Show of Hands

I don't think he scares me like I'm in a corner frightened more like scares me for what precedents he may set. Ideologically, Cruz and I are pretty close. We vary in religious practices.

We're not so far apart. Let's agree to disagree about whatever it is we disagree.
I tend to rail when I sense nonsense. Nothing to see here. Well played. Keep the faith - and Luke, I'm your father.

I was unimpressed with the movie by the way.

I never liked the franchise from the beginning. Save for the special effects - no big deal these days - most of what I have seen is quite bad.

I don't know. I think he tries. I'm sure many feel he doesn't.

He doesnt pander to the rich. He isnt a racist. Many people who are not christians support him. Your arguments are emotion based, not fact based.

You are blind.

Lol thanks. It gave me a chuckle when I found it!

Don't be stupid

He said he wants extra patrolling in Muslim neighborhoods, but not in Christian neighborhoods. Even if you think it's a logical policy, it's still special privileges.

So, when candidates say they want to work closely with the Muslim community to identify possible terrorist, those candidates are providing privilege or anti-privilege to the Muslim community?

It gives Christians the advantage of not being spied on.

Your condemnation extends to the Democrats and Libertarian which have made those statements?

I will condemn anyone who has made a similar statement, or agrees with the idea.

And that's why Europe is dying the death of a thousand cuts. That is, until they get a couple of nukes. Putting your head in the sand doesn't make you righteous. Your condemnation is blind foolishness and I must reject it.

Pretty much.

Nailed it!

Y

🐝cause.

Beecuz y

He's too conservative.

How so?

The article really explains why, I think.

There's no such thing as to conservative.

When you start talking about controlling the media, education, entertainment...it's a bit too far.

Then you must have a problem with the "progressive" control of media, entertainment and education now.

Where is any conservative calling for control of the media? And don't say Trump, because he's not a conservative.

That's what Ted wants.

When has he ever said that??

What's progressive education? Sex Ed? Learning about other cultures?

Right in the article.

Cruz believes that Christians need to reclaim the various aspects of culture—the media, the entertainment industry, education, government—and take dominion over them."

And so where do you get censoring the media from that?

I didn't say censor I said control.

They kind of go hand in hand

They do but Ted's quote said control.

What do you think Ted means by the above quote? Sounds a little like state run media.

It sounds like he'd prefer a Christian controlled media. Doesnt mean he's gonna use executive force to enforce it. That's just his opinion

I sense some undertone from Cruz.

Doesn't it sound a little state run? Could you imagine what that would look like?

I believe a Christian president can preside Constitutionally and fairly for all Americans, Ted Cruz included.

Did you read the article?

Cruz doesn't much care about the religious freedoms of anyone but Christians. How is that fair unless you think only Christianity matters?

The Christianity Today journalist used a single speech, given to a Christian audience to criticize Cruz. The journalist even questioned whether Cruz's restoration rhetoric was to harken back to Jim Crow America. Which has not even been in Cruz's behavior. This article is more about the journalist, than about an accurate depiction of Cruz.

I have read the article. There's nothing that suggests a Cruz presidency would be a Theocracy. I have reservations with some of his rhetoric and would dispute a couple of policy positions but I do not begrudge him his faith, even if it influences his worldview. Every candidate has a worldview based on something. Why discriminate against Christianity?

Let me first state that I'm Catholic so this is not a discrimination against Christianity. This is a criticism of Ted's desire to impose his practices on a country. This whole well if you don't like it, you don't have to practice but screw you mentality is where I have the issue. If Ted were a Muslim or a new or an atheist, would you be saying the same thing? Also, allowing Ted to impose his will on the country opens a Pandora's box for future administrations.

I don't see any threat of will imposing. If he scares you I understand. I just don't see it. It should also be noted that the office doesn't (shouldn't) allow any will imposing were he prone to give it a try.

What Christian practice is Cruz going to impose?

I'm in the middle
Of Star Wars and responding so I hope I get my point across.

It's the idea that people are willing to suspend the constitution to do this.

"Cruz also wants to return to a time when Judeo-Christian values were more prevalent in American culture. Perhaps he has Dwight Eisenhower’s 1950s in mind—an era when there was prayer and Bible reading in schools and white middle-class Christian family values were the order of the day.

Cruz believes that Christians need to reclaim the various aspects of culture—the media, the entertainment industry, education, government—and take dominion over them."

It's not the Christianity that offends me. It the precedent that is set for when an administration with a different ideology gets in.

What you cited from the article is the journalist's prediction.

I am not a Cruz supporter but have looked into the Republican candidates. His career as a prosecutor would not reinforce the journalists position. Again, Insee the article as more about the journalist than an accurate picture of Cruz.

I believe your fears are unfounded. Your citations do nothing to sway me into believing that Ted Cruz would do anything to threaten any American's liberty or freedom. I believe you are allowing the anti-Christian bigotry of the day to frighten you. Don't believe that only the Godless may govern.

Nib, I don't believe you read what I said at all. What anti Christian bigotry?

Yes evo you make good points. Still, at issue, Cruz wanting to do these things or saying he will do these things to secure voters. Either way, no Bueno.

True. I have some similar concerns about Bernie.

I read what you said. I stand by my statement. Maybe this will help, it's a force from the dark side. If Ted Cruz yearned for a world of #lovewins and safe spaces and income equality you wouldn't have the same fears. Anti-Christian bigotry makes you believe his worldview is illegitimate. It's an irrational fear, ugly and hateful.

"Maybe this will help, it's a force from the dark side."
I don't feel this way about Ted because of the force of evil. There are such people as moderates who do have great faith but also feel it's personal. Ted will say anything to get elected and it's no different than when Obama had people convinced it would be a new day with (low info voters) free stuff.

"If Ted Cruz yearned for a world of #lovewins and safe spaces and income equality you wouldn't have the same fears."

I don't agree with those cause celebs mentioned however, I think it's ironic you talk about anti Christian bigotry but you have similar hateful views against those people.

"Anti-Christian bigotry makes you believe his worldview is illegitimate. It's an irrational fear, ugly and illegitimate." That's your opinion. I have a much clearer picture of Ted Cruz from my former evangelical days. I'm not so easily manipulated by people these days. I get my directions straight from the source.

Every presidential candidate in my lifetime has campaigned for the White House with the stated intent to influence the country to move a direction and embrace values that they believe are best as determined by their own personal worldview. That, or they are political whores. Assuming Cruz is not a whore, why is his Christian worldview illegitimate? I don't understand the double-standard.

And those of you that view Cruz as infallible and Christlike, need to check your bibles on what it says about that.

Last comment first. I have a lot of problems with Cruz. He would get my vote today by default. This is way off base.

It's not illegitimate. It has no place in public policy or law making. People that accuse Obama of being a Muslim and injecting that into policy should surely object to this.

How do you think Cruz will suspend the Constitution? What specifically is he going to do and for what specific reason?

He wants to reverse gay marriage for one. He wants target neighborhoods based on religion. He wants to go around the constitution to get rid of abortion.

It seems as if you simply disagree with him, and that's fine, fair and understandable, but there is no Constitutional over-reach in any of these (broadly stated) examples. Nor is he unique in being radical or controversial. Yes, he is a little creepy, but there is a greater danger in the mainstreamed effort to disqualify him because of his faith.

How will he go around the Constitution to get it done.?

By the way, why isn't there a push for plural marriage, even among Progressive? The same logic for this applies to gay marriage.

Agreed evo. I'm sure that when it's politically beneficial, it will be a platform issue. I am personally pro life and pro traditional marriage. But legally speaking, there is no way around disallowing gays to marry. If it's the term marriage, I can understand the gripe. But as it stands,there is no legal reason why one person can marry and another shouldn't be allowed. I guess my problem is that my faith doesn't come before the law (which it used to).

Well, I disagree with your legal interpretations. I hate to hit and run, but enough for now.

Government is task with the responsibility to resolve disputes between entities. Marriage began as a religious based designation. My experience has government needing to resolve issues between people in a marriage. Also, issues had to be resolved between the married and other entities in society. As a result, government used the definition of marriage provided by the original users of the term, but began to alter this definition by other actions taken (e.g. married people had a lower tax bracket and rights of survivorship). None of those things existed in the traditional concept of marriage. I understand how using an existing term for these legal changes. Not sure the government should have used a religious term for these steps.

We are now at a point where the government has substantially altered the government definition of marriage. Driven by the force of fairness. I think the best approach is for government to step away from the term "marriage" and move forward from there.

I think we've agreed about this before. It's a legal and binding document mostly for economic purpose. Let's call all marriages civil unions or joint ventures or whatever. Let the churches call them marriage.

We agree. To stop at marriage as the term and the way it is defined, does not address all the needs of non-traditional marriages.

For example, children to gay or lesbian couples can be an issue never addressed in the prior definition of marriage. Especially, if one of the couple is the biological parent of the child. I see some major issues surrounding this aspect of governance in the new world.

The lawyers will stay busy!