We asked contributors and readers to answer this question, which refers to the U.S. Constitution ban on a “religious test” to hold public office in America. The question could be answered as narrowly focused or as generally as desired, touching on the interplay between religion and politics in American society — what’s good and what’s bad about it.

Here are their responses. Join in and add your comments and opinions. What do you think?

Larry Jaffe , writer and Poet Laureate for Youth for Human Rights
(Los Angeles, California)

From the United States Constitution, Article VI, section 3:

“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.”

In my humble opinion, we have lost the meaning of religion, and those who “swear” by their faith believe more in dogma than the spirit. Thus, “religious test” would not even be an accurate statement given today’s standards. It is not religion we see mixed with politics, but dogma. It is not appreciation of God or spirit, but a belief system one must adhere to in order to belong to the “winning” side. Religion, in the truest sense of the word, is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. Politics of late, and perhaps always, certainly lacks moral code; simply witness the latest presidential primaries.

Furthermore, religious tolerance, perhaps one of the most important aspects of being religious, is all but abandoned. It is important to treat another’s religion as you wish yours to be treated. We have seen that when religious dogma mixes with politics, we lose all sense of religion.

Ryan Fuchs, mechanical engineer, blogger (Minneapolis, Minnesota)

The religious views (or lack thereof) should be no more relevant to their office than their sex or the color of their skin. The drafters of our Constitution understood this and bothered to state exactly that quite clearly. Many voters, however, are happy to be comforted with the knowledge that someone thinks as they do beyond the pertinent issues. In order to gain sway with this group, a candidate will advertise their religious beliefs. This has become the norm in elections of late. So much so that a growing number of people think the Constitution should be altered to make faith in a god necessary. I think that’s as silly as the desire to teach “creationism” in public schools. You’re free to have faith in whatever you choose. So am I. And so is anyone running for a public office.

John Amen , writer, musician, and founder and editor of The Pedestal Magazine (Charlotte, North Carolina)

Well, in theory politics and religion aren’t supposed to mix; i.e., a politician ought to be able to run a successful campaign regardless of his or her religious leanings. But we know that isn’t the case in America, at least currently. Bottom line, you’re not going to get elected to any significant office in America unless you espouse Christian principles. Clearly this is the case as far as getting the Republican vote but, in the end, I think it’s true with the Democratic vote, too. If you’re not a “Christian,” you’re fundamentally “the other,” regardless of all the PC talk, etc. This might change at some point. I mean, we’re looking at having a woman or African American in office, so that’s huge progress. Perhaps we’ll experience progress, too, in the relationship between politics and religion. But right now, if you espouse too loudly anything that departs from what’s considered essentially Christian, you’re probably not going to get very far.

Shawn Sturgeon, writer, author of Either/Ur (The River City Poetry Series) (Denver, Colorado)

There has always been an unofficial religious test for political candidates in the United States, since in the broadest terms, religion is concerned with the morals and values of a community. The question that challenges each generation of Americans is this: Who will write the test? We find the nature of the conflict over religion in American political life in two contradictory mottos engraved on the money we spend daily — “In God We Trust” and “E Pluribus Unum.” The first motto represents one way of deciding who writes the test: Let a single group with a sincere but narrow ideology determine the candidate who best represents “the good life” as they understand it. The second motto represents another approach: Respect differences of opinion and practice while achieving a consensus that “the best life” excludes no one. Personally, I favor the latter approach, but what does a poet know? Now I need to get back to chasing beaches and flowers.

Pris Campbell, writer , clinical psychologist (West Palm Beach, Florida)

If we’re talking theoretically, yes, of course they should. A candidate should be judged on his or her qualifications, alone. That’s not the way voters’ minds work, though, and sometimes with good reason. It’s only human nature to look at a candidate’s beliefs/religious associations, since we feel, at some level, those two things could play a role in political decisions. Take the flap with Obama’s minister, for example. When I saw the videos of him denigrating white people, calling us the U.S. of KKK, saying that 9/11 was a punishment … well, to know that this man was like family to Obama floored me. It also dramatically increased my leeriness about his potential presidency. A white minister could never be televised making racial statements and not damage a close political friend in the process. Obama has only said that his friend had the right to say what he thinks (which he does), but he’s not gone further, as of this writing, to say he disagrees adamantly with the anti-white statements.

The flap with Obama’s minister is even worse than when John Kennedy was running for office. The outcry was “Do we want the Pope to run our county?” I still remember that campaign. People were terrified over that issue. Now, if a Catholic ran, it would be a moot point. I wonder how a candidate who was close friends with a TV evangelist telling us he’s been called by God to collect money from little old ladies living on tiny SS checks would fare? Bottom line, beware of your bedfellows. Religious or not, they may kick you in the kneecaps when you least expect it.

David Paskey, graphic designer and songwriter (Chicago, Illinois)

I am not a fan of labels, so while I am reluctant to call myself a “Christian,” I would say that I aim to be a follower of Christ. My beliefs are not just an area of my life; I see them as something that runs through all of the parts of my life and the decisions I make. But I think it is important that a candidate realize that she/he would be serving the whole of the populace, those of many backgrounds and beliefs, including the belief in no God. So it is important to make choices that best serve the basic human rights and needs of the populace, while using one’s personal beliefs as a motivator to continually seek what is best for the public. I do not think it right to require a person to adhere to any belief in order to hold office. However, I feel it is human nature that people tend to elect a person who seems to hold their common interests and beliefs at heart, whether those beliefs be Christianity, Islam, Agnosticism, Scientific Inquiry, etc. Who the “right person for the job” is seems inextricably tied to the voters’ own beliefs. But once elected, it is important to remember that you serve the whole of society, not just the people who believe as you do or elected you.

Barton Smock, InTheFray contributor (Columbus, Ohio)

Is there a “religious test” in politics? One that can be passed, anyway? I don’t think so.  Voters have their pencils, and boxes that mark a soul. And politicians sharpen those pencils accordingly. If a test exists, it is merely of a need to get the right students in the classroom. I don’t doubt that many in office hold personal, strong beliefs of moral content in regards to religion, and vice versa, but I am not one to believe that these personal beliefs are on display in full. They are parsed and directed. And when they are on display in full, when they are not personally exclusive, they are uncompromising and damaging. See the current administration. And, in a possible misquoting of a William Stafford poem, the Aztec design has God in a pea that is rolling out of the picture. We say god is everywhere, but how did he get out of the pea? What I believe has been given to me, mostly, by others. So, as humans, I think it is our responsibility to remain human.  The internal is more external than we think. If one wants to name it god, or post it on the refrigerator like so many totems, so be it. God should be in the picture, so long as he remains in the pea.

Joel Lowenstein (Charlotte, North Carolina)

I believe strongly in the First Amendment’s separation of church and state. This separation is the fundamental difference between a theocracy and a democracy. The question of whether we are, as a people, to follow the dictates of conscience or those of organized religion can be a contentious one. We must only look at history to see the failures of governing from a religious pulpit. The puritans left England to escape religious persecution; at that time the government and the church were practically one and the same. The safeguards written into the First Amendment were put there to protect the citizenry from religious intolerance, to prevent religious prejudice and persecution.   There should be no political religious test, lest we fall prey to religious zealotry or xenophobes and are all decreed heretics.

Joel Lowenstein is a military veteran who was conscripted into the service during the Viet Nam era; he was honorably discharged from the service in 1972. He resides with his wife and two daughters in Charlotte, North Carolina, where he currently is the owner and president of a for-hire maintenance repair, home improvement corporation.

Annette Marie Hyder