It’s true: there are far more books in the world that I have not and will not read than books that I have read. I scratched off one yesterday, and here’s another one I can toss in the trash: Rafael Cruz’s promo for his son Ted’s candidacy.
Rafael talks about the dangers of secular humanism and makes a glancing reference to Seven Mountains dominionism, the belief that conservative Christians must gain control over the “seven mountains” of American culture.
In no way, shape, or form was Jefferson implying that the church should be restricted from exerting an influence upon society. On the contrary, the Bible tells us that we are the salt of the earth and light of the world…Doesn’t that suggest that our influence should touch every area of society – our families, the media, sports, arts and entertainment, education, business, and government?”
Like Barton and Lane, Rafael makes his case for the Christian nature of the U.S. government by conflating the Pilgrims and Puritans with the founding fathers who gave us the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution more than 150 years later. Rafael declares that “the concept of separation of church and state is found nowhere in either the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution of the United States of America,” which leads into this:
To understand this clearly, we need to go back four centuries to the time of the first settlers in America. If you lived in England in the early 1600s and were not a member of the Church of England, you would be considered a heretic and subject to persecution. So the early settlers immigrated to the New World in order to freely worship the Lord their God. What a remarkable heritage of religious freedom this exceptional country gives us! The only country on the face of the earth founded on the World of God!
It looks awful and inane. I’m satisfied by a small taste to know that I’d rather not consume the whole feast.
But all the Sam Harris fans who spent the evening dunning me with demands that I have to go read his book, who accused me of intellectual bankruptcy because I dismissed his pompous nonsense out of hand, well, I’m sorry…to be consistent, you now have to go read Rafael Cruz’s A Time for Action. You can’t possibly criticize it on the basis of a few ahistorical quotes snipped out of context, don’t you know.
IIRC salting the earth of a particular place is the worst threat in an agricultural society as it makes the land uninhabitable for generations…
@Giliell, 1
Sure, but isn’t Cruz one of those pro-rapture types who’s getting excited about the imminent end of the world, aaaaaany day now?
I might be getting my terrifying American politicians mixed up, but it seems like that would fit in nicely with the idea of salting the earth.
This reminds me of the Jesuits in St. Barbaracollege in Ghent when I had the displeasure of being sent there by my parents. The words they used were longer. The nonsense was the same.
I’m pretty sure “salt of the earth” is a good thing, and relates to its use as a condiment, not to its use as crop killer. Although the idiom comes from the Bible, and the rest of the quote is absurd: “You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.” Non-salty sodium chloride would be quite interesting: if you have any, do not throw it out!
salt of the earth
covinescu
Thank you for explaining my joke to me. I’d never have guessed…
For anyone else who, like me, has no idea WTF refers to, Ye Pfffft! Of All Knowledge explains: “[…] ‘seven mountains prophecy’ [is] where Christian conservatives should control and dominate ‘family, religion, education, media, entertainment, business and government.’ [attributed to David Barton –blf]”
In other words, a theocracy.
Well, it’s not really a theocracy, because people will freely select Christian influences in this area because they are so clearly superior to the other choices. “Theocracy” means Muslims; everybody knows that.
˙dᴉɹƃ ɐ ʇǝפ ˙ƃuᴉʞoɾ ɯ,I ‘ǝʞɐs s,ǝʇǝԀ ɹoɟ ‘ɥO
@blf, #7
The Republicans propose a theocracy?!
Inconceivable!!!
So, the argument for letting the Bible rule is because the Bible tells us to do so?
where have I heard that before?
Seems he meant to emphasize “us”, as in _exclusively_. Seems this “freedom” only applies when a member of a single religion, with lots not only excluded but harassable.
—
correct, Jefferson never implied, he said so directly, repeatedly,
—
“Salt of the Earth”
Bible was written back when salt was more valuable than gold. salting the earth was throwing away good stuff resulting in bad effects. How he extrapolates “you are valuable” into “you must influence everything” sounds a little egotistical.
..and they promptly instituted even harsher restrictions, only protecting their own sect instead of the Church of England. Being a Quaker among the Puritans was a capital offense in the 17th century American colonies. Freedom = slavery I guess
I don’t know if that’s a typo or not, but I dearly wish that all the people who happily embrace the batshitness of god belief would immediately embark on a journey to the “World of God”.
coleslaw wrote:
Exactly. It’d only be a Christian theocracy if they told you exactly which type of conservative fundamentalist Southern Baptist you had to be.
On another note: Rafael Cruz also likes to talk about a government transfer of wealth to priests. I guess those wealth transfers are only bad when they go to poor people.
“So the early settlers immigrated to the New World in order to freely worship the Lord their God. ”
Cruz apparently doesn’t know that the Puritans were neither the first nor the only European settlers in North America but I guess all the others, including non-Puritan Englis,h were dirty foreigners to him.
Anyone who knows anything about the history of England during the 1600’s, as Thomas Jefferson surely did, will understand precisely why the founders of the United States wanted a solid wall separating church and state.
Spurious commas and dirty foreigners and First Nations and non-(Northern-)Europeans and anyone else who is different are all welcome in Teh Nouveau Zion: As chattel.
It’s amazing to see so many non sequiturs strung together. Or at least it would be, if the author’s ignorance & poor grasp of logic were not already well established.
Wait, shouldn’t you just avoid any book published by WND?
In no way, shape, or form was Einstein implying that the there was no absolute frame of reference. On the contrary, Aristotle tells us that all bodies move toward there natural place and for earth and water their place is near the center…Doesn’t that suggest that the universe is framed with a set position of natural order?
Wow….. Worlds fail me. Just … wow.
====
Giliell @1 and 6. And cvoinescu @4
I thought your joke was very funny. Now, we just need to wait for cvoinescu to modestly accept your sincere gratitude.
Off topic – how long will it be before Trump seizes on the fact Cruz was born in Calgary & not in the US, given Cruz’ rise in the polls and Trump’ previous Birther tendencies?
@WhiteHatLurker- probably after Cruz starts consistently polling higher than he does.
@20 WhiteHatLurker
how long will it be before Trump seizes on the fact Cruz was born in Calgary …
Just remember, we are NOT taking him back!
Will you take him back if we keep Justin Bieber?
OK, I’m usually not one for telling Christians how to read their own book, but this is just silly.
No, Jesus tells his followers that they are those things in the Bible. If you claim to worship Jesus and not the Bible, it’s kind of weird not to mention the guy as your primary authority here.
Well, we could answer that question by employing the novel strategy of actually reading the passage:
In other words, do good works and you will influence every area of society. Fail to do good works and your Christianity is meaningless; you’re good for nothing. That’s it. There’s no suggestion that you should go out and force mainstream society to conform to your beliefs.
I mean, this is from the Sermon on the Mount, for Q’s sake. The same text where Jesus says “Blessed are the meek” and “Don’t ever swear an oath” and “Give to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you”, and “Don’t pray in public or make a big show of your piety” and “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth” and “You cannot serve God and wealth.” How on earth do you read that stuff and conclude that Christians are supposed to try to take over* the business sector, the government and the media?
*assuming for the moment that Christians don’t already have majority control over all these things, which they do, but never mind.
watching North America devolve into a debate over the exchange of people like Cruz and Beiber….
yet another sigh of relief I left.
feel free. It’s been resoundingly demonstrated time and again that the average xian does not know what is in their own supposedly holy book.
I prefer just to beat them over the head with it instead.
@jrkrideau #22
Agreed!
@24
Yeah, it has always annoyed the hell out of me that Reagan and many others after him thought the “City on the hill” meant we (that is, the US) a shining example of perfection. It actually meant, “You guys up on that hill, we can see everything you do, so you better do fight.”
As for the Sermon on the Mount, it is the most neglected part of the whole Bible. I swear the begets get more attention from preachers. It’s their own Holy book, the words of their own savior and they never contemplate how those words should work in their lives. Hell, most of them have never actual read those words.
Cruz obtusely ignores the fact that the founding fathers knew full well of the previous history of Europe, wherein they had regularly scheduled wars over religious differences. Being as all sides in these wars believed that God ordained their fight, these wars were violent in the extreme. This is why they decided to keep religion out of government in the newly formed United States. We already had predominantly Catholic states lining up against protestant states. The announcement of the Constitution’s
Um… whoops. Didn’t finish.
To take up where I left off : The announcement of the Constitution’s provisions against religious tests for office holders and the Bill of Rights prohibition against laws respecting an establishment of religion made it clear to everyone that no such thing as “all Catholic” or other religious -based States could exist. (Clumsily said, but in essense : Cruz is a custard-head.)