Ted Cruz Espouses Puritanism, Puts America Back “On A Hill”

0
348
Cruise away from Ted Cruz and his radical Puritan ideals.
Cruise away from Ted Cruz and his radical Puritan ideals.
Cruise away from Ted Cruz and his radical Puritan ideals.

By Ananya Nrusimha

Things are heating up in the political world.  Both Republican Senator Rand Paul and Democratic former Secretary of State Hilary Clinton have joined the ranks of Senator Ted Cruz and former Governor Jeb Bush by declaring their candidacy for President of the United States.  Since Election Day is almost two years away, it’s hard to predict what will happen on the campaign trial.  However, religious freedom will almost certainly be a topic of discussion at debates, especially during the Republican primaries.

Legislation like the bill that Indiana recently passed into law have already made religious freedom a point of contention.  Opponents of the state’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act—which essentially gives businesses the same religious freedom rights as individuals and churches—argue that its vague definition of what constitutes an attack on religious freedom makes it easy for businesses to discriminate against members of the LGBT community.

Senator Ted Cruz may try to take these ideas even further.  In the speech where he announced his candidacy, he said that he would “restore that shining city on a hill that is the United States of America.”  While Cruz could potentially be referring to American Exceptionalism, his specific word choice implies that he is referencing the Massachusetts Bay Colony, which was intended to be an ideal theological community, or a ‘city on a hill.’  Life in the Massachusetts Bay Colony was centered around its Puritan faith; only adult male Puritans could vote, and clergymen held a great deal of influence in the community even though they couldn’t vote.  If Ted Cruz succeeded in restoring the ‘city on a hill,’ Protestant Christians would have the freedom to follow their religious doctrines to the letter.  However, that freedom would likely come at the expense of everyone else’s rights.