Testing the religious waters

Aargh!

Even so bright a man as The Belmont Club's Richard Fernandez writes, in reference to the recent poll about Americans' very mixed perceptions of Obama's religion

The problem here is not theology or Constitutional law. People are born in cultural contexts and they have a right to change their beliefs. There is no religious test for the Presidency; it doesn’t matter whether the president is atheist, Muslim or Christian.

 Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Or at best, very misleading.

Article Six of the Constitution includes the phrase "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

But this binds the government, not the voters. As much as I honor the Constitution, it is a political document designed to shape the government, not to shape me. It is not Scripture.


Contra Mr Fernandez, it may indeed make a very great deal of difference whether the president is atheist, Muslim or Christian.  If a man's religion is going to impact his decision in office, the people have a right to know about it. The Constitution has no right to tell me not to care about it or talk about it. See First Amendment to same.

The Constitution forbids the government from instituting the kinds of tests that were routine in Britain, for instance, requiring written subscription to certain religious doctrines or bodies, to keep Catholics or Jews out of office. But no way no how does it --could it possibly-- forbid me from caring and asking and demanding an answer and making a decision based on how that answer or lack of same. Or, if I feel like, making a voting decision based on any damn criterion I like!