Is the property Federal or State-owned? That is the key question. The First Amendment prohibits the Federal Government from establishing a religion as the public religion of the United States. But the Ninth and Tenth Amendments leave everything else up to the States. That is precisely what Cruz argues for: getting the Federal Government out of running people's lives and leaving the individual States to experiment on what works and what doesn't.

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.

Atheism is not a religion. And the Fourteenth Amendment (which did not exist during Jefferson’s time) extends protection of individual rights to state and local governments.

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.

Read it and it is brilliant. I would love to see Lee on the Supreme Court.

Herb,

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

Are erecting monuments on public property promoting a particular religious view, or giving moral support to a public official refusing service to a couple she objects to on religious grounds, a "proper application" of the First Amendment? If so, that amendment is in urgent need of a rewrite. I would never want anyone with those views in the White House.

He was upholding the constitution in arguing exactly what your concerned about.

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"

not just NO but HELL NO.

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.

I wouldn't stop there, however. Go listen to several of his speeches about protection of religious liberties and you'll find that he isn't doing them to push religion, but to protect the First Amendment rights of free thought, free association, free business, and everything else. For all his religious tendencies, he doesn't advocate for them in the public square, he just brings up the Ninth and Tenth Amendments and says that they are items for the States to decide on - NOT the Federal government.

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.

One may be a fan, but not be an Objectivist. I caution against confusing and or projecting the two as the same thing.

Check out "The Prime Law" by Mark Hamilton.
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.

I was JOKING!...although one wonders where these creatures came from.

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.

What part of Objectivism does their Christian belief contradict and what part of Christianity does their Objectivist belief contradict? They cant tell because they don't know either. Being that confused they probably cannot tell what part of science is true or false.

I think our constitution was corrupted by a lack of."This government shall not take from one person and give to another". Over the years our politicians have been using the government to serve special interests at the expense of the rest of us. That's why there's an investment of 1B $$ to ram a president island candidate down our throats. It's pretty sick

I have no reason to accept your assertions. If I'm wrong here, please convince me so.

Still laughing...but if you must know...I was referring to the book of Enoch.

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.

Genetically modified? By whom or what?

It's Ted's views. He brags about his "religious liberty" victories on his website, as in "Defended the constitutionality of the Texas 10 Commandments monument before the U.S. Supreme Court." Anyone considering supporting Ted Cruz should read that entire webpage, then ask themselves whether Cruz would be willing to uphold the Constitution whenever it conflicts with his religious views.
https://www.tedcruz.org/issues/religi...

Laughing...I'm not sure it would be a good thing to Eat them...it's more than likely that 13K years ago they were Genetically Modified!

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.

LITERALLY "just plain non-human"? So that one could (e.g.) morally hunt, kill, and eat them?
<;-S

We need the people in government (if we can define them as people) that are guided by something good, something moral, something sensible. Our forefathers understood that...only an informed and moral population could keep the Republic. (paraphrased).
Right now all but a few are criminals, stupid or just plain non human.