A question of Faith

Time Magazine best viagra drugstore 9171, cialis generic mind 1619552,00.html”>asks:

What does the Constitution mean when it says there should be no religion test for office? It plainly means that a candidate can’t be barred from running because he or she happens to be a Quaker or a Buddhist or a Pentecostal. But Mitt Romney‘s candidacy raises a broader issue: Is the substance of private beliefs off-limits?

No. Private beliefs are not off limits when it comes to elective office.

People who question Romney’s candidacy based on questions about his beliefs are not bigots or prejudiced.

My personal standard is that people should not be criticized, judged or discriminated against based on things they have no control over: skin color, sexual orientation, gender. But things people choose to believe, espouse, or act upon are and should be open to argument and judgement.

A person’s religious beliefs clearly influence their decisions and actions. What a candidate believes and how strongly they believe it counts: whether those beliefs involve judicial philosophy, approaches to conflict resolution, or their role in God’s apocalyptic vision.

I don’t think people should be automatically excluded from consideration for office because of their religious beliefs, but neither should those beliefs be set off-limits in the same way that gender and race have been (and should be).

4 comments May 12th, 2007