Cruz surrounds himself with people who have a problem with truth
David Barton and Glenn Beck immediately leap to mind. Barton was one of those who anointed Cruz in 2013 and Glenn Beck has been Cruz’s surrogate in the media and on the campaign trail since Beck endorsed Cruz during the Iowa primaries. Space doesn’t permit an examination of Barton’s historical and current misadventures but you can read about them here.
At Cruz’s rallies in Iowa, South Carolina and Nevada, Beck floated several fraudulent stories about George Washington (see here, here, and here). Beck issued a statement admitting the deception to Huffington Post, but he blamed HuffPo for his mistakes on his own website and never apologized or admitted the truth to Cruz’s supporters.
Barton and Beck aren’t peripheral figures in the Cruz universe. Barton heads one of Cruz’s Super PACs and Beck has become a spokesman for Cruz. Along with foreign policy advisor and conspiracy theorist Frank Gaffney, Beck and Barton as close advisors call into question Cruz’s judgment. An administration full of these appointments is unthinkable.
Despite Cruz’s religious tones, I don’t trust him – In part because of his advisors, I don’t trust Cruz. Their claim that Cruz is God’s candidate is icing on the distrust cake. His father, his wife, David Barton and Glenn Beck have all expressed in one way or another that Cruz is divinely anointed to be president. In Israel’s history, God intervened and chose kings. However, America is not Israel and those who claim to know God’s will on this matter immediately arouse my suspicion.
I became more keenly aware of how little I trust Cruz when he recently said in a town hall meeting that one should be skeptical of a candidate who claims God’s favor. He was essentially holding himself up for scrutiny since he is the only candidate with that platform in this campaign.
Cruz has not spoken much about how his belief in special knowledge would inform his policy decisions. There is no religious test to become president but since Cruz has previously gotten direction through interpreting “words” given to his wife, I want to know if he will continue getting directions on big decisions in this manner as president.
To me, how he makes decisions is important because Cruz’s willingness to compromise (something he hasn’t shown much willingness to do) might be hindered by a believe that his position is God’s position. One of his advisors, David Barton, believes man’s law cannot contradict God’s law. He also believes the Bible speaks authoritatively on public policy. It is a fair question to ask: Will Cruz run the country as a pastor or politician? Given his rhetoric and advisors, I can’t support a candidate who thinks his positions are gospel rather than the offerings of a fallible man who is open to give and take.
Monday, April 4, 2016
Warren Throckmorton isn't voting for Cruz either
Here, and a taste:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
Again, guilt by association. Mr. Cruz, are you now are have you ever been a Dominionist?
Barton heads one of Cruz’s Super PACs and Beck has become a spokesman for Cruz.
Neither of these assertions are accurate. By law, Ted Cruz can have no direct association with any PAC, and Beck is not a "spokesman" for the Cruz campaign, as he is not part of the Cruz campaign.
Such shoddiness from Mr. Throckmorton is not really fit for the front page of this blog. The previous quote per Harry Truman bears directly on America's religious heritage; Throckmorton's rant here is not germane.
"I became more keenly aware of how little I trust Cruz when he recently said in a town hall meeting that one should be skeptical of a candidate who claims God’s favor. He was essentially holding himself up for scrutiny since he is the only candidate with that platform in this campaign."
Complete partisan garbage. it's one thing to dispute something Cruz said, another thing entirely to, in essence, call him a liar.
Throckmorton criticizes Cruz for believing that "the Bible speaks authoritatively on public policy," but this was a common belief among the founding generation of Americans. According to Madison's notes on the debates of the Constitution:
Mr. PINCKNEY. The committee, as he had conceived, were instructed to report the proper qualifications of property for the members of the national legislature ... he thought it essential that the members of the legislature, the executive, and the judges, should be possessed of competent property to make them independent and respectable ... Were he to fix the quantum of property which should be required, he should not think of less than one hundred thousand dollars for the President, half of that sum for each of the judges, and in like proportion for the members of the national legislature. He would, however, leave the sums blank. His motion was, that the President of the United States, the judges, and members of the legislature, should be required to swear that they were respectively possessed of a clear unincumbered estate, to the amount of—in the case of the President, &c., &c.
...
Dr. FRANKLIN expressed his dislike to every thing that tended to debase the spirit of the common people. If honesty was often the companion of wealth, and if poverty was exposed to peculiar temptation, it was not less true that the possession of property increased the desire of more property. Some of the greatest rogues he was ever acquainted with were the richest rogues. We should remember the character which the Scripture requires in rulers, that they should be men hating covetousness. This Constitution will be much read and attended to in Europe; and, if it should betray a great partiality to the rich, will not only hurt us in the esteem of the most liberal and enlightened men there, but discourage the common people from removing to this country.
The motion of Mr. Pinckney was rejected by so general a no, that the states were not called.
"Throckmorton criticizes Cruz for believing that 'the Bible speaks authoritatively on public policy,' but this was a common belief among the founding generation of Americans."
Of course, during the founding period and, at least, the first half or the 19th century, many justified slavery on the authority of the Bible.
Some of the preachers that have signed onto the Cruz campaign still preach that homosexuals should be killed based on the authority of the Bible.
It's unclear, given that we live in a religiously and philosophically plural culture and a republic governed by a secular constitution embracing principles that are contradictory to such Biblical authority, how the Bible speaks on public policy. Maybe within the church or in a theocracy or theonomy.
The Bible "speaks" authoritatively to many "hearers" in different ways. There be the rub.
One of the Ten Commandments instructs PEOPLE to not "covet." Not sure what instructions "Scripture" gives to rulers. G. Morris once lamented to G. Washington that Jesus didn't seem to give ANY instructions to rulers (if I remember Morris' quotation correctly).
Warren Throckmorton is a psychology teacher. If he and his ilk want to dabble in history and political theology they can start here and quit the petty attacks on Ted Cruz via a small minority of his supporters.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Hebrew-Republic-Transformation-Political/dp/0674062132
According to a commonplace narrative, the rise of modern political thought in the West resulted from secularization―the exclusion of religious arguments from political discourse. But in this pathbreaking work, Eric Nelson argues that this familiar story is wrong. Instead, he contends, political thought in early-modern Europe became less, not more, secular with time, and it was the Christian encounter with Hebrew sources that provoked this radical transformation.
During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, Christian scholars began to regard the Hebrew Bible as a political constitution designed by God for the children of Israel. Newly available rabbinic materials became authoritative guides to the institutions and practices of the perfect republic. This thinking resulted in a sweeping reorientation of political commitments. In the book’s central chapters, Nelson identifies three transformative claims introduced into European political theory by the Hebrew revival: the argument that republics are the only legitimate regimes; the idea that the state should coercively maintain an egalitarian distribution of property; and the belief that a godly republic would tolerate religious diversity. One major consequence of Nelson’s work is that the revolutionary politics of John Milton, James Harrington, and Thomas Hobbes appear in a brand-new light.
Nelson demonstrates that central features of modern political thought emerged from an attempt to emulate a constitution designed by God. This paradox, a reminder that while we may live in a secular age, we owe our politics to an age of religious fervor, in turn illuminates fault lines in contemporary political discourse.
Nelson's is a very interesting thesis. It raises a problem with claims like "the Founders believed X." It would be like someone from the future giving us (America circa late 20th early 21st Centuries) a name and then saying, "they believed this."
The Democrats believe one thing, the Republicans another.
The Whigs beat the Tories. The Federalists beat the anti-Federalists (but they had to compromise), then Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans disagreed.
One interesting point I get out of Nelson's work there was a tension between the "liberals" (who were more free market on economic matters) and the "republicans" (who were more egalitarian and collectivistic).
Nelson's is saying the "republicans" were proto-Rawlsians, as opposed to proto-Milton Friedmanites.
Not the point. The point is that there are valid arguments for a lot more Bible in our Founding and institutions than our left-wing know-it-alls even begin to suspect.
Which is why putting Warren Throckmorton on the front page of this blog is such a joke. He knows little about history and even less about theology. His partisan hackery is neither informative nor germane: I don't care whether some psychology teacher "trusts" Ted Cruz or not, and neither should anyone else.
Well I'm working on a post that doesn't mention Throckmorton where I make a different "set of points."
Do these points having anything to do with religion and the Founding? That would be welcome. Something above the junior-high level that we've been hearing?
FTR, I'm not specifically endorsing Eric Nelson's thesis, I'm simply pointing out that a Harvard PhD stands in the way of the nuking Ted Cruz and our Christian origins with cheap bleats about slavery or "Dominionism." Trolling the left-wing internet and picking fights with David Barton based on what you find there is strictly minor-league, and a dishonest way to get at Ted Cruz.
I've been meaning to write about tensions within the original synthesis for some time. And SBT's NRC post combined with your invocation of Dr. Nelson's work reminded me.
Note my set of points deals with Rawls' economic theory, not his notion that "public reason" must disqualify appeals to special revelation.
Indeed, it seems quite ironic that special appeals to the Old Testament's teachings on political economy might validate Rawl's egalitarian theory of a "just distribution."
Indeed, it seems quite ironic that special appeals to the Old Testament's teachings on political economy might validate Rawl's egalitarian theory of a "just distribution."
See also "distributivism."
http://distributist.blogspot.com/2007/02/distributivism-and-catholic-social.html
However, where [radical] egalitarianism goes wrong is that all are owed equal opportunity but not necessarily equal outcomes.
I don't think Rawls teaches all are owed "equal outcomes." Pure Marxism teaches this and it didn't work when tried. Rather Rawls teaches in principle, some kind of inequality is acceptable to make the system work. But government has a place in redistributing to make things kinder, gentler and fairer. Government can say "how much" is "too much."
This is a form of egalitarianism. It's the "modernity" to which Nelson is tracing back to his "republican" figures.
This is where Rawls can get a little thorny: He was a utilitarian (and as noted, he disallowed religious arguments for public policy).
Still, pure Marxism flunked or lost the macroeconomic social welfare utility argument. Likewise the kind of Marxism practiced by Chavez's Venezuela does as well. Rawls could see the writing on the walls by 1971.
So he puts the burden on all outcomes of economic inequality to justify themselves on utilitarian grounds. And they do. Where the gains from moves that yield unequal outcomes can be redistributed to the economic losers, Rawls justifies such.
So A,B & C start off with 10, with a total of 30 points. A "free trade" move might have A&B move to 15, but C to 8. That takes us from 30->38 a move that justifies itself on utilitarian grounds. Rawls would say something like government is justified in taking a point from both A&B and giving it to C, so that C is no worse off (and A&B are both better off).
The modern utilitarian formulaic way of achieving such outcome isn't something I see the older sources contemplating. But I do see them contemplating government redistribution in order to achiever a fairer "balance" of wealth.
The modern utilitarian formulaic way of achieving such outcome isn't something I see the older sources contemplating. But I do see them contemplating government redistribution in order to achiever a fairer "balance" of wealth.
Better you attempt that case, then, as more relevant to both the study of the American past and an argument for the American future.
I shall demur in either case.
I'm sympathetic--vigorously committed--to the idea that every man has an equal right to drink from the well [and even another man's well in the short term!], but for the same reason that slavery is morally objectionable, no man is entitled to the fruits of another man's labor.
In fact, this is where Locke's largely discredited "Labor Theory of Value" holds true, and what I imagine he was after in trying to turn it into a universal principle.
Rawls, I really don't care about. His principles are not morally, theologically, or constitutionally self-evident.
If those are the parameters, Rawls is relevant to the extent that figures who influenced America's Founders (Nelson's "hebraic republicans") anticipated the outcomes for which Rawls argued.
As an honest observer I don't see Jesus as a political creature in ANY sense other than he would do what He deemed moral and accepted the consequences regardless.
The theonomists make a case that the Bible is consistent or teaches free market economics (preferably of the Austrian school). I don't see it.
I wouldn't go so far as endorsing the idea that the Bible teaches Marxist or communist economics.
But it contains ideas like "the Jubilee" in the Old Testament where every 50 years all debts are forgiven (which would mean if you are lucky enough to have a mortgage on the 50th year, it would evaporate then. Likewise, if you were a creditor owed a debt then, you are shit out of luck).
And admonitions taken seriously up until the enlightenment period (1700 and some years after Jesus) that "brothers" would not charge one another interest. This led to the strange dynamic of Jews being permitted to charge Christians interest and vice versa, but not being able to charge one another interest (because they were not "brothers").
The permission to charge fellow citizens interest (if I am not mistaken such a notion comes from thinkers like Richard Price) is something fundamental to modern economics and separates the West from Islam which still struggles to get over that dynamic.
But if I need to make a more detailed case, I'll have to return to Nelson's writings on the "rotational balance" of wealth redistribution for which his Hebraic republican figures argued.
If those are the parameters, Rawls is relevant to the extent that figures who influenced America's Founders (Nelson's "hebraic republicans") anticipated the outcomes for which Rawls argued.
No. Rawls eschews Christian argument. You contradict yourself.
That "all men are created equal" is not self-evident, unless there is a Creator Who made them so, and endowed them with certain unalienable rights.
By any natural metrics, all men are created unequal: some are smart, some are strong, some are good-looking.
Some--most--are none of the above. Rawls assumes too much, presumes everything. He starts at the end and not the beginning.
If Christianity teaches some kind of economic egalitarianism, either the radical kind that Marx proposed where everyone gets an equal slice of the pie according to need, or the less radical kind that Rawls proposed where we are concerned with fairer balances and distributions, both Marx and Rawls tried for a secular version of these results.
Both Jeremy Waldron and the late Paul Sigmund both agreed, you won't get a good metaphysical case for these results without Christianity or some kind of God who cares about equality.
I know Sigmund was an expert on Latin American liberation theology. But I wonder if any serious study has been done of how many "Marxist" nations adopted the economic ideals but scrapped the atheism part.
Lino Graglia noted to Dr. Jaffa in their infamous National Review exchange, if you are a revolutionary revolting against the highest positive law in the nation, it helps to have God on your side (an even higher power).
If Christianity teaches some kind of economic egalitarianism
The Bible quote "Go thou to the rich man's house, take his shit and give it to the poor" does not exist.
Somewhere along the way, "Christian charity" mutated into a right to the fruit of another man's labor. And as a further complication, when the state takes over Christian charity, it [by law] strips it of its Christian dimension.
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2009/11/a-charitable-endeavor
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA632.html
As civil society is increasingly subsumed by the state, the very basis for compassion and charity is removed, and it becomes a game only of redistribution by force. This is why socialism doesn't work and never will--it got no soul.
I did another post that reproduces a chapter in Dr. Nelson's book. It could be that the flaw of Marx and Rawls is the lack of theological dimension.
For the theological dimension for redistributing wealth, see the original sources Nelson links to.
I agree that the theology may not be strong. I'm already on record in stating I think the notion that the Ancient Hebrews had a "republic" isn't an accurate reflection of the biblical record. Maybe they got the context of the wealth redistribution they say the Bible endorses wrong as well.
The permission to charge fellow citizens interest (if I am not mistaken such a notion comes from thinkers like Richard Price) is something fundamental to modern economics and separates the West from Islam which still struggles to get over that dynamic.
There are antique substitutes for charging interest incorporated into Sharia compliant banking.
Complete partisan garbage. it's one thing to dispute something Cruz said, another thing entirely to, in essence, call him a liar.
I doubt Throckmorton, Fea, or Randall Balmer's utterances map very well to Kossack / MSNBC partisan discourse and its counterpoints. A fellow I've corresponded with in fora like this tells me that status anxiety (especially among the young) is a wretched problem in evangelical congregations. See also SM Hutchens on the cultural dynamics of evangelical colleges past and present and some of the problems in congregational worship in evangelical bodies. I'd wager given a brief precis on the subject matter, Hutchens could compose Fea's and Throckmorton's columns without reading them. Hutchens' assessment of evangelical colleges is concise: "doomed".
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2016/april-web-only/stop-calling-ted-cruz-dominionist.html
Here's a critique of Fea's commentary by Robert Gagnon and Edith Humphrey.
I find it amusing that Fea makes submissions to the ruin that is Religion News Service.
Post a Comment