home

Religion and the VP Choice

By TChris, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:04:58 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Steven Waldman analyzes "the religion factor" as the candidates consider various potential running mates. Too bad he didn't mention the last clause in Article VI, section 3 of the United States Constitution:

but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

< Bad Advice | Skimble Closes Blog, Election Doesn't Matter >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Religion and the VP Choice | 11 comments (11 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Come on ! (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by angie on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:31:01 PM EST
    Do you really expect any of these political "journalists" to read the Constitution? Background research is SOOOO 1970s.

    nice in theory (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by coigue on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:38:23 PM EST
    a laugh in practice.

    unfortunately for all us non-Christians out there.

    Consti-what? (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by HonoraryClinton on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:41:16 PM EST
    Never heard of it. Is that that a sequel to The Da Vinci Code? Well, whatever it is I fail to see why any politician would break years of tradition and starting reading it now.

    Would and IQ test be unconstitutional? (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by MarkL on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:10:56 PM EST


    sadly TChris, (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by cpinva on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 01:07:14 AM EST
    "we the people" have allowed this to come to pass. of course, religion has always been a factor in our elections, unofficially. that we've somehow managed to not transcend that speaks volumes about how far we, as a society, have to go, to get beyond primitive tribalism.

    Is this a deliberate misstatement. . . (none / 0) (#4)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:55:26 PM EST
    of the meaning of that clause of the Constitution?

    Clearly, the Constitution is talking about legal religious requirements for holding office.  Equally clearly (although unfortunately) many voters measure religiosity in deciding who to vote for.

    An analysis of how the religion of a candidate might affect voters is not the same thing as a religious test for holding office.

    Furthermore, while the linked article does evaluate the religion of various VP possibilities the author casts quite a wide net and his slate of possibilities represents a considerably more religiously diverse group of people than have historical gotten nominations at this level of government.

    Yes, and no (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by RustedView on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:23:56 PM EST
    Sure, the Constitution only applies for to the actions of the government (for the most part).  The clause prohibiting a religious test doesn't prohibit private individuals from considering the religion of a politician when deciding who to vote for.  However, when we look at the spirit of our most sacred secular document, we see that the founders were trying to reject religious tests, even in the hearts and minds of individual people.

    Article VI §3 is a declaration of policy, religion doesn't matter in deciding who should lead.  Religion is irrelevant for the purposes of the officers of this nation.  Yes, we accept that individuals can be religious, but the notion that we should consider the religion of any person when deciding who to vote for goes against the secular foundation of this republic.

    Now, people will argue that the founders were religious, the prayed to some god, be it a personal Christian god, or the "divine watchmaker" of 18th century Deists.  That is true.  But what the founders saw was a whole continent destroyed by reliance on religion.  "You are Catholic therefore I need to behead you"; or "You are Protestant, I need to burn you alive," etc.

    Shouldn't we strive for more than just the letter of the Constitution?  Shouldn't we strive to achieve the spirit of this great document?  Yes, it only prohibits government religious tests, but the spirit prohibits all religious tests, de facto or de jure.

    Parent

    Netiquette Faux Pas but Relevant (none / 0) (#14)
    by RustedView on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 05:42:45 PM EST
    I hate to reply to my own posting but I came across something interesting in reading today that I wanted to share. It is relevant to the topic of religious influence on appointments and nominations.
    According to Whitman, Harlan's appointment as Secretary of the Interior was brought about by the pressure of the Methodist upon Lincoln, led by Bishop Simpson.  Lincoln preferred to name a Colonel Dubois to the post, but as a part of Whitman's fate one of the sponsors for Dubois failed to appear at a critical meeting held for discussion of the subject.  Then, according to Whitman, Lincoln said, "I have thought the matter all over, and under the circumstances think the Methodists too good and too great a body to be slighted.  They have stood by the government and help'd us their very best.  I have no better friends; and as the case stands I have decided to appoint Mr. Harlan."

    Whitman by Edgar Lee Masters, 1937 (A biography of Walt Whitman)

    I suppose what is most striking is the favors paid to religious groups for the sole reason of their largess.  Any thoughts (I know this topic is dead and buried now, but there could be a lurker)?

    Parent

    The Constitution doesn't forbid us (none / 0) (#8)
    by daryl herbert on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:05:52 PM EST
    from making decisions about politicians based on their personal lives, stated values, religion, character, or other personal (cough cough John Edwards) issues.

    It forbids the government from establishing a religious test.  It doesn't forbid the people from making decisions based on religion.

    The Constitution does not mandate a secular electorate.  It doesn't mandate a non-racist electorate, or a non-sexist electorate, or an electorate that is educated or selfless.  Based on your logic, voting is unconstitutional.

    the letter of the constitution, sure (none / 0) (#11)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 12:09:47 AM EST
    the constitution sets down we may not codify the following law:  "A president must be 35, a natural born citizen, AND a Catholic."

    And yet the the constitution does not prohibit any citizen from voting by religious preference.  That is also true.

    But those who wish to not only fulfill the letter of the constitution but also the intent of the constitution will act and behave as they see fit.

    Speaking for myself, it's not the first thing I think about.

    And yet, it's an interesting thing to consider.  It's not so much one having faith and what that faith is called, but what one believes in, the values they have as an article of faith.

    One of the things that binds most religions together (regardless of the stories and gospels behind them) is that helping the poor is right.  Acting responsible towards the planet is right.  Acting responsible towards your neighbor is right, that acting responsible towards your own body is right.  Etc.

    If someone said they belonged to a religion and prayed to a god that believed that poor people are poor because they deserve to be poor and the sooner they die off the better, then I guess I would really have to take that into account.

    As others have noted... (none / 0) (#13)
    by p lukasiak on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 07:35:47 AM EST
    the idea that there is something unconstitutional about taking religion into account is pure sophistry.  

    Moreover, Democrats need to stop being so hypocritical about religion in politics -- the complaint seems to rear its ugly head only when its White Evangelicals who are the object of concern; no one dare criticize the role of African American Churches in politics.  (Indeed, the most generous interpretation of Obama's decision to association himself with Rev. Wright for 20 years is the 'cynical' explanation that TUCC was good for his political career.)

    The problem with the article isn't that it talks about religion -- rather the problem is that it talks about the "religious" vote as if all "religious" voters are conservatives (white Evangelicals and Catholics).  

    Religion and the VP Choice | 11 comments (11 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment