Bring your faith to the table

What exactly does the separation of Church and state really mean? This was the question Ruth Ann Dailey wrestled with as she turned on Rick Warren’s presidential forum several weeks ago. In her article, Dailey contemplates the appropriateness of the Saddleback forum through the lens of history. She points out that it was the Baptist minister Roger Williams who first introduced the notion of a separate Church and state, and concludes that the Saddleback dialogue was appropriate given this heritage.

One person called C-SPAN after the conversation and complained that this event violated Article VI of the Constitution which states that "No religious test shall ever be required as qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." While voters are always evaluating candidates, Saddleback was not a test in the Constitutional sense. The Constitution bars a formal statement of creed as necessary. Jefferson promoted this view saying that it was wrong to require public officials to “profess or renounce this or that religious opinion” in order to participate in government (Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom).

This event further did not violate the Constitution because it was voluntary. Rick Warren—not the government—invited two politicians to come to his Church and speak about their faith and its relation to their politics. The candidates participated on a voluntary basis with a private individual moderating the dialogue. Would it have been an issue if this was done from the White House by George W. Bush? Clearly, yes. But as it happened, there was never the sense that the government was mandating this discussion, which would have been clearly inappropriate.

The founders would have had no problem with such a voluntary discussion of religious beliefs. In Thomas Jefferson’s “Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom”, his focus is on what the government “compel[s] a man” to do in terms of religion. No one was forced to do anything at Saddleback. Furthermore, this event had no intention of working religious dogma into legislation, which is exactly what James Madison is concerned about when he writes, “Because Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body” (Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments). It was simply a discussion about how the candidates perceive the world around them, and how this worldview influences their political platform.

I get the sense that many people these days are nervous about events like Saddleback because they want two things. First, they want politicians to believe in God. A lack of such belief is a red flag and creates a sense of distrust. Secondly, and more subtly, they insist this faith not influence actual politics. Yet Rick Warren is right to argue that the separation of church and state is not the same as a separation of faith and politics. To remove faith completely from politics would not uphold the Church or the state; instead it would simply institutionalize atheism in politics.