Doesn’t bother me at all, depends on the type of Christians. Heck, if someone were a moderate civilized Muslim, it wouldn’t bother me much (I won’t deny it might bother me a bit).
I don’t think you’re staking out any new ground there-- no one in this thread is suggesting otherwise, and it would be unfair (without at least further clarification) to interpret Cruz’s statement in that manner.
I agree it’s unlikely. However, evolution is about as rock solid as anything on Earth when it comes to evidence. If he can ignore that, then evidence and reality are *optional *to him.
Whatever he decides to believe is what he will think is true, no matter what the evidence says. That’s dangerous in a leader.
A quibble - the President doesn’t run the country, he runs the executive branch and is CiC of the armed forces. But I don’t see how your distinction changes anything. Should the POTUS do something immoral because he thinks it is part of running the executive branch?
Or BigT puts it better -
Regards,
Shodan
I can kinda agree with this but the bottom line is that for all of us reality is kinda optional. We all carve out truths that we know we can rely on and shape our perception of the world that are not based on reality.
In fact, watching Brain Games on HBO shows just how hardwired our brains are to creating their own reality to fill in things that they can’t process directly. It’s what we’re hardwired to do. That’s what makes us human.
Now, the ignoring evidence thing is a bad thing but again, I don’t think he’s going to go down that road for every topic, clearly he could not be a brain surgeon if he ignored evidence and reality in everything. His ability to ignore evidence and reality are related to preconcieved notions that have become ingrained into his reality over the years and I don’t think it’s reasonable he’d come to such a radical new belief at this point in time or that he’d be able to act on it before it was clear his mental condition was slipping.
I don’t think things like this develop overnight and it appears very out of character for him. There are other candidates that would be far more likely to be like this and I am pretty doubtful that anyone who could be electable would be. We’re talking about the extreme of the extreme in beliefs . The point where the bs stops and stuff gets real. I don’t see that with any of the politicians that we have to choose from. They have much more subtle ways to screw up society which they’re not consciously trying to achieve in the first place so there’s no need to create scary hypotheticals IMHO.
My answer is still yes. I don’t know why you feel I didn’t understand the question.
Do I want a President who strangles kittens for fun? No, of course not. I didn’t say I wanted a President who is evil. I don’t want a President who will invade island nations just because he can. But I want a President who would invade an island nation if it was necessary. And if you could invent a scenario where the President had to choose between America and a kitten, I want a President who would strangle that kitten.
But not waterboard a detainee.
Exactly. Just like with Kim Davis, for instance.
Yes. And, to go outside the bounds of this discussion for a bit, a good president tries to find a way not to have to strangle a kitten for America.
I think this is the right question. After all, if you take this Christianity business seriously, rather than just a nice cultural identification, there’s no way you can possibly be anything else first.
But if you run for governmental office, you’re assuming a fiduciary duty of sorts: you’re committing yourself to do what’s best for that governmental unit, not for Jesus or Yahweh or Allah or Buddha or Vishnu or whoever.
Believers or not, we’re all going to have different views of what’s best for that governmental unit, and that’s what politics is there to deal with. But if you’re President, and you believe the interests of the U.S. are best served by going to war, but you feel that that would be against the Lord’s will, it’s your duty to try to get Congress to authorize your war.
As a liberal Christian, I’d say that if a Christian running for office said they were “American first, Christian second”, I’d be deeply distressed to the point of wondering if that individual is Christian at all. God is greater than country, and yes, it is similar to someone saying they’d put their morality above “America’s best interests” (I feel the opposite is what led to all sorts of negative things during the George W. Bush administration - for all the Christian talk, he was led by whatever is in America’s, short term at least, interests was greater than any morality).
President Obama even mentioned at one point that part of his impetus for the Affordable Care Act was because of his faith - taking care of the less fortunate was integral to his worship of God.
That doesn’t mean that one wants a theocracy - after all, I’m Christian first, employee second, but at my job I’m not haranguing people to believe in Jesus.
For what it’s worth: in my opinion, a Congressman who is concerned that Marines on Guam will weigh too much, placing the island in danger of tipping over and capsizing, has disqualified himself in a much more meaningful way than a Congressman who might claim to be a Christian first and an American second.
Those who feel the need to make much of their religion tend to be somewhat more extreme than those who don’t.
If you don’t value your Christianity more than your country, you’re not that much of a Christianity.
And that whole ‘I am moral because I am Christian’ chaps my ass. I do NOT want to think that the person in charge of serious death and destruction in the form of an army and nuclear weapons is only holding off from genocide because of some dumb beliefs written down 2500 years ago by a bunch of sheep and goat herding nomads who are ignorant of the modern world.
Look, if the only thing that makes you ‘moral’ is a bunch of platitudes and laws written back when it was legal to sell your daughter for a bunch of sheep as soon as she started bleeding out her cootchie to some guy with extra sheep who thinks it OK to beat the hell out of her with a stick no thicker than his thumb because she didn’t hp to and follow his orders instantly is really no incentive. What makes and keeps someone moral is their personal honor without being threatened with some form of punishment. What makes someone human is their ability to have empathy for a total stranger, not the whole ‘this is my family, this is my tribe, fuck anybody who is not family or tribe’.
I would seriously prefer to have an atheist in the presidency than a ‘Christian’, I would even go for a stated agnostic over a ‘Christian’ or “Muslim” or ‘Jew’ [or insert whichever religious system you can believe in.]
I don’t believe it is different in this context. He is claiming allegiance to a particular type of Christianity, whether he includes the details in his claim or not.
Yes, of course. But my question is not whether the statement will hurt him politically, but whether it is a morally sound or unsound stance in a man running for president. And I think the answer to that question depends on what, exactly, he means when he says he is a Christian first.
Does it mean he will strive to overturn court rulings he deems immoral, but do so while acting within the bounds of his office, or does it mean he will use whatever power he can muster to overturn such rulings. (substitute immoral laws for immoral court rulings if you prefer.)
The former is what we all hope our president will do – of course the president should have some moral bearings. The latter is a dangerous position, and ought to disqualify a man from being president, imo.
If that’s all it means, I have no quibble with it.
But I am afraid he means:
I hear “I am a Christian first” as code for “I will do what it takes to make this country more in line with my interpretation of Christian morals, rule of law be damned.”
Perhaps I am over-reacting. I would be happy to learn that I am. And no doubt, I am especially concerned because as best I can tell, his interpretation of Christianity is pretty far away from MY moral compass, and closer to the nastier aspects of Sharia Law that I hear Christians complaining about.
If his interpretation of Christianity were closer to my moral compass, I would feel there is less at stake, and I might be inclined to hear a softer, more constitutionally valid interpretation of statement, because there’d be less at stake if I were wrong.
But the statement is likely to help him in the primary, for sure, and might well help him in the general election, as well.
But it’s much easier to feed Marines less than it is to change an adult’s religion.
Sure, believing an island can tip over is silly. But how is it less silly than believing the Earth was created in a single week a few thousand years ago? Or that a dead guy came back to life?
I’ve already said I would support a President having people killed if it was necessary. I think it should be obvious that would also extend to lesser crimes like lying, cheating, kidnapping, and torture.
But I also said a President should do these things only if they are necessary and in the best interests of the country. Plenty of Presidents have done wrong things out of their own self-interest or because it was convenient or because they ignored the consequences of what they were doing or because they were stupid.
I’ll support a President who does a really bad thing - but only if he did it for a really good reason.
Answer: because the belief about the island is testable, and falsifiable.
The belief about the dead guy is not testable.