We didn’t know how good we had it. Ronald Reagan’s 1985 Thanksgiving Day address focused on the importance of liberty, of freedom of speech, of limited government. While atheists like me might prefer that a President not invoke God on such occasions, we can all agree that it is important to keep this holiday “sacred” and focused on the values that make our country great.
Contrast this with our current President’s attempt to dictate the conversation around Americans’ Thanksgiving dinner table in 2014:
Notice the lack of dignity in the types of jokes included. Reagan would never have done such a thing. Not to mention that the whole campaign (read more about it here) is focused on getting Americans — particularly young, healthy Americans — to purchase health “insurance,”* which we no longer have the liberty not to purchase anyway. I don’t know about you, but I find it offensive that we are being forced to purchase something, and that Obama is going around pretending that he is selling us a product. And I assume this campaign is being financed by our tax dollars (or health “insurance” premiums, same difference).
Perhaps the best Thanksgiving Day message will see this year is this one, in which a group of Americans got together to thank Ted Cruz, currently the most promising politician in Washington, for his efforts to save us from the destructive effects of Obamacare:
That this commercial was made shows that the American sense of life is alive and well and that we may one day again have a President who shares it.
*True health insurance is no longer legal. Now we are forced to buy health care “plans,” which are, essentially, pre-paid healthcare.
5 responses to “Thanksgiving Messages Past and Present”
You said it! We didn’t know how good we had it. Reagan used his Thanksgiving message to venerate liberty and the First Amendment. Today we get government healthcare propaganda ads. I wonder what kind of un-American Thanksgiving PSA we’ll get tomorrow; perhaps something about our civic duties and responsibilities to provide for those in need?
While I understand why Atheists might bristle at the mention of G-d, I would offer that in many religions, the nature of G-d is considered to be unknowable. Based on this, if Atheists could tug their strict separationist bent just a little in the non-preferentialist direction, then it’s not much of a stretch to say that “G-d” is composed purely of man’s ability to reason, his ability to decide for himself because of his sovereignty as an individual, in his ability to be objective, to have a conception of an objective morality, and to understand that actions have consequences. There is no doubt that these utterly ethereal things set man apart, and could easily be considered to be deity individually or in combination. If one were to use this conception when Reagan says “G-d” or the “Almighty,” wouldn’t what he’s saying still make sense? it seems so to me. After all, according to the 1A, and inherently, we are allowed to have an individual conception of these things. We don’t have to choose a conception that “offends” us and turns us into victims (that’s a leftist trick meant to kill dialogue). In choosing the interpretation, a message invoking “G-d” might be considered more than appropriate.
No, you are not “allowed” to have an arbitrary individual conception of God. Throughout the ages, “God” is a concept of a being who is beyond understanding, questioning, investigation, knowledge, or evidence. By the concept’s nature, only blind belief and absolute submission is allowed or even possible. It always has been, is and forever will be the end of thought. The purpose and function of the concept is to stop thought and to transfer the power of life and death to persons pretending to speak for the presumed God.
At it’s core, the concept of God is anti-mind, anti-man, and anti-life. No amount euphemistic re-interpretation can change that fundamental obscenity! Especially by a creature who’s continued existence is dependent upon his ability to think and act rationally based upon actual knowledge of things that exist.
I liked Reagans’ remarks in his pre holiday speech, also minus the religious aspect. But do abide by the fact that in a free country we’re all able to freely choose what we believe in. I feel video number 2 is pure propaganda from the government. It just feels way so controlling. Like big brother is watching. It gives me the chills. Video number 3 is underwhelming because it comes off as a campaign slogan. He may have the notions of liberty etc right but I have yet to hear him sound like the person I’d want to vote for. then again, I can’t say I’ve heard to much from him. I’ll be keeping my eyes open more to see what he’s about. I do know that he’s a Baptist which makes me feel he’s more strongly guided by religious doctrine than anything else. Time will tell.
Based on what I’ve seen, Cruz is the most promising politician in Washington. But I always qualify statements like that because he is, after all, a politician, and politicians usually disappoint. Time will tell. What I liked about that third video is the idea of a group of people getting together to thank someone from doing whatever he could to save them from tyranny. That’s how Cruz has been representing himself — as the man who will stop at nothing within his power to try and repeal Obamacare in its entirety. I hope he succeeds, sooner than later, but now that the Medicaid rolls have been increased by hundreds of thousands, thanks to Obamacare, since Oct. 1, I wonder if it’s already too late. If I could interview Cruz, that’s what I would ask him. Would he be willing to kick all of those people off of Medicaid. If not, then Obama has achieved his goal already.
Thanks for reading and commenting.