WITH THE 2012 presidential race in full swing, candidates are laying down their platforms and making every effort to earn voters' support. Countless issues are being debated, but one in particular that keeps coming to the forefront is religion.
In an October Slate article, the late Christopher Hitchens wrote that Mitt Romney, when asked of his Mormonism, "evaded most questions by acting as if he was being subjected to some kind of religious test for public office." Hitchens was correct in claiming that voters do have a right to be concerned about whether or not Romney's decisions will be influenced by an adherence to the Mormon faith. But if such a concern exists in the minds of voters there is only one necessary question: Can one separate private religion from a role in public office?
Inquiries as to the specifics of a candidate's beliefs are unnecessary if individuals have the willingness and the capability to keep separate private and public realms. Everyone can use his own beliefs to make personal choices, which could include diet, medical decisions or simply how to interact with others. In the case of political leaders, however, these beliefs should not be used to make decisions about government policy, and the distinction between what is private and what is public in these situations is crucial.
The establishment clause of the Constitution's First Amendment holds that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Thus, as I take it, making policy decisions that are based upon a certain religion would threaten the sanctity of the First Amendment. For instance, if a candidate wants to make abortion illegal on the basis that it violates the law of his god, he effectively wants to force every woman to abide by the principles of his religion, even though not every woman may believe in those principles.
Religion should be left out of policy-making matters and therefore should certainly be left out of the presidential race, especially when the candidates have more important issues to address. Religious issues may be important to the private lives of many Americans, but the public issues are the ones that candidates should be concerned about since they effect everyone, no matter what their religious beliefs happen to be.
Even a voter who agrees with the professed religious values of a candidate probably still has to worry about a monthly mortgage payment, health care coverage, and social security. While all of these issues are affected directly by the government's decisions, a person's choice to worship a certain god ought not be affected by public policy, so it only makes sense to keep the presidential campaign in the public rather than the private realm.
Texas Gov. Rick Perry is an example of how making a campaign strongly built on religion can backfire and alienate a candidate from his supporters. Perry's commercial, "Strong," which advertises his promise to "end Obama's war on religion," now has nearly three-quarters of a million dislikes on YouTube and has inspired the creation of several parody videos. Perhaps he should take this as a message that he would fair better in the presidential campaign if he left his religious beliefs out of it.
Even though a person's faith is a large part of his character, I have to agree with the secular - and also Protestant - standpoint that faith in a deity should be a private matter only between a person and his god. In the public realm, the only aspect of faith the candidates and voters should be concerned with is a politician's faithfulness to the Constitution and his commitment to making the decisions that are best for the American people.
John F. Kennedy, the only Catholic president, faced concern from voters who thought he would be more loyal to the Pope than to the American people. In a campaign speech, Kennedy assured the concerned citizens, "I am not the Catholic candidate for president. I am the Democratic Party's candidate for president, who happens also to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my church on public matters, and the church does not speak for me." Less than a month after this speech, Kennedy was elected president. Such a precedent shows that religion does not have to be a handicap or an advantage in the presidential race.
Rather, it should simply be set aside as a topic that is not relevant to the discussion. While every voter will make a decision based on his own reasoning, hopefully the candidates will realize the voters want a president who will make the best decisions for the welfare of the people. Let us make the race about that kind of president, not about religion.
Katherine Ripley's column appears Thursdays in The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at k.ripley@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
KURTZWEIL: True financial aid must be transparent
By Paul Kurtzweil | 3 days agoThe implications and revelations of the lawsuit should inspire greater transparency at the University in order to ensure that financial aid is properly and equitably distributed.
SULLIVAN: Ramp up physical accessibility on Grounds
By Scarlett Sullivan | 5 days agoThe University must take responsibility for the inaccessibility of Grounds and work to promote accessibility for all students despite misguided laws.
EDITORIAL: Scapegoating students will not stop hazing
By Editorial Board | April 25, 2024Instead of retroactively responding to extreme hazing allegations, we, and especially the University, must begin asking more probing questions about the role of fraternal organizations on Grounds.
