Robert Jeffress, pastor of the First Baptist Church of Dallas, explained why he urged fellow evangelicals to support Gov. Rick Perry over Mitt Romney, whom Jeffress termed "a non-Christian" due to his Mormon faith. Jeffress quoted John Jay, the first chief justice of the Supreme Court and co-author of the Federalist Papers, who famously wrote, "It is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation, to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." Jeffress said this proved that a religious test for voters was both appropriate and consistent with American history since, "according to Jay, preferring a Christian candidate is neither bigoted nor unconstitutional."
While selecting whom to vote for based on religion is not unconstitutional, the views of many of our nation's founders were in fact dominated by religious bigotry. Just as Jeffress refuses to see Mormons as Christians, Catholics were deemed non-Christians by most early Americans, including John Jay. Jay, in fact, tried to exclude Catholics from the protection of New York State's constitution. In 1777, Jay proposed that Catholics be denied the right to own land or to vote, unless, "they renounce and believe to be false and wicked, the dangerous and damnable doctrine, that the pope, or any other earthly authority, have power to absolve men from sins." Although that proposal was rejected, he was able to insert a provision barring Catholics from immigrating to the state if they did not, "renounce all allegiance and subjection to all and every foreign king, prince, potentate, and State in all matters, ecclesiastical as well as civil."
This anti-Catholic bigotry was widely shared. The First Continental Congress declared that only Protestant denomination embody the "true religion," and warned that Catholics, "dispersed impiety, bigotry, persecution, murder and rebellion through every part of the world."
America was fortunate, however, because these voices of intolerance were answered by far-sighted leaders who vigorously opposed such religious animus. Ben Franklin, for example, was so accepting of different religions that he was able to develop a relationship with Pope Pius VI, who, on Franklin's recommendation, named John Carroll America's first Catholic Bishop.
Most importantly, George Washington understood the importance of respecting all religious faiths. As commander-in-chief of the Continental army, Washington admonished his troops that, "While we are Contending for our own Liberty, we should be very cautious of violating the Rights of Conscience in others; ever considering that God alone is the Judge of the Hearts of Men and to him only in this Case they are answerable." As president, Washington assured Catholics that the protection of government would be provided to "all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the Community," regardless of religion. With a magnanimity lacking in Jeffress's dismissal of the Mormon faith, Washington declared that Catholics were "animated ... by the pure spirit of Christianity" and should be considered as part of the Christian community.
Washington's letters to Jewish congregations were equally inclusive. Again linking a minority religion to the faith of the majority, Washington wrote that "the same wonder-working Deity," who led the Israelites out of Egypt had, "been conspicuous in establishing these United States as an independent nation."
Though the Constitution prohibited the government from imposing any religious test for office, it was left to the voters to decide whether they would follow the exclusionary example of Jay or the welcoming lead of Washington. The presidential election of 1800 between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson raised that issue directly. John Mitchell Mason, a Presbyterian minister, repeatedly urged voters to select the "Christian" Adams over the "infidel," Jefferson. Mason said basing one's vote on a candidate's religious test did not interfere with freedom of conscience because the voter would merely be exercising "the right of a citizen and a Christian" to declare "I cannot trust a man of such principles. ... While he is an infidel, he shall never have my countenance." Jefferson's supporters countered that under Adams priests were "incorporated with the Government for political purposes ... polluting the holy altars of religion." Jefferson's election, they said would lead to "Good government without the aid of priestcraft, or religious politics."
Jefferson's victory over Adams was seen as a repudiation of those who argued that religious voters should shun candidates who did not share their religious views. Religion was, and is, a central part of the American landscape. The question now, as it was then, is whether religion will be a divisive or a unifying force.
Abraham H. Foxman: Keep Religion Out of Politics
Founding Fathers of the United States - Wikipedia, the free ...
The Founding Fathers, Religion, and God - US News and World ...
Statistics on Religion in America Report -- Pew Forum on Religion ...
Religion in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You can find the offending text and links for most of them at
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/StateConstitutions.htm
(1) I don't want to disgrace true Christians --- who are mostly people I admire who live principled lives without wearing a sign on their sleeves announcing how good they are --- by sullying their reputations by associating my disreputable self with them.
(2) I don't want to be mistaken for one of those faux Christian Bertha-Better-Than-You types who go around yelling, "Praise Jesus" and then pointing their fingers at everyone else they believe is a sinner. Those people make me genuinely ill and give Christianity a very bad name. And unfortunately, most of the Republican presidential candidates cater to that hypocritical crowd.
In the past it may not have mattered what a President believed about the age of the earth. Today, a faith-affirming young earth creationist and science reject would put into place policies which would severely hamper science, promote scientific illiteracy, allow pollution (after all, Jesus is coming soon and He will fix it! No need to spend money on it now.), and delay looking for needed solutions for our economy. How can a person thinking Jesus will come very soon do any long-range planning? What would it matter?
A person who perceives special spirituality in the kind of underwear he wears needs to be asked why he believes it. A person who believes that "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" needs to be asked how he would treat the rights of all citizens, even the marginalized groups.
I agree that Constitutionally, there must be no religious test. But other than the religious imperatives to do good and to promote justice, there is not much useful in having too vigorous a faith as President. As President, one must be willing to let others believe or not and practice or not as they wish. And that kind of tolerance is not generally found in vigorous religion.
Nonsense. Religion is one of the strongest unifying powers in human society. In fact, ironically, it is religion's ability to bring people together is what makes it seem so divisive to many. Take the divide between Christians and Muslims. It is only significant because of the unifying power of each religion. If there were ten Christians, and 12 Muslims, nobody would care. There are millions of each. If that is not evidence of the operation of a major unifying force, I don't know what is.
Now, THAT is a unifying force. And we don't need to brainwash our children (how many of those millions are converts - how many are simply born?) or terrify with threats of hellfire. But most of all, we don't achieve our unity through collective opposition to the Other.
How many religions can say that? Hmmm?
One need only look at the clown car driving aorund the Republican racetrack, people who want to make THEIR particular brand of Christianity what rules all of us.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/148100/Hesitant-Support-Mormon-2012.aspx
" one sees by experience in our times that the princes who have done great things are those who take little account of faith and have known how to get around men's brains with their astuteness...".
Again, total nonsense. There are millions of Christians, and Muslims, and Jews. That is evidence of one of the most powerful unifying forces in human society.
I cannot fathom how anyone can look at the way religion brings millions together and not see how powerful a unifying force it is. Without this ability to join millions, religion would be a matter of no great import, politically.
Saying that the existence of millions of people of different religions is evidence of unity is like saying that they fact that there are millions of Americans shows that being a Democrat is evidence of one of the most powerful unifying forces in human society. And you could say they same about atheism.
Religion is 98% an accident of birth, indoctrination in youth, and the societal urge toward conformity.
Tens of millions killed in the name of god is NOT a unifying force. Please, for your own sake and that others would take you seriously, read some history books and educate yourself. This position is ludicrous from an historical and factual standpoint.
a poor understanding of numerical values [1+1+1=1] does not constitute reason for a "who owns the term christian" pissing match. if jesus as christ is the central figure in your pantheon of god or gods you are a christain.
and though i know all that inclusiveness hurts you, any of the abrahamic religions are just different views on the fulfillment of that original faith, ie different jewish sects.
I don’t want a President who believes that this country was founded as a “Christian Nationâ€, or who believes in biblical law and biblical capitalism--Christian Nationalists. That’s what Bachmann, Cain, Perry, Palin, Paul and Newt believe.
Dominionist, Christian Reconstructions, Christian Revisionists, and members of the C Street Family (Thune) are all disqualified as far as I’m concerned.
The problem is that Christians who embrace a “biblical worldview†are poorly informed as to what path these loons want to take. Their religion-- is their politics. So, sorry—in 2012 if you vote without taking religion into consideration—you are a fool.â€