Should a Mormon be President?

                First off, let me make it clear, I’m not a Mormon, although you might think so because I live in Utah and have many of the same values and priorities – which are family unity and stability, patriotism and clean wholesome living.  For that matter many Christians and atheists have similar values and priorities.

                Dr. Robert Jeffress, pastor of the 10,000 member First Baptist Church of Dallas, during a political gathering where he introduced Governor Rick Parry, deliberately impugned Mormonism as non Christian and a cult – directing his comment at Mitt Romney who is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 

                Why did pastor Jeffress chose that particular time to make disparaging remarks about  Mitt Romney and Mormonism?  I suspect that pastor Jeffress knew his remarks would get national attention and it was his way of sending a message to true blue Christians – the religious right, suggesting they not vote for Romney.

                The Constitution is structured so that a religious litany test shouldn’t be a prerequisite for public office.  In essence what pastor Jeffress was saying is I don’t like Mormonism because it doesn’t fit my template of Christianity, so I don’t like Mitt Romney and a good Christian should not support him as a presidential candidate.  Pastor Jeffress knew that the Constitution protected religious diversity and he knew that in spite of that, religious zealots would place religion over civility.  This sort of thing happens in all faiths, the zealot specious notion that if you are not a part of my faith then you are both spiritually and secularly inferior.

                This kind of pious demagoguery is akin to using class warfare to cause division among Americans.  The democratic socialists that promote class warfare know that we humans have a predisposition to envy.  This hereditary tendency to envy is being successfully exploited by calling attention to the disparity between the rich and the poor.  It is a tactic used by socialists and communists around the world to garner support for their agendas. 

                Resentment is a substitute word for envy.  Envy sparks resentment.  The proponents of envy intentionally push the buttons of the have-nots with the hope and probability that emotion will cloud the fact that the rich are already the most heavily taxed and already share their wealth by creating jobs and making huge donations to charities.  The consequences of over taxing the rich should be obvious.

                Getting back to religion and politics, religion should have no part in the qualification of a candidate unless there is something about that religion that is antithetical to the Constitution and would be discriminatory.

                In that regard what comes to mind is theocracy – a religious orientated government where civil law is replaced by religious law which separates the believer from the non believer.  In other words a theocratic system where non belief in the state sanctioned religion is a punishable crime.  Islam is such a religion.  Islam is a theocracy.  Look at Iran and where Egypt is going.  It is no secret that there are Muslims who would like to replace the Constitution with Shira Law. 

                The LDS Church is not a theocracy, although Mormonism was theocratic under Brigham Young.  But so was Catholicism during the Inquisition.  Any time a religion competes with government for power and dominance it is theocratic – the current LDS Church does not do that.

                Pastor Jeffress is free to challenge the Christianity of the LDS Church.  But to label the LDS Church a cult is wrong.  A cult is intrinsically destructive and exploitative.  Some use brainwashing to define a cult, but all religions employ inculcation to recharge belief in the chosen faith.  But it could be argued that the organized Mormon polygamist groups are cults – which the LDS Church disavows. 

                The test for a presidential candidate should be his ethics and political platform and not his method of worshiping Jesus Christ.  It is clear that many of the non Mormons who support Romney do so because of his integrity, business background, conservative principles and political savvy. 

                That said, Rick Parry must convincingly distance himself from pastor Jeffress and his bigoted rhetoric for in the long run it may damage Parry’s his chances more than help him.  In that regard according to an 10-12-11 article in the Deseret Morning News, quote:  “"I would call upon Gov. Perry to repudiate the sentiment and the remarks made by that pastor," Romney said at a press conference in Lebanon, N.H., ahead of a presidential debate Tuesday night.”

                However the article stated that Parry, through a spokesman, refused to disavow the Pastor.

                Romney was not asking Parry to disavow the Pastor, but the remarks made by the Pastor – which put Parry in a difficult spot.  Even though failing to disavow the sentiments may in the long run hurt him, integrity dictated that he must stick by the Pastor.

                Impugning Mormonism may feel good to the far right but it may also marginalize the independent voters – and if it tends to disrupt Republican unity it will not help the party or the Republican candidate – whoever that might be.  So far it looks like most Republicans are not taking the remark seriously – at least publically.

                If you are like me and watched the Bloomberg debate, you will have noticed that religion or cult was not mentioned except by Huntsman who thought he was being funny, but came across as stupid and bad form. 

                It has been three days since the good pastor made his controversial remark and it seems it is no longer news worthy – and that is as it should be.

                So, getting back to the title of this essay, “Should A Mormon be President?” … if he is the best qualified to beat Obama and undo the damage done by the Obama agenda to our capitalistic form of government, why not?