Should Faith Matter When Electing Politicians?

Recommend (2) Comments (5)

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.