Posted on 06/10/2012 9:38:54 AM PDT by Colofornian
bttt
In the last five years, I've come up with probably a dozen different criteria (I call them principles) upon which I've based my conclusions.
Your comment here is only a reaction to one of those...
As far as pinpointing "justification" rooted in a POTUS' faith that would apply here, consider these three statements:
(a) Something could occur ANYTIME, ANYWHERE, to ANYONE. We could call this the 'Wildcard 'potential'...And it would be the closest to your comment: “Potentially” pretty much any candidate can overreach in this regard and use whatever historical or scriptural justification they require.
(b) On the opposite end might be specific revelation -- a "thus says the Lord" that is NOT ambiguous in any way.
(c) Now...in between the two above is the "middle ground" of...
...evidence...
...which consists of not only precedents but a PATTERN--a track record.
It's a "scouting report" based upon previously revealed patterns of inclination. It asks: Do they have the capacity and the oft-mentioned desire -- that, if, coupled with the power -- they would seek to implement an overreach politically?
I've made the case with this chart: The Nauvoo Expositor Affair [Death of Mormon Joseph Smith], see post#10 ... Quotes from FOUR of the Mormon leaders are from the 60s to the 80s...vs. "ancient history"
For you to claim that a given Christian leader could use ANY Scriptural justification to overreach politically is sadly lacking specifics. Sorry...but a generic statement made up without specific cause or basis is lacking. (Which scriptures? Who's applied them in the past half-century in a way that causes concern? What candidates have embraced such interpretations?)
Even your claim that a given Christian leader could use Calvinistic or Middle Age precedents to reoccur fails to show any consistent patterns of Christian thought intruding upon Christian political candidates in the 21st century.
You see the difference here is the "environment" being swam in.
All I have to do is to say, "Sorry, but Christian candidates don't swim in the environment of Calvin's Geneva or Middle-Age Catholicism."
In comparison, it doesn't even matter what the environment is or has been for Romney or other Lds candidates (say, like Huntsman). Why? Because the puppeteer is the key...
The Lds "prophet" can say, "Jump" -- and the President would say, "How high?" (Again...this isn't wild speculation or conjecture out of nothing; see the chart -- see the statements made there by powerful Lds "prophets")
Toss in everything from alzheimers to senility that could strike an Lds "prophet" in his 80s or 90s, which could at least temporarily impact what he commands a POTUS to do, and duck!
Oh, and BTW, there IS ONE specific I listed for Romney in that chart...see the final line...the vow's he taken!!! It's all-encompassing. That's an objective vow upon which the voter can measure.
>>>”Do they have the capacity and the oft-mentioned desire — that, if, coupled with the power..”
I’m not aware of Romney - or Reid or others - having this “oft-mentioned desire.” I’m sure we can find a great many LDS, Christian and other religious leaders and followers who have expressed a definite theocratic-type politics.
As for more modern references of actual events illustrating over-reaching of church into state, you could look at the activities of members of the Know Nothing Party you referenced before. I believe this is more recent than Joseph Smith and Nauvoo Expositor. In my area, Catholics were not allowed by law to teach in public schools as late as the 1950s.
>>>”The Lds “prophet” can say, “Jump” — and the President would say, “How high?”
In the 1960 election, it was necessary for Kennedy to give a major speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, a group of Protestant ministers, on the issue of his religion. Here, one month before the election, he said:
“I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act..”
Sound familiar?
I believe your scenario expresses the same fear. Would it be necessary or helpful for Romney to make the equivalent of JFK’s speech?
Rick Santorum said JFK’s speech made him want to throw up. Not the part about the prelate, but this back and forth discussion was about the role of church and state. The discussion and debate of the ‘over-reach’ of politicians’ religion into politics is, I think, common in this day.
thanks again..
I'm very familiar with it....and you are a bigot. Plain and simple.
Are you actually saying....when many people disagree with you...it's bigotry?
Ha!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.