Ted Cruz's Announcement Disrespects The Founding Fathers, American Tradition And Non-Christians.

Somewhere along the way, I picked up the notion that when someone announces their candidacy for the Office of President of the United States, they are announcing their intent and desire to be the president of all Americans, irrespective of race, religion or other considerations.
As a result of this tradition—and while recognizing that such an announcement does, in the reality of our times, serve as the launching point for the grueling primary gauntlet most candidates will be forced to endure—the moment of tossing one’s hat into the ring has, without exception so far as I can tell, traditionally taken place on ‘neutral’ territory designed to convey commitment to the civic interest rather than religious belief.

Indeed, many are my memories of hopeful men and women who stood before their home town city hall, their state capital, a factory, a school, or other like locations to toss their hat into the ring. These choices have always been designed to reinforce one of the greatest traditions of our nation—that anyone among us, no matter where we come from or the circumstances of our personal history, can rise to be President of the United States.
These choices have also traditionally been calibrated so as to convey solidarity with average Americans so that they too can feel included in the process.
Of course, I understand that these notions are somewhat quaint in an era where only those capable of raising big bucks can hope to achieve the highest office in the land—but it is a notion that stirs a certain patriotism within that is part of the fun and glory of being an American. What’s more, it is a notion that, up until now, all candidates for the highest office in the land have seen fit to honor.
Apparently, Texas Senator and newly announced candidate for the Republican Party’s nomination, Ted Cruz, has little use for this important American tradition.
Yesterday, the Tea Party favorite chose a location to announce his quest for the presidency that has, so far as I can ascertain, never been chosen before in our nation’s history—a religious institution that, according to it’s own description, offers “a world-class Christian education” for the purpose of “training champions for Christ”.
.(Photo by Matt McClain/ The Washington Post via Getty Images)
Unless someone can show me where I’ve missed another moment in our history where a candidate chose to launch his or her candidacy at a religious institution, the significance of Cruz’s decision should not go unnoticed.
Cruz embarked on his march to the White House before a crowd of some 10,000 students at Liberty University—a number that would have been terribly impressive for such an event were it not for the fact that attendance was compulsory —where the Senator would spent the first part of his speech extolling the virtues of Jesus Christ and the importance the Christian faith played in keeping his family together.
While I respect any peaceful religion just as I respect anyone who practices their particular religion in a peaceful manner—and I have no doubt that Senator Cruz participates in his own religion in such a manner just as I appreciate and honor the benefits his religion bestowed on his family—I have to admit that, as someone who was not raised in the Christian faith, I felt kind of left out of the party.
I’m not afraid to admit that I have always enjoyed the moment a presidential candidate throws his or her hat into the ring, even if there is no chance I will be supporting that candidate. The rousing speeches and tributes to America delivered in surroundings designed to be uniquely American always puts a smile on my face.
Now, I get that Senator Cruz chose the site of his announcement so as to appeal to the evangelicals who form the base of his political support. I also understand that Cruz very purposefully chose the first part of his speech to strike a chord with these particular voters.
But I could not help but feel that, in willfully ignoring our traditions, Senator Cruz was also willfully ignoring me along with the many Americans who practice a different faith or no faith at all.
I also could not help but wonder whether the Senator, who fervently claims that his belief in the United States Constitution is the lynchpin of his political approach to governing, has any idea whatsoever as to what the Constitution bestows on his fellow countrymen and women and what it expects from those who wish to lead us.
There is no shortage of American Christians, including Senator Cruz’s father , who believe that the United States was created by Christians to be a Christian nation.
However, their wishing this to be the case simply doesn’t make it so.
After all, how could it when the majority of our Founders were not Christians at all?
Call me crazy, but it seems logical to expect that had our nation been intended to be a Christian nation, there would have been some reference to the same in the Constitution—and yet there is none. Indeed, the words, “God”, “Jesus Christ”, “Christianity”, “Bible”, and “Creator” are never so much as mentioned in our founding document —not even once.
In fact, the only time religion is discussed in the Constitution is in Article 6, Section 3 requiring that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”
Yes, the Declaration of Independence does make reference to our Creator. But the Declaration of Independence is not the rock upon which this country was built and Senator Cruz would be, if his past statements are to be believed, among the first to confirm the truth of this statement. The Declaration of Independence is, in fact, an historical document while the Constitution is our governing document—and a document that never so much as suggests that Christianity, or any other practice of religion, is the religion of the land or “the” religion at the core of our founding beliefs.
Still not convinced that our country was not created by the Founders as a Christian nation?
Then maybe you should take a gander at the Treaty of Tripoli, a document written during the term and under the supervision of President George Washington and submitted for ratification to the Senate by President John Adams — a Senate that was packed with Founders of the new nation.
The treaty, which was unanimously approved by the Senate, specifically states that the United States was not, “in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”
I’m not sure how it could be any clearer.
This is not to say that there were none among the Founders who desired to make the newly established country a Christian nation.
Founder John Jay was, indeed, an orthodox Christian who believed that the USA should be a Christian nation and argued that Catholics should be prohibited from holding office. In 1816 Jay wrote, “Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest, of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.”
For many who care to adopt the notion that we are a Christian nation, the words of John Jay serve as some sort of proof of their belief. However, John Jay—and anyone who may have agreed with him—were decidedly not in the majority and, as a result, their desires did not carry the day.
It must also be noted that the majority of the nation’s Founders were Deists, not Christians. They believed that the universe had a creator, but that the creator was not particularly concerned with what we humans were up to on a day-to-day basis. Further, while most of the Founders acknowledged the historical existence of Jesus, and liked what he had to say, those who identified as Deists did not accept Jesus as a divinity.
Knowing what the Founders had in mind for our nation, one has to wonder how they would have reacted to Senator Cruz’s choices in making his announcement yesterday. One must wonder how they would have felt about a candidate who launched his announcement to lead the American people with a long dissertation about Jesus rather than a dissertation on the greatness of the nation or the needs of its people. One most wonder how they would have felt about a candidate who announces his candidacy from the halls of a religious institution that is dedicated to the needs and beliefs of some of the people, but certainly not all of the people.
Personally, I think most of our Founders were turning over in their graves.
You must also ask yourself how every other candidate in American history who announced for the nation’s highest office managed to understand that it was important that the symbolism surrounding such a declaration speak to all the people and not just those who share the religious beliefs of the candidate.
Ted Cruz had to know this yet, yesterday, Ted Cruz let it be known that he is not the least bit interested in people like me—and by ‘me’ I am not referring to my politics or my policy preferences, although seeking the presidency should mean a commitment to serve the interests of even those who disagree with the candidate.
Rather, Ted Cruz revealed that he was only interested in making the statement to the religious right that he is their man while making it clear that he could care less about the traditions of our nation which call for our leaders to represent and care for the concerns of all the people—not just those who share the candidate’s religious beliefs.
Of course, Cruz’s choices were legal and his to make.
And while the Senator’s choice will likely be forgotten in the big picture—just as I suspect Ted Cruz will ultimately be forgotten in the big picture of American history—his choice served to, in a small but profound way, tarnish the proud traditions of this country.
If Senator Cruz really wants to ‘imagine’ a better America, he might begin by imagining a campaign that begins with a statement of inclusion and belief in all of America’s people, not just those who meet his own religious litmus test.


forbes.

Popular posts from this blog

UK GENERAL ELECTIONS:Inquiry announced into memo alleging Sturgeon wants Tory election victory.

Image
Civil service instigates investigation into leaked memo from Foreign Office about supposed comments made in February Scotland’s first minister, Nicola Sturgeon, with David Cameron in her office at the Scottish parliament earlier this year. Photograph: WPA Pool/Getty A civil service inquiry into a leaked memo which claimed that Nicola Sturgeon privately wanted to see David Cameron remain in power after the general election has been instigated following calls from the First Minister. Ms Sturgeon described the allegation as “100% untrue” and accused Whitehall of “dirty tricks”.
Read more

Sandhurst's sheikhs: Why do so many Gulf royals receive military training in the UK? A parade outside the building at Sandhurst Continue reading the main story In today's Magazine The death list that names 5,000 victims Is this woman an apostate? Voices from a WW1 prison camp The Swiss selfie scandal Generations of foreign royals - particularly from the Middle East - have learned to be military leaders at the UK's Sandhurst officer training academy. But is that still a good idea, asks Matthew Teller. Since 1812, the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst, on the Surrey/Berkshire border, has been where the British Army trains its officers. It has a gruelling 44-week course testing the physical and intellectual skills of officer cadets and imbuing them with the values of the British Army. Alongside would-be British officers, Sandhurst has a tradition of drawing cadets from overseas. Many of the elite families of the Middle East have sent their sons and daughters. Perhaps the most notable was King Hussein of Jordan. Continue reading the main story Find out more Matthew Teller presents Sandhurst and the Sheikhs, a Whistledown production for BBC Radio 4, on Wednesday 27 August 2014 at 11:00 BST It will be available on iPlayer shortly after broadcast Four reigning Arab monarchs are graduates of Sandhurst and its affiliated colleges - King Abdullah of Jordan, King Hamad of Bahrain, Sheikh Tamim, Emir of Qatar, and Sultan Qaboos of Oman. Past monarchs include Sheikh Saad, Emir of Kuwait, and Sheikh Hamad, Emir of Qatar. Sandhurst's links have continued from the time when Britain was the major colonial power in the Gulf. "One thing the British were excellent at was consolidating their rule through spectacle," says Habiba Hamid, former foreign policy strategist to the rulers of Dubai and Abu Dhabi. "Pomp, ceremony, displays of military might, shock and awe - they all originate from the British military relationship." Sheikh Hamad Bin Isa Al Khalifa, King Abdullah, Sultan Qaboos Sandhurst alumni: King Hamad of Bahrain, King Abdullah of Jordan and Sultan Qaboos of Oman It's a place where future leaders get to know each other, says Michael Stephens, deputy director of the Royal United Services Institute, Qatar. And Sandhurst gives the UK influence in the Gulf. "The [UK] gets the kind of attention from Gulf policy elites that countries of our size, like France and others, don't get. It gives us the ability to punch above our weight. "You have people who've spent time in Britain, they have… connections to their mates, their teachers. Familiarity in politics is very beneficial in the Gulf context." "For British people who are drifting around the world, as I did as a soldier," says Brigadier Peter Sincock, former defence attache to Saudi Arabia, "you find people who were at Sandhurst and you have an immediate rapport. I think that's very helpful, for example, in the field of military sales." The Emir of Dubai Mohammad bin Rashid Al Maktoum with his son after his Passing Out Parade at Sandhurst in 2006 Sheikh Mohammad bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Emir of Dubai, with his son in uniform at Sandhurst in 2006 Her Majesty The Queen's Representative His Highness Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al-Thani, The Emir of Qatar inspects soldiers during the 144th Sovereign's Parade held at The Royal Military Academy Sandhurst on April 8, 2004 in Camberley, England. Some 470 Officer cadets took part of which 219 were commissioned into the British Army Hamad bin Khalifa Al-Thani, the Emir of Qatar until 2013, inspects soldiers at Sandhurst in 2004 Emotion doesn't always deliver. In 2013, despite the personal intervention of David Cameron, the UAE decided against buying the UK's Typhoon fighter jets. But elsewhere fellow feeling is paying dividends. "The Gulf monarchies have become important sources of capital," says Jane Kinninmont, deputy head of the Middle East/North Africa programme at the foreign affairs think tank Chatham House. "So you see the tallest building in London being financed by the Qataris, you see UK infrastructure and oilfield development being financed by the UAE. There's a desire - it can even seem like a desperation - to keep them onside for trade reasons." British policy in the Gulf is primarily "mercantile", says Dr Kristian Coates Ulrichsen, of the Baker Institute in Houston, Texas. Concerns over human rights and reform are secondary. The Shard at dusk The Shard was funded by Qatari investors In 2012 Sandhurst accepted a £15m donation from the UAE for a new accommodation block, named the Zayed Building after that country's founding ruler. In March 2013, Sandhurst's Mons Hall - a sports centre - was reopened as the King Hamad Hall, following a £3m donation from the monarch of Bahrain, who was educated at one of Sandhurst's affiliated colleges. The renaming proved controversial, partly because of the perceived slight towards the 1,600 British casualties at the Battle of Mons in August 1914 - and partly because of how Hamad and his government have dealt with political protest in Bahrain over the last three years. A critic might note that the third term of Sandhurst's Officer Commissioning Course covers counter-insurgency techniques and ways to manage public disorder. Since tension between Bahrain's majority Shia population and minority Sunni ruling elite boiled over in 2011, more than 80 civilians have died at the hands of the security forces, according to opposition estimates, though the government disputes the figures. Thirteen police officers have also lost their lives in the clashes. "The king has always felt that Sandhurst was a great place," says Sincock, chairman of the Bahrain Society, which promotes friendship between the UK and Bahrain. "Something like 20 of his immediate family have been there as cadets. He didn't really understand why there was such an outcry." David Cameron and King Hamad David Cameron meeting King Hamad in 2012... A protester is held back by police ... while protesters nearby opposed the Bahrain ruler's human rights record Crispin Black, a Sandhurst graduate and former instructor, says the academy should not have taken the money. "Everywhere you look there's a memorial to something, a building or a plaque that serves as a touchstone that takes you right to the heart of British military history. Calling this hall 'King Hamad Hall' ain't gonna do that." Sandhurst gave a written response to the criticism. "All donations to Sandhurst are in compliance with the UK's domestic and international legal obligations and our values as a nation. Over the years donations like this have saved the UK taxpayer a considerable amount of money." But what happens when Sandhurst's friends become enemies? In 2001, then-prime minister Tony Blair visited Damascus, marking a warming of relations between the UK and Syria. Shortly after, in 2003, Sandhurst was training officers from the Syrian armed forces. Now, of course, Syria is an international pariah. Journalist Michael Cockerell has written about Libyan dictator Colonel Gaddafi's time at the Army School of Education in Beaconsfield in 1966: "Three years [later], Gaddafi followed a tradition of foreign officers trained by the British Army. He made use of his newfound knowledge to seize political power in his own country." Ahmed Ali Sandhurst-trained Ahmed Ali was a key player in the Egyptian military's removal of Islamist President Mohammed Morsi That tradition persists. In the 1990s Egyptian colonel Ahmed Ali attended Sandhurst. In 2013 he was one of the key figures in the Egyptian military's removal of Islamist President Mohammed Morsi, now rewarded by a post in President Sisi's inner circle of advisers. In the late 1990s there were moves by the British government under Tony Blair to end Sandhurst's training of overseas cadets. Major-General Arthur Denaro, Middle East adviser to the defence secretary and commandant at Sandhurst in the late 1990s, describes the idea as part of the "ethical foreign policy" advocated by the late Robin Cook, then-foreign secretary. Tony Blair and Robin Cook Tony Blair and Robin Cook at one point planned to end Sandhurst's training of overseas cadets The funeral of King Hussein in 1999 appears to have scuppered the plan. "Coming to that funeral were the heads of state of almost every country in the world - and our prime minister was there, Tony Blair," says Major-General Denaro. "He happened to see me talking to heads of state - the Sultan of Brunei, the Sultan of Oman, the Bahrainis, the Saudis - and he said 'How do you know all these guys?' The answer was because they went to Sandhurst." Today, Sandhurst has reportedly trained more officer cadets from the UAE than from any other country bar the UK. The May 2014 intake included 72 overseas cadets, around 40% of whom were from the Middle East. "In the future," says Maryam al-Khawaja, acting president of the Bahrain Centre for Human Rights, "people will look back at how much Britain messed up in the [Middle East] because they wanted to sell more Typhoon jets to Bahrain, rather than stand behind the values of human rights and democracy." "It's one thing saying we're inculcating benign values, but that's not happening," says Habiba Hamid. Sandhurst is "a relic of the colonial past. They're not [teaching] the civic values we ought to find in democratically elected leaders." line Who else went to Sandhurst? Princes William and Harry, Winston Churchill, Ian Fleming, Katie Hopkins, Antony Beevor, James Blunt, Josh Lewsey, Devon Harris (From left to right) Princes William and Harry Sir Winston Churchill Ian Fleming, creator of James Bond (but did not complete training) Katie Hopkins, reality TV star Antony Beevor, historian James Blunt, singer-songwriter Josh Lewsey, World Cup-winning England rugby player Devon Harris, member of Jamaica's first bobsleigh team line Sandhurst says that "building international relations through military exchanges and education is a key pillar of the UK's international engagement strategy". Sandhurst may be marvellous for the UK, a country where the army is subservient to government, but it is also delivering militarily-trained officers to Middle Eastern monarchies where, often, armies seem to exist to defend not the nation but the ruling family.

Image
Generations of foreign royals - particularly from the Middle East - have learned to be military leaders at the UK's Sandhurst officer training academy. But is that still a good idea, asks Matthew Teller. Since 1812, the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst, on the Surrey/Berkshire border, has been where the British Army trains its officers. It has a gruelling 44-week course testing the physical and intellectual skills of officer cadets and imbuing them with the values of the British Army. Alongside would-be British officers, Sandhurst has a tradition of drawing cadets from overseas. Many of the elite families of the Middle East have sent their sons and daughters. Perhaps the most notable was King Hussein of Jordan. Four reigning Arab monarchs are graduates of Sandhurst and its affiliated colleges - King Abdullah of Jordan, King Hamad of Bahrain, Sheikh Tamim, Emir of Qatar, and Sultan Qaboos of Oman. Past monarchs include Sheikh S
Read more

Ebola Outbreak: Guinea Declares Emergency As Overall Deaths From Ebola Rise To 1,069

Image
Health workers take passengers' temperatures infrared digital laser thermometers at the Felix Houphouet Boigny international airport in Abidjan on Aug. 13, 2014. Ivory Coast on Monday banned air travellers from Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone, the three countries worst-hit by the Ebola outbreak, and ordered its flagship carrier Air Cote d'Ivoire to cease flights to and from them. Reuters/Luc Gnago Guinea, one of the worst-hit West African nations in the ongoing Ebola outbreak, announced a state of emergency Wednesday. The World Health Organization, or WHO, also  said  that four new people died in Guinea between Aug. 10 and Aug. 11. The total death count in Guinea from the latest epidemic was estimated at 377 by WHO while the number of cases reported had risen to 510. Overa
Read more