Do houses of worship affect houses of state?
“No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
So states the last clause of Article VI of the United States Constitution.
But so stating does not make it so. Candidates of any religion or none cannot be prohibited from running for office on the strength of this law, but voters are not thereby obligated to disregard a candidate’s faith when entering the voting booth. Voters themselves must be convinced that a candidate’s religion does or doesn’t matter enough to compel their support or withhold it.
Two Mormon candidates have entered the 2012 presidential sweepstakes. Mitt Romney, governor of Massachusetts, is a devoted member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He has even served as bishop (lay pastor — Mormons do not have paid clergy) of his local church from 1982-1985. Jon Huntsman, formerly both governor of Utah and ambassador to China, talks of his Mormon “roots” and deflects critics by saying he draws inspiration from many faiths.
Nevertheless, American voters are questioning what a Mormon in the White House would mean for a republic that has been theoretically open to all religions or none but practically closed to all but variants of Christians.
Should it matter that a person’s religious beliefs vary from the norm of the country’s religious beliefs? It might, but how we frame the matter might be more important.
When John F. Kennedy ran for president in 1960, he addressed the fears of many Americans that his faith would demand that he defer to the pope over the Constitution. In a speech in Texas to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, he said he believed “in an America where religious intolerance will one day end.” He laid out an approach focused on the separation of church and state, balancing religion and politics in a way that satisfied enough voters in the day but has frustrated others since that day because it seems to privatize religious belief in a way that leaves it irrelevant in the public square.
Faith matters. It matters publicly as well as privately, because while from the spiritual side faith is a divine gift and not a human achievement, from the human side it is the way we all — believers and nonbelievers alike — attempt to arrange the furniture in the room of reality to make life most livable. So we want our political leaders to have a vision for America that coincides enough with our Constitutional ideals that we will stay tethered to that stake.
Leadership is about vision, and faith informs the way we envision the future. This is true for orthodox Christians, heterodox Christians, Jews of all stripes, Mormons, Muslims, religions of any name and atheists, too. So whatever questions we raise about how Mormon beliefs will impact a U.S presidency, we should ask about any other candidate.
For instance, many Christians are concerned about those tenets of Mormonism that seems strange, such as celestial marriage, baptism for the dead, and the origin and authority of the Book of Mormon. Fair enough. But the strangeness of doctrine is not unique to Mormons.
Jeff Weiss, former religion writer for the Dallas Morning News, coined this maxim: Every religion seems sane to insiders and crazy to outsiders. But in an increasingly pluralistic country, religious outsiders will have a greater say in who gets elected to public office.
The trick for any candidate then is to show how his or her core religious beliefs will inform a vision of America that considers every citizen first-class. We should want a president who goes beyond Kennedy’s hope for religious tolerance to liberty and justice for all.
Jesus said, “You will know them by their fruits.” Fruits are the visible outcome of a vital faith. We may better judge candidates by their record in houses of state than by their doctrine in houses of worship.