We Should All Reject the Religious Test for Office

On September 7, in a confirmation hearing before the US senate, Professor Amy Barrett faced a barrage of questions about her religion. Illinois senator, Dick Durbin, asked her, “Are you an ‘orthodox Catholic’?” Then, bizarrely, he went on to opine, “There are many people who might characterize themselves as ‘orthodox Catholics’ who now question whether Pope Francis is an ‘orthodox catholic.’ I happen to think he’s a pretty good Catholic,” Barrett interjected, “I agree with you.” And Durbin continued, “Good. That’s good common ground for us to start with.”

While these two Catholics were using time in a Senate confirmation hearing to exchange their views on whether the pope is Catholic, the rest of us were wondering what this has to do with confirming a judge to the appellate court.

Clearly, for Durbin it was not just small talk from one Catholic to another. It was somehow, “common ground for us to start with.” That remark vaulted the entire discussion into a different light. By it Durbin indicated not only that her Catholic faith was relevant to the hearing, he also signaled that her opinion about an intra-Catholic dispute is germane to the question of whether she is fit to serve in the US government.

That is alarming.

Durbin was not alone in his opinion. Ranking member Dianne Feinstein also grilled Barrett about her faith. First, she tried a line of questioning designed to corner Barrett into stating that her faith made her incapable of fairly judging some cases. Unsuccessful, she simply used her remaining time to pontificate.

Feinstein said, “I think in your case, professor, when you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s of concern...” She continued, “over time, we [senators] also learn to judge what they [judicial nominees] think, and whether their thoughts enable them to be free to observe the law.”

Like Durbin, she could not point to an occasion when Barrett failed to uphold the Constitution or words where she refused to do so. But in the absence of evidence, she intended to judge what she thinks, and to divine Barrett’s thoughts by how strongly “the dogma” of the Catholic faith “lived within” her.

These remarks would be troubling enough if they were an isolated instance. But they are not. It seems apparent that they are part of a larger effort. Like the raptors in Jurassic Park, Democrats are making coordinated attacks on the Constitutional prohibition against religious tests, to test how Americans will respond.

We have also seen this in Wyoming. Judge Ruth Neely was removed from her appellate judgeship not for anything that she did on the bench, or any misconduct at all. Rather, she was given a test: “Renounce your religious teaching or you will be dismissed.” She did not renounce it. She was dismissed.

Another example happened in another confirmation hearing three months ago. On June 7, Senator Bernie Sanders was questioning a nominee to the Office of Management and Budget, Russell Vought. Sanders quoted an article that Vought had written in defense of his alma mater, Wheaton College. In it he simply stated the meaning of John 3:18, “Whoever believes in him [Jesus] is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.”

Sanders went on to do what could only be described as badgering the witness. Unwilling to hear Vought answer in his own words, the senator repeatedly interrupted him with questions like, “Do you believe that that statement is Islamophobic?... Do you believe that people in the Muslim religion stand condemned? …Do you believe that other people who are not Christian stand condemned?”

Note the refrain: “Do you believe?” Sanders was not concerned with actions, but faith. Then, not allowing Vought to answer, he pronounced judgment, “I would simply say, Mr. Chairman: This nominee is not someone who is what this country is supposed to be about. I will vote no.” He didn’t condemn Mr. Vought’s actions, or competence. He condemned Mr. Vought’s person because he believed the Bible.

Imagine another confirmation hearing, perhaps for a position in the Department of Agriculture. Imagine senators asking questions about her competence, her evenhandedness, her history as an administrator, etc. Then suddenly, one of the senators asks, “Is it true that you are a Hindu?”

Puzzled, she replies, “Yes, Mr. Senator, I am.”

He continues, “are you aware of the writing in Sri Caitanya Caritamrita adi lila, chapter 17 verse 166 ‘Cow killers and cow eaters are condemned to rot in hell for as many thousands of years as there are for each hair on the body of every cow they eat from.’”

Taken aback, the nominee hesitates. “Sir, I have not memorized every Hindu sacred writing...”

“Aha!” says he, “so, are you accustomed to adopt a religion without knowing what it actually teaches? In that case I question your good judgment, and therefore your ability to serve.”

“But, Mr. Senator, I am aware of my faith’s high regard for cattle. I was merely noting that I could not vouch for every word of the text.”

“Oh, I see. That’s understandable,” answers the senator. “In that case, I would simply ask a follow up question: Now that you are aware of the scripture condemning anyone who either eats or kills a cow, do you believe it? Remember, you are under oath.”

The madness and danger of this line of questioning should be as plain as day. To judge the fitness of anyone to serve a governmental post based on their religious ideas is simply out of bounds. Of course, it would be relevant to her confirmation if she regularly treated ranchers and meat-eaters unfairly and with personal animosity. In that case, it could hinder her ability to effectively perform the job.

But if that charge were true, it could easily be proven by testimony from any of her fellow workers. You wouldn’t need to bring up their religious beliefs at all. Not only is it unnecessary, it is also forbidden. Article VI of the US Constitution states, “…no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

To serve in a governmental position, the only requirement is that one “be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this (US) constitution.” (Art. VI). This clause has enabled people of mutually exclusive religions to serve together in a peaceful government for 230 years.

Atheists and Catholics can seek common ground as well as Buddhists and Evangelicals. Nobody is excluded from government office. But now there is an attempt to exclude some people from the table based purely on what they believe.

If successful, not only will conservative evangelicals or ‘orthodox Catholics’ be dismissed from government service, but the door will be open to excluding any person in the future not based on their actual behavior or integrity, but based solely on their perceived thoughts.

The Execution of Queen Mary

16th century England learned all too well the horrors of such religious intolerance. Bloody Mary earned her name, and her protestant sister Elizabeth persecuted Catholics with equal fury. Unless we want to see those days return, all of us should stand up with united voice and rebuke anyone who uses a religious test.







Further Reading:
Daily Signal (2/21/18) Trump Nominee Attacked for Faith Finally Heads for Confirmation Vote