The Religious Test: Why We Must Question the Beliefs of Our Leaders

Damon Linker, who is actively posting on "Twitter," wrote this book fifteen years ago. 

So, it was writing about same sex marriage before it was recognized as a constitutional right. He thought it inevitable. He also discussed the unlikely possibility of Roe v. Wade being overturned. Oh well.

The Constitution bars religious tests. Many people understand that as a general principle in the United States. Let's quote the specific text:

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

The Fourteenth Amendment effectively "incorporated" this principle so that it applies to state and local offices. The presence of "Catholic" or "Jewish" seats on the Supreme Court underlines it was not applied to mean that any religious criteria are barred.  

Some might argue that such things are not a good idea. Still. Are we to take the clause literally in its broadest sense? If a person is selected to defend civil rights, are we to ignore their racist religious beliefs, while being able to be concerned if they belonged to the Nazi Party (political)?  Many would not think so.

Linker does not directly talk about the implications, for instance, when the Senate considers judicial nominations. For instance, John Kennedy (not that one) questioned a judicial nominee about his sermons. Is that a problem in the way he did so there? 

The book has a more general concern about the religious beliefs of people who might clash with liberal values. Not "liberal" as in "Democrat." No, a wider usage that recognizes the values of a free society, including a sense of moderation and openness. 

Many religious groups are illiberal in that sense. Some have political influence. And, this was pre-Trump. He includes radical atheists like Christopher Hitchens, who are not willing to "play nice" with religious beliefs. I can imagine his views on Trump. 

Linker also argues that a liberal society requires an individual rights view of gay and abortion matters. He cautions that we should tread carefully, for instance, recognizing the rights of those against same sex marriage. He draws the line at the marketplace. Again, I wonder how he felt about Hobby Lobby.

He lays this a bit thick sometimes. For instance, he wants public schools to carefully avoid driving more conservative-leaning parents away regarding social issues. Linker is adamant that it would not include avoiding teaching evolution. 

OTOH, he appears to not be too gung-ho on LGBTQ friendly curriculum plans. At some point, you won't win. Some parents will be upset if you even bring up Stonewall. 

His whole discussion on "traditional" marriage skips over much of the sexist aspects of the institution, including coverture. Linker also somewhat exaggerates how prevalent traditional morality was. See, e.g., Lawrence v. Texas on how the state largely avoided enforcing anti-sodomy laws unless the behavior took place in the open or involved minors. 

The debate over the details should not erase that the general message is valid. We should care about liberal values, and religion can interfere. It is not prejudicial to take this into consideration, especially if we also accept the right of free exercise. We allow speech we hate without merely listening to it without comment. 

The constitutional religious test rule bars, at the very least, formal qualifications by force of law based on religious doctrine. The No Religious Test Clause has a broader principle of separation of church and state. 

The clause does not, realistically cannot, mean we do not care about the beliefs (religious or otherwise) of governmental officials. The average official can do their job even when it somehow clashes with their beliefs. A pacifist can collect taxes that might be used for warfare. 

Still, the religious beliefs are relevant. And, many officials these days are not willing to uphold the separation of church and state. They by word and deed make this very clear. 

Linker provides a helpful summary of why religious beliefs are relevant. It is a conversation we should continue to have.