Karl, at Leaning Straight Up recently suggested a topic to the bloggers at NWBloggers.com. The topic: Is religion a valid issue in regards to politics? He offered the “bonus” question: “Should” religion be an issue? So, here’s my take on it.

I think that religion is a valid issue with regard to politics, and I believe it should be an issue. I don’t think that it should be the primary issue by which we choose our leaders though.

Our nation was founded upon religious principles, by religious men. They declared our independence from Great Britain over two hundred years ago. A part of the justification for that act is in these words:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

In the Declaration of Independence the Continental Congress plainly acknowledged that men are created, and that our rights are given to us by our Creator. In fact, according to the Declaration of Independence, governments are instituted to defend and secure the rights granted to us by our Creator, not to grant us rights.

I think it’s important to note that the very first right protected by the Bill of Rights is the freedom of religion. The first amendment begins with the words:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

A lot of argument has gone on around this first clause. A lot of people pounce upon the first half of that statement and ignore the part that says “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. Often people mischaracterize this as a wall of separation between church and state, but I’m sure you’ll notice that that’s not what the amendment says.

In any case, I think it’s clear that our founding fathers believed that religion had an important place in the lives of the American people. I think it’s also clear that they didn’t want the government forcing people to hold to any specific religious creed, either to hold office or to enjoy the rights of man.

The Constitution forbids any kind of religious test as a qualification to office. In Article VI the last paragraph 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.

This means that a candidate’s religion or lack thereof is not a bar to holding office. It means that just because Keith Ellison is a Muslim or Mitt Romney is a Mormon doesn’t disqualify either of them from aspiring to or holding any office or trust, either in the United States government or in the government of any of the individual States.

That doesn’t mean that the American people can’t or shouldn’t consider a candidate’s religion or lack thereof when deciding how to vote. It’s a voter’s responsibility and duty to vote for the candidate that they believe will best represent their beliefs and interests. To this extent, religion has a place in politics.

I believe that a candidate for public office should be a man or woman of faith. A man or woman that does not believe in a Creator cannot honestly believe that our rights are a gift from our Creator. Instead, such a man or woman will tend to believe that whatever rights we have are granted to us by our government. Let’s not forget that whatever government gives you it can also take away.

If, as the Declaration of Independence states, governments are instituted among men to secure the rights given to us by our Creator, and not to define what those rights are, we need men and women of faith serving in government to restrain government from usurping the Creator’s role in granting us our rights. That’s the basic “religious test” that the voter should apply when choosing someone to represent them.

Voters should choose people of faith as their representatives in government, to protect their rights. That doesn’t mean that the blind faith of the religious fanatic should be acceptable to them.

The religious fanatic is likely to attempt to institute religious law. I think that most of us would agree that that’s a particularly bad idea. The first amendment to the Constitution forbids it for a reason.

If a candidate for office makes an issue of his or her faith or lack thereof, then it is legitimately a valid political issue. We should question why the candidate has made it an issue. We shouldn’t take the candidate’s statement of faith at face value though.

If they claim faith, then we should be able to see evidence of that faith. We should also examine how that faith is expressed. We should also seek some evidence that they will be guided by their faith, but not blinded by fanaticism, when they make decisions.

If a candidate for office makes an issue of his or her opponent’s faith or lack thereof, it is still a valid issue. We should question even more closely why it has been made an issue though. It is almost certainly done in an effort to paint the opponent in a negative light. What does that say about the candidate making their opponent’s faith an issue?

Ultimately, I want the people that represent me to be honest, morally upright people with a firm understanding of right and wrong. I want those people to have faith in a higher authority, one that they are answerable to. I want the oaths that they swear to have meaning when they swear to them.

I want them to acknowledge that my rights come from God and not from government. I want them to know and firmly believe that they hold their office by the consent of those they govern. If they can’t do those things, I can’t believe they are truly representing me.

Cross posted to Perri Nelson’s Website

Trackback URI | Comments RSS