Why American Political Candidates Should Have to Answer Questions About Their Religious Beliefs

As noted in the immediately prior post, some in American political life like Antonin Scalia seem incapable of setting their personal religious beliefs aside in the process of performing their elected or appointed duties. While Article VI of the U.S. Constitution correctly bars the imposition of religious test for public service, given the increased toxicity and extremism of some religious adherents, it IS relevant for voters to know whether or not an elected official is likely to properly perform his/her duties as an elected official in a democracy and whether or not he/she will respect the religious beliefs of others as required by the U.S. Constitution. An column in the Washington Post makes this, in my view, valid argument. Obviously, if a candidate wants to subvert the Constitution so as to make their religious beliefs a de facto established religion (e.g., Antonin Scalia), they probably should not be holding public office. Here are some column highlights and some of the relevant questions:
*
Every religion is radically particular, with its own distinctive beliefs about God, human history and the world. These are specific, concrete claims -- about the status of the religious community in relation to other groups and to the nation as a whole, about the character of political and divine authority, about the place of prophecy in religious and political life, about the scope of human knowledge, about the providential role of God in human history, and about the moral and legal status of sex. Depending on where believers come down on such issues, their faith may or may not clash with the requirements of democratic politics. To help us make that determination, all candidates for high office should have to take the religious test, which would include the following questions:
*
How might the doctrines and practices of your religion conflict with the fulfillment of your official duties? This question would be especially pertinent for evangelical Protestant candidates -- such as Mike Huckabee, an ordained Southern Baptist minister -- who belong to faith traditions that emphasize transforming the world in the image of their beliefs.
*
Muslim candidates, meanwhile, should be asked to discuss their view of the proper place of sharia law in a religiously pluralistic society.
*
How would you respond if your church issued an edict that clashed with the duties of your office? This would apply primarily to candidates who belong to churches that make strong claims about the divine authority of their leaders. The Roman Catholic hierarchy, for example . . . The dilemma faced by devout Mormon candidates is potentially greater. Mormons believe that the head of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a prophet of God,
*
What do you believe human beings can know about nature and history? Many evangelical Protestants and Pentecostals believe in biblical inerrancy, which leads them to treat the findings of natural science (especially those of evolutionary biology) with suspicion. . . . Given the ominous implications of a person with strong eschatological convictions becoming the leader of the most powerful nation on Earth, it would be profoundly irresponsible not to ask tough questions about the topic.
*
Do you believe the law should be used to impose and enforce religious views of sexual morality? The nation today is sharply divided between those whose views of sex are still grounded in the norms and customs of traditionalist religion and those who no longer feel bound by those norms and customs. Given this lack of consensus, the law has understandably retreated from enforcing religiously grounded views, leaving it up to individuals to decide how to regulate their sexual conduct.
*
The religious right hopes to reverse this retreat. That opens the troubling prospect of the state seeking to impose the sexual morals of some Americans on the nation as a whole. All candidates -- especially those who court the support of the religious right -- need to clarify where they stand on the issue. Above all, they need to indicate whether they believe it is possible or desirable to use the force of law to uphold a sexual morality affirmed by a fraction of the people.
*
Asking candidates about their faith should not be taken as a sign of anti-religious animus. On the contrary, this sort of questioning takes faith seriously . . . It matters quite a lot if, in the end, a politician's faith is merely an ecumenical expression of American civil religion -- or if, when taking the religious test, he forthrightly declares (as Kennedy did) that in the event of a clash between his spiritual and political allegiances, the Constitution would always come first.
*
For LGBT Americans are particularly relevant as we continue to be made less than full citizens simply because anti-gay RELIGIOUS beliefs continue to be given a quasi-established religion position in the laws - DADT being a prime example.