When the Prez is Controlled by a Sect Leader. It Matters Who That Sect Leader Is

If you are a member of an authoritarian religious sect and in principle subject to the direction and command of the leader of your sect, and if you are elected to an office, isn’t the electorate in some sense electing the sect leader? If you repudiate subjection to the sect leader in order to allay concerns of the electorate, aren’t you then showing that you are a pretty poor member of the sect willing to jettison a core principle of your faith for your own aggrandizement? Wouldn’t it be permissible for the electorate to continue to be concerned since your repudiation of the sect leader’s authority belies your lifelong profession of faith and establishes that you aren’t really trustworthy?

I reckon that you would have to repudiate outright the authoritarian principles themselves and identify yourself as a dissenter in the ranks of your sect or leave the sect altogether. Otherwise, you’d have to convince the electorate that your sect leader would make good decisions that you would carry out faithfully.

Many candidates have asserted that they consider themselves subject to the authority of Jesus Christ, and this is not usually problematic unless Jesus Christ is supposed to be giving directions to the candidate through a living individual third party, for example Reverend Moon, or through a totem or inanimate object, for example their cat or hair dryer. As long as Jesus Christ is the candidate’s invisible friend and speaks to him in traditional ways, the electorate will be satisfied to accept the candidate’s subjection to Him and even be skeptically hopeful that the candidate might be sincere. The last president who claimed to be guided by Jesus apparently had some other guy named Jesus Christ in mind.

Just saying.