Wearing My Jesus Goggles to the Boston Tea Party
First, have to cringe that at "I'm more spiritual than them" aspect of the title. Yeah, you go 'Jesus goggles', whatever those are.
Palin walked right into the debate over American exceptionalism, stating that as the greatest nation on the planet, America is, in fact, exceptional. (Implying that we can do what we please, thank you.)
Really? Apparently, this person has no idea what is meant by "American exceptionalism". It has nothing to with a "do what we please" attitude, but with the idea that the US, when founded, was a very diffirent kind of place than had mostly come before. That we allow people to succeed and fail as they are able. That we give people freedom, not try to control them. That the government is of, by, and for the people, not the people mere vassals of the state.
Do we erase all national affiliation when we follow Jesus? No, but we affiliate ourselves first with the kingdom of God, which changes everything. Militarism — even in the name of “freedom” — is wrong for the Christian, in all cases, at all times.
I assume, from that last statement, that this person is a confirmed pacifists. It's just a shame that people had to sacrifice and die to support his freedom to denigrate them.
Which brings me to the concept of “freedom.” This really is the operative concept within the Tea Party movement: freedom from excessive taxes and government intrusion of all kinds. This freedom, signs and speakers proudly announce, came at a price — the price of brave American soldiers in 250 years’ worth of foreign and domestic wars. But they opportunistically omit that our freedom also came at the cost of Native Americans, foreign and domestic soldiers and civilians, and our natural resources. I would argue that a Christian cannot blindly accept freedom that sacrifices lives and our Earth, not when the very core principles of our faith were violated to achieve it.
Yeah, don't exercise your freedoms, you ingrates!
I'll buy this guy's arguments when he gives up his freedom of speech, freedom to assembly, and the other freedoms he thinks the Tea Partiers are so bad to want to protect.
This person is likely supportive of the movement on ideological grounds rather than economic grounds, which, as I mentioned earlier, was the platform for the group’s beginnings. Most likely to be rich, white, and older than 45, Tea Party supporters largely oppose what they perceive to be policies that disproportionately favor the poor over the rich. In other words, most point to differences in class as the reason why they support the Tea Party.
Here it is--Tea Partiers don't like helping the poor! Bad people!
But you have to understand, this is lib-speak. Not liking policies that "disproportionately favor the poor over the rich" is lib-speak for not liking socialistic redistribute-the-wealth policies.