A new theme emerging from this year's Republican presidential primary revolves around the religious views of Representative Michele Bachmann. Are they too far outside the mainstream? Do they betray allegiances that would be dangerous for the country?
Ryan Lizza's piece in The New Yorker raised these concerns last week. In a subsequent debate, conservative columnist Byron York asked her about her belief that wives should "submit to their husbands," a line of questioning David Gregory couldn't resist continuing on Meet the Press Sunday. He asked about submission theology, the role God would play in her decision-making as President, and "about your interpretation of the Bible…"
I'm certainly no fan or defender of submission theology. Far from it. But, why is it important to ask about her interpretation of the Bible?
We count on the press to unearth a candidate's dangerous public policy views during a campaign. So why not spend valuable air time looking for those instead? Unpopular or unorthodox religious beliefs might make for sensational headlines, but are not especially relevant to a voter's decision. Worse still, focusing on them feeds the unfortunate view that candidates should be of a certain religious stripe to be worthy of support.
When Gregory did steer the religion conversation to a question about potential discrimination in a Bachmann administration, she gave him a good answer, and a perfect opening! (my emphasis)
MR. GREGORY: Would you appoint an openly atheist person to be a member of your administration, your Cabinet or even as a judge to a court?
REP. BACHMANN: Well, my criteria, would be first of all, "How do you view the Constitution?" If you uphold the Constitution, if you're competent, and if you're–if you, if you share my views, then you can get appointed. That's my litmus test is, do you stand for the Constitution, are you competent, and do you share my views.
MR. GREGORY: Right. Those are–but an atheist would be acceptable to you as a member of your administration?
REP. BACHMANN: I–that wouldn't be a question I would ask.
Good! That's not a question she should ask. I am glad to hear that as President she wouldn't bar atheists from serving in government. But it would have been nice to learn more about the standard she says she would use. Unfortunately, Gregory did not follow up to about these views of the Constitution she would use to measure potential appointees. Considering she recently invited notorious anti-historian David Barton to lecture the Congress, there's plenty to ask there.
Does she believe in the separation of church and state? How does she understand the Establishment Clause to contribute to the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom? Does she believe creationism should be taught in public schools? School-sponsored prayer? Should religious organizations receiving federal funds be allowed to discriminate in hiring based upon religion?
Those are all questions that could have yielded important answers about a candidate's policy views without delving into personal religious beliefs.
