Religion does matter for presidential candidates

First Amendment rights relative to the exercise of religion are enormously misunderstood. The First Amendment prohibits the intrusion of government into the world of religion. The First Amendment does not bar religion from the public square and from government in general.

Under the First Amendment, the resulting separation of church and state puts restrictions on government, but does not restrict religion. In fact, the First Amendment guarantees that religion will be free from restriction. Religion is welcome in the political world, especially in the process of electing a president for our country.

Under the “free exercise” clause, religion has flourished in America. Every time someone makes the assertion that religion is dead in America, religion charges forward more vigorous than ever. That kind of religious rejuvenation is taking place in America today and is well documented. To think that religion should or could be left out of the presidential campaign is next to absurd.

Some of our prominent columnists and commentators are showing woeful ignorance of the First Amendment when they say that a presidential candidate’s religion is not an issue for public discussion. The moderators of current Republican presidential candidate debates are proving to be inadequate at best. Possibly they do not understand the First Amendment. Possibly they are religiously ignorant. Possibly they are uncomfortable with the issues that religion raises. Possibly they are reticent to put candidates’ differing views in their appropriate religious contexts. Because of the absence of religion in the debates, the American public is being poorly served.

Listening to the current series of Republican presidential candidate debates, I have wearied hearing about jobs and economic recovery. Granted, the issues involved are important, but there is a long line of important subjects that are waiting in the wings. While even the issues of jobs and economics carry religious issues, those issues are easily sidestepped. The other issues waiting in the wings have clearer religious implications. Let’s look at the list.

War and peace

War presents itself as an instrument by which peace can be established. War has never achieved its promised ends. War has simply cultivated the seedbed for the next war. War has been an obsession of Americans throughout our history. All religions of which I am aware address the path to peace. What does a candidate’s religion say about the path to peace? As president, would the candidate pursue the teachings of his religion? I want to hear some answers.

Population and birth control and abortion

Hunger and poverty in the world are concentrated where population is expanding by birthrate. The world is speeding to the limit of the earth’s ability to sustain the needs of the population. The president of the U.S. guides foreign policy.

Some religions are promoting population expansion. How does a candidate’s religion speak to the coming crisis? Will religion inform him/her, or will she/he act in defiance of the teachings of her/his religion? As a voter, I want to know.

Rights for gay, lesbian, transgendered and bisexual

Major American religions have actively opposed equal rights for gay people. Without religious opposition in America, gay rights would have been embraced long ago.

As president of the U.S., would a candidate actively oppose gay rights or actively support gay rights? As president, would a candidate support equal rights in clear opposition to his/her religion’s opposition? American voters need to know.

Environmental integrity

Religious leaders have led the way in denying the scientific evidence that our industrialized societies are responsible for the degradation of the quality of our water and air. What is the response of a presidential candidate when scientific evidence comes in serious conflict with his/her religion? The stakes are very high for the population of the whole world. There is not much time to lose. American voters have a right to know where religion will take their candidates.

Public education

There has long been tension between public school education and parochial education. One of the byproducts of American religious freedom has been the establishment and maintenance of very large parochial education systems. Whether by intent or as an unintended outcome, parochial education in America has become segregated by race and economics. Today, about one in every five young people receives their entire education without ever attending a public school. Unfortunately, religious people and religious organizations have not supported the financing of public schools, which are mandated to accept every student. Parochial schools generally do not. In reality, adequate support of public schools is a religious issue in America. Presidential candidates should be prepared to state his/her commitment to public school education. It is a religious issue and needs to be discussed in that context.

The less fortunate

One of the most important issues in Western religions is “am I my brother’s keeper?” The attack on that standard is now coming in the form of a discussion of entitlements. In reality, the discussion is an attack on the ethical standard of responsibility for our neighbor/brother/sister. Affordability is a smokescreen. Every presidential candidate should be pinned to the wall on this issue in the context of religion.

May God deliver us from the day when religion is not a part of our political discussions and arguments.

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.