Scott Miller
Perspectives Assistant
As the end of September draws near, and more than a month until Election Day remains, mid-term campaigns are being thrown into over-drive. This means that voters are busy trying to decide which candidate has earned their vote this year based on stances on key issues.
The problem is when these issues involve religious dogma.
Religion has no place in the formation of public policy in the government.
The Constitution strictly forbids a relationship between the two social structures in the First Amendment. It says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
The first half of the amendment says the government cannot make laws that endorse, or establish any one religion.
That means that basing votes and political decisions on an ideological belief is unconstitutional, because it establishes one religion’s beliefs and ideals on the entire population, thus violating the establishment clause.
Despite this, religion has remained ever-present in politics.
Most issues have a stance based on religious views, such as stem cell research, immigration, and, of course, abortion. Sometimes religious stances and secular opinions can find common ground, as Sen. John Kerry pointed out during his speech on Monday in Smothers Theatre, such as the issue of poverty and world hunger. However, most times, there will be a conflict between secular and non-secular angles of an issue.
When looking at criteria for candidates, the question should not be about whether their personal religion is compatible with the voter’s, but whether they are upholding the Constitution.
That should be the ultimate question of a candidate’s worth regarding votes.
We are not electing the most religiously moral man into politics; we are electing the one most competent at defending our country and Constitution, as it was written.
The presidential oath of office includes the line, “… to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
In no place does it say that the president should ask for the Christian god’s advice on whether to veto a bill that does not agree with the president’s personal philosophy. It says that his duty is to preserve the Constitution, and the Constitution declares that a separation of church and state be present.
The Constitution was carefully researched and drafted before it was presented at the Convention in 1787 in Philadelphia.
The framers did not just throw together some random nonsense that they did not really believe in. They created a document to protect all the citizens of the country and to ensure that the new country would survive.
The framers of the Constitution understood that religion has no place in the forming of, or execution of public policy, while also realizing that politicians can be religious. So the framers put in safeguards against blurring lines of separation. If the politicians start preaching religious ideals as public policy, not only will portions of the country be left out, but the Constitution will have been violated.
According to religioustolerance.org the fastest growing religious group in the United States is the non-believers, e.g. atheists, agnostics, etc. Not to mention that Islam is rapidly growing as well, in terms of practicing members.
The Constitution expresses the need and creation of a strict separation between church and state.
This is to ensure that the government does not give any special treatment to any certain religion, or create laws that impose religious views on the entire population, as that would violate every citizen’s right to free practice of whatever religion they choose.
The indicator of a good candidate is not whether they have similar religious views and morals, but whether they are able to put aside their beliefs to faithfully serve and defend this country.
09-21-2006