Romney: First Clergyman Since Garfield In White House?

[Stargazer]

A small amount of research, which may be inaccurate and refutations are invited, seems to me to establish that, if elected, Romney will be the first President since James A Garfield who was at one time or another a clergyman. Assuming Romney's tenure as an LDS Bishop so qualifies him -- something which I at least believe to be the case.

This fact came to my attention when one of my sons sent me a link to this video:

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlfEdJNn15E&feature=player_embedded

This video also goes into the acts of the federal government in regards to religion, where religious services were conducted in the US Capitol for well over a hundred years without anyone raising a fit over "separation of church and state", which is especially interesting in view of the fact that that same Jefferson who mentioned the "separation" was one of those who made the initial arrangements for the church services, and who attended them during his 8 years in office as President.

[thesometimesaint]

Stargazer:

Letter Thomas Jefferson sent to Danbury Baptist church:

Mr. President

To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association assurances of my high respect & esteem.

(signed) Thomas Jefferson

Jan.1.1802.

Jefferson also owned slaves up to the day he died.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Far as I heard the, now, 2nd worst POTUS, Jimmy Carter, was an ordained Baptist minister. But I could be wrong.

Edited October 14, 2012 by BookofMormonLuvr

[thesometimesaint]

Andrew Johnson and Richard Nixon were better?

[Stargazer]

thesometimesaint:

I am familiar with the content of the Danbury letter, but I am not sure what you intended to say by bring it up -- unless it was just to put the letter on the table, as it were.

I was making the point that although Jefferson was the author of the phrase "separation of church and state" he nevertheless didn't consider that wall to be particularly high. The video makes a point of bringing up President Jefferson's approving of federal funds being expended to send Christian missionaries to a tribe of Indians, and also funds for establishing houses of worship for those Indians, once there were converts.

Besides Jefferson, lots of people, including George Washington, owned slaves until their deaths. And your point is?

[Stargazer]

Far as I heard the, now, 2nd worst POTUS, Jimmy Carter, was an ordained Baptist minister. But I could be wrong.

At first I thought you might be correct, but in looking it up I found that while he is a deacon in his local Baptist church, that is apparently a post-Presidential appointment, and don't know that being a deacon in a Baptist church is considered being "clergy" or not. Now, I, as a non-Baptist, would be willing cede that it is possible, but I'm far from expert on that.

As to who might be the 1st worst POTUS, well, we won't collapse the state vector on that one and turn this into a political thread. Thankyou very much.

[thesometimesaint]

thesometimesaint:

I am familiar with the content of the Danbury letter, but I am not sure what you intended to say by bring it up -- unless it was just to put the letter on the table, as it were.

I was making the point that although Jefferson was the author of the phrase "separation of church and state" he nevertheless didn't consider that wall to be particularly high. The video makes a point of bringing up President Jefferson's approving of federal funds being expended to send Christian missionaries to a tribe of Indians, and also funds for establishing houses of worship for those Indians, once there were converts.

Besides Jefferson, lots of people, including George Washington, owned slaves until their deaths. And your point is?

Simply that Jefferson, et al, were wrong on occasion, but I don't hold that against them. I want that wall of separation as high as possible. That way I protect both from the incursions of the other. Good fences, like good locks, make for better neighbors .

[wenglund]

Simply that Jefferson, et al, were wrong on occasion, but I don't hold that against them. I want that wall of separation as high as possible. That way I protect both from the incursions of the other. Good fences, like good locks, make for better neighbors .

Yes...fences are always good. That is why the world continues to lament the tearing down of the Berlin wall.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[thesometimesaint]

wengland:

Where did I say always? Emotional fences between husband and wife aren't a good idea either. But I still seek a very high fences between government and religion. I still have a nice fence between me and my next door neighbors whom we've been good friends with for over 20 years. I still keep my doors locked at night to keep honest people honest.

[Calm]

Locked doors don't keep honest people honest, they keep dishonest people honest.

[Stargazer]

Simply that Jefferson, et al, were wrong on occasion, but I don't hold that against them. I want that wall of separation as high as possible. That way I protect both from the incursions of the other. Good fences, like good locks, make for better neighbors .

I don't know if I am keen on the federal government funding religious outreach, amongst the Indians or anyone else, but that is the me that is living in this benighted time. If I lived back then I might have approved wholeheartedly. The thing is, Jefferson's supposed wall is his own invention. The 1st Amendment prohibits the federal government from establishing one religion or any religion as the official state religion. At the time of the Constitution's ratification, several states had state churches, and the federal government said zip nada zilch about it, nor did anyone else. Over time the states got religion about state approved churches and removed these provisions, but nobody among the founding fathers considered it an establishment of religion to have a Nativity display at the local city hall. If James Madison were to be resurrected and came for a visit, I doubt he would be charmed by this incredibly restrictive day and age.

Ultimately, the phrase is Freedom OF Religion, not Freedom FROM Religion, which is the right.

[mtomm]

What was the Bush program that wanted to give federal dollars to religious institutions? My mind draws a blank. However, I remember the Church specifically was not interested at all in accepting the money. Mixing church and state is not good, it's not good for the religious institutions.

[Freedom]

The separation as I understand it, refers to religion interfering in government and government interfering in religion It does not refer to religious practices influencing government, or government leaders participating in religious practices. When politicians try to enact religious based policies, this is misconstrued as a violation of this separation. It is not. It is a politician advocating an agenda like any other and if the populace does not like it, they can vote them out. It is no different than having a politician promote any other policy direction.

[canard78]

Oh. And with my poor knowledge of American presidents here was me hoping it was a thread about the similarities between Romney and a lasagna eating cat.

[cinepro]

Ultimately, the phrase is Freedom OF Religion, not Freedom FROM Religion, which is the right.

Twelve years ago, a Mormon family and Catholic family sued their school district to stop school prayers. Were they wrong?

http://www.mormonstoday.com/000625/N1SchoolPrayer02.shtml

SANTA FE, TEXAS -- This week's news that the Supreme Court had ruled against allowing the Santa Fe, Texas Independent School District to have "student-led voluntary prayers" before high school football games was disappointing to many conservative Mormons. It was also shocking for many that a the lawsuit had been filed by a Mormon family. But an analysis of the case history shows why a Mormon family might file such a lawsuit.

The case was originally filed in 1995, in response to the way that the Mormon family, and a Catholic family that joined them in the suit, were treated by teachers and other students in the school district. Both families felt that their children had been discriminated against and harassed for belonging to a minority religion in the majority Southern Baptist town, according to Mormon News' analysis of news reports and contacts with those involved in the case.

[wenglund]

wengland:

Where did I say always?

Why are you asking me since I have yet to claim that you did? I was clearly being facetious.

Emotional fences between husband and wife aren't a good idea either. But I still seek a very high fences between government and religion. I still have a nice fence between me and my next door neighbors whom we've been good friends with for over 20 years. I still keep my doors locked at night to keep honest people honest.

The issue for me isn't whether a wall of separate is of value or not (I believe to some degree it is), but the height and width of the wall, and whether the barrier of the wall should be more for one side of the wall than the other. To me, among many things, I see considerable benefit from government leaders praying to God for assistance in governing the affairs of their respective people, though it is a big mistake for governments to intrude into the affairs of God's kingdom. In other words, as I see things, the wall that separates religion from the government should be rather low and narrow (low enough to just prevent the establishment of a state religion), whereas the wall that separates the government from religion ought to be rather high and wide (extended to the point of pretty much keeping the government from abridging the free exercise religion, even within government). But, to each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 15, 2012 by wenglund

[thesometimesaint]

stargazer:

I don't believe we are in a benighted time. For one we have the Restored Gospel while the Founders of the country did not. Secondly the Founders didn't resolve the issue of slavery in the US. The list of Amendments to the Constitution is long and impressive. Do we have our problems? You bet. But I see this as a good time to be alive.

Jefferson, and Madison actively opposed and succeeded in stopping a state tax on religion from being imposed on Virginia. There are still states that prohibit Atheists from serving in government, but through USSC decisions they are essentially dead letters.

I don't believe Madison would be thrilled by a lot of what we take a common practice today. The state establishment of religion being one of them.

http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/detach.htm

ANYTIME we use government to tell others what they can't believe. It is less than half a step from the government telling us what we must believe.

[thesometimesaint]

Why are you asking me since I have yet to claim that you did? I was clearly being facetious.

The issue for me isn't whether a wall of separate is of value or not (I believe to some degree it is), but the height and width of the wall, and whether the barrier of the wall should be more for one side of the wall than the other. To me, among many things, I see considerable benefit from government leaders praying to God for assistance in governing the affairs of their respective people, though it is a big mistake for governments to intrude into the affairs of God's kingdom. In other words, as I see things, the wall that separates religion from the government should be rather low and narrow (low enough to just prevent the establishment of a state religion), whereas the wall that separates the government from religion ought to rather high and wide (extended to the point of pretty much keeping the government from abridging the free exercise religion, even within government). But, to each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Sorry being factious doesn't come over the internet.

Make that wall as high and as deep as possible. I oppose ANY attempt to inject religion into government, or government into religion. The individual legislators can pray or not pray to whatever God(s) they choose. But let them do it in their own closets, and not before men like the hypocrites do.

[wenglund]

Sorry being factious doesn't come over the internet.

Perhaps my use of exaggerate language (like the word "always") and exceptional cases (like the Berlin wall) were a bit too subtle for you.

Make that wall as high and as deep as possible. I oppose ANY attempt to inject religion into government, or government into religion.

I can accept that you may have emotional reasons for your position, but I fail to see the sense of it--though you are entitled to your extreme opinion.

The individual legislators can pray or not pray to whatever God(s) they choose. But let them do it in their own closets, and not before men like the hypocrites do.

Whether they are praying to God in their closets or as a group, God is having no less an invited influence on their respective governances. So, I don't see what your problem is with government officials publicly praying as long as it isn't being done for the same reasons as the hypocrites.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 15, 2012 by wenglund

[thesometimesaint]

wengland:

Subtlety like a hammer is best not used where it isn't called for. Plus it just doesn't come across the internet unless it isn't subtle.

We LDS of all people, because of our history with polygamy, should be keenly aware of the problems generated when governments try to impose religion..

As they are leaders of a secular government. Which God(s) should our tax dollars go to support?

[Nathair/|\]

Far as I heard the, now, 2nd worst POTUS, Jimmy Carter, was an ordained Baptist minister. But I could be wrong.

So, James Buchanan who sent an army against the Saints because he didn't like their religion, then Carter, then...?

[Nathair/|\]

wengland:

As they are leaders of a secular government. Which God(s) should our tax dollars go to support?

Juno Moneta and Hermes, god of thieves?

[wenglund]

wengland:

Subtlety like a hammer is best not used where it isn't called for. Plus it just doesn't come across the internet unless it isn't subtle.

We LDS of all people, because of our history with polygamy, should be keenly aware of the problems generated when governments try to impose religion.

I think you have it exactly backwards. The supposed LDS problems generated by polygamy wasn't about the government imposing religion (though anti-bigamy laws may have been influenced by religious beliefs), but rather with the perceived infringement by the government upon the "free exercise" of an LDS religious practice (which we both agree that there should be a high and wide wall limiting the government in doing such). It had nothing to do with "establishment" clause (where we disagree on how high or wide the wall should separate religion from influencing the government).

Even still, I don't have a problem with the government, in very rare and exceptional cases, legislating against certain practices that may for some people, though not all, be religious in nature, such as animal and human sacrifice and marijuana smoking, and even polygamy for that matter, etc.. In these rare and exceptional cases, the government isn't so much restricting religious freedom as it is generically legislating against certain practices that happen to be engaged in by certain religions.

In short, your polygamy example serves only to re-enforce what we agree on (i.e. high and wide wall limiting government getting into religious business), and doesn't speak to what we disagree about (i.e. whether or not the wall separating religions from influencing and being involved in governmental business should be low and narrow or high and wide).

Care to try again?

As they are leaders of a secular government. Which God(s) should our tax dollars go to support?

I am not sure why you are asking me this since nothing I have said could reasonably be interpreted as suggesting I think tax dollars should go to support any God(s).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I oppose ANY attempt to inject religion into government,

You seemed to be in the minority then.

[Saints Alive]

Here is an interesting WIKI link on the subject:http: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_affiliations_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States

Garfield preached at camp revivals but never officially became a minister.

Carter was in fact an ordained deacon, not sure if that qualifies him though.

Romney would either be the First clergyman or the highest ranking depending on what you consider clergy.

Edited October 17, 2012 by Saints Alive