Religion is important to elections

Attorney J. Brent Walker, executive director of Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, has framed the key question: “How do we uphold the institutional separation of church and state, while affirming the relevance of candidates’ religion to politics, without imposing a religious test for public office?”

We are now less than four months from the 2012 presidential election and the religion of the candidates will become a very important issue.

Four years ago, researchers looked back at the sermon material of the pastor of the church to which candidate Barak Obama belonged. Republicans, not inappropriately, called for Obama to account for the views of his pastor. Obama was forced to repudiate his pastor’s views and resigned his membership.

When people run for the presidency of the United States, it is open season on their religious beliefs, especially as their religion relates to public life and governmental policies. We all need to remember that the First Amendment says that government must stay out of religion, but that same amendment says nothing about religious persons and institutions staying out of government and politics. Those who say “keep religion out of politics” do not understand American history or law. Every American office holder should feel free to come to his/her office fully armed with moral and ethical convictions no matter what the base might be from which those convictions come.

Freedom to question a candidate’s religion is perfectly legal even when it involves telling lies. Because of the persistence of pundits, 20 percent of American voters believe President Barack Obama is Muslim, even though it has been shown repeatedly that he is a practitioner of Christian worship. Obama’s detractors keep telling the lie.

Equally vicious is the charge that Mormonism (Romney’s faith) is a cult. “Cult” is an inflammatory word that has no place in the discussion of Mitt Romney and his religion. Mormons call themselves Christians and decency calls for that to be honored in public discussions.

Of course, discussions of a candidate’s religion should be carried on with civility and integrity. With this understanding, to leave the subject of religion out of our electoral discussions is shortsighted and leaves voters with less than full knowledge and understanding of the candidates.

Brent Walker is recognized as one of the preeminent authorities on issues of separation of church and state. I confess that when Brent speaks, I listen. Walker maintains that there are principles that can lead us to proper and enlightened discussions/arguments about the religion of political candidates.

First, the U.S. Constitution bans religious tests for those who serve in public offices. Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus and atheists are all welcome to seek public office. This is the law of the land. But Walker’s principle goes further than the letter of the law. Walker’s principle embraces the spirit of the law. No candidate, believer or non-believer, has an obligation to discuss religion or the lack thereof. A thoughtful voter should not be prejudiced for or against a candidate because of religious faith. A candidate has no legal obligation to discuss or explain his/her religious beliefs. There is no religious requirement for full participation in the American political system. The spirit of the U.S. Constitution says that the best-qualified candidate might well be a thoroughly secular atheist.

Walker’s second principle sets the stage for religious discussion, should a candidate choose to talk about personal faith. It is essential for questioners to ask how the candidate’s religious views will impact public policy and leadership competency. The key question must always be “what difference will it make?” The point of the discussion must not be theology, but public policy. Initiating a theological discussion is a chase after the wrong rabbit. The issue must always be religion’s impact on public policy.

Unless these two principles are kept in mind and faithfully observed, every political candidate is vulnerable to unreasonable attack. The first victim of such unfair treatment in my memory was John F. Kennedy, our first Roman Catholic president. When pushed, he made a dramatic speech that I will always see as unfortunate. Kennedy distanced himself from the Catholic Church and in affect said, “I am an American first and a Catholic second.” He set a precedent that does not serve the nation’s best interests. I personally want a president who can come to public office with his religious faith intact to be practiced within the constraints of the U.S. Constitution.

I was disappointed when candidate Barack Obama distanced himself from the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. The attacks on Obama were vicious, and his attackers were unprincipled. Obama should have been able to disagree with his pastor friend without breaking their relationship. The issue should have been public policies that are informed by Obama’s personal faith, not remarks made by his pastor in a sermon years earlier.

In the current election cycle, Mitt Romney is the vulnerable candidate. His faith is peculiar to most Americans. He tried to make his “Kennedy” declaration, but it was ineffective. His present position is that his Mormon faith is not relevant. He is on good legal ground in taking that position. However, thoughtful voters want to know more about his religion and how his religion will impact public policy. Romney has a right to keep silent. Within the values of civility and integrity, voters are proper in asking how Romney’s faith will translate into the public good.

In America, religion is too important to ignore in an election year.

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.