State and local elections are going on in many parts of the country today. I couldn't help but notice the controversy brewing in a City Council race in New York. There the religious beliefs of one candidate, Dan Halloran, have become central to media coverage, prompting some to argue that religious views should be aired. Fortunately some remain true to the ideal that only public policy positions are relevant.
“I think voters have a right to know if someone they are voting for is a Catholic or a Wiccan because their religious convictions will shape the way they view on public issues,” said Wilfred M. McClay, a professor at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga who has looked the role of religion in civic life. “I don’t see how the paper can not cover the story.”
…
But it is a candidate’s positions that should be evaluated first and foremost, said Michael Cromartie, vice president at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, an advocacy group in Washington that advocates a role for the “Judeo-Christian moral tradition” in public life. “It doesn’t matter if the person is a pagan or a heathen — what are they going to do when they get into office?”
It is perhaps true that – as McClay insists -"religious convictions will shape the way" we view public issues. What's not true is the implication that if we just explore a person's religious convictions we will then have clear insight into their public views. One may effect the other, but certainly not *predictably* so. We need look no further than the current makeup of the US Supreme Court. If being Catholic told us anything reliable about a judge's views, the Roberts Court would not have the strong divisions it has.
Like all other candidates, Halloran deserves to be evaluated on the basis of his relevant credentials, his experience and his plans for the future, and perhaps even on the way in which his religion informs his policy views, but not on the nature of his religious beliefs themselves.
