"Can I Vote For a Mormon" (A response to Ken Stars article in The Washington Post, January 8, 2012) Ken Star,

the former independent counsel appointed to investigate President Clinton's various indiscretions and currently the President of Baylor University, correctly states that religious forbearance is one of the "best" of America's political traditions. But when the electorate allows a candidate's religion to influence their vote does this constitute, ipso facto, a violation of "religious forbearance"? Insisting it is so, as Mr. Star does, only begs the question. Is it intolerant to reject a candidate on the basis of questionable and pernicious religious beliefs? Would it be a matter of intolerance to suggest there are tenants in certain religions that should disqualify a candidate? For example, a religious system might embrace racist views. Would it be wrong to refuse to vote for and indeed would it be wrong to campaign actively against a candidate because he shared the sympathies of such a racist faith? Other religious views reject certain rational and basic understandings of history and science. Would it be simple religious bigotry to refuse to vote for a candidate who believes the world is flat, or that the Holocaust never happened, or that God does not desire mankind to explore outer space, or that evolutionary theory is a blasphemous lie? One might press the point by replying it would be wrong to vote against a candidate's religious convictions per se, that the voter must first determine such convictions did indeed prompt a candidate to take improper actions. But is this saying, in so many words, that it would be best to cast your vote for a man whose settled religious convictions had no bearing on his conduct whatsoever? It is not too difficult to imagine a situation in which a candidate's religion would make him unfit for high office. When facing the aggression of Adolph Hitler or the attacks of the Japanese on Pearl Harbor would it have been intolerant of the American voter to refuse to vote for a candidate who held to the pacifism inherent to Quaker beliefs? Would it have been a denial of religious freedom, were voters, following World War II, when millions of Jews sought a homeland in Palestine, to refuse to vote for a candidate who might oppose a Jewish state because of the religious convictions voiced in the Qur'an that many Jews descended directly from Apes and were not to be trusted with self governance? Inversely, is it wrong for voters to favor a candidate because it was felt his particular religion would make him a more honest and reliable public servant? Following Mr. Star's faulty reasoning such a time honored decision favoring the upright and religious candidate would appear to constitute a case religious bias when one favors a candidate because his religion would encourage moral conduct in office.

Mr. Star points out that the Constitutional Convention in 1789 was unanimous in insisting that no religious test be imposed by governmental law on those who seek high office. But this is a far cry from suggesting that the individual voter should not require certain religious virtues of a candidate and reject any candidate who espoused religiously inspired bigotry. It is surprising that a noted legal expert such as Mr. Star, would confuses differences of qualifications to hold elected office (qualifications specified by Federal law) with the varied reasons a free voter may allow to influence his personal and private use of the ballot box (a right guarded by the Constitution). Mr. Star further muddies the waters by insisting there are two "essential questions by which all office seekers are qualified" and apparently only two: The first is: Does the candidate subscribe completely to our constitutional structure, including freedom of conscience for persons of all faiths or no faith? A second question for the thoughtful voter is related to and flows from the first: Will the candidate subscribe, without any mental hesitation or purpose of evasion, to the oath to protect and defend Americas Constitution? Mr. Star concludes: If the answers to those closely connected questions are yes, then voters should proceed to cast their ballot on the basis of the candidates qualifications, platform and policy positions not the candidates membership (or lack thereof) in a particular faith community. Going on, Mr. Star noted that the Supreme Court, in its "finest moments" upheld the insistence that no religious test be administered to candidates for office in the Federal government. He rightly calls these court rulings "pillars of tolerance". However, many of these same men supported slavery and the view that the black slave was not fully human. Many did so from religious conviction. Would Mr. Star oppose drumming them out of office and off the bench because of their religious opinions? I certainly hope he would. It is a firmly held religious conviction of many that God created the world in 6, 24 hour days. I do not share that viewpoint but am disturbed that many popular political commentators are quick to suggest that this is an ignorant view disqualifing candidates from holding office. From Bill Maher to Chris Matthews, it has been loudly proclaimed that those who favor intelligent design and oppose macro Darwinian theory are unfit to hold high office. To my knowledge no one is suggesting that such progressive views condemning creationists are contrary to the "best" constitutional traditions of our republic. I wonder why? The basic problem with Mr. Star's reasoning is that the issue is not precisely a

particular candidate's associations (or lack thereof) with a given "faith community" but rather whether or not a candidate holds various religious viewpoints that would shape his political convictions and practices. Again, one can only agree with Mr. Star's argument were that person to believe that a man's religion should not in any way shape his political thought or action. Many Americans, when faced with such a conclusion, would rightly reject this thinking. To avoid a common sense rejection of their narrow and untenable views of religious toleration by the average American voter, many well intentioned, and many not so well intentioned progressive pundits , abandon clearer strains of thought to clothe themselves in the amorphous bundling of self-professed and somewhat self-serving fuzziness in an ill-defined attempt to appear religiously tolerant. Is religious forbearance best served by making religion totally irrelevant to public life? Mr. Star seems to think so. His strange reductionist concerns can only serve a mind-set that would insist the best of candidates and the most enlightened of voters would be those whose religion had no impact whatsoever on their thoughts and practices. He who believed least would always be, in this secular wonderland, he who believed best. And so America teeters on the brink of moral insanity lured into a no-fault version of public morality by the siren call of a Catch 22 logic.