Presidential Candidates and Religion
How much consideration should be given to a presidential candidate’s religion? I think I have perspective here that makes sense.
As the nest election approaches and we see a Mormon questioned for his fitness to be president I remembered this piece I wrote in 2000. Although I consider the Mormon faith a cult that denies portions of the reality of Jesus I do not have any more concern about A Mormon becoming president than a Catholic or Methodist as long as he subscribes to the constitution. Note that I have concerns about a Muslim holding office because of the stance of Islamic groups that religion is above the state.
In 1960 anyone who objected to JFK on the grounds he was a Catholic was castigated.
Now, 40 years later when a man with a Pentecostal background is considered for an office he is abused by the brother of the man elected then – Teddy Kennedy. Actually John Ashcroft is a member of the Assembly of God. This Pentecostal group holds high regard for patriotism and the constitution, in fact more than most. I have been in Assembly of God congregations and seen their group like the Boy Scouts. They hold the nation as important.
Somehow I see the Catholic faith as more restrictive to an office holder and even so that does not raise a concern for me. I am a Pentecostal. The denomination does not exercise the control over their members that Catholicism does. The aspect of a Pope dictating an American government official how to handle a matter is not inconceivable to me. And that he could exact sanctions to make it happen is a real threat.. The idea that a Pentecostal leader would do that is unthinkable. There is no such right for the leaders. Don’t get me wrong, on matters of morality, guidance would be given if asked for. But there is one basic difference between the denominations and some understanding of theology is necessary to see it.
In Catholicism the person must go to confession. There is a mediator between God and a man, the Papal hierarchy. That is an aspect of control. The person does not have the same personal access to God as does the Priesthood. The priest has clout! In the protestant doctrines (and the Pentecostals are very stringent in this, remember, Protestants rejected the Pope) they follow the teaching of the bible in Timothy..
1 Tim 2:5
5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
(KJV)
Eph 2:18
18 For through him (Christ) we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
(KJV)
I don’t care if you agree or disagree with this theology, the important thing is that Ashcroft DOES… The individual need not have a man to reach God for him so he is more independent. And many others in the Bush administration have Evangelical (Baptist, Pentecostal, Methodist, etc) backgrounds. These too believe this way. These men have consciences that are firm in right and wrong. And they will vote it and exercise it. But part of that conscience is the rule of law. They will not violate that because to do so is to become a lawless and a lawbreaker. And most have a firm memory of the Clinton lies.
They have sworn to uphold the law. That they will do. If they are expected to expand lawless liberal ideas there will be disappointment. If they are expected to uphold the law of the land and do it with dignity, justice and mercy, there will not be disappointment.
I do not expect Ashcroft to seriously challenge RvW. I also do not expect him to try to EXPAND the lie of “abortion rights.” I expect him to fully protect a woman’s access to an abortion if that is illegally challenged in any way. I do not expect him to expand rights for one group above another but I do believe that anyone’s rights that are violated will be a concern to him, even those who have different beliefs. You see, he understands RELIGEOUS PERSECUTION FIRST HAND. He is being subjected to it by the liberals in the Senate with Teddy Kennedy leading the charge.
As a Pentecostal of about the same age, (He is within 2 years of my age) I know the persecution of Pentecostals in the late 40’s and 50’s. The burning of Black churches in the south has to be a stench to him, we had churches vandalized BY OTHER DENOMINATIONS. Congregations were warned about us from the pulpit! In some other nations Pentecostals have been killed by other denominations. Ashcroft understands the pain of the oppressed. It is so obvious to him that he sees no reason to say, “I know your pain…” He does.
Liked it
User Comments
FvA
On January 10, 2009 at 12:52 pm
In your post you write, quote: “I do not have any more concern about A Mormon becoming president than a Catholic or Methodist as long as he subscribes to the constitution.” How do you feel about an atheist (who subscribes the constitution) becoming president?
Ralph Brandt
On January 10, 2009 at 9:49 pm
As long as an atheist pledged to the constitution I see no problem. I know none who can uphold the constitution because they want to ban religion.
FvA
On January 13, 2009 at 7:42 am
I don’t understand. Could you develop your point?
The constitution makes only one mention of religion: the 1st amendment states that there is a freedom of religion. This means you have the right to practice whatever religion you want, or you may chose not to practice at all.
My questions are:
First: would you say that a candidate for president who defends freedom of religion while he himself has none (is an atheist), poses no problem for you. And if so, would you consider voting for him?
Second: Would you say that by allowing an atheist to be president, you respect the constitution more than you respect religion. So, are your priorities “Nation (constitution) first, religion (God) second”?
Third: do you consider all atheists to be against the freedom of religion provided by the constitution?
Thank you for your time!
Ralph Brandt
On January 14, 2009 at 7:54 pm
First, let me comment that you get a 50% on your knowledge of the constitution. The word religion appears two places, in the first amendment as you recognize and in article IV.
Article. VI. – Debts, Supremacy, Oaths
Removed portion for brevity…
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Your second point in that “This means you have the right to practice whatever religion you want, or you may chose not to practice at all.” is correct. My problem that most Atheists want me to practice my religion in a way I can’t, in hiding. They are by their opposition violating my rights. The moment my practice is public they squeal like stuck hogs.
When anyone, Teddy Kennedy, the NARL, the any atheist, any ACLU, or any religion questions fitness of a candidate on grounds of religion it is wrong. Teddy Kennedy questioned Ashcroft ON THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE. This is reprehensible for several reasons. His brother could easily been like questioned. It was done in an official capacity making it without question a violation of the constitution. Third, he did it for partisan political reasons.
As for your questions, First one, I already answered that. “As long as an atheist pledged to the constitution I see no problem. I know none who can uphold the constitution because they want to ban religion.” If you know one who will uphold the right for others to practice religion as strongly as they fight for the right to not practice, let me know who it is. I want to see that.
Second question. No, God is first in my life. This is a question only an atheist with no wisdom would answer. For a true christian this is not a moral dilemma.
Third question, I haven’t met all atheists so I can’t answer that. Are you against that freedom of religion?
FvA
On January 15, 2009 at 2:59 am
Thank you for your swift response.
First let me answer your question: I am 100% in favor of freedom of religion as long as it is not violating the rights of others or the law in general. I think we agree on the fact that the US Constitution guarantees you this right and at the same time forces you to tolerate the religious views of others. I agree with the fact that questioning the fitness of a candidate on religious grounds is very wrong, as long as the candidate respects the constitution. To sum up: I think the constitution is a well written and wise document. We agree on that.
I would like to learn more about your view: “My problem that most Atheists want me to practice my religion in a way I can’t, in hiding.” If your religion operates within the guidelines of the law and if by practicing this religion you do not harm the law or society in general, you should have the right to practice your religion in any way you see fit, even when is appears silly to some people.
My question is: how do you practice your religion and what examples can you give of atheists wanting to practice your religion “in hiding”? And: how do you know atheists want to ban religion? Third: personally I know a great deal of politicians who are atheists, but are fighting very strongly for the right to practice any religion, if this religion and its practice are within the guidelines of the law.
Ralph Brandt
On January 15, 2009 at 7:17 am
“My problem that most Atheists want me to practice my religion in a way I can’t, in hiding.” If your religion operates within the guidelines of the law and if by practicing this religion you do not harm the law or society in general, you should have the right to practice your religion in any way you see fit, even when is appears silly to some people.
I have worked with Christian clubs in schools that have been oppressed by the administration and schoolboards. They simply wanted to meet, pray and study the bible.
They have the right as defined by the constitution to do so and it has been upheld by the courts as long as they do not go over the line. Simply, they can invite people, they cannot create captive audience situations. They cannot be treated any differently than any other club. As an aside, I find that having foot baths put in for Muslim groups in schools is a violation of that but it is being done.
All of the opposition has come from Atheists who have this idea that only by stamping out religion can their stupid belief that there is no god be validated. Apparently we who believe are a reminder that they have it wrong. But believe me, I hold that they have that right.
Other areas, the opposition to prayer at public events. This is ridiculous. You do not have to participate. That this is promoting religion is a crock. I personally believe that if someone wants to tastefully post anything on a public property – including a tombstone that says, “God is dead” they as a citizen shoudl be able to use that right. I like to day that the Atheist’s creed is, “I don’t belong to an organized religion, I am an atheist.”
But they are the most federally funded religion (in terms of court costs) of any except sports and the arts. I challenge you to read this and then start screaming about what religious groups get federal money to support religion.
http://www.newsflavor.com/Opinions/Churches-That-Get-Government-Money.391229
Post Comment