The Religious Test



Tags: romney, religion, religious, mormon, constitution, republican, campaign, candidates, governor, southerners

No sooner had the Republican presidential campaign gotten into full swing than the press, campaigns, and opposing candidates were going about trying to impose religious tests on the candidates for office.

The two announced Republican candidates that in my view have the strongest chance of defeating President Obama have come in for the most scrutiny on this front. The former governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney, is a Mormon. And the governor of Texas, Rick Perry, is a Methodist.

Mr. Romney, who announced earlier, came in for the first round of attacks. They began with an article in Politico reporting, “Obama’s reelection campaign will portray the public Romney as inauthentic, unprincipled and, in a word used repeatedly by Obama’s advisers in about a dozen interviews, ‘weird.’… None of the Obama advisers interviewed made any suggestion that Romney's personal qualities would be connected to his minority Mormon faith, but the step from casting Romney as a bit off to raising questions about religion may not be a large step for some of the incumbent's supporters.” As if to emphasize the point, senior Obama adviser David Axelrod went on national television to announce he’d fire any staffers who called Romney weird.

Then, at the Ames Iowa Republican debate, the Washington Examiner’s Byron York asked this question to candidate Herman Cain: “Mr. Cain, you recently said this about Governor Romney's Mormon faith: ‘It doesn't bother me, but I do know it's an issue with a lot of Southerners.’ Could you tell us what it is about Mormonism that Southerners find objectionable?”

Mr. Cain helpfully responded by saying, “it does not bother me. But…. I listen to what people say. What they basically say is that they are not real clear about how his Mormon religion relates to the majority of the people's Protestant, Christian religion in the South.”

As for Gov. Perry, The Wall Street Journal greeted his entry to the campaign with an editorial declaring, “his muscular religiosity also may not play well at a time when the economy has eclipsed culture as the main voter concern.” Like Herman Cain talking about Southerners, Mitt Romney, and Mormonism, the Journal editorialists themselves aren’t concerned about Mr. Perry’s religion, not one little bit; they’re just worried about how it will “play” with voters. This from, of all places, the Journal, a business newspaper that has been running annually since 1949 an editorial about “the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free.”

It may yet be that the voters reckon that the economy and the culture aren’t entirely unrelated. Many religious people, after all, have found in their faiths the work ethic, respect for private property rights, and respect for the freedom of the individual against the state that are at the core of a program of economic liberty.

The religious question in presidential campaigns is hardly a new one. Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s “God Damn America!” sermons became an issue against his congregant Barack Obama. Just more than 50 years before Mitt Romney, another Massachusetts politician, John F. Kennedy, had to face the Catholic issue in the Wisconsin and West Virginia primaries.

Our Founding Fathers saw this coming and tried to protect against it. Mr. Cain clumsily groped toward the truth of this when, in the debate, he said, “I believe in the First Amendment to the Constitution. I believe that the government does not have a right to impose religion on people.”

But the First Amendment, wonderful as it is, isn’t the key text here. Rather, it is Article Six—not some later amendment, but the original text of the Constitution itself. It states: “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” No, ever, any. As Seth Lipsky, the author of a book about the Constitution, puts it, of all the sentences in the entire constitution, that’s the one that is the most emphatic.

Ira Stoll is editor of FutureOfCapitalism.com and author of Samuel Adams: A Life. This column first appeared at Reason.com.

Not yet rated. Be the first:

<< Previous Article      Next Article >>


Comment

Name:

Leonardo said... Rating: 0   Vote +   Vote -  

Mike,Whether the Republican Party always was or now is “unattractive to 90% of the Blacks” and/or “seen as a faulire” in some existential sense, it is not attractive to Blacks in its present form.’Yeah I know I butchered it but I am trying to make a point here. You and I can go back and forth about what how the Republican Party got into the position of being viewed in this manner but as I pointed out before the fact is this is the perception today among not just Blacks but a lot of other Americans. I understand your strategy of reaching out to Americans as a whole. But let’s look at it this way. A family has several children and the parents are reaching out to the family as a whole. But one of the kids has gone through a traumatic experience, rape/molestation, and while it was no fault of the parents that child feels a loss of trust because they didn’t or couldn’t protect him. Even though the parents did nothing wrong there is going to have to be some special reach out to that child from the entire family. Now I hope you don’t try to analyze my analogy too much but try to see the point I am making. Which is for whatever reason that trust has been lost and while the concern of the American people should be the first concern some outreach needs to happen.Black In America Baby…….The revolution has been televised………

8/23/2012 6:27:13 AM