Sen. McCain’s unfortunate comments reflect a common but wrong belief (shared with about 55 percent of the American public) that the U.S. Constitution establishes a Christian nation.
The Constitution is a decidedly secular document. Yes, many of the Founders were men of faith and mostly Christian, but they opted to ensure religious liberty for all, not ensconce their own religious views in the nation’s founding document. When it comes to religion, our Constitution is not a religious document but a religious freedom document. The U.S. may be a Christian nation sociologically, but not constitutionally. That fact is easy to demonstrate. Living up to the religious freedom values embodied in the Constitution and not giving preference to the Christian majority is more difficult.
Article VI of the Constitution bans any religious test for public office. True, the provision outlaws only legal disabilities based on religion. Citizens can and do vote for whom they wish and take religion into account in making that decision. The fact is, many people are comfortable with people who wear labels like their own. But the spirit of Article VI reflects an important American value – rights of citizenship are not dependent on “right” religious affiliations. Moreover, assumptions about how someone will lead, based on their religious affiliation are risky at best.
The fundamental inquiry for our leaders should be who can best lead and uphold our Constitution — not who is the most devout Christian or devotee of any other religion for that matter. The best candidate may be a person of no faith but of strong commitment to our nation’s principles, including religious freedom for all. Wasn’t it Martin Luther who said, better to be ruled by a smart Turk than a dumb Christian?
Religion may be relevant to evaluating a candidate. To the extent a candidate’s religion bears on his or her commitment to constitutional principles or affects positions on policy issues, a candidate’s religion may be a valid consideration. A candidate’s religious commitments or practices may also tell us something about the person’s character. How and to what extent one’s religion influences or dictates one’s value system, leadership style, policy outcomes is useful information.
For example, Candidate A’s extreme pacifism and Candidate B’s militant fundamentalism could result in drastically different policy outcomes on issues of peace and war. Candidate C, whose religion says that abortion amounts to murder, and Candidate D, whose religion requires an abortion to save a life of the mother, may come out at different places on Roe v. Wade. Candidate E, whose premillennial eschatology says that God is going to end it all on God’s timetable, and Candidate F, whose understanding of stewardship demands meticulous care of God’s creation, probably are going to come out differently on environmental issues.
In sum, religion may be relevant to evaluating a candidate’s fitness for office, but only to the extent it is tied tightly to how the candidate will perform the job he or she is being elected to do. At the same time, we should use great care to honor our country’s tradition of religious freedom for all by guarding against any assumption that one’s religion determines one’s right or fitness to be involved, to step forward and to lead.
Please e-mail On Faith if you'd like to receive an email notification when On Faith sends out a new question.
Email Me | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook
