Another good reason why I cannot stand Ted Cruz

I wrote about this yesterday. However, I believe it goes without saying that Ted Cruz and his Dad have no place in American politics at all.

In April, Rafael Cruz, the father of Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), spoke to the tea party of Hood County, which is southwest of Fort Worth, and made a bold declaration: The United States is a “Christian nation.” The septuagenarian businessman turned evangelical pastor did not choose to use the more inclusive formulation “Judeo-Christian nation.” Insisting that the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution “were signed on the knees of the framers” and were a “divine revelation from God,” he went on to say, “yet our president has the gall to tell us that this is not a Christian nation…The United States of America was formed to honor the word of God.” Seven months earlier, Rafael Cruz, speaking to the North Texas Tea Party on behalf of his son, who was then running for Senate, called President Barack Obama an “outright Marxist” who “seeks to destroy all concept of God,” and he urged the crowd to send Obama “back to Kenya.”

via WATCH: Ted Cruz’s Dad Calls US a “Christian Nation,” Says Obama Should Go “Back to Kenya” | Mother Jones.

I do not want this man or his son anywhere near the White House at all. He does not speak for this paleoconservative at all. Do not misunderstand me here; I am all for the defense of Christian moral values and such. However, this guys beliefs are similar to those of the friends of Rick Perry, who happen to believe that apostate doctrine of “Kingdom Now” theology. Which is a very highly mistaken belief that somehow or another that Christians are on some sort of “God mandate” to occupy the Government until Christ comes back for his Church. It is the whole “God and Country” movement, taken to another level.

The reason for this is because historically, Christians did not believe in such things. Allow me to quote from a book called “The trail of blood” by James Milton Carroll:

24. Some serious questions have many times been asked concerning the Baptists: Would they, as a denomination, have accepted from any nation or state an offer of “establishment” if such nation or state had freely made them such an offer? And, would they, in case they had accepted such an offer, have become persecutors of others like Catholics or Episcopals, or Lutherans or Presbyterians, or Congregationalists? Probably a little consideration of such questions now would not be amiss. Have the Baptists, as a fact, ever had such an opportunity?

Is it not recorded in history, that on one occasion, the King of the Netherlands (the Netherlands at that time embracing Norway and Sweden, Belgium, Holland, and Denmark) had under serious consideration the question of having an established religion? Their kingdom at that period was surrounded on almost all sides by nations or governments with established religions–religions supported by the Civil Government.

It is stated that the King of Holland appointed a committee to examine into the claims of all existing churches or denominations to see which had the best claim to be the New Testament Church. The committee reported back that the Baptists were the best representatives of New Testament teachings. Then the King offered to make the Baptist “the established” church or denomination of his kingdom. The Baptists kindly thanked him but declined, stating that it was contrary to their fundamental convictions and principles.

But this was not the only opportunity they ever had of having their denomination the established religion of a people. They certainly had that opportunity when Rhode Island Colony was founded. And to have persecuted others–that would have been an impossibility if they were to continue being Baptists. They were the original advocates of “Religious Liberty.” That really is one of the fundamental articles of their religious faith. They believed in the absolute separation of church and state.

This is the proper way that true believers should be, to leave the business of politics of this fallen world to the people that want to run it. We believers should be about our Father’s business. We Christians have a right to vote; and we should vote our beliefs; what we should NOT do, is make disrespectful statements about the President and try occupy this Government. It all comes down to that thing, that many Christians seem to forget about; our Christian testimony.

This is why I had an issue with the whole “God and Country” movement of the 1980’s and this is why I have such an issue with the “Kingdom Now” types. This is because it is an unholy alliance between believers and non believers.

In closing, this is what the Bible says about all that:

Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. (2 Corinthians 6:14-18 KJV)

The round up of blogger reaction to this story is found here at Memeorandum.

Update: Fixed a rather bad typo and omission of words. Whoops. What I get for blogging before my mug of coffee is done. 😛