Posted on 03/25/2015 3:57:36 AM PDT by Zakeet
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.
[Snip]
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”.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
Dick, you ignorant slut.
The horror...!!!
Zakeet; others:
According to his Forbes bio he (Rick Ungar) is also a paid Democratic strategist for Mercury Public Affairs, a lobby group for Democratic issues.
The usual suspects are all on board to attack Cruz.
Oldplayer
Rick Ungar: RACIST.
The only reason he doesn’t like Sen. Cruz is because he’s Latino. All you have to do is read the article to tell.
I have subscribed to Forbes for a long time. That editorial ends it for me..
I’m well aware of the danger to Ted Cruz which is why I pray for his safety and that of his family. You should also be aware that most of the attacks will come from members of his own party.
But I do get some perverse pleasure watching the absolute panic of the left. It’s refreshing to be able to laugh after almost eight years of commie rule. I’m seeing daylight at the end of this long tunnel and it feels good.
Oh goody...my boy Rick Ungar. He and I spar sometimes on Newsmax TV. I can’t wait for the next opportunity to do that.
Ungar's article is utter rubbish. It seems that he has left out the significant part of the story that goes against his point.
From Wikipedia
Article 11 has been a point of contention in popular culture disputes on the doctrine of separation of church and state as it applies to the founding principles of the United States. Some religious spokesmen claim that—despite unanimous ratification by the U.S. Senate in English—the text which appears as Article 11 in the English translation does not appear in the Arabic text of the treaty.[11] Some historians, secular and religious, have argued that the phrase specifically refers to the government and not the culture, that it only speaks of the founding and not what America became or might become,[13] and that many Founding Fathers and newspapers described America as a Christian nation during the early Republic.[14]
Article 11 reads:
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims]; and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
According to Frank Lambert, Professor of History at Purdue University, the assurances in Article 11 were "intended to allay the fears of the Muslim state by insisting that religion would not govern how the treaty was interpreted and enforced. John Adams and the Senate made clear that the pact was between two sovereign states, not between two religious powers." Lambert writes,
"By their actions, the Founding Fathers made clear that their primary concern was religious freedom, not the advancement of a state religion. Individuals, not the government, would define religious faith and practice in the United States. Thus the Founders ensured that in no official sense would America be a Christian Republic. Ten years after the Constitutional Convention ended its work, the country assured the world that the United States was a secular state, and that its negotiations would adhere to the rule of law, not the dictates of the Christian faith. The assurances were contained in the Treaty of Tripoli of 1797 and were intended to allay the fears of the Muslim state by insisting that religion would not govern how the treaty was interpreted and enforced. John Adams and the Senate made clear that the pact was between two sovereign states, not between two religious powers.[15]
The treaty was printed in the Philadelphia Gazette and two New York papers, with only scant public dissent, most notably from William Cobbett.[16]
Later dissent
A prominent member of Adams' cabinet, Secretary of War James McHenry, protested the language of article 11, before its ratification. He wrote to Secretary of the Treasury Oliver Wolcott, Jr., September 26, 1800: "The Senate, my good friend, and I said so at the time, ought never to have ratified the treaty alluded to, with the declaration that 'the government of the United States, is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.' What else is it founded on? This act always appeared to me like trampling upon the cross. I do not recollect that Barlow was even reprimanded for this outrage upon the government and religion."
A second treaty, the Treaty of Peace and Amity signed on July 4, 1805, superseded the 1796 treaty. The 1805 treaty did not contain the phrase "not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."
===========
Here’s another interesting article from the Library of Congress that sheds further light on the religious views of the founders:
The State Becomes the Church: Jefferson and Madison It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church. Within a year of his inauguration, Jefferson began attending church services in the House of Representatives. Madison followed Jefferson's example, although unlike Jefferson, who rode on horseback to church in the Capitol, Madison came in a coach and four. Worship services in the House--a practice that continued until after the Civil War--were acceptable to Jefferson because they were nondiscriminatory and voluntary. Preachers of every Protestant denomination appeared. (Catholic priests began officiating in 1826.) As early as January 1806 a female evangelist, Dorothy Ripley, delivered a camp meeting-style exhortation in the House to Jefferson, Vice President Aaron Burr, and a "crowded audience." Throughout his administration Jefferson permitted church services in executive branch buildings. The Gospel was also preached in the Supreme Court chambers.
Jefferson's actions may seem surprising because his attitude toward the relation between religion and government is usually thought to have been embodied in his recommendation that there exist "a wall of separation between church and state." In that statement, Jefferson was apparently declaring his opposition, as Madison had done in introducing the Bill of Rights, to a "national" religion. In attending church services on public property, Jefferson and Madison consciously and deliberately were offering symbolic support to religion as a prop for republican government.
Forbes is majority owned by Asians now:
http://nypost.com/2014/07/18/forbes-magazine-sold-to-asian-investor-group/
Dude.....chillax. Think sarcasm. Zakeet was making fun of those folks....not joining them.
Rick, let me let you in on something. Folks like you have brought us to this momentous point in history where our nation is on the verge of collapse and you and others like you can not see the solution to the problem. Let me invite you to be on the list of people we are going to forcibly deport with their wives and children if we ever get the chance. And, if you want to force me to leave, that is perfectly fine. It's either YOU or ME. I simply can NOT live with your point of view anymore.
When that opportunity next arises, I hope you will take him to task for his disingenuous half reporting on the Treaty of Tripoli, which is the subject of my reply #28 immediately following your statement.
Another ‘60s Leftist who won’t vote for Sen. Cruz. Does Forbes really think this is news?
No doubt Forbes will support Jeb and the Chamber of Amnesty. They don’t take seriously the possibility that several million conservative Christians would then stay home on election day, and Hillary would be president.
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result.
unger, unger? Hmmm..... is there something in the piece that was unsaid?
He wrote the above. Our feelings go WAY beyond willfully ignoring them and their values. He and others like him who have turned their backs on God need to be forcibly deported to any other nation that is Godless so they can REALLY feel accepted.
Let 'em try it. We have the guns, all they have is keyboards.
Even though Obama is getting rid of all Generals and Admirals who won't kowtow to him and support his anti-American agenda I can't imagine our armed forces turning their guns on patriotic Americans. Maybe I'm wrong, but I believe that he would like nothing better than to see all patriotic, freedom loving Americans either behind barbed wire or 6 feet in the ground..
There was some idiot the other day on NRO that said Cruz “talks down to people.” That his message is contrived and “not from the heart.” Did anyone, other than this chump, notice that Cruz spoke with no notes, no prompter, no phone in his ear etc. IOWs he spoke from the heart to our hearts.
I’m .iking this guy more and more. If he were more manly, like Reagan, eg road a horse, he’d be even more appealing.
Thank you for your time.
I understand the writer’s point. But, while he calls it a blunder, it’s actually a tactic. Cruz is not going about to erect a big tent and proceed to pander. Rather, he is building a house on a solid rock that will accommodate all.
He pointed out that 50% of evangelical Christians did not vote in 2012. Those several millions will not be offended by the venue that Ted chose.
They are terrified
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.