Religious Tests For Office

[thesometimesaint]

I could vote for an FLDS IF their platform agreed with my interests. NOT likely to happen but it is possible in the abstract. Same with a Quaker, a Southern Baptist, a Muslim, a Catholic, a Satanist, a Mormon, what have you.

[BCSpace]

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.

How do you propose to enforce indivudals from applying their own religious tests? I think that in and of itself shows the Constitution speaks only of the government and in fact I think that is the context of the era in which the Constitution was written. Though there was competition and animosity between them, virtually all religions of the day were Christian.

I happen to agree with statements attributed to Noah Webster on this issue:

"The religion which has introduced civil liberty is the religion of Christ and His apostles, which enjoins humility, piety, and benevolence; which acknowledges in every person, a brother or a sister, and a citizen with equal rights. This is genuine Christianity, and to this we owe our free constitutions of government."

"Every civil government is based upon some religion or philosophy of life. Education in a nation will propagate the religion of that nation. In America, the foundational religion was Christianity. And it was sown in the hearts of Americans through the home and private and public schools for centuries. Our liberty, growth, and prosperity was the result of a Biblical philosophy of life. Our continued freedom and success is dependent on our educating the youth of America in the principles of Christianity."

"In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government ought to be instructed....No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people."

I also agree with John Adams:

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Edited January 11, 2012 by BCSpace

[LeSellers]

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?

You're too used to the way things are in the USmerica created by the Constitution, and seemingly have little understanding of how things were when the clause was included in the Document.

As I said earlier (in this very topic), it was a response to the Corporation Act and the religious Test Acts of England in 1661, '73, and '78. It was a barricade against the federal government's having any requirement that office holders (not just elective office holders, but all military and civil offices, as well) hold any specific religious views.

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.

You are not seeing it in the proper perspective.

Since, as you correctly point out, there is no way to enforce the imagined religious test prohibition at the individual level, the Constitution could not possibly be requiring that voters reject their own biases when choosing a candidate.

The Constitution is a limit on the federal government, with a few exceptions applying to the states, and only a couple on people.

Lehi

[Sky]

The writer of the following article seemed to argue that individual voters should not use a religious test in determining who to vote for.

Can I vote for a Mormon?

[LeSellers]

The writer of the following article seemed to argue that individual voters should not use a religious test in determining who to vote for.

His argument does not rely on the Constitution.

Everyone has the right to base his decision about for whom to vote on any criteria he chooses. Whether those criteria include the candidate's religious preferences is something each voter must decide on his own. My position is that, with rare exception, the candidate's religion is immaterial. I'd have a hard time voting for an Evangelical Communist (one who wants to convert me to Communism). Others may use different measures. Soit! I believe it's a bad idea, but it's his choice.

Lehi

[Sky]

His argument does not rely on the Constitution.

But he used the Constitution to support his argument, so that tells me his interpretation is different than yours. And I think he knows a thing or two about this subject.

[LeSellers]

But he used the Constitution to support his argument, so that tells me his interpretation is different than yours. And I think he knows a thing or two about this subject.

He did not say that the personal right to use a religious test was forbidden by the Constitution. If you believe he did, please show which statements make that case. I do not see it.

From your article:

The Washington Post,']According to the American political tradition, there are essential questions by which all office seekers are qualified, regardless of their faith journey or history. The first is: Does the candidate subscribe completely to our constitutional structure, including freedom of conscience for persons of all faiths — or no faith? A second question for the thoughtful voter is related to and flows from the first: Will the candidate subscribe, without any “mental hesitation or purpose of evasion,” to the oath to protect and defend America’s Constitution? If the answers to those closely connected questions are yes, then voters should proceed to cast their ballot on the basis of the candidate’s qualifications, platform and policy positions — not the candidate’s membership (or lack thereof) in a particular faith community.

...

In my own life, I have drawn great strength from my religious practices and, according to the teachings of my faith tradition, I intend to continue to keep in prayer those who are chosen to lead our nation. That said, the litmus for our elected leaders must not be the church they attend but the Constitution they defend.

Lehi

Edited January 11, 2012 by LeSellers

[Sky]

He did not say that the personal right to use a religious test was forbidden by the Constitution. If you believe he did, please show which statements make that case. I do not see it.

Lehi

He didn't say it was forbidden, but discouraged.

He wrote:

"Tuesday’s New Hampshire primary looms large on the political horizon. In the midst of lively public debates over taxes, jobs, the national debt and similarly important questions related to the future vitality of our nation, a different kind of question continues to privately occupy the minds of some prospective voters: Can I vote for a Mormon?"

"This is an important question in our constitutional democracy. Without endorsing or even praising (much less criticizing) any candidate, I strongly encourage Americans who would ask this question of themselves to consider and weigh thoughtfully our nation’s constitutional traditions. At their best, those are traditions of welcoming religious forbearance."

[LeSellers]

He didn't say it was forbidden, but discouraged.

He wrote:

"Tuesday’s New Hampshire primary looms large on the political horizon. In the midst of lively public debates over taxes, jobs, the national debt and similarly important questions related to the future vitality of our nation, a different kind of question continues to privately occupy the minds of some prospective voters: Can I vote for a Mormon?"

"This is an important question in our constitutional democracy. Without endorsing or even praising (much less criticizing) any candidate, I strongly encourage Americans who would ask this question of themselves to consider and weigh thoughtfully our nation’s constitutional traditions. At their best, those are traditions of welcoming religious forbearance."

"Constitutional traditions" are not from the Constitution, but from the people's response to the principles enshrined in the Document.

He is not saying, as some here have tried to, that the Constitution includes a prohibition against individual voters' choosing to vote against a candidate because of the candidate's religion. He is saying that our constitutional traditions would allow and encourage any voter to vote for a Saint whose political values match his, the voter's.

If we read Starr's essay carefully, he says exactly the opposite of what you think he does: he says that the "religious test" (more correctly, a values test) we ought to apply has nothing to do with religion, per se: it's more a constitutional test. Does this candidate support the Constitution? If he does, then that's the only "religious" test the voter should apply, if not, it's still the only religious test that applies, but in this case the candidate failed it and should be rejected.

Lehi

Edited January 11, 2012 by LeSellers

[zerinus]

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.

The Constitution does not prevent an individual citizen from applying his own religious test (or any other kind of test) to determine a political candidate; but it teaches a principle that should inform any enlightened citizen who has taken the trouble to familiarize himself with it that applying his own “personal religious test” would be the wrong way to go about it—in other words, he would be breaking the spirit of the law, if not the letter of the law.

The Constitution itself does not enact or bring into effect any kind of law on the Federal or State level. What it does is that it lays down basic guidelines or principles on the basis of which Federal or State legislatures can enact such laws; and it will be up to judges and constitutional lawyers to determine if such laws are “constitutional” or not. For example, if Congress passed a law that one had to be a Catholic to be a President of the United States; or if they passed a law that a Satanist could not become a President of the United States, then I would say it would be unconstitutional. But that is something that would have to be determined by a judge. Similarly, if the Utah State legislature decreed that only a Mormon could be elected to be the governor of the State; or if it ruled that a Buddhist could not be appointed to serve as a judge on the Utah State Supreme Court, then I would say that that would be unconstitutional; but again it is something that would have to be determined by a judge.

Now let’s take another scenario. Let us suppose that the Republican Party made an internal ruling that only an Evangelical could stand for party nomination for the Presidency of the United States; would that be unconstitutional or not? Again, that would have to be decided by a judge; but it would be more of a borderline or gray area, and a harder case to resolve by a judge. My own opinion would be that it would still be declared unconstitutional; but I could be wrong. I am convinced, however, that it would break the spirit of the law, if not the letter of the law.

Now let us take it one notch down still. Let us suppose that nobody made any “ruling” as such; but there was concerted, undeclared campaign to undermine a candidate purely on the basis of his religious belief, rather than his political views. Let us envisage a situation in which reporters and TV presenters conspired to undermine a candidate on the basis of his religious views by constantly badgering him with questions that were designed to make him look ridiculous and unelectable on the basis of his “weird” religious beliefs, rather than his competency for the Job at a political level; or let us suppose that people wrote books which were designed to achieve the same end by undermining a political candidate on the basis of his religious beliefs, and encouraging others to follow suit. Would that be unconstitutional? I don’t think that a judge could declare that to be unconstitutional (unless it became a highly visible, orchestrated, and consorted campaign); but without hesitation I would say that it breaks the spirit of the law, if not the letter of the law.

And finally bringing it down to the lowest individual level, if somebody chooses to apply a purely religious test to elect a political candidate, would they be acting against the spirit of the law, if not the letter of the law? I think that they would; although the law itself would not have the power to take any kind of action against them.

Edited January 11, 2012 by zerinus

[Jaybear]

The Constitution does not prevent an individual citizen from applying his own religious test (or any other kind of test) to determine a political candidate; but it teaches a principle that should inform any enlightened citizen who has taken the trouble to familiarize himself with it that applying his own “personal religious test” would be the wrong way to go about it—in other words, he would be breaking the spirit of the law, if not the letter of the law.

The Constitution itself does not enact or bring into effect any kind of law on the Federal or State level. What it does is that it lays down basic guidelines or principles on the basis of which Federal or State legislatures can enact such laws; and it will be up to judges and constitutional lawyers to determine if such laws are “constitutional” or not. For example, if Congress passed a law that one had to be a Catholic to be a President of the United States; or if they passed a law that a Satanist could not become a President of the United States, then I would say it would be unconstitutional. But that is something that would have to be determined by a judge. Similarly, if the Utah State legislature decreed that only a Mormon could be elected to be the governor of the State; or if it ruled that a Buddhist could not be appointed to serve as a judge on the Utah State Supreme Court, then I would say that that would be unconstitutional; but again it is something that would have to be determined by a judge.

Now let’s take another scenario. Let us suppose that the Republican Party made an internal ruling that only an Evangelical could stand for party nomination for the Presidency of the United States; would that be unconstitutional or not? Again, that would have to be decided by a judge; but it would be more of a borderline or gray area, and a harder case to resolve by a judge. My own opinion would be that it would still be declared unconstitutional; but I could be wrong. I am convinced, however, that it would break the spirit of the law, if not the letter of the law.

Now let us take it one notch down still. Let us suppose that nobody made any “ruling” as such; but there was concerted, undeclared campaign to undermine a candidate purely on the basis of his religious belief, rather than his political views. Let us envisage a situation in which reporters and TV presenters conspired to undermine a candidate on the basis of his religious views by constantly badgering him with questions that were designed to make him look ridiculous and unelectable on the basis of his “weird” religious beliefs, rather than his competency for the Job at a political level; or let us suppose that people wrote books which were designed to achieve the same end by undermining a political candidate on the basis of his religious beliefs, and encouraging others to follow suit. Would that be unconstitutional? I don’t think that a judge could declare that to be unconstitutional (unless it became a highly visible, orchestrated, and consorted campaign); but without hesitation I would say that it breaks the spirit of the law, if not the letter of the law.

And finally bringing it down to the lowest individual level, if somebody chooses to apply a purely religious test to elect a political candidate, would they be acting against the spirit of the law, if not the letter of the law? I think that they would; although the law itself would not have the power to take any kind of action against them.

Nice try. There is no such thing as the "spirit of the law." That is just a rhetorical argument.

In reality, politicians, especially republicans wear their religion on their sleave, because that is what the voters want.

Morals/values all code word for Christian.

Mitt Romney is no different. He is courting these same value/moral voters, by shifting his position on abortion and gay rights.

When he says "freedom requires religion" the pitch isn't leave religion out of the ballot booth, its we are in a culture war, and I am on your side.

Edited January 11, 2012 by Jaybear

[Sky]

"Constitutional traditions" are not from the Constitution, but from the people's response to the principles enshrined in the Document.

He is not saying, as some here have tried to, that the Constitution includes a prohibition against individual voters' choosing to vote against a candidate because of the candidate's religion. He is saying that our constitutional traditions would allow and encourage any voter to vote for a Saint whose political values match his, the voter's.

If we read Starr's essay carefully, he says exactly the opposite of what you think he does: he says that the "religious test" (more correctly, a values test) we ought to apply has nothing to do with religion, per se: it's more a constitutional test. Does this candidate support the Constitution? If he does, then that's the only "religious" test the voter should apply, if not, it's still the only religious test that applies, but in this case the candidate failed it and should be rejected.

Lehi

I interpreted his comments as saying that if a candidate supports the Constitution and is a good honorable statesman, then that ought to be sufficient assuming their political ideas match your own. Where they go to church on Sunday or whether or not they believe in the Trinity is irrelevant. It's that simple.

[zerinus]

Nice try. There is no such thing as the "spirit of the law." That is just a rhetorical argument.

In reality, politicians, especially republicans wear their religion on their sleave, because that is what the voters want.

Morals/values all code word for Christian.

Mitt Romney is no different. He is courting these same value/moral voters, by shifting his position on abortion and gay rights.

When he says "freedom requires religion" the pitch isn't leave religion out of the ballot booth, its we are in a culture war, and I am on your side.

"Morals/values" are not a "code word for Christian".

US Presidential candidates tend to declare themselves to be believers in God; but they try not to give the impression of favoring one particular religious tradition or Christian denomination over another. They want to win votes from adherents to all religions, not just some of them.

[Jeff K.]

George Washington set various "precedents" which were not codified into law. Serving only two terms, giving an inauguration speech, using force to enforce laws, wishing to be called only "Mr. President. He followed the spirit of the law. It is not a rhetorical flourish anymore than understanding legal intent of a law by the Supreme Court in order to make decisions is "rhetorical flourish".

[Loran Blood]

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.”

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?

As long as it is a personal religious test, with no binding force upon anybody else, the question would appear to be moot.

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?

That's their business.

Obviously this is a rather sticky situation...

I'm having a bit of trouble understanding the point of the OP, in light of constitutional and other philosophcal criteria.

[Loran Blood]

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?

Let's rephrase this to get to the gist of the implications here. "If LDS living in the US believe the US Constitution to be a divinely inspired document wouldn't that require us to vote for candidates or on specific issues on any and all grounds except grounds relating to our religous convictions and philosophy?"

In other words, what this appears to be saying is that one's religous beliefs, no matter how they intersect the secular world and the political issues of the day, should be personally self censored at the voting booth in lieu of other reasons for casting a vote one way or another.

I don't see how this is either possible, healthy for a free society, or harmonious with Church teachings on the role the Saints are to play while being "in the world, but not of it." What about being an "ensign" to one's own fellow citizens and to "the nations?"

Edited January 12, 2012 by Loran Blood

[Jeff K.]

Quote

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?

Not to quibble is there a difference between inspired and revelatory?

[Loran Blood]

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.

Of course not. How could subjective philosophcal criteria (the same all people resort to) for support or withiholding of support for various candidates and causes, just because they have a religous basis, come under suspicion of being somehow unconstitutional unless one had the power to enforce one's own preference by coeircive force?

In fact, to somehow try and remove such tests would be a violation of the constitution (thought crimes).

Exactly the point.

Edited January 12, 2012 by Loran Blood

[Loran Blood]

bcspace:

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.

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

No, it isn't. The Church is talking about general principles, and they leave both the specificity and broadness of the principles undefined. bc is talking about the modus operandi; the means and actual implementation of what may be otherwise good and well intentioned ideas.

As an example, few would decry the desire for peace and lack of war and conflict, especially on a large scale. How one goes about achieving that ideal, however, makes all the differene in the world. One way can produce the best trade-offs one could perhaps hope for at any given time, while another could end, not in peace, but disaster. We've seen this play out more than once during the 20th century.

Edited January 12, 2012 by Loran Blood

[zerinus]

George Washington set various "precedents" which were not codified into law. Serving only two terms, giving an inauguration speech, using force to enforce laws, wishing to be called only "Mr. President. He followed the spirit of the law. It is not a rhetorical flourish anymore than understanding legal intent of a law by the Supreme Court in order to make decisions is "rhetorical flourish".

Oh, there certainly is a distinction between keeping the “letter” of the law and the “spirit” of the law. Read more about it here.

[Loran Blood]

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...

If this is true, then why not also discourage political tests in choosing candidates? Why not discourge differences of political philosophy altogether?

[Loran Blood]

Nice try. There is no such thing as the "spirit of the law." That is just a rhetorical argument.

Nonsense. The "spirit" of a law, especially in complex areas of human behavior and matters of conscience, encompasses its intention and implications beyond its narrow "letter" application.

In reality, politicians, especially republicans wear their religion on their sleave, because that is what the voters want.

As is their priveldege, if they so desire.

Morals/values all code word for Christian.

No, they mean and imply exaclty what they connot, and transcend Christian doctrines in a broad political sense.

Mitt Romney is no different. He is courting these same value/moral voters, by shifting his position on abortion and gay rights.

When he says "freedom requires religion" the pitch isn't leave religion out of the ballot booth, its we are in a culture war, and I am on your side.

I don't know what side brother Romney is really on, but the culture war is very, very real.

[Sky]

If this is true, then why not also discourage political tests in choosing candidates? Why not discourge differences of political philosophy altogether?

There is a difference between religious tests and legitamate differences of opinion in political philosophy.

[Jeff K.]

Oh, there certainly is a distinction between keeping the “letter” of the law and the “spirit” of the law. Read more about it here.

You may want to read the section which speaks to the split in opinion between the letter and spirit of the law being the same or different. It occurs later in your article.

My point was the establishment of precedent showing the spirit of the law creating the letter of the law.

[zerinus]

You may want to read the section which speaks to the split in opinion between the letter and spirit of the law being the same or different. It occurs later in your article.

My point was the establishment of precedent showing the spirit of the law creating the letter of the law.

I was agreeing with you, not disagreeing!