Yes, the ranking is odd. Nobody would dream of saying that he was a democrat first and an American second, or a humanitarian first and an American second, or a husband first and an American second. You can be a Christian, a democrat, a humanitarian, a husband and an American. What does it even mean to rank one of these over another?
Uh . . . yes, I wasn’t equating the two. I do know the difference.
Not in this context. From the perspective of a non-believer, a President who thinks that the Bible is more important than the constitution is bad, be he Catholic, Protestant, or Jew.
JFK’s Catholicism was a novel issue for Protestants, but I doubt that Jews or other non-Christians worried much about the difference between his religion and Nixon’s.
What, you wouldn’t cheat on your wife?* For America*? I think that was Newt Gringrich’s excuse.
Anyone who is actually faithful is going to put their religion before their country. Countries rise and fall, God is forever.
I don’t think it will hurt him, because his pool of likely voters is going to be 99% people of faith who if they don’t hold that view, aspire to that view. Functionally, it means nothing, since God is imaginary. Cruz’s record is also not one of imposing theocracy. Although his views are staunchly conservative, he’s always held the Constitution in higher regard. So he might even be lying about his faith.
I am a Christian and the order is GOD, Family, Country and Church
If you were president, and genuinely thought God wanted you to launch nukes at, say, Iran, would you do it?
One of the reasons I placed the church last is that I am anti dogma and the church has got things wrong so many times in the past. I believe in a working relationship with God, this is why my life has taken many changes of direction in the past, each of these changes has given me different experiences and has helped me develop into the person that I am now. If I was placed in the given position as president I believe God would have chosen a path for me giving me the skills needed to come to the right decision. As I stand now it would have to be a decision on what be the best outcome for the world, if I believed that Nuking Iran was the only thing that would save the world from global destruction, I would, but my decision would be based on compassion and not greed or domination. I believe that if in the future I had to make that decision God would set me on a path that would give me the experience to come to a correct decision.
One thing I am sure of and would guide me is that God Is more than capable of destroying Iran if he decided to do so he would not need me. A line of thought is that he could destroy the leaders who are causing the problem rather than annihilate a whole nation.
I would certainly hope so, in the same way that any other President would work to undermine Supreme Court decisions that he doesn’t like. As John Mace mentions, Bernie Sanders would like to undermine the Citizens United decision. FDR wanted to undermine the Supreme Court decisions against the NRA. Obama wants to undermine the Beck decision on union dues.
All Presidents want to undermine Supreme Court decisions with which they disagree. “Checks and balances”, remember?
Regards,
Shodan
So you believe that god takes sides in geo-politics?
What does god need with a politician?
+1
“Christian” is a broad, general term that doesn’t imply extremism.
God does not need politucians
Not the way they use it.
So - he’s being a typical two-faced politicion in this case -
a) he’s making the statement to tickle the ears of voters that want us to return to ‘christian values’ which implies that he will , as president, put ‘God’s law’ above ‘mans’ (make people like Kim Davis Sec of State) which he has no intention of doing - which makes him a hypocrite in front of god/everyone - which isn’t a very christian thing to do.
b) he really means it - and he fully intends to do the things laid out in (a).
Niether of which do I want as qualities in a President - especially given our current state of affairs with such a large chasm/divide in this country.
If a Christian candidate anticipates a significant conflict between being Christian and being President and/or American, they shouldn’t be running for President in the first place.
If it means that they intend to stick to their ethics, principles, values, etc. even if it seemed they might gain some advantage for America by abandoning them, that can be a reasonable position; and it’s the kind of position an atheist or agnostic could hold, if they had firm ethical principles. I still think a President has to recognize that his job/role as President is to serve the country.
Oh, I think it’s normal to be one’s religion first and one’s nationality second or lower, so of course it’s acceptable for a US President. But the sort of politician who declaims it loudly, as if his religion is a political allegiance, may not be an optimal candidate.
That said, I think what Cruz actually said, in context, made sense. He is an ideologue more than a partisan, and wants us to believe that his Christianity and his patriotism outrank both that ideology and that partisanship.
No. He made a statement in response to Bob Dole’s comment that he might not be a “loyal Republican”. You’re extrapolating way beyond what the context of that quote tells us.
If by “they” you mean the SDMB, correct.
Regards,
Shodan