Ted Cruz and the Cameraman

Sharing Options

So then, here is an outtake from the movie Free Speech Apocalypse. It provides a good example of how one of our most faithful pro-life candidates for the office of the presidency has not followed the logic out to the end of the line. At the same time, I do agree with Cruz that we could address the life issue without a war. We could do it without a war. But not without a fight.

 

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
35 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Ryan
Ryan
6 years ago

The interviewer and the camera man argue from a flawed understanding of history. Lincoln, and the vast majority of the other proponents of war, did not take up arms against the South to free the slaves.

Tim Bushong
Tim Bushong
6 years ago

Wow–if Ted Cruz was elected, and congress would hold him accountable to the War Powers Resolution, then I think we’d be in good stead…

Benjamin Bowman
6 years ago

I found this interesting Doug. Sure, he doesn’t follow his logic all the way down and through, but I thought he could have defended himself in a better way. The question that I came away with was “who would sign up for THAT war?” and “Who would WE fight?” How would you draw battle lines in that kind of thing? It was more than just slavery that led to the American Civil War, and lines were drawn by state, but a war over abortion would be… where? I agree that we should fight, and I agree that this can be… Read more »

Benjamin Bowman
6 years ago
Reply to  Douglas Wilson

It seemed like you disagree with what the camera man and the interviewer were saying (maybe I misunderstood). They appeared to be implicating that if one believed that the Civil War was just because of the injustice of slavery, it would then follow that the greater injustice of abortion should lead to an even more justifiable war.

K Swan
K Swan
6 years ago

Set aside going to war, then. What about individual action? If I were plopped down in a pre-Civil War American northern state, I would (I hope) provide refuge to a runaway slave and violate the fugitive slave act. More: if a slave hunter were taking a runaway slave back to bondage, if I could do so effectively, (a) I think I would (I hope) intervene, even to the point of using violence (again, if it were possible and possible to do without leaving my family without a provider, etc). Anyway, I could see myself doing this. But (b) I wouldn’t… Read more »

Jack Bradley
Jack Bradley
6 years ago

Here is a how much more: if Ted Cruz can be this articulate and composed in the face of such redundant, hobby – horse questioning, how much more…? Still love you guys

Stephen Larson
Stephen Larson
6 years ago

I found the interviewer’s attempt to link the Civil War and abortion in such a way to be quite inaccurate. The Civil War was not a deliberately plotted affair, but an unexpected and forceful explosion of decades of legislative combat. The situations aren’t comparable, save that both slavery and abortion are morally repugnant. The South, appalled at the possibility of a Republican President who intended to restrict slavery’s advance (there was no Civil War on Lincoln’s presidential platform), seceded in order to preserve slavery, with state’s rights used as a convenient red herring. The Union, no innocent where slavery and… Read more »

ashv
ashv
6 years ago
Reply to  Stephen Larson

If slavery is so morally repugnant, why isn’t it condemned in the Bible? Why did Paul return a runaway slave to his master?

Stephen Larson
Stephen Larson
6 years ago
Reply to  ashv

I believe Pastor Wilson has made that clear In a number of prior posts, and I agree with much of what he has said. Simply put, the Gospel inevitably leads to freedom. While Paul certainly didn’t suggest violent slave uprisings, or such like, in the New Testament, slavery was understood, even under the best of circumstances, as less than ideal. It should also be noted that Old Testament slavery was significantly different than the slavery practiced in the Roman World, and certainly the antebellum South. Racism and abuse of others is blatantly condemned in Scripture. Therefore, it should go without… Read more »

ashv
ashv
6 years ago
Reply to  Stephen Larson

Certainly it’s less than ideal. We live in a fallen world and a lot of things are less than ideal. Certainly slavery as practiced in the USA was not the same as practiced in OT Israel. But that’s a long way from “morally repugnant”. I accept that you dislike it.

Malachi
Malachi
6 years ago
Reply to  Stephen Larson

One small correction:
The South, appalled at the possibility of a Republican President who intended to violate the U.S. Constitution, seceded in order to preserve State’s Rights, with slavery used by the North as a rallying cry for an extended War.

Otherwise, spot on…

Stephen Larson
Stephen Larson
6 years ago
Reply to  Malachi

Violate the Constitution how? Lincoln never intended to touch slavery where it existed until the Civil War was well under way. The South’s secession had nothing to do with what Lincoln intended to do, but had everything to do with what their paranoid speculations expected he might do. I’m not claiming the North was guiltless either before, during, or after the Civil War, but your argument doesn’t hold historical water.

Gabriel Green
Gabriel Green
6 years ago
Reply to  Stephen Larson

I agree, I found their understanding of the reasons behind the Civil War to be very shallow(No disrespect intended).
Lincoln did not enter into the Civil War to free the slaves, the main objective was to preserve the Union. Yes he was very much against slavery and he did bring about it’s end, but that was not why the war itself was fought.

Jack Bradley
Jack Bradley
6 years ago

Extremely well said, Stephen.

Carson Spratt
6 years ago

Stephen: “The fact is I do believe the Civil War just, but I also believe it to have been immoral, a judgement and reproach to the entire nation, and a tragedy.”

I’m not sure what you mean. Just war presumes the morality of the cause. If it is not just in God’s eyes, how can it be just in ours?

Stephen Larson
Stephen Larson
6 years ago
Reply to  Carson Spratt

Just in the sense that the result (the elimination of slavery, and the reunification of the nation) was just, and just in the sense that, under the circumstances (secession, turmoil, and slavery), I don’t believe ware could have been justly avoided. However, it was immoral in the sense that both sides shared heavily in the sins which led up to the war, committed sins during the war, and certainly committed sins after the war. It was not the sort of war that one could, or should, have advocated until it actually occurred. I hope that clarifies the point somewhat.

Luke
Luke
6 years ago

We all agree, there really is no way to solve this by war. I also don’t think “if more people vote the government will fix it for you” is really the answer either (though I am all for voting the right people in and the wrong people out). As far as “speaking out”, that is happening, no one is listening because they already no what we are saying, they just don’t care. So pastor Wilson says, “we could do it without a war, but not without a fight” great!…what kind of fight? What does it actually look like? How is… Read more »

timothy
timothy
6 years ago
Reply to  Luke

Secede-in-place. Build our own institutions on their soil. Out breed em and conquer from within. They will be extinct within 2 generations.

Luke
Luke
6 years ago
Reply to  timothy

From your perspective, timothy, in the mean time do we do nothing to save the children they are still slaughtering? Are you suggesting that it is something that must be simply strategically endured because it will inevitably exhaust itself? To state it positively, that in the long run we will save more children by separating from them and simply letting them destroy themselves quickly while we build what will replace them?

timothy
timothy
6 years ago
Reply to  Luke

I make it a practice to use all available tools all the time to achieve victory. My suggested strategy is not an either/or thing and I wholeheartedly support other efforts.

Luke
Luke
6 years ago
Reply to  timothy

“All available tools”, like what? What specifically are the available tools that you are in the practice of using to obtain this victory? This is my point. We always speak in these generalities, and that’s why there are so many people out there who really do want to get on the front lines and do something, but honest to goodness don’t have a clue WHAT to do. They are already voting and “speaking out” and posting videos and doing everything Cruz laid out, and they certainly are not looking to start the next literal civil war, but they want to… Read more »

timothy
timothy
6 years ago
Reply to  Luke

Hi Luke,

Abide in Christ. The victory is His. Remember the Old Testament stories where God would use small things to topple big things?

He has not changed.

Google Charlie Johnston The Next Right Step.

Search his site for “The Rescue” . His experiences match my ‘promptings’ to a T.

That is what I expect is happening now.

Blessings,

t

ashv
ashv
6 years ago
Reply to  Luke

We could do this without a war. But it’s unlikely.

Luke Pride
6 years ago

Conservatives aren’t pushing for tax dollars to be used to support fetuses, just that they should be spared from murder. At the same time, many conservatives are doing far more for the downtrodden than liberals, but they are seen as “inconsistent” because liberals really believe that the only way to be for something, is to vote for the government to do it through taxation. This isn’t simply an ends justifies the means, since it is clear that actually helping people is more beneficial than voting to force your neighbors to support those who want to help them their way.

Jack Bradley
Jack Bradley
6 years ago

Carson, I think the words of Lincoln’s Second Inaugural best express the simultaneous justness and the judgment of the Civil War: “Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came. . . He gives to both North and South this terrible war. . .” Alan Guelzo’s analysis of this speech is illuminating (Abraham Lincoln, p. 417): “[Lincoln] had come to see in the war… something that transcended it’s causes, a kind of divine weighing of the republic… Read more »

Stephen Larson
Stephen Larson
6 years ago
Reply to  Jack Bradley

Well stated!

Jack Bradley
Jack Bradley
6 years ago

“its causes” :)

Jack Bradley
Jack Bradley
6 years ago

I’m having apostrophe issues tonight: “war’s losses”

Crowhill
6 years ago

There is at least this distinction between slavery and abortion when it comes to war. Slavery was legal in certain states and illegal in other states. There was a government that could declare war on a government, and a people on a people, in defined geographical areas. There were battle lines. The same is not true with abortion.

Steve H
Steve H
6 years ago

Can’t say I like the way Cruz talks (kinda looks like the Farting Preacher at times and realllly earnest.) But, I think he is quite right here. We need to get our troops (pastors, and the church including Roman Catholics) together to represent a viable coalition so we can start working on tactics.
http://youtu.be/2PjrF-dDtj0

Benjamin Polge
Benjamin Polge
6 years ago

I don’t think the issue is apples-to-apples. At least not yet.

If we took the house, senate and the presidency, all on the specific issue of banning abortions… And then California secedes…. Then we need to start talking about war. Until then, it’s really not the same situation.

However, maybe we should just start seceding ourselves. Considering the administrations response to acts of war lately, there may not be a better time.