So the contextual foundation here was laid by a conservative shock jock, Jan Mickelson, who is infamous for previously suggesting that bringing back slavery would be a jolly good idea. No really, I’m not kidding …
Just last week, the conservative Iowa radio host issued a ringing endorsement for enslaving undocumented immigrants who refuse to leave the country. Mickelson thinks the United States should give any resident without the appropriate paperwork two months to leave. If they don’t, Mickelson says, they should become the property of the state in which they reside, where the could be put to work on projects like building a wall on the United States border with Mexico. After being pushed by a caller about his idea, Mickelson asked “What’s wrong with slavery?”
Yes, it is radio, and so they need to glean attention by saying outrageous things, hence anything said is perhaps designed to provoke rage because even that can be an effective a tool to bump ratings.
So anyway, a few days after saying the above, Mickelson interviewed Cruz and as you might imagine a complete lack of empathy sprinkled with a not so delicate and rather blatant bit of delusional thinking prevailed. One gem that popped up was this new term “Atheist Taliban” ..
“There are these zealots — as you put it, the atheist Taliban — that seek to tear down any acknowledgment of God in the public square, and it’s contrary to our Constitution, it’s contrary to who we are as a people.”
The Constitutional Position
What these guys are babbling on about is stuff that truly is contrary to what the US is all about.
The actual legal position is that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution reads …
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
In other words, permitting government entities to promote a specific god claim is contrary to the constitution because the US is not a religious state that promotes a specific belief, and can legally neither promote nor inhibit any belief.
If we do indeed wish to see an example of somebody behaving like the Taliban, a religious theocratic dictatorship imposing specific religious beliefs upon all, then Mr Cruz is pointing his finger in the wrong direction here.
As a brief reminder, this is a chap who is …
- opposed to a pro-choice stance and dictates what is essentially a religious view
- opposed to equality and promotes an anti-gay agenda for what are essentially religious reasons
- opposed to the separation of church and state and basically objects the the first amendment stopping him from imposing his specific religious beliefs
… so if indeed he wishes to point the finger at people behaving in a Taliban like manner, then he need look no further than the nearest mirror.
Why is he like this?
Just one single byte on my keyboard sums it all up … $
As was pointed out a couple of weeks ago by Michel Stone …
In the largest known donation so far in the 2016 presidential campaign, two Bible-thumping Billionaire brothers have purchased Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz for $15 million.
CNN reports Farris and Dan Wilks, billionaire brothers who made their fortunes in the West Texas fracking boom, have given $15 million to the pro-Cruz super PAC, Keep the Promise.
Friendly Atheist reports the billionaire brothers belong to and preach at the Assembly of Yahweh 7th Day in Texas. The fundamentalist sect holds the Bible to be infallible and interprets every word of the Bible literally.
… so in essence, he has been bought and paid for by folks with a very specific narrow religious agenda, and is parroting what this religious Talibani cabal want.