Religious Testing

This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on January 17, 2008.

Religious Testing

As you may remember from high school, the original Constitution contained no bill of rights, a fact lamented by some of the framers in Philadelphia. One of the main reasons George Mason refused to sign the Constitution, after a hot summer of work on the document, was the lack of a bill of rights.

Eventually, James Madison went to the House promising to champion a bill of rights, and three years after the Constitution was ratified, the first ten amendments were added.

What many forget is that the original Constitution contains what some have called a "mini" bill of rights. The protection of habeas corpus and the prohibition of ex post facto laws and bills of attainder are included in this small list.

In my discussions of constitutionally-protected rights, I include the final clause of Article 6:

"[N]o religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

The framers were creating a state based on democratic principles, not autocratic, not monarchic, not theocratic. This right, the right to not be required to adhere to one religion or another in order to hold office, was especially important in the Protestant melting pot of the 1780s.

The Religious Test clause was created in a society troubled by competing Christian sects. In a time when Baptists and Congregationalists were sometimes at each other's throats, the Religious Test clause was a big step.

Tolerating other Protestant sects was only one challenge. For many in 18th century America, reinstallation of a king would have been preferable to a large migration of Catholics into America. If there was any thought of "Hindoos," "Mohammedans," or any other major world religion, it was fleeting at best. Fortunately, we have evolved in our thinking and our Constitution has been able to adapt from tacit tolerance to actual tolerance.

What brings all this up is the resurgence of religiosity in our presidential campaigns these last few cycles. To be sure, our presidents are usually not shy about their beliefs. Dwight Eisenhower was baptized while in office; James Garfield sometimes took to the pulpit to preach while in office; and, of course, George W. Bush's religious rebirth was the subject of much ink before he became president.

However, outward displays of faith which were often considered undignified just a few decades ago are de rigueur today. In fact, "having religion" seems to be a requirement: polls show that most people would not vote for an avowed atheist or even an agnostic.

What concerns me is that all this talk of religion seems to have rendered the Religious Test clause moot. Though the people are free to vote for whomever they wish for whatever reasons they wish, if large enough blocs of voters impose such a test on the candidates they, in effect, impose it for all of us.

From concerns about Mitt Romney's Mormonism to evangelicals voting for Mike Huckabee solely because he is an ordained minister, talk of religion, in some circles in particular, has overtaken the really important issues. I find it more important to know candidate's thoughts on domestic and foreign policy than about the role God plays in their life.

Religion is also being used as a scare tactic. FactCheck.org recently debunked a series of emails that are circulating about Barack Obama, emails that erroneously report that Obama attended a jihadist madrassa in Indonesia, that he took his oath of office on the Koran, and that he attends a racist church in Chicago.

Even worse, these scare tactics work because so many people know absolutely nothing about religion. In his book "Religious Literacy," Stephen Prothero shows that the lack of knowledge about religion is not only sad but dangerous. In a time when many Catholics can't list the seven sacraments and many Protestants don't know who Martin Luther is, it is easy to scare people about Mormons or Muslims.

I don't think it is inappropriate to ask our candidates for president to reveal their religious beliefs. But I do hope that after we hear the answers, we don't close our minds to those who give an answer we perceive as "wrong."

Religion has a prominent place in American life, but when it comes to politics, our religious beliefs should guide us but not rule us. Don't judge someone simply because they are Baptist or Muslim or Mormon or Jewish or Catholic or even atheist.

Instead, listen to what they have to say about the issues and base your decisions on that. It is in keeping with the spirit of the Constitution's Religious Test clause, and in keeping with our American tradition of religious freedom and tolerance.