As Politico reports, Ted Cruz made a statement on January 20 showing where his allegiance lay:
Cruz’s initial comments came in response to a question about former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole, who said in a New York Times interview that Cruz would be more damaging to the GOP than Trump, specifically that Cruz would generate “wholesale losses” and be unable to work with Congress. In the interview, Dole also said he questioned Cruz’s “allegiance” to the Republican Party.
“I’m a Christian first, American second, conservative third and Republican fourth,” said Cruz, who is currently a distant second place, behind Trump, for the GOP nomination in several national polls. “I’ll tell ya, there are a whole lot of people in this country that feel exactly the same way.”
Yep, that’s what he said, and it’s no surprise: music to the ears of his religious supporters, but clangor to everyone else. As the reader said who sent me this, “What if Cruz had said “I’m a Muslim first, American second. . . “? Or, “I’m a Scientologist first, American second. . “? Now those wouldn’t sound so good to Americans, would they?
The two big problems with this are that Cruz gives primacy to his faith over his governance, so we can expect, as with W., a country where the President seeks guidance from God. As we know, such consultations with the divine don’t go well. Second, 28% of Americans don’t identify as Christians: they’re either “nones” (which include atheists) or members of other faiths. What are those 89 million people supposed to think about a President whose foremost self-image is that of a Christian?
I didn’t watch the Trumpless GOP debate yesterday, but I seriously doubt whether the moderators (or any reporters) have asked Crus (or any faith-touting candidate) a question like this:
“Senator Cruz, you’ve publicly stated that you see your Christianity as more important than your nationality or your political views. Does this mean that, if elected, you’ll be governing based on your religious beliefs?”
Just once I’d like to see a reporter have enough moxie to ask a Republican this kind of question!
h/t: Lesley
sub
Another example of the GOP member’s laser-like focus on the economy.
***
I’m up in the air about how much Cruz is sincere vs. pandering when it comes to faith. Not that it matters; I would fully expect President Cruz to continue Bush policies that allow government to favor and give funds to christian organizations, regardless of his personal beliefs.
I suppose I really should give him the benefit of the doubt when it comes to sincerity. Given his actions in the Senate, I would have to say that he has very strongly demonstrated his sincerity when it comes to putting ultra-conservativism before Republican party loyalty.
“such consultations with the divine don’t go well.”
It’s only january and already it’s the understatement of the year. Like Cruz, Trump is also supposedly a christian and student of the bible, yet he doesn’t seem to have a clue about what’s written inside.
You don’t need to have any substance or knowledge – if you shout something VERY LOUDLY you will convince enough people.
Sadly.
You do have to know whether it’s Two Corinthians or Second Corinthians though. As for what’s actually written in Second Corinthians; well, who cares?
Surely ‘Twat’ should go first…
‘Sincerely slimy twat’…
Nasty, xenophobic, homophobic, anti-average-American, bigoted twat.
That is what should go first
I’d go with ‘asshole’ first. And from what I know about people who actually know him, I think that’s what they think of him first as well.
Self-aggrandizement and pious preening under the guise of public servitude. Same as it ever was.
And there is water at the bottom of the ocean. Too.
I can recall about three or four dinner conversations recently that went like this:
“Have you been watching the elections? It’s unreal that Trump is actually first in the polls.”
“Who do you think is a better Republican candidate?”
“What? They’re all crazy.”
“So why are you surprised that he’s in first?”
Aside from his views on immigration, which is actually very popular, Trump is basically a centrist who is masquerading as a Republican. He’s praised single payer healthcare, said from early on that the Iraq invasion would be a mistake, he’s against regime change in the middle east, and he’s in favor of a progressive tax rate.
Anyone who thinks Trump would be the ultimate disaster for the country has not seen the policy proposals of Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Carly Fiorina, or Ben Carson.
A FiveThirtyEight chart from a few months ago assessed all the GOP candidates’ comments on foreign policy and rated Trump as the 2nd LEAST hawkish candidate on stage. Rand Paul is the obvious first.
Considering the other candidates, it is legitimate to debate who would be the ultimate disaster (I go with Cruz), but Trump, ultimate or not, would certainly be a disaster as well. For Trump, it is not just his policies (everchanging and amorphous) you need to consider, but his proto-fascist tendencies as well.
I’ll see your Cruz and raise you one Ben Carson and one Mike Huckabee.
Don’t forget Santorum (though his “google problem” will never stop being funny).
Trump now branding himself as a far right Bible thumpin’ candidate reminds me of the tactical error made by Mitt Romney who branded himself as a strong conservative during the primaries. It maybe helped him get the nomination, but then he openly stated that like an Etch-A-Sketch he would reset his positions toward his true, more centrist self. The effect hurt his support a great deal.
The only honest answer Cruz could give to Professor Coyne’s question would be a resounding yes. This article from the Religion News Service explains Cruz’ religious views. My guess is that he truly believes in what he says or else he is the world’s best panderer.
http://www.religionnews.com/2015/08/06/5-faith-facts-sen-ted-cruz-gods-work/
In colloquial English (EN_GB ; not sure about EN_US) a panderer is a supplier of sex workers in general, and the weirder the “business” the more you need a panderer to pander to your tastes.
My question would have been just a bit different: “Suppose you need to make a decision; decide one way, and it helps Christianity, but hurts America; decide the other way, it helps America but hurts Christianity. Are you saying you would go with the decision that hurts America?”
Good question …. but. My experience is that even ordinary people try to weasel out of hypotheticals of that sort by engaging in an apologetic shift to firmer, more familiar ground.
No, true Christianity helps America and could never hurt it. Then they’ll give examples of what they mean — as if that had been the original question (“Do you think Christianity helps or hurts America?”) Attempts to get back to the actual hypothetical and make them engage with it start to involve explanations of what a hypothetical IS and how it deals in logical possibilities and now we start to look like pedants who are wriggling away from their perfectly clear answer. That’s what the average theist tends to do.
A politician does it on hyperdrive.
And, of course, this whole blather is total b.s. Cruz is a conservative and a Republican before he’s an American, which is evident in his obstructionist efforts in Congress, efforts that put his party and politics before the will of the people.
Will of the People = Will of Populists?
Good point!
The debate had plenty of pro-religious statements. Here is just one of Marco Rubio’s.
“[I]f you do not understand our Judeo-Christian values are one of the reasons America is such a special country, you don’t understand our history. You see, why are we one of the most generous people in the world, no, the most generous people in the world? Why do Americans contribute millions of dollars to charity? It is not because of the tax write-off. It’s because in this nation, we are influenced by Judeo-Christian values that teach us to care for the less fortunate, reach out to the needy, to love our neighbor. This is what’s made our nation so special and you should hope that our next president is someone that is influenced by their faith, because if your faith causes you to care for the less fortunate, it is something you want to see in your public figures. And when I’m president, I can tell you this, my faith will not just influence the way I’ll govern as president, it will influence the way I live my life. Because in the end, my goal is not simply to live on this Earth for 80 years but to live an eternity with my creator. I will always allow my faith to influence everything I do.”
“According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the DAC countries giving the highest amounts of ODA (in absolute terms) are as follows. European Union countries together gave $70.73 billion and EU Institutions gave a further $15.93 billion.[1][2][3]
European Union – $86.66 billion
United States – $31.55 billion
…
The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development also lists countries by the amount of ODA they give as a percentage of their gross national income. In 2013, only five countries met the longstanding UN target for an ODA/GNI ratio of 0.7%:[1][2]
Norway – 1.07%
Sweden – 1.02%
Luxembourg – 1.00%
Denmark – 0.85%
United Kingdom – 0.72%
Netherlands – 0.67%
Finland – 0.55%
Switzerland – 0.47%
Belgium – 0.45%
Ireland – 0.45%
France – 0.41%
Germany – 0.38%
Australia – 0.34%
Austria – 0.28%
Canada – 0.27%
New Zealand – 0.26%
Iceland – 0.26%
Japan – 0.23%
Portugal – 0.23%
United States – 0.19%
…”
[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_governments_by_development_aid ]
To paraphrase Dawkins:
‘It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet a politician who doesn’t know its nation’s foreign aid, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).’
The reason to compare EU with US is that it compares continents. When did US become so poor? 😉
As their imperial ambitions increased?
Oh, that quote is such a good example of the slimy, slippery way people tend to defend their faith in public. When they’re not surrounded by fellow believers (or think they’re not) they give vaguely defined examples of their faith-in-action which don’t set off any alarm bells among the nonbelievers. Why, Christianity inspires charity. It urges the believer to be honest and kind. A concern for a cleaner environment and a desire to find a cure for cancer are both jump-started by a belief in God and Jesus. “Faith causes you to care for the less fortunate” … awwwww.
Nothing to see here, move along.
I suspect that religious people often fail to see the problem with this. The glittering generalities don’t trouble them because they’re used to thinking this way about their own religion. After all, it would be a wonderful thing if they too were guided in life by their faith. That’s the same as being guided in life by one’s highest and noblest principles because “God” is always the spiritual embodiment of the highest and noblest principles.
But we atheists know what such statements usually mean: kiss church/state separation good-bye. What starts out as “caring for the less fortunate” rapidly turns into prayer in the schools and laws against gay marriage.
Then of course the slope continues from there. Banning gay marriage is “caring for the less fortunate.” After all, these poor gay bastards are being called to a life of chastity. 80 years of sexual repression pales in comparison to the infinite bliss of being united with God. It is only because our country is still so faith soaked that a statement like Rubio’s doesn’t have him immediately dismissed from serious consideration. If his goal is achieve happiness in some nebulous eternal realm, nothing he says about the good of the country can be taken seriously. If he thinks God wants him to oppress people of other (or no) faiths, that’s on the board. Better to be blissful forever than to indulge in a good meal or enjoy sexual relations outside of marriage. For that matter, God may start taking a keen interest in Church attendance–let’s make that mandatory too.
Rubio’s statement should set off alarm bells for the millions of Christians who don’t adhere to his particular sect as well. When Rubio tries to incorporate a policy based on his subjective faith, how we resolve the conflict between that and everyone else’s subjective faith? It’s a true slippery slope, landing firmly in Hell on Earth.
Sastra,
I hope you don’t mind my asking: Have you ever posted in the comments section over at Edward Feser’s blog?
No, never been there…
Ah, ok, thanks.
There was someone posting at one point that had me wondering if you’d dropped in.
You inspired me to take a trip over to Feser’s blog and I found he recently reviewed Jerry’s book. The comments section over there quickly inspired me to leave. There are many people just waiting in the wings to heap so many assertions on you that you’ll never be able to respond to them all and they declare victory. Included in the comments section discussing the existence of God are word salads like this:
“Show us how Being’s three unavoidable vertices constituting love’s triune topography amid ceaseless reciprocity in all which ever can sum to Self/Other timelessly begetting unicity’s Us contradicts the same three unavoidable vertices in all that ever can sum to Perception. ”
What???
As for Feser and his review, he starts by claiming Jerry was absent from statistics class the day they discussed representative samples and then proceeds with the tired old argument that Jerry didn’t specifically address Feser’s individual brand of religion. In an ironic twist, Feser ignores Jerry’s citations about what large numbers of believers in the world actually believe and focuses on his own anecdotal views.
After reading that quote, I’m so glad I didn’t watch the debate. If I did, I might have to go TV shopping today.
As the late, great Christopher Hitchens once said, so many people use the phrase “I’m a Christian” as if it were a respect-inducing statement.
Further and in re “as if it were a respect – inducing statement,” there is thus stated from out the great and not – at – all – late PCC(E) @ http://www.en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Jerry_Coyne and very >sites elsewhere:
“In religion, faith is a virtue.
In science, faith is a vice.”
This spot – on and so succinct statement, always properly and reverently cited I add, has amidst several instances in embattlements and other clamorous choler served me quite well.
Folks stop up short. Done.
Blue
Why doesn’t a reporter ask that question? Would they be ostracized/threatened?
Running in the 2008 election I actually heard Huckabee say he wanted to change the constitution to follow god’s law.
Ted Cruz isn’t kidding. Being a Christian in a position of power he thinks gives him ultimate authority and control over American lives.
Yup…and he’d interpret it (like a Huckabee or Bush) as “g*d given power”. Makes my nape hairs stand on end.
In last night’s debate, Huckabee stated his policy was that he would use the 5th and 14th Amendments to enforce recognition of personhood from conception and a total ban of abortions.
Cruz, Rubio, and Santorum would also ban abortion completely. Conception is when God gives them a soul.
I wonder if God will be charged in court over all the abortions he “causes.” I suppose all the ones that happen so early the woman usually doesn’t even realize she was pregnant, and often do not realize it’s even an abortion, God will just get away with.
I suppose circular arguments mean nothing to the man. He’s going to prove a handful of cells are a person by applying laws for people to said cells. They are now therefore shown to be people because the law says they’re people.
The thing is, if one of these guys wins. they get to appoint up to three supreme court justices – the example you give sounds a lot like some of Scalia’s and Thomas’s reasoning to me.
I watched the whole thing last night. Cruz’s reply was a groaner, but Rubio’s “I’m not a savior, there’s only one savior, our lord Jesus Christ” put him back in second (after Carson) for riding on shroud-tales. Kasich, on the other hand, gave such a weak endorsement of religion that he sounded like Sanders. I could vote for Kasich.
Amidst the insanity, I also found myself agreeing with Rand Paul on several points, chiefly his critique of NSA spying and also our racist war on drugs. Unfortunately, he still cozies up with the religious nuts on too many social issues. If by “ceding to the states” on stuff like gay marriage, he meant leaving it up to the states as how to legitimize a union, that’d be one thing. Instead, like with civil rights, it is a thinly veiled excuse to allow localized bigotry.
Sadly for the Christians that will hear this and think that sounds awesome they won’t realize that he means his own specific brand of Christianity which may have very little resemblance to theirs.
….what a piece of crap..
Shouldn’t it be “Christian first, Canadian second”?
There is a scene in Chariots of Fire where the Olympic committee is trying to persuade Liddle to run on a sunday, where Lord Cadogan, presumably at a loss to know what the fuss is about and why national honor canoes second says, “In my day it was King first and God after”.
That was in 1924….
Bloody spell correct. I did not write “canoes”
Pity. I was hoping “national hono(u)r canoes” would turn out to be some strange Oxbridge tradition. 😉
It was as recently as the 1980s that New Zealand had an All Blacks player who refused to play on Sundays. Michael Jones was so good he kept his place in the team anyway, but there was a fair bit of muttering about it.
I wonder if he’s ever gone to the movies (or to a restaurant where other people are working, responding to his culinary desires) on Sundays.
Actually, I wouldn’t be surprised if he hasn’t. Despite his religiosity, he’s a thoroughly decent guy, a very nice man, and not a hypocrite.
Ultimately, he’s a very dangerous jackass.
Hell, what if Mitt Romney had said “I’m a Mormon first, American second…”
Or if Kennedy had said he was a Catholic first and American second instead of basically saying the reverse.
Exactly. Cruz is a dangerous candidate. Imagine him getting the opportunity to appoint the next two or three judges to the Supreme Court.
If he does, can I please move to New Zealand?
It’s not the first time I’ve been asked that in this election cycle! 🙂
There is quite a lot of space here, and there’s no limit on immigration numbers as long as you fit one of the government’s categories of “desirables.”
How far we have come. If Kennedy had said he was a Catholic first he would not have been nominated.
I wonder why Nixon and Kennedy did not have a caterwauling audience in attendance at their debates.
Perhaps scarier than Cruz’s order of allegiances is his insane rant during the debate last night about how Obama doesn’t thoroughly carpet bomb our enemies enough. You really cannot make this stuff up.
I have reason to believe that the actual quote is, “I’m a Christian first, American second, conservative third, Republican fourth, and an appropriate candidate for president a distant 5th.”
Isn’t it a requirement of the … that oath they swear or affirm in the White House Garden … that they put the US constitution ahead of various things – personal profit ; favouritism for supporters … that sort of thing.
Don’t they ever get jailed over failing to do that?
So the Cruz hierarchy is, in descending order: superstition, nationalism, retrograde ideology, and pandering politics.
Why is it that people who claim to hear voices are considered to have a serious psychological problem unless they say the voice is from their favorite sky fairy?