Constitution and the Baptist Principle of Religious Freedom

Marv Knox longtime editor of the Baptist Standard recently wrote an editorial in response to Ben Carson's statement on Meet the Press and again on CNN's State of the Union, insisting, “you have to reject the tenets of Islam” in order to be president.  

In the article Knox appeals to Article VI paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution to insist that Ben Caron's views are in error and inconsistent with the both the Constitution and the Baptist principle of Religious freedom. 

I want to respond to his argument by essentially saying that Knox errs at several points.  First, just what does the Constitution say, "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." 

It is clear that the intent of the Constitution in this Article and clause is doing two things. First, it is affirming that all persons elected to public office must take an oath or make an affirmation that they will support the Constitution. Second that there will be no religious test applied to determine whether or not a person may or may not hold political office. 

This is not intended to be a constraint upon the voter. It, like the First Amendment, is intended to restrain the Government. In short, any person who meets the Constitutionally defined requirement for who may run or hold an office is considered qualified under the Constitution to hold that office. In the case of elected offices it means "to be elected and hold the office" should the voters so elect them. It is not intended to deprive religiously minded people from voting their conscience. It is designed to not disqualify a citizen from holding an office or governmental position simply because of his religion or lack thereof. This is to preserve the Constitutional form of our government from being over thrown by its leadership (hence the oath) or dominated by a given religion so that the population as a whole has its religious prerogatives preserved. 

I might note here that those who see the First Amendment as a freedom from religion do err. The founding fathers would see the movement to do away with all religious representation in government as a treading on the rights of the citizens who are religious. Hence the many religious references in  not only their writings but also carved into the buildings housing that Government that is protect everyone's right to whatever degree of religion they fancy 

If Ben Carson had said, and he did not, that a person who is Muslim but meets all the qualifications set for in the Constitution is not qualified for the office of President he'd be wrong.  However, having said that, I need to also point out that there are no restraints placed upon how a voter determines how he will cast his vote.   

The voter may use whatever reasons he chooses to vote for or against any candidate in any election in which he is entitled to vote. If, he believes, as apparently Ben Carson does, that Muslims are bound by their religion (which they are entitled to freely engage) to honor Islamic sharia law then he is entitled to vote against and further to campaign against their election.  Sharia law is the Islamic legal system derived from the religious precepts of Islam, particularly the Quran. It is the equivalent for Muslims of the religious rules and commandments in Christianity drawn from the Bible are for the Jew and the Christian.  Devote Muslims, Jews and Christian's have one thing in common and that is they owe their first and highest allegiance to their God. 

 This does not mean, as Knox explains so well, that a Catholic (JFK) or a Muslim of the same ilk as JFK could not run for President and if elected serve.  Indeed he could.  

However, as Knox reminds us through his predecessor it is one of the things a voter will want to weight as he evaluates whether or not the oath or affirmation to uphold the Constitution will be inordinately influenced by his religion. If a voter decides that is likely to be the case then the candidate's religion becomes for that voter a legitimate and legal reason for voting against that particular candidate. BTW - make a note: this also applies to the non-religious candidate since it possible he is so anti-religion that he might seek to undermine the rights of those who are religious. 

Kennedy understood this and set out to mitigate it by addressing the Baptist Pastor's  Conference. He, being a Catholic understood that the Ballot Booth is like a national Confessional Booth. It is where the individual closes out the rest of the world and alone with his own conscious guided by whatever religious and non-religious views he hold and then votes accordingly. 

Incidentally, in the event I haven't already said it, there are those among us who would have us deny our First Amendment rights or be disenfranchised if we want to participate in government as citizens. In fact there are those who work tirelessly to bring that very thing about. Ron Reagan, the son of former President Ronald Reagan, who  has recorded a radio ad promoting the atheistic Freedom From Religion Foundation says we must bring an end to what he refers to as the “intrusions of religion into our secular government.” He the goes on to ask them to join FFRF in the organization's efforts against religion in politics. 

Incidentally, while Baptist believe in  Religious Freedom it is not foundational or distinctive. Baptist believe in, what we call religiously, "Soul Competency." Philosophically that means freedom of conscious. A third thought that is often overlooked is that if conditions are placed upon how a person arrives at a decision to vote or not vote; vote for a particular candidate; or for or against a proposition his vote is not a vote at all . . . . it is coercion.  When a person steps into the voting booth his only obligation is to vote his conscious. We can only hope that among the many questions the voter will ask himself is, "Is this good for the Country?" 

Unfortunately, for Christians, Jews and Muslims our society is moving in directions that violate fundamental moral and ethic standards that these religions hold as absolutely essential for a health community. This coupled with the trend of the federal courts to not uphold the rights of the religious in preference for those who are non-religious and/or who hold social view that are contrary to most if not all religions.  It may well be we are moving close to the place our founding fathers found themselves and elicited the following response: " . . . when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." (Declaration of Independence).