Cruz: I'm a Christian first, American Second

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Riiiiight.. :-\/>

Actually, it wasn't even much of a dog whistle.

http://thinkprogress...lical-strategy/

http://www.cbsnews.c...l-vote-in-iowa/

http://www.nytimes.c...cal-gamble.html

http://www.breitbart...r-evangelicals/

http://qz.com/607640...al-prayer-team/

Wait, what "dog whistle" are you talking about here? I thought it was a "dominionist" dog whistle, but you seem to be equating "evangelical" and "dominionist", which couldn't be further from the truth.

Dominionists are a subset of evangelicals.

Cruz's connection with dominionism:

https://www.quora.co...z-a-dominionist

http://www.dailykos....onism-and-Jesus

https://jonathanturl...nism-and-jesus/

http://www.politicus...st-messiah.html

http://www.alternet....d-time-transfer

http://www.religionn...ica-commentary/

That still doesn't qualify as a "dog whistle" to dominionists. It's a stretch at best. It's more like a blaring siren to evangelicals to come to the Cruz camp. Using terms like "dog whistle" are just trying to make something sound more sinister and sneaky than it is.

And I'm not defending him because I particularly like Cruz. I don't really like many of his policy ideas and how they intersect with Christian teaching. I can't imagine hearing Jesus say he'd "carpet bomb" someplace indiscriminately, for instance.

I can't imagine him saying He would bomb Hiroshima, Dresden, etc., either but we did and America applauded Roosevelt and Truman for doing it and winning WW2.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Riiiiight.. :-\/>

Actually, it wasn't even much of a dog whistle.

http://thinkprogress...lical-strategy/

http://www.cbsnews.c...l-vote-in-iowa/

http://www.nytimes.c...cal-gamble.html

http://www.breitbart...r-evangelicals/

http://qz.com/607640...al-prayer-team/

Wait, what "dog whistle" are you talking about here? I thought it was a "dominionist" dog whistle, but you seem to be equating "evangelical" and "dominionist", which couldn't be further from the truth.

Dominionists are a subset of evangelicals.

Cruz's connection with dominionism:

https://www.quora.co...z-a-dominionist

http://www.dailykos....onism-and-Jesus

https://jonathanturl...nism-and-jesus/

http://www.politicus...st-messiah.html

http://www.alternet....d-time-transfer

http://www.religionn...ica-commentary/

That still doesn't qualify as a "dog whistle" to dominionists. It's a stretch at best. It's more like a blaring siren to evangelicals to come to the Cruz camp. Using terms like "dog whistle" are just trying to make something sound more sinister and sneaky than it is.

And I'm not defending him because I particularly like Cruz. I don't really like many of his policy ideas and how they intersect with Christian teaching. I can't imagine hearing Jesus say he'd "carpet bomb" someplace indiscriminately, for instance.

I can't imagine him saying He would bomb Hiroshima, Dresden, etc., either but we did and America applauded Roosevelt and Truman for doing it and winning WW2.

Which should probably be cause to reexamine our positive views of both, for Christians at least.

[aujeff11 6,243]

Riiiiight.. :-\/>

Actually, it wasn't even much of a dog whistle.

http://thinkprogress...lical-strategy/

http://www.cbsnews.c...l-vote-in-iowa/

http://www.nytimes.c...cal-gamble.html

http://www.breitbart...r-evangelicals/

http://qz.com/607640...al-prayer-team/

Wait, what "dog whistle" are you talking about here? I thought it was a "dominionist" dog whistle, but you seem to be equating "evangelical" and "dominionist", which couldn't be further from the truth.

Dominionists are a subset of evangelicals.

Cruz's connection with dominionism:

https://www.quora.co...z-a-dominionist

http://www.dailykos....onism-and-Jesus

https://jonathanturl...nism-and-jesus/

http://www.politicus...st-messiah.html

http://www.alternet....d-time-transfer

http://www.religionn...ica-commentary/

That still doesn't qualify as a "dog whistle" to dominionists. It's a stretch at best. It's more like a blaring siren to evangelicals to come to the Cruz camp. Using terms like "dog whistle" are just trying to make something sound more sinister and sneaky than it is.

And I'm not defending him because I particularly like Cruz. I don't really like many of his policy ideas and how they intersect with Christian teaching. I can't imagine hearing Jesus say he'd "carpet bomb" someplace indiscriminately, for instance.

I can't imagine him saying He would bomb Hiroshima, Dresden, etc., either but we did and America applauded Roosevelt and Truman for doing it and winning WW2.

Which should probably be cause to reexamine our positive views of both, for Christians at least.

Agreed.

[homersapien 11,390]

That still doesn't qualify as a "dog whistle" to dominionists. It's a stretch at best. It's more like a blaring siren to evangelicals to come to the Cruz camp. Using terms like "dog whistle" are just trying to make something sound more sinister and sneaky than it is.

And I'm not defending him because I particularly like Cruz. I don't really like many of his policy ideas and how they intersect with Christian teaching. I can't imagine hearing Jesus say he'd "carpet bomb" someplace indiscriminately, for instance.

I can't imagine him saying He would bomb Hiroshima, Dresden, etc., either but we did and America applauded Roosevelt and Truman for doing it and winning WW2.

Surely you aren't trying to rationalize "carpet bombing" in the Middle East?

[DKW 86 7,429]

Riiiiight.. :-\

Actually, it wasn't even much of a dog whistle.

http://thinkprogress...lical-strategy/

http://www.cbsnews.c...l-vote-in-iowa/

http://www.nytimes.c...cal-gamble.html

http://www.breitbart...r-evangelicals/

http://qz.com/607640...al-prayer-team/

Wait, what "dog whistle" are you talking about here? I thought it was a "dominionist" dog whistle, but you seem to be equating "evangelical" and "dominionist", which couldn't be further from the truth.

Stop it Titan, you are screwing up all those cute lil nonsensical memes he reads about over at dailykos, DU, Moveon.org, etc. You know, those that sound like just like the crazy stuff at Fox, just from a different angle, but certainly just as crazy.

A lot of folks in America have made the mistake of equating someone else's stupid as meaning that they are absolved of all the stupid that they themselves are party to.

Hey folks: NEWSFLASH! Someone else acting or even being stupid doesnt mean that we arent still just as stupid ourselves.

Note to homer, i dont really like Cruz at all.

[TheBlueVue 177]

Riiiiight.. :-\/>

Actually, it wasn't even much of a dog whistle.

http://thinkprogress...lical-strategy/

http://www.cbsnews.c...l-vote-in-iowa/

http://www.nytimes.c...cal-gamble.html

http://www.breitbart...r-evangelicals/

http://qz.com/607640...al-prayer-team/

Wait, what "dog whistle" are you talking about here? I thought it was a "dominionist" dog whistle, but you seem to be equating "evangelical" and "dominionist", which couldn't be further from the truth.

Dominionists are a subset of evangelicals.

Cruz's connection with dominionism:

https://www.quora.co...z-a-dominionist

http://www.dailykos....onism-and-Jesus

https://jonathanturl...nism-and-jesus/

http://www.politicus...st-messiah.html

http://www.alternet....d-time-transfer

http://www.religionn...ica-commentary/

That still doesn't qualify as a "dog whistle" to dominionists. It's a stretch at best. It's more like a blaring siren to evangelicals to come to the Cruz camp. Using terms like "dog whistle" are just trying to make something sound more sinister and sneaky than it is.

And I'm not defending him because I particularly like Cruz. I don't really like many of his policy ideas and how they intersect with Christian teaching. I can't imagine hearing Jesus say he'd "carpet bomb" someplace indiscriminately, for instance.

I can't imagine him saying He would bomb Hiroshima, Dresden, etc., either but we did and America applauded Roosevelt and Truman for doing it and winning WW2.

Which should probably be cause to reexamine our positive views of both, for Christians at least.

Positive views can be distilled down to 2 words...We won and had we not won the world would have been subject to the murderous whims of the Axis Powers led by Adolf Hitler world wide. None of the Allied Powers went into WW2 with the intent of bombing and/or killing civilians but Hitler went full throttle on that very idea in England, France and Russia from the outset.

The Allied Powers questioned their decisions about bombing cities and wondered if they had become beasts but, in the heat and fog of war, they did what they thought would end the war the quickest and Im not about to second guess their decisions over 70 years later. Its over, it was awful, it was tragic and Gold help us we never go there again.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Positive views can be distilled down to 2 words...We won and had we not won the world would have been subject to the murderous whims of the Axis Powers led by Adolf Hitler world wide. None of the Allied Powers went into WW2 with the intent of bombing and/or killing civilians but Hitler went full throttle on that very idea in England, France and Russia from the outset.

The Allied Powers questioned their decisions about bombing cities and wondered if they had become beasts but, in the heat and fog of war, they did what they thought would end the war the quickest and Im not about to second guess their decisions over 70 years later. Its over, it was awful, it was tragic and Gold help us we never go there again.

If you don't question it and war decisions like it, then you will have learned nothing that will help you make the right choices going forward.

[TheBlueVue 177]

Positive views can be distilled down to 2 words...We won and had we not won the world would have been subject to the murderous whims of the Axis Powers led by Adolf Hitler world wide. None of the Allied Powers went into WW2 with the intent of bombing and/or killing civilians but Hitler went full throttle on that very idea in England, France and Russia from the outset.

The Allied Powers questioned their decisions about bombing cities and wondered if they had become beasts but, in the heat and fog of war, they did what they thought would end the war the quickest and Im not about to second guess their decisions over 70 years later. Its over, it was awful, it was tragic and Gold help us we never go there again.

If you don't question it and war decisions like it, then you will have learned nothing that will help you make the right choices going forward.

Plenty was learned because each mission was questioned and vetted by all interests involved. Churchill and Roosevelt had many late night gut wrenching debates about when and how to act and react militarily. You act as if these decisions were lighted made, there were not. I remember one episode distinctly, when in a late night planning session one of Roosevelt's war aides stood up and said, "Its later, Im going to bed" According to the writer, Churchill was scandalized and said, "My God man,. we're at war here!" He reportedly sat back down and the talks continue til 3 AM.

[aujeff11 6,243]

Positive views can be distilled down to 2 words...We won and had we not won the world would have been subject to the murderous whims of the Axis Powers led by Adolf Hitler world wide. None of the Allied Powers went into WW2 with the intent of bombing and/or killing civilians but Hitler went full throttle on that very idea in England, France and Russia from the outset.

The Allied Powers questioned their decisions about bombing cities and wondered if they had become beasts but, in the heat and fog of war, they did what they thought would end the war the quickest and Im not about to second guess their decisions over 70 years later. Its over, it was awful, it was tragic and Gold help us we never go there again.

If you don't question it and war decisions like it, then you will have learned nothing that will help you make the right choices going forward.

Plenty was learned because each mission was questioned and vetted by all interests involved. Churchill and Roosevelt had many late night gut wrenching debates about when and how to act and react militarily. You act as if these decisions were lighted made, there were not.

We have had long discussions regarding this subject. It was interesting but nobody budged from their stances. Might as well stop.

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

My deal with it is that if you are the President of the United States, a country that involves many different religions and nonreligious, then you have to be an American first. In that position country should trump your religion. Doesn't mean you stop being a Christian.

Just like if you are the NCAA Director of Enforcement and an Alabama graduate. Then your position trumps your alma mater and religion.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

My deal with it is that if you are the President of the United States, a country that involves many different religions and nonreligious, then you have to be an American first. In that position country should trump your religion. Doesn't mean you stop being a Christian.

Just like if you are the NCAA Director of Enforcement and an Alabama graduate. Then your position trumps your alma mater and religion.

Well, like we've pointed out, that would be a new notion to the American political process that has never been in place in 200+ years of existence.

[TheBlueVue 177]

My deal with it is that if you are the President of the United States, a country that involves many different religions and nonreligious, then you have to be an American first. In that position country should trump your religion. Doesn't mean you stop being a Christian.

Just like if you are the NCAA Director of Enforcement and an Alabama graduate. Then your position trumps your alma mater and religion.

My deal with it is that if you are the President of the United States, a country that involves many different religions and nonreligious, then you have to be an American first. In that position country should trump your religion. Doesn't mean you stop being a Christian.

Just like if you are the NCAA Director of Enforcement and an Alabama graduate. Then your position trumps your alma mater and religion.

According to many in here, a President simply cannot be patriotic anymore w/o being criticized for being a nativist or some other PC buzzword. I agree with what you're saying. A President's #1 job is to protect and preserve the Constitution from all enemies domestic and abroad. It seems these days people dont really want a President who is willing to do that in reality. They apparently prefer sternly worded diplomacy like that's going to make all of our geo-political problems slowly dissolve.

[aujeff11 6,243]

My deal with it is that if you are the President of the United States, a country that involves many different religions and nonreligious, then you have to be an American first. In that position country should trump your religion. Doesn't mean you stop being a Christian.

Just like if you are the NCAA Director of Enforcement and an Alabama graduate. Then your position trumps your alma mater and religion.

Well, like we've pointed out, that would be a new notion to the American political process that has never been in place in 200+ years of existence.

Given that the United States Constitution is a secular document created in order to allow freedom of religion, I don't see how it's that new. Just being honest. Some Presidents like Jefferson didn't want the state and the church mixed at all. So having a man that is Christian first and American second as president would seem to trump that concept.

[homersapien 11,390]

Riiiiight.. :-\

Actually, it wasn't even much of a dog whistle.

http://thinkprogress...lical-strategy/

http://www.cbsnews.c...l-vote-in-iowa/

http://www.nytimes.c...cal-gamble.html

http://www.breitbart...r-evangelicals/

http://qz.com/607640...al-prayer-team/

Wait, what "dog whistle" are you talking about here? I thought it was a "dominionist" dog whistle, but you seem to be equating "evangelical" and "dominionist", which couldn't be further from the truth.

Stop it Titan, you are screwing up all those cute lil nonsensical memes he reads about over at dailykos, DU, Moveon.org, etc. You know, those that sound like just like the crazy stuff at Fox, just from a different angle, but certainly just as crazy.

A lot of folks in America have made the mistake of equating someone else's stupid as meaning that they are absolved of all the stupid that they themselves are party to.

Hey folks: NEWSFLASH! Someone else acting or even being stupid doesnt mean that we arent still just as stupid ourselves.

Note to homer, i dont really like Cruz at all.

That's too incoherent for me to take offense.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

I do not really care if Cruz subordinates being an American to being a Christian. My fear is that he subordinates both to being a Tea Party "conservative". His driving principles seem to reflect someone whose political ideology far outweighs their religious beliefs or, sense of patriotism.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Given that the United States Constitution is a secular document created in order to allow freedom of religion, I don't see how it's that new. Just being honest. Some Presidents like Jefferson didn't want the state and the church mixed at all. So having a man that is Christian first and American second as president would seem to trump that concept.

It's also a document that places no religious test on those who can hold office. Nor does it mention any requirement to subordinating one's faith beneath country. The oath of office makes no mention of subordinating one's faith to the concerns of country: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

It was also done in an era where virtually everyone understood that a Christian's first allegiance above all others was to God, not country. They simply did not see this as a real conflict. You can't excise it from historical context and understanding as if it appeared to us within the last 40 years. No one is saying you can just disobey the law, but neither does it say that you can't bring your faith to the job as an interpretive lens (just as any non-religious person would bring their own moral/ethical lens) on how things will get done, what laws you will work with Congress to pass (or those you will veto), what legal executive orders you will pass or revoke, what kind of SCOTUS judges you will nominate, and so on.

[homersapien 11,390]

That's nice but this isn't really a legal issue. Nor is it a traditional issue. It's one of principle and values.

How would you react toward a candidate that announced "For me, Allah is #1 followed by America at #2"?

[TexasTiger 12,953]

There may be some semantics here-- one need not check their religion at the door when he or she assumes the Presidency. One must distinguish between the duties of the office to represent all fairly in non-theocracy. For example, if someone refuses to work on the Sabbath, they shouldn't take the job. If one sees their religion as commanding them to outlaw behavior they see as sinful for that reason, that's a problem.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

There may be some semantics here-- one need not check their religion at the door when he or she assumes the Presidency. One must distinguish between the duties of the office to represent all fairly in non-theocracy. For example, if someone refuses to work on the Sabbath, they shouldn't take the job. If one sees their religion as commanding them to outlaw behavior they see as sinful for that reason, that's a problem.

IMHO that's not what the Bible says and, as we know, religions like Islam are also political in their goals.

[homersapien 11,390]

There may be some semantics here-- one need not check their religion at the door when he or she assumes the Presidency. One must distinguish between the duties of the office to represent all fairly in non-theocracy. For example, if someone refuses to work on the Sabbath, they shouldn't take the job. If one sees their religion as commanding them to outlaw behavior they see as sinful for that reason, that's a problem.

IMHO that's not what the Bible says and, as we know, religions like Islam are also political in their goals.

Double irony!

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

There may be some semantics here-- one need not check their religion at the door when he or she assumes the Presidency. One must distinguish between the duties of the office to represent all fairly in non-theocracy. For example, if someone refuses to work on the Sabbath, they shouldn't take the job. If one sees their religion as commanding them to outlaw behavior they see as sinful for that reason, that's a problem.

IMHO that's not what the Bible says and, as we know, religions like Islam are also political in their goals.

Double irony!

Ignorance on your part.

[homersapien 11,390]

There may be some semantics here-- one need not check their religion at the door when he or she assumes the Presidency. One must distinguish between the duties of the office to represent all fairly in non-theocracy. For example, if someone refuses to work on the Sabbath, they shouldn't take the job. If one sees their religion as commanding them to outlaw behavior they see as sinful for that reason, that's a problem.

IMHO that's not what the Bible says and, as we know, religions like Islam are also political in their goals.

Double irony!

Ignorance on your part.

You want me to explain it?

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

There may be some semantics here-- one need not check their religion at the door when he or she assumes the Presidency. One must distinguish between the duties of the office to represent all fairly in non-theocracy. For example, if someone refuses to work on the Sabbath, they shouldn't take the job. If one sees their religion as commanding them to outlaw behavior they see as sinful for that reason, that's a problem.

IMHO that's not what the Bible says and, as we know, religions like Islam are also political in their goals.

Double irony!

Ignorance on your part.

You want me to explain it?

Yes, I would love for you to explain your ignorance

[homersapien 11,390]

There may be some semantics here-- one need not check their religion at the door when he or she assumes the Presidency. One must distinguish between the duties of the office to represent all fairly in non-theocracy. For example, if someone refuses to work on the Sabbath, they shouldn't take the job. If one sees their religion as commanding them to outlaw behavior they see as sinful for that reason, that's a problem.

IMHO that's not what the Bible says and, as we know, religions like Islam are also political in their goals.

Double irony!

Ignorance on your part.

You want me to explain it?

Yes, I would love for you to explain your ignorance

How about I explain the "double irony" since you didn't get it?

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

There may be some semantics here-- one need not check their religion at the door when he or she assumes the Presidency. One must distinguish between the duties of the office to represent all fairly in non-theocracy. For example, if someone refuses to work on the Sabbath, they shouldn't take the job. If one sees their religion as commanding them to outlaw behavior they see as sinful for that reason, that's a problem.

IMHO that's not what the Bible says and, as we know, religions like Islam are also political in their goals.

Double irony!

Ignorance on your part.

You want me to explain it?

Yes, I would love for you to explain your ignorance

How about I explain the "double irony" since you didn't get it?

Why don't you just stay on topic if you can contribute anything?