Religion, in basic terms, wants equal footing with reason. Reason tells you rights are inalienable. Religion wishes to tell you rights are a gift from God. As if the two premises are the same, equivalent. As if both Reason and God are absolutes. But only reason is compatible with the mind of man, is absolute. Because man thinks/reasons while God commands. And a mind cannot function via commands. Thinking stops where a command begins. Just as thinking stops where force begins. Mind and Force are opposites and so too Mind and God are opposites. God is implied Force and is therefore Force. God is delayed Force. Accept God and you have subverted/destroyed your mind, at root. And what is a man without his mind- a slave ready for a master. Because talk of God is talk of Masters and slaves and the speaker intends to be the master. As Ayn Rand put it so aptly. And rule will be by force. God is force over the mind of man.

Ted Cruz on Atlas Shrugged . . . and Obamacare.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wBjFf0g...

Yes. You're ultimately right. But this was truly an ingenious and hugely helpful idea in its time - that we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights. The idea that there is a law to which even the king was subject to is an idea that evolved through European history and culminated in our Declaration of Independence. Before that, no culture or civilization that I know of, anywhere, espoused the idea that the "strong man" ruling the country could not do whatever he wanted.

K it is a long time since i read Dr. Hurd, thank you for the link. bright fellow to say the least.

I understand all positions as well. Personally, I have always lived my life being "good" and I'm not a zealot, but I'm a semi-practicing Catholic (more than Easter & Christmas). I did have a near-death experience once though, and my experience frames my thinking in the belief that I'm not on the wrong track. Assuming many of the rest of the belief system are somewhat accurate, the alternative is pretty horrific.

That being said, my belief is also that similar non-obsessed Christian/Jewish religious people like myself do not take advantage of others, respect others, respect and embrace the freedoms our nation and culture are founded on, and do not try to change the lives or beliefs of others.

Simply put, I believe the rights of someone else end where they infringe on mine. We have a dope here in my adopted hometown (Sacramento) living in Elk Grove, CA that likes to sue everyone and everything for having the word "God" on it, tried suing the school to stop his daughter from saying the pledge of the allegiance (and stopping it altogether for everyone) and even that stopped because she didn't mind saying it and regularly went to church & Sunday School with her mom (dad is no longer in the picture) and the Supreme Court ruled that he "had no standing to object".

The framers intended our rights and liberties to be granted from above, so they could not be revoked by any 'man'. Unfortunately, we have ceded much of that ourselves, and its my belief that we need to retake those liberties.

Before I draw any flaming remarks from anti-Catholics... I'll also add that my belief is in the higher power, and the teachings of Jesus (which do not in any way conflict with American beliefs, values and the American experience). I do not necessarily value or place a higher moral authority on any institution created by humans and managed by humans. (I believe many church organizations themselves are somewhat corrupt to varying degrees). All people are fallible.

Morality is variable (relativism, multiculturalism), as we plainly see in society today, unless a person has a code by which he/she lives. A politician stating they have faith in a particular belief system essentially anchors their conduct and subjects him/herself to specific scrutiny. Its the fastest track to public hypocrisy and the quickest route to disqualification. I prefer a politician make such a statement, it helps thin the field as time goes on.

Eh...I got half-way through it when spotting the poor logic. It's like saying, "You might as well lie down and let the government run every facet of your life because you've let them run a lot of it up until now." Whatever...

Don't matter. Cruz will be defeated by Jeb in the primaries. Then, Jeb will be beaten by Hillary. Oh, I'm not saying Cruz will get fewer votes. That's different...

And all of us over 50 have been paying for maternity coverage for years!

birth control is not only covered but males have it included in their plan too. so their premium is determined as if they could get pregnant. up is down as to that. the Planned Parenthood thing from the beginning was shady and deeply disturbing if you read about Margaret Sanger, the originator of the "cause."

I agree. The "right to choose" does NOT mean the right to have somebody else pay for your choice. And except for the usual very convoluted "reasoning" typical of government agencies, I don't see any real meaning or relevance to the term "reproductive health". I have no objection to Planned Parenthood advising women, but not on my dime..

And even without looking, although I believe I've read it in the past, I would make an educated guess that one of the mandated things health insurance companies have to pay for under Obamacare are condoms, birth control pills, diaphragms etc. etc. etc...

I read an article today that the GAO said billions of taxpayer dollars go into abortion programs a year. The vast majority of that money to Planned Parenthood under the chilling title of "women's reproductive health." That is so wrong.

well absolutely man defines his rights. He acknowledges yours.that is A is A. His Ethics are based in morality whether he believes in God or not. that' s major point of the article.

It is a difficult issue, which is precisely why it should be a personal choice, not a government dictate. And I think, unlike the Messrs Paul, that, like slavery, this is an issue where the Federal government (and I believe in a very, very restricted Federal government) must trump the States. A woman's right to choose is an objective, rational and clear principle. Just as we can't have a State or States saying "slavery is OK", we cannot have some saying a woman has a right to choose abortion, and others saying she can't.

I have witnessed a late term abortion, and it did make an impression on me. The federal government has no business dictating this or anything else.

I really do understand. However, the numbers are stacked against you. I'm not remotely the most devout person (ask my wife) - I know what I know and I'm content with that. I wouldn't remotely support a theocracy, or a religious values candidate and would vehemently oppose anyone trying to favor one set of beliefs/laws/rule/rights over another (except islam). Even so, knowing that the large number of people have some degree of belief/faith in someone/something supernatural would provide a degree of assurance that the rights specified by the Framers remain off limits. A struggle to remove that belief/faith is forming a hangman's noose around society by making everything relative and removing the authority from only neutral object (inalienable rights) that everyone in this country can count on to combat tyranny.

I truly do understand your position and even agree with it to a degree, particularly the social binding of a people when civilization needed commonality to form.

AJ, it's not necessarily opposition or repulsion--Its simply A=A. All humans, whether they are trained to believe as you do, by all logic and reasoning have just as much right to life, liberty, and property as any other.

Throwing your or anyone else's god into the mix changes the equation from the individual to the belief. I am alive. I'm facing the exact same reality that you are. The choices I make affect what interactions I have with that reality. I insist that my rational reasoning mind using the senses I'm born with can make as good as or better than logical decisions and choices as some group of theologians wanting control from some 1700 years ago. My life is my life, not some supernatural being's.

Politicians at that level aren't just misguided. I agree about Rand's pandering to the 'life at conception', but remember where his base is. Rand above all else is a pragmatist. He's looking to change the Republican image and control with a new support base of the millennials and the generation coming right behind them.

Is he right/wrong, I don't know. But the Republican party has to make a major change or be buried this next election. The good old boys and the born agains have lost the rest of the population.

it is a difficult moral issue. I do NOT want the fed govt deciding this we need to educate women.

Yes, dad is/was an obstetrician and claims witnessing late-term abortions made him pro-life. He has (as usual) a unique perspective in that he believes, as he does with almost all laws, it should be up to the States, not a Federal prohibition. He is somewhat consistent in that he would be against a law prohibiting a woman who lives in a state where abortion is illegal from going to a different state and having one. I don't know if the son shares all those views. I still disagree with both of them.

Maybe, I take the opposite tack...when too many have no belief in a higher authority, man will hold himself as the originator of law and the definer of rights. When that happens all rights/laws become pliable and subject to interpretation and perhaps mob rule.

I find it bitterly amusing that the flower-children who wanted all the freedom the world had to offer for themselves are the wardens stripping away every freedom for their children and grandchildren.

You make a valid point. I think the author was pointing out that for those who do not hold a Christian worldview (an increasingly large percentage of our population), any argument involving God is spurious. For those of other beliefs or no belief, this puts him in the category of conservative Christian, that they may not want anything to do with.. Not ruling him out but if he tries to follow the "moral majority" type path I think in todays society, it will be his undoing.

I will, provisionally, retract my earlier ruling out of Cruz for now. If he is the candidate who best focuses on the critical non-religious issues like economics, individual rights, limited government, The Constitution and stays away from the social conservative issues like abortion, gay marriage etc., he may be the man. I hear he is a great speaker, very intelligent, argued (and won) several cases before the Supreme Court. I have no litmus test on abortion, even though I am absolutely pro-choice. Since I have voted for Republicans for President in the past, by definition I've voted for someone who was personally anti-choice. But they did not make that (or other social issues) prominent issues in their campaign. If Cruz does so during his pursuit of the nomination, I will switch to someone better as the nominee, because pushing those conservative social issues is morally wrong, divisive, and will hand the election to the D's.

No matter how we slice it a government will always be propped up above us as long as we continue to live in a society. Better to have every government aware of its place in the overall and unable to mess with at least the fundamental aspect of our existence.

I agree on Cruz, I would prefer he stay to more wide reaching topics to garner his appeal Lord know there is plenty of legitimate topics to talk about without polarizing yourself and isolating others.

I didn't realize that Ron and Rand Paul were both pro-life, but when I think about it, they are both physicians, and it makes sense.

yea, I like Cruz. My issue is if something can be above me-then why not a government? lots of History to prove this so. I need him to combine all of us. focus on the economics, the freedom grabs. don't be in my face from Jerry Falwell's origins. gah. that is completely off putting to so many people who would be listening and testing him as a candidate. when we all otherwise might agree on so much.