Theocrat Cruz Indoctrinating Kids in Iowa

a reply to: MOMof3



Your mistake is thinking I was making a point as to a religion.

As well as you prove my point, the crusaders killed many for their faith...and so did the soviets.

The point I'm trying to make is that believing in any morality at all is a faith in and of itself. Atheist, agnostic, or believer doesn't matter.

originally posted by: Metallicus

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Metallicus

How about NO religion should be talked about by candidates? Who said anything about atheism?

If religion is part of who someone is then they have a right to talk about it...even if they are a candidate. I know that I don't want to vote an Atheist into office so I like to know if I have a belief in God in common with a candidate.

I should say vote ANOTHER Atheist in to office because Obama ACTS like a secular atheist even if he pretends to worship God. Actions speak louder than words.

Muslims believe in God, they even believe in the same God Christians believe in. Would you vote a Muslim into office?

I'm religious (Buddhist) and don't believe in a God. Does that disqualify me?

a reply to: VictoriaCromwell

Perhaps you will now enlighten me as to what system of morality is backed by anything other than faith.

Well, I don't know what jimmyx would say to this, but
I will tell you my opinion.

Morality is based on one tenet, and one tenet only:

Treat other people the way you want to be treated.
Simple logic. Compassion and empathy. It's actually an innate human trait. Newborns in a nursery will cry when they hear another newborn cry...sympathetic response. And it goes on from there.

It has Nothing to do with "faith."

"Act like a jackass jerk, get treated like a jackass jerk."

And vice versa - act like a nice person who is capable of understanding what another is feeling and living - and you will be treated likewise by others (provided they are normal people and not insane jackass jerks).

originally posted by: VictoriaCromwell
a reply to: MOMof3

The point I'm trying to make is that believing in any morality at all is a faith in and of itself. Atheist, agnostic, or believer doesn't matter.

I'm an agnostic and I disagree that believing in morality is equal to faith. Morality does not require belief. It only requires thought, or a predisposition to do the right thing.

The idea that there is something other than basic human dignity and compassion required for 99% of genuine ethics and morality is absurd.

I act morally because I care about others in generic ways if not specifically. I need no fear of invisible forces to tell me this is right.

Oh no, say it ain't so!!! He didn't pray for them to live long, prosperous, and healthy lives too did he?



Those evil pesky Christians!

a reply to: introvert

I'm responding to you and the OP here.

Once again, from whence does that morality come from, and if you do believe that human decency and treating others kindly is a law of the universe, I contend that belief must be based in faith. Faith in the principle itself.

The field of philosophy has been attempting to put words to a true morality if you will for thousands of years. That fight for knowledge is still in the womb, let alone finished, and it may never be as such.

At the very least, you have faith in yourself, your own "thought" as you put it, your judgement of life and its situations.

"Morality is based on one tenet, and one tenet only: Treat other people the way you want to be treated." My question still stands, who or what makes that so? I'm not disagreeing with your statement that the golden rule is a ethical construct in and of itself, but what makes it an absolute, is it a god? Newton's law of morality? The tide? The moon? Society? Or perchance, thyself? Does your belief in the golden rule make it an absolute truth? I claim it's just that, a belief. Or in other words, a faith -in that rule-. One last question on that subject, what makes those "jackasses" you mention, wrong, and you, right?

Freedom is a faith. Libertarianism is a faith. Futurism is a faith. Environmentalism is a faith. What do they have in common, that a system of beliefs is the right order of things. To claim that something is right or wrong without admitting that most of what goes into that decision is emotional rather than rational or scientific, is arrogant.

a reply to: VictoriaCromwell

Morality comes from people realizing what results in a sustainable society. If people are free to murder each other society collapses. If they steal from each other, society becomes highly unproductive. And so on.

Some will disagree, 1 thief is likely going to have a highly profitable lifestyle in a field of 99 other honest people but if 100 people are thieves everything will collapse as people consume all available resources rather than produce new ones. But, the majority will come to the same conclusion and try to put a stop to destructive behavior.

Which goes back to my original point. What is moral is what's sustainable if applied to everyone.

originally posted by: damwel
Politicians and people in authority should be held to a higher standard and jailed when they lie to the public.

Funny Obama is isn't jail yet!, Yet!

a reply to: Aazadan

So your moral belief system is a belief in democracy, people deciding that a sustainable society is the right way to go.

But what makes the nihilists who hate your society wrong, lack of numbers? Would they be right if they were the majority?

This is the last time I'll beg this question, then I give up, from whence does that belief that society is morality itself come?

Hell, there are environmentalists who would say that human society is an intrinsic evil, that we're unnatural, degenerate creatures.

The only thing I ask, is that you all question more.

I'll admit what apparently no-one else will, my politics, my convictions, my sense of right and wrong, is not much more than animal instinct, with some rationalization thrown in. My belief in free markets and sound money is just that, a faith, and those on the left might not wish to admit it, but your beliefs are a faith as well.

Edit: Lastly, those who base their morality in faith in a God have just as much of a valid claim as anyone else in the fields of politics, philosophy, and morality. I however, am an agnostic, as I don't believe the question of a god, or a spirituality is one I am qualified to even attempt to answer.

I love seeing scared liberals grasp at straws cause they know Cruz (if the gop nominee) will annihilate Hillary. Funny thing is Hillary won't even engage with the public unless it is a carefully orchestrated venue!

Cruz 2016!!!

a reply to: VictoriaCromwell

Once again, from whence does that morality come from

Common sense.

Kindness?

and if you do believe that human decency and treating others kindly is a law of the universe, I contend that belief must be based in faith. Faith in the principle itself.

I don't believe that.

So where do we go from here?

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: peskyhumans
This is a vid of Cruz saying that he is a theocrat:

What a bunch of crap. All Cruz said was that part of the electorate needs to vote in greater numbers, the christian part. He merely stated a fact. No where in what Cruz said does he say he want's America to become a theocracy! The idiot moderators tried to paint that picture and you heard what you wanted to hear!

You call Cruz a Theocrat, but I don't think you understand what that is.

AI can give you TWO examples of a modern Theocracy; The Vatican and ISIS.

Per Wikipedia:
Theocracy, according to the dictionary, is the "government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided


Tell me exactly where Cruz claims to be directed by God on how to run the country as opposed to the Constitution. I'll be waiting.


It seems you have a problem with his Christian views, shared by many.

a reply to: Tempter

I don't have a problem with Christian views or values. I have a problem with those that claim to have the values of Christ, but only talk about them for political gain.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Tempter

I don't have a problem with Christian views or values. I have a problem with those that claim to have the values of Christ, but only talk about them for political gain.

Well, I was addressing the OP, but I'll respond here, too.

What values are you speaking of?

a reply to: Tempter

What values are you speaking of?

Doesn't matter.

Any use of religious mantra or rhetoric for political gain is wrong.

An appeal to god is a propaganda technique that is dangerous.

a reply to: VictoriaCromwell

Ok, a couple things... first, you are really liberal (pun intended) with the use of the word "faith". It's a common and desperate tactic to make it look like the way you have "faith" (believing in something without evidence) is the same way that other people have "faith" in say, the sun coming up tomorrow. As if you haven't heard before... there is no atheist doctrine. There is no atheist playbook or rulebook. There is nothing that is required of me to have "faith" in. It isn't even something that crosses my mind. On the other hand, religious folk must have faith, as it is written and required, or else you are not a believer. I have nothing like this, and man am I thankful.

As for morals... if there is one thing that life has tried to do, it is to survive. It certainly hasn't always survived, but we, in general, try to avoid dying, and try to avoid getting hurt, as historically this hurt your chances for survival (life). We see through the ages that for some animals, a tribal unit was more likely to increase the changes of survival. Safety in numbers, if you will. Within these tribal groups (whether they be humans, apes, etc.) there is (often) a series of social norms that have developed in order to increase the chances of that species surviving. A small society. Now, in order to survive in a tribal group (or society), reckless actions often don't do well for your own survival. Especially if you treat others poorly. Those that you treat poorly tend to harbor negative sentiment and act upon it, if not individually, then as a group. With all that, it boils down to such a simple concept that it boggles my mind that you don't understand... the golden rule. Ya know, do onto others. Pain is real, I can feel it. I don't like it. If I make someone else hurt and feel pain, there is a higher chance that I will hurt and feel pain. And I also want others to feel good, because that makes me feel good. No good deed I do is for a reward of any kind. My selfless acts are truly selfless, as I don't see any reason to believe that good acts will grant me a celestial disneyland in the afterlife. Nor do I have to get on the good side of my servitude.

Seriously, if all that's standing in the way of you having zero morals is a religion that must be cherrypicked to even find a semblance of morality, then we should all be frightened. Scary stuff buddy.

a reply to: introvert

So a candidate espousing their faith in hopes that others will feel aligned and vote for them is wrong? What would you do? Outlaw religous speak? When? During campaigns?

a reply to: okrian

To address your first statement, I am an agnostic not an atheist, being an atheist requires disbelief which is belief in the negative , that a god doesn't exist, it certainly isn't a neutral position. Atheism being a religion is a silly memetic device, however, the reasoning many use to reach the conclusion of atheism is identical to the reasoning used by religious people to reach their conclusions.

There are deontological ethics, and consequentialist ethics.

It is a bold claim to say you are a truly selfless individual, and then go on to say your motivation for helping them is that it makes you feel good.

My morality is relative to me, your morality is relative to you, humanity has fought many wars, and every participant views themselves the hero. It is scary, but that doesn't make it any less true. There are two ways it could be, you have either cherrypicked your own morals as you claim I have, or they are nothing more than a result of your own psychology.

If you like the idea of socialism, that is an opinion, if you see examples of socialism in the world at large, and wish to apply it, that could be your idea of pragmatism a consequentialist utilitarian choice, but to determine whether or not socialism is good or evil, that my friend, requires belief or faith or opinion, whatever you wish to call it. The lynchpin of our political beliefs is very often not just an educated guess that doing A will get you B. There's more to it than that.

I suppose the idea that maybe, just maybe, there are more candidates out there than Ted Cruz whose politics are based in not much other than faith, is unacceptable to you?

Edit: I don't know if you didn't read my other posts, or if you're choosing to ignore them, but I never said I disagree with the golden rule, I am merely attempting to de-construct the idea of absolutist morality in regards to politics, I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with any morality mentioned in this thread.