No Religious Test
John F. Kennedy said in 1960 that he believed in a Presidency that is "a great office that must be neither humbled by making it the instrument of any religious group, nor tarnished by arbitrarily withholding it, its occupancy from the members of any religious group. I believe in a President whose views on religion are his own private affair, neither imposed upon him by the nation or imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office." Although Kennedy's speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association was sufficient to blunt attacks against his Catholicism in 1960, 47 years later, Governor Mitt Romney finds his religion being used against him as he runs for the Presidency.
Whether as individuals we endorse Governor Romney's candidacy or not, the members of the editorial board of The Virginian Federalist stands united in our conviction that neither his church nor that of any other candidate for office should be regarded as an issue in the election, in accordance with the explicit guidance of Article VI of the Constitution, that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” That statement is an admonition to all of the nation's citizens to demand in candidates for office all manner of qualification but none based on religion.
We may rightly, and of necessity, judge the character, responsibility, intelligence, grace, and fitness of those who propose to serve in public office. We may consider political and economic philosophy, education, and experience at home and in the world at large. We may review in depth and at length the written and spoken record. We may not, if we respect the constitutional framework of our free nation, cast off Article VI’s explicit and necessary stricture, forbidding from our consideration any religious test.
In our history we have been served in the office of President by one Jehovah's Witness, one Catholic, two Congregationalists, two Dutch Reformed and two Quakers, three Disciples of Christ, four Unitarians and four Baptists, five Methodists, ten Presbyterians and eleven Episcopalians. It is a remarkable diversity covering a broad base of the religious thought within the nation. As the full history of the American nation is not yet fully realized, the breadth of the diversity which supplies able men to fill her civil offices is not exhausted.
There are a number of ways in which media outlets, both new and old, have fed into the criticisms of Governor Romney’s religion and contributed to establishing an implicit religious test for office. In at least one of the major televised Republican debates, the brief introductory biographies of each candidate included a listing of their religion. In articles, posts, and television news reports about Mitt Romney, reporters regularly mention Mormonism, and yet there is no such emphasis on the religions of the other candidates, apparently because their religions are presumed to be normal and acceptable. More explicitly, interviewers have challenged Mr. Romney to explain and defend various tenets of his faith, including his interpretation of the Second Coming. Having never seen other candidates asked to explain their stance on infant baptism or their interpretation of the Book of Revelations, I can only interpret these types of questions as being directed specifically against the religion of Governor Romney. Whether simply for political advantage or out of deep felt and considered reflection, many Americans have made comments or raised questions about whether any adherent to Mitt Romney’s church can be a proper candidate for President. All who have done so should reflect again. They fail to honor the Constitution in so doing and make of themselves fit targets for criticism and rebuke.
It is then the position of the editorial board of The Virginian Federalist that we will not suffer or permit the erection of a religious test for our officials and we will call in solemnity on all others to share this commitment with us. We are bound by Oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. In doing so, as the apostle Paul admonished, we seek after whatsoever things which are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, pure, lovely, of good report, virtuous and praiseworthy. If we seek the same in others we will find the type of leader this nation needs.
10 comments:
Amen and Amen.............I am proud of your stand on Article VI of the Constitution. We must hold and preserve that sacred document. It is as though our Constitution is hanging by a thread. Thanks to The Virginian Federalist for initiating this statement.
I will email this to everyone in my address book.
First, Ike wasn't a practicing Jehovah's Witness and Nixon wasn't a practicing Quaker. You might fix your list for what religion the Presidents were while in office.
I agree that there is no legal religious test for Federal office. No should there be. The states got rid of their Constitutionally legal religious tests - one by one - by the appropriate action of their state legislatures.
Yet, to not consider the religion of the most powerful man on earth is preposterous. Religion matters. Even if the President doesn't actually follow the teachings of his faith - it will may be the standard by which he knows his own sinfulness - and, ultimately, it may be where he goes in some dark night of the Nation or his soul during his presidency.
It's intellectually dishonest, if not absurd, to say that Mormon = Muslim = Catholic = Buddhist = Hindu = Baptist = Human Secularist = Baal = Aztec = Lutheran = Orthodox = etc.
Calling into question the mind that doesn't question the tenets of a religion - especially when you know those tenets - or, accepts them whole heartedly is appropriate.
The Apostle Paul said don't yoke yourself to an un-believer in marriage. He clearly understood the difference between truth and untruth. All religions are not equal. All religions don't share the same truths - or a single truth.
Luckily most people do not really practice every facet of their religions. I am glad we don't have political leaders offering burnt offerings and waiting for holy guidance before making decisions. Even worse would be when we are attacked, to have the President say something like, "Oh well, the Bible says we should turn the other cheek."
If you peel back the layers of every major religion, they each have some really weird and out dated practices. Mormonism is among the many Christian sects, but it keeps its commitment to celebrating the teachings of Christ, the members raise good families and they are generally very good citizens and neighbors.
I don't understand why some evangelicals are reluctant to support Mitt on religious grounds. His religion is, after all is said, a Christian religion, and from all observations, he has been a model Christian throughout his life. Once elected, I think he and his family will set a superb example for America and the rest of the world.
Mitt Romney is the right man to be President at this point in America's history. He is articulate, charismatic and honest. A combination that we haven't had in the Presidency in a long time.
JTB: You are as wrong about Romney as you are about opposing the nominated, Conservative Republican Tricia Stall against your personal friend, Democrat Miller, in the 1st SD.
The distinction between Christian sect and cult is significant.
Romney makes chameleons jealous with his ability to change positions on important issues. If only the chameleon could change their outward appearance as easily, often and well.
I think the point is being missed. Religion is important. However, excluding someone based on their religious affiliation because it is not like yours is not right. Excluding someone for their beliefs is fine. I don’t like Hillary because of her stances and beliefs on such things as abortion. I am not going to say I don’t like Hillary because she is not of the same religious affiliation as me.
If you are looking for someone who has similar beliefs as past Presidents, Governor Romney’s still falls within the same Judeo-Christian religion that has occupied the White House for Centuries.
Also if religion is going to be your deciding factor then why would you support any of the candidates that claim a religion but do not practice what they preach. Just something to think about.
I will write more on this later.
Publius: I usually applaud what y'all write, but you need to really think through what you are saying.
Look at these two sentences: "However, excluding someone based on their religious affiliation because it is not like yours is not right. Excluding someone for their beliefs is fine."
Religion is a belief. Religion is an idea. Just like government.
So, just as there is no equality in Democracy=Republic=Dictatorship=
Kingdom=Theocracy=Oligarchy=Pluto-
cracy=Tribe=etc....so too the religions are not equal based on their ideas - their beliefs.
Our White House has held all Protestants and one Catholic. That is a bit more narrow than Judeo-Christian, although I agree that is a better way to characterize the culture that underlies our civilization and nation.
It's merely your opinion that Mormon is mainstream Christian - just as it is merely the opinion of others (including the heads of the churches who don't include cults in their organizations of like-minded, or fellow communion churches) that Mormons and Jehovah Witness and Scientologist are cults.
I'm writing an op ed which will address what it means when a President doesn't live up to his religion by a long shot - like Kennedy and Clinton.
The primary reason to vote against Romney is that he is an untrustworthy political chameleon.
Bashing people who object to his religion is to bash people based on their beliefs and ideas. Weak logic. And, a bit self-righteous without right thinking.
JAB
I appreciate the compliment and the constructive criticism. However, I still stand by what I said, but let me clarify a bit further.
What I was saying was you cannot look at a person by the religious affiliation they have listed on paper. Just because someone says they are X religion should not be enough to make your decision based on. So many people look at people who claim to be Christians and don’t live it and give them a pass while someone living a wholesome life of a different religion and say I can’t support them, they are not my religion.
Look at the beliefs. I don’t mean religious doctrine. When you look for a President, the Commander in Chief, look for political beliefs. Does it really matter to lead our nation, if they call Saturday the Sabath as opposed to Sunday, or wear holly underwear, or pray to Marry? Religiously all these things matter a lot, but politically? Their views on issues matter. How they make their decisions matter. If a President said if I see a vision in a dream I will follow that vision without thinking or analyzing the issues or consequences. Yes, now you have a Religious conviction that would to most disqualify them.
Now I agree that religion affects decisions. Don’t get me wrong. I like to think of it as worldview. How does someone view the world? It will affect them. All we are saying is that someone’s religious affiliation should not disqualify them in the peoples minds by default. Look at the man and what they believe on the issues and how they will make decisions.
You believe Romney is a chameleon, that is a respectable opinion, but that is viewing him based on what you have seen by looking at him, not what his religious affiliation is. Reasonable minds can differ. I don’t think Romney is a chameleon at all; I think he has developed into a true conservative over time, but that’s for another post.
I hope this helps clarify our position.
Publius: We only differ by degrees - I think.
It matters what the most powerful man in the world believes. What his ideas are. What his worldview is.
His religion and his amount of adherence to that religion are part of the mix. To separate these ideas from other ideas is a false dichotomy. To criticize others for looking critically at what ideas a nominal believer in a religion must profess borders on sophistry.
Check out the convenient time line for Romney's Conservative awakening. Hardly a road to Damascus experience. And indicative of an incurious or, frankly, stupid mind to not realize the crux of issues of life and sexual behavior until so late in public life - after so much public proclamation and scrutiny. I'm not drinking the kool aid with this guy.
JAB: Your cheap shot at Mitt Romney, like Stalin's, "Oft told lie becomes truth" will not stand the light of public scrutiny, nor the test of time.
Mitt Romney, as a Republican, was able to become elected Governor in the most Liberal state in America. He then worked with those across the political aisle, to make the state formerly known as "Tax-achusetts" more fiscally conservative, while lifting some of the tax burden suffered by business and citizens.
Some religious bigots among the evangelical community pout about how Mitt formerly supported abortion rights, but now is squarely against abortion.
There are many Republicans, who after seeing more data on what actually goes on in those death clinics and just how early a child develops in the womb, have had a sort of epiphany that life begins at conception. When former abortion supporters realize that life begins at conception, I count this as a great blessing and welcome their support of the Pro Life movement.
JAB when a political leader moves in the right direction, we should applaud their enlightenment, not curse them with the epithet of, "political chameleon."
The bottom line: Mitt Romney can beat Hillary and Osama bin Obama, put together. Cross dressing Rudy can't. Tired, old Fred Thompson can't and neither can any of the other's who are on the Republican bench.
As for the First District Senate race, John Miller is, by far, the best qualified candidate. He has served on the front lines of Virginia's political conflicts for most of his life. He has proven his ability to work constructively with both Republicans and Democrats to provide real solutions to problems that we all face.
I have pleaded with the Stall campaign to offer voters more than the usual Kilgore playbook, where they try to scare voters into supporting the Republican, while offering no ideas, no solutions and no vision of hope. To date, Stall remains negative, and her campaign is devoid of any real solutions that offer a scintilla of hope for Virginia's future.
Most of the Republicans I know in Hampton, Poquoson and the Newport News area are fed up with negative campaigns that have no hopeful vision for Virginia's future. These, mostly "Reagan-Republicans" are going to support John Miller in November. With John Miller as Senator, both Democrats and Republicans will enjoy his inspired, proven leadership, for many years to come.
Speaking of getting more positive candidates: The RPV will have a table at the State Fair again this year, so, please stop by and we can discuss these and other issues. I will be helping out at the table most of Thursday, September 27, 2007.
JTyler Ballance: The RPV will have a table where you work or some county committee?
Post a Comment