I love that this topic has become a major focus of the 2012 election season: how the media – and, by extension, the public – should inquire about a candidate's religious beliefs.
Last month, the NYTimes' Bill Keller suggested there should be much more interrogation in that direction (I disagreed, for the most part, here.) And today Amy Sullivan of Time weighs in, offering 10 guidelines for journalists in what to ask – and what not to ask. Here's one of my favorites:
No Margaret Mead questions. Journalists sometimes write about faith communities as if they are exotic tribes, focusing on details that accentuate the “otherness.” This is why we end up reading about Mormon holy undergarments. And how Hillary Clinton ended up on a CNN set in 2008 answering questions about whether she had “ever felt the Holy Spirit.” Again, if the question doesn’t relate to how a candidate would discharge the duties of his of her office, it should remain unasked.
Yes, the public has a right to know about candidates. And yes, handling questions of all sort can be important tests for those seeking the country's highest office. But there are other interests worth protecting and defending as well, including the spirit of the Constitution's admonition that there be no religious test for office. If the breadth of diversity among Baptists demonstrates nothing else, it surely shows that there is no reliable correlation between religious beliefs and policy views. And there surely is no relationship between religious beliefs and leadership skills.
Uncovering religious beliefs may be fascinating for some, but it tells us nothing about a person's policy views, or ideas about how the law should be shaped for all Americans, respecting everyone's freedom of religion.
