As I’m working on Documenting America: Making the Constitution Edition, I find that certain topics come back into current American life that have been discussed and, supposedly, settled before. Religious freedom seems to be one of them.
My research suggests that the Founding Fathers did indeed want to keep some degree of separation between religion and government. Their primary focus was preventing the government from regulating religion or restricting who/how/why people could worship.
The latest infringement on the free exercise of religion is US senators asking candidates nominated to various government positions about their religion and how it would affect their performance in office. I first noticed this almost 20 years ago when Chuck Shumer, then a relatively new senator from New York, asked Attorney General nominee John Ashcroft how he could turn off his evangelical Christianity so he could do a proper job as A.G.
I was shocked then and am shocked now when people like Senator Feinstein says to a candidate, “The dogma is strong in this one.” The U.S. Constitution says:
but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
When Shumer asks “How do you turn it off” and Feinstein says “the dogma is strong in this one,” what is that if not a religious test. Shumer is saying you can’t be Attorney General if you’re a practicing evangelical. Feinstein is saying you can’t be a Federal judge if you are a devout Catholic. Shame on these senators!
This was all settled in the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson led the way in his writing the Virginia Declaration of Rights, which was later put into law in that state. Religious freedom came in this form.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
Note that religion should not affect their “civil capacities.” In other words, the law shouldn’t punish someone because of their religion. By the time the Constitution was written, this was applied to Federal officials through the religious test clause.
So here we are, 232 years later, fighting the same battles we did years ago. What will it take for this to end, for us to win the battle again that a person’s religion cannot disqualify them from holding a Federal office? Maybe it will take one nominee to refuse to answer a question about their religion, to tell the senator who asks, politely, where to shove the question, to show that the Constitution means something.
I’m hopeful that will happen next time the situation comes up.