Examine candidates’ values, ask ‘So what?’

Examine candidates’ values, ask ‘So what?’

American Christians may pledge loyalty to the United States Constitution. But behind the closed curtain of the polling booth, many violate the spirit of the constitutional prohibition on any religious test for public office. And several church-state experts insist that’s not altogether bad — up to a point.

Article Six of the Constitution ends with the clause: “… no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” But imposing religious tests as a matter of law differs from voters imposing them in practice, some authorities on church-state issues noted.

American voters “impose an unofficial religious test that vets candidates based on their religious views,” and it’s entirely legal and appropriate, said Derek Davis, dean at the University of Mary Hardin-Baylor and former director of Baylor University’s J.M. Dawson Institute of Church-State Studies. Both are Texas Baptist schools.

“This unofficial test does not serve to disqualify anyone from running for office; it only serves to allow voters the freedom to consider the religious views of candidates for whom they might vote,” Davis said.

As a practical matter, “voters can and do take religion into account,” said Brent Walker, executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty.

Voters should bring their religious values to the public square. They have every right to consider a candidate’s religious faith as one factor out of many in making an informed decision about whether that person would be a good public servant, Walker said.

“When candidates talk about their faith, it helps us know who they are, learn what makes them tick and examine their moral core. The free and fluid discussion of candidates’ faith carries the promise of improving the electorate’s ability to make an informed decision in the voting booth,” he said.

In fact, public interest in the private religious faith of candidates signals a healthy level of respect for religion’s role in society, said Suzii Paynter, director of the Christian Life Commission, the public policy and moral concerns arm of the Baptist General Convention of Texas. Questions about religious convictions can reveal valuable insights into a candidate’s character and values, she noted.

“The alternative would be a prohibition against talking about religion, and that would just be terrible,” she said. “It would deny the electorate a window into who the candidates are.”

Discussion of personal religious convictions can be helpful, but it should not be seen as mandatory, Walker stressed. He suggested an important backstop to keep questions of faith from devolving into religious bigotry.

“Ask the follow-up question, ‘So what?’ he recommended. “What difference will a candidate’s religion make on his or her performance in office? What impact will it have on public policy? How does it affect his or her leadership style?”

Matters of personal religious conviction become fair game when related to policy decisions and a candidate’s ability to lead, Walker said.

When appropriately framed in terms of how convictions make an impact on decisions, questions of religious commitment can provide valuable insights into the character of candidates, Paynter observed.

When people reach a certain level — whether in politics, business or any other powerful enterprise — there’s always a temptation to see themselves as above the rules that apply to others, she noted.

“It’s important to know the grounding people have for their public ethic,” she said. “Public ethics come from private ethics. They don’t go the other way.” (ABP)