The folks on the Mayflower came to America to make sure religion had a part in their politics. The Founding Fathers did not leave religion out of politics. Leave religion out of politics/group affairs and you get exactly what you have now. John Adams said "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
Those religious Founding Fathers gave us a real nice Constitution and a bunch of Rights that "worked" up until a few decades ago; right up until somebody decided that religion shouldn't be a part of the equation. They should thank you for your support. The government had Evangelical Christians listed as the #1 terrorist threat on the DHS Terrorist Watchlist; Al Qaeda was at #6. That "somebody" is now after more than just removing religion from our lives. It's not going to work out well for us.
I deleted a quote from the Mayflower Compact. I figured that might be too much "religion" for some of you.
John Adams signed the Alien and Sedition acts so I don't think he's the best example you could have used.
I do not know what you are talking about in regards to the Christian #1 terrorist. Are you implying it's not possible for an evangelical Christian to be a terrorist?
Nobody is removing religion, if you think it's happening then I have a bridge to sell you. There will always be people of different faiths in this country. I am not opposed to people having their beliefs, that's their right. If they want to worship God or Odin or the Flying Spaghetti Monster then that's their business. I'm opposed to religion being pushed or imposed on me.
First, you will need to find a group who can actually agree with what freedom is.
good point. now a days very few folks moral compasses point in the same direction. if you don't agree with your leaders definition of freedom. start your own group I guess ???
This has got to be another spoof thread, right?
I thought a militia was a group of people that trained to provide for the defense of the nation from foreign or domestic aggressors? Historically domestic aggressors that militias have responded to are looters, rioters, and citizens in revolt (see: Whiskey Rebellion). I see nothing in that that specifies your religion, race, creed, or any political stance besides standing by our constitution. I don't see where religion even comes into the discussion besides when some of the militia groups drew criticism for being openly anti-Islamic or antisemitic views. Such views, broadly vilifying a group of people, are, in my opinion, antithetical to the spirit of our nation.
Can't we go back to a group of people doing rifle drill at the county fairgrounds a few times a year so that, should they be needed, every man has a basic military skill set? It would do more to accomplish an overall military and defense readiness, the entire point of militias, than closed groups of people preparing to fight some imagined future race war/holy war/zombie attack. That is the stuff that painted the militia movement in a bad light in the first place.
Now THOSE people freak me out!Perhaps my prior statement gave the impression that I care about or would censor what atheists - or muslims, or anyone - believe. I don't. I don't care if someone is a theist or non-theist or if they worship Toyota Corollas - I just don't care. I do care about the behavior of anti-religionists to try to completely remove these religions from public life, as there is a fundamental difference between respecting no establishment of a State religion and permitting individuals to openly declare their faiths in public, which is the major trend I've noticed very much in the recent past. I'm fine with the Toyota-ists setting up their own monument in the public square if they like, but I'm tired of anti-religionists tearing down other monuments and displays of the faiths of the people of this great nation. So very tired.
Wasn't meant to be taken so literally, more of an illustrative point of the difference between a traditional citizens' militia and the SHTF, tacticool, ready to rebel against the government any minute militias that pop up every now and then. All of the skills you mentioned are of course necessary. Not that SHTF skills are not needed, they are entirely necessary, but many of these militias operate behind closed doors and purely for their own defense rather than in defense of their nation and countrymen as I believe a militia should train. That's why I don't agree with any discrimination in who is admitted, every citizen is a member of the militia. It is just a matter of organizing them to train them. Secretive below the radar groups do not lend themselves well to training the people as a whole.It is far more than just learning how to march around a parade ground. Or even marksmanship. Try doing paintball. You can learn small team coordination. And if you screw up, it hurts. But what about first aid or even EMT skills? How about getting your ham license so that you can learn to use a radio and work on a net? How are you going to resupply or do maintenance?
Then what about other militia functions like police or fire? Do you join a police reserve unit or become a special deputy? Volunteer fire fighter?
Not sure what you mean by "a traditional citizens' militia". If you're talking about what the Constitution refers to as "a well regulated militia", I would submit that that would be the National Guard and - to a lesser extent - the respective States' "home guards" - which, in Indiana, is called the Indiana Guard Reserve. Or are you talking about some form of auxiliary Sheriff's Department deputies? I hope that you're not seriously talking about some of these gaggles of what my Dad would have called "drug store cowboys" who want to go out and "play Army" but are not qualified or are too chicken-s... to actually enlist.
Traditional militia is more like a volunteer fire fighting department. Or a sheriff's reserve force (special deputy powers).
Those gaggles are the one's I'm speaking against. The tacticool fellows who act all hush-hush, train in the woods, and prepare for some ridiculous pet scenario. That's what gives militias a bad name. When I think of a traditional militia I think of a group of people trained in marksmanship, basic military maneuvers, and first responder skill sets. Trooper is spot on. They are a similar organization to a volunteer fire department.Not sure what you mean by "a traditional citizens' militia". If you're talking about what the Constitution refers to as "a well regulated militia", I would submit that that would be the National Guard and - to a lesser extent - the respective States' "home guards" - which, in Indiana, is called the Indiana Guard Reserve. Or are you talking about some form of auxiliary Sheriff's Department deputies? I hope that you're not seriously talking about some of these gaggles of what my Dad would have called "drug store cowboys" who want to go out and "play Army" but are not qualified or are too chicken-s... to actually enlist.
Those gaggles are the one's I'm speaking against. The tacticool fellows who act all hush-hush, train in the woods, and prepare for some ridiculous pet scenario. That's what gives militias a bad name. When I think of a traditional militia I think of a group of people trained in marksmanship, basic military maneuvers, and first responder skill sets. Trooper is spot on. They are a similar organization to a volunteer fire department.
First, you will need to find a group who can actually agree with what freedom is.