Faith Matters. Voters Can and Should Consider It.
The US Constitution in Article VI explicitly prohibits a “religious Test” as a qualification to any office. But that doesn’t mean voters can’t and shouldn’t know and consider a candidate's faith and religion as part of their reasoning for electing or not electing someone to political office.
Although a formal litmus test constitutionally can’t and never will be adopted, groups from atheists to fundamental Christians have made the argument that candidates should be asked questions regarding their faith, and that voters should not only consider them in electing a candidate but in some cases determine their vote based on the answers.
And why not? Faith matters. It’s naïve to think that now or 200 years ago, faith isn’t and wasn’t an important issue to voters and to candidates. And just because JFK said he and the church didn’t speak for each other doesn’t mean his faith didn’t affect his political agenda, or that voters didn’t take his Catholicism into consideration when choosing whether to elect him. As rightly they should have.
Likewise, the founding fathers were not against faith, they were against an organized religion operating as a partner in governance. History has proved that since the beginning of this country, political leaders and elected officials have relied on their faith to make decisions, to provide guidance and to rally public support. To claim that one’s private faith is irrelative to their public actions and policy choices is not only illogical, but unsupported by human history.
The first amendment guarantees the right to a free exercise of religion, not limited to those only out of public office. A politician will live by his or her faith and make choices accordingly, so voters have every right to know what those beliefs are, and to weigh their significance on a politician running for public office.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
I am so tired of supposedly knowledgeable people twisting the facts to support their ridiculous religious assumptions.
"Likewise, the founding fathers were not against faith, they were against an organized religion operating as a partner in governance."
This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it. James Madison
Millions of innocent men, women and children , since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced an inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth. Thomas Jefferson
Gouverneur Morris had often told me that General Washington believed no more of that system (Christianity) than did he himself. Thomas Jefferson
In the affairs of the world, men are saved, not by faith, but by the lack of it. Benjamin Franklin
What is it the New Testament teaches us? To believe that the Almighty committed debauchery with a woman engaged to be married; and the belief of this debauchery is called faith. Thomas Paine
"History has proved that since the beginning of this country, political leaders and elected officials have relied on their faith to make decisions, to provide guidance and to rally public support. To claim that one’s private faith is irrelative to their public actions and policy choices is not only illogical, but unsupported by human history."
See above. The only thing that history has proved is that men infected with religious delusions will go to any lengths to continue spreading its virulent evil to others, whether to willing hosts, or by forceful inoculation. As far as ruling by faith, yes, we have had recent experience with that via GW Bush:
French ex-President Jacques René Chirac recounted during an interview how U.S. President George W. Bush asked him in 2003 during a phone conversation for support of the invasion of Iraq. George W. Bush is documented to have said “Gog and Magog are at work in the Middle East", "The biblical prophecies are being fulfilled", and "This confrontation is willed by God, who wants to use this conflict to erase his people’s enemies before a New Age begins.”
Yes, I would like to know someone's religious philosophy, so that I can vote AGAINST the religulous.
If candidates are going to run on their religion then they should be judged on how well they follow their religion. I get very irritated when a candidate says vote for me because I am a good Christian but don't expect me to follow those values when I get into office because now I am representing all the people and not just Christians.
Voters can't help but take note of the religious leanings of a candidate, most often at the highest levels. It is reassuring to note that a candidate generally mirrors the people he/she will serve. It is also important that the religious beliefs do not spill over into how someone carries out their responsibilities. We have seen that with George W. Bush...over the top. It is saddening that a candidates religious beliefs has taken too much emphasis. If you're Mormon or Jewish you have two strikes against you right off the bat. Hence, very qualified candidates such as Romney and Lieberman can't make a serious run for the highest office because of their religions. There is a high percentage of people in this great country who have narrow minds. That is slowly changing...but it may take generations to change to the point that a Romney could run without the main focus being placed on religion.
As far as the Republican candidate best suited to pull this country out of a recession - Mitt Romney was it. In 1990, when Romney was asked to return to Bain & Company, the reason they asked him to come back was because the company was facing financial collapse. When Romney became CEO, he managed an effort to restructure the firm's employee stock-ownership plan, real-estate deals and bank loans, while increasing fiscal transparency. Bottom line, within a year, he had led Bain & Company through a highly successful turnaround and returned the firm to profitability WITHOUT LAYOFFS OR PARTNER DEFECTIONS. As anyone who's ever tried to run a business knows, pulling a feat like that off is nothing short of miraculous. And I would have attributed much of his success to luck, had it not been for the Salt Lake Olympics
Before Romney served as president and CEO of the 2002 Olympic Winter Games, the event was suffering a staggering $379 million deficit. Plans were already being made to scale back the games in order to compensate for the fiscal crisis.
But when Romney was hired as the new CEO of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee, he revamped the organization's leadership and policies, reduced budgets, and boosted fund raising. He also worked to ensure the safety of the Games following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 by coordinating a $300 million security budget. Despite the initial deficit of the event when he was first hired, the Games ended up clearing a profit of $100 million, not counting the $224.5 million in security costs contributed by outside sources. That's a $700 million dollar turnaround.
That, my friends, is ridiculous. Not only did he effectively pull a multi-billion dollar entity from the brink of financial collapse - he did it twice.
And I have to wonder, as the country stares into the face of the largest federal deficit in 70 years, was it smart for us to withhold the presidency from the only candidate experienced in successful economic turnaround based on the fact that he was a Mormon?
I think not.
The problem with your argument -- why shouldn't fair matter, is that people aren't looking to see if a person has strong moral and religious beliefs, they are looking to see that the candidate has THEIR religious beliefs.