Religion And Politics

Tomorrow there will be voting in primaries across the country in what the press calls "super Tuesday". Later that night the political pundits will have a pretty good idea of the party nominees for the next presidential election. Perhaps the races for either party will be close enough that an actual decision will not be made until the political conventions are held later this year. Right now the two remaining contenders for the Democrats are Clinton and Obama, and the two strongest showing Republicans candidates are McCain and Romney, with Huckabee far behind in 3rd. I have felt for the last year that Clinton will end up both representing the Democrats and being elected as the first woman president, but I don't claim to be a prophet. The strong showing for Obama has surprised me. This week he also picked up the Ted and Caroline Kennedy Camelot mantle, which may help him do miracles, or it may give him the power of invisibility, which is not a good thing for a politician

-

I remember Camelot. My first actual blog type posting was a little newspaper I produced for my family at around age 10, with the first issue having the headline; "Kennedy Wins!" My dad had previously voted for Eisenhower but his parents were life long Democrats. He said that when he grew up the word Republican was always preceded by the adjective "dirty". As a Catholic he was delighted to vote for Kennedy, and while our family didn't have a picture of JFK displayed next to the Pope, it was certainly a matter of pride for us. I can clearly remember being in art class in 8th grade at St. Francis de Sales on a Friday afternoon when Sister Mary Kenneth came in to announce that the President had been shot. Our whole family stayed glued in front of the television for the whole weekend. We saw Jackie arriving back to Washington, Ruby getting shot, and little Caroline and John John walking with their still shocked mother behind the horse drawn cassion, heading for the capitol building. I also remember my feeling of grief and sorrow for the Kennedy family some years later when Teddy Kennedy gave the eulogy for his slain brother Bobby. JFK, Martin Luther King, RFK, Kent State, each death made me wonder how our society would end up.

-

But time and facts have a way of demystifying some of our heroes. Our family business use to have a showroom on the 17th floor at the Merchandise Mart in Chicago, a huge building where over 25,000 people work. The Mart was owned by Joseph Kennedy Sr., who made part of his fortune during the depression because he had a legal loophole to sell alcohol for "medicinal" purposes. My take on the matter is that he realized that being in politics would also be good for business, and although he was able to become an US ambassador, there apparently were enough things in his background that contributed to limiting his political ambitions. Thus he encouraged his children to seek public office. And the age and good looks of JFK and his family, their style and progressive politics, especially in the opposition to segregation and the vision for jumping the technological hurdle to put a man on the moon, will always be remembered fondly. Thus we tend to ignore that he laid the foundation for US escalation in Viet Nam (not saying that was necessarily bad), was considered by our allies to be naive and inept in foreign affairs (sound familiar?), and had a private moral compass that far out reached even the desires of our last Democratic President. Be that as it may, it was not because one was Catholic or the other was a Baptist with a well worn Bible in their oval office desk that made them fit or not fit to be our President. I don't know what part prayer or a relationship with God, or even their religious affiliation contributed to their world view or shaped their decision making. The Catholic was for a strict seperation of church and state, and the one with the big Bible was for unlimited abortion, same sex marriage, liberal Supreme Court Justices, while also encouraging Israel to give up land for peace.

-

Our country has had Presidents that were Episcopilation (11), Presbyterian (10), Methodist (4), Baptist (4), Unitarian (4), Disciples of Christ (3), Congregationalist (2), Quaker (2), Dutch Reformed (2), Catholic (1) and Jehovah's Witness (1) (Eisenhower, who became Presbyterian soon after his 1st inauguration). Jefferson was a deist and Lincoln did not claim a denomination. Many of these men, including Washington, and in recent history FDR, Truman, LBJ, and Ford, were also members, and some quite high leaders, of Masonic lodges. I will not go so far as to see a vast conspiracy here. I think that lodge membership was the type of thing that many wealthy and/or ambitious men saw as a way to advance their financial and/or political careers. Yet it really bothers me that there are occult symbols throughout everything Masonic, and that various Egyptian and other false gods are honored, with oaths given, through each step of advancement. I believe that evil spirits hang around those symbols, that involking those names give them certain legal rights to latch onto anyone who does so, and that family members in the next generations may inherit problems related to those same spirits. Most of the churches listed above have warnings about occult involvment, and many of the men involved may have belonged to a church for the same reason they belonged to a lodge. Perhaps they actually were ignorant of the spiritual dangers involved with their activities. At least I hope so.

-

There are a number of considerations that I look at when deciding who to support for President. Economics is extremely important, but it is not my hot button issue, unless some other things are equal. I consider the cause for the advancement of the rights of the unborn to be as important as was the long struggle to eliminate the barbarism of slavery. And I see our country in a huge struggle to redefine what is normal for family and morals. Thus, even though I am more in favor of Republican economic and national security policies, I would vote for a committed pro-life and socially conservative Democratic canidate over a Ford or Reagan or GHW Bush wishy-washy social conservative any day. But those Democrats must have their own invisibility mantle. I believe that our country will reap what they sow as far as who they support in regards to moral character. I also believe that our country needs to support the nation of Israel. While it is true that most of their population is secular, that does not cancel out my belief that God made an eternal promise to the Jewish people, giving them the rights to an area of land, part of which was returned to them in 1948, and again in 1967. I know we also have to be concerned for the social needs of the so called Palestinians, who suffer mainly because of the Muslim desire to eliminate the nation of Israel. Their on going poverty is a direct result of the desire of those nations and terror organizations to keep them that way, as a leverage against Israel. I believe that each time our government presses Israel to surrender land for peace, God lowers his shield of protection over our country for a while, despite our long-standing overall support for that country. I might be overly influenced by my theological views concerning the Jewish nation and end time prophecy, but it is my feeling that our countrie's current tottering on the edge of recession is partly accounted for by our president's call for a Palestinian state by the end of this year.

-

I find it curious that in this point of our history, while we are at war against a radical Muslim religious system that wants to destroy not only Israel, but our country and our way of life as well, that we have an attractive Presidential candidate with a Muslim surname. I know he belongs to a (liberal) Christian denomination and would probably view the separation of church and state as strongly as Kennedy, but it's interesting. Although his policies are against everything I've listed above (not sure on Israel, but the Obama name does give me pause), I still think it is terrific that our country can have a viable black canidate for President. I also think it is great that we can have a viable woman canidate, although she happens to be more liberal than her husband who appointed the ultra liberal Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the Supreme Court. With the other party we have the thorn-in-the-side to conservatives McCain. I know that he has been on the pro-life side for quite a while, but is considered a moderate, although strong on national security. At this point I am not well enough informed on what moderate might mean in regards to his other social positions. I like Huckabee quite a bit, but it would take a miracle for him to get the nomination. Commentators believe he is staying in the race to set himself up to be a vice-presidential canidate, but I wonder if he might be staying around partly to split conservative support, taking in the process votes away from Romney. Romney comes from a socially conservative religious culture (if you ignor the historical ties to pologamy), and he now claims to be a pro-life supporter. His position on Israel is not clear to me, but since his religion teaches that Jesus will return to Zion, Missouri instead of Jerusalem, Israel, I have some serious doubts there.

-

The question that has been banging around in my head this past week is; Considering that I cannot place a vote for someone who supports abortion on demand, including partial-birth abortion, and who would also favor policies that I believe weaken the traditional family structure, and who would most certainly appoint liberal justices throughout the system that will do a lot of their dirty work for them for years to come - could I then vote for Romney if he indeed does become a candidate for our nation's highest office? And here is what bothers me. Romney is a member in good standing in the Mormon religion, and that religion carries with it a mindset of deception that began with the circumstances of its very beginning, and which carries through even to today. The religion was created by a man, Joseph Smith Jr., who came from a family that was heavily involved with occult practices, who incorporated occult practices and symbolism into the activities of that religion, who communicated with demonic spirits, and who had at least 30 wives, many of them quite young and many who were still married to other men. He encouraged his other followers to engage in this adultery and pologamy, but they would only legally record one marriage with the State, an example of the incorporation of deception into the fabric of the religion. Most of the first followers of Smith were also heavily involved in the occult, as was Bringham Young, who became the Mormon leader after Smith was killed in 1844. Young moved most of the followers to the Utah territority and saw to the design and construction of the early Mormon temples, the first being the current one in Salt Lake City. This temple has many occult symbols, and the temple ceremonies have many Masonic/occult featurres. Almost no one could advance in leadership positions in the church of the Latter Day Saints (LDS) without having "plural" marriages, with incestuous arraignments not unheard of. This officially continued until 1890, when wanting to become a state the LDS leaders "agreed" to end the practice. Privately it was still encouraged by the leadership at least until 1915 or 1920, and perhaps even much longer than that.

-

As a young man Joseph Smith Jr. and his father engaged in something called money digging. This was a combination of folk magic and scamming, the purpose being to make people think there was something of value which could be found by Mr. Smith, who, being paid the proper amount, would make an animal sacrifice to confuse the guardian evil spirit over the treasure, then gaze into his sear stone, finding perhaps enough so the person would pay again, hoping to find more. There was a term in that day which was applied to them, called "juggling", which is defined as "manipulating and practicing deceit in order to achieve a desired end". I believe the formation of the LDS scriptures are a result of both the influence of evil spirits as well as the practice of juggling. Most of the inspiration for the stories found in the Book of Mormon, or the Pearl of Great Price, as well as many of the theological ideas incorporated into the Documents and Covenants, can be traced to writings that came from within a 50 mile range from where Smith lived, or from ideas, theories, or beliefs that were common in the time and area he lived. And if there was a problem with what he claimed an angel or God told him (could be either because there are at least 3 documented versions of his first vision, a keystone belief for most Mormons), it was revised, without objection from his followers. One of his biggest tricks (see the serpent's question to Eve in Genesis 3 - "Did God say?") was to claim the Bible as a Mormon sacred scripture and then announcing that all translations and interpretations of those translations could be corrupt, and would only be correctly understood by God's prophet (meaning Joseph Smith Jr. and his successors). So even today, revelation from Joseph Smith can be revised because God can speak to the reigning prophet (president/apostle), trumping any past revelation. That is why polygamy and the idea that blacks are a cursed race could later be changed (at least "offically").

-

Today the LDS officially condems occult practices. The problem is that they engage in many things that I would consider occult, but they do not define as such. Examples would be the symbols in and on the temples, and temple clothing, and the objects and words used in the temple ceremonies. Perhaps there are common tailsmans, to protect against evil spirits. They claim that the Book of Mormon has a "familiar spirit", but do not see anything wrong with that. I have a niece who took her kids to play with some kids from a Mormon family. They came back saying that those kids had a spirit pet that they played with in the basement. When Mormons say that they listen to the spirit, they are not talking about the same Holy Spirit that I would. When Mormons say that salvation only comes through Jesus, they all know that Mormonism defines Jesus and God the Father much differently than traditional Christianity does. Salvation for a Mormon also has a totally different meaning than with other Christian traditions. I do admire the idea of enabling young men and women to go out into the world for missions. But they initially disguise the true meaning of their spiritual language to Christians in order to gain acceptance, and also to convice people that they too can become like God the Father, and someday rule their own planets and maybe even their own universes. They believe that their status in the next life will be enhanced by you becoming a Mormon. Mormonism is intentionally deceptive to the outside world in order to juggle you.

-

Perhaps this is what bothers me about Romney. He is known for changing and shaping his views to best appeal to the people who might vote for him. True, other politicans are known to do the same. And in this regard I believe there are evil spiritual beings that help manauver many men and women into positions of authority. I have a feeling that there is a particularly strong spirit involved with Mormonism, which has been wanting to push someone to a critical position in our country for a long time. Romney's father was a popular governor of our fair State of Michigan, who became a top contender for the Republican nomination, until he changed his position on a certain issue. When asked why he previously supported a position that was now unpopular, he claimed that he had been "brainwashed". Needless to say, after Johnny Carson got hold of that, the country decided that it really didn't want a President who could so easily be brainwashed. Well, that strong spirit is back, and the problem for me is not that Mormonism is not really Christian, but that I think the odds are great for that strong spirit to have influence on the affairs of our country if Romney is elected.