"when it comes to religion and politics, we live in a perpetual state of creative tension."

Diana, this is very well put. A problem is that many people simply cannot cope with this sort of ambiguity and they need black and white absolutes.

My sense is that people on the political Right and among Christian fundamentalist ranks tend to gravitate toward hard and fast boundaries. Is that an unfair characterization? I'd like to hear from other people on the list.

Posted by: carl copas | November 30, 2007 2:35 PM

I think Diane misses the piont of the questions in the debate. The purpose wasn't to litmus test the candidates on religion. CNN's purpose was to use religion to ridicule and polarize the candidates.

What is worst?
Using religion to promote yourself or
promoting yourself (or your party) by ridiculing someone religion.

Jeff

Posted by: Jeff | November 30, 2007 3:12 PM

Sam Harris so eloquently stated the problem this way. "Religious moderates are in large part responsible for the religious conflict in our world because their beleifs provide the context in which scriptural literalism and religious violence can never be adequately opposed."

Posted by: Milo | November 30, 2007 3:26 PM

I'm not sure I understand how or why the candidates religion is something we have a right to ask about. You can't ask any prospective job candidate about her religion so why should we be able to pry so deeply into politicians religious life? I feel that by doing so we miss the ability to judge character and only judge theology if we're lucky and more often only judge scripted answers to Biblically based questions. We've come a long way from the days when we could say there was no litmus test for political office.

Posted by: lisa | November 30, 2007 3:36 PM

Blake,

My problem is with the candidates that lacked the guts to close those questions down or not answer them. By Huckabee answering them he showed he was pandering. That's disgusting.

p

Posted by: payshun | November 30, 2007 3:40 PM

As Sojourners demonstrates, there are positive ways for the religious community to participate in politics. There is a difference between what is appropriate for religious groups and what is appropriate for politicians and what is appropriate for religious individuals. The religious community should not demand specific actions by government, but the religious community must raise specific questions. (How shall we care for the poor, hungry, sick, etc.?) It is appropriate for a politician to say, "Because of my faith, I favor this action." It is not appropriate to say, "Because of my faith, you should favor this action." I am not bothered by questions to candidates about religious faith. I don't recommend it, but voters can use a personal litmus test. Since many voters want to know about the religious beliefs of a candidate, it is appropriate for the press to ask those questions.

Posted by: Ron | November 30, 2007 3:41 PM

Diana, I HAVE to disagree with you when you say:

"If we had formal religious tests for office holders in the U.S., this would be akin to being inaugurated as president by proclaiming one's Christianity, stating belief in the doctrine of the Trinity, and dedicating oneself to Jesus—essentially a doctrinal test for politicians.

Americans know that [this] scenario is not likely to occur."

Sorry diana, but it IS occurring, it is PRECISELY what is occuring already, and well before the inauguration stage. Why just the other night, Anderson Cooper grilled Mitt Romney as to whether or not he (Romney) believed every word of the Bible. How is this NOT a 'religious test'? And what business does anyone, even the esteemed (formerly esteemed, imho) Mr. Cooper, have in asking things like this?

I half agree and half disagree with kevin s who said: "Every major candidate for the presidency on both sides of the aisle has voluntarily discussed their faith and made it a major talking point at every political rally."

They aren't 'voluntarily' discussing it if it is a direct question. That they are making it a major talking point at every political rally is disgusting. Can you imagine John F. Kennedy going on (and ON) about his Catholicism at every opportunity? He had to take pains to assure Americans that it would NOT influence his policies. Now we can't get away from it.

What a sad turn for America the formerly free.

Posted by: recovering ex-Pentecostal | November 30, 2007 3:49 PM

Ron,
I agree, it is appropriate for the press to ask these questions about religion.

What is not appropriate is for the press to use people to pose as Republicans to ask inane religious questions. It appears that Diane took this ruse hook, line and sinker. The message sent to the voters is "the Republicans require a religious litmus test."

Put this together with the undercurrent of lumping religious conservatives in with Islamic extremist. Thankfully CNN got caught.

Jeff

Posted by: Jeff | November 30, 2007 3:53 PM

Ron,

I have to disagree with you...

"Since many voters want to know about the religious beliefs of a candidate, it is appropriate for the press to ask those questions."

How does this sound:

Mr. Roosevelt, is Jesus Christ your own personal Lord and Saviour?

Mr. Nixon, are you born again?

Mr. Reagan, do you believe God's grace extends to the non-Christian American?

Heck, we haven't even had many (any?) Muslim Presidential candidates, or Buddhist presidential candidates, or Jains, or Scientologists, or Unitarians, or Raelians, or Hindus (nevermind atheist presidential candidates, gawd forbid!), and if the RRR gets its way, America never WILL, despite its "promise" of freedom of (and hopefully FROM) religion.

THAT is what is wrong with this line of questioning. It presumes a Christian faith instead of probing the content of the candidates' character or policies.

Posted by: recovering ex-Pentecostal | November 30, 2007 4:04 PM

kevin s,

I appreciate your thoughtful response to my question. It was worded badly, I suppose: I didn't mean to say that Christian fundamentalists and political conservatives are identical. But it seems to me that both groups tend to think in, as you put it so well, binary terms.

I'm a Christian too, though my politics are pretty far to the left. I'm not a mainstream liberal; if I had to label myself I'd say I'm a progressive populist who believes that human beings are fundamentally flawed and that, without Christ, tragedy is inherent in the human condition.

I agree with you 100% that there are things in the Bible that are non-negotiable. Your example of adultery is a good one. Another one is to love your enemies.

Posted by: carl copas | November 30, 2007 4:11 PM

Jeff,

Yes he does and it makes sense because if a scriptural text tells you that someone of a different belief is worthy of death, like many religious text do, and if you believe this test to be the inspired word of god, why wouldn't you feel obligated to act on it?

Posted by: Milo | November 30, 2007 4:14 PM

When I heard the question I hoped Huckabee would jump in and shut it down. I was dissappointed none of the candidates did so. And I am dissappointed Diana Butler Ross, in her piece, does nothing to call CNN on its behavior. When thoughtful persons like Ms. Ross cannot draw a boundary--I guess I can't expect CNN to do so.

In defense of Huckabee I appreciate comment I heard Michael Medved make (my paraphrase); that candidates have the option of complaining about questions that are 'out of bounds' or recognizing in the 'rough and tumble' there is all kinds of slime thrown and candidates/leaders need to demonstrate a willingness to graciously field and answer.

On question about pledging no new taxes--McCain and __________ shut down the whole "make candidates sign pledges" game. I want the press and politicians to address and answer clearly, concisely and directly the relavent questions. If a leader lacks the clarity to shut down the 'out of bounds' questions, I doubt whether their answers are open/complete/honest.

President Clinton answered the "boxers or briefs" question. I don't think such questions to be funny. I think they ultimately show disdain.

I do care about candidate's faith to this extent. Faith is that in which we place our ultimate trust. In regards to expressing their own persons, I do want a person reflective enough to articulate their ultimate allegiences. Most important to me is to know whom they believe the earth and the nation belong to:

1. God
2. All the peoples of the Earth
3. "we the people" of the United States
4. United Nations
5. A global aristocracy
6. Federal Government

That answer is the basis for justice and for knowing whom they will serve.

The CNN question was entirely out of line. The need for clarity from candidates is not served by a media that cannot have a clarity about their own enterprise.

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | November 30, 2007 4:23 PM

"Yes he does and it makes sense because if a scriptural text tells you that someone of a different belief is worthy of death, like many religious text do, and if you believe this test to be the inspired word of god, why wouldn't you feel obligated to act on it?"

Christianity teaches that we are all worthy of death. We act on it by submitting ourselves before Christ and recognizing that we need his grace. We are forbidden from dispensing the judgment on others that we deserve ourselves. That message is vastly different from what other religions espouse, in that we are incapable of delighting God on our own.

Posted by: kevin s. | November 30, 2007 4:26 PM

I need to see if I can dig up my notes. But I find it interesting that Wallis laudes the Dems with their openess to talk about a personal faith, guidance from God, etc. But DBB castigates the Reps with their talk about faith and belief. So which is it Sojo?

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | November 30, 2007 4:33 PM

Recovering ex-Pentecostal,
You ask,
"Since when were only Republicans allowed to ask questions?"

The debate was clearly advertised as a Republican Debate for Republicans with everyday Republicans asking questions. As for who posed as a Republican. It all over the news, take a look for yourself.

Jeff

Posted by: Jeff | November 30, 2007 4:36 PM

Me: "if the RRR gets its way, America never WILL,"

kevin s: "Yeah, cause if it weren't for the religious right, Americans would be really gung ho for a scientologist..."

All facetiousness aside, we'll never know, will we? Nor about the other religions I listed.

"The discussion of religion in politics isn't new. JFK was our first CATHOLIC president."

Yes, and he had to assure America that he would answer to the Constitution and not the Pope - the total opposite of what is happening now where candidates have to assure America they're as Christian as possible, or at least more so than the next guy/gal. O how the might have fallen.

Posted by: Anonymous | November 30, 2007 4:40 PM

Milo,
So we literalist are lumped into the same group of people who behead Jews, fly airplanes into skyscrapers, demonstrate to have a teacher executed for letting her students name a Teddy bear Mohamed, etc. .

Jeff

Posted by: Jeff | November 30, 2007 4:40 PM

Jeff,

"So we literalist[s] ..."

There's no such thing. There's only SELECTIVE literalists, or there'd be a lot more dead victims of incest and a lot fewer women priests.

Posted by: Anonymous | November 30, 2007 4:49 PM

For the most part I think Diana's right on. I'd like to point out though that she writes "The candidates were required, down to specifically quoting scriptures, to 'check off' the right religious answers in order to secure their party's bid for the nation's highest office."

She might have added that CNN chose for them to do this. CNN could have easily chosen different youtube questions, but instead, I assume in the hopes of better theater, made them answer these questions. The blame lies there.

Posted by: Eric | November 30, 2007 4:56 PM

It might be worth remembering, in all the discussion about who God does and doesn't use that "the Lord's anointed" in Isaiah 45: 1 turns out to be a Zoroastrian fire-worshipper, "Cyrus, whose right hand I [NB It is God who is speaking] have graped to subdue nations before him ..."

It might also be worth remembering that Cyrus was what we would now call an Iranian. God appears to be a lot less choosy than we are.

Posted by: Tony Dickinson | November 30, 2007 5:09 PM

Dear Diane , I would suggest that voters re-read the preamble to the Constitution. There are six enduring values expressed in that one sentence that makes it possible to enjoy life in the USA.
These six values provided the framework and the principles for establishing our Constitution.
Our candidates should be judged on their committment to preserve these values.
As for political " experience". -Experience for most of us occurs AFTER the fact. Not before the fact. No one has experience with the future or the unknown. That's why I would vote for integrity over experience.. Example. Every polititian who voted for the Iraq war had plenty of experience but then, by their own admission, they showed their lack of experience when they all said " If I had only known then what I know now, I would not have voted for the war". What does that tell you?.
Thanks for your wonderful and insightful article.. Best wishes ,Herb

Posted by: Herb | November 30, 2007 5:40 PM

In the big book of life, not the A.A. version, but the G.O.D. version, there are some fascinating evaluations on the theology of the politicians of the day. (Judges and Kings)

It seems clear to Yahweh that those who followed Him were good and those who didn't were not good. Those who sought Him were good and those who didn't were not. Those who kept their promises were good and those who didn't were not.

You are not a cool christian if you are against discovering the depth or lack thereof of a candidate's faith. You may be uninformed. You may be anti-fundamentalist, but you may also be something as simple as an exremely frightened follower of Christ, disguising yourself as a social activist or fundamentalst or revolutionary or....

Ask questions. Ask lots of questions. Ask everyone what they see when they close their eyes at night. Ask why your own theology is reflected so infequently in your own life.

Then pray for one another. This is earth, it's supposed to be hard. Encorage one another.

Posted by: Ric | November 30, 2007 6:10 PM

Michael,
It seems we are talking past one another. What is the point of your prayer? That it doesn't matter what the candidates personal beliefs are? That appears to be your point in the prayer. That we should just coast along and God will work it all out. Or do you think that the U.S. is immune to decay? Every other great civilization in the past decayed. If we all took that attitude, then the very checks and balances you are relying on would become anemic and powerless to keep our country from losing our rights. Is not that one of the concerns over the debate about the patriot act? I like the Russian proverb that goes something like, "Pray, but row towards shore."
There is a difference in my mind between expecting a President with correct doctrine and expecting that President to work towards keeping our religious liberties and expecting him or her to lead in a great and righteous way.

Posted by: Andy | November 30, 2007 6:48 PM

You bet it matters if the president is a comitted follower of God. As followers of God we are compelled to love God and love People. The only way we can do that is by his Spirit. I want my President to have the Spirit's power to love God and love people. Is this not the standard?

Why do we attempt to divorce our faith from our actions? If we love God we obey him. I am definitely interested to know that the next president will put faith into action.

Posted by: SP | November 30, 2007 6:56 PM

A little historical perspective would help. "Religious test" was placed in the constitution against a backdrop of various states that had the precise thing in their laws. You had to be a member of the favored denomination to run for office, or even vote. There were restrictions like that in all states but R.I. It was a denominational neutrality that the federal union insisted upon.

This does not mean we cannot inquire about a candidate's faith.

What we have seen since 1980 is a fundamentalist movement here trying to impose their view of faith upon the country, a movement that began around 1900 and does not reflect the views of the mostly-Christian founders.

Those of us not in that movement are reacting negatively, but not very insightfully, to such imposition.

Posted by: D.W. Haigler, Jr. | November 30, 2007 7:36 PM

Michael F:

The problem is that more and more Americans are getting "drunk" these days, so the chances of what you suggest are actually increasing. Add to this signing statements and other machinations by George W. that have helped centralize power in the executive - powers ANY president (i.e., of either party) will be loath to undo - and you have the ingredients necessary for the election of a proto-totalitarian (or worse) president.

Consider that, since 9/11, we have seen: the passage of Patriot Act I and II; the creation of the Department of Homeland Security; Guantanamo; Abu Ghraib; a knowingly phony presentation to the U.N. in order to get support for an aggressive, unprovoked, pre-emptive regime change in a sovereign nation (and the subsequent hanging of the elected leader of that nation!); illegal wiretapping of U.S. citizens; the violation (if not suspension) of habeus corpus; the undermining of the Posse Comitatus Act, making it possible now for a sitting president to unilaterally declare martial law without Congressional oversight; "watch lists" and other restrictions on travel; the use of paramilitary organizations (e.g., Blackwater) to "assist" the U.S. Government during "national disasters or emergencies (which can also be unilaterally declared by a sitting president); increased surveillance of U.S. citizens in the name of "safety and security"; the ability of a sitting president to unilaterally decide that a person - any person, including an American citizen - is an "enemy combatant, leading to up to three years' incarceration with little or no access to family or legal representation; and the equating of "dissent" with "aiding the terrorists" (i.e., treason).

Do you know the "frog in the pot" scenario? I.e., if you drop a frog into a pot of hot water, it will jump out, but if you put a frog in warm water and slowly turn up the heat, it will sit until it boils to death?

We are the frogs in the political pot: there has been little or no outcry about all of the above because it has been occurring slowly. Yet had all of the above occurred in one feel swoop - in a single day, or even week - there would have been an outcry the likes of which has not been heard in decades.

As far as I am concerned, I care not a whit what the religious or theological bona fides of the candidates are, as long as they show an honest and humble "moral center." However, the first one who sincerely promises that s/he will restore the (shredded) Constitutional freedoms and civil liberties that have been slowly but surely eroded away (and continue to be so) is going to get my vote.

Peace.

Posted by: Maani | November 30, 2007 8:32 PM

Right, Left, religious, or ethical and moral character, what also is important and significant to the above, is what exactly is the fruit that in the end or afterward result from their actions and deeds.

Posted by: DeWayne | November 30, 2007 9:00 PM

If Ms. Butler bass is right, then WHAT DO YOU DO with the politicians throughout history who have made the following quotes:

On March 6, 1799, President John Adams called for a National Fast Day.

"I have thought proper to recommend, and I hereby recommend accordingly, that Thursday, the twenty-fifth day of April next, be observed throughout the United States of America as a day of solemn humiliation, fasting and prayer; that the citizens on that day abstain, as far as may be, from their secular occupation, and devote the time to the sacred duties of religion, in public and in private; that they call to mind our numerous offenses against the most high God, confess them before Him with the sincerest penitence, implore his pardoning mercy, through the Great Mediator and Redeemer, for our past transgressions, and that through the grace of His Holy Spirit, we may be disposed and enabled to yield a more suitable obedience to his righteous requisitions in time to come; that He would interpose to arrest the progress of that impiety and licentiousness in principle and practice so offensive to Himself and so ruinous to mankind; that He would make us deeply sensible that "righteousness exalteth a nation but sin is a reproach to any people" (Proverbs 14:34)"

Daniel Webster argued:

"Finally, let us not forget the religious character of our origin. Our fathers were brought hither by their high veneration for the Christian religion. They journeyed by its light, and labored in its hope. They sought to incorporate its principles with the elements of their society, and to diffuse its influence through all their institutions, civil, political, or literary.

Abe Lincoln was quoted as saying:

"If God now wills the removal of a great wrong, and wills also that we of the North as well as you of the South, shall pay fairly for our complicity in that wrong, impartial history will find therein new cause to attest and revere the justice and goodness of God."

And, William Jennings Bryan added:

"The parents have a right to say that no teacher paid by their money shall rob their children of faith in God and send them back to their homes skeptical, or infidels, or agnostics, or atheists."

Theodore Roosevelt said:

"The teachings of the Bible are so interwoven and entwined with our whole civic and social life that it would be literally impossible for us to figure ourselves what that life would be if these standards were removed."

And Franklin Roosevelt said:

"The young must be taught, and they must be taught truly if spring waters of democracy are to be kept untainted. The influence of the Scriptures in the early days of the Republic is plainly revealed in the writing and thinking of the men who made the nation possible. They found in the Holy Scriptures that which shaped their course and determined their action."

Jimmy Carter proclaimed to the American people:

I don't, however, see anything wrong with Christians. . . exhibiting their own faith in the political arena. Christ tried to change the society within which he lived. He didn't hold public office and wouldn't have. But you don't have to hold public office to try to change the basic policies of a country.

Bill Clinton quoted the New testament saying:

The most important political verses in the scripture are the next to last and the verse before that of First Corinthians. "But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love."

Every generation of politicians have proclaimed their faith proudly. Why shoud we stop now? Is religion now considered unccptable? If so, God help us all!

Posted by: UnaHomer | December 1, 2007 12:14 AM

Religion is a problem only when it is used as a battering ram to beat people into submission, which has been the case in this country from time to time. The important thing is: Are these religious politicians committed to doing what's right for as many people as possible, regardless of the public's religious convictions? Even Christianity has no meaning unless that's the goal, and if they're willing to do that people will realize they have nothing to fear from even a "Bible thumper." Thankfully, I've begun to see this from many of the presidential candidates, which I haven't always seen.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | December 1, 2007 12:52 AM

I'm a Christian, but I wouldn't trust any of these politicians, whatever they are saying in response to what they think will get them elected!

Our system is becoming increasingly unaccountable and the average voter's concerns are forgotten once someone is elected and they are beholden to the interests who finance them. For those who aren't quite so beholden, they are the self-financed millionaires who live as a kind of out-of-touch aristocracy, with views that have been shaped very differently than 99% of the voting public.

A few slogans, religious or otherwise, don't mean anything as to how successfully or wisely someone will govern.

Posted by: Anonymous | December 1, 2007 1:21 AM

He accuses religious people of intolerance while he is himself intolerant.

You just proved his point by your statements. Kind of a catch 22?

Posted by: Anonymous | December 1, 2007 2:41 AM

It's always dangerous when church and state (religion and government) unite in subjugation of the people.

That is the dynamic that tried to kill Jesus, but you can't kill ideas, truth, or love. The same dynamic started a war against other Christians who wouldn't submit and convoluted their views, destroyed their writings. The burning of the library in Alexandria by Rome was most likely to exalt ignorance for ease of subjugation.

To this day, the Nicene Creed is repeated Sunday after Sunday in many religions; though Jesus said we were all to be sons of God and not to take oaths, but to let our yes be yes and our no be no.

Posted by: Anonymous | December 1, 2007 7:09 AM

To Moderate Lad,

Regular readers will know that I do not often comment, but I wanted to let this thread know that I did think about the difference between the Democrat forum and this Republican forum--and there is no inconsistency around the following points:

1) The Sojourners/Democrat Forum was geared toward a specifically Christian audience. As such, the audience wanted to hear the "moral framework" of the candidates as related to moral issues that have the potential to unite people--such as poverty and peacemaking. The YouTube/CNN Forum was not intended for a specifically religious audience, but it was intended for a broad spectrum of Republican voters. One would assume that there are secularists, Jews, atheists, agnostics, wiccans, Hindus, Muslims, etc who are Republicans. The audience context makes a lot of difference between the tone, questions, and intention of the two events.

2) The Dem Forum was not set up like a debate in which candidates bested each other in order to win votes (as was the YouTube Forum). The Sojo/Dem Forum consisted of three separate candidate interviews. Since I was in the second row at the event, I know that the candidates didn't even hear each other's interviews before coming on stage and left immediately after their own interview. Thus, they were not responding to each other. They were simply explaining their faith perspectives as they influence larger moral and ethical concerns. They weren't scoring points off of each other; they were talking only about themselves.

3) If there were a Republican forum set up like the Democratic one, with a specifically Christian organization hosting and a specifically Christian audience (points made clear to the larger audience of TV viewers) with the intent for the candidates to be interviewed individually to talk about their moral frameworks and potentially unitive moral issues, that doesn't strike me as a problem--even from my strongly separationist perspective. Such information is in the realm of freedom of speech. In the Democrat event, there wasn't even an inkling of "religious testing," the focus was on moral choice related to specially moral questions--that wasn't was occurred in the YouTube forum where the questions had specifically Christian theological (not only general moral) content and candidates were being apparently judged on who was "most orthodox" or "most evangelical" in relation to each other.

Posted by: Diana Butler Bass | December 1, 2007 9:30 AM

To Dr. Diana Butler Bass,

Thank you for those clarifications.

Jim

Posted by: JamesMartin | December 1, 2007 11:17 AM

But what if Obama (or another candidate) had turned down the opportunity to appear at the Sojo forum? Surely his appearance had something to do with garnering votes, or he wouldn't have taken time from his campaign.

Further, by virtue of being a Christian forum, the participation was self-selecting to a certain extent. By having such a forum, you essentially (though not explicitly) eliminate candidates from other religions from having the opportunity to express their faith.

It would seem that the idea of having a Christian forum comes closer to the sort of religious testing the Constitution forbids.

At best, the only distinction, in your view, that separates protected speech from religious testing is that the Republican forum was open to non-Christians and the candidates were able to hear each others answers. That seems like splitting hairs to me.

Posted by: kevin s. | December 1, 2007 12:28 PM

Interesting little historical sidelight: Clarence Darrow "won" the Scopes trial? I hardly think so.
Better checke the Tennessee court records again. Darrow's client was found against, and fined. Granted, the fine was minimal, but the winner was not Darrow.

Posted by: joekc | December 1, 2007 6:53 AM

thanks for the clarification. the SCOPES trial. And yes he was fined. But that trial complicated. I watched a documentary on it. All the guy wanted to do was teach out of a biology book. Then the town was up in arms! The religious were having a fit. Who was the winner? In the courts eyes at that time was not Darrow, but Bryan (who was a minister, I believe) was such a pharisee type thinking believer. He took the bible SO literal. The winner to me was Darrow even though he was fined because he stood for science and what he believed against all odds. Yah,the was fined, but he stirred the town up - in a good way, I thought. But I am one who does not see the Bible as infallible. I think that it is dangerous to take it so literal. Which was the case with Bryan. I may have to watch the documentary again. I know it generated interesting conversation in my class. Fascinating to me. What if God used evolution to create? Okay, now I better stop. I'm questioning the creation story. crap! thanks again.

Posted by: Anonymous | December 1, 2007 2:58 PM

Thank you to Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins for your continued financial support of this blog

Posted by: Anonymous | December 1, 2007 4:09 PM

And...where did Jim's blog praising Huckabee go? Weird.

Posted by: Blake | November 30, 2007 3:40 PM

Blake, I copied the posting before it was taken down. If you (or anyone else for that matter) want it and are willing to post your email address here, I can send it to you.

Don

Posted by: Don | December 1, 2007 4:47 PM

Posted by: kevin s. | November 30, 2007 4:13 PM

"The discussion of religion in politics isn't new... Keith Ellison (my lowlife representative) ran a campaign almost exclusively aimed at getting Muslims to vote for him."

And is he a "low lfe" because of attempting the Muslims to vote for him, or is he a low life because of his being one? And did he not curry votes as well from other groups too besides the Muslims? I mean surely he must have courted the environmentalist, the women vote, single mothers, the elderly, the Hispanics, the Jews, the Christians, the neglected veterans, the teachers, and on and on. This is what campaigning is all about, isn't it? Round up as many groups as you can?

So trying to lasso in the Muslim vote, however distasteful a sight it be to some, as opposed to the acceptable practice of currying to the Jewish vote by giving israel the blank cheque to destroy the Palestinian people, (as has been done by our elected officials for the last 50 years) does not qualify a man to be a 'low life.' Or does it?

Posted by: A. Blutenhalbmond | December 1, 2007 5:05 PM

Thank you, Diana, for so eloquently getting it right, I totally agree with every point you make. Thank you for sharing your insights and wisdom.

Posted by: sarah hugus | December 1, 2007 5:48 PM

"And is he a "low lfe" because of attempting the Muslims to vote for him, or is he a low life because of his being one?"

Neither. He is a lowlife because has has a long track record of anti-semitism and has been extensively involved with the Nation of Islam. Oh, and he didn't pay his taxes, violated campaign finance regulations, and insinutated that the Bush administration was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

"This is what campaigning is all about, isn't it? Round up as many groups as you can?"

According to Diana, his tactics ought to be considered problematic. If you are going to call out Republican nominees for answering questions (submitted by Democrats and selected by CNN) about the Bible, then surely the practice of initiating an Islamic strategy in Somalian neighborhoods ought to be problematic as well.

Again, I am not the one comparing the practice to a religious test.

"as opposed to the acceptable practice of currying to the Jewish vote by giving israel the blank cheque to destroy the Palestinian people,"

Not that this is entirely relevant to the conversation here, but if you think currying the Jewish vote with pro-Israel stances is going to get you elected in Minneapolis, you don't know Minneapolis.

Posted by: kevin s. | December 1, 2007 5:56 PM

While I agree almost completely with Diana's article, I do wish everyone would understand ther "no religious test" clause precisely. It prevents any law from barring a candidate on the basis of religion. It does not prevent private citizens from badgering candidates about their religion(if they consent to be badgered, and it certainly does not bar any voter from voting according to the answers given to such questions, however misguided such a policy may be. For example,the "no religious test" clause has no bearing whatever on my policy never to vote for a Mormon. I have a right to exercise whatever prejudice I wish in the sanctity of the voting booth.

The British Prime Minister - to this day, by law - must be a member of the Church of England. That is the only kind of religious test that concerns this clause.

Posted by: Bill Teska | December 1, 2007 6:49 PM

Huckabee surged because Chuck Norris decreed it.

Posted by: Anonymous | December 1, 2007 7:51 PM

"Huckabee surged because Chuck Norris decreed it."
--So true. I had my doubts about Huckabee before a roundhouse kick to my head brought me to my senses.

Ms. Bass, you are one of the more thoughtful posters on this site, but I have to disagree with you that there is some hard distinction between the pandering in the Sojo 'interviews' and the YouTube debate. The candidates are ALWAYS trying to best each other and they knew they were giving answers that would be made into headlines the next day. These headlines were read by Christians and non-Christians alike.

If you were unimpressed with the answers in the debate, you must be unimpressed with the questions. I see no blame here attributed to CNN.

I was confused by your quote, "Such information is in the realm of freedom of speech." Was there anything in the Youtube debate NOT in the realm of freedom of speech? Anything they said that should be illegal to say?

Posted by: jesse | December 2, 2007 7:21 AM

I thought Sojo didn't promote candidates.

Posted by: Anonymous | December 2, 2007 8:58 AM

'Getting the answers right on a doctrinal test is no guarantee of a person's moral disposition or leadership quality.' How well put! How has this perspective been abused in the past, and how have people suffered due to morally righteous and doctrinally correct persons of power. To complicate the matter, the doctrinal tests do change, over the yrs - what was considered doctrinal in the 1300s? Has it remained doctrinal truth for us today?

Posted by: Marlin Miller | December 2, 2007 11:18 AM

"That would be like getting frustrated that a puppy doesn't speak portuguese." Kevin S.

Now THAT was funny!

Posted by: JamesMartin | December 2, 2007 2:25 PM

I wanted to add to the folks praising Huckabee. I can't vote for him because of three show stoppers: (1) anti-choice, (2) anti-gays, (3) anti-evolution (which is close to anti-science for me to be comfortable with). But that said, he seems very genuine to me. He even has a line is his bit about not believe life "begins and conception and ends at birth," and then goes on to talk about caring for and educating children on their way to adulthood.

I suggest folks check him out. He is a politically conservative Christian who is mostly Christian. Even with my three show stoppers, I really felt pretty good about him after checking out what he believes on his website.

Prophetic Progress

Posted by: JimII | December 2, 2007 8:31 PM

Frankly, the whole religio-political thing in the U.S. is a cottage industry that we Canadians are greatly amused by. What is it they say, mix religion and politics and politics wins every time! I guess perhaps that's one thing we learned from the British which is why in Canada we just don't waste time going down that road. We elect our leaders based on their competence as administrators of the public interest. Just as a doctor, mechanic, teacher's competence isn't ultimately related to what church they attend or what creed they embrace, why is it any different with a politician?

Arguably, the U.S. has been ruled by "pro-life" presidents for 5 of the last 7 terms, did it (not that I'm saying it necessarily should have) make any difference on reversing Roe v. Wade? Precisely what has Bush II accomplished as an "evangelical" in the White House that nobody else could have done? His supposed evangelical stature has proven to be a major disappointment to many Americans. So I don't understand why, even in the run-up to this election, Americans continue to believe that a candidate's personal theology is so important.

Let them acknowledge the existence of a divine power and, accordingly, get on with making wise decisions in running the affairs of state accordingly. From what I can tell, playing the "Jesus" card or the "Biblical authority" card hasn't really made a hill of beans of difference in any U.S. president's effectiveness in the past, so why do Americans continue to act as if it will in the future?

Diana, you're bang on when you write: "As a serious Christian, it matters to me that the president of the U.S. is a moral person with a mature conscience, and that he or she brings broadly shared ethical insights (along with other insights) to political issues. It does not, however, matter by what tradition that moral conscience has been formed as long as the office holder supports the Constitution. In the U.S., broadly shared political ethics generally include such things as respect for all human persons, a commitment to national and global justice, and developing national capacities of happiness, freedom, and liberty for all citizens."

Posted by: canucklehead | December 2, 2007 10:03 PM

First comment: I love this article!!! Several years back, I had a wonderful conversation with an athiest. My friend stated that Lincoln was an example of a good leader and moral person. History has told us, Lincoln spent a lot of time studying the Bible and praying, but did not "preach" from his presidential podium. If only more elected officials could be like Lincoln.

Second comment: The comments posted here are all very interesting. Now I would like to bring another perspective to the group. It isn't just about who is Christian and all the other groups. It's about who is more christian. My husband served as an elected official for one term of six years. We are Republician because we live in a largely Republician community. We are Christian / Presbyterian, and have been for about 25 years. We were raised in different christian faiths and choose Presbyterain to be our "united" faith. We have been Elder and Deacon, serving our church government. I am stating this to give a little background for my next comment. My husband was up for re-election on 11/8 and lost. Our State Rep's group - someone who reminds me of Hitler (especially during his recent rally speech), sent out a negative letter about my husband. They used "Devine Guidance" to support a vote for their candidate. So am I to believe that my husband lost because we are not religious enough? I will be honest, for the first two days, the thought did cross my mind a couple of times. Then the thought came to me, when given the choice, they crusified Jesus. Please don't take my comment badly here, my husband does not walk on water. We, the people, do make bad choices when voting religion. I have also not given up on God and know he has continued plans for my family.

Today's politics: If we think the candidates are the right religion, it will get them elected, but they leave something to be desired when we talk about morals or doing what is right for the greater community. I ask, how can a president be all about God and compassion, but vote against health care for young children? Knowing the political process I can only hope there was something extra tacked to the health care vote that caused him to go against it, but knowing our president, there probably wasn't.

Just a comment from someone with a family effected by religion in the vote.

Posted by: "S" | December 2, 2007 11:22 PM

Posted by: canucklehead | December 2, 2007 10:18 PM

"I notice the anonymous poster who suggested Clarence Darrow "won" the Scopes "monkey trial" didn't see fit to acknowledge his error when (correctly) challenged by joekc."

Joekc I was wrong and you were right. I did agree he was fined and thanked you for clarification, yet forgot to mention Darrow indeed lost.

"We need a "Go to Jail" card on this blog."

I like monopoly.

"If you're dead wrong on your basic history, should we expect you're "right" about anything else?"

Absolutely not.

Thanks for the thoughts, hope I accepted Joekc's challenge the proper way. Didn't mean to come off as I was not accepting what was being said. I didn't really look at it as a challenge.

Posted by: Anonymous | December 3, 2007 12:45 AM

I'd like a presidential candidate to have both a good, humble heart that seeks God, AND good, sound judgement and wisdom.

Unfortunately, neither guarantees the other. And just because a candidate asserts that they "believe every single word of this book" STILL guarantees neither the good, humble heart that seeks God OR good sound judgement and wisdom. You could get Pharisees to believe the Scriptures - yet they didn't really seek God and had very proud hearts. Such has been an all-too-frequent problem in our own country as well.

So...yeah, a good humble heart that seeks God - but then, just because a person has a good humble heart that seeks God, doesn't mean they have the wise judgement to be president. Many people with good humble hearts are naive. Innocent as doves - but not so wise as serpents.

And on the other hand, many people with quite sound judgement are very, very proud - short-circuiting and blessing by God. "God is opposed to the proud, but He gives grace to the humble."

Once again, I'm picturing a piece of graph paper - and I guess I'd half to look for the point on the graphpaper where the lines intersect and you get the best mix of both.

Also....another problem with Christian candidates in this country is that this country is so steeped in "American cultural Christianity", not necessarily New Testament Christianity.

We all grow up with it. We all must break free. I struggle at times to break free too. There are so many unquestionned extra-biblical "truisms" in American Christianity (Not saying it hasn't ALWAYS been that way in every day and age and culture.). We almost need the equivalent of one of those websites that bust "urban legends" - one that busts through "American cultural Christian legends", our own "Snopes" website.

So...we're left asking of Christian candidates, "Are they still drinking the Kool-Aide?" Can they filter the American Cultural Christian Kool-Aide out of the water. How good is their Brita Filter?

And that's so hard....it gets so ingrained after a while. The teachings of men. Jesus fought that in His day too.

There aren't any shortcuts or easy answers. You really have to look hard at people.

Posted by: Amazon Creek | December 3, 2007 2:06 AM

Canucklehead,
Ah yes, Canadians are so wise and prudent. As one who has been involved in Canadian politics a little, allow me to assure you that it can be just as silly and idiotic as American politics--we're just more reserved in our stupidity. Competence has nothing to do with it--otherwise, how could Paul Martin have gotten re-elected in 2004? Start acting like a Canadian and be nice.

Posted by: Ben Wheaton | December 3, 2007 7:15 AM

"the monologue of the Religious Right is over."

CNN knows under some rock (or 6 feet in the ground) Religious Right (maybe Pat Robertson--who knows); plots to apply a religious test; and hence, demands Republican candidates affirm the veracity of EVERY word in the Bible.

Apparently CNN believes:

1. Religious Right exists
2. they know the agenda of Religious Right
3. The monologue is not over

I am not attempting humor. I believe so much of this has to do with a largely mythical media storyline. Evangelicals existed before and after Roe v. Wade. They existed and voted before Moral Majority. They voted Republican. They voted Democrat. They held office. I really could care less about current stereotypes of conservative Evangelicals if it was limited to benign ignorance.

But 25 years into this storyline I think we could move past it.

The interaction of a rich diversity of faith traditions, culture and politics has been continuous. Splitting my time between Alabama and Minnesota, I am always struck by the different religio-political atmospheres. But the reality is not that one is more religious in flavor--but rather the politics have been formed in context of different faith traditions. There is nothing less Lutheran-Catholic about Minnesota civic life than there is Southern Baptist about Alabama.

Dr. Butler Bass--you advance clarity re: interaction of faith with politics. I am much appreciative.

I remain baffled you believe to judge whether CNN's editorial selection of questions was 'out of bounds' is tantamount to pretending to know their motives or apply godlike judgement on them.

I think rather it is just listening to a question, as I expect candidates to do, and say "Foul." A referee is not God nor a judge of motives. They just blow the whistle when rules are broken.

So, to me, when the whistle doesn't blow I assume there is no violation. I am not pushing you to take a stance. But I think if you took specific words of the candidates, or the specific questions posed, and reflected on them from your princeipled perspective--then your readers would have greater clarity as to how to live in this 'murky area.'

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | December 3, 2007 10:35 AM

Where did my post just go?

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | December 3, 2007 10:52 AM

"I wanted to add to the folks praising Huckabee. I can't vote for him because of three show stoppers: (1) anti-choice, (2) anti-gays, (3) anti-evolution"

Just wanted to reiterate the fact that conservatives aren't the only people who make their decisions based on these issues.

Actually, Huckabee is pro-choice, he just advocates a consistent ethic of choice that extends to all people, born or unborn.

Cads brings up an interesting point. Among the 5,000 questions submitted, it is certain that every major issue was touched upon. Regardless of your political allegiance, you have to want a president who has answered tough questions.

Shouldn't CNN have been about picking tough questions? Isn't that what a debate is about? Isn't that what being a news organization is about? Who cares what CNN thinks of conservatives. It is not their job to identify what they think is conservative.

"Frankly, the whole religio-political thing in the U.S. is a cottage industry that we Canadians are greatly amused by."

Conversely, we are amused by Canadians.

Posted by: kevin s. | December 3, 2007 11:04 AM

"Kevin-do you believe either the question or answers provide any valued insight to voters?"

Not particularly, no.

Posted by: kevin s. | December 3, 2007 1:01 PM

" But the straightforward content was one of theological dogma; and the emphatic and repetitive nature of its presentation was to not allow any response but of theological dogma."

And THAT is the problem. There are not supposed to be ANY religious tests, and now we have NOTHING BUT RELIGIOUS TESTS!

Posted by: Anonymous | December 3, 2007 1:28 PM

Thanks for the thoughts, hope I accepted Joekc's challenge the proper way. Didn't mean to come off as I was not accepting what was being said. I didn't really look at it as a challenge.

Posted by: | December 3, 2007 12:45 AM

Thanks for that!

Posted by: canucklehead | December 3, 2007 3:18 PM

"You've said this about Wallis in the past and you're saying it now about Huckabee, which come across as bordering on ridiculous. Just what is your defition of "pro-life"?"

First off, I was being facetious, turning Jim's talking point on its head. Second, I've never said that Jim had a consistent pro-choice ethic. My definition of pro-life is one who generally believes abortion should be illegal. I'm not sure what you are getting at.

Posted by: kevin s. | December 3, 2007 4:11 PM

First off, I was being facetious, turning Jim's talking point on its head. Second, I've never said that Jim had a consistent pro-choice ethic. My definition of pro-life is one who generally believes abortion should be illegal. I'm not sure what you are getting at.

To be truthful, I'm not sure what you're getting at. Wallis (at least as of late) has not come out and said that abortion should be illegal while Huckabee has; however, Wallis likes Huckabee as a candidate. Furthermore, though I do believe abortion should be illegal, I've always known that there's a difference between making it illegal and ending abortion, on which virtually everyone agrees.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | December 3, 2007 4:52 PM

Mick is correct that the ACLU recruited Scopes to teach evolution and get arrested for it so they could test the law's constitutionality. I'm not sure about the part of Scopes' not being a science teacher, though--maybe he wasn't, but I don't recall.

In a sense, though, those who think Scopes (or rather Darrow) won the case do have a point. Technically they did lose the case, because Scopes was found guilty of violating the law and had to pay a fine. (Scopes' "guilt" was never in question, of course, since he deliberately violated the law.) However, Darrow clearly won the courtroom debate with Bryan. Bryan simply couldn't put a coherent argument together and rather made himself look a fool. Darrow argued rings around him. It was kind of sad, really, for Bryan's public career to end this way. (He died shortly after the trial ended, as most probably know.)

Peace,

Posted by: Don | December 3, 2007 7:36 PM

Hmmmm.... They did delete Don's post. Not sure you can blame that one on the auto-censors. Maybe Hillary dropped the hammer.

Posted by: kevin s. | December 4, 2007 6:25 PM

"I've lived most of my life within 50 miles of the border with Canada, and I've admired their political system very much. So far, they've dealt with most of the same issues we face much better than we have. Including the faith life of their politicians. Their health care system works. The schools work. Their economy works for most all people, not just the wealthy. So far, few people there seem to find their marriages threatened by the committed relationships of their gay and lesbian neighbors. That's not just the political system, but their cultural system that seems to work where ours doesn't.
Maybe someday we'll get it right here, too.

Posted by: Ted Bertot | December 3, 2007 11:25 PM

Thanks for your analysis, Ted. Maybe some of the neocons on this blog will hear it from a fellow American. And maybe Fritz Mondale will emerge to take the Democratic nomination in 08 too. We Canadians just don't "get" this religious dance thing the Americans roll out every four years for their presidential hopefuls to hop, skip and jump thru. There was a brief attempt at that kind of stuff in the early years of this millenium which resulted in that leader getting promptly punted by his own caucus.

While our Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, is a solid Christian, you'll never see/hear him trying to play that card to political advantage. He was a solid believer when I knew him back in university days. Let's just say that he has too much respect for his faith to prostitute it the way too many American presidential hopefuls appear forced to do by the demands of certain segments of the "Christian" electorate.

Posted by: canucklehead | December 4, 2007 8:38 PM

Seems to me the reason we must endure these faith questions every four years is thanks in large part to the religious right's rise to power in the 70s and 80s. When they became a large enough voting block, it became necessary to court them, just like the gun lobby and big oil. Problem is the gun lobby and big oil [and others] seldom persuade politicians toward the public good. Why, then, would the religious right be any different?

As a gun-free, hybrid-driving atheist, I'd like to have a candidate answer the faith question by saying, "What possible difference could my faith make?" Haven't we seen enough "faithful" politicians act in direct opposition to the principles of their faith [not to mention the 'public good']?

Posted by: chrisfrenzy | December 6, 2007 10:23 AM