No Clause For Religious Tests

Determine what is qualified to comment on his weekly radio show and podcast from the family designed to better inform listeners about the issues of the day and encourage you to be voices of persuasion for family values in your community.

Thank you for joining us for family policy matters.

I'm Tracy did at Greg's communications director at NC family sitting in this week for John Rustin if you watch some of the recent confirmation hearings. You've likely been disturbed by questions about religion that were posed to the candidates and suggestions by Senators that faith and religion might disqualify that candidate from consideration. Of course this flies in the face of the U.S. Constitution, while Alexandra McPhee is also disturbed by this trend. She is an attorney who is director of religious freedom advocacy at family research Council in Washington DC. In response, she wrote a document showing just how big a problem this is become.

It's called rebels without a clause. When Senators run roughshod over the no religious test clause of the U.S. Constitution, Alexandra McPhee. Welcome to family policy matters start off by explaining what compelled you to write this report. Report out after we noted a trend emerging from many of the Senate confirmation hearing.

Several other individuals and organizations had commented on the inappropriate line of questioning emerging from the confirmation hearings of nominees because of their religious beliefs or congregation membership or affiliation with faith-based nonprofit after we started this publication.

It turned out that the issue is still ongoing. Mamie Rall, who was a judicial candidate for a position on the Court of Appeals was interrogated by Sen. Cory Booker during her confirmation hearing about her views on homosexuality. So we really thought it was with the signal that this was something that people needed to hear because it was not only a trend in the back something that could very well continue into the future. If a presidential candidate felt comfortable asking these sorts of questions while carrying a candidacy that we are really glad we were able to pick up on that and really thought that this would be something that could be useful for voters 2020 when they go to the voting booth and this shouldn't be something that should just be swept under the rug. We really need people to get the word out and to make sure that everyone knows that completely unacceptable to question someone's religious beliefs in order to determine whether there qualified for public office were hoping that this can be a tool and something that ideally will be used as a reference point for a trend that we see about the role of state and not only our political process. But in government as well tell us about this report.

What will that do for us. While this report describes an incident where Sen. have interrogated nominees about either their theological view their congregation membership or their associations with faith-based, nonprofit, and it started in 2017 when Sen. Sanders asked questions of nominee for the Office of Management and Budget about private writing that he wrote in response to you a controversy from his alma mater, which was faith-based and theological questions involved in that and Sen. Sanders either as a launching point to label the nominee is incapable public office because he held certain beliefs about his faith. Christianity, because the nominee had the audacity to say prisons only receive salvation if they accept Jesus Christ as Savior and stop there. Over the next two years, until February. Senators have been asking nominees questions about the categories I mentioned, though we relived everything that we found either in the actual confirmation hearing unique exchanges between senators in the nominee or in written questions that were submitted by the senator to the nominee and what readers will also find is a brief discussion of the no religious test clause that cause comes from article 6 of the Constitution.

We discussed how senator to be putting their questioning in order to not only get what they might want out of those questions, which is well. How do I know this nominees able to faithfully carry out his or her duty while also maintaining consistency with the text of the Constitution, can you talk a little bit more about that no religious test clause specifically what that says that confident that no religious test shall be ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust and it came into the public spotlight in the 1900s when an individual is a public office in Maryland but did not want to make an oath to God. The Supreme Court said that the Maryland Constitution, which required this affirmation was unconstitutional to the action was unconstitutional and the Supreme Court actually used the First Amendment question and did not address the actual note religious test clause, article 6, we why we haven't heard a lot about it because it eventually been swallowed up by the First Amendment.

However, it is important indicator of what the founders wanted and in the policy that they held about religion and the role it played in public office, and as Sen. Chuck Grassley said when he was serving as chairman for the Senate Judiciary committee, one of the most important guiding principle is that once you begin qualified based on their demonstrated ability not there religious affiliations that demonstrated ability is what was really key for the founders because what they wanted with action and was most important to know. That's why the no religious test clause appeared in the Constitution because they knew that potential individuals or public office might be able to talk the talk but they couldn't necessarily walk the walk just by saying a couple of words.

So does that mean that nominees can never be asked anything about their personal religious beliefs and motivations. Nominees must be able to carry out their duties and whatever office presale and merely asking the nominee as one commentator said about what it or believe might stop them from fulfilling their constitutional duties as a relevant question and appropriate. It is not working with the confirmation hearing. Some senators because the Senators are using questions physically about the nominees belief tied to their faith in order to determine in order to determine whether they are sick. Her onset and using the responses as a qualifier or disqualifier as Sen. Mike Weiner for public office, and the Senators are doing so in a way that really demonstrates a lack of integrity in even the questioning process. So with that in mind, it really shows that the Senators are interested in pursuing the truth even though there are appropriate ways to find out to make sure that a nominees able to fill their official duties. What they're doing is trying to say that someone's religious beliefs in the sanctity or life of marriage is something that will be a qualifier or disqualifier for their ability to carry out a public getting listening to family policy matters a radio show and gas from the NC family. You can sign up to receive an organic podcast to listen to the show online for more resources that will help you leave a voice of persuasion in one community. Go to our website advancing family watching so Alexander, why do you think this is come about why when religious faith is always been historically a desirable and positive attribute for public service now considered by some to be a disqualifier to think well but the Senators are doing is seeking political gain and fleeting political gain.

At that all of the questions center around issues related to same-sex conduct marriage they relate to the so-called right to abortion, and in most, many cases it's not all the Senators will ask the nominee about their faith-based organization about comments with their pastor from their church because of the names that may against what they insist should be the Orthodox view of the LGBT community ordered the the abortion-rights community so because many faith are against anything that is against the sanctity of marriage or life. It's really being used as leverage to try and paint nominees as discriminatory and incapable of carrying out their duties, which is completely untrue.

I'm assuming that you would think that this should absolutely not dissuade voters, individual voters from taking into consideration the religious faith of candidates for office when they vote for them absolutely. And what what we know is that when one carried their faith into their official capacity.

Important because faith is way to be honest, to have integrity and it is an important component of one worldview could he extend that so often religions demand a higher standard of conduct so bloated should keep this in mind, and the issue is when Senators are using religious affiliation alone as a qualifier and what really matters is the person conduct. We know that faith and religion demands certain things and and and demand a higher quality conduct, but what about faith and about people.

It's just something that the voters can use that Senators cannot abuse talk a little bit about how this is going to affect people who are genuine believers who have a genuine faith.

What will these attacks on people of faith, and Christians due to the likelihood of these individuals going into public service. One of the underlying ideas of the questions is that faith is incompatible with public office or needs to be put aside the idea that one's religious beliefs can only be exercised in the home or house of worship, but nowhere else.

And it really puts faith in a box and that's just not what believers are called to do and it's not what our founders wanted the First Amendment of the Constitution says you have the right to the free exercise of religion and they aren't saying that you have the right to believe whatever is between your ears. Anyone can guarantee that China can guarantee that all of the government hospital to return religious freedom around the world can give you that and as a result, demanding something that someone put aside their religious beliefs, public office in order to use what they claim will allow them to carry out their public duties is is get anathema to do what we have been given him, not only by God. The ability to believe and act in her beliefs.

But what the Constitution recognizes and wanted to protect from government interference.

So what this does is perpetuate the idea that religion does not have a place in the public square.

Not sure we know that someone is faith carried out their beliefs and every aspect of their life including their profession so whenever nominee goes up before a group of senators and is interrogated about their belief that no different from a I'm going to a job interview and being completely and relate to what are your views on homosexuality. What are your views on abortion does not mean you're going to an incompletely appropriate because it implies that your beliefs about something will affect how you treat someone and that is that you treat them negatively because of the fact that they don't conduct themselves according to how you believe your faith demands that you conduct yourself that is not what they said it, it commands outlook towards others that could change the commitment of love towards others to imply that that is incompatible with public office really create an unhealthy belief and faith, and its role in the public square for believers and should be reviewed for just about out of time for this week. So before we go Alexandra where can our listeners go to read your report rebels without a clause and learn more about all the good work that the family research Council does thinking go to www.frc.org/related test at the religious plural no-his face is that okay will Alexandra McPhee.

Thank you so much for being with us today on family policy matters. You have been listening to a weekly radio show and asked from NC family to listen to the show online for more resources that will help you be a voice of persuasion in your community. Go to our website@ncfamily.org and follow us on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter