It certainly isn’t acceptable if one were to frame it as “I’m a Christian first and president second.” If you want to be a Christian first and you would choose your religion over your office when the two conflict, don’t take the oath of office in the first place.
I’m responding to the OP of the thread.
And in any case - the phraseology - regardless of context - is still meant to tickle the ears of votors that want that type of government.
Its exactly what I would expect the people that phrase is often championed by to want in the person they vote for.
'I am President first, and a moral person second. If ever there is a conflict between doing something that is morally right, and my duties as President, I will choose being President every time.
If it is in the best interests of America that I lie, I’m going to lie. If I have to wiretap somebody, I am going to wiretap them. If it is in the best interests of the US to nuke somebody, I will do it.
America first, always, and only. My morality will always be subject to that proviso.’
Would you vote for that candidate?
Regards,
Shodan
See: Egypt, Sodom, Gomorrah, and the whole fucking Earth during the flood.
In Egypt in particular, God did the opposite of what you’re saying.
The trouble with a truly pious president, is that like Ben Carson, the truly pious are immune to facts and reality. Carson went through medical school and thinks evolution is a lie. What are his cabinet and staff gonna say to dissuade him when he decides that he is the hand of God, come to bring judgement to the Holy Land?
Are you saying that the president should be without morals? if so that could create dangerous presidency.
I think Shodan’s saying that we wouldn’t want such a president. (COUGHRichardNixonCOUGH*)
What Thudlow says.
Everyone wants a President who will do what is right. That’s why we vote for people with whom we agree.
Regards,
Shodan
I don’t really understand why this is news. Cruz is an evangelical who goes around demanding that we bring Jesus back into public life.
Cruz’ true allegiance is to Cruz. This is just pandering.
I would vote for an atheist over one that expressed belief in an entity that has never been shown to exist, if only an atheist would run. Won’t happen in my lifetime.
If Cruz claims that he is a Christian (first, second, or 99th), he should at lest act like he knew what was in the Bible. Instead, he’s channeling what he thinks the Bible says, what other “Christians” think the Bible says. If, in fact, the man has read the Bible, he certainly does not act as though he had. He’s certainly not taking any of it to heart.
The problem is that many issues today force them to decide between the law and the Constitution and their faith. We’re seeing this exact same battle play out in the courts over gay marriage - People think that their religion trumps the duties their employment requires them to perform, and in doing so they force their religion onto the rest of us (who may or may not share that religion).
People who think an overtly theocratic government is a good thing only want it so long as it is THEIR religion.
Sure he is.
Your criticism is not based on the Bible, but on select portions that you are relying on to support your own view.
Give me an example of a Cruz action that you believe so clearly violates the Bible that it shows he took NONE of it to heart.
You can’t. If Cruz advocated the death penalty for juveniles, he could point to II Kings 2, where children tell Elisha “Go up, thou bald head,” and she-bears come out f the woods and tear 42 children to bits.
So what example do you have?
I read it as “I have values that I hold higher than patriotism.” I think that’s true of most people. I think it’s perfectly reasonable to oppose him for what his values are, but not prizing love of country above all else doesn’t stun me.
It would not surprise me how people of other faiths would find the teachings of Jesus as an acceptable principle in government as long as it did not interfere with their freedom of worship
2 Samuel 24, NRSV:
¹⁰ But afterward, David was stricken to the
heart because he had numbered the people.
David said to the Lord, “I have sinned greatly
in what I have done. But now, O Lord, I pray
you, take away the guilt of your servant; for I
have done very foolishly.” ¹¹ When David rose
in the morning, the word of the Lord came to
the prophet Gad, David’s seer, saying, ¹² “Go
and say to David: Thus says the Lord: Three
things I offer you; choose one of them, and I
will do it to you.” ¹³ So Gad came to David and
told him; he asked him, “Shall three years
of famine come to you on your land? Or will
you flee three months before your foes while
they pursue you? Or shall there be three days’
pestilence in your land? Now consider, and
decide what answer I shall return to the one
who sent me.” ¹⁴ Then David said to Gad, “I
am in great distress; let us fall into the hand
of the Lord, for his mercy is great; but let me
not fall into human hands.”
¹⁵ So the Lord sent a pestilence on Israel
from that morning until the appointed time;
and seventy thousand of the people died,
from Dan to Beer-sheba.
I’m definitely not a Ben Carson fan but I can honestly say I don’t fear him deciding he is the hand of God coming to bring judgement to the Holy Land.That’s an entirely different kind of crazy. Now, stab his Press Secretary, sure or attacking his VP with a hammer, this I can believe might happen.
As far as I know, I have voted for several candidates like that. Serving the best interests of America is the President’s job. And in a worst case scenario that can include something as otherwise immoral as killing people. That’s what a war is, right? Organized killing.
Would we really want a President who refused to fight a war, under any circumstances, due to his moral opposition to killing? Such a person, while perhaps admirable as an individual, is unfit to hold the office of President in my opinion.
I assume you thought/think the war in question was morally justified. That’s not what I am asking.
Would you support a President who said he or she would do something that was morally wrong, if he or she thought it was part of being the President?
We find some island or other with a large deposit of some strategic mineral or something. The natives of that island don’t want to sell the minerals. It would be in the best interests of the US to have the minerals. So the President invades the island, wipes out the natives, and confiscates the island. Stealing and murder are morally wrong, I am sure you would agree. Do you support the President?
If you are simply saying that you disagree with Cruz as to what is or is not morally correct, and you don’t support him based on that, that is perfectly fine, as I said before. That’s why we have elections. If you are saying that a President should put his duties as President ahead of moral considerations, I would disagree.
Cruz is saying (obviously) that he puts his moral considerations ahead of his political ones. If you are arguing that his moral considerations are wrong, that’s one thing. If you are saying that, in general, a President should put his duties as President ahead of moral considerations, that is another.
Regards,
Shodan
What if a Supreme Court interpretation said the constitution required a certain action, but the President said “I follow a higher authority” and disregarded that decision, acting counter to it?
I think if someone chooses to take an oath to uphold the constitution, they should do that, and if some personal position prevents them from upholding the constitution, they should resign.
Shodan, is there not a difference between “what the President thinks is in the best interests of the nation” and “Presidential duties under the law?” I really think that’s conflating two different things. POTUS is tasked with upholding the Constitution and running the country, not to do anything and everything he or she feels is in the country’s best interests.
I’m with Shodan. If you take the claim to be one of saying he’ll put his morality first, then there’s nothing at all wrong with it. It’s literally the defining trait of a moral person versus an immoral one.
Any idea that you have to do what you promise to do comes from your morality. Without morality, those are just words. With morality, there can be a compulsion to keep your word.
Morality is the underpinning of civilization in general. We all have to roughly agree on what is and is not moral so that a society can exist. Morality is the driving force that tells each person to forego personal gain if it harms others.
It can’t be secondary to anything and still have any meaning at all.
It’s one thing to argue that his morality is wrong (aka immoral). But to argue that he should put being President before his own morality is a complete contradiction.
Someone who said “I will put my duties as President above even doing what is right” is someone who isn’t moral and cannot be trusted to do anything–even his own duties as President.