Found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
------------------------------
This author is concerned that someone would point to his faith as the most important thing in his life. Apparently there is some sort of conflict of interest between Christianity and being in government, though what that might be is never identified.
-----------------------------
If this guy was president, his first loyalty would be to his religion, not his country. His words, not mine.
His Christianity is probably the last thing Ted Cruz ever thought would give him problems. However, a new ad produced by Americans United for Values attacks him for being, get this, a “false prophet.” Among other slings and arrows hurled, the ad slams Cruz for not tithing—donating 10 percent of his income to charity—something many Christians believe is a sacred obligation. Cruz, it seems, has donated only about one percent of his income—which came to around $1 million annually—to charity between 2006 and 2010. (Cruz's supposed inadequate expression of his faith is irrelevant. The issue is, what is the hierarchy of devotion in a politician's life? Is there something suspect in being a Christian first?)
In response to the ad and other attacks on his Christianity as well as his conservatism, Cruz responded:
“I’m a Christian first, American second, conservative third and Republican fourth...I’ll tell ya, there are a whole lot of people in this country that feel exactly the same way.”
The politics of this aside, (Despite this disclaimer, the author spends his entire article focusing on the political implications.)
I want to highlight here something we might call Christian Privilege. Could you imagine, for example, a Jewish candidate for president saying that he or she was a Jew first and an American second? (Yes.)
Now imagine the sheer outrage if a Muslim American of any prominence whatsoever declared that he or she was Muslim first and American second. (Um, yeah. Like Keith Ellison, who identifies himself as a Muslim-American? Oh, that's right, he's a Leftist, so he gets a pass.
The author is trying to make an equivalency for all religions. However, Islam is the only religion that explicitly is connected with political expression. Neither Christianity nor Judaism teach about connecting with politics to further the cause of God.
Therefore, we are right to make distinction according to the tenets of various faiths.)
People’s heads would explode.
On a related note, imagine a presidential candidate saying he or she was black, white, or Latino (or any other ethnic group) first, and American second. (This happens all the time. People of every status have regularly hyphenated their identity [i.e., **-American], a purposeful subordination of Americanness to one's primary identification.)
President Obama—and, having done extensive research on his conception of ethnic and national identity, I believe he sincerely feels this way—made crystal clear before 2008 that his identification as an American took precedence over his blackness. (President Obama has expressly identified himself as African-American: "Well, look, if what you are asking me, Steve, is are there certain circumstances around being the first African-American president that might not have confronted a previous president, absolutely."
Without doubt, he could not have been elected president without having done so. (Speculation. Everyone looking at a T.V. sees he is black. To suggest he couldn't get elected if he played up his blackness is nonsense. In fact, the historic election of a black man to the Whitehouse has been endlessly hyped.
It is simply disingenuous to suggest that Obama's race hasn't played a role in politics.)
I want, no, I demand, a president whose first loyalty is to the Constitution, and to the people—all the people—he or she was elected to serve. (That is, Christianity above all other religions and personal identifiers is the only expression that must be minimized.)
Only a Christian has the privilege—and only ones like Ted Cruz, who present themselves as holier than thou, would have the gall—to claim otherwise. (Quite the opposite. Christianity has no such privilege. In fact, Christianity is a suspicion raiser. Christians are advocating theocracy. Christians are hypocrites. Christians are trying to impose their religion on everyone else. Christians hate women. Christians are backward. Christians believe in the flying spaghetti monster.
It goes on and on. Suggesting there is a "Christian privilege" is preposterous on its face.)
No comments:
Post a Comment