The promised second part . . .
This article in today's Washington Post, while sparking all sorts of thought, has left me feeling ambivalent about its purpose. The Constitution is clear - there is to be no "religious test" for public office in the United States. At the time of the drafting and ratification, this meant that membership in a particular religious denomination was not to be regarded as necessary for being considered for office. It has become increasingly important, however, to offer the public an insight in to the religious life of candidates and elected officials as it has the potential to impact how they view their role and duty in office.
As stated previously, this at least has the potential of opening up a larger conversation on our changing perception of the nature of religious life and public service in a secular republic. At the same time, everyone seems to agree that there should be a dividing line between one's personal set of beliefs and practices as a member of a religious body, and one's duty as a holder of public office. Even George W. Bush, whose personal beliefs were often touted as a positive on his political cv admitted in an interview that, when considering the ramifications of sending the United States to war and what that entailed in terms of the destruction of human life, he set those beliefs to one side. This begs all sorts of questions, not just about Pres. Bush, but about the way even as committed a Christian as he (and I take his commitment as a Christian seriously, regardless of anything else) could insist it is possible to "set aside" a set of beliefs and practices, rather than, say, offer a view of public life as offering a different set of principles and how these two sets, intersecting and conflicting, created both tension and resolution.
The specific questions Linker offers in his article are, upon closer inspection, less "religious tests" than they are a way of gauging a candidate's perception of the very real, substantive ways that the conflicting calls and duties of religious belief and practice and public duty can impact one another. For example, does adherence to a set of religious beliefs that insists on a young earth, created by God over seven twenty-four hour periods disqualify a candidate for office if that office includes overseeing policies on geology, the environment, the impact of global warming, and general science policy? Would someone whose religious beliefs included acceptance of plural marriage - a Muslim or non-reformed LDS - be acceptable?
It is not just membership in more sectarian, or non-western, religions that offer the potential for serious conflict between religious faith and public duty. The mission statement of the United Methodist Church, the second-largest Protestant denomination in the country, reads "Making Disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world"(emphasis added). How comfortable would non-United Methodists, or indeed non-Christians of any stripe, be with someone in a position of authority and power whose religious life entailed evangelism and "the transformation of the world"? Just as John Kennedy's insistence that he didn't take orders from the Pope helped win him the election even as it reduced his Catholicism to seeming to have no role in his life, would a practicing United Methodist, if confronted by this mission statement, be willing to deny its importance, and therefore the importance of his or her religious beliefs and practices, as a potential elected official?
It seems to me that we are embarking on a larger, potentially more thoughtful, discussion of religion and our public life. As long as we are willing to listen to all sorts of voices (even those voices that are angry at the very thought of public servants having religious beliefs impact their avocations), the possibilities for some kind of new consensus about religious belief and our life together are there. We have to be willing to take the risks.
