Religion remains important in presidential race

The United States has clearly defined itself as a secular nation. At the same time our nation has recognized the importance of religion in a free society and through our Constitution has granted religious institutions and individuals the right of free exercise of their faiths. We speak of separation of church and state, but the two cannot be conveniently separated. Religious people run for public office, and the sacred and the secular become engaged in our candidates.

The 2012 presidential election is no exception. Two admittedly religious men are running for the presidency of the United States. When someone runs for the presidency, it is open season on their religious beliefs, especially as it relates to public life and governmental policies. The First Amendment says nothing about religious persons and institutions staying out of politics. Political candidates need not hesitate to bring to the campaign his/her moral and ethical convictions that are rooted in religious beliefs. I have been disappointed in the election campaigns of both of our presidential candidates. They both have acted like their religion is irrelevant to the office of President of the United States.

Barack Obama was burned badly four years ago when he was confronted with statements made in a sermon by the pastor of his Chicago church. Under the pressure of the situation, Obama resigned his membership from the church. Discussion of his religious commitments have been absent from his 2012 campaign.

Mitt Romney has made it plain that he is a devout member of the Latter-day Saints but that the particulars of his faith are no one’s business.

In sorting out my reactions, I turned back to one of my favorite source people. Attorney J. Brent Walker is executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty. He is a recognized authority on separation of church and state. He framed a key question: “How do we uphold the separation of church and state, while affirming the relevance of candidates’ religion to politics without imposing a religious test for public office?”

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 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.

My own values and priorities flow out of my religious beliefs. If President Obama and Mr. Romney are indeed religious people (I assume they are), the values that they bring to Americans should reflect those beliefs.

I am weary of the present presidential candidates’ obsession with the subject of the economy and jobs. Both candidates appear to be great advocates of American wealth and military power that builds American exceptionalism and world domination. They both seem to want to imprint “America, the greatest nation in the world” on the forehead of every true American. Are these the values that reflect the thinking of devout believers?

My personal belief system teaches that we have a stewardship responsibility for our world so that we can pass a functional nation and world to future generations. Massive soil erosion, water degradation and depletion, global warming, air pollution, coastal degradation, species extinctions, deforestation, desertification and habitat destruction are our generation’s insult to God’s creation. I am still waiting for a clear commitment by a candidate to restore the viability of our world. What kind of religion can remain quiet?

My faith demands that the needs of vulnerable people be met. “We cannot afford it” is an insult to every Christian tradition, Islam and Judaism.

I am not interested in the creedal statements of political candidates, but if a candidate identifies himself/herself as a believer of some kind, I want to know how that translates into the public life of our beloved nation.

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.