Hollman Report

Looking for leadership in presidential politics

By K. Hollyn Hollman

November-December 2007

One year from now we will have elected a new president, a new leader to serve our country and be the face of America to the world. While many factors and proposed policies will influence voters, wouldn’t it be terrific if our next president, regardless of party or religious affiliation, had a strong commitment to America’s tradition of religious freedom and church-state separation?

The media is covering thoroughly the role of religion in the campaigns. Most focus on the frequency with which candidates talk about religion and attend worship services or endorsements from high-profile preachers and spokesmen for religious groups. While interesting, these stories often fail to enlighten on the candidate’s view of our First Freedom. I am not issuing a scorecard, but I do propose a framework to measure the candidates’ commitment to religious freedom.

First, how does the candidate view religious pluralism? Voters want to know what makes a candidate tick; a candidate’s explanation of his or her religion may help. Offering one’s religious or spiritual biography, provides opportunities and risks. The opportunity is to place the candidate’s story as part of the larger American story that embraces people of many faiths and of no faith. The risk is that speaking of one’s faith may appear as using religion to pander for votes, something that a candidate should avoid out of respect for religion and our Constitution, which bans any religious test for office. As we hear the candidates’ stories, we should listen for recognition of (or better yet, appreciation for) our religious diversity.

It is helpful when a candidate acknowledges religious differences and the responsibility to serve all the people, such as when John Edwards said: “I think there is a difference between my belief system and what responsibilities of the President of the United States are.” Likewise, Rudy Giuliani, got it right years ago when he said, “As the Mayor of New York City, I will work as hard to protect someone’s right to believe in God as he or she sees fit — or not to believe in God — because I realize that my right to practice my religion depends completely on my commitment to defend someone else’s right to practice theirs, or to practice no religion at all.” America is one of the most religious and most religiously diverse nations on earth. That strength should not be taken for granted.

Second, how does the candidate treat church-state issues? It is worrisome when a candidate fails to note the important lines that have to be drawn in recurring church-state debates, such as those about the role of religion in the public schools, government funding, and government-sponsored religious displays. Fair treatment of these issues requires careful attention to the values of both no establishment and free exercise. It demeans religious freedom when a candidate takes a swipe at these issues without recognizing distinctions required by our Constitution. Fred Thompson provided an example when he said that many federal judges “seem intent on eliminating God from the public schools and the public square in ways that would astound our founding fathers.” No candidate should confuse the importance of avoiding government-sponsored religion. Mike Huckabee got it right on school prayer when he said he never understood why so many people railed against the absence of prayer in schools when they didn’t even pray at home. Our president must do more than promote slogans. He or she must be willing to acknowledge the delicate balance our Constitution mandates.

Third, does the candidate blur distinctions between duties to God and country? We are a religious freedom nation, not a “Christian nation” in any legal sense. Some candidates inevitably will rely on the promotion of civil religion, replacing respect for robust religious expression in all our diversity for a lowest-common denominator religion that appears to give Christianity a legal privilege. It is dangerous to promote the idea that we are a Christian nation, as John McCain asserted. He revised his comment, saying that he meant to say that the America “was founded on the values of Judeo-Christian values.” Indeed, we have a rich religious heritage, but we should be careful not to misrepresent our founding document, the Constitution. As Barack Obama has said, we need “to understand the critical role that the separation of church and state has played in preserving not only our democracy, but the robustness of our religious practice.” He was correct to say that respect for our increasing religious diversity (including among Christians) requires that our laws are based on principles that are accessible to all, without regard to faith.

It may be too much to expect any one candidate to get it all right, but I am hopeful. I look forward to the candidates continuing to rise to the occasion to represent our country well, giving religious freedom the respect it deserves.