The Bible Doesn't Justify War. Ted Cruz Does.
How Religious Rhetoric Justifies War, Silences Dissent, and Sacrifices the Marginalized
First of all, I never thought I’d be writing about Ted Cruz, but here we are.
It started with a clip: Tucker Carlson, of all people, asking Ted Cruz a simple question, “Where in the Bible does it say that?” after Cruz claimed Christians are biblically commanded to support Israel.
A Cruz couldn’t answer.
No verse. No chapter. Just a shrug toward Sunday school and a vague memory that “those who bless Israel with be blessed.” That was it. A U.S. Senator justifying war, aid, and foreign allegiance on a theology he couldn’t cite.
And that’s when it clicked.
This isn’t about Ted Cruz. It’s about how power works when cloaked in scripture. It’s about the deep, generational harm that happens when religious rhetoric becomes public policy, and no one stops to ask, “What god are we even talking about?”
During a recent two-hour televised back-and-forth, Ted Cruz told Tucker Carlson that his support for Israel is rooted in biblical obligation: “biblically we are commanded to support Israel.” When Carlson pressed him to identify the exact passage, Cruz couldn’t specify. Carlson shot back, “It’s in Genesis,” but Cruz didn’t offer any chapter or verse. To be fair, Cruz isn’t a theologian but I would hope that someone who uses scripture as justification for war, would at least know the source of his belief.
Cruz admitted he picked it up in Sunday school—something like “those who bless Israel will be blessed”—but couldn’t cite the context, the situation, or even clarify which Israel he meant (the ancient people, the modern nation, or divine Israel?).
So, while Cruz leaned on Scripture, he couldn’t name verses (like Genesis 12:3 or Psalm 122, which are often referenced), couldn’t define “Israel” biblically, and punted by telling Tucker to look it up.
This here, is an example of the social harms of religious belief. This matters because when political or religious claims are made, backing them up with specifics reinforces credibility. Cruz’s slip-up is classic: bold generality, shaky detail, and reliant on the fact most viewers won’t fact-check. People like Cruz rely on the “lazy learner” troupe to get away with things that sound Biblical but may be more accurately grounded in thoughts, feelings, and a vague sense that “I must have learned it in church.”
If you want to fact-check properly for yourself, here are some frequently cited verses, that Cruz was unable to cite himself:
Genesis 12:3 “I will bless those who bless you…”
Psalm 122: a prayer for peace in Jerusalem.
Romans 11: talks about the enduring relationship between God and Israel.
None of these were cited by Cruz in that interview. He kept it vague and when asked, couldn’t deliver the chapter and verse.
People often claim authority via “the Bible says…” without knowing what they’re actually citing. It’s fertile ground for exploring how writers, thinkers, and journalists can hold power accountable by demanding specifics, like Carlson was trained to do.
This situation is ripe for answering the question, “why study religion” and “why study the social harms of religious belief?” The Cruz-Carlson exchange is a textbook example of how religious ideas bleed into our governments, laws, and societies—leading us all the way into “righteous” wars. This interview is an example of why we must study religion, not just as theology, but as a social force that shapes power, policy, and perception.
“Show me the verse.”
That’s all Tucker Carlson asked Ted Cruz after Cruz claimed his unwavering support for Israel was ‘biblical.” Cruz couldn’t. And that failure reveals everything about how religious rhetoric shapes government policy, even when it rings hollow.
Let’s give this context.
Ted Cruz, like many U.S. politicians, justifies foreign policy through religious framing. “We are commanded to support Israel,” he said. But when asked who gave the command, what it said, or to whom it applied—the man folded.
This wasn’t a mistake. It’s a glimpse into how unexamined theologies become the scaffolding for global decisions. Wars. Aid packages. Human rights violations. All wrapped in a vague “because God said so.”
Let’s look at the social harm.
This is what religious scholars call a theodicy of power. When divine narratives are used to excuse or enforce violence. The same script that was once used to justify slavery, colonization, and Manifest Destiny is now deployed to prop up militarism and occupation. (And so much more but I’m keeping this tight.)
Religious ideas don’t stay in churches. They shape:
Foreign policy (U.S. & Israel exceptionalism)
Domestic policy (abortion bans, anti-LGBTQ laws, trans laws*)
*sending a big middle-finger FU to the Supreme Court for the anti-trans ruling
Cultural narratives (who gets called chosen, worthy, saved)
When politicians can’t explain their own “biblical mandates,” it exposes how faith becomes performance, and how easily those performances are used to control bodies, borders, and beliefs.
Why I studied the Sociology of Religion
We study religion to pull the thread—to ask:
Who benefits from this belief?
What texts are being weaponized?
Who gets erased by this theology?
I studied the sociology of religion because I needed language for what I already knew: that belief doesn’t stay in pews. It spills into policies, into hospital rooms, into courtrooms and classrooms. It becomes the logic behind war, the excuse for gender violence, the justification for forced birth, and the silence surrounding abuse. It seeps into laws about our bodies, our borders, and our worth.
Having the ability to see the connection between religious belief and social harms allows us to name the machinery behind moral-sounding violence. It gives us trace how bad theology becomes normalized cruelty.
Unexamined belief sanctifies injustice.
It blesses colonization.
It moralizes poverty.
It punishes queerness.
It turns healthcare into a battlefield.
It makes women disposable.
It excuses child abuse in the name of obedience.
It defends white supremacy under the banner of divine order.
Cruz couldn’t answer Carlson’s basic question because he didn’t have to. For decades, American voters were trained to nod when someone said, “It’s in the Bible.” But the cost of that silence is generational harm—foreign wars, stolen autonomy, and moral justification for cruelty.
We study religion not to attack faith, but to understand how theology becomes policy and how unexamined belief, when left unchallenged, becomes a weapon.
The Cruz-Carlson interview is the perfect ground for examining how narratives—especially religious ones—must be interrogated, not just accepted. We need to be able to recognize when theology becomes policy, and holding people accountable for the violence done in God’s name. (Funny how they never see this is breaking the commandment to not take God’s name in vain.)
Religious illiteracy in politics isn’t harmless. It’s a weapon. Let’s take this further…
Why “Because the Bible Says So” is dangerous in politics
Ted Cruz’s vague invocation of the Bible to justify political allegiance to Israel isn’t just sloppy, it’s revealing. It reflects a deeper American tradition of religious nationalism, selective theodicy, and scriptural weaponization.
Before we go any further, let’s define theodicy so that we’re on the same page.
Basically, theodicy is the story people tell to make pain seem righteous or necessary.
Religious institutions use theodicy to explain everything from illness to war. Why did your child die? Why were you abused? Why is your country bombing civilians? Because God has a plan. Because suffering purifies. Because obedience is rewarded after death.
That’s theodicy.
Theodicy is not always personal, sometimes it’s structural. Like I mentioned above, it’s used to justify slavery, colonization, genocide, forced adoption and polygamy. It’s the theological mask for systemic harm.
As theologian James Cone said:
“The gospel of Jesus is not a rational solution to the problem of human suffering. It is not theodicy. It is a liberating word for the oppressed.”
But in the hands of empire, religion doesn’t liberate. It excuses. It becomes the script that makes people accept pain as virtue—and power as divine right.
That’s why I study religion. To name these scripts. To pull them apart. To write new stories that don’t require anyone’s suffering to be meaningful.
The “Biblical Mandate” Isn’t Universal — It’s Constructed
Cruz alluded to Genesis 12:3 (“I will bless those who bless you…”) a favorite among Christian Zionists—but failed to say it aloud. Why? Because once spoken, it opens up hermeneutics—interpretation, critiques, complexity. And Cruz wasn’t there for theology. He was there to signal allegiance.
This verse, spoken to Abram, has been retroactively applied to modern geopolitical Israel—an interpretive leap not universally accepted in Christianity or Judaism.
As theologian Walter Brueggemann has written:
“To use the Abrahamic promise as a blanket justification for contemporary nation-states is not only poor exegesis, it’s ethically dangerous.”
Selective Scripture = Selective Morality
The U.S. never applies “biblical mandates” evenly. No one quotes Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount to demand universal healthcare. But they will weaponize Old Testament verses to justify war, policing, and anti-abortion laws.
That’s not faith. That’s political convenience dressed in sacred robes.
Sociologist Robert Bellah called this the “civil religion” of America: a blending of Christianity with nationalism that gives political actions divine legitimacy—without accountability.
Theodicy and Empire: Justifying Violence with “God’s Will”
Cruz’s invocation functions as a theodicy of empire. A theological explanation for why violence and dominance are not only acceptable, but divinely mandated.
In his critique of Christian empire, theologian Willian Cavanaugh wrote:
“The myth of religious violence obscures the real story: the state doesn’t protect us from religion—it rebrands its own violence as sacred.”
When Cruz blesses Israel unconditionally, without distinction between state policy and peoplehood, he’s echoing centuries of crusader logic: our wars are just because they are holy.
Christian Zionism and Eschatological Politics
Cruz’s position echoes a long-standing trend of Christian Zionism, especially among evangelicals, who believe modern Israel must be supported to fulfill biblical prophecy—often leading to apocalyptic end-times beliefs.
This means some politicians aren’t just supporting Israel for realpolitik—they’re doing it to hasten the Second Coming.
Scholar Stephen Spector calls this “prophecy-based diplomacy,” where:
“Foreign policy becomes a stage for divine drama, not human rights.”
That’s not democracy. That’s theocracy with nukes. And it’s scary af.
It Silences Real People and Real Suffering
When a leader like Cruz says “God commands us to support Israel,” without nuance or clarity, something dangerous happens.
A single sentence collapses an entire moral landscape.
It collapses Israeli government policies—treating them as divinely sanctioned, beyond critique.
It collapses the diverse Jewish diaspora—flattening a global, multivocal people into a single political identity.
It collapses Palestinian lives—rendering them invisible, expendable, or even cursed.
It collapses international law—replacing human rights with divine right.
And it collapses basic ethics—making morality conditional, tribal, and violent.
This isn’t just bad theology—it’s strategic theodicy, a justification for power and violence disguised as obedience to God.
“No cause, not even the most just, can be served by terror.” wrote Edward Said.
But terror is exactly what happens when religion becomes the state’s mouthpiece. When sacred texts are weaponized and morality becomes a tool for domination.
That’s why I study religion—to attack the faiths that harm people. To untangle belief from empire and to expose the ways theology is used to excuse cruelty, silence dissent, and uphold hierarchies.
I do this work to relieve the personal and collective harm inflicted in the name of God. Because faith, when it demands your suffering, your silence, or your submission, isn’t holy.
It’s violence dressed as ritual.