Disgusting
Ted Cruz, though he claims to be a Rand fan, is sending his e-mail list a letter urging, repeatedly, "sacrifice." (Copy on request, if you e-mail me: handwritingrepair@gmail.com — I get e-mail from most candidates for Federal office.)
You type: | You see: |
---|---|
*italics* | italics |
**bold** | bold |
While we're very happy to have you in the Gulch and appreciate your wanting to fully engage, some things in the Gulch (e.g. voting, links in comments) are a privilege, not a right. To get you up to speed as quickly as possible, we've provided two options for earning these privileges.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 4.
The whole monument thing is so ridiculous it isn't even funny. Most of the monuments pay homage to history - from the Ten Commandments to the crosses on cemeteries. Those who are so incredibly offended by those items really need to take a chill pill and ask themselves why it bugs them so much. These people are choosing to be offended to justify their emotional childishness and insecurity.
The "public official refusing service" is also a result of Federal overreach. The Federal government has no business or Constitutional authority to interfere in marriage, and this is Cruz' stance here as well. (You do realize that the whole notion of a marriage license stems from racists in the South who were trying to prevent inter-racial marriages, right? Then the whole thing morphed into a money-making scheme for the state governments, so they hung onto it. There shouldn't be marriage licenses in the first place!)
Remember, it also goes the other way. If you allow the Federal government to set the standards for what constitutes "marriage", that is in very fact an establishment of religion, as the definition of marriage is core to every belief set. If they are allowed to set the standards and establish morality, they act beyond their Constitutional authority and if that is left to stand, you quickly devolve into the ultra-powerful central authority central to the downfall in Atlas Shrugged.
Even if you do not agree with the above statements, Cruz’s view of the proper relationship between religion and government is far from one that would emerge in a society based on Objectivist principles.
I know you are not religious at all and I hope this is taken in the intended light.
Words do have meaning, and in the case of the term sacrifice it has been hijacks by the connotation you suggest, and i think much for the reason you suggest.
My religion (LDS) does not have professional ministers and other than a few (those engaged in full time leadership without the means to support themselves) our leadership does not receive anything monetary from the church. This changes much of what you suggest.
In my church its not about the money, in fact were you to attend no plate would passed around and no one would ask you to donate a dime just cause your there.
However the miss-perception of what sacrifice is is still very prevalent. I teach what is called the Gospel Doctrine class on Sunday. When I talk about Christ I do not use the word sacrifice, but rather the achievements that he worked towards and accomplished.
Not every church is the same, but connotation that sacrifice is a good thing is well entrenched due to those that used that term to gain not money but power over others. I detest that use of the term, and agree that context needs to change. I do what I can to change it.
-XR
Jefferson would not have a prayer for the presidential inauguration but would when made a governor. When asked about this Jefferson said (and I am paraphrasing from memory so it may off a bit) that the first amendment was intended to protect the states right to have a specific religion, but it was not proper in the federal government.
You also have to realize that when Jefferson was sworn into office at least 5 states required membership in one religion or another to be a legislator.
There are many examples of why the whole idea of "God" needing to be removed from everything is not a constitutional effort. Unless its a federal building its quite the contrary, but then the removal of god from all federal building would be supporting a specific religion as well, so even there it would be against the first amendment.
Mike Lee wrote a great book that covers this topic rather well. "Our Lost Constitution"
Yes, they do it all the time. Its part of the strategy that was laid out by Wilson way back when the progressives called themselves the American Communist Association.
Control the words and the meaning = control the outcome.
We have to work to stop it, but the reality is getting in a pissing match about if sacrifice is bad is not going to help. Especially when what we call sacrifice and what most people call sacrifice are not the same thing.
He has also argued the Second Amendment before the Supreme Court - and won.
He's not a perfect candidate, but of those still in the race, he's the only one who can quote and properly apply the Constitution of the United States. To me, that's the most important thing I look for in a President.
Can't get more direct...even a liberal might be able to understand.
How ever, would make no difference with progressives...born with criminal brains...laws make no difference to them.
But, the parasitical humanoid part is objectively observable...No conscience, no mind, not human in the same sense as most of us are.
Read: Julian Jaynes...breakdown of the bicameral mind...(meaning brain) - most use mind and brain interchangeably but they are very different things.
Parasitical humanoids: 1 can not produce or create value, can not exist without us (normal conscious humans) 2 humanoid because they are only a brain in a body...much like our OT biblical ancestors.
Being only 2 parts of a three part equation means they "Cannot" make a connection to the mind nor a cosmic identity (quantum physics)...they live only in an ego and reside in the worlds kakistocracies.
I am not laughing about this last part.
Question is is he a Republican or a Republican In Name Only.
I'm wondering which of the four will destroy the country and the system the fastest. If you are going to support evil why screw around with half measures. Get it down and over with. It isn't like what's left after Obama is worth saving.
Nor the people that support that sort of society.
Or trying to be both at one time.
There are no Christians in foxholes either...once the shelling has stopped. But a lot of relapsed former non smokers.
Cannot have it both ways. Evil is Evil and when the individual terms it as such are admitting to a certain self confessed lack of moral values.
But then that's the business of the individual and their standards we all have our lines that cannot be crossed and those that can be fudged or winked at. I still would not support Saturday Morning Cartoons main sponsors (high sugar content cereals) but I would consider Choc-U-la over those three I mentioned any day of the week.
https://www.tedcruz.org/issues/religi...
There is only one way to identify them from the general population: Conscience...do they have one.
Problem here is that they have become very good at imitating one...(monkey see, monkey do, type learning)
We the people should Not be flattered.
<;-S
Right now all but a few are criminals, stupid or just plain non human.
Load more comments...