Is Religion Off-Limits?
There are dueling posts up at Lean Left with KTK asking What is Off-Limits, and Why?, while Kevin started with Romney Faith Fair Game?
This is a problem for the current political climate. There have always been whisper campaigns about the religious views of candidates, beginning with John Adams, but they weren’t in the open, and getting caught was a net negative. Now, people are almost required to explain their religious views to run.
This is not a good development, and is destructive. There is no evidence that religious views make you a more competent person to run the country, and good evidence that pandering to a particular religious point of view is divisive.
I tend to come down on the side that religion can’t be off-limits if the candidate keeps bringing it up to justify her/his policy positions. Traditionally it was off limits, because people didn’t talk about it, or use it as a shield. If a candidate brings it up, they open it up to being questioned.
6 comments
If a candidate uses his religious beliefs in the campaign or panders to a particular religious group or attacks the religious beliefs of an opponent then yes. If a candidate puts religion in play then he or she has to deal with it. Otherwise I don’t think religious belief should be an issue except where it is outside accepted norms far enough to make the sanity of a candidate questionable. It’s a tough call but I consider the snake handlers in Tennessee outside the norm and I am not too impressed with the scientology crown or the moonies just to mention two of the fringe.
Every time church and state become associated, the church loses. That is the history, and I don’t expect it to change. Every time someone calls for the association, it is because they want the state’s power, never because they think it will make the state better.
John Adams was a Unitarian, wasn’t he? And before that he was a Congregationalist. No wonder there were whisper campaigns. 🙂
Article VI takes religion out as a possible qualification for office. That does not dispose of the question you ask, Bryan, but it ought to be a clue. How long will it be before our current Supremes eviscerate that part of the Constitution as well?
I will use a candidate’s religion only as a disqualification, and then only if the candidate states, or I suspect, that in office s/he would deviate from our tradition of secular government and religious pluralism in society, on the basis of her or his religion. Some candidates make me nervous, I must admitt. Um, admit… that’s what I meant, admit.
For an example of what can happen when people are deeply committed to implementing their own religions in the fabric of society… based on small differences, from our viewpoint… one need only look at Iraq. I guess I should start contemplating now who exactly I want to blow up for not being UU, so I’ll be ready when the sectarian violence begins. Seriously, that way lies chaos, as our founders understood from firsthand experience.
A look at the recent Supreme Court decisions should give people cause to reflect on how religion affects their lives. Having five men associated with Opus Dei on the Court has not been good for the Constitution.
There are those who would claim that the existence of religious wars is prima facie evidence that there must be multiple gods or no god.
While I’m not sure that I would work hand in glove with the UU on an enemies list based on religion, I will assuredly work against anyone who claims special privilege based on their religion.
We’ve never asked Georgie if he believes in the Rapture and if he’d help bring about the second coming if he could. I do think that might make a difference to foreign policy and stuff….
If half of what the WaPo is writing about Darth Cheney is true, nothing the Shrubbery thinks is worth knowing, because he only thinks it or knows until Cheney decides he doesn’t.