Ya know I've heard now for 5 years that we're NOT electing a "pastor in chief" from some FR posters.
A pastor is but a shepherd. And what's interesting is that we have even some conservative talk show hosts -- like Dennis Prager, for example -- claiming Romney's role includes being a shepherd (albeit more in economic terms)
A few days ago Prager was trying to "help out" Romney when the MSM was critiquing him on some economic point.
Prager said something to the effect that Romney should have given some immediate comeback to the MSM how he was "taking care" of people economically in some facet.
As soon as Prager said that Romney would be "taking care" of people economically, I immediately thought, "Here's a conservative who would readily say we're NOT electing a 'pastor-in-chief,' yet is assigning a sort of economic shepherding role to Romney as would-be POTUS."
A "pastor" IS nothing but a shepherd.
And so when ya have conservative talk show hosts assigning a shepherding role to Romney, for some reason we don't see conservatives getting all up in arms over that.
So if Romney can be pinpointed as a shepherd of sorts by Prager w/out riling up conservatives, then when we point out other "shepherding" components of Lds bishop Mitt Romney, then you can let that slide, too.
All of that might be true if:
a) I had actually heard Prager say that (or had heard OF him saying that, which I hadn't until now); and
b) I agreed with Prager.
I happen to disagree with Prager on this point (assuming that you're relating his comments accurately, and I have no particular reason to doubt that you did so). Thus, your argument falls apart. Frankly, if Prager said and meant this, then he's not quite so conservative as some people would make him out to be.
I stand by keeping religion out of politics. Both areas have enough problems of their own to solve without involving the other and its host of problems.