Motley Moose – Archive

Since 2008 – Progress Through Politics

Enquiring into a Candidate's Religious Beliefs

(The Risen Jesus appears to the Nephites.)

http://mormonchannel.org/progr…

Willard “Mitt” Romney’s adherence to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is a matter of some discussion in the campaign for the 2012 Republican Nomination for President.  Rick Perry’s preacher friend, Robert Jeffress, has called Mormonism a non-Christian cult.  Jeffress has also said that one of the criteria that Christians should take into account in deciding for whom to vote is whether the candidate is a Christian.

Is it legitimate to take a candidate’s religious beliefs into account when deciding for whom to vote?

In my opinion, a candidate’s religious beliefs are a legitimate factor to take into account when deciding whether or not to vote for the candidate.

Some people cite the Constitutional no-religious-test provision for the proposition that a candidate’s religious beliefs are not a legitimate factor to take into account.  That provision, found in Article VI, Paragraph 3, states:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

The provision was a reaction to English statutes that prohibited Roman Catholics and non-conforming Protestants from holding public office.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T…

What the Constitutional provision concerns is whether or not someone can get on the ballot, and whether, if elected, he or she can serve.  It says nothing about whether voters may or may not take into account a candidate’s religious beliefs.

A candidate’s religious beliefs can affect both the candidate’s opinions and the candidate’s actions on issues of public importance.

E.g., a fundamentalist Christian or a Roman Catholic might favor, and vote for, a Constitutional amendment declaring that a human being with full equal-protection rights arises at the moment of conception.

Voters should be entitled to take such an opinion into account in deciding whether or not to vote for a particular candidate.

As another example, a candidate might be a follower of a sect that believes that the world is going to end within the lifetime of everyone who has already been born.  For that reason, the candidate might be unconcerned about the long-term effects on global climate of the burning of fossil fuels, or about the conservation of natural resources.  Voters should be entitled to take such an opinion into account.

Or suppose that a candidate is a Creator.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C…

Would not adherence to such beliefs be relevant in deciding whether or not to vote for such a candidate.

All of the above said, a candidate’s religious beliefs do not necessarily indicate how the candidate would act in office.  E.g., a number of Roman Catholic office-holders have taken the position that, despite their personal religious beliefs that contraception and abortion are morally wrong, they should not impose that belief on others by voting to deny government funding of contraception or abortion (or both), or by voting to outlaw abortion outright.

I do not think that voters should decide to vote for a candidate simply because he or she is a Christian. I also do not think that voters should decide not to vote for a candidate simply because he or she is a Muslim, or a Hindu, or a Buddhist, or…

But.. I do think that voters are entitled to take a candidate’s religious beliefs into account in deciding whether or not to vote for that candidate.  Depending on the nature of the beliefs, the beliefs might be a sufficient justification for deciding not to vote for that candidate… as in the extreme example of the hypothetical candidate who is a Creator.

Specifically with regard to Mormonism, I think it is fair to ask a Mormon candidate whether he or she believes that the Book of Mormon contains historically accurate accounts, and if so, how he or she reconciles the proposition that Native Americans are descendants of lost tribes of Israel with the results of DNA studies that show essentially no Semitic elements in the DNA of Native Americans.

It is a legitimate question.  Among other things, the answer will shed light onto a candidate’s attitudes toward science, and onto the question of whether or not the candidate is a fundamentalist.

It is just as legitimate a question as asking a fundamentalist Christian how old the world is, or whether we should conserve natural resources.

It is just as legitimate as asking a Roman Catholic whether contraception and abortion should be outlawed.

Such inquiries are legitimate and do not evince bigotry.


Categories: Uncategorized.

/ 99 Comments

99 comments

  1. janicket

    I would love to see one of my ilk stand for national office and be elected, or at least taken seriously.  But it seems to me that this nation does, by and large, impose a religious qualification for office, in that an atheist would be even less palatable to wide swathes of the electorate than a Muslim (the current designated Cult of Satan for the gotta-hate-someone narrow-minded).

    With that said, I consider it perfectly legitimate to assess a candidate’s self-professed religious beliefs, as stated per se, as expressed in proposed policies, and as contrasted with said candidate’s actual conduct.  Thus, e.g., a candidate who asserted his/her devotion to Jesus’s teachings about healing the sick while voting to cut funding for Medicare would get double black marks — for policy and for hypocritical conduct.  

    These are, of course, tricky waters to navigate.

  2. Adept2u

    I think we can all agree there is a difference between questioning and vilifying.  I think our pal Rick Perry was engaging in the latter by calling through a surrogate Mormonism a cult.

    I in fact need to ask every Mormon candidate what there opinion was on the 1979 decision the church made granting Black people their priesthood.  Especially the older ones who spent a great deal of time thinking Black people weren’t human.

    I think where the rubber meets the road is if you’re willing to accept the persons answer.  I hear tell Mitt gave a speech on his mormon faith, but I don’t remember if it included the answer to my question.

    I’m not sure if I’m interested in what tenets of faith the candidate believes as much as I’m interested also in their commitment to keep those beliefs out of their deliberations on policy.  

  3. John Allen

    including a person’s religious beliefs in the factors affecting my vote. For instance, would anyone here vote for someone who is a member of Fred Phelps church? As you point out in the diary, there is a big difference between denying someone public office because of their religion and not voting for someone because of their religion.

    Religion matters to me when I vote only to the extent that I think it will affect the candidate’s actions once in office. Thankfully, from my point of view, a very large percentage of people who profess to be religious don’t live their religion.

    I think all religions are nothing more than taradiddle. However, the only choice I ever have when voting is between a person who claims to believe in a religion and another who also claims to believe in a religion. If I put a religious test on all politicians then I’d never vote for anyone.

  4. anna shane

    just the fact of professing some faith or other doesn’t say much about the person. If you’re born Mormon it takes some doing to leave that church, and I’d guess there are Mormons who wouldn’t admit they don’t believe in that silly stuff. I know Christians who don’t believe in the silly stuff, and some who don’t believe in Christ, but see it as a cultural identification.

    But since our nations was founded ‘under god,’ and because many think that anyone without religious beliefs has no moral compass, it seems that religious beliefs are necessary.  

    I think you can see who’s wacky and who isn’t by what they say and do, not by what group they belong to.  

    Saying that, I do think it’s amusing that Mitt won’t get certain Christian votes because he’s assumed to be Satanic, in a cult.  It should be that he’s a cold hearted bastard with no moral compass, but I’ll take Mormon.  

  5. AaronInSanDiego

    than looking at a person’s individual record of words and deeds. If you can’t find out enough about a person from that, then you don’t know enough to elect them.

  6. creamer

    on any subject, religous or otherwise, is proably not much of an indicator. The only thing Mitt Romney stands for is Mitt Romney, wich is proably all the qualification you need to be a republican today.

      I do remember in highschool (early 70’s)a Mormon freind explaining to me that blacks where the “mud people” of the bible, thus somehow lesser. That not only strained our relationship, but now leaves me curious how a generation that was taught that might now be able to govern fairley. (Again, fairley doesnt seem to be a republican pre-requisite.)

  7. Rashaverak

    Mormon doctrine states that the risen Jesus appeared to the Nephites, who had emigrated from the Near East to the Americas.

    Where this apparition occurred is a matter of some debate.  Some people say Mexico.  Others say Missouri.

    E.g.,

    http://mormondiscussions.com/p…

  8. TrueBlueMajority

    But not the way most people would think.

    I am interested in what a candidate believes, and how s/he will act on those beliefs if elected.

    So I would be likely to vote against fundamentalist Christians who claim their beliefs force them to oppose abortion care and marriage equality.

    But I would be happy to vote for an atheist or believer in a faith other than Christian if their beliefs lead them to promote the social justice and civic principles I value.

    The Constitution may not have a religious test for office, but I as an individual am free to do so.

    However, my religious test does not require the candidate to be a Christian, just to be a person of integrity who understands that budgets and war votes and governing in general frequently requires moral judgments.

    I vote for candidates whom I believe will make progressive moral judgments and not act like hypocrites.  Jesus hates hypocrisy and so do I.

  9. fogiv

    A candidate’s religious views and convictions are important considerations. While you might not be able to predict what decisions or actions a candidate may take, an understanding of their faith can inform you about their decision making process.

  10. John Allen

    Amy Sullivan had a good piece on the bigger picture.

       

    Americans wouldn’t accept an ethnic or gender test for office. Why then do so many voters impose a de facto religious requirement on their candidates? […]

       The problem is that religion has become so politicized that it actually gets in the way of providing that moral clarity. Yet liberals and conservatives alike have fallen for the idea that a candidate’s religious beliefs are the key to predicting how they will govern.

       I was reminded of this a few weeks ago when I taped a segment for On the Media about how reporters cover religion on the campaign trail. In an unaired portion of the interview, I got into a debate about the relevance of candidates’ theological beliefs with host Bob Garfield, who argued that everything should be on the table. “Shouldn’t we know if Rick Santorum believes homosexuality is a sin?” asked Garfield. No. The only thing we should care about is whether a candidate like Santorum would seek to ban gay marriage as President. So just ask him that. In the end, his motivation for taking the position is irrelevant.Amy Sullivan had a good piece on the bigger picture.

       Americans wouldn’t accept an ethnic or gender test for office. Why then do so many voters impose a de facto religious requirement on their candidates? […]

       The problem is that religion has become so politicized that it actually gets in the way of providing that moral clarity. Yet liberals and conservatives alike have fallen for the idea that a candidate’s religious beliefs are the key to predicting how they will govern.

       I was reminded of this a few weeks ago when I taped a segment for On the Media about how reporters cover religion on the campaign trail. In an unaired portion of the interview, I got into a debate about the relevance of candidates’ theological beliefs with host Bob Garfield, who argued that everything should be on the table. “Shouldn’t we know if Rick Santorum believes homosexuality is a sin?” asked Garfield. No. The only thing we should care about is whether a candidate like Santorum would seek to ban gay marriage as President. So just ask him that. In the end, his motivation for taking the position is irrelevant.

  11. Chris Blask

    (Always a good way to start a “lively discussion”, FYI. ;~)

    But true in essence. Why you swerved off the road and killed the kids is less important to me than the fact that you did. Why you believe that America must stand behind Israel under every and all circumstances is similarly less interesting to me than the fact that you do.

    I’m more results oriented, I suppose. Every crash is pilot error, as a flight instructor once instructed me.

    If someone wants to be President and is High Priest in the Church of the Everlasting Elephant I will look at their religion and how it impacts their actions. Christians range all over the map from extremely liberal (Jesus) to extremely conservative (Jerry Falwell). Just being Christian itself doesn’t mean anything particular regarding the likely actions you can expect from someone, so the fact that a candidate claims that simple title is neither a positive or negative in itself.

    I would love to see a non-theist as President someday, but I don’t expect to live that long.

  12. Strummerson

    then it’s fair game.

    The fact is, if you ask anyone who doesn’t accept that the constitution is the highest authority whether they are guided by the pope or my mormonism’s theocratic tendencies or by Zionist commitments, they will deny it and be justified in doing so by their higher authorities.  So it makes no sense.  However, if they make it part of their appeal, then it can and must be investigated, just like every other component of their appeal for support.

    Fortunately, despite often cavalier accusations that the Pres. is subverting the constitution, there are safeguards against this happening in a total sense.  Sure, presidents have overstepped their constitutional authority on this or that issue, but none have attempted to subvert its authority as such.  I dare Michele Bachmann or anyone else to actually try and institute a theocracy.  As long as we keep talking about it, it’s very very unlikely.  

  13. Strummerson

    I’ve argued that religion is fair game if a candidate makes it part of his or her campaign.  But Romney presents a more complex case.  He hasn’t made it part of his campaign, except to confront those who have tried to use it against him, which I think is fair (and it’s a rare day when I consider anything about Willard to be “fair”).  He’s also stated explicitly that he will not place any law above the Constitution.  But Mormonism is an aggressively missionizing faith and he holds the office of High Priest in LDS, (according to some that’s comparable to a Bishop though it’s hard to see where and when he exercises ecclesiastical authority).  It’s part of his resume.  I guess I think that in his case, it’s fair to ask, and he has the right not to answer beyond his pledge to grant the Constitution the highest authority.  The fact is, that our politics are influenced by all sorts of commitments.  Nothing wrong in taking a position under the influence of one’s family, culture, or faith.  The problem lies in subjecting the Constitution to a higher authority.  As long as a religiously-based position is pursued within the guidelines of the Constitution and with secular (by which I mean civic) rationale, it’s kosher…I think.

  14. Rashaverak

    http://www.frc.org/washingtonw…

    Christian vs. Non-Christian Candidates

    Do you have the freedom to choose between Christian and a non-Christian candidate? Hello, this is Tony Perkins with the Family Research Council in Washington. Texas pastor Robert Jeffress created a firestorm when he declared at the Values Voter Summit he was voting for Rick Perry because he was a Christian. His rational; all else being equal a Christian leader is to be preferred over a non-Christian. I whole heartedly agree. So did the first justice of the Supreme Court John Jay who said it was in the “interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.” Many so-called journalists have gone apoplectic claiming such a bigoted position violates article 6 of the constitution, how absurd. The article reads Congress may not require religious tests for an office.” The constitution restricts what the government can require not what individuals can consider. If voters can consider a candidate’s party and that party’s platform they can consider a candidates religion and the tenants of that faith. We should prefer mature, qualified Christians for public office over those who reject the orthodox teachings of scripture.

Comments are closed.