No Religious Tests

            The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday concerns the right of religious believers to be part of public life in the United States. Article VI of the U.S. Constitution declares that “…no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” This means that religious orthodoxy should never be considered when citizens are being evaluated for their fitness to serve in high offices of our nation.

            Gerard V. Bradley, a Professor of Law at Notre Dame Law School, penned a chapter on the “no religious test” clause in The Heritage Guide to the Constitution. He wrote the following.

The original, unamended Constitution contains one explicit reference to religion: the Article VI ban on religious tests for “any office or public trust under the United States.” Despite much litigation over the constitutional border between church and state, there have been no judicial decisions involving the religious test ban. The clause has been entirely self-executing. We do not know whether the Framers intended the clause to apply to every federal officeholder, howsoever minor; but no federal official has ever been subjected to a formal religious tests for holding office.

By its plain terms, the ban extended only to federal officeholders. States were free at the time of the Founding to impose religious tests as they saw fit. All of them did. State tests limited public offices to Christians or, in some states, only to Protestants. The national government, on the other hand, could not impose any religious test whatsoever. National offices were open to everyone.

The surviving accounts of the Constitutional Convention indicate that the Article VI ban “was adopted by a great majority of the convention, and without much debate….

            Bradley states that “there have been no judicial decisions involving the religious test ban.” This statement was true when the book was published, but it is no longer true as shown in the following statement made by Senator Jeff Flake (R-Arizona) in a post at The Daily Signal. 

During this Congress there have been a number of cases when my friends in the minority have seemed to ask nominees about their substantive religious beliefs. I find this particularly troublesome because, as a Mormon, I am a member of a faith that, while it is growing rapidly, still counts fewer adherents than many other religions.

It is religious liberty – espoused in constitutional provisions like Article Six and the First Amendment – that has allowed my faith, despite a difficult history, to flourish in the United States.

And it is religious liberty that is threatened when we seem to evaluate the fitness of nominees for high office on religious orthodoxy.

            As citizens of the United States of America we are free to worship how, where or what we choose. Article VI of the Constitution tells us that there are to be no religious tests to hold federal office. There should be no questions asked about religious affiliation, but there should be plenty of questions about qualifications, training, education, and ability to do the job. If religious persons are weeded out from federal offices, it would leave only people without morals running the nation.

Religious Test for Public Office

            The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday concerns the ban on religious tests for public office. The third paragraph of Article VI of the U.S. Constitution clearly states: “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. (Emphasis added.)

            There should be little question about the meaning of the above statement. Gerard V. Bradley at The Heritage Foundation gives the following information. 

The original, unamended Constitution contains one explicit reference to religion: the Article VI ban on religious tests for “any office or public trust under the United States.” Despite much litigation over the constitutional border between church and state, there have been no judicial decisions involving the religious ban. The clause has been entirely self-executing. We do not know whether the Framers intended the clause to apply to every federal officeholder, howsoever minor; but no federal official has ever been subjected to a formal religious test for holding office.

            The lack of “decisions involving the religious ban” seems to be a thing of the past. In recent confirmation hearings for federal appellate-court nominees, some Senators appear to be giving tests on religion. Senators Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif) and Dick Durban (D., Ill.), appeared to be giving a religious test to Amy Coney Barratt, a law professor at Notre Dame and a Catholic. They suggested that she is not qualified to be a judge because of her Catholic faith.

When you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you…. And that’s a concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for for years in this country.

            Were the senators concerned that Barratt would not uphold Roe v. Wade due to her beliefs as a Catholic? Apparently, Feinstein and Durbin believe that Christians do not qualify for public office because of their strong religious beliefs. I am certain that their attitudes would not be approved by the men who debated and approved Article VI. They obviously do not understand that the nominees’ legal experience and judicial philosophy are the only areas that should be questioned.

            Since Barratt is not the only one currently being questioned on beliefs and there are sure to be some in the future, Conservatives are fighting back against the religious ban. This is another area that needs to be watched if Christians are to be allowed to serve in public office.

No Religious Test

                The topic of discussion for this Freedom Friday comes from Article VI, Section 3:  “… no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”  This provision in the United States Constitution gives Americans the right to serve in any office without being judged for their religion. 

                I know of two presidential candidates who fought religious bias:  John F. Kennedy and Mitt Romney.  I remember as a child hearing people say that Kennedy could never be elected President because he was Catholic.  I know that he had to actually give a speech declaring that he could make decisions as President without consulting the Pope.  I realize also that many people did not vote for Romney simply because he is a Mormon – even though the result was another term for Obama.  Even though the Constitution does not require a religious test, it is obvious that citizens hold candidates to a religious test.  I wonder if Barack Obama would have been elected even once if he had been honest about his true religious affiliation.

                Many of the early colonies were established by groups of people with strong religious convictions and those serving in public office were required to commit themselves to certain religious tenets.  This automatically excluded from public offices those who had contrary views.  For this reason the framers of the Constitution provided that no `religious test’ could be required for an office in the national government (where a great variety of beliefs and religious tenets – even atheism – would be represented.)”  (See W. Cleon Clausen, The Making of America – The Substance and Meaning of the Constitution, p. 666.)

                Gerard V. Bradley of The Heritage Foundation explained this provision:  “The original, unamended Constitution contains one explicit reference to religion:  the Article VI ban on religious tests for `any office or public trust under the United States.’  Despite much litigation over the constitutional border between church and state, there have been no judicial decisions involving the religious test ban.  The clause has been entirely self-executing.  We do not know whether the Framers intended the clause to apply to every federal officeholder, howsoever minor; but no federal official has ever been subjected to a formal religious test for holding office.

                “By its lain terms, the ban extended only to federal officeholders.  States were free at the time of the Founding to impose religious tests as they saw fit.  All of them did.  State tests limited public offices to Christians or, in some states, only to Protestants.  The national government, on the other hand, could not impose any religious test whatsoever.  National offices were open to everyone.”  (See The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, pp. 296-297.)