Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Gov Rick Perry said that Cruz is good because he holds to two things (in heading). But I thought we are to keep religion separate from govt? Please help me understand this.
Rick Perry and Ted Cruz are both fools who would have no problem with a Christian theocracy taking hold here. Not to say they outright advocate for it...but that's their rhetoric. And it's very disturbing rhetoric to me.
You can't separate a person's morality simply because they are taking office. The separation lies in upholding the principles of law, even if they go against your own personal morality. Ted Cruz believes in the Judaeo-Christian set of moral beliefs, as do most Americans. However, he could just as easily be a Mormon, or a Muslim or an atheist and all of those people would be expected to act on the law and the Constitution over their personal beliefs.
Gov Rick Perry said that Cruz is good because he holds to two things (in heading). But I thought we are to keep religion separate from govt? Please help me understand this.
I am a American. I am an moderate conservative-liberal American atheist. I don't make laws based on god or no god. I make laws on what I learned through my life. Or like people say: You are not a true conservative. not a true liberal, not a true atheist, not true theist, and not a true American.
I don't make laws based on being a moderate-conservative-liberal atheist either. I make laws based on how many people they help, logistics, and how much they cost. But the biggest thing is where are the innocents going to suffer the most. The poor little innocent prisoners or the young wife with her teenage daughter going to the mall?
Its other people that tag me as something different than doing the best we can with what we gotz with help from everybody else.
For example:
I am a communist because we should have limits on capitalism.
I am a theist because I want limits on atheism.
I am going to hell because I want limits on religion.
Yeah, we,in the middle, that think first, are the ones that are mentals alright.
Your own personal set of moral values plays a large part in determining this subjective categorization.
Indeed. That is why each candidate looks at the same set of facts and sees different priorities, if not different things altogether.
A couple of examples:
Clinton sees her relationship with Kissinger as receiving the blessing of an elder statesman and considering all angles / viewpoints; Sanders sees Kissinger as morally corrupt, guilty of war crimes, and someone whose regard and endorsement would taint him.
An extreme progressive sees immigrants as validation of the inclusive, egalitarian sentiments on which our nation is based; an extreme conservative sees covert usurpers and criminals creeping in unawares to ruin our way of life and rape our women -- or in other words exactly in OPPOSITION TO the traditional, tried-and-true exceptionalism on which our nation is based. Here you not only see immigrants differently, you have completely different priorities about the essentials of American "mojo".
In both cases you have one person seeing a moral or existential threat and the other seeing goodness, even sweetness and light.
Indeed. That is why each candidate looks at the same set of facts and sees different priorities, if not different things altogether.
A couple of examples:
Clinton sees her relationship with Kissinger as receiving the blessing of an elder statesman and considering all angles / viewpoints; Sanders sees Kissinger as morally corrupt, guilty of war crimes, and someone whose regard and endorsement would taint him.
An extreme progressive sees immigrants as validation of the inclusive, egalitarian sentiments on which our nation is based; an extreme conservative sees covert usurpers and criminals creeping in unawares to ruin our way of life and rape our women -- or in other words exactly in OPPOSITION TO the traditional, tried-and-true exceptionalism on which our nation is based. Here you not only see immigrants differently, you have completely different priorities about the essentials of American "mojo".
In both cases you have one person seeing a moral or existential threat and the other seeing goodness, even sweetness and light.
Precisely. Which means you have two opposite viewpoints with both sides staunchly believing they have the moral imperative.
Which is why the government should never have so heavily involved themselves in legislating social morality. In everything the government does, they should seek to allow people the freedom to act within their own moral boundaries without infringing on the moral boundaries of another. Obviously sometimes two moral boundaries intersect in unavoidable ways and we need to show some respect and tolerance toward our fellow man.
Your own personal set of moral values plays a large part in determining this subjective categorization.
True, but with one big "but" that you took it out of my post: You basically chopped out the real meaning.
The main point was 'tagging people", the second point was people in the middle don't really fit in any group because we try evaluate all options. we try not to let tags like "non believer" or "right" force us into choosing an option. key word "try"
My tag: "The best we can, with what we have, and the help of everybody else"
It is subjective. But you made it sound like there is something absolute that humans have. We don't. well, unless you can show me. When we lay out the pieces that we do know there are usually more than one right choice. But there are far more "unhealthy" choices.
for example; as far subjective. we are 19 trillion dollars in debt. we have an opportunity to, thanks to Isis, go get oil and pay that debt down for our great grand children. It is not the pretties solution, in fact its ugly, and has to be done with "LOVE", not "HATE". But at least it's a real choice for this sit-up sandwich of life we live in. yeah, we can do the liberal way. Look at 1979 to 2016, how has it worked for us?
Because I am in the front lines, where subjective gets you punched in the mouth, I am forced to vote trump and I am not happy about it at all;not at all.
Precisely. Which means you have two opposite viewpoints with both sides staunchly believing they have the moral imperative.
Which is why the government should never have so heavily involved themselves in legislating social morality. In everything the government does, they should seek to allow people the freedom to act within their own moral boundaries without infringing on the moral boundaries of another. Obviously sometimes two moral boundaries intersect in unavoidable ways and we need to show some respect and tolerance toward our fellow man.
Everyone gets to act within "their own moral boundaries?" You gotta be kidding. To an al-Qaeda suicide bomber, his "moral boundaries" include killing thousands of airplane passengers and office workers in the World Trade Center, and to an ISIS fighter or whatever they call themselves, his "moral boundaries" include raping sex slaves.
If you mean that Christian bakers get to refuse to bake wedding cakes for gay couples...well, it depends on the state they live in. If they live in Alabama or Texas or Mississippi, then there's no public accommodation law making it illegal to discriminate against gays, but if they live in Washington or Colorado (I think), that sort of discrimination is illegal, pursuant to a law enacted by the people's elected representatives. I admit, I don't really believe that their religious beliefs are offended-- I think they're publicly expressing their disapproval of gay people. But whatever, I don't care why they want to be bigots. They're indulging in the same quasi-religious arguments racists made 50-60 years ago.
Anyway, what you're talking about isn't just people with different sets of morals. Gays don't proselytize their beliefs; fundamentalist Christians do.
Ted Cruz is Scalia-esque in his reverence for the Constitution, which was completed in 1787 by people who by today's standards (assuming the standards not of the mob but rather of some reasonable assembly of people) were/are complete idiots. Right-wingerism tends to correlate with both greater religiosity and great deference for established authority. I am an atheist with minimal respect for authority. I am not a right-winger. The crux-not-cruz of the issue here is traditionalism vs. progressivism, which is ultimately rooted in biological differences...see those studies which detail the "Republican brain" having a larger amygdala, which is responsible for fear-based responses, etc
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
