Ted Cruz Whines Because Too Many Americans Support the Constitution (Video)

ted-cruz-cbnWhenever the subject of religion and our Constitution is brought up, it never ceases to amaze me how ridiculous many of these evangelical Christians can get. Even though our First Amendment clearly states that our government cannot base laws on religion, and our Constitution lacks even a single mention of Christianity, millions of Americans still believe that this nation was founded on Christianity.


Let’s look at this logically, shall we?

Imagine for a moment that some of these super-religious Republicans such as Sen. Ted Cruz or Mike Huckabee were tasked with writing the Constitution. Who thinks that these people would have written our original Constitution without a single mention of Jesus Christ, God, the Bible or anything at all related to Christianity? There’s no way that happens. In fact, religious references wouldn’t just be included, they would be heavily featured.

It’s like I’ve said before, the lack of any mention of Christianity in our Constitution wasn’t an accident – it was by design.

Well, newly minted Republican presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) is apparently quite bothered with the fact that more and more Americans continue to embrace our Constitution rather than the theocracy individuals like him want to create.

“This country remains a country, I believe, grounded in values, grounded in faith, but far too many Christians have ceded the public arena to people who aren’t believers,” Cruz said.

A separation of church and state is one of the pillars of what has made this country great. Just because someone supports keeping the two separate doesn’t make them anti-Christian. Hell, I’m a Christian and I’m a huge advocate for keeping religion completely out of government.

“We’re to be watchmen on the wall, and I believe that there are pastors, there are leaders in the faith community all across this country who were placed in the positions of leadership that they are in today just like Esther [figure from the Bible], for such a time as this,” he said. “That is my hope, that we will energize and mobilize courageous conservatives all over this country to pull this country back.”

In other words, he’s upset that the majority of Americans support the fact that our Constitution clearly establishes how our laws are not to be based on religion, and he’s hoping that he can energize more Americans to support his unconstitutional push to base our laws on his version of Christianity.


 

That’s really what this all boils down to; it’s Americans who support the Constitutionally supported separation of church and state having to put up with those who want to turn the United States into a theocracy, ruled by evangelical interpretations of Christianity.

But I always go back to the question I ask every single person who shares Cruz’s beliefs: Can you show me a single reference to Christianity, Jesus Christ, God or the Bible in our Constitution?

Obviously it’s a rhetorical question and I already know the answer: There’s not a single reference to any of them – the Founding Fathers left them out of our Constitution by design.

Watch his comments below via CBN:





Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • strayaway

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” is what the 1st Amendment has to say about religion. It is often interpreted as saying something about the separation of church and state. Article IV, paragraph 3 adds, “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” Still, it a preacher wants to give his advice under the freedom of speech part of the 1st Amendment or if a voter walks into a voting booth thinking about a religious maxim or what their preacher said, there is no constitutional conflict. “The year of our LORD” is also mentioned in the Constitution.

    Like Cruz and Huckabee, our president has added his own view of our religious history and its contribution to democracy. “I also know that Islam has always been a part of America’s story,” “Islam has always been part of America,”“(the Eid holiday) reminds us of the many achievements and contributions of Muslim Americans to building the very fabric of our nation and strengthening the core of our democracy.” -Barack Hussein Obama

  • Jim Bean

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,. . . . ” That’s from the Declaration of Independence, which preceded the Constitution, and it clearly establishes that it would be the role of government to execute the perceived intent of the Creator.

    Since its obvious that only the most complete of fools would suggest that, immediately thereafter, they set out to build a wall of separation between the Creator and government they were instituting to manage the will of the Creator, they didn’t bother to spell it out again in the Constitution.

    Those promoting this freedom FROM religion narrative are either incredibly dumb or incredibly malicious.

    • NewEnglander58

      I would respond by stating what should be obvious to anyone familiar with history and law: The Declaration of Independence was a political manifesto, the Constitution is law. The founders wrote what they meant to say, and I think Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison, Thomas Payne, et al, would vehemently disagree with you. Of course, I’m only basing that on what they actually wrote about the topic. You are the incredibly dumb one.

      • Jim Bean

        What seems obvious to me is that said law was direct result of said manifesto with a causal link. With regard to what those founders may have written on the subject, I’ve yet to be exposed to anything that says they intended that nothing that coincides with any religious teaching may be included in any law subsequently written. I note that having something like that is imperative to substantiating the argument that ‘what they really intended was ‘freedom FROM religion.’ So, if you can point me to something, I’d be glad to review it.

        I also have some understanding of the how the Church of England controlled the government there and perverted everything to the benefit of that particular church. With that knowledge, one can begin to see how the signers would want for the various beliefs of ALL types to have an equal consideration in the administration of the government because such consideration would be essential to the preservation of the aforementioned ‘inalienable rights’ that EVERY individual was presumed to have.

        What we have todays is a struggle among Christians, non-Christians, and everyone in between to crush the ‘inalienable rights’ of others so that they might be able to pursue their own selfish interests without regard for the interests of others.

      • Keith

        You have no inalienable right to force your beliefs on the rest of us.

      • Jim Bean

        You have no inalienable right to stop people from trying. (I’m agnostic but fair-minded.)

      • Keith

        I do not believe you, you are agnostic and you think Christians have a right to try force their beliefs on you?

      • Keith

        I also have an inalienable right to hate Fundamentalist Christians for everything that they represent.

    • Keith

      But many of them did not believe in your creator god

      • Jim Bean

        Doesn’t matter. They all believed in peoples ‘inalienable right’ to believe if they wanted to.

      • Keith

        And I support that right, I just don’t need a Christian in charge of America, I need clear minded leadership.

    • Katie Holmgren Hanson

      The declaration of independence is a letter stating our intent to leave England. It has no bearing on how we govern the country they created. If they wanted this to be a theocracy they wouldn’t have stated that government isn’t allowed to make laws pertaining to religious beliefs.

      • Jim Bean

        And if they had wanted people to have freedom FROM religion they would have used the word ‘from’ rather than the word “of.”

      • Katie Holmgren Hanson

        If my religious belief is that there is no God it would count as freedom of religion since I get to believe whatever I want without interference from the government or any religious organizations nice try though

      • jmtaylor700

        According to this standard of merit, the praise of affording a just securing to property, should be sparingly bestowed on a government which, however scrupulously guarding the possessions of individuals, does not protect them in the enjoyment and communication of their opinions, in which they have an equal, and in the estimation of some, a more valuable property.

        More sparingly should this praise be allowed to a government, where a man’s religious rights are violated by penalties, or fettered by tests, or taxed by a hierarchy. Conscience is the most sacred of all property; other property depending in part on positive law, the exercise of that, being a natural and unalienable right. To guard a man’s house as his castle, to pay public and enforce private debts with the most exact faith, can give no title to invade a man’s conscience which is more sacred than his castle, or to withhold from it that debt of protection, for which the public faith is pledged, by the very nature and original conditions of the social pact…

        If there be a government then which prides itself in maintaining the inviolability of property; which provides that none shall be taken directly even for public use without indemnification to the owner, and yet directly violates the property which individuals have in their opinions, their religion, their persons, and their faculties; nay more, which indirectly violates their property, in their actual possessions, in the labor that acquires their daily subsistence, and in the hallowed remnant of time which ought to relieve their fatigues and soothe their cares, the influence [inference?] will have been anticipated, that such a government is not a pattern for the United States” James Madison, “Property”, 29 March 1792.

        Just to be sure that you don’t neglect the date, he wrote that after the 1st amendment was ratified.

        The Treaty of Tripoli — Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims]; and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries. Signed with Article 11 therein by President Adams and ratified by unanimous consent of the Senate, and without the slightest inkling from the House that they wouldn’t provide the funding to implement the treaty – not even a whimper.

        If you want a device for measuring whether an oppressive regime has risen up among us and is consolidating all the powers of government into fewer and fewer hands, the Declaration of Independence is a good starting point. This said, if you insist on forcing the Declaration as the definitive interpretive device for the Bill of Rights, where in the Declaration of Independence, a laundry list of what was worth noting in the “long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism does it say that he tried to take away the guns of people that weren’t shooting at him or his army, or to deny individuals the right to own guns. The second amendment certainly says nothing of the sort, and it takes a vivid imagination to take words therein, even when taken together, provide NO basis whatsoever for the allegation that purpose of the 2nd was to guarantee an individual right to own or buy whatever gun, canon, armament, etc.. that floats their boat.

        It’s no accident that the State and Federal Courts rarely reference the Declaration of Independence when expounding our Constitution.

        @katieholmgrenhanson:disqus

      • Chris Muir

        So, if there is no “freedom from religion”, then I take it you’re planning your pilgrimage to Mecca? That’s a requirement of Islam, which is a religion, and with no freedom from religion it would be required…
        What’s that? You don’t believe in Islam and don’t think you should be required to follow it? Ah, so there IS “freedom from religion” – freedom from any religion you do not believe in. Logically, then, if someone doesn’t believe in any religion, they’re free from all religions. Yes, freedom OF religion includes freedom FROM religions as well.

    • R. Eilers

      You know the Bible’s “creator” is the same “creator” in the koran right? Christians have no more religious right over our government than muslims or any other religious people do

      • Jim Bean

        I agree.

    • lars626

      “endowed by their Creator”. You were created by your Creator and I by mine. Same Creator? Maybe, maybe not. We will never know for sure. Mine has a very long view of time and process. Other folks are sure that theirs’ is explained in a book full of stories created for illiterate shepherds.

  • lars626

    The nation was founded on “Christian Principles”. The problem is that those principles are not exclusive to Christianity. They are found in Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and many others. Even the atheists agree that they are basic moral principals with or without religion.
    The First Amendment states that the government can not impose religion of any sort on me for any reason.

  • Meghan Minor

    Funny enough, this speaks about Ted Cruz’s speech in front of Liberty University’s students, without actually stating that the school made attending this event mandatory, with the threat of punishment for not attending.