Is a candidate's religion a legitimate issue?

[Thats my opinion]

I do not usually post my weekly newspaper column here. While what I write flows from my Christian faith, I write in "secularese"--without religious language--so my stuff might seen inappropriate in this "religion" site. However, next Wednesday the following column will appear.

IS A CANDIDATE’S RELIGION A LEGITIMATE ISSUE IN A PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN?

In the fall of 1960, John F. Kennedy was in the midst of a hard-fought political race for the Presidency. Up until then no Roman Catholic had been elected to that office, and among conservative Protestants there was considerable agitation over the possibility of a President taking orders from Rome. Even at that late date, anti-Catholicism was rampant. The US had not yet appointed an Ambassador to the Vatican. That didn’t happen until 1984 when Jimmy Carter, a Baptist, did it--a move JFK opposed. In 1928, the only other previous Catholic candidate, Al Smith, was trounced by Herbert Hoover after a bitter anti-Catholic assault.

In a Houston speech before a large group of Protestant ministers, JFK made clear the relationship between his religion and the office of President. Here is a quote from that speech.

“I believe in America where the separation of Church and State is absolute…where there is no Catholic vote and no anti-Catholic vote… I do not speak for the church on public matters, and the church does not speak for me.”

That speech settled the unrest, and JFK was roundly applauded for the clarity of his position. His Catholic faith would not determine the policies of his administration. A President’s religion was no longer to be a political issue—at least until now.

A year ago there may have been a few voices among some conservative Protestants concerning Mitt Romney’s Mormon faith. Mitt has tried to avoid the controversy and has never suggested his religious commitment would control his political agenda, were he to be elected. Nobody has seriously suggested that there would be a direct line between the White House and Salt Lake City. He only mentions religion as if he were referring to some generic term—like motherhood—and he is for it. His single venture into that territory was declaring that God had selected America to be the savior of the world. While this notion might be garnered from the Book of Mormon, what politician hasn’t said the same thing? That’s just part of the political rhetoric that comes with American empire.

Now comes Rick Santorum, who flaunts his allegiance to the relationship between Catholicism and government. His support of a Catholic version of Shari’a law ought to be enough to disqualify him. While most of us try to keep religion and who holds what doctrine, out of the public discourse, Santorum has gone far over the line, and now his religious commitments become a matter of public interest. So we have a perfect right to call for his disqualification on that basis alone.

In a Michigan speech on February Feb.18, Santorum said that President Obama’s agenda was based on a “different theology,” one which is not biblical. Here is a direct quote.
“He (Obama) is now forcing people to do things that he believes that they have the right, that they should do. The Catholic church has a theology that says this is wrong, and he’s saying no I’ve got a different, I’ve got a different — you may want to call it a theology, you may want to call it secular values, whatever you want to call it, it’s different moral values. And the president of the United States is exercising his values and trumping the values of the church… If you don’t want to call it a theology, I’m fine, you can have them let me know what they want to call it.”

No, Mr. Santorum, the secular values of the United States Constitution trump the religious dogma of the Roman Catholic church. It is not that society wants to force its morality on Catholics, but that the Bishops want to force their dogma on everyone else by insisting that a medieval version of sexual morality is a divine command. No one, Catholic or otherwise, is required to use any form of birth control, and no money from the Church is to be used in support of the regulations.

During this already toxic political atmosphere, the American people do not need and should not tolerate the interjection of religious dogma that has no place outside the church that teaches it.

[handmade34]

1. "Say nothing of my religion...

...It is known to God and myself alone." according to Thomas jefferson

[WingDinger]

2. If their religious dogma causes them to be unable to represent a constituency, hell yes.

[bluerum]

3. Ru kidding? The candidates spew their religiosity all the time.

My guess is that anytime you walk into a church during a service, you will at some point be subjected to pressure to adopt a political position or support a particular candidate.

If the candidate spews his dogma as political rhetoric it's on the table. But their mouthpieces want it both ways.

[Kurmudgeon]

17. That would be an odd church.

Most of the churches I've been to avoided open political discussion because keeping the peace was more important than open political division. Not all churches are the same, of course, I've heard of instances where the pastor preached politics from the pulpit.
However, that pastor is no longer doing their job at that point, and have just became another political tool.
Seriously though, I've never heard any politics during service because it would be an interruption and a distraction.
After service, however, is another thing entirely.

[edhopper]

19. You must not go to

Southern Baptist or Evangelical Churches.
And I guess when the Catholic Bishops refused John Kerry communion, it wasn't political.

[ButterflyBlood]

39. Actually I do go to an evangelical church

and no I've never heard any pressure to support a certain candidate. The only things I've ever heard about any political positions were actually liberal (respect God's creation: the environment, accept all your neighbors, including immigrants, do not be caught up in class distinctions). The most blatant political reference was in the introduction to Advent sermon describing the shepherds who were first told of the birth of Jesus as "of the 99%".

[bluerum]

24. Ha.

[cbayer]

20. I don't believe this is true. Churches who have pushed particular candidates from either

side have had to face serious issues concerning their tax status.

While specific ideologies may be expressed, I think most are very careful when it comes to support for specific candidates.

[iris27]

22. It was certainly true in the church I grew up in. Support for ideologies was vocal, frequent, and

issued from church authority (pastors on down), and followed up with a "and we all know who does and who doesn't support those ideas, right?" Wink, wink, nudge, nudge...

At my religious school, which had been granted the same tax status as a church, and whose instructors were all labeled "ministers" rather than normal W-2 employees, my Civic teacher told us, in class, that "voting for Republicans is the only way to protect babies".

[cbayer]

23. The latest case that I can recall was actually against a very progressive church in Pasadena.

I am not sure how the rules apply to religious schools, but churches that push particular candidates really take a big risk.

[iris27]

30. I don't know how big a risk it is, given how infrequently the government actually seems to go

after churches that do this. That case you mention was over an antiwar sermon given in 2004...and the IRS eventually dropped the case in 2007. I imagine enforcement is even more lax for churches that push conservative ideologies.

And at least in the 3 congregations I am most familiar with -- the church of my childhood, my in-laws' church, and my stepmother's church -- they are good at not naming names, but otherwise making it clear through "wink, wink, nudge, nudge" who they believe "God's candidate" is.

And they have *zero* hesitance about pushing particular positions, as bluerum said. That's basically how they do it. They push a position, and hint as to what candidates support those positions.

[bluerum]

25. Believe what you want. I have heard from the pulpit.

[cbayer]

26. Report them to the IRS, then.

http://articles.latimes.com/2005/nov/07/local/me-allsaints7

[bluerum]

31. Right. Report the catholic church. That will work.

These are same people who have institutionalized pedophilia.

[cbayer]

40. Ok, then. Do nothing and just continue to complain about it.

If they are pushing particular candidates, they are breaking IRS rules.

[Scootaloo]

4. No, and also yes

A candidate's religion isn't important at all, really. A person can claim any religion, but whether or not they actually believe all that stuff, or to what degree, is pretty much impossible to predict...

Until they open their mouths about it.

So a candidate who says "I'm a Catholic" should elicit a shrug and a reply of "Yeah, okay, so?" A candidate who says "The world is six thousand years old, women should be barred from family planning, heretics must be killed, and we need to nuke someone in order to make Jesus come back!" is... entirely different. They're making their beliefs and positions known, and, well, they're fucking crazy beliefs and positions. Religion or no, they are now a legitimate issue.

[TlalocW]

5. Hell, Yes

Until the time comes (and it's probably just a dream) when candidates can tell voters that their religion is a private matter and none of their business and instead judge me on my past actions and what I hope to accomplish in office, it has to be - especially when the candidates throw their religion in our face.

Now there's the kind like Obama and most democrats who talk about being Christian (or Muslim) but do like JFK did, or they'll mention it but not harp on it overly-much, but then there are the Rick Santorums who are the anti-JFKs, who have pretty much told us that they plan to turn the country into a theocracy or another papist state.

And I'll honestly admit that I really, really don't like the Mormon Church - individual Mormons are okay, if they'll stop knocking on my damn door when I'm trying to sleep in on Saturday - but the church itself doesn't get any respect from me; same with the Catholic Church.

And to go even further, if I had a business, if you got your degree at a place like Oral Roberts or Falwell's Liberty College, or even BYU, chances are you wouldn't be in the top tier of people being offered a job.

TlalocW

[lumberjack_jeff]

6. Yes. Everyone who has one is gullible. n/t

[rrneck]

7. No.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but Oath or Affirmation to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States

The No Religious Test Clause of the United States Constitution is found in Article VI, paragraph 3,

[Ron Obvious]

8. Of course!

Who here would vote for a Scientologist or a Moonie? A Jehovah? Religion is not an innate, immutable characteristic of a person but a set of views about the workings of the universe. It's not bigotry to point out the lunacy of some those beliefs.

As an atheist, I don't much respect any religion, but let's not kid ourselves that there aren't degrees of lunacy. It's one thing if the religion's origins are lost in the mists of time, but why have respect for religions started in modern times by a convicted conman (e.g. Mormonism) whose views are demonstrably false (e.g. American Indians are the lost tribe of Israel) but still sacred doctrine.

[Vincardog]

9. TMO has it correct. Religious dogma belongs in church not in our elections.

[liberal N proud]

10. It shouldn't be - BUT...

the right wing is always injecting it one way or the other.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

11. A candidate's religion is most assuredly not a legitimate issue

It never should be, and I don't understand why Americans are so obsessed with religion. Americans should be LESS obsessed with religion than other countries, as this country was established in great part by folks who were discriminated against in countries where church and state were joined at the hip. As if that were not enough, we have the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

How did this country become so obsessed with religion? I have my suspicions.

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. If they bring up their own religion, or attack other religions, then it is

The problem with Santorum is not just his attack on the president as having a 'non-Biblical theology'; or, as you say, his support for Catholic dogma on birth control and abortion to be made the law of the land. He also attacks other Christian denominations (saying Satan had destroyed the mainline Protestant churches) and denies that it's possible to be a liberal and a Christian. He attacks the religious beliefs not just of his opponent, but of tens of millions of Americans. It's impossible not to talk about his religious intolerance.

[LeftishBrit]

13. Only if they make it so.

If a candidate goes around saying that everyone should be made to conform to the laws of his/her religion (Palin; Santorum) then it becomes relevant. Otherwise, it should be a matter for the individual.

[jberryhill]

14. If that's what matters to you, yes

[skepticscott]

15. Of course it is

Anything that may influence the actions or behavior of someone in public office is a legitimate subject for inquiry while they are campaigning. Especially so when they have promised that it will influence their actions and behavior.

[MarkCharles]

18. YES, especially if, (as in most religions),..

to some degree or other, actions must be based upon "faith" and "beliefs", rather than upon sound scientific facts and evidence. If one simply "believes" global climate change is something to be left up to a god to manage, or if someone "believes" that man-made vaccines against disease are harmful, or if someone "believes" that god will intervene and cure some of their illnesses, (without medical intervention), while others will not be so fortunate, there's a big red flag on those kinds of religious beliefs and actions. If any of these "beliefs" replaces logic and science in carrying out public policy, we are in a heap of trouble.

[laconicsax]

16. No.

Not only is there that nifty line about no religious tests for office, any wackadoodle beliefs that would lead to insane policy positions will manifest themselves as insane policy positions.

Wackadoodle beliefs that aren't likely to influence policy aren't worth arguing over.

So what if a candidate believes that Xenu did that thing with volcanoes and nuclear bombs? Unless that belief influences insane policy positions, it's immaterial.

[skepticscott]

21. Sorry, but the clause in the Constitution

regarding "religious tests" is ONLY a restraint on government from passing laws which impose religious requirements on elected officials. It has nothing whatsoever to do with what voters should or may consider in deciding who to vote for.

If you think that religious beliefs can't influence insane policy positions, you haven't been paying attention. And how a candidate's religious beliefs reflect their ability to think rationally is always relevant, whether they directly impact specific policies or not.

[laconicsax]

27. I never said that beliefs can't influence policy.

On the contrary, I stated that they can and do.

The distinction is in whether a belief does influence policy.

For example:

-A belief that the world will end within the lifetime of the believer is likely to influence their policy when it comes to long-term issues.
-A belief that saying some Latin words over a glass of wine will turn it into the blood is highly unlikely to influence policy.

As for the ability to think rationally, think about the ability to compartmentalize thoughts. The refusal to apply rationality toward all thoughts and beliefs has no bearing on the ability to apply it.

[skepticscott]

28. Irrelevance on top of irrelevance

You stated "Unless that belief influences insane policy positions, it's immaterial." Not only is that a direct contradiction of what you're saying now, but it doesn't qualify religious beliefs as immaterial, since some of them DO influence "insane policy positions", as you well know.

And the core of the debate is not whether narrow, specific, cherry-picked beliefs are likely to influence public policy. It is whether a candidate's religion as a whole is relevant to their suitability for public office and a legitimate subject for them to be examined on while campaigning.

Yes, everyone compartmentalizes...but some are more prone to do it than others. Determining if a candidate is one such, and if they are more likely to turn part of their brain off to preserve their religious delusions is also completely relevant.

[laconicsax]

32. I'm beginning to catch a whiff of hypocrisy...

It's almost certain that every single POTUS, representative, and senator you've ever voted for has done what you describe...unless you vote third-party or write-in in every election.

Seems to me that you're perfectly willing to vote for these 'unsuitable' candidates. What then, is the big deal? If you're able to set aside your misgivings about every candidate you vote for, how relevant are these misgivings?

[skepticscott]

33. No, you're beginning to catch a whiff

that your arguments are falling flat. The question in the OP was not whether it was hypocritical to vote for a candidate that has been influenced by religion, but whether religion was a legitimate issue to consider when evaluating a candidate. I stated that it was, and nothing you've said has provided any evidence to the contrary.

And where did I ever say that candidates who have been influenced by religion are "unsuitable"? Nowhere. You invented that quote to save a failed argument. Do I like that every candidate I'm presented with pays lip service to religion and is influenced by it to some degree? Not particularly. But is religion the ONLY legitimate factor to consider when making a voting decision? Of course not. No candidate that you, I, or anyone else has ever voted for or ever will vote for is completely suitable in every respect. Does that mean we should all stay home on Election Day, or risk being branded a hypocrite by you? Does that mean that none of the misgivings that anyone on this board has expressed about a candidate they've voted for are irrelevant?

[laconicsax]

34. A couple things:

First, I use double-quotes to indicate that the enclosed text is an exact reproduction. "Unsuitable" was in single quotes ('unsuitable') because it was my take rather than your exact words. There was no quote, you simply mistook it for one.

I still say that religion is not a "legitimate factor to consider when making a voting decision" (double quotes) because it isn't the belief that matters, it's the application of that belief. A YEC may believe things that are idiotic, but unless those beliefs guide policy they're irrelevant. Refusing to vote for a particular candidate on the grounds that they believe wacky things is prosecuting thought crime.

As I recall, and indeed as I can plainly see from reviewing this subthread, You've made no claims requiring an evidence-based rebuttal. You've simply misinterpreted my words and stomped your feet loudly about how wrong I must be. I still maintain that as long as a religious belief doesn't manifest itself as a policy position, it's irrelevant. That is wholly different from saying, as you've misinterpreted it, that "beliefs can't influence insane policy positions."

It is in stark contrast, too to your suggestion that "a candidate's religion as a whole [emphasis yours] is relevant to their suitability for public office," which smacks of so much prejudice as to border on bigotry. The issue of whether a candidate is suitable for public office is hardly a trifle and to vote for someone you believe to be unsuitable for office is an act of hypocrisy.

By what right do you claim the ability to determine whether a candidate's religion is 'suitable' (note the single quotes) or not? Do you have a quantitative scale by which to do this, or is it based on your own attitudes towards the contained beliefs and the underlying prejudice that all members of a given religion definitely believe the same things with the same zeal?

[skepticscott]

35. As I said, your arguments fall very flat

You talk as if a person's beliefs and ideology were perfectly separable from the applications of those beliefs to public policy. But you would no doubt think that it's relevant if a candidate were spouting a racist ideology while campaigning, and would probably hesitate in voting for them because of it, even if there were no direct proof that that ideology would influence public policy if they were elected (and in the case of religion, as I already noted, we DO have the direct proof of their own promises that they will do exactly that). Anyone who has been paying attention knows that it's possible to assess how likely it is that a person's beliefs will affect policy. In the case of a creationist (or a blatant racist) running for public office, it's highly likely that they will if they can, because it's known from long experience that such people NEVER stop trying to impose that belief on everyone else.

To say that "I still maintain that as long as a religious belief doesn't manifest itself as a policy position, it's irrelevant." is simply ridiculous. How can you wait until after someone is elected for evidence that their religious beliefs were relevant to your voting decision? You can't. As I stated, one evaluates a candidates beliefs and ideology and how likely they are to influence their policies BEFORE you pull the voting lever.

And yes, I know you'd like to fling the "bigot" accusation (are you "bigoted" against racist or sexist candidates, btw?), but my statement that "a candidate's religion as a whole is relevant to their suitability for public office" was simply a response to your attempt to cherry pick specific beliefs from a person's religion that were unlikely to affect public policy in an attempt to show that their religion overall was not likely to, and therefor not relevant. Far from smacking of prejudice, my statement (in contrast to yours) was simply to say that the totality of a candidate's religious beliefs and their outward manifestations (not just cherry-picked bits and pieces) should be considered (along with many other factors) when deciding whether or not to vote for someone.

And nowhere have I said that I'm determining whether a candidate's (or anyone else's) religion is suitable. You just keep inventing that. I don't care what religion they practice as long as their delusional and faith-based beliefs don't get rammed down my throat in the form of public policy. If it looks like they have a chance to be, then I have every damn right as a voter to consider that possibility in my voting decision. Are you saying that I don't? Note also that NOWHERE have I said that because a candidate is religious that this automatically makes them "unsuitable" for public office in my mind. It is merely one legitimate and relevant factor to consider, along with, as I've said, many others.

[laconicsax]

36. I'm amazed you can find the keyboard with all that straw you've amassed. n/t

[skepticscott]

37. I'm equally amazed

that you're not ashamed to respond to so many substantive points with something so lame.

Saying that something is a straw man doesn't make it so, just like saying that I claimed "the ability to determine whether a candidate's religion is 'suitable' or not" doesn't make it so, for reasons which were specifically laid out and which you didn't have ANY response to.

If this is all you have left, just let it go and stop wasting my time.

[laconicsax]

38. You started playing with straw in #21 and haven't stopped.

Maybe if you put together a response to what I've actually said, rather than what you thought or hoped I meant, you'd get the discussion you want.

It might also help if you stopped denying what you've already said.

[iris27]

29. Unless a candidate makes an explicit statement as JFK did, or unless their prior electoral record

speaks clearly to the contrary, as in the case of Catholics like Pelosi who are openly fighting against policies lobbied for by the Catholic bishops, yes. I think it is fair to assume, in the absence of conflicting evidence, that any given candidate will act based upon their personal values, and that if they have made the free choice to belong to a particular church, that said church's values have informed and may be assumed to be substantially similar to their personal values.

I would dearly love a political system that was more like that of the UK, where religion is almost never a topic of political discussion, and is certainly not generally touted by candidates as something that will inform their choices on policy affecting the whole of the nation. But, alas, that is not the political climate we have, and here, unless there is clear evidence that their faith will not inform their politics, I think voters have a right to know a candidate's chosen beliefs, and to oppose someone's candidacy if said beliefs may take the nation (or state/city/municipality) in a direction they do not like.

Santorum is noxious, to be sure, but I actually prefer his blatant stances to the approach taken by, for example, recently retired senator Kit Bond (Presbyterian), from my home state of Missouri. His stump speeches focused almost entirely on foreign policy and economic issues, but he had a 100% voting score from National Right to Life, and a 0% voting score from Americans United for the Separation of Church and State.