I participated in a conversation last evening that concerned the relationship of faith and politics. I won't say anything about the content of the meeting, since I need to respect the privacy and concerns of those involved. But a question was raised about litmus tests, and it's a good question.
It's kind of easy to gloat these days as the Democratic candidates seem to have their "faith" statements down and the GOP, the party of God, is having problems finding appropriate candidates that will reach to its Religious Right base. The issue raised and the one that needs to be addressed is that of litmus tests and the precedents set by the willingness of the three top tier candidates -- Barack Obama being the most outspoken -- to speak of their faith. They have been, I think up front, honest, and authentic. Now, I'm a bit biased but I don't see them pandering to religious folks, but a precedent seems to be in the process of being set.
Is it necessary for a Democrat to be a person of faith in order to be elected? In their attempt to get beyond the label of being the "secular party" with no room given to people of faith, has the party swung the pendulum too far the other way?
Let us remember: Article Six of the Constitution specifically rejects religious tests.