Gov. Rick Perry of Texas called on Jesus to bless and guide the nation’s military and political leaders and “those who cannot see the light in the midst of all the darkness.”
“Lord, you are the source of every good thing,” Mr. Perry said, as he bowed his head, closed his eyes and leaned into a microphone at Reliant Stadium here. “You are our only hope, and we stand before you today in awe of your power and in gratitude for your blessings, and humility for our sins. Father, our heart breaks for America. We see discord at home. We see fear in the marketplace. We see anger in the halls of government, and as a nation we have forgotten who made us, who protects us, who blesses us, and for that we cry out for your forgiveness.”
In a 13-minute address, Mr. Perry read several passages from the Bible during a prayer rally he sponsored. Thousands of people stood or kneeled in the aisles or on the concrete floor in front of the stage, some wiping away tears and some shouting, “Amen!”
While the event will be sure to help Mr. Perry if he tries to establish himself as the religious right’s favored candidate, it also opens him up to criticism for mixing religion and politics in such a grand and overtly Christian fashion.
My opinion is this. It's very important to Christians that Perry or anybody else running for President be sincere. There's no reason of course to assume otherwise just because he's a politician. What would aggravate me about this would be to hear the left jump in and mock him for believing in Jesus or asserting his right to practice his faith. If the left has to attack him for his actual policies then that's politics as usual, but don't mock religion in the process just to make liberals and atheists happy.
After all mocking isn't allowed in the media for the left's protected groups so to mock the beliefs of Christians to make a political point is majorly hypocritical of liberals who get offended at just about everything in the known universe. __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 08 Aug 2011 19:05
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 391
Join Date: Nov 2009
Actually I don't think it's the christian message so much as some of the more extreme belifes of some of the prayer attendees.
Obama has spoken personally about his deep religious faith often, and it's never hurt his electability, so just speaking and praying won't hurt Perry, it's the people he surrounds himself with who say think the pope is the antichrist, or Obama is the anticrhist, or the emporer of japan slept with a sun demon and that's why their economy is hurting.
People get unesay by such bold statements that sound so close to craziness. Sure love and light and foot prints in the sand, and all the kind of stuff you get in most mega churches, they're actually quite middle of the road, but you start hanging out with folks that want to make bold statments about what other people believe, then you kind of find yourself in a rough spot.
Posted: 09 Aug 2011 14:57
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
Oh, so the Reverend Wright never ever said anything controversial the 20 years Obama went there? Please Matches. __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 10 Aug 2011 05:51
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 391
Join Date: Nov 2009
Yes, the reverend Wright said some controversial things (nothing quite on par with calling the pope the anti-christ, but I'll go along) and Obama pushed him under the bus.
That's what a politician does when someone says "hey that guy your standing next to is a nut", but here Perry is buddying up to them, so he's dead in the water after this because were he to toss these guys under the bus he would have had to have done so before.
Catholics as a group are particularly sensitive to the whole Antichrist accusation, and losing their vote is not something any republican can afford.
So basicly Obama went to Wright's church for 20 years and feigned ignorance on his more controversial statements, and when those statements where drug out, he disassociated himself from him. Perry had been called out on this even before he started running, so it's unlikely he's going to be able to push them under the bus (the way McCain did similarly with his "spiritual advisor")with the same effectiveness.
And all things being equal, attacking Catholics (a key constituancy for Republicans on the pro life side)is very differnt than attacking Hillary Clinton or making statements about the U.S.'s responsibilty for 9/11. Wright's comments just didn't cover a significantly large enough group of his constituancy to cause many lingering feelings once he kicked Wright to the curb. It's going to be harder for Perry to woo Catholics after the fact because it is such a key group. I honestly feel that McCain's anticatholic problem (while not costing him the election) cost him dearly. Even when you kick someone to the curb, if they attacked a key part of your base, you're going to have a hard time earning back that trust.
The worst part for Republicans about Catholics is that while they do have a strong pro-life stance, they fail on the social justice aspect of Catholicism. When life is key Catholics can vote republican but you go around calling us a bunch of devil worshipers and that's going to remind us that we have that obligation towards social justice.
That of course isn't uniform, but it is something that Republicans have to worry about.
Posted: 10 Aug 2011 18:34
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
Where does the article say someone called the Pope an anti-christ? __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 10 Aug 2011 20:06
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 391
Join Date: Nov 2009
Well I doubt your article would say that. No one at the event said that I'm sure. Jeramiah write never said any of his controversial stuff to Obama's face either (that we know of). But those at the event are well documented to have made just such statements. It's not about what you say when the cameras are rolling, most folks know to be on their best behavior then, it's when they don't think outsiders are watching that these troubles begin.
Posted: 11 Aug 2011 15:28
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
Well I heard Wright said those things in front of a lot of people. Check it out.
Quote: But those at the event are well documented to have made just such statements.
Ok, I don't want to be too pushy, but who? Where did you read that at? Is is possible you just assumed they hated the Pope.
I'm sure there were people in the audience that might have said that, but if you go to any audience that is big enough you are going to find people with opinions you think are wild. I mean come on did somebody interview everyone in the audience till they found a good quote that would sell papers? __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 11 Aug 2011 16:42
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 391
Join Date: Nov 2009
Hagge is the man in question:
Here's a LINK to an admitadly partisan take on the story.
Mr. Hagge has cleaned up his act a bit since he ran afoul with McCain, but I'd say the bad feelings still linger with many, and it won't take much to drag them up again.
Perry's other friends hereare less anticatholic but stil likely will raise more than a few eyebrows.
Posted: 11 Aug 2011 17:25
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote: O’Donnell didn’t need to introduce Hagee as a new figure, but did give his audience a refresher course on what Hagee has said, including describing the Holocaust as God’s plan to get Jewish people back to Israel. “Because Rick Perry has invited Hagee to his prayer event, the idiotic governor of Texas now owns that Hagee quote.
Well takes a look at that quote without having the benefit of hearing it in context. Since he's big into prophecy I bet he meant it in regards to Biblical prophecy. Not like God hates Israel and he wanted to kill people.
Second of all Hagee is known as a big supporter of Israel. He's even written an entire book called In Defense of Israel.
So you could take some of his quotes and come across with something that sounds terrible, but if you look at the man's view point as a whole it appears that he's not anti-jewish. In fact he is a crusader for Israel.
In the case of Wright, the man clearly hold prejudiced feelings toward white people. He clearly blames America for every ill effecting the world today. __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 11 Aug 2011 18:09
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 391
Join Date: Nov 2009
Well actually it's the anti-Catholic stuff that's a problem not the anti-Jewish stuff.
And to put is simply, Nothing Jeramiah Write said was really that controversial IN Context, heck even Jery Fallwell had said the chickens had come home to roost after 9/11 (though he saw america's permissive culture as the cause, he caught the same flack Wright got for God Damn America).
It's the out of context stuff that causes people problems because
A) few people really ever get the context
and
B) even those who get the context will often not give the person speaking the benefit of the doubt, and think that although he can explain it in retrospect he meant it just as it sounded.
This isn't partisan, this is just the reality of politics, and Haggee already has a reputation for spouting off stuff that makes people think he hates Catholics (or at least the Church proper) so why even associate yourself with him?
If a guy like Perry makes a bone headed move like this so early, you can bet there will be lots more.
Posted: 15 Aug 2011 16:37
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
Personally, I don't think he hates Catholics. I bet he hates the teachings of the Catholic church which to me is normal for a protestant. __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 16 Aug 2011 06:27
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 391
Join Date: Nov 2009
Quote: Personally, I don't think he hates Catholics. I bet he hates the teachings of the Catholic church which to me is normal for a protestant.
And saying that outloud will pretty much gaurantee you won't get elected president. And standing next to someone who is saying it won't do you any favors, especially if you are trying to convince people you're the "normal candidate".
Just to put it into persepctive, imagine someone saying "I don't hate Jews, just the teachings of Juedaism" Now, imagine that rather than Jews making up 2% of the electorate they made up 25%. Even if a bunch of people secretly agreed with you, or could appreciate the subtle differnce in the statement, the fact that you just attacked the beliefs 1/4 of the electorate (where a large number of your natural allies in the prolife movement hang out) just isn't a good strategy.
Posted: 16 Aug 2011 16:37
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
The candidate didn't say he hated the views of catholics. I think people allow that your supporters can have views that you yourself don't have unless you go to that supporters church for 20 years.
There's nothing controversial or new about a protestant preacher not agreeing with catholic doctrine. I'm pretty sure most catholics know that already. Still I wouldn't be surprised if Perry doesn't have a lot of catholics as supporters too that don't like protestant doctrine. I think in the end though you are going to see catholics and protestants rally around Perry.
I'm keeping an open mind about him till I hear more about him. I like his basic principles and what little I've heard from him so far. He sounds very conservative. __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 16 Aug 2011 16:45
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 391
Join Date: Nov 2009
It's not a personal judgement Tim, it's just a political reality. I love how we've gone from hatred to just not agreeing on doctrinal niceties.
When you hold a prayer event, and invite a guy who calls the pope the anti-christ, that is going to come back to bite you.
We'll see how it plays out, of course, but to act like it will have no effect, well that's just silly.
Posted: 16 Aug 2011 16:50
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
If Obama can sit under a pastor for 20 years, which shows he undoubtedly believes most of what that pastor says, can win election then just having a supporter with politically incorrect statements means nothing. __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 16 Aug 2011 18:09
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 391
Join Date: Nov 2009
Well, I think you are missing the key point of the argument (intentionally?).
It's not about, "This guy's preacher is an odd ball". It's about, this guy's preacher is anti-catholic.
It is about demographics and the insensitivity that is perceived by that demographic when a guy like Perry allies himself with such a person.
As an example, I'm sure all these guys have all sorts of nasty things to say about atheists and muslims too, but you know what, neither is a big enough demographic to really worry Perry. Catholics aren't a tiny group. They are 1/4 of the electorate, and have broken for the eventual leader in a very large number of our past elections.
Going back to Jeramiah Write doesn't help Perry on this. Write didn't say Catholics worshiped the devil, he didn't spout Chick Track clap trap, he wasn't individually offensive to a key demographic as a whole.
It's a key differnce, and that's the rub.
Posted: 16 Aug 2011 20:53
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
Matches you wouldn't call America a big demographic? When somebody says gd America it sure as heck offends me. __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 17 Aug 2011 06:38
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 391
Join Date: Nov 2009
America isn't a demographic, it's a country. And I'm sure if Jeramiah Write said God is good, it would offend you for him not saying God is great.
I think what we have here is a qualitative differnce of someone saying something that opponants of a candidate took offense at, and someone saying something that supporters of a candidate may take offense at.
And, let's go one step further here. Let's say that Jeramiah Write was just as problematic and controversial for the Whole of America as Haggee is for Catholics. Obama threw Write under the bus to try and distance himself from the man, Perry ivited the guy to his rally to give a speech.
That's the difference. One candidate activly distanced himself from a controversial aquaintance, the other is embracing him.
I don't think Jeramiah Write has been invited to the White House, Haggee, after being drummed out of the McCain Campaign for these exact same allegations, got an invite to Perry's event.
So, think about it like this, it's 2016 and a Democrat as part of his big roll out of his campaign has Jeramiah Write give a key note speech on his behalf. Do you think that would be seen as a wise bold move, or a stupid politiclaly tone deaf move?
Think about that for a while and get back to me.
Posted: 18 Aug 2011 18:52
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote: Obama threw Write under the bus to try and distance himself from the man
Really, I must have missed that one. How did he throw him under the bus? __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 19 Aug 2011 00:32 Last Edited By: Matches
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 391
Join Date: Nov 2009
He left his church, denounced his comments and hasn't spoken with the man since...really, watch the news some time (not just Fox), there is a whole world out there Tim.
Posted: 19 Aug 2011 20:30
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
At the risk of sounding like pak, do you got any proof?
For the sake of argument lets say that you are right, what about the 20 years he sat listening to that kind of crap over and over again. Are we to believe Obama sleeps through church every Sunday? __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 19 Aug 2011 21:47
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 391
Join Date: Nov 2009
Irrelevant. He got elected, so clearly "we" the electorate accepted his mea culpa.
Either that or Wright's statements weren't that controversial to the majority of Americans.
Now clearly you don't think Hagee's statemnets are controversial, but I think most Catholics, even non practicing ones will think they are. Meaning Perry either has to provide an adequate mea culpa for the electorate to accept (the longer he goes the harder it is), or he has to hope those who are offended wouldn't have voted for him any way or are a small enough group (25% of the elctorate?) to not matter.
It's not a question of "so's your oldman" it's a question of whether or not it was bad political move. I think you should try in your next comment to address that question, rather than saying, "we'll Obama did it too (which he didn't but fine".
Posted: 14 Oct 2011 09:12
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 391
Join Date: Nov 2009
Since it applies...here's Perry's latest Pastor Debacle.
Honestly, Perry has some deniablity in that he didn't pick this guy as his introducer, but he really needs to toss this guy under the bus in the way Obama did to Wright if he actually has any hope of election.
Actually, I would expect the Values Voters Group to toss this guy under the bus too or run the risk of becoming a periah in the GOP as well (though they may be hoping that Perry gets all the heat so they don't lose their anti catholic constituancy).
It's entirely possible at this point Perry realizes he isn't getting elected and figures best to just fade away but this is some pretty damning stuff.
Posted: 14 Oct 2011 20:12
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
I guess he better toss voters under the bus too specially those in his party who are most likely to vote for him. He's a evangelical Christian. His supporters are too. Nothing wrong with that. None of them go around saying GD America, or rant about how they hate America or anything like that. Now the media is trying to attack Perry for his supporters theological views. Now that's unAmerican. We all have a right to our own religious views even if they believe the bible says, Jesus is the only way to heaven. Which that's exactly what it does say.
Quote: Alex Burns flags comments Jeffress made at his church on Sunday that, "Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and Mormonism are all false religions and I stand by those statements." But Jeffress left one major world religion out: Judaism. That wasn't always the case. Here's what he said in his Politically Incorrect lecture series in 2010:
Advertise on MotherJones.com
God sends good people to Hell. Not only do religions like Mormonism, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism—not only do they lead people away from from God, they lead people to an eternity of separation from God in Hell. You know Jesus was very clear: Hell is not only going to be populated by murderers, and drug dealers, and child dealers; Hell is going to be filled with good religious people who have rejected the truth of Christ.
That's a religious point of view. It happens to be mine as well. It's not that he's angry like Rev Wright. He's just preaching the word of God. That's what it says, and that's what he's saying. Listen to the man actually speak and you can tell he's a very intelligent well spoken individual.
__________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 15 Oct 2011 00:11
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 391
Join Date: Nov 2009
So, youre statement is that as far as evangelicals are concerned, the Catholic Church is a tool of Satan, Mormons are a cult, and Jews are damned to hell because of their rejection of Jesus Christ as savior (despite Jesus' actual words to the contrary, but that's a whole other debate).
Well, He can embrace a small radical fringe of evangelicals, and get the elctoral effect there of (losing) or he can reject such ideas and try to lead the nation.
That's the thing, That Jeffries is a radical evangelical (you won't convince me that most evangelicals think everybody but them goes to hell, I don't believe people are that myopic) is his and his followers business, and he would likely never hold any elected office outside of his church.
Perry wants to lead the single most diverse nation on the planet. I don't think you can do that if you associate with people like Jeffries.
Tim if you believe me and my kids and the majority of people on this planet will burn in hell forever, well that's your business, just don't ask anyone who you've damned to hell to vote for you.
So for Perry the question isn't if he should believe this, its does he want to lead the nation? You can't be this type of evangelical and lead the nation, at least not publicly.
Posted: 17 Oct 2011 17:40
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote: Tim if you believe me and my kids and the majority of people on this planet will burn in hell forever, well that's your business, just don't ask anyone who you've damned to hell to vote for you.
Here's the thing that boggles my mind. People think because my religious beliefs are that everyone in the world is in danger of hell if they do not accept Christ as Saviour that means that I personally am condemning or even wishing other people to go there.
Do not other religions believe they have the only correct path to God?
Perry's position should be, this is my religion. I'm not going to tell a pastor who shares my faith I disagree with him on a theological basis, but as a President I will respect other beliefs.
Respecting does not mean agreeing with.
From a character stance it's important that a leader have things he believes in that are not up for trade for political gain. That's just showing character.
I will say this, I hope the preacher here has really done his homework because it is a little risky to put forth too much of the church's support for one man. Men often fail especially politicians, and I can see people looking down at this church if Perry ever got involved with some kind of scandal. That being said I still support his right to support Perry or anybody else, and I as a Christian do value his opinion. It makes me see Perry in a better light. __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 17 Oct 2011 20:04
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 391
Join Date: Nov 2009
Quote: Here's the thing that boggles my mind. People think because my religious beliefs are that everyone in the world is in danger of hell if they do not accept Christ as Saviour that means that I personally am condemning or even wishing other people to go there.
Do not other religions believe they have the only correct path to God?
Well...no...no they don't most mainstream western religions believe they have the truth, but see God as big enough to welcome righteous gentiles, holy pagans and other groups. Some have codified rules like Baptism by desire, others just have a more general I'm not God and am not in a place to say if God let's those not of our faith in.
And yes you are personally damning people to hell. You are making a personal and concious choice to accept a view of God that damns the righteous to hell because of a semantic argument. That is your choice, but you should recognize that it is a minority view. Minority views are welcome in America, but you'll find very few minoiry opinions leading the nation. And a good swath of people are going to see such a radical perspective as incongruous with leading a nation as diverse as the United States.
Posted: 18 Oct 2011 18:56 Last Edited By: Tim
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote: You are making a personal and concious choice to accept a view of God that damns the righteous to hell because of a semantic argument.
Well look at this way, what if you were heading into a burning building and I just didn't say anything because I was afraid it might offend you? Maybe you were blind, and you couldn't smell the flames. Should I just be quiet about it?
Plus, I don't believe a person can just make up their own version to get to heaven. I believe Jesus is the answer because I believe He was telling the truth when he said, "I am the way the truth and the light, no man cometh to the Father but by me".
So if I think there's more ways to heaven, then Jesus lied and I might as well not be a Christian anyway. I sure wouldn't follow a God that lies about something important like that.
In the end whatever you or I believe will not change the truth. Someone is right and someone is wrong. I don't subscribe to truth depends on one's view point mentality. Truth is not subjective like 2 and 2 will always be 4 no matter what you and I believe. So how can you say I'm condemning someone to hell? That's like saying because I see the burning building is on fire I'm condemning the person going inside to die by mentioning it to them as if the fire will go out if we just ignore it. __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 18 Oct 2011 20:26
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
Am I allowed to point out the building isn't really burning? Would you entertain for even a second that it wasn't if I showed you something that runs contrary to what you believe?
Quote: Hell, as a place for some to spend eternity, is not biblical. Rocco Errico offers a word study. The English term hell comes from the Anglo-Saxon hel, meaning a hidden place. Hel comes from the verb form helan meaning "to hide." Thus the English root word for hell, helan, has nothing to do with hell-fire. Biblical translators used the word hell to translate two different Semitic words: gehenna or gehenna dnoora in Aramaic (the language spoken by Jesus) and sheol in Hebrew.
Sheol comes from the Hebrew root word shalal meaning to be still, quiet. The ancient Hebrews believed sheol to be a place beneath the earth’s surface where those who die, both good and bad, are inactive and quiet. They await judgment or resurrection day. It is a temporary resting place in the underworld. The Aramaic gehenna dnoora refers to the "Valley of Hinnom." During the 1st century C.E., Gehenna Dnoora was the garbage dump for Jerusalem. Located outside the city walls, people brought their garbage to Gehenna Dnoora and burned it. The Judean king, Ahaz (735-715 B.C.E.), used this valley to send his son to the flames as a human sacrifice to the gods. As a result of these human sacrifices, the valley Gei Hinnom became a Semitic term for hell. The Old Testament sheol and the New Testament gehenna dnoora in no way refer to a place established by God for eternal punishment.
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 19 Oct 2011 06:56 Last Edited By: Matches
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 391
Join Date: Nov 2009
Well, Tim, my point was that, you have made a choice in your weighing of philosophies, that the city is burining, and only your home is spared by the hand of God.
This may well be the truth. The question isn't what is true, we each by faith alone come to know the truth as we know it. The question is one of humility in the face of diversity. Do I say that God has set the world on fire and held only my solitary place free of his wrath, or do I say God is merciful to all his children and wouldn't leave them blind without a reasonable plan for their salvation.
Essentially, faith is given to us all by God, however how we interpret that faith is up to us. That the faith God has given someone, has lead them to a path differnt than my own, who am I to question God in that decision? I can speak of my faith, and live a life of humble example, but I choose if I will have the boldness to say all the world will burn but those who follow christ in the way God has shown me alone.
In essence, if God wished to show me the truth, I would think he would be able to show it to you just as easily. That he has shown you something different to me doesn't rule out that I have receieved the truth, but my humility makes me recognize that perhaps there is more to the truth than I could ever possibly know.
In the end, we choose the view of God we have based on the philosophies we come to through our own logic. My logic has told me that for all I know, I still know less than a spec of dust in the universe, and as such I could not call all the world a burining building but for the sliver of Truth that God has whispered to me. Your philosophy (and I say this just for expediency, I do not claim to truly know your philosophy in it's entirty) says that the truth you have received is whole and entire, and that the faith of others is false. While God calls us to believe, it is my belife anyway, (and this is my philosophy so you can see how this can go in circles very quickly) that we choose how to interpret that call ourselves. And in that personal creation of philosophy we as humans fail, because that is our nature. Man cannot know God in his entireity because God is infinite and we are finite. Now, I have chosen to believe in a God who judges righteousness outside of religion because that speaks to me, you have chosen to believe in a God who judges righteousness only the context of your faith, because that speaks to you. Could you choose to believe something else? Well you could take the path of humility and say that while you beleive that the path is narrow, and God has set your church on that path to lead the world, it is not for you to say but for God to say who is and is not saved. There is a differnce between saying I know that those who follow my church's laws will be saved and saying all those who do not will be damned. And we choose to claim absolute knowledge of this mystery, and as with anytime man claims absolute knowledge you can all but be asured that you are wrong.
Now, moving beyond the question of humility and God's judgement there is something far more insidious in what this preacher is saying. In calling Mormonism a cult (it is not, at least not anymore than any other large complex faith) or saying that the Catholic Church is a tool of the anti-christ is to go even beyond the notion of saying my faith is right and yours is not, it is saying that rather than being an error of philosophy the path you are on is one that is activly and knowingly evil. It is one thing to view say Judeaism as the blindfolded bride of Christ (as more progressive midevil philosophers did) and another to see them as the gleeful participants in diecide. It is fair to see the Catholic Chruch as a human institution often bogged down and corrupted in the world of man as humans are by their nature, it is something else to say it is a tool of the Anti Christ.
One is to claim a blind man is walking into a burning building, another is to suggest that a sighted man is directing others to the basement for a rescue they know will not be there. And to bring this all back to politics, if you believe that 90% of the country is either blind, or activly evil, how is that going to inform your actions with regard to these faiths as you lead the nation? Given how often such righteousness certainty has lead to atrocities, I think people are fair to say that people who hold such beliefs are not fit for public office. Either they have no sense of history, or no sense of humility, and both are dangerous for the leader of any nation to lack.
