Ted Cruz Makes Asinine Statement About Religious Liberties While Speaking at Liberty University

ted-cruz-liberty-universityI didn’t write about it, but I had a short back and forth with a right-wing religious person recently about the now infamous phrase “religious liberty.”  It’s a term Republicans love to use when they talk about their religious views being “under attack.”  The reality is, the only thing “under attack” is their attempt to force their religious views on others through legislation.

These conservatives are essentially trying to legalize discrimination based on the premise of “religious liberty.”  But this is nothing new.  When people argued that slavery should be legal they often cited religion.  When they tried to deny women the right to vote, many used religion as their excuse behind their opposition.  When it came to ending segregation and bans on interracial marriage, opponents once again often used religion to validate their opposition.

This person I briefly debated with believed that religion was under attack.  Though when I asked them what religious freedoms they had recently lost, they weren’t able to come up with anything.  It’s just a line a lot of these people regurgitate because Fox News or some Republican politician spouts it off during a speech.

Ted Cruz’s recent comments at Liberty University are a prime example of that.  While speaking at the extremely conservative university, Cruz said, “As believers, we are called to action; not just sitting quietly and hiding our faith under a bushel but to stand and speak no matter what the consequence.  Religious liberty has never been more under attack.”

Nobody’s “religious liberties” are under attack.  The only “movement” that’s going on in this country is preventing religion from being involved in areas of our society where it shouldn’t be.  That’s it.

It’s like I’ve said plenty of times – religion is meant to be private.  If people want to attend church 7 days a week, read the Bible all day long and even send their kids to religious private schools, they’re more than welcome to do so.

What people aren’t allowed to do is force others to abide by their religious views.  They’re not allowed to own a business and discriminate against specific groups of people citing “religious beliefs.”  They’re not allowed to push their religion into public life and violate the First Amendment rights of others.

Ted Cruz, like with most things he says, is just spouting off ridiculous nonsense targeted at the most ignorant among us.  Those who want to use religion to justify hate, intolerance and discrimination.

And the only thing that’s “under attack” is their right to do just that.

Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.


Facebook comments

  • katherine norton malek

    More of the same from Ted. I wish someone would ask him, in a public platform, in no uncertain terms with the ability to shut down a rhetorical response .. “What have YOU done, Ted, as a legislator?” Speaking, philibustering, criticizing etc, none of that counts. That’s just verbalization. Name ONE tangible thing he’s accomplished while in office, just one. No beating around the bush, because so far, he’s been elected to serve his constituents and is being paid to do nothing more than talk talk talk.

    • Nanna

      Name ONE thing Obama or Hillary has done as legislators? 😀

  • meatwad_SSuppet

    The over all problem with these attacks on religion are the fact that our Constitution does not say “separation of church and state”, it says “congress ( law makers) shall (shall NOT for the dumber ones) make no law respecting an establishment of religion”. Which has been twisted and as such has been the attack on your religion all along. When the supreme court changed that wide open restriction to mean just that the government can not make a state church, that is where your religious persons problems started. You see that decision was based on just one factor, ‘how can the church keep all of the cash it brings in’, period. In doing this unconstitutional decision, your “freedoms” to place nativity scenes at holidays on public lands has been restricted. Now if we actually lived the intent of those first most important of ALL the bill of rights words to those past authors, you could do those displays etc,,, it is just that all of those “churches”, so called non profits based on their religious work, would be taxed as the for profit businesses that they truly are. This is the one thing they are protecting by lying about the intent of the first amendments first words, the cash cow the religion business is to those parasites that do not care for the needy, they only claim to care for them.

    • meatwad_SSuppet

      In other words TAX those religious parasites and build all of the nativity scenes your heart desires. A small ten percent tax on what religious parasites, including Buddhists, Rastafarians, Mosques, etc etc, bring in, and there would be such a surplus in the IRS accounts that they could no longer excuse the taxation of our personal lives and incomes. No more inheritance taxes etc. All because of the unconstitutional protection of the religion business, we pay into these other illegal taxes and have our lives opened up to the tiniest scrutiny in public that no Citizens of any past nation ever suffered.

      Another example of a ‘law that respects religious establishments’, the push to keep “Marriage between one man and one woman” laws. Those of you that just read that, you know that is the truth. It would be a law designed for the protection of a religious establishment. If you deny that, and please do openly in here, you are just a deceiver a liar. I’ve heard that most of you know who the father of those Liar people are.

    • hermanprovi

      Right on!

      • meatwad_SSuppet

        Thank you Hermanprovi

  • Billbow

    The effect that his religio-crazy father had on him is very evident.

  • hermanprovi

    Let us NEVER forget, that Ted Cruzs’ father, is an evangelical religious zealot, THE most prejudiced of religious folk!

  • D9W

    As a progressive Christian, I want to know why so many Christians feel they need to lie for God? I thought if God created the universe, and was so powerful, why would he need humans to defend him by lying? I thought lying was from the other camp way of operating.

    • Phil Keast

      Unfortunately, God’s Gift of Free Will caries with it the freedom to be an irrational “Christian” whose relationship with God is at best flawed, and in many cases actually blasphemous, as they as they raise themselves up to be worshiped as the true voice of God. If Leviticus (the source of so many of their cherry-picked “laws”), then maybe they should check out the Ten Commandments. How they can look themselves in the mirror without shame as they break the ten commandments not only in their rhetoric but also in their actions makes me despair.

      • freethinker666

        “irrational Christian” Is a redundancy.

      • Phil Keast

        There is such a thing as a rational Christian, some of the worlds most respected scientists are Christians, they have resolved the dissonance between their religious beliefs and their science. Just because there are some irrational fundamentalist Christians (apparently a truly frightening number in the USA), do not lower yourself to their level and treat those who believe other than yourself as irrational and deluded. Freedom of religion = freedom to believe. Religion is not incompatible with science.

      • freethinker666

        “some of” ????????? Please, that’s right out of fixed news, actually most of the worlds really brilliant mathematicians, physicists, scientist are Jewish. Re. “Religion is not incompatible with science” I recommend you read “History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science by John William Draper” You however won’t read that for two reasons, first of all you lack the intellectual curiosity (polite way of saying you are not smart enough) the other reason you won’t read an opposing point of view, is you might find out that you have been talking to the ceiling all your life and no one is listening.

      • Phil Keast

        There is a difference between “some of” and “most of”. the point I was making is that there is no irreconcilable dissonance between science and faith, whatever that faith may be. The only reason I targeted my comments at Christians is because the Christian Creationist-scientists with their anti-science agenda are the main topic under discussion in many, if not most, of these articles and threads. I was in no way meaning to diminish the scientific achievements of those whose faith is based on any other religion.
        Secondly, I was asking (recommending?) that those who would promote science and counter Creation-science (an oxymoron if ever there was one) would be well advised not to paint all Christians (or all those who have faith) as fools, idiots, deluded, or any other pejorative term, as in so doing one loses the high ground of the debate, become little better than those peddling the message you wish to challenge (reducing the debate to two children i the playground yelling at each other “you’re wrong, my daddy said so”, “no, you’re wrong, my teacher told me so”, No, you’re wrong”, “”you are”, “you are”, ad infinitum.)
        Finally, while I haven’t read the specific book you have cited [ “History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science by John William Draper”], I may geet round to readingi it once I’ve finished reading all the text books and other reading material stacked on my to-do list (currently it consists of 4 piles of books, each 4 foot tall, so have patience). I am fully aware that there have been atrocities and horrendous acts of violation performed under the guise of the conflict between Faith and Science. That such things undeniably occurred does not mean that that the flames of righteousness (be it religious dogma or claims of scientific infallibility) be encouraged to repeat the mistakes of the past on the basis of pointless taunting when an open minded (a feature of a true scientist) discussion would hopefully bring about change and recognition of the difference between faith and science and defuse this pointless debate.

      • freethinker666

        (currently it consists of 4 piles of books, each 4 foot tall, so have patience) If you want me to take you seriously, don’t bullshit me! OK!

      • Phil Keast

        Such cynicism. Most of my disposable income is spent on books, both fiction and non-fiction. If you’d checked my disqus profile you’d have noticed that I am on a disability pension. I haven’t been able to work for 25 years. Reading and studying is virtually my only recreation, and I have an insatiable love of learning. So, yeah, there is a f*ckload of books and unfinished projects surrounding my desk. But then your reply wasn’t really about my book pile was it? It was that you find the idea that a narrow-minded dismissal of the beliefs of others where they differ from your own is not the sign of a freethinker. Or did that hit too close to home?

      • freethinker666

        Put an ad in the paper, perhaps you can find someone to read all your comic books to you.

      • Phil Keast

        Certainly, if you pile up your ignorance and prejudice and commit suicide by jumping off the resulting spire .
        Piss off, you bore me, I’d hoped for intelligent debate, obviously I looked under the wrong rock.

      • freethinker666

        Oh! that hurt.

    • meatwad_SSuppet

      The under lying nature of their entire faith is based on a grand deception, so it just fits that they too would be deceivers.

  • Eddie Krebbs

    Go easy on the guy. The way he used Green Eggs and Ham shows that he couldn’t even comprehend the meaning of that children’s book (that is, the whole story is to try new things and he was using it to justify not trying something new).

    • Leftcoastrocky

      I am pretty sure that there is something in Ecclesiastes condemning the eating of Green Eggs and Ham

      • meatwad_SSuppet

        That was just another optional they could pick n chose from, if they so desired to. It’s not as if they were carved into stone. It’s just on old paper with something else that contradicts it later on.