On Religious Tests
No Open Books?
By Mark I Posted in 2008 | Charles Krauthammer | Mike Huckabee | Mitt Romney | Presidential Primary | religion | Rudy Giuliani — Comments (29) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The great Charles Krauthammer has a piece in the Washington Post that I have to take issue with. (I’m sure Mr. Krauthammer will live) Titled "An Overdose of Public Piety", the piece makes the case that candidates for office are making too much of their religious bona fides or the relative lack of them in their opponents.
In support of his conclusion, Krauthammer cites recent examples like Mike Huckabee apparently crediting Jesus for his rise in the polls, Mitt Romney’s Faith in America speech, and the CNN debate in which the Republicans were asked if they believed every word of the Bible literally. Krauthammer would like the candidates to stop talking about themselves in terms of their religious beliefs and confine their appeal to their positions on issues. I take no issue with that. But he goes too far when he suggests that voters, too, should have no interest in the religious beliefs of the candidates. On that point I disagree.
Read on…
Here’s how Krauthammer puts it.
This campaign is knee-deep in religion, and it's only going to get worse. I'd thought that the limits of professed public piety had already been achieved during the Republican CNN-YouTube debate when some squirrelly looking guy held up a Bible and asked, "Do you believe every word of this book?" -- and not one candidate dared reply: None of your damn business.
Instead, Giuliani, Romney and Huckabee bent a knee and tried appeasement with various interpretations of scriptural literalism. The right answer, the only answer, is that the very question is offensive. The Constitution prohibits any religious test for office. And while that proscribes only government action, the law is also meant to be a teacher. In the same way that civil rights laws established not just the legal but also the moral norm that one simply does not discriminate on the basis of race -- changing the practice of one generation and the consciousness of the next -- so the constitutional injunction against religious tests is meant to make citizens understand that such tests are profoundly un-American. (my emphasis)
Krauthammer's point is that religious tests are inherently bad. While he points out that the Constitution's prohibition of them restrains only the government, he extends the argument to apply to the voting public as well. Basically he says it's none of a voter's business what the personal religious beliefs of a candidate are.
The problem with this line of reasoning is that it seems to be based upon the assumption that all religions are equal. This is clearly not true. Modern mainstream Christianity and Judaism are not prone to violent suppression of non-adherents. The jury is still out on Islam. The practice of Islam in some parts of the world includes violence against unbelievers and apostates. A Muslim candidate must therefore distance himself from more radical elements in his religion to remain viable, and justifiably so, while a Christian or Jewish one does not.
Similarly, some religions have rituals that are just bizarre. Would a snake handler deserve no scrutiny of his beliefs if he were an otherwise credible candidate for office? What about a Pentecostal? Would it be out of bounds to ask the candidate if he/she ever spoke in tongues? A Satan worshipper? No questions? A wiccan?
Mike Huckabee is being asked to answer for some tenets of Southern Baptist faith’s teachings. I see nothing wrong with this. John Kerry was confronted about his differences with his Catholic faith, as should Rudy Giuliani. Mormonism orbits on the fringes of Christianity, if it is indeed Christian. Christian voters may contemplate their support for a Mormon candidate based in part upon his religion. Those voters should educate themselves about Mormonism if they intend to be informed voters. And they should also be able to get information from Mitt Romney in the process.
Religions are not equal and indeed say something fundamental about the believer. The point here is to learn about the candidate, not determine who is the most pious. Krauthammer and I may agree that a voter who makes a decision solely on the candidate's religious identity is doing the process a disservice. But that is a long way from saying that they should be vilified as being un-American for even asking the question.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | This is an inane New York Times article. — Comments (9) »
On Religious Tests 29 Comments (0 topical, 29 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
If it's going to be standard practice for Republicans to demand certain religious views, then should I just leave now and get it over with? Since I don't hold those views and never will, such a practice if standard would clearly bar me from any real place in the party.
How 'bout them Lakers!!!
Krauthammer (who I have called The Master since I discovered him in 2001) and much of the MSM are simply off the mark on Huck and his surge. And esp on those that have moved to him in the polls.
I have a blog coming out to go in detail this weekend. I have been on a writing hiatus the past two or so weeks dealing with the economy as per Mike! DeVine
more later
ps
Hint: Ignore the CV on the so-called religious tests that the MEDIA not Huck or his supporters are causing.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
I'd be curious to know which part of Mark's post said anything about Republicans demanding certain religious views.
First, if he did, I sure missed it. Second, it sure looked to me as if the ENTIRE POINT was that elites seem to get their noses out of joint if there is any close examination of a candidate's religious views, and perhaps we should both (a) not get wiggy when a candidate DOES talk about his views, and (b) feel free ourselves to examine what a candidate's religious views say about the man himself.
Stare decisis is fo' suckas -- Feddie
If we're saying it shouldn't be a big deal to question a candidate about his religious views, then it only follows that we're going to say it's no big deal to vote based on the answers to those questions.
But it has always been that way. Look back to when Jefferson was running against Adams. People are always going to take religious beliefs into account since that is a major source of the given politician's worldview.
Knowing your positions, Neil, I would have no trouble voting for you regardless of what you believed. Public policy trumps religous belief when it comes to politics for me, and I'm one of those dangerous fundamentalists.
Krauthammer and I may agree that a voter who makes a decision solely on the candidate's religious identity is doing the process a disservice. But that is a long way from saying that they should be vilified as being un-American for even asking the question.
Respectfully, Neil, I am not arguing for anyone's exclusion; but for the legitimacy of those who wish to make informed decisions on candidates using religion as a factor.
-----------------------
Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman
I know you're not looking to read anyone out of the party Mark, and I understand that some people want to use a person's religious views as a factor.
But look at what's going on around Huckabee. Huckabee is attracting all the Republicans who hold two key views:
a) They wish to apply a Christians-only religious test to candidates
b) They define Mormons and possibly Catholics to be non-Christian
And well, as valid as the basic questions might be, the resulting consequences are not conducive to national majority coalition building.
I am pretty sure you would shed some core votes over this issue alone. Actually, since you have already been public on this (as have I), it doesn't matter whether questions like this get asked in debate. If either of us was ever a candidate for office in the US, a lack of religious views would hurt us electorally.
Obviously, in my case, it wouldn't be in a presidential election.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
Neil, there is no basis for either a) or b). MSMers say it. That's evidence AGAINST those statements. Huck has risen in the polls due to Huck's debate performances, Mitt's non-Mormon problems and the absence of anyone else working Iowa.
Evangelicals are not stupid bigots. What we are looking at are poll changes. That's all. Don't buy into the bigoted statements about this.
These same evangelicals were the same people BEFORE Huck shone bright in debates.
more later
I've been out of town, away from the internet and very busy dealing with law and business for 2plus weeks.
I will address this whole thing. I too am troubled by the Huck surge, but am maybe more troubled by the commentary on same that is over the top. Some of it is the typical rhetoric of youth or lazy msmers. But some is just TOO MUCH.
Let's all be cool. Let's reflect on what we would think of some of the commentary 6 months ago on polls>>>
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
Evangelicals are not stupid bigots. What we are looking at are poll changes. That's all. Don't buy into the bigoted statements about this.
I don't think it's bigotry going on here. However I think the existance of the people who believe my second point are an undeniable fact. My own parents are among them.
I also know that when I tried to talk to my father about Huckabee's statements, which threaten to drive the LDS out of the Republican party, he just said "Well that's his job as a baptist preacher."
He's no bigot, but I think that if Huckabee weren't such a socialist, my father would be 100% behind Huck BECAUSE of the stealth religious campaign Huck's been running.
I also know that not everyone is as experienced in small business as my father is, and so not everyone is as in tune with how harmful excessive taxation is. And so it's very, very easy for me to believe that Huck is getting support because of his religious views, and because of his willingness to speak up for his brand of Christianity.
And while we certainly can't or maybe even shouldn't try to stop such behaviors (it's natural for people to back people they feel a bond with, and sharing religious views certainly makes bonds), I think that if we stand back and let theology become just another issue in our debates, we have zero hope of ever getting a national majority again.
#2, but that is not why Huck has surged. He has also not surged because Mitt is a mormon. He has surged because of his debate performances, Mitt's limitations and the absence of competition in the state. Now, Christians will find out more about Huck, like they did about Mitt, and Huck's numbers will fall.
more later
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
Mike, I won't mind if you're 100% right, and none of Huck's surge is because of religious issues. But I guess we'll see.
As a Huckabee supporter, and a Christian who believes the LDS church to be apostate, I would easily vote for Romney in a variety of circumstances, including a fairly likely scenario where Romney is doing a better job beating Giuliani than Huck is.
Religion beliefs aren't a litmus test for me, but I do want candidates to answer all the questions. They're easier to read when they talk about religion, and at a time when they're trying to tell me everything they think I want to hear, it helps distinguish the suck-ups from the ones that really do share my beliefs. This is why John Kerry's beliefs came up. I assure you the beliefs of any of the top three democrats will come up in the general, precisely because their religion says one thing and but they believe another.
If an athiest or agnostic conservative ran who was a conservative through and through, I would take him over a Christian/Catholic Giuliani any day, and if he could excite me, I'd take him over any of the other candidates.
A legitimate answer would be to say "None of your business." Unfortunately, that would be political suicide.
But I'm still missing the part about anybody "demanding certain religious views". Whisper with me the words "Rudy" and "frontrunner". Doesn't sound to me like the Republican Party demands fealty to very much, and certainly not to any religious standard.
Today I think you are confusing us with the other guys -- the ones who DO demand fealty to the Church of Abortion.
Stare decisis is fo' suckas -- Feddie
a non-Christian president in terms of how it may cause some people to turn away from salvation. I don't agree with them, nor do most evangelical Southern Baptists like me. God used pagan rulers to acheive his goals in the Bible, and we have seen in American history how non-Christrians have advanced judeo-christian vales and how baptized believers have opposed them.
I have defended Mitt for over a year and am gratified that my prediction that he would do well is proving out.
The msm asks the questions and Mitt and Huck answer. Want more discussions of policy like me? Then the msm needs to do its job.
The issue for me is what a candidate's values, policies and character are.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
Who's to decide which religion is acceptable, you! Very arrogant of you. I know some Moslems who are just as disgusted at extremist as everyone else is. Lets also remember, this nation was founded because many Christian sects were discriminated against in Europe. I have always said, I prefer a good atheist over a bad Christian any day of the week. I judge a person not by their religion but by the way the act. Remember the good Samaritan. He was not part of a main line religion of the time.
On the other hand, I would come to the support of evangelistic Christian if someone tried to an issue out of it. Give you two examples. The Baptist believes (as I understand it) that women should be submissive to their husbands as their husbands should be submission to Christ. Now, I don’t have a problem with this, because I understand more than someone else what that might be meant by this. The second example is I have heard that there some who want Huckabee to release his sermons before he became a governor. Each of these I have read for some time, but have never really brought them up because they had nothing to do with if Huckabee would be a good president or not.
However, if someone’s believes didn’t align with the public policies I agree with, then that I would take that into account. For instance, if someone’s religion believed in Marry off 14 year old girls, which would be an issue.
But you need to be careful when you decided what religion is acceptable and what is not.
.
_____________________________________________________
American First, Conservative Second, Republican Third
The problem with this line of reasoning is that it seems to be based upon the assumption that all religions are equal. This is clearly not true. Modern mainstream Christianity and Judaism are not prone to violent suppression of non-adherents.
A Muslim candidate must therefore distance himself from more radical elements in his religion to remain viable, and justifiably so, while a Christian or Jewish one does not.
Why? Should Baptist distance themselves from other Baptist that beat their wife because "wife’s should be submissive to their husband." Of course not. I have a friend from Indian, he is Muslim, why should he have to distance himself from anyone. There have been Christians in history that have murdered women and children in the name of Christ. Should Christians distance themselves from that. Where does it end.
What about if a Christian is running for elected position in Turkey, should he justify his religion. I wouldn't think so. If their is some evidence that a persons religion is preaching something dangerous, then go further. Just like Christians, there are many sects of Muslims.
.
_____________________________________________________
American First, Conservative Second, Republican Third
There have been lots of things done in history by Christians that were bad. The problem with Islam is that similar things are happening now, and not in isolated incidents.
By mainstream Christian, I meant the major denominations.
-----------------------
Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman
each voter can use whatever set of criteria he or she wants to use when selecting a candidate for whom to vote. There are some people who are more comfortable voting for someone who agrees with them. There is nothing arrogant in that. There is nothing arrogant about selecting a Republican over a Democrat. There is nothing arrogant about selecting a supply-sider over a socialist.
A candidate can plead and reason with voters, certainly, but he cannot mandate how a voter votes.
There is nothing arrogant in that. There is nothing arrogant about selecting a Republican over a Democrat. There is nothing arrogant about selecting a supply-sider over a socialist.
These are based on Policy issues, not religious tests.
each voter can use whatever set of criteria he or she wants to use when selecting a candidate for whom to vote.
A voter can decide to vote for only white men, but doesn't make it right.
.
_____________________________________________________
American First, Conservative Second, Republican Third
an Islamic candidate would cause just as much alarm to me as a candidate who had a background with a hate group.
And please don't give us that crap about modern Christians being the same as modern day moslems, that dog won't hunt.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
"none of your damned business" in the YouTube debate, we may not be in this mess. Now that they all kow-towed to the media on that front, it's open season.
And if he HAD done that, he'd be leading the pack and Huckabee would be in the hole, right where he was before.
The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther
Here I think I dealt with the religion/politics question in a very logical and clear way.
If you didn't read it when I posted it, please read it again and tell me where I'm wrong.
Essentially, theological questions should not be asked of candidates unless it is necessary to clarify what their values are. Also, it is impossible to separate religiously influenced values from policy positions, and it is time people stopped pretending that is what the candidates and voters should do.
And while I had some minor disagreements with you about school prayer and teaching the bible in school (not that it should be done, but how), you previous post was spot on.
.
_____________________________________________________
American First, Conservative Second, Republican Third
I'm a liberal and have read and watched Krauthammer for over 20 yrs. I disagree with him on most things. In this instance, I think he is just trying to counterweight the media obsession with exploiting and amplifying some kind of divide between Mormons and Evangelicals. Good on him for that.
Religion is the foundation for one's life and for that reason, shapes one's character and guides one's actions.... yes, even the President. The Evangelicals and Mormons that I know are all good moral family people. Their respective religions may differ, doctrinally, but the the end result (values) are the same. Not true for some of the 'alternate' religions you described. They don't pass the end result values test.
It's easy to find differences and in the interest of ratings, the media are mining this. Krauthammer is merely trying to deflate the hype of the day. Can't believe I'm on Krauthammer's side on this ... you RedStaters must be scrambling my brain!
====
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." -- James Madison