Cruz has mastered the art of being disingenuous, lying, an deceptive. He would be a very dangerous and unsuitable person to be president, and I think if either he or Donald Trump were to be elected, they would end our democratic experiment.

by khughes1963 on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 01:51:31 PM EST

Have spoken to some on the phone and they seem to never own up to the belief and tend to avoid the question.  R. J. Rushdoony, when he was around, was bold enough to admit it.  I have heard Barton several times in person.  Never heard him use the term.  He takes the slant that he and other Christians have been banned from their true heritage in the nation.

by wilkyjr on Mon Apr 18, 2016 at 05:16:08 PM EST

... revealed Cruz true face (to a degree).  A gay Republican mentioned the Supreme Court deciding that LGBT people had a right to marry, and asked him if he'd support that right as president. Cruz not only prevaricated, he did so in a way that struck me as doing his best to mislead everyone.  He started spouting the Dominionist "Religious Freedom" line - and implied that gays were trying to take away that freedom.  He switched it from LGBT people having the right to marry who they choose (and be free of discrimination in life) to "Us Poor Christians are being SO persecuted" - in a sense.  For those in the know, that was where he was coming from.

We know their meaning of "Religious Freedom" - the freedom to discriminate and persecute the Other.  We know they twist words and redefine them - dogwhistle as Dogemperor called it, and she had compiled a list of such words (and there are many more).  That list is accurate - after all, I belonged to the Dominionist cult for three years, and now that I remember most of that time (my memories of that living hell WERE suppressed for over 20 years), I recognize how they (mis)used language and would even practice forgery and lie IN THE CHURCH and IN SERMONS.  It was part of their officially sanctioned behavior.  Just as using fear and terror to keep their followers in line was also official behavior.

Like others have said, the Dominionists don't take that term for themselves - because too many people know what it REALLY means.

His wife's words?  I've mentioned before their "Consequences for actions" (or "Actions have Consequences").  The reality is that is what they apply to the Outsider when he/she does or says something they don't like.  The torching of my electronics workshop/laboratory was an example of "Consequences for actions" - ditto for blocked employment, poisoned kitties, and so on.  I remember being taught in that church to persecute gay people and organizations - and that what we were doing was "God's consequences for actions" when we did.  When you think about it, what she was saying was "We're being loving by discriminating and persecuting - bullying the Other, because they don't follow OUR lifestyle/thinking!.  We're doing God's work by forcing them to be like us!  We're trying to SAVE them from themselves, so we're being Loving!!!"  You see, their idea of love doesn't include respect or caring for the other - their idea of LOVE is conversion and making others to be just like them.  They've been taught that "getting people into heaven" is the true love - "Agape" or "God's Love" (and "other forms" of Love were wicked and twisted).

You have some insight into dominionism, but in fact more as an outsider who is actually hated by the hard-core dominionists (but tolerated because of the right-wing faction in the RC church).  Others have studied it, and maybe even had some experience through family members.  I and others - the ones who are terrified of the Republican candidates (even Trump who isn't so militantly dominionist) see the evil that these people represent, because WE BELONGED TO IT at one point.  We remember (and most of us are ashamed of falling for their lies and brainwashing). We know where they will go if they win.

They will destroy this country and its freedom if they could... America was growing slowly towards being truly free (ask minorities about the De Jure persecution we experienced - in our case we didn't have freedom of religion, the basic RIGHT TO EXIST, and our presence and legal standing in the southeastern US didn't exist until after 1980 - years after I'd graduated from High School and made the mistake of moving to this Christian-dominated hellhole!* ).  In essence, they want to return to the "Good Ole Days" - the years when a preacher would be pulling on the rope on Saturday night, and preaching the Gospel on Sunday Morning.  The days when minorities were "kept in their place" - and LGBT people and women, well, they were to keep their mouths shut and take whatever was sent their way.

 *- For the first few years living here, my parents, my brother, and I could have been thrown in prison at hard labor just for being in parts of the state(s) where we were banned from - that was clear state law.  That is, if we weren't burned alive by the Klan (rather common practice before the 70s) or shipped to Oklahoma (the Trail of Tears law was finally stricken from the books after 1980, and friends of mine were threatened with "one way bus tickets to Oklahoma" in the 70s).


by ArchaeoBob on Tue Apr 19, 2016 at 11:34:15 AM EST

Religious Freedom/Liberty as terms within Dominionism are without linguistic pedigree or normative definition. They are indeed 'code' for ultra-right insiders to measure each others' purity of belief system, political most often trumping the religious or spiritual. Moreover, the pre-millennial mantras & the intraparty warfare over which statement is correct, which fallacy or worse, seems to be really what Dominionist followers do in this subtext of recreating past history, masked over for nonobservant converts as new and different. If the Mrs. Cruz offers a different subtext for the Mr.'s latest diatribe, it's OK in a world where lies can become truth: might as well be us as them, and the end justifies the means, ANY means.

It would be good to Dust OFF 'the divine right of kings' in medieval history, or earlier even, and topple how the elder father Cruz can prognosticate for the son's illegitimate expecta-
tion(s).  And we may as well go for the jugular on this issue too: the cabal that is the 2nd Baptist Church of Houston, a political mess as well as a religious one, in "anointing" not only Cruz but Rick Parry, et al., in their quest for power. Violate IRS rules for endorsing candidates from the pulpit? No problem, if their version of 'regime change' is in the offing: the end always justifies the means. The rest of us, who may still hold something of the importance of difference, must all step to the fore to oppose this brand who supports their own against all of us, without exception,

by achbird65 on Sun Apr 24, 2016 at 07:23:16 AM EST

... an "end-time transfer of wealth" ...

Supply-side Jesus is a commie redistributionist? Who knew?

by Pierce R Butler on Sun May 01, 2016 at 12:23:47 PM EST

The Christianity is increased day by day. Many people are interested to convert into Christianity. In this do my essay sydney, the Ted Cruz has explained about this religion in more clearly which is really had great meaning. But I regret for the comments of his wife which will hurting the other's feelings about the religion.

by DonaldWhisenant on Fri May 27, 2016 at 04:53:15 AM EST

Thank you for sharing the post. I learned many things ig viewer

by tadobre on Fri Jan 12, 2018 at 04:51:22 AM EST

Good article. I liked the writing style very much. This is a good source of knowledge      photo masking  . It contains so many positive articles. It helps us to know more about religious matters. This article by Frank Cocozzelli is really brilliant.

by annajohnsn on Thu Feb 11, 2021 at 04:12:24 AM EST

In the current post, they have discussed Ted Cruz.  online diamond jewelry store  This site mainly focuses on religious matters and the things related to it and from the article. I got an idea about the matter they are trying to share in this post.

by MariyaDorothy on Sat Jan 29, 2022 at 08:21:19 AM EST