost associated with treating me. Or my parents? Your parents? Do you want the national or state government to decide that since your parents are old, and they are going to die in several years anyway, that treatments for certain things are not warranted? These all deal with “respect for life” issues. It is not just about abortion. There is so much assumption, but we are convinced that there are many things we have in common, if we could just take the time to have a conversation and find common ground.
I would welcome any of you to come to a meeting. This group has and always will be about the people. If you chose to participate in one activity and not another because of a personal belief, we understand that. But, in the mean time, we hope to find others who are open to the conversation and alternative perspectives on the same issue. It’s all about a mutual respect and the agreement that we may disagree. And above all, know that it is time to stand up for what you believe, no matter what it is, because this is the best country in the world. We must exercise our right to preserve and protect it, and everything it stands for…or we will lose it.
This comment was posted on July 9th, 2009 at 4:16 pmAgain, religious background;
“We do come from Judeo-Christian values, the same on which this country was founded.”
Asked if I have read history, why sure, it is part and parcel of the American education system.
What is not taught in history is what the founding people, the Puritans, those in Virginia, Rhode Island actually thought and practiced.
The Puritans came here, escaped religious persecution because there were ultra conservative, and promptly set about constraining the people’s freedoms and banished those, Roger Williams, to what is now Rhode Island because he was heretical, in their views.
The Puritans, were the people before the founders of the country, and the framers of the Constitution took from their history, the road map, what mistakes not to make.
“The Constitution allows us to be INDIVIDUALS, and gives us the FREEDOM to worship as we chose, or not worship at all”
Why then, was it necessary for Congress to enact, the American Indian Religious Freedom Act.
When we look at the Constitution there is all this freedom this or freedom from that, and yet, history has shown us that, there has been restrictions placed on us, that run contrary to the principles we hold dear, and is this case, it is clear the legislation was drafted because there was a clear and consistent pattern of discrimination and there still is.
“We employ them. We are not their underlings. So, what we think does matter in between times that we hire or fire them in the election process.”
Yup, and there are 200+ million people in the U.S. and each and every one of us, has different ideals, wants desires, politcal philosophy.
There should be a sign on the Capital, This is not Burger King and you can’t have it your way, all the time.
“Our freedoms and liberties are being infringed upon by regulations on food and cigarettes….”
Freedoms and liberties infringed on because of health concerns, by companies using potentially unhealthy products and introducing them into our food supply?
What freedom or liberty is being infringed on? I cannot find anything from farming, food, etc., written anywhere, that states that clean and safe food is a right or liberty.
“…. taxes and “revenue enhancement” and the redistribution of our money to the masses…”
The masses are the frail, the infirm, the aged, those that are born with defects, is there no greater good than to support them?
“But can someone please tell me how well the government has run Medicare or Medicade?”
Let’s do away with both and just let the people fend for themselves, then?
That would run contrary to the expression of community in this country and return us to an age, of me, me, me, wouldn’t it?
This comment was posted on July 11th, 2009 at 11:15 am