Religion and politics do go together

While my columns have a national distribution, they are written specifically to appear each Friday on the religion page of the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman, our local paper. Most of my columns are clearly on religious subjects. Sometimes they come close to the political scene, but I avoid comments about specific candidates.

This past week, presidential candidate Rick Santorum walked boldly onto the religion stage. I decided that it was open season to write about church and state, about political candidates and their religion.

The context of the discussion is the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which makes two provisions in regard to religion. The first is the “establishment clause.”

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” it says. In the plainest statement possible, the U.S. Constitution promises Congress will not interfere, will not intrude into the religions practiced by its citizens.

The other critical First Amendment words make up the “free exercise” clause, … or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The free exercise words grants all citizens the right to practice their religions anywhere and everywhere. That includes the public square of politics.

Santorum has insisted that he has a right to bring his religion into the political campaign. On this issue, Santorum is absolutely correct. The clear intent of the First Amendment is to keep government out of religion, not to keep religion out of politics and government. Religion is welcome in the public square.

Ex-Sen. Santorum’s views are often compared to the standard that was verbalized by John F. Kennedy in 1960 in Houston, Texas. In that speech, Kennedy drew a line that was never intended by the writers of the First Amendment. Under the heat of the presidential campaign in 1960, Kennedy made separation of church and state an absolute. He turned his back on his faith by refusing to take his religion with him when he walked into the public square. Santorum is correct. Kennedy was wrong.

When religions are welcomed to the stage of political debate, the discussions can become a bit different. It is fortunate that we have a thoroughly secular referee in the U.S. Constitution. Freedom of religion as practiced in the U.S. would be impossible without a secular referee that is dedicated to no particular religion, but friendly to all. Religious discussion on the stage of politics is inevitably messy. After making an early statement on his faith, that some compared to Kennedy’s, Mitt Romney has sidestepped religion. Santorum has chosen to walk straight into it. Romney apparently prefers that the general public not know what is believed in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Santorum wants the whole world to know what is believed by the Roman Catholic Church. President Barack Obama turns the political stage into a dance floor and moves around adeptly.

With Santorum’s devout Catholicism, it is not surprising that certain moral issues demand our attention. Roman Catholics are leading the effort to deny marriage to same-sex couples. Roman Catholics are opposed to all abortions, and with their network of hospitals can deny abortion services to millions of women. The Catholic Church demonizes those who provide abortion services. Catholics are in the forefront of the current arguments about providing birth control information to women of child-bearing age. John F. Kennedy turned aside from his Catholic faith when making public policy. Santorum promises he will not.

When religion appears in the public square, other topics pop up as well.

There is general agreement that the world’s environment is under attack by the lifestyles of human beings. Collectively, we are polluting the world’s atmosphere by burning fossil fuels; we are polluting our farmlands and rivers with chemicals; we are using the oceans as a giant dumping ground for the waste produced by our consumptive society. We are aware of these attacks on environment, but the most dangerous pollutant is barely mentioned. The greatest attack on the world’s environment is being made by population explosion. We are racing to a world population that cannot be sustained.

Both of the leading candidates for the Republican nomination for the U.S. presidency are devout in their religions, Romney as a Mormon and Santorum as a Roman Catholic. Both faiths are promoters of population expansion. Both strongly oppose distribution of family planning and birth control information.

In the case of both Mormonism and Roman Catholicism, their encouragement of population expansion is rooted in fundamental theological beliefs. Santorum and his wife have seven children. Romney and his wife have five children. This is not a sustainable pattern for the future. Can either of them lead a discussion on the ultimate problem of a world population that cannot be sustained?

Separation of church and state sounds good until we face the real world. Religion and affairs of state are closely intertwined. When a person runs for public office, his/her religion is no longer a private matter. We Americans have insisted that government stay out of religious affairs, but that does not mean religion is to stay out of public affairs.

We should expect candidates to bring their religions into the public square. If they are not willing, the public should demand they do so. Religion is an important part of every candidate. Santorum is right on this one.

The Rev. Howard Bess is a retired American Baptist minister who lives in Palmer. His email address is hdbss@mtaonline.net.

Opinions expressed on the Faith page are the author’s and are not necessarily those of the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman, its staff or its parent company, Wick Communications Co. To submit a column or other news for the Faith page, send email to news@frontiersman.com, or call 352-2268.