FAITH IN POLITICS or the POLITICS OF FAITH

FAITH IN POLITICS or the POLITICS OF FAITH

The Faith Factor -- To judge or not to judge -- Is THAT the question?

In reference to "The Faith Factor" by Cal Thomas on Wednesday, December 12, 2007, the question should have been:

"Should one's "faith" (belief/non-belief in God and/or a religion/non-religion) be a factor in weighing the worth and value of a candidate for elected office, especially for the presidency of the USA? Generally, I tend to agree with Cal Thomas, but in this case I have reservations. He seems to think that the "test" referred to in Clause 3 of Article VI of our constitution (see below) applies equally to individual voters as it does to the "government" of our nation.

Article. VI. [U.S. Constitution] Clause 3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

This mixing of the framer's intent for application of our constitution is also used to put forth the nebulous theory of "separation of church and state" -- words which are NOT even in the constitution -- to proclaim it "unconstitutional" to even mention "God" or anything "Christian" in the public domain. Unless we examine Amendment I of the Bill of Rights (see below) in light of Article VI Clause 3, it is easy to slide into sloppy interpretation.

Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Left in original context, the confluence of these two admonitions come together in the obvious intent of the framers to say, "The government (Federal, State, Local) shall refrain from: 1) passing laws that would tend to establish any particular religion [nor any atheistic derivative of "non-religion"] or from prohibiting the free exercise thereof; and 2) requiring [establishing] any religious Test as a Qualification to run for or hold any public office."
"Prohibiting the free exercise thereof" means the government shall NOT prohibit: 1) prayer, either personal or corporate, in private or in public; 2) signs, slogans or monuments that speak about and honor God or His Ten Commandments. That same theory is also restated within the same paragraph of the 1st Amendment when it states the prohibition against "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..."

So, I'm delighted to say that in our country no individual citizen shall be prohibited from using freedom of speech and the security of knowing that the government will make no attempt to institutive or prohibit any individual citizen from the free exercise of establishing their own religious test as an individual or in concert with any citizen group.

Apparently Cal and others have a difficult time in distinguishing the huge difference between the exercising the individual right to establish religious organizations and the prohibition of government from doing the same. And the same goes for establishment of religious tests for candidates who seek election to public office. We, the People, are free to conjure-up any and all tests, religious or otherwise, for use in measuring a candidate's positions and propensity to abide by what we may perceive to be in our own best interest. ---- It is the government who is prohibited from doing likewise!

I think wise voters measure a candidate's thoughts about the roles of church and state and their propensity to compromise personal and/or religious convictions. And it may be wiser still for a person to pay attention to the "spiritual bona fides of another individual", whether that person is to be hired to do a job in the public sector or to do any other job that may be within our control. When it comes to judging character, I fear Cal may have gone a bit off the deep end in this article -- I can remember reading his columns when he took great pains to establish the worth, value and wisdom of judging a candidate's character.

And I suspect that few of us would select candidates known to be murderers or rapists, womanizers or purveyors of filth, liars or blasphemers; especially if we had a choice to select one who is known to be true to his/her Judeo-Christian principles. So what is so wrong with seeking information about a candidate's religious convictions and principles as well as their stance on the economy, national security or protection of civil rights?

To reject such a personal measuring stick in evaluating the candidates seems entirely fool-hardy to me.

Just one man's opinion, so what do you think?

Mel Ingram
mel-ing@sbcglobal.net

Return to the HERRICKREPORT.COM

Kent M. Herrick, Editor in Chief, 2007

HERRICKREPORT.COM