Article VI of the United States Constitution provides that there shall be no religious test required of anyone aspiring to work for the United States government. This applies to any office from local dog catcher to the presidency. For example, in 1942, I sought a position as a private in the United States Army. There was no religious test required. On the other hand, I was told that I should go catch some of those German bullets flying around and that I was not paid to think; I was paid to do whatever I was told.
Article VI of our Constitution states an idealistic position. When it says that no religious test should ever be required, that is the idealistic provision foreseen by the founders who wrote the Constitution. But in practice, the American electorate tends to impose all kinds of religious tests as well as those of racial and regional qualities. What is stated as an ideal state of affairs in Article VI is not necessarily how the American electorate goes about its work. All kinds of tests are applied to applicants for political positions. In the final analysis, what it comes down to is that the electorate often seems to want its candidates to be “just like me.” If I am a Baptist candidate and the electorate comes to know that, then the Baptist vote may well turn out in overwhelming numbers.
On the other hand, the current President of the United States has a Muslim middle name. In spite of the fact that he attended the United Church of Christ pastered by the controversial preacher Jeremiah Wright for 20 years, the American electorate discounted that and many among our number have concluded that Mr. Obama is indeed a Muslim. For the record, I should state that I do not believe that Mr. Obama is a Muslim in any respect. Apparently his father may have considered himself a Muslim. There is no evidence that the faith of Mohammad is embraced by his son.
It seems to me that every aspirant to be president has to answer the question about his religion. This not only flies into the face of Article VI of the Constitution, but I would consider it an affront to my dignity. But the candidates willingly state their religious preference and in many cases use that preference to drum up support for their candidacy.
The Constitution was written by bright men, some of whom were atheists. Benjamin Franklin was among these and it is widely thought that Thomas Jefferson and George Washington were not enthusiastic churchgoers.
When the American Declaration of Independence came about in 1776, there was a general revulsion against the Anglican Church, which was the official religion of the British monarchy. In the year 1536, King Henry VIII wanted to divorce his wife. She was the widow of his elder brother. When the authorities in Rome told King Henry that he was stuck with his wife, he had a violent reaction. King Henry told the Pope that he was withdrawing adherence to Catholicism for all of his subjects. That was only the beginning. King Henry went on to name himself as the custodian of the faith of Britain. And so, since 1536 we have had the Anglican faith, which is a rival to the Roman Catholic faith.
Those who were charged with drawing up the United States Constitution wanted no part of internal squabbles between Rome and London. And so they decided that no religious tests should ever apply for those aspiring to office in this country. If there was such a thing as the chief dog catcher of the federal government, there would be no religious tests required of aspirants to that job.
For a very long time, people who ascribed to the Catholic faith were not really welcomed into the highest of political circles in this country. As a matter of fact, it took 184 years before the first Catholic was elected to the Presidency. That of course was John F. Kennedy. In this atmosphere where no religious tests would ever apply, various religions in this country proliferated. I can remember in 1928 when Al Smith, a Catholic who was the Governor of New York state, ran against Herbert Hoover. My parents agonized over the decision about whom to vote for. They were Democrats. To cast a vote for a Catholic gave them agony. But in the end, that is exactly what they did. There must have been many others who shared the opinions of my parents. Herbert Hoover was elected, colorless as he was.
What this tells you is that as recently as 80 years ago, the feeling about aspirants to federal office who shared the Catholic faith had a hill to climb. Herbert Hoover presided over the Great Depression early in 1929. I suspect that Al Smith would have made a superior President. These days we honor Al Smith with a formal dinner here in New York every year. But Herbert Hoover is long since forgotten.
It would please me no end to have the fact of political life in this country without a statement of who belongs to what church. But I know that will not ever happen during my lifetime. We are determined to find out a person’s religious preferences early in the game. What do religious preferences have to do with competence? In the case just cited, Al Smith was clearly more competent than Herbert Hoover. But the American electorate in its desire to elect a man “just like me” gave the nod to Herbert Hoover. The result of that election of course was the disastrous Depression starting in 1929.
At the moment, I do not believe that we have many aspirants to the Presidential office who are Catholics. The candidates all seem to be huddled in the safety of the various branches of the Protestant faith. The idealism that is expressed in the sixth article of the Constitution is hardly born out by the actions of the American electorate.
Do any of you suspect that a Jew could aspire to be the President of the United States? I would suggest that Michael Bloomberg would make an excellent candidate for the office of President. It is interesting to note that I am not even sure that Mr. Bloomberg, the Mayor of New York, is a Jew. On the other hand I am convinced that Michael Bloomberg is a competent man who could run this country’s government with a degree of excellence.
But because of his name and, I suspect, his religion or lack of religion, the fact is that Mr. Bloomberg probably will not ever have a chance to be a candidate for the Presidency. As you can see, I am a free thinker when it comes to competence. I wish that there would be another amendment to the Constitution which bars reference to religious affiliation. But that is not the case, and we should all regret that.
If a man like Bloomberg is denied the Presidency, do you think there would be any chance whatsoever for a Muslim? My guess at this time is that a Muslim who sought the Presidency of the United States would be taking his life in his hands when he appeared on the stump.
Do you think a candidate who has no religious preference whatsoever stands any chance of election? If I were ever to seek the office of the Presidency, I would have to say that in terms of religious preference, I would say “none of the above.” I suspect that those who subscribe to a religion of any kind would judge me instantly. If they rejected me because of my lack of competence, that would be one thing. If on the other hand the electorate rejected me because I did not express a preference for a religion, that would be something else.
And so it goes in the matter of religious preferences. I believe that the United States Constitution is an idealistic instrument which has been distorted in the daily practice of the American electorate. I take comfort in the fact that even though I know better than to aspire to the Presidency, there is no official state religion for me to adopt. I continue to believe that the electorate wishes to elect a person “just like me” largely regardless of the competency being involved.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan was a scholarly gentleman from New York who represented that state in the U. S. Senate for many years. Mr. Moynihan was a brilliant person who had some thoughts on the American electorate. He once observed that the American electorate is divided between class, race, and region. In this instance, Mr. Moynihan goes a bit further than my observations about religious preferences. If you read the polling results that have occurred with the mid-term elections of 2010, they will tell you that Mr. Moynihan was on to something. Polls divide the tallies between white folks and other people, and they go much further by aggregating those with a college education and those without. I suppose that those with college degrees consider themselves of a class that is superior to those without the college degree. That may well be the case.
The second point of Mr. Moynihan’s observation was that we certainly are divided by race. The Republican Party is basically now southern based. In my humble estimation, antipathy toward Barack Obama stems primarily from his African-American background. The vehemence of his opposition can only be explained by the thought that his race makes him inferior in their eyes. I hold no such views, of course. And if there is any inferiority, I say that it goes to the likes of a collection of Senators and Representatives from the old Confederacy. Obama has had a superior education and his accomplishments are numerous. That is of small consequence compared to the fact that Southerners, particularly Republicans, view him as a black man.
As to Mr. Moynihan’s third point about region, I can understand that as well. I would suspect that there are a good many voters in the mid-West who would reject or at least question a man who came from New York or New England. That is a sad commentary. I believe that Mr. Moynihan was onto something in this case as well. When such prejudices trump competence, this country is the loser. It makes no difference to me where a man comes from, or his region; I am looking only for competence. But I may not be a true example of the American electorate. I believe that they wish to give their vote to somebody “just like me.”
Finally, aside from Mr. Moynihan’s point about class, race, and region, can any of you ever believe that in your lifetime a homosexual President could be nominated, much less elected? I think it will probably take another 80 or 300 years before that will happen.
Well, these are my thoughts about the American electorate. I hold the view that the American electorate is looking for somebody “just like me” to put into office. In my own case, a person “just like me” would come with much baggage. I would want somebody like Daniel Patrick Moynihan to be my representative. Aside from the fact that Moynihan was a learned gentleman and could have represented me better than I could represent myself, I must also observe that Moynihan was an Irishman. So you can see, I am probably back just where we started from, in that I want somebody like Moynihan to run things in this country. So I want somebody, in this case an Irishman, just like me.
Perhaps Moynihan and Bloomberg would have made an unbeatable combination. If that ever came to pass, having both Bloomberg and Moynihan on the same ticket, I guarantee that my vote would have been with them. But in the meantime, the idealism expressed in the Sixth Article of the Constitution will continue to be distorted in its practice. Unfortunately, even Moynihan and/or Bloomberg could not straighten out this violation of the spirit of the Constitution.
E. E. CARR
October 22, 2010
Essay 505
~~
Kevin’s commentary:
I don’t think it’s going to be 300 years. I think it will be probably two or three generations, which is ideally how long it’s going to take for the bigots to die off. The real question is whether the first gay president will be elected before the first atheist one. Maybe we could get a gay atheist, just to piss off the shambles of the Republican party that exist at such at the time.
A Jew is going to make it to office way before then. Someone’s going to need to fix the budget eventually, after all.
…in other news I hope there isn’t a hell because now I’m definitely going there.