Separation of Church and State: Why Christians Must Vote for Ted Cruz

Share


The vast majority of voters would say that they do not weigh religion into their voting practices. The concept of the separation of church and state is often part of this mindset; most do not want religion to play a major role in their government. It’s the misunderstanding of the concept that brings about this perception and it’s exactly why those of faith must vote for Ted Cruz.

There’s a shift happening in America that is only a little alarming now. Unfortunately, this shift is ongoing to the point that most would consider it to be a trend. That trend is pointing to a society where religious liberty is abandoned for the sake of personal rights of expression and lifestyles. Mandates are superseding freedoms and choices. We are heading towards a society where the condition of being a Christian is only acceptable behind closed doors.

The separation of church and state was primarily intended to keep the government out of the church, synagogue, mosque, or any other religious building. It was intended to allow people their rights to adhere to their religious beliefs even if those beliefs included no religion at all. Before the country was even formed, it was religious persecution that drove Europeans to settle in the new lands of America. Then, the Constitution echoed these foundations. Today, the pendulum of the “separation of church and state” has swung all the way to the left so that we now have a mindset of “elimination of church from state.”

In other words, the state is starting to mandate what religious views we’re allowed to practice and any utterance of religion in the context of government will give you an instant classification as a bigot.

There are many reasons that this is happening, but one of the most notable for today’s conversation is payback. Religious freedoms have been abused to push inappropriate agendas or to harm people for the wrong reasons ever since the dawn of man and America is no different. One would be naive to think that this isn’t the case. Today, we have been able to remove many of the obstacles that were placed before people in the name of religion and we should be at a point of harmony where religion doesn’t get in the way of government or society while government and society do not get in the way of religion. Unfortunately, this isn’t the case. We’re in the process of over-correcting. Religion was a freedom that many abused. Now, religion is becoming a freedom that certain groups are trying to eliminate.

The real bigotry that we’re seeing emerge is not coming from Christians but rather being directed towards them. There is absolutely nothing American about forcing someone to bake a cake for a ceremony that goes against their religion, but that’s exactly what’s happening. Would there be equal outrage if someone refused to bake a cake with a cross on it for a Christian family’s birthday party? Possibly, but I assure you the argument against anyone who protested would be that no baker should be forced to support a religious symbol for a birthday party if they didn’t believe in that religion. Would the ACLU swoop in and cry foul? Of course not.

The funny part is that I would support a baker’s right to not bake a cake with a cross on it. In America, the freedom to practice your religion or to not practice any religion at all means that we must allow for choices. When it comes to religious liberties, we’re seeing the protections are only being levied in one direction.

There are other so-called “evangelical” candidates such as Mike Huckabee, Bobby Jindal, and Rick Santorum. None of them can win. More importantly, none of them have the other qualities that Ted Cruz possesses.

Some say he’s too divisive, that he’s too conservative and outspoken. If you look at eight of the past nine elections, the winner has always been the divisive, controversial candidate. The Democrats know this. The Republicans keep putting up moderate, uncontroversial, milquetoast candidates like Mitt Romney, John McCain, and Bob Dole.

Others say that Donald Trump is the solution. They love the fact that he’s willing to speak his mind, that he’s not a politician, and that he even has a few good ideas. Unfortunately, his leadership style is based on bullying and corruption, not dissimilar from the way that President Obama operates. He will get frustrated by not having the absolute power that he’s accustomed to and will respond to his own ineffectiveness the way that President Obama has responded to his.

Is it worse to buy politicians or to be bought as a politician? Trump might be the first person to be prolific at both if he’s elected. He won’t be bought with money, of course. As President, he’ll be bought through promises of deals here and favors there that he will believe will help his Presidency. The man simply lacks the ability to handle the constraints of the Presidency and it will rattle him terribly that he can’t just do what he wants. You can see in his inability to handle the Megyn Kelly situation that he is easily rattled. That’s nothing compared to what he would face in the general election season and it’s a far cry from the abuse he’ll get as President.

He will be eaten alive in Washington DC. Donald Trump as President would set the country back 8 years and set the Republican party back 20 years.

Don’t get me wrong. I think he’s an exceptionally talented business man and entertainer. He has some good ideas. However, he lacks the temperament, political skills, and ethical barriers that are required of a great President. He is not Ronald Reagan or anything close to is as some are saying. The President that he most resembles truly is President Obama. It’s unfortunate that so few see this.

To improve the economy, defend the nation, and galvanize the people, there are a handful of strong candidates this year. Once you filter those choices by adding morality, values, and a willingness to keep the Judeo-Christian core that made our country great, there’s only one candidate that makes sense for America.

Soshable

Share