Fact: There is no immunity or protection against The Law of Scoreboards.
Did you know: What the media does NOT want you to read is at https://market-ticker.org/nad.
You are not signed on; if you are a visitor please register for a free account!
|The Market Ticker Single Post Display (Show in context)||
|User Info||To The Tea Party (And Related Organizations); entered at 2010-08-30 16:00:51|
I am frustrated that we seem to be over looking what needs to be fixed because it appears that there is a group of people pointing and shouting that we can't have religion. Ok, that's fine with me. But do not vote for what is right because the person that can right something has faith and you don't.
I think you're confusing the issue a little bit here! I basically agree with ^ this previous statement of yours. However, in the context of this discussion, you are basically making the "victim of [religious] persecution" defense without necessarily acknowledging the fact that religion was pulled onto the national stage to use as a TOOL by the very same group of people. ("You can't have it both ways") Also, we aren't talking about making a rational case to a group of free-thinking individuals who can take the time to logically separate the emotional rhetoric and political BS from reality. We are talking about advancing the ideas of economic freedom and personal responsibility (ie. what MUST be done), TO THE MASSES. In order to do that, the message must be able to reach (logically and emotionally) THE WIDEST AUDIENCE POSSIBLE.
Religion and Faith ARE moot points in politics and policy,IF AND ONLY IF we refuse to legislate based on them. As soon as we have politicians that promise to legislate based on specific religious beliefs, it's kind of ridiculous to cry foul when people make objections based on it. You can't use it as a weapon AND a shield!
In the end, it boils down to the fact that 'faith' based politics & public policy fails for THE SAME REASONS that 'liberal'/'socialist' ones do; they are based on completely NORMATIVE premises! Both, if taken to their logical conclusions here-and-now in the real world with real and diverse human beings, would result in some form of mob-rule where the rights of the few would be sacrificed at the altar of the "common good". Now I realize that that probably sounds very "Libertarian" to some social conservatives. But isn't that one of the main reasons for the founding of this country? To protect those who were marginalized by tyrannical oppression?
Last modified: 2010-08-30 16:06:52 by augmentedfourth