I’ve seen a lot of talk about this answer of Rubio’s, so I thought I’d post it here:
Comments
Rubio on religion — 23 Comments
As a devout Catholic (daily communicant) I love this answer. With the continuing lapse of understanding of our founding documents (Constitution & Bill of Rights) there is an error that has been embraced that “freedom FROM religion” and “freedom FROM speech” is in place when, of course, that is not so. Exactly as Rubio stated, our country is founded on the principle of natural law, that our rights emanate from God, not the government.
an atheist like the questioner, but I could ask questions like that 30 years ago.
Rubio is playing for the Christian vote but he’s Catholic like me. That’s very different from the evangelical Christianity that is big in Iowa. Ted has that segment wrapped up because that is his background. His dad is a pastor.
Marco could never be Pastor-in-Chief. He would have to be Priest-in-Chief or the Archbishop.
John Hinderaker at Power Line had a very persuasive endorsement of Rubio. I might even change my mind it was so good. One of John’s point is that Marco is a good guy. That shows through in that video. Also optimistic.
If only Marco had gone to a Jesuit school, I would definitely switch. 🙂
A beautiful sermon. I don’t agree with all of Rubio’s policies, but I certainly respect his principles as expressed here.
Hey, I got 8 thumbs up on Instapundit for this comment on the same video (strut, strut, we bad, um-huh…)
I thought it was disappointing that at this late date in human civilization, no candidate seems to be able to articulate the concept of “rights”. First of all, there are no such things as collective rights. The term “rights” only applies to individuals and only to individuals living among other humans. Rubio should have clarified that. A better answer would have been, “The words of the Declaration of Independence apply whether you believe that man was created by God or by Nature. Individual rights are simply conditions of existence necessary for survival among other human beings. For example, to live in a civilized society we all have to agree not to kill our neighbors and steal their stuff (thus, the Rights to Life and Property). We all have to agree that one person can’t own another (thus the Rights to Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness). In our Country, everyone is free to believe that those basic rules were handed down by God on stone tablets or arrived at by a long study of human nature.”
Snopercod – It’s not like there’s only ever been one theory of human rights. You can articulate one that doesn’t require a God, but there are very strong arguments that such a theory wouldn’t hold up. Who says we don’t have to agree that we can’t own each other? Lots of people don’t agree on that. Humans have existed with other humans for a long time while agreeing that people can be owned. Those societies have believed in human rights from divine origin, human rights without divine origin, no human rights, concepts of human rights that we wouldn’t recognize as such…all possibilities.
This particular, historic democracy that we live in was founded by thinkers influenced by European Christianity via the Enlightenment, and our founding document does claim that our rights are derived from our Creator.
Snopercod, the Declaration of Independence refers to a Creator endowing humans with unalienable rights. That is entirely different with what you wrote, and the reason that I like Rubio’s response that actually lines up with our founding documents, whereas yours does not. A long study of human nature apart from God would pretty much look like the world today, minus the western world which is a construct of Judeo-Christian principles being lived out through the ages. The command to “love your neighbor as yourself” is followed with “I am the Lord.” (Lev. 19:18)
Hi Sharon. So you think only Christians should have rights?
Snopercod, was that intended to be a troll comment? Because you’re not representing what Sharon said at all.
I am commenting as an agnostic. I realize Western Civilization is founded upon Judeo-Christian principles, and those are very good principles. What I liked about Rubio’s response is that he stated his beliefs and acknowledged the freedom of the questioner to hold his beliefs. Atheism is a belief system, a religion as absolute in its beliefs as any other religion. As an agnostic I am merely uncertain and confused about what is God/god.
Parker
Read “Jesus” by the Jesuit priest James Martin. A modern pilgrammage tied to Scripture and with personal observations. Great, great book.
Parker
By the book on Amazon. For neo!
You won’t regret it. Just as a travel-history book it is excellent.
There is little to add to these excellent comments. After that response I like Rubio much more.
“I don’t believe anybody prefers Trump over Cruz.
I think everybody (GOPe) sees Cruz as much more realistic chance of getting nomination and they don’t want to come out and say they are against (both) Trump and Cruz, as then they are against the top two in the polls.
I suspect that this comment is dead on target for most GOPe players.
They were unable to warm to Rubio — and they’ve had plenty of time to do so.
They are even MORE appalled at a principled politician, Cruz — as they came to the same conclusion as the HRC camp…
Ted Cruz is by far the most likely nominee.
Trump just has SO MUCH baggage that will make card carrying Republican delegates gag.
The GOPe is actually happy to see Wall Street owned HRC installed in the Oval Office.
Totally corrupt — that’s their kind of player.
They don’t cough up massive campaign funding for the good of the nation, just their own bottom line.
The cry of alarm went out ONLY because the rise of Ted Cruz — and ethics — and his nasty tendency to call out the Washington cartel AS the Washington cartel…
Time to circle the wagons.
In a brokered convention, Trump is dead meat.
He’s THAT far away from GOP values.
Trump would mean that 0-care lumbers on to poison the entire global economy.
( By way of shrinking the supply of US dollars in circulation. )
This critical link to the solvency of our economy is missed by EVERY pundit to date.
It ought to be the TOP STORY.
But, it’s over the heads of the pundit class.
As “The Big Short” reveals, Wall Street is loaded with complacent dummies, too.
Thanks for the tip cornhead, I will try to find it at the library or order it through a local bookstore.
Can an atheist have morals? Yes. Did Adolph Hitler have morals? Yes – you just didn’t like them too good.
If man is an accident, a chance combination of chemicals in a warm pool, then his destiny is in his genes. It is the moral duty of the gifted elite to guide the poor wretch in proper behavior and goodthink.
If man was created, if he has a soul, then he is sovereign, free to chart his own destiny and resist the man with the gun.
As Russell Kirk put it:
“First, the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order. That order is made for man, and man is made for it: human nature is a constant, and moral truths are permanent.”
We, the United States, have built the greatest country in history hewing to the moral order bequeathed to us by Christianity.
Kirk again:
“Our twentieth-century world has experienced the hideous consequences of the collapse of belief in a moral order. Like the atrocities and disasters of Greece in the fifth century before Christ, the ruin of great nations in our century shows us the pit into which fall societies that mistake clever self-interest, or ingenious social controls, for pleasing alternatives to an oldfangled moral order.”
They are trying to make that happen here. Don’t let them.
Tangential, but a blistering example of why the “values voters” are damn right that it matters.
This brief video shows a horrifying incident of taharrush, with the helpless girl being surrounded and dragged away, screaming, as the moslem males surround her like pack animals. (Not graphic; but you can hear what’s happening.)
Why post it here? Videos slice through all the lies and obfuscations and moral inversions like the Sword of Anduril:
An atheist’s morality depends upon his personal virtues and self control.
Basically out of 100 atheists, only 3 would have any kind of individual free will. The rest would just be followers. They would follow whomever held power and authority over them, in part or in whole.
Generally the top 20% of any population holds predominant sway over the morality of the culture.
Religion, organized, is designed to ensure that that 20% adheres to some common concepts, like common law’s precepts.
With atheism, you can get a person like Dawkins who thinks God is dead and now people like himself can Ascend to the Divine Throne. Or you can get Hawkins, who thinks his mathematical equations are God and that he himself is God’s prophet, in other words, able to see into the utter fabric of reality, better than anyone else.
With atheism, without higher authority, you either become the authority, or you are dominated by the Authorities you are too weak to resist. Since weaklings compose the majority of humanity, that makes for predictable consequences when you gather millions of humans together.
By the way, an atheist who has a boss or a higher authority in government, isn’t an atheist. He’s just a follower of the boss’s orders and the authority. He’s a fanatic or a discipline, but not of a classical orthodox religion. He’s still an obedient follower, that doesn’t make him any better than the religious followers atheists like to criticize.
When you are given orders to shut the hell up by your boss, and you do it because… you don’t get a say and you lack power, you’re not an atheist. Your boss is your god. If God tells Christians what to do, or Jesus tells them what to do, or Mohammed does, and that means they are followers of a god, then the person who obeys his boss is a follower of his boss’s religion and beliefs.
The problem with atheism is the human condition, the problem of humans being humans.
Leave a Reply
HTML tags allowed in your
comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>
As a devout Catholic (daily communicant) I love this answer. With the continuing lapse of understanding of our founding documents (Constitution & Bill of Rights) there is an error that has been embraced that “freedom FROM religion” and “freedom FROM speech” is in place when, of course, that is not so. Exactly as Rubio stated, our country is founded on the principle of natural law, that our rights emanate from God, not the government.
an atheist like the questioner, but I could ask questions like that 30 years ago.
Rubio is playing for the Christian vote but he’s Catholic like me. That’s very different from the evangelical Christianity that is big in Iowa. Ted has that segment wrapped up because that is his background. His dad is a pastor.
Marco could never be Pastor-in-Chief. He would have to be Priest-in-Chief or the Archbishop.
John Hinderaker at Power Line had a very persuasive endorsement of Rubio. I might even change my mind it was so good. One of John’s point is that Marco is a good guy. That shows through in that video. Also optimistic.
If only Marco had gone to a Jesuit school, I would definitely switch. 🙂
A beautiful sermon. I don’t agree with all of Rubio’s policies, but I certainly respect his principles as expressed here.
Hey, I got 8 thumbs up on Instapundit for this comment on the same video (strut, strut, we bad, um-huh…)
Snopercod – It’s not like there’s only ever been one theory of human rights. You can articulate one that doesn’t require a God, but there are very strong arguments that such a theory wouldn’t hold up. Who says we don’t have to agree that we can’t own each other? Lots of people don’t agree on that. Humans have existed with other humans for a long time while agreeing that people can be owned. Those societies have believed in human rights from divine origin, human rights without divine origin, no human rights, concepts of human rights that we wouldn’t recognize as such…all possibilities.
This particular, historic democracy that we live in was founded by thinkers influenced by European Christianity via the Enlightenment, and our founding document does claim that our rights are derived from our Creator.
Snopercod, the Declaration of Independence refers to a Creator endowing humans with unalienable rights. That is entirely different with what you wrote, and the reason that I like Rubio’s response that actually lines up with our founding documents, whereas yours does not. A long study of human nature apart from God would pretty much look like the world today, minus the western world which is a construct of Judeo-Christian principles being lived out through the ages. The command to “love your neighbor as yourself” is followed with “I am the Lord.” (Lev. 19:18)
Hi Sharon. So you think only Christians should have rights?
Snopercod, was that intended to be a troll comment? Because you’re not representing what Sharon said at all.
I am commenting as an agnostic. I realize Western Civilization is founded upon Judeo-Christian principles, and those are very good principles. What I liked about Rubio’s response is that he stated his beliefs and acknowledged the freedom of the questioner to hold his beliefs. Atheism is a belief system, a religion as absolute in its beliefs as any other religion. As an agnostic I am merely uncertain and confused about what is God/god.
Parker
Read “Jesus” by the Jesuit priest James Martin. A modern pilgrammage tied to Scripture and with personal observations. Great, great book.
Parker
By the book on Amazon. For neo!
You won’t regret it. Just as a travel-history book it is excellent.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/006202423X/?tag=googhydr-20&hvadid=74205564444&hvpos=1t1&hvexid=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=3252055713073935624&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=b&hvdev=t&ref=pd_sl_ye44ldhnq_b
There is little to add to these excellent comments. After that response I like Rubio much more.
“I don’t believe anybody prefers Trump over Cruz.
I think everybody (GOPe) sees Cruz as much more realistic chance of getting nomination and they don’t want to come out and say they are against (both) Trump and Cruz, as then they are against the top two in the polls.
So they give Trump a pass and focus on Cruz.
No one really thinks Trump can win.
Maybe they should, but they don’t.”
Anon…
From the WaPo
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/21/why-the-republican-establishment-prefers-president-trump-to-president-cruz/
I suspect that this comment is dead on target for most GOPe players.
They were unable to warm to Rubio — and they’ve had plenty of time to do so.
They are even MORE appalled at a principled politician, Cruz — as they came to the same conclusion as the HRC camp…
Ted Cruz is by far the most likely nominee.
Trump just has SO MUCH baggage that will make card carrying Republican delegates gag.
The GOPe is actually happy to see Wall Street owned HRC installed in the Oval Office.
Totally corrupt — that’s their kind of player.
They don’t cough up massive campaign funding for the good of the nation, just their own bottom line.
The cry of alarm went out ONLY because the rise of Ted Cruz — and ethics — and his nasty tendency to call out the Washington cartel AS the Washington cartel…
Time to circle the wagons.
In a brokered convention, Trump is dead meat.
He’s THAT far away from GOP values.
Trump would mean that 0-care lumbers on to poison the entire global economy.
( By way of shrinking the supply of US dollars in circulation. )
This critical link to the solvency of our economy is missed by EVERY pundit to date.
It ought to be the TOP STORY.
But, it’s over the heads of the pundit class.
As “The Big Short” reveals, Wall Street is loaded with complacent dummies, too.
Thanks for the tip cornhead, I will try to find it at the library or order it through a local bookstore.
Can an atheist have morals? Yes. Did Adolph Hitler have morals? Yes – you just didn’t like them too good.
If man is an accident, a chance combination of chemicals in a warm pool, then his destiny is in his genes. It is the moral duty of the gifted elite to guide the poor wretch in proper behavior and goodthink.
If man was created, if he has a soul, then he is sovereign, free to chart his own destiny and resist the man with the gun.
As Russell Kirk put it:
“First, the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order. That order is made for man, and man is made for it: human nature is a constant, and moral truths are permanent.”
We, the United States, have built the greatest country in history hewing to the moral order bequeathed to us by Christianity.
Kirk again:
“Our twentieth-century world has experienced the hideous consequences of the collapse of belief in a moral order. Like the atrocities and disasters of Greece in the fifth century before Christ, the ruin of great nations in our century shows us the pit into which fall societies that mistake clever self-interest, or ingenious social controls, for pleasing alternatives to an oldfangled moral order.”
They are trying to make that happen here. Don’t let them.
Tangential, but a blistering example of why the “values voters” are damn right that it matters.
This brief video shows a horrifying incident of taharrush, with the helpless girl being surrounded and dragged away, screaming, as the moslem males surround her like pack animals. (Not graphic; but you can hear what’s happening.)
Why post it here? Videos slice through all the lies and obfuscations and moral inversions like the Sword of Anduril:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMGQAbEA23Q&feature=youtu.be
A typical atheist with the typical tone. And a typical question.
Uh… could you do me a favor, please? I keep hearing about this, but cannot watch the video and have not been able to find a transcript.
What was the question, and how did he respond?
Daniel, I found the text of the question here:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2016/01/21/asking-marco-rubio-how-hed-protect-the-rights-of-atheists-is-not-a-gotcha-question/
and the text of the answer here:
http://legalinsurrection.com/2016/01/marco-rubio-answers-atheist-on-question-of-faith/
Oops. Looks like the Legal Insurrection link omitted a portion of the answer. I think this link has Rubio’s complete answer:
http://yellowhammernews.com/faithandculture/watch-rubios-incredible-response-to-an-atheist-who-says-hes-running-to-be-pastor-in-chief/
An atheist’s morality depends upon his personal virtues and self control.
Basically out of 100 atheists, only 3 would have any kind of individual free will. The rest would just be followers. They would follow whomever held power and authority over them, in part or in whole.
Generally the top 20% of any population holds predominant sway over the morality of the culture.
Religion, organized, is designed to ensure that that 20% adheres to some common concepts, like common law’s precepts.
With atheism, you can get a person like Dawkins who thinks God is dead and now people like himself can Ascend to the Divine Throne. Or you can get Hawkins, who thinks his mathematical equations are God and that he himself is God’s prophet, in other words, able to see into the utter fabric of reality, better than anyone else.
With atheism, without higher authority, you either become the authority, or you are dominated by the Authorities you are too weak to resist. Since weaklings compose the majority of humanity, that makes for predictable consequences when you gather millions of humans together.
By the way, an atheist who has a boss or a higher authority in government, isn’t an atheist. He’s just a follower of the boss’s orders and the authority. He’s a fanatic or a discipline, but not of a classical orthodox religion. He’s still an obedient follower, that doesn’t make him any better than the religious followers atheists like to criticize.
When you are given orders to shut the hell up by your boss, and you do it because… you don’t get a say and you lack power, you’re not an atheist. Your boss is your god. If God tells Christians what to do, or Jesus tells them what to do, or Mohammed does, and that means they are followers of a god, then the person who obeys his boss is a follower of his boss’s religion and beliefs.
The problem with atheism is the human condition, the problem of humans being humans.