The Religious Vote Goes To......

Rick Santorum has certainly heated up discussions on the proper role of personal religious belief and the church in governing. From wanting to ‘throw up’ when listening to President Kennedy’s 1960 speech on the separation of church and state to alluding to President Obama’s “phony theology”. Although he may regret his choices of words, Mr. Santorum has arguably voiced the views of millions of Americans who share his feelings that our government’s laws and actions should be grounded in Christian precepts.
One can make a persuasive case that extreme care was taken to ensure that America’s national government would not advocate for one set of religious views over another. The issues raised by Mr. Santorum were raised extensively during discussions over the ratification of the Constitution itself. In the end, state Constitutional conventions not only approved a Constitution that only mentions religion in the context of prohibiting religious tests for office, but concomitantly insisted that the first U.S. Congress amend the Constitution to specifically preclude a blurring of secular and religious affairs. They understood that when one mixes religion with politics one gets politics.
This is not to say, however, that governance should not be informed by the religious values held by its individual citizens. It precisely because of this dynamic that Constitutional limits were established regarding the ability of one religious faction to impinge on the expression of the religious values of another.
These limits, however, do not preclude the implementation of government programs that advance one’s religious values. President Bush, for example, was an ardent supporter of faith-based initiatives whereby religious groups partner with the government to provide services to the less fortunate. Analogously, one could argue that many government programs are but an extension of religious outreach. Government funding is used to ensure, for example, that charity –albeit funded by taxpayer dollars- is extended to broad segments of the population. As an example, the government’s food stamp program could be viewed as an admittedly imperfect extension of local religious group participation in food banks for the needy.
If this is the case, shouldn’t citizens vote for those who support government programs that align with their religious beliefs rather than those who argue for a greater formal role for religion in government?
To this end, in 2008 the National Council of Churches- representing over 100,000 local Congregations and some 45 million parishioners- published ten principles for evaluating candidates that it hoped “all Christians - from liberals to conservatives - will study and apply in this election year. These included: ‘foreign policy based on cooperation and global justice’;’ reducing the disparity between the rich and the poor’;’ promotion of racial justice and equal opportunity’; ‘champion environmental justice’; ‘pursue fair immigration policies and speak out against xenophobia’; ‘provide adequate, affordable and accessible health care for all’; and ‘advocate for equal education opportunity and abundant funding for children’s services’.
I would leave it to the reader to decide which political party agenda is best aligned with –in this case- Christian principles. My provocation rests in the belief that voters who are concerned with the role religion should play in government pay more attention to the degree to which government actions are aligned with religious values and less attention to the ‘need’ for closer ties between church and state.

Its Up to the People to Decide

Recently a Yuma Arizona Superior Court judge disqualified a candidate for city council from running for office because of a “large gap” between her English proficiency and that required to serve as a public official. The candidate- who reads and writes English- claims she can understand and answer in English albeit not fluently. As an aside, she graduated from Yuma’s public Kofa High School. But that –as they say- that is another story, entirely.
Where, exactly, does the state get to say who is qualified and who is not qualified to represent their constituents? If, indeed, Ms Cabrera is made less effective because of her language deficiencies in interacting with her fellow city council members, her fluency in Spanish and Hispanic heritage may make her may be more effective in interacting with and understanding the needs of her constituents. If it doesn’t work out then so be it. It seems to me the decision rests with the people regarding who they want to represent their interests –“warts” and all.
There is a reason why the Constitution establishes only three requirements for those who seek to serve in Congress – citizenship, age, and residency. The drafters realized that citizens should not have their rights to choose their representatives further abridged by state actions. The Supreme Court, in 1969, drove this point home in deciding that Congress had no authority to place additional qualifications on its members. Adam Clayton Powell, Jr was a thorn in the side of many conservatives in the House of Representatives, who ultimately refused to allow him to be seated following his 1966 re-election. In the special election subsequently called –while the case was being adjudicated- he was re-elected again by his New York City district, even though he had been stripped of his seniority power by the House.
We can argue about the wisdom of electing a person with limited command of the English language, but analogous arguments can be held about electing individuals lacking a high school diploma or individuals who have recently established residency and have little sense of the lay of the land. Same goes for electing convicted felons, or for individuals who are ignorant of how the government works and the contents of the Constitution. The point established over two hundred years ago still stands – the people should be free to chose the person they wish to represent their interests.