• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ted Cruz’s campaign is fueled by a dominionist vision for America (COMMENTARY)

cpwill said:
You have it exactly incorrect. This is a case of the administration trying to force it's views on them.



Ad hominem followed by Strawmen? Man, were you hit with a ruler as a kid of something? [emoji14]



Everybody gets one. Trumps is probably not in the best condition.
Click to expand...

That's bull****. They want to religiously oppress their own paid employees in violation of US law.

Did they complain when they have to pay taxes and some of those taxes might pay for police (who might shoot someone), capital punishment, or the military ?

Then what grounds do they have to forbid their paid employees from acquiring healthcare ?
 
Absentglare said:
That's bull****. They want to religiously oppress their own paid employees in violation of US law.
Click to expand...

:lamo how?.

Then what grounds do they have to forbid their paid employees from acquiring healthcare ?
Click to expand...

[emoji38] they aren't. All they are doing if refusing to take part in services that violate the tenets of their faith themselves. No one is denying anyone healthcare :roll:

The liberal conceit that somehow not giving someone something for free is the same as forbidding then to have it is by far the dumbest and most perplexing position they take. It's tempting to assume they clearly can't mean an argument so blatantly ridiculous, and are therefore expropriating the language of Rights to try to advance their Preferences, but they say it even when you would think they would know it would be caught.
 
Beaudreaux said:
Welcome to: FAMILYLEADER.COM This Web page is parked for FREE, courtesy of GoDaddy.com. Dude, check your own links BEFORE you post them.
Click to expand...

Dude I told you how I got to the website, you apparently can't type in the search words I gave you... are you being willfully ignorant or not? Go to GOOGLE use search words Cruz, family leader... you seem intent on being spoon fed information... is this what Conservatives have come to, can't do even the simpliest searches on their own?

FYI I was sitting on the website, used this website's link function so past that I don't know what happened... but of little matter IF you can get off your carny horse and type a few words into Google...
 
cpwill said:
:lamo how?.



[emoji38] they aren't. All they are doing if refusing to take part in services that violate the tenets of their faith themselves. No one is denying anyone healthcare :roll:

The liberal conceit that somehow not giving someone something for free is the same as forbidding then to have it is by far the dumbest and most perplexing position they take. It's tempting to assume they clearly can't mean an argument so blatantly ridiculous, and are therefore expropriating the language of Rights to try to advance their Preferences, but they say it even when you would think they would know it would be caught.
Click to expand...

How ?

If, say, according to my religion, i'm not supposed to buy alcohol- what does that have to do with my employees ? Should i be able to force them to adhere to my religion ?

Suppose that, according to my religion, stealing from your employer is to be punished by death. Should i be able to violate the law (murder an employee who stole from me) because of my religion ? Obviously not.

Religious freedom extends to individuals, not employers. Nobody forces religious fundamentalists to run businesses or employ Americans- and when they do, they shouldn't be allowed to ignore US law.
 
Absentglare said:
How ?

If, say, according to my religion, i'm not supposed to buy alcohol- what does that have to do with my employees ? Should i be able to force them to adhere to my religion ?
Click to expand...

On the job, obviously you can.

But that's not happening, now, is it. The nuns aren't banning anyone from doing anything. They just aren't doing it themselves. Which they have the right to do.

Religious freedom extends to individuals, not employers.
Click to expand...

WTF? No. I do not lose my rights when I purchase a service from someone. I do not cease to be either human or a citizen when I give someone a job.
 
cpwill said:
On the job, obviously you can.

But that's not happening, now, is it. The nuns aren't banning anyone from doing anything. They just aren't doing it themselves. Which they have the right to do.



WTF? No. I do not lose my rights when I purchase a service from someone. I do not cease to be either human or a citizen when I give someone a job.
Click to expand...

If they were just not doing it themselves, it wouldn't have been a court case. The choice is easy, don't take pills you don't want to take. This has nothing to do with a person making a religious decision for themselves. This is an employer making a religious decision on behalf of the employees. They legally get out of compensating their employee under the law because of their "religion." Now my Christian is a little fuzzy, but i don't remember any "thou shalt not offer healthcare services to thine employees," anywhere in the bible.

The employer has all the religious freedom they need, they can worship from their own person however they please within the confines of the law. They do not lose any "rights" by voluntarily employing people- they simply have to obey employment laws. If they can't do that: don't hire employees.
 
Absentglare said:
If they were just not doing it themselves, it wouldn't have been a court case. The choice is easy, don't take pills you don't want to take. This has nothing to do with a person making a religious decision for themselves. This is an employer making a religious decision on behalf of the employees.
Click to expand...

If that were the case, then they would be trying to ban their employees from getting BC. They aren't, and so your argument remains moot, built as it is on the ridiculous notion that not giving someone something for free is the same as forbidding them to have it .

The little sisters of the poor aren't forcing their religion on anyone any more than you are forcing teetotalism on me by not paying my bar tab.

They legally get out of compensating their employee under the law because of their "religion." Now my Christian is a little fuzzy, but i don't remember any "thou shalt not offer healthcare services to thine employees," anywhere in the bible.
Click to expand...

Lol they aren't denying healthcare, either. Nor is it even sane or normal that we route healthcare through employers. That's a messed up historical accident of the WWII wage controls.

The employer has all the religious freedom they need, they can worship from their own person however they please within the confines of the law. They do not lose any "rights" by voluntarily employing people- they simply have to obey employment laws. If they can't do that: don't hire employees.
Click to expand...

:roll: our making voluntary associations with each other in no way strips out rights. You no more lose your rights of conscience by hiring someone than you lose your right to free speech by joining a union, or lose your right to a speedy trial when you volunteer at a homeless shelter.
 
cpwill said:
If that were the case, then they would be trying to ban their employees from getting BC. They aren't, and so your argument remains moot, built as it is on the ridiculous notion that not giving someone something for free is the same as forbidding them to have it .

The little sisters of the poor aren't forcing their religion on anyone any more than you are forcing teetotalism on me by not paying my bar tab.



Lol they aren't denying healthcare, either. Nor is it even sane or normal that we route healthcare through employers. That's a messed up historical accident of the WWII wage controls.



:roll: our making voluntary associations with each other in no way strips out rights. You no more lose your rights of conscience by hiring someone than you lose your right to free speech by joining a union, or lose your right to a speedy trial when you volunteer at a homeless shelter.
Click to expand...

They don't buy BC, what they buy is health insurance for their employees. It's part of employee compensation per US law. What they're getting upset about is that their employee may use the compensation to buy BC. This is pointless posturing, i agree, the employee can still go and buy BC with cash or whatever. Doesn't matter. The point is that the employer is trying to circumvent US law so as to deliberately short change their own employees.

The decision to use BC is a personal one that may factor in religious beliefs. The decision to offer a healthcare plan to the letter of the law is not. How you can't understand that they're attempting to force their personal behaviors on their employees, illegally, is beyond me. They wouldn't be in court if it was a personal choice, and therefore religious, matter.

You're right that employers shouldn't be in the way of healthcare. That's why i support Sanders' medicare for all plan. It's a separate issue, though.

Voluntary associations can infringe on rights. Here, let's corral all the poor people into ghettos. Then, we'll take the men and women, tell them that if they perform sex acts, we'll feed their children. Voluntary doesn't mean fair. You're all free to play the lottery, therefore the lottery is fair- doesn't make sense.

The fact is that people cannot abuse their employees just because their employees have other options.
 
The Little Sisters are attempting to keep their female employees from obtaining birth control; it is part of their faith statements, just as is happening today in Brazil where the Roman Catholic bishopric council has stated their continuing opposition to any type of birth control, even in the onslaught of the Zika virus.
 
cruz is the fundy religious candidate. very scary. trump and sanders are the only sensible candidates. clinton's a felon.
 
Somerville said:
Cruz's personal religious beliefs and those of many who him support scare the crap out of me. Too many Americans really seem to believe that they as 'true' Christians are being persecuted by a secular government led by a man some believe is a follower of the Prophet Muhammed. Their hope is that they can follow Ted Cruz back to a time when America was a "Christian Nation"; a nation where non-believers and those of other faiths would be relegated to second-class categories unable to participate in the political process
Click to expand...

Cruz does remind me of a latent Oliver Cromwell actually. Though I think that he making the true believers, and their political allies Pat Robertson etc, campaign fodder. I don't see him giving one whit really about God OR the Bible. He and Trump were great friends for a reason.
 
Absentglare said:
For Cruz, "religious freedom" is just an excuse to give unconstitutional, preferential treatment to Christians.
Click to expand...

Right now Christians are being more and more prosecuted than ever. I am a Christian. I have experienced discrimination at work because of my devout faith.

Most of the attacks against Cruz are simply bigoted and plain nasty. I am unsure if it is a racial prejudice because he is Cuban/Canadian or perhaps it is strong faith. When people on this forum believe Cruz is a traitor and should be in jail, you know something is loco.
 
Bucky said:
Right now Christians are being more and more prosecuted than ever. I am a Christian. I have experienced discrimination at work because of my devout faith.

Most of the attacks against Cruz are simply bigoted and plain nasty. I am unsure if it is a racial prejudice because he is Cuban/Canadian or perhaps it is strong faith. When people on this forum believe Cruz is a traitor and should be in jail, you know something is loco.
Click to expand...

What person has ever said Cruz should be in jail? Please point that out and I will demonize them.
 
Bucky said:
Right now Christians are being more and more prosecuted than ever. I am a Christian. I have experienced discrimination at work because of my devout faith.

Most of the attacks against Cruz are simply bigoted and plain nasty. I am unsure if it is a racial prejudice because he is Cuban/Canadian or perhaps it is strong faith. When people on this forum believe Cruz is a traitor and should be in jail, you know something is loco.
Click to expand...

...

In what way ? Are Christians fired simply for being Christian ? Are Christians excluded from businesses simply for being Christian ?
 
winston53660 said:
What person has ever said Cruz should be in jail? Please point that out and I will demonize them.
Click to expand...

DifferentDrummr said:
Anyone who threatens to bankrupt the country just to score political points is a traitor.
Click to expand...

Bucky said:
If you are referring to the government shutdown, it has been done 18 times since 1976. A government shutdown is not considered bankrupting this country.
Click to expand...

DifferentDrummr said:
It's been only since the 90s that these shutdowns were timed to threaten defaults. Anyone behind a move like that is a traitor.
Click to expand...

Bucky said:
By definition DD, you are calling Ted Cruz a traitor, which means he has committed treason. If he has committed treason do you want Cruz to be put to death or go to jail?
Click to expand...

DifferentDrummr said:
Take your pick. Either one would be perfectly okay by me.
Click to expand...

Here you go:
 
winston53660 said:
I don't exactly see threatening jail time in your quotes.
Click to expand...

The poster said Ted Cruz is a traitor to the country and blames him for the government shutdown. She believe he should either go to jail or be put to death. I do not believe that was a joke.
 
Bucky said:
The poster said Ted Cruz is a traitor to the country and blames him for the government shutdown. She believe he should either go to jail or be put to death. I do not believe that was a joke.
Click to expand...

None of which has anything to do with Cruz's religion or with his Cuban/Canadian background, "Buckarina."
 
Somerville said:
Cruz's personal religious beliefs and those of many who him support scare the crap out of me. Too many Americans really seem to believe that they as 'true' Christians are being persecuted by a secular government led by a man some believe is a follower of the Prophet Muhammed. Their hope is that they can follow Ted Cruz back to a time when America was a "Christian Nation"; a nation where non-believers and those of other faiths would be relegated to second-class categories unable to participate in the political process
Click to expand...

I doubt Ted Cruz believes all that. Like Ronald Reagan he is pandering to the religious right for votes. Once he was elected Reagan never did anything for the religious right but give them rhetorical support now and then.

Like Reagan Cruz's real concern is making the rich richer. The flat tax he advocates will do that, just as it will raise taxes for the working poor.
 
SmartCat said:
I doubt Ted Cruz believes all that. Like Ronald Reagan he is pandering to the religious right for votes. Once he was elected Reagan never did anything for the religious right but give them rhetorical support now and then.

Like Reagan Cruz's real concern is making the rich richer. The flat tax he advocates will do that, just as it will raise taxes for the working poor.
Click to expand...

Not sure which is worse: the prospect of a Cruz residency or the prospect of him doing voices for The Simpsons:

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom