Winston-Salem Journal LTE's SA 10/27/11

Sum It Up
The Sum It Up Question from this past Sunday was: Do you think questions about a presidential candidate's faith are fair game?


* * * * *
Absolutely. Faith, or lack thereof, is as integral to a person's belief system as their ideas. Ideas have consequences … follow them to their logical end.

---

MICHAEL H. SEARS


* * * * *
We need to know our candidates and their beliefs. However, my main criterion_ Can he/she get the job done?

---

ROMAINE POINDEXTER


* * * * *
Such questions are at best useless and at worst harmful.
Personal philosophy is just that — personal. Not everyone follows every belief of their denomination. Some people are not sufficiently educated in their denomination's beliefs to know all the details. Some confuse custom with biblical authority. Some interpret parts of the Bible differently from others in their congregations. And some people have been known to do what they believe is wrong. If you want to know about someone's ethics, study his previous actions instead of his church.
Second, asking refocuses the discussion from a candidate's economic plans, which can affect us greatly, to the minutiae of his religion, which will affect us minimally, if at all. We need to know what the candidate wants to achieve and how he wants to achieve it. Aren't campaigns an instance of "rendering unto Caesar"?
Third, and worst, bringing a candidate's faith into a campaign offers the candidate the temptation to use his religion to garner votes. Christ overcame the temptation of power in the wilderness. The rest of us may not always be so strong. And there is blowback on the asker_ Offering temptation to someone is as great a sin as succumbing to temptation.
Candidates have the responsibility to answer questions truthfully. The rest of us have the responsibility to ask the right questions. One right question is, "What are your specific plans to increase jobs?"

---

DOROTHY MATHEWS


* * * * *
It shouldn't be fair game, but if a candidate shows the tendency to tramp the constitutional principle of separation of church and state and his faith becomes a detriment to other religions, his faith would become problematic and a concern to the voters.

---

BOON T. LEE


* * * * *
Yes. People who choose to be in the public limelight are subject to in-depth scrutiny and (hopefully) are aware of that. However, I really do hope that people will not vote for ANY political candidate because of party affiliation, or their religion/faith. Listen with an open mind, and vote for the person of your conscience.

---

PATRICIA STOCKMEISTER


* * * * *
Yes. The questions are fair game, but the answers should be irrelevant.

---

ED MARTINEZ


* * * * *
Whether or not people have faith in God is crucial. Faith either dictates your actions or it doesn't, and consequently there's a big difference in how you lead your life. Is it "fair game"? You bet. I'd be far more likely to vote for a person with faith than one without it.

---

CARY STEVENS


* * * * *
This is a complex question. There is a clause in Article VI of the U.S. Constitution that reads, "but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." This clause sets a standard based on our ideal of freedom of religion, so it seems that the official position would be that questions of faith are not fair game. What we practice as individuals often violates this constitutional ideal. While we speak proudly and sometimes defensively about freedom of religion, we certainly rarely practice it. We judge candidates all the time based on their religious faith. I know I would hesitate to vote for someone whose religious faith would be justification to discriminate against a citizen because of their sexual orientation. Others may refuse to vote for a Muslim or atheist. Ideals and practice often do not match.

---

CHARLES F. WILSON


* * * * *
In the U.S., religion and the amount of money a presidential candidate can raise are too important. What matters to me is what the candidate has done in his/her life and what he/she stands for. It is none of my business to ask a presidential candidate about his/her religion as it is a personal matter. However, if a candidate is a non-believer and is honest about this he/she would never be elected in the US. In this country it is extremely important to keep religion and politics separated, especially in the case of the present republican candidates, religious fanaticism seems to win from common sense. I say No, keep religion personal.

---

COBY BISHOP


* * * * *
The No Religious Test Clause (which predates the First Amendment's Establishment Clause and therefore is closer to the original Framers' "original intent") of the United States Constitution is found in Article VI, paragraph 3, and states: 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.
If there is no test, then there are no questions. Simple.

---

KAM BENFIELD


* * * * *
There is only one answer to questions about a presidential candidate's faith:
"...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." — United States Constitution, Article VI.
Questioning a candidate's faith, or lack thereof, is unconstitutional.

---

PAT RECK


* * * * *
Absolutely. A person's character is the summation of all the influences on his or her life. Shouldn't we as a represented body be entitled to know as much as we can about someone who aspires to be one of our leaders? Why stop with presidential candidates?

---

JULE BANZET