A religious test for office?

By Kathy G.

It saddens me to see that it's come to this, but indeed it has: a writer is suggesting -- in a non-Catholic, not 100% wingnut website, no less -- that Barack Obama should choose his running mate based on which candidate is most faithful to the teachings of the Catholic Church.

No, I am not kidding. In a piece for The New Republic, Catholic writer Michael Sean Winters -- who blogs for America, which is the official magazine of the Jesuits in the United States -- urges Barack Obama to choose Tim Kaine rather than Kathleen Sebelius for his vice president. And while he makes some secular arguments for this choice -- he argues that Obama needs the Catholic vote, and that Kaine has more appeal to Catholics -- the secular arguments don't make a lot of sense. Winters argues that Catholics are the key swing group, because if Kerry had done better with Ohio Catholics in 2004, he would have won the election. But in any close election, although you can slice and dice the voters into any number of demographic groups, and claim that some particular group was the one and only decisive swing group, that doesn't mean it's true.

What is Winters' argument, exactly? Well, first, he says that Sebelius is at a disadvantage because unlike Kaine, she believes religion is a private matter and she does not discuss her politics in terms of her religious beliefs:

She has stated that her religious beliefs are private, a position that liberal Catholics have been taking ever since JFK. When she gave the Democratic response to the last State of the Union in January, she did not mention her own faith or the nation's, and she didn't describe any of the challenges facing the nation as moral challenges. This reticence to apply her faith to her political life has a downside: It has severely limited her ability to articulate a moral rationale for her commitment to other issues such as universal health care, which the Catholic Church considers a moral obligation that society owes its members.

Excuse me, but I am deeply offended by the insinuation that individuals who make a showy public display of their devotion to the doctrine of a particular religious sect are the only ones who are able to "articulate a moral rationale" for their political commitments. Is that supposed to mean that we secular types have no moral or intellectual grounding for our politics? This country was founded on the principle of the separation of church and state, and that worked out pretty well for us for over 200 years. It has enabled us to practice our various faiths (or lack thereof) in relative peace, and to largely avoid the poisonous, frequently violent religious conflicts that have torn other societies apart.

Winters notes that when Sebelius vetoed legislation that would have placed onerous restrictions on women's right to choose, her archbishop went public with a harsh denunciation of her, and announced that Sebelius would no longer be permitted to take communion. This, according to Winters, is a huge problem for Sebelius, so much so that if Obama chose her, he would be courting disaster. Why? Well, apparently Winters would have us believe that Catholic voters would sympathize with the archbishop on this issue and would turn against Sebelius.

Except . . . in 2004, voters were asked:

Would you support or oppose the Catholic Church denying communion to Catholic politicians who are in favor of legal abortion?

Their response? 68% were opposed to denying communion, with only 22% in favor. But that was just among the general public. Among Catholics themselves? 72% opposed, 22% in favor. In another poll, denying communion to pro-choice Catholic politicians was opposed by 72% to 19% among the general public, and by a whopping 78% to 15% among Catholics.

Yes, John Kerry had similar problems with his archbishop, and was similarly denied communion. And yes, he lost both the Catholic vote and the election. But I know of no evidence that he lost the Catholic vote because of his pro-choice position, and indeed, Winters doesn't supply any. And actually, it was fears about terrorism, not religious values, that seem to have won the election for Bush in 2004.

Indeed, contrary to popular belief, Catholic voters are not any less pro-choice than the rest of the population. The most recent good survey I could find on this subject, done by Pew in 2007, found that 16% of Catholics thought abortion should be legal in all cases, 35% thought it should be legal in most cases, 26% thought it should be illegal in most cases, and 18% thought it should be illegal in all cases. Those numbers are virtually exactly the same among the general public, where the percentage for each category is 17%, 35%, 26%, and 17%, respectively. According to that same poll, 59% percent of Catholics support stem research, as compared to 51% of the general population.

As many Catholic politicians have shown time and time again, being pro-choice is no barrier to being elected to higher office in this country. Voters also seem to be fine with political leaders who believe that faith is largely a private matter and who are comfortable with articulating their political vision using the rich secular vocabulary which has developed in this country for the past 200+ years, and which is the birthright of all Americans, no matter what our degree of piety. Moreover, taking a secular rather a religious approach toward politics might actually be a plus, because the numbers of the unchurched are growing by leaps and bounds in this country: fully 34% of adults were unchurched in 2004, as opposed to 21% in 1991.

Choosing our leaders according to the criteria of which of them adheres more strictly to church doctrine is a dangerous and mindbogglingly stupid practice that would have our Founding Fathers spinning in their graves. There was a reason that our founding document, the Constitution, explicitly foribids religious tests for office (and not in the amendments, either -- it's in the main text of the document). 

On the merits of Kaine vs. Sebelius in particular, there is no question which one of them is the superior choice for progressives, or even just for voters who value competence and strong managerial and executive skills. It's not just that Sebelius is solidly pro-choice and Kaine is not. It's that Sebelius opposed an anti-gay marriage amendment to her state's constitution, while Kaine supported one. Sebelius bravely stood up to the coal companies in her state while Kaine caved. Sebelius has a strong record on labor and on supporting economic policies that benefit average Americans, while Kaine has aggressively cut taxes for the wealthy and said he "strongly" favors anti-union, "right to work" laws. Tim Kaine is an uber-hawk who endorsed Lieberman for president in 2004, apparently largely because of Lieberman's right-wing foreign policy views; while Sebelius endorsed John Kerry. Kaine has not yet served out a full term as governor; compared to the past dozen or so governors of his state, he's been ranked in the bottom quartile, and even his supporters admit that he "has no noteworthy accomplishments during his time in office." Kathleen Sebelius, on the other hand, is a popular two-term governor who was named by Time magazine as one of the five best governors in America for, among other things, retiring a $1.1 billion debt, significantly cutting government waste, and strongly supporting public education.

If the alternatives are Sebelius on the one hand and Kaine on the other, Sebelius is clearly the more talented, experienced, and progressive choice. Her record is much more liberal than his is, even though she governs in a more conservative state.

But getting back to the larger issue . . . one reason why Winters' article is so very disturbing is that, besides Kaine and Sebelius, there are quite a few other Catholics who are reportedly being considered for Barack Obama's vice president. Among the names I've heard, I count Joe Biden, Christopher Dodd, Jack Reed, Patty Murray, Brian Schweitzer, Bill Richardson, and Tom Daschle, all of whom Wikipedia lists as being Roman Catholic. However, it seems that at this point, the only Catholics (besides Sebelius and Kaine) that the Obama camp might still be seriously considering are Dodd and Biden. Nevertheless, the point is that, to my knowledge (and correct me if I'm wrong), every politician on that list has a Sebelius-like position on abortion: i.e., they say they are personally opposed but that they support Roe and choice.

Are anti-choice concern trolls like Winters going to stage hissy fits now every time a pro-choice Catholic runs for office? And are even the non-Catholic, non-wingnutty political websites and journals like The New Republic going to give them a platform with which to do it? I'll say this for The New Republic: foreign policy and the Mideast aside (and man, is that a big exception!), it's always been a fairly secular magazine that has seemed allergic to the argument that the Democrats need to kowtow to the values of the Christian right.

And let it be clear, at least when it comes to reproductive matters, Winters and his ilk do espouse the values of the Christian right, albeit in a more polite form. Winters, for example, is very much of the "mandatory childbirth for rape victims" school (he believes that Catholic hospitals which receive government funding should not be required to offer "morning after" contraception to rape victims). I have no doubt that Winters is speaking for the Vatican in the New Republic piece. The man received his doctorate in the history of the Church at Catholic University, and the publication he works for, America, is an official publication of the Jesuits, after all. Though that magazine once had a venerable liberal tradition, it has moved sharply to right over the years, and it now strongly supports Catholic dogma on issues like birth control and abortion.

The ability to choose whether or not to become pregnant or to carry a child is a profoundly important human right. It is the cornerstone of women's freedom; I believe it was Justice Blackmun who referred to is "the Emancipation Proclamation for Women." It is also hanging by a thread right now. Already it's suffered the death of a thousand cuts in the Supreme Court, and with the switch of one vote on the Court it could be gone forever. Despite an entire industry of concern trolls that arisen that is dedicated to persuading the Democrats that their problem is that they're too secular and not deferential enough to rightist Christians, there is no evidence that this is the case. Abortion rights are still supported by the majority and the country is actually becoming more secular, not less.

Yet I worry that our Democratic leaders, obsessed with getting the approval of right-wing elites, don't understand this. I worry that they are ready to throw under the bus not just Roe but the principle of the separation of church and state. The fact that a man like Tim Kaine -- who's so wingnutty on the subject of choice that he opposes state funding for stem cell research -- is being taken so seriously as a Democratic vice presidential candidate, is deeply disconcerting to me. And that it's come to the point where secular, centrist journals publish articles by Vatican propagandists proposing what is in effect a religious test of office -- well, this depresses me more than I can say. I sometimes fear we are going back to pre-Enlightenment times. I don't really believe the majority of the country wants this, but then I look at our media elites (including The New Republic) and our elected officials (including many Democrats like Tim Kaine), and I despair.

Comments

[Daniel]

Excellent article.

America will finally have come of age when the candidate stands up and says, "Yes, I am an atheist" and the people say "Yes, we can"!

Until that day wing-nuttery in all its various forms and shades will continue to prosper, in what ought to be the greatest democracy on Earth.

[swampcracker]

Very fine article. Thanks for taking the time to write this.

[JustaDog]

Gee - the things your unskilled, inexperienced, lying, disgraced, and union-loving candidate will stoop to - to get votes.

Guess you're seeing the real Obama, LOL

[MikeZ]

How is this any different than the whole "Obama-is-a-Muslim" rumor? If we, as a country, truly believe that religious belief is a non-factor in running for public office, then this rumor would not have anywhere near the kind of legs it did and still does (see the New Yorker cover scandal)

So instead of asking if Obama is a Muslim, the answer should be: so what if he were?

There might not be a de jure religious test for public office in America today, but like J.S. Mill once said, sometimes that which is not legally codified can be just as bad, if not worse, than the law itself.

[DN]

"Sebelius is at a disadvantage because unlike Kaine, she believes religion is a private matter". Sebelius isn't the first to feel that way. There was this guy named Jesus who said:

"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." (Matt 6:5-6)

I wish more people paid attention to that idea.

[Zeno]

Back in 1989, the bishop of the San Diego diocese decided to teach Assemblywoman Lucy Killea a lesson by denying her communion. The bishop was angry with Killea for her insistence on respecting people's freedom of choice and he figured on making some mischief in the midst of Killea's special election campaign for a highly competitive state senate seat. The reaction was not what the bishop hoped for and Killea won. [Link]

Winters has persuaded me that Sebelius is a better running mate than Kaine.

[don anon]

"Yes, John Kerry had similar problems with his archbishop, and was similarly denied communion."

Slight correction: Kerry's archbishop (i.e., Cardinal O'Malley of Boston) never denied him communion or supported doing so.

A few other bishops (and I mean a very small handful) in other parts of the country suggested that they would deny him communion. But they don't have any power outside their respective jurisdictions, so their statements were largely symbolic.