Article VI of the Constitution provides that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." Yet, the question of religious faith seems to come up in U.S. politics all the time.
Do religious beliefs motivate how a president, congressperson or other official will act or make decisions? Can anyone truly keep religion separate from political life? In a recent discussion at Arizona State University, evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins suggested to theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss that perhaps this question should be raised, citing some of the roots and historical contradictions of Mitt Romney's Mormon religion. Here's an excerpt:
What's your take — should candidates be questioned about their religious beliefs?
Our poll will remain open a little more than a week this time, until 7 AM Pacific time on Sunday, June 3, 2012. Although our polling software records IPs to void double-voting, your personal identity will not be revealed. Obviously, this is not a scientific poll.
Comments are welcome. Thanks for your vote and opinions!
Should political candidates be questioned about their religious beliefs?
- Yes -- If the candidate talked about the importance of his or her faith on the campaign trail, then it's fair game. (41%, 12 Votes)
- Yes -- Dawkins is right; if a person can privately belive in absurd nonsense, then what state of mind does s/he bring to public governance? (31%, 9 Votes)
- No -- It's a private matter and the Constitution forbids it. (28%, 8 Votes)
- Not sure. (0%, 0 Votes)
Total Voters: 29