Religious Tests For Office

[Sky]

Article 6 of the United States Constitution plainly states that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

But BCSpace stated here that he is “all for people applying their own religious tests to candidates as politics and religion (or lack thereof) are completely and absolutely inseparable.”

How do you feel about religious tests for office? Why do you think this was put into the Constitution? My view is that it was put there to in order to protect the separation of church and state, and to keep our pluralistic society intact instead of letting one particular religious body dominate (for example - The Church of England or evangelical Christians), as well as to prevent less popular religious minorities like the Mormons from becoming marginalized.

However, I think we all tend to vote for candidates that have values similar to our own, but where does it cross the line into becoming a religious test, as religion inevitably shapes a person’s values?

Lehi stated that it is a restriction on the federal government (not on the people who vote) as to who can hold office. So if I understand him correctly, it is acceptable for individual citizens to apply their own religious tests for candidates as long as the government itself doesn’t do it? What about people who refuse to vote for Romney simply because he is a Mormon?

Obviously this is a rather sticky situation, and I am interested in hearing what you all have to say about it. Enlighten me!

[frankenstein]

The constitution originally only applied to the Fed later it applied to states. The religious test prohibition does not apply to private citizens voting for persons to office. Romney is partially responsible for perverting the religious test principle.

[LeSellers]

Romney is partially responsible for perverting the religious test principle.

I believe this is a non sequitor. How do you support this position?

Lehi

[asbestosman]

What about people who refuse to vote for Romney simply because he is a Mormon?

Sad perhaps, but it'd be worse to punish someone for voting against their preference.

The way I understood the religious test is that it distinguishes the USA from some other European countries which historically required adherence to a particular faith in order to hold a particular office--such as king or queen.

[Saints Alive]

The principle behind not having a religious is so that, as you said, one religion doesn’t have all the power and marginalize others. Imagine the power evangelical endorsements have with a large number of voters. Mike Huckabee certainly would not have won the 2008 Iowa nomination without evangelical support.

I don’t think religion should be a litmus test for electability, but it can be a strong indicator of a person’s morals, goals and motivations. I wouldn’t want to vote for a Satanist because of their liberal / libertarian views. Similarly, I would consider a Catholics anti-abortion belief as a positive. Even those examples are limited as there are pro-abortion Catholics and conservative Satanist. You really can’t make an educated choice without considering the whole candidate. Anyone excluding a candidate simply because of their religion is deluding themselves.

[Jaybear]

Article 6 of the United States Constitution plainly states that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

But BCSpace stated here that he is “all for people applying their own religious tests to candidates as politics and religion (or lack thereof) are completely and absolutely inseparable.”

People are allowed to vote for or agaisnt any candidate for any reason, good or bad, or for no reason.

.

Here are just some of the attributes that a voter is legally allowed to take into account, while casting a ballot:

Gay, straight, white, black, muslim, christian, tall, short, fat, skinny, young, old, pretty, ugly, funny name, married, single, red hair, bald.

[CV75]

Lehi stated that it is a restriction on the federal government (not on the people who vote) as to who can hold office. So if I understand him correctly, it is acceptable for individual citizens to apply their own religious tests for candidates as long as the government itself doesn’t do it? What about people who refuse to vote for Romney simply because he is a Mormon?

Article 6 keeps the governemnt from applying a test based on religion. It does not keep citizens from applying any personal kind of test they wish, no matter how wrong-headed.

[LeSellers]

Lehi stated that it is a restriction on the federal government (not on the people who vote) as to who can hold office. So if I understand him correctly, it is acceptable for individual citizens to apply their own religious tests for candidates as long as the government itself doesn’t do it? What about people who refuse to vote for Romney simply because he is a Mormon?

The Constitution was enacted by the states (not the people, irrespective of what the Preamble states, although the states, as republics, represented the people). It is a charter of powers, granted by the states, to the federal government. Only powers expressly granted to the central government by the states are legitimate federal powers. The Declaration of Independence clearly proclaims that "these united colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent states." Please note that, until the War Between the States, it was nearly unheard of to use "the united States" as a singular noun: the phrase was almost universally treated as a plural: e.g., "the united States are ...", not "the United States is ...".

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

Note the capitalization on "united" and the uniform reference to the states or colonies in the plural. It is the same in the Constitution.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence [sic], promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the united States of America.

We note that, while the headline of the Preamble shows "United" capitalized, in the closing phrase, it is lower case.

The whole Document starts from the premise that the federal government has no powers, but that the states do. (How the states got their powers is another related, but different, question). The states, as sovereign and independent countries (that's what the word "state" actually means; it is not a synonym for "province"), had the natural right to exercise powers (derived form the consent of the governed, and from them when acting based on powers a citizen has by virtue of his unalienable, and Creator-endowed rights). The federal government, having no rights, had to get them from the states, and, in giving it those powers, the states limited them largely to areas dealing with interfaces with other states and among the states. Article I, Section 8 defines all of the powers the central government was permitted. No others were hinted at, and much less assumed.

The Constitution did not envision the states' being mere extensions of the central government, rather the contrary: the federal government was merely an extension of the individual states in limited areas. So, when the Bill of Rights was incorporated into the organic Document, it did not apply to the states: the servant cannot control the master.

The people (as individuals), aside from the nod in to Preamble, are barely mentioned in the Document (except for the future restriction on importing slaves, and as a basis for establishing the House of Representatives) . There is only one crime named in the Document: treason. The federal courts were allowed or required to hear cases between citizens in some case, but not all.

With that as background, we can see that the "no religious test clause" cannot apply to persons. It is exclusively a limitation of the federal government. It did not impair the states from doing so themselves (and, in 1787/9 several states still had an established religion, supported and controlled by the state government and taxation), even though I am unaware of any state that had such a test.

The term "religious test" came from England, which, in 1661 passed the "Corporation Act" requiring that all members of a corporation be, for all intents and purposes, members in good standing of the Church of England within a year of their taking office. This was supplemented, in 1673 by the "Test Act" which required all office holders to take the following oath: "I, [name], do declare that I do believe that there is not any transubstantiation in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, or in the elements of the bread and wine, at or after the consecration thereof by any person whatsoever." This disallowed Catholics holding any elective or appointive office.

Five years later, in 1678, the reach was expanded to include all peers (the House of Lords) and Members of Parliament (House of Commons), specifically, that they should make a declaration against transubstantiation, invocation of saints, and the sacrifice of the Mass.

All of these acts were repealed in 1828, well after USmerica was no longer British, and, more importantly, such a restriction on exercising religious rights would have been common in the USmerican mind during ratification. That's why it was included.

Anyone who imagines that the religious test clause applies to a person as an individual voter must demonstrate how this clause can possibly do so. I have seen no fact-bases argument supporting that notion.

Lehi

Edited January 11, 2012 by LeSellers

[frankenstein]

I believe this is a non sequitor. How do you support this position?

Lehi

Romney has stated on national tv that the constitution prohibits religious test, he made in the in response to questioning about his religion and individual voting. He did not clarify nor state that prohibition only applies to governments.

[thesometimesaint]

"The Church has made the following public statement on multiple occasions prior to major elections: “Principles compatible with the gospel are found in the platforms of all major political parties. While the Church does not endorse political candidates, platforms, or parties, members are urged to be full participants in political, governmental, and community affairs.”

If LDS living in the US believe the US Constitution to be a divinely inspired document wouldn't that require us to reject any religious test in our voting preferences?

[LeSellers]

If LDS living in the US believe the US Constitution to be a divinely inspired document wouldn't that require us to reject any religious test in our voting preferences?

No, because it does not apply to individual voters.

Lehi

[BCSpace]

Article 6 of the United States Constitution plainly states that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

But BCSpace stated here that he is “all for people applying their own religious tests to candidates as politics and religion (or lack thereof) are completely and absolutely inseparable.”

How do you feel about religious tests for office? Why do you think this was put into the Constitution? My view is that it was put there to in order to protect the separation of church and state, and to keep our pluralistic society intact instead of letting one particular religious body dominate (for example - The Church of England or evangelical Christians), as well as to prevent less popular religious minorities like the Mormons from becoming marginalized.

Notice that my version of a religious test is not unconstitutional in any way. Such tests do not set up any sort of "qualification for office" as mentioned in Article 6. In fact, to somehow try and remove such tests would be a violation of the constitution (thought crimes). And so we do have people applying religious tests, no matter how ill-informed, such as Democrats and other liberals making up the majority of the 38-40% nationally who would not vote for a Mormon. But in no way are these "tests" intrinsically wrong or unreasonable and the onus is on us and them to make an informed choice. As I stated before, it is a truism that religion informs one's politics and is therefore a valid consideration for an indivudal in selecting a candidate. it is impossible to get away from and neither should we want to get away from it.

Edited January 11, 2012 by BCSpace

[LeSellers]

Romney has stated on national tv that the constitution prohibits religious test, he made in the in response to questioning about his religion and individual voting. He did not clarify nor state that prohibition only applies to governments.

I s this statement to one you referred to?

The founders of this country went to great lengths to make sure and even put in the Constitution, that we would not choose people who represent us in government based on their religion. That this would be a nation that recognizes and respected other faiths. That there’s a plurality of faiths, where there was tolerance of other faiths. That’s bedrock principle. . . . The concept that we select people based on the church or the synagogue they go to, I think is a very dangerous and enormous departure from the principles of our Constitution.

I had not seen it before.

He does make it sound as if the Constitution prohibits individual voters from using a "religious test" as a basis for choosing. I reject that position, strenuously.

Lehi

[thesometimesaint]

Lehi:

Do we not have Scripture that has the US Constitution as divinely inspired? Does not the D&C apply to us individually?

[BCSpace]

I'd be willing to bet that some of the most careful to not let religion affect one's choice of candidate would never vote for an FLDS candidate because the candidate is FLDS.

[BCSpace]

The Church has made the following public statement on multiple occasions prior to major elections: “Principles compatible with the gospel are found in the platforms of all major political parties.

Sure. Recognizing that everyone can be saved is a good principle. Satan himself recognized that and wanted everyone to be automatically saved. The problem was the modus operandi. So this statement does not in any way justify all major parties.

Edited January 11, 2012 by BCSpace

[frankenstein]

Lehi:

Do we not have Scripture that has the US Constitution as divinely inspired? Does not the D&C apply to us individually?

I would like to comment to this question for myself, and thanks for getting this topic onto something LDS related.

The Scripture can tells us the Constitution is inspired, but such inspiration does not negate the fact that the Constitution set up a Federal Gov. and originally the Constitution only applied to the Federal Gov. The Scriptures nor the Constitution support the notion that a private citizen can not or should not use a religious test for public officials.

If anything, the BoM and Bible would tend to suggest a religious test should be considered - considering that both books speak against mortal Kings.

[Freedom]

If I had a choice between an active mormon and a Sikh, and if all other aspects were equal, I would vote for the mormon. If I had a choice between an atheist and a 'christian', all things being equal, I would vote for the 'christian. If I had a choice between an inactive mormon who I know is not living his/her religion and an agnostic, all things being equal, religion would not affect my decision what so ever. I would vote this way because I would for the person who holds the same values and beliefs as me, this what we do in a democracy. I have voted for 3 sikh candidates and worked on the campaign of 1. The opponents were Christians but they were the member of a socialist party. Their religion was more closely aligned with my own, but the top priority to me was the economy. If an active mormon ran for the socialist party and an atheist ran for the conservative party, I would most likely vote conservative.

[thesometimesaint]

BCSpace:

That is a direct contradiction of what the Church has repeatedly said.

Edited January 11, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[thesometimesaint]

frankenstein:

So which parts of the Constitution do we toss out because that part wasn't as written by the Founders?

[BCSpace]

If I had a choice between an active mormon and a Sikh, and if all other aspects were equal, I would vote for the mormon. If I had a choice between an atheist and a 'christian', all things being equal, I would vote for the 'christian. If I had a choice between an inactive mormon who I know is not living his/her religion and an agnostic, all things being equal, religion would not affect my decision what so ever. I would vote this way because I would for the person who holds the same values and beliefs as me, this what we do in a democracy. I have voted for 3 sikh candidates and worked on the campaign of 1. The opponents were Christians but they were the member of a socialist party. Their religion was more closely aligned with my own, but the top priority to me was the economy. If an active mormon ran for the socialist party and an atheist ran for the conservative party, I would most likely vote conservative.

Yes. I would say that most religious tests we could and should apply are often not as important as other tests because often the religion in question is not far from our own values. But,for example, a Muslim might likely support the implementation of Sharia Law which runs counter to LDS and other Christian doctrine as well as the usual interpretations of the Constitution and so individually applied religious tests in that case would indeed become more important. Same for the above mentioned FLDS example.

[LeSellers]

Do we not have Scripture that has the US Constitution as divinely inspired?

Yes, we do, and I subscribe wholeheartedly to it.

However, I know of no scripture that requires me to accept your distorted interpretation of the Constitution. Because it manifestly does not say what you seem to be claiming it does.

Does not the D&C apply to us individually?

Of course, but it does not say that I have to agree with thesometimesaint's erroneous reconstruction of the Constitution.

Lehi

[BCSpace]

That is a direct contradiction of what the Church has repeatedly said.

I have not contradited the Church in any way. Absence of evidence in your case proves it.

[Sky]

If the Constitutional prohibition against religious tests applies only to the government and not individual citizens, then I have a hard time of seeing the reason for having it in the Constitution in the first place. I mean, it’s the citizens that determine who will be elected and not the government, right? It seems to me that part of the point of having it in the Constitution would be to discourage our citizens from using a religious test in their voting preferences, as well as sending the message that we take freedom of religion seriously, and that no religion takes precedence over another in this country. Of course I know there is no way to enforce voters to not use a religious test in the way that they vote, but in my opinion our Constitution nevertheless clearly discourages it.

[BCSpace]

If anything, the BoM and Bible would tend to suggest a religious test should be considered - considering that both books speak against mortal Kings.

The following absolutely prescribes a religious test for those who are interested in being free from bondage etc.:

Behold, this is a choice land, and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall be free from bondage, and from captivity, and from all other nations under heaven, if they will but serve the God of the land, who is Jesus Christ, who hath been manifested by the things which we have written.

Ether 2:12