In this Cornerstone Forum series we asked authors to consider the relevance and challenges of the “No Religious Test” clause in today’s religious, cultural and political climate.

The Constitution of the United States provides that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” During the ratification debates, a framer of the Constitution explained that this clause prohibits examination of “one’s belief of certain doctrines…for the purpose of determining whether his religious opinions are such, that he is admissible to a publick office.” Last year, this provision, known as the No Religious Test Clause, became part of the public discourse when Senator Bernie Sanders (D-VT) announced that he would vote against the confirmation of a Christian presidential nominee because of his belief that Muslims “have a deficient theology.” In response to criticism, Sanders said that he was merely questioning whether the nominee’s beliefs would prevent him from being fair. A few months later, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) questioned the fitness of Amy Barrett for a federal judgeship because “the dogma lives loudly” within her. Feinstein argued that she had legitimately questioned whether the nominee would be able to apply law that contradicted her beliefs. And in 2015, presidential candidate Ben Carson said he was opposed to the idea of a Muslim president because Islam is “inconsistent with the values and principles of America.”

In what ways has the No Religious Test harmed or benefitted our nation and federal government?  To what extent do these recent cases reflect a growing discomfort in some quarters with public life being influenced by people who consider themselves bound to follow the teachings of their faith? How much of a factor is it that the religious beliefs of some leaders and potential leaders purport to be true to the exclusion of other beliefs? In the context of a society that faces deep political, cultural, and religious divides, what is the importance and relevance today of a “no religious test for public office” clause within the Constitution?

Featured

Jul 9, 2018

Jonathan Leeman

The “No Religious Test” Clause and Profoundly Religious Politics

Jul 9, 2018

Jonathan Leeman

It should be abundantly clear that the Constitution’s “no religious test for public office” clause is a crucial piece of the separation of church and state. Contrary to Ben Carson, who would oppose a Muslim from holding office; contrary to Bernie Sanders, who discounted a Christian appointee who, privately, affirmed that Islam possess a deficient theology; contrary to Diane Feinstein, who fears Christian dogma, the state possesses no authority or competence to render judgment on the confessions or confessors of any house of worship.

Jul 9, 2018

Jonathan Leeman

Jul 9, 2018

Abdullah Ali

Is There an Interreligious Threat To Religious Freedom?

Jul 9, 2018

Abdullah Ali

Has our nation been benefitted or harmed by the No Religious Test clause of the Constitution? That depends on who you ask and to what extent. An open society that accommodates multiple faith traditions ideally works better at promoting genuine faith than one that indoctrinates its citizens and threatens dissenters with violence. The latter creates hypocrites, while the former facilitates the unhampered pursuit of truth.

Jul 9, 2018

Abdullah Ali

Jul 9, 2018

Ismail Royer

Religion and the American Constitutional Settlement

Jul 9, 2018

Ismail Royer

The framers anticipated Bernie. The “Machiavellian Golden Rule” codified in the Constitution has for two centuries withstood the attempts of factions to benefit from it themselves while violating it for others. The founders discovered a workable way of peacefully arranging this society of religious and anti-religious zealots such that, while no sect gets everything that it wants (to dominate), neither does it get what it doesn’t want (to be suppressed).

Jul 9, 2018

Ismail Royer