AmeliaBloomer
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,842
Location: USA
Jun 26, 2014 5:01:45 GMT
|
Post by AmeliaBloomer on Sept 23, 2015 1:15:15 GMT
Senator Tim Kaine was on NPR today, talking about Syria and Isis. At the end he was asked the de rigueur "Would you be comfortable with a Muslim president?" He answered "Absolutely," and then mentioned the challenges that Al Smith faced in 1928 as the first Catholic nominee. (His point was that the first Muslim candidate will have a rough road, but the second will have a much easier road.) My dad always spoke bitterly about anti-Catholicism during JFK's campaign, but I didn't know much about Al Smith, so I looked him up. Like JFK, there were lots of claims (often originating from Protestant pulpits) that Al Smith would get secret orders from the pope. It went further with Mr. Smth, though: there was widespread fear that the Pope would move to the United States (!) to rule over his "new realm." Some other examples: |
|
AmeliaBloomer
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,842
Location: USA
Jun 26, 2014 5:01:45 GMT
|
Post by AmeliaBloomer on Sept 23, 2015 1:18:29 GMT
  (Al Smith is the waiter on the right.) |
|
perumbula
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,439 
Location: Idaho
|
Post by perumbula on Sept 23, 2015 1:23:11 GMT
It's the same sort of garbage that Mitt Romney faced in 2008 and just slightly lessened in 2012. People fear new things. Maybe we will eventually reach a point as a society that we aren't automatically afraid of people who are different from ourselves. Wouldn't that be nice.
|
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Sept 23, 2015 7:09:24 GMT
Holy crap. I will never again say that no American president has been subjected to such vile bigotry as President Obama. Well, Smith didn't win the presidency, but let's say candidates, not just presidents. Unbelievable.
|
|
|
|
Post by nlwilkins on Sept 23, 2015 7:46:54 GMT
I remember the crap JFK had to go through. It was discussed in my living room when I was a child. I don't believe it went as far as mentioning the Pope moving to USA but there was doubt that he could be his own man and not the Pope's
Lies and innuendo will always be used as weapons in the political arena and it has nothing to do with new, but with win at any cost.
|
|
back to *pea*ality
Pearl Clutcher
Not my circus, not my monkeys ~refugee pea #59
Posts: 3,149
Jun 25, 2014 19:51:11 GMT
|
Post by back to *pea*ality on Sept 23, 2015 10:03:55 GMT
In the aftermath of WW2, I can't imagine that a Japanese American would have had a snowballs chance in hell of running for President. I remember when Joe Liberman ran for President discussions about his electability as a Jewish American and most recently with Mitt Romney being Mormon.
|
|
|
|
Post by anxiousmom on Sept 23, 2015 13:27:41 GMT
(on a side note: I am reading the recently released Presidents Daily Briefings and it was absolutely fascinating to read entries for the day about the USSR and Syria that almost specifically mirror what is happening today. Talk about learning your history so not repeat it...)
Back to the topic: Isn't it interesting to see that we don't have the market on fear mongering and nasty politics??
|
|
|
|
Post by ilikepink on Sept 23, 2015 14:13:25 GMT
While I knew JFK had gone through a lot, I didn't know about Smith. If that's what they had with only newspapers, can you imagine with all the social media we have now?  ? Why can't people realize that different is necessarily bad, just different. |
|
|
|
Post by snappinsami on Sept 23, 2015 14:18:12 GMT
Maybe we will eventually reach a point as a society that we aren't automatically afraid of people who are different from ourselves. Wouldn't that be nice. That's so good it was worth repeating. |
|
raindancer
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,095
|
Post by raindancer on Sept 23, 2015 15:23:09 GMT
I actually think that the concern about the Pope and the President of the US being influenced by him is a pretty legitimate concern. This is because the Pope is seen as the authority through which god communicates to the congregation. He is also a head of state. If a head of state is seen by the US President as having direct authority over him by God, and were he devout enough, that could influence his actions.
That is the same concern I had/have for Romney. I understand how the hierarchical structure works in the LDS church and while not a head of state, ultimately Romney believes the President of the LDS church holds the ultimate authority from God and were there to be something questionable, it would be a potential problem for those men who submit to another man with what they deem a higher power over them.
That's not to say that anyone in office is not going to be influenced, and a far greater concern, IMO, is the lobby and the power they wield over our politicians. The almighty dollar ultimately lords over our government leaders and so in the end it's not necessarily a deal breaker for me.
While I don't approve of the crazy rhetoric (particularly when one religious group is pointing their fingers at another, how absurd) I do not think the concern should be dismissed out of hand.
|
|
Montannie
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,486
Location: Big Sky Country
|
Post by Montannie on Sept 23, 2015 15:49:53 GMT
I actually think that the concern about the Pope and the President of the US being influenced by him is a pretty legitimate concern. This is because the Pope is seen as the authority through which god communicates to the congregation. He is also a head of state. If a head of state is seen by the US President as having direct authority over him by God, and were he devout enough, that could influence his actions. Your understanding of Catholicism is a little off. The Pope is the leader of the church; he makes no claims to being God's "telephone." I haven't heard any Pope claim he talks with God. Modern popes have issued very few "infallible" statements of faith; this Pope especially seems to understand the frailties of the human condition: "Who am I to judge?" I don't know for sure what you mean by the Pope "having direct authority over him by God". Do you believe Catholics must obey the Pope? The Pope is a spiritual leader, and also the head of one of the smallest countries in the world. I am not sure what actions he could compel in another Catholic, outside of church-related matters of faith. As President, you swear an oath to uphold the Constitution, not the Catholic church. Your personal religious views may shape your political postures, but you don't owe "allegiance" to the church in the same way. And now that I've gassed on about that, I've confused myself, too. |
|
raindancer
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,095
|
Post by raindancer on Sept 23, 2015 16:56:14 GMT
I actually think that the concern about the Pope and the President of the US being influenced by him is a pretty legitimate concern. This is because the Pope is seen as the authority through which god communicates to the congregation. He is also a head of state. If a head of state is seen by the US President as having direct authority over him by God, and were he devout enough, that could influence his actions. Your understanding of Catholicism is a little off. The Pope is the leader of the church; he makes no claims to being God's "telephone." I haven't heard any Pope claim he talks with God. Modern popes have issued very few "infallible" statements of faith; this Pope especially seems to understand the frailties of the human condition: "Who am I to judge?" I don't know for sure what you mean by the Pope "having direct authority over him by God". Do you believe Catholics must obey the Pope? The Pope is a spiritual leader, and also the head of one of the smallest countries in the world. I am not sure what actions he could compel in another Catholic, outside of church-related matters of faith. As President, you swear an oath to uphold the Constitution, not the Catholic church. Your personal religious views may shape your political postures, but you don't owe "allegiance" to the church in the same way. And now that I've gassed on about that, I've confused myself, too. Fair enough. My understanding is that the Pope is the ultimate authority on the doctrine of your church. Along with being a head of state with access to the Presidents ear, I still see that as a conflict of interest. As for the LDS church, the prophet/president is considered the direct mouthpiece of god and when speaking as a prophet is considered to be infallible*. (This is debatable if you go back in time far enough) So with regard to an LDS member as the president, the idea that there is an infallible mouthpiece of god (in their view) that would have the ear of the President of the US is concerning to me. But as I said, the lobby is likely a far worse foe and this isn't my deal breaker. What would I like to see? A humanist/atheist in office. But since we are worse than a Muslim in the court of public opinion, I can't see that happening. |
|
AmeliaBloomer
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,842
Location: USA
Jun 26, 2014 5:01:45 GMT
|
Post by AmeliaBloomer on Sept 23, 2015 21:25:12 GMT
Fair enough. My understanding is that the Pope is the ultimate authority on the doctrine of your church. Along with being a head of state with access to the Presidents ear, I still see that as a conflict of interest.. Answer from someone irredeemably lapsed, but Catholic-educated: Actually, a pope usually has the ear of many heads of state. Last year he called the leaders of Israel and Palestine, pleading for peace. He inserts himself into issues like human rights, immigration, war, poverty, and hunger. (And today: climate change.) In these cases, he is speaking neither for God nor as the head of a city-state, but offering opinion as the spiritual leader of the Roman Catholic Church. He has no authority to demand; he is not an emissary of God. Even in matters of doctrine, it's not like Catholic doctrine changes often...or ever. A Catholic politician has known the Church's stance on "life" issues (birth control, abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research) all his life. Like any leader, he has decided how his personal/religious code informs his personal views v. his policy views. A telephone call from the pope isn't going to change that. (Plus, Americans have the reputation of being "Cafeteria Catholics.") Could a pope remind a Catholic president about doctrine or sin? Sure, just as a minister or rabbi (as representatives of much more decentralized hierarchies) could remind their respective presidents. Free choice is a basic tenet of all those religions. Papal infallibility has rarely been invoked. In modern times, it's been used for declarations about the assumption of Mary and the immaculate conception of Mary - not exactly grist for phone calls to POTUS. (This isn't bad for an Answers.com answer: Does the pope speak for God? ) |
|
Montannie
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,486
Location: Big Sky Country
|
Post by Montannie on Sept 23, 2015 21:33:44 GMT
Thanks AmeliaBloomer. That is an excellent summary of what I was trying to say. |
|
AmeliaBloomer
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,842
Location: USA
Jun 26, 2014 5:01:45 GMT
|
Post by AmeliaBloomer on Sept 23, 2015 21:58:57 GMT
Thanks AmeliaBloomer. That is an excellent summary of what I was trying to say. You're welcome. Can't keep all that stuff the Jesuits taught me cooped up. (I thought about explaining that the growing group of American "fundamentalist" or "orthodox" Catholics, who are veddy, veddy conservative and think modernism is heresy, have held a pretty dim view of the last five (conservative!) popes...which counters the "obey the pope" narrative in a truly ironic way, huh? Oh, I guess I just explained it!) |
|
raindancer
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,095
|
Post by raindancer on Sept 23, 2015 23:17:08 GMT
Fair enough. My understanding is that the Pope is the ultimate authority on the doctrine of your church. Along with being a head of state with access to the Presidents ear, I still see that as a conflict of interest.. Answer from someone irredeemably lapsed, but Catholic-educated: Actually, a pope usually has the ear of many heads of state. Last year he called the leaders of Israel and Palestine, pleading for peace. He inserts himself into issues like human rights, immigration, war, poverty, and hunger. (And today: climate change.) In these cases, he is speaking neither for God nor as the head of a city-state, but offering opinion as the spiritual leader of the Roman Catholic Church. He has no authority to demand; he is not an emissary of God. Even in matters of doctrine, it's not like Catholic doctrine changes often...or ever. A Catholic politician has known the Church's stance on "life" issues (birth control, abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research) all his life. Like any leader, he has decided how his personal/religious code informs his personal views v. his policy views. A telephone call from the pope isn't going to change that. (Plus, Americans have the reputation of being "Cafeteria Catholics.") Could a pope remind a Catholic president about doctrine or sin? Sure, just as a minister or rabbi (as representatives of much more decentralized hierarchies) could remind their respective presidents. Free choice is a basic tenet of all those religions. Papal infallibility has rarely been invoked. In modern times, it's been used for declarations about the assumption of Mary and the immaculate conception of Mary - not exactly grist for phone calls to POTUS. (This isn't bad for an Answers.com answer: Does the pope speak for God? ) Thanks.for the info. The difference for me is having the ear of a leader from a different faith background is not the same. If the lds prophet wanted to.speak to me about something I can respect that wish without having any concern about where he thinks my eternal.soul is heading. Just as a Catholic likely doesn't much care if a Muslim thinks they aren't getting to heaven. If the body of the Catholic Church doesn't view him as infallible let or as a mouthpiece to god then I would not have as many reservations about them. |
|
|
|
Post by femalebusiness on Sept 23, 2015 23:39:51 GMT
Very interesting. Thanks for posting that. I didn't know about Al Smith but I was in Junior High School when Kennedy was running. My very Presbyterian parents were scared spit-less that if Kennedy won the Pope would rule the country. Humans are funny creatures.
|
|
|
|
Post by Karene on Sept 24, 2015 0:40:24 GMT
Canada has had many Catholic Prime Ministers and they are just leaders like any non Catholic. Their religious beliefs do not run their politics. They join the party that best suits their values. The pope has not been calling the Prime Ministers with any regularity, so I wouldn't think that the pope would be calling a Catholic U.S. president that much. Did the pope call JFK much?
|
|
|
|
Post by marykate on Sept 24, 2015 3:42:05 GMT
I actually think that the concern about the Pope and the President of the US being influenced by him is a pretty legitimate concern. This is because the Pope is seen as the authority through which god communicates to the congregation. He is also a head of state. If a head of state is seen by the US President as having direct authority over him by God, and were he devout enough, that could influence his actions. That is the same concern I had/have for Romney. I understand how the hierarchical structure works in the LDS church and while not a head of state, ultimately Romney believes the President of the LDS church holds the ultimate authority from God and were there to be something questionable, it would be a potential problem for those men who submit to another man with what they deem a higher power over them. That's not to say that anyone in office is not going to be influenced, and a far greater concern, IMO, is the lobby and the power they wield over our politicians. The almighty dollar ultimately lords over our government leaders and so in the end it's not necessarily a deal breaker for me. While I don't approve of the crazy rhetoric (particularly when one religious group is pointing their fingers at another, how absurd) I do not think the concern should be dismissed out of hand. Do you think that the Vatican held sway over John F. Kennedy when JFK was President of the United States? Or that Mitt Romney was governing through the elders of the LDS church when he served as Governor of Massachusetts? I don't believe there is any credible evidence to support either of the above. But I think you are right to note the power and undue influence that the monied and corporate interests exert over today's politicians. This is an issue that crosses party lines: Americans from across the political spectrum (Republicans, Democrats, and everyone else, everyone in between) are fed up with the power of the lobbyists, and are rendered cynical, I believe, by the seeming intractibility of the problem. Al Smith was absolutely savaged by his anti-Catholic opponents. He had expected some anti-Catholicism, of course, but was not prepared for the extreme vilification that he faced. Apparently he never got over it. The Holland Tunnel as a road to Rome just makes me laugh (but this was an assertion that was made seriously, if in hyper-paranoid fashion, in 1927-28). The last time I drove through that tunnel (about a month ago), I felt lucky to find myself in Manhattan (coming from Jersey City) after about 45 minutes of stress and frustration: the traffic is so heavy and clogged and slow-moving! but there's always that one guy who thinks it's a good idea to change lanes underneath a tunnel... |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 7, 2024 19:10:24 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2015 4:53:43 GMT
My oh so very Irish catholic family didn't want the Kennedys in power. But not for being influenced by the pope. More for being influenced by the mob.
I am not an expert and am fuzzy about this, but doesn't the lds believe that their laws supersede the government?
|
|
raindancer
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,095
|
Post by raindancer on Sept 24, 2015 6:00:51 GMT
I actually think that the concern about the Pope and the President of the US being influenced by him is a pretty legitimate concern. This is because the Pope is seen as the authority through which god communicates to the congregation. He is also a head of state. If a head of state is seen by the US President as having direct authority over him by God, and were he devout enough, that could influence his actions. That is the same concern I had/have for Romney. I understand how the hierarchical structure works in the LDS church and while not a head of state, ultimately Romney believes the President of the LDS church holds the ultimate authority from God and were there to be something questionable, it would be a potential problem for those men who submit to another man with what they deem a higher power over them. That's not to say that anyone in office is not going to be influenced, and a far greater concern, IMO, is the lobby and the power they wield over our politicians. The almighty dollar ultimately lords over our government leaders and so in the end it's not necessarily a deal breaker for me. While I don't approve of the crazy rhetoric (particularly when one religious group is pointing their fingers at another, how absurd) I do not think the concern should be dismissed out of hand. Do you think that the Vatican held sway over John F. Kennedy when JFK was President of the United States? Or that Mitt Romney was governing through the elders of the LDS church when he served as Governor of Massachusetts? I don't believe there is any credible evidence to support either of the above. But I think you are right to note the power and undue influence that the monied and corporate interests exert over today's politicians. This is an issue that crosses party lines: Americans from across the political spectrum (Republicans, Democrats, and everyone else, everyone in between) are fed up with the power of the lobbyists, and are rendered cynical, I believe, by the seeming intractibility of the problem. Al Smith was absolutely savaged by his anti-Catholic opponents. He had expected some anti-Catholicism, of course, but was not prepared for the extreme vilification that he faced. Apparently he never got over it. The Holland Tunnel as a road to Rome just makes me laugh (but this was an assertion that was made seriously, if in hyper-paranoid fashion, in 1927-28). The last time I drove through that tunnel (about a month ago), I felt lucky to find myself in Manhattan (coming from Jersey City) after about 45 minutes of stress and frustration: the traffic is so heavy and clogged and slow-moving! but there's always that one guy who thinks it's a good idea to change lanes underneath a tunnel... I don't know about JFK, but after learning more, I suspect it's not very likely. Mitt Romney as governor? Probably not that important. Moving into the role of leader of the free world is a whole new ballgame. And when you have a man, such as Romney, who believes that another man is the actual prophet of god, the mouthpiece of god with the ability to have continuing revelation from a supreme being that Romney believes in, well the potential is absolutely there. I don't agree with vilification, harassment, outright lies, and anti-anything. (Though usually anyone opposed to a viewpoint of a church is considered "anti" which is pretty meaningless). And again, for me, it's not a thing. I'm an atheist, so no one shares my pov in the land of politics at this point in time. I always have to vote for someone who is religious in some way or another. So as I said it's all silly to me. The finger pointing at each other about which religion is worse. |
|
raindancer
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,095
|
Post by raindancer on Sept 24, 2015 6:03:19 GMT
My oh so very Irish catholic family didn't want the Kennedys in power. But not for being influenced by the pope. More for being influenced by the mob. I am not an expert and am fuzzy about this, but doesn't the lds believe that their laws supersede the government? I don't know that they would say that. I think Joseph Smith (the founder of the church) would have said that. But not today. |
|
Dalai Mama
Drama Llama
La Pea Boheme
Posts: 6,985
Jun 26, 2014 0:31:31 GMT
|
Post by Dalai Mama on Sept 24, 2015 13:08:43 GMT
Meh. There was a lot of back and forth between PM Paul Martin and Pope Benedict when Canada was passing the Civil Marriage Act. There was even talk of them denying him the sacrament of communion but his priest refused to toe the party line. My point is, just because some leaders refused to be influenced, doesn't mean the Church doesn't try.
|
|
|
|
Post by melanell on Sept 24, 2015 18:17:17 GMT
When I first heard the question about being comfortable with a Muslim president, my first thought was of the hullabaloo over a Catholic president.
|
|
?
