Just and Holy Principles

On Dec. 6, Republican candidate Mitt Romney delivered an address about religious freedom and the role of his faith in politics (watch it, read it). I agree with most everything he said, except for part of his view on the role religion should play in voting.

I agree with Romney, for example, that “freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom…Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.” I agree that “a president must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States” and that “no religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion.”

Romney wisely said, “I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from ‘the God who gave us liberty.’” God did give us liberty and, most importantly, religious liberty. The United States was founded by God-fearing men who wanted to preserve for us all the right to worship according to the dictates of our own conscience.

For this reason, the 1st Amendment to the Constitution prevents the government from establishing a national religion and from prohibiting the free exercise of religion. In America, church and state operate in different spheres, but religion, along with science, philosophy, law and many other sources inform one’s political beliefs.

Romney said that when voters take into account a candidate’s religious beliefs they violate the Constitution; I disagree. He argued, “there are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church’s distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the Founders prohibited in the Constitution.” Here Romney refers to the Religious Test Clause in Article VI which says, “…no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

This clause does not prohibit voters from asking about a candidate’s faith, it merely prevents the government from requiring a candidate to practice, or not practice, any particular religion. In other words, an application to run for office cannot ask a question like “are you Baptist?” or “do you promise not to become Catholic?”

However, Americans can choose their president using any criteria they wish–religion, diet, intelligence, looks, or anything else. Voters may not be wise to use, for example, height or hairstyle as criteria, but they are free to do so if they wish.

I agree that “a person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith,” but the way religion influences candidates is important.

How a person’s faith informs their views on abortion, marriage, or stem-cell research is important to understand. Maybe even more important is whether or not their religion tries to help them develop good attributes like honesty, trustworthiness, humility, and kindness.

In the end, what matters most is not what a candidate’s religion teaches them but what their actual political views are and who they really are. Are they for legal abortion or against it? Do they treat people with respect and honor their commitments or not?

There’s only one way to see what effect religion has on any candidate for office: “A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit…Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them” (Matt 7:15-20).

What do you think?