What, really, is the religion test?

In response to Arlene Sawicki’s letter, “Candidates shouldn’t have to hide religion,” (Nov. 15) there is almost no reason for candidates for high elected office to hide their religious affiliations or beliefs. Indeed, several of the current crop of Republican contenders for the nomination for president have been quite open about their faiths.

I remember when John Kennedy ran for president how there was concern about his Catholicism. More recently, we have had Jews and Mormons running for high office, and there doesn’t seem to be much subterfuge.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is mentioned in Sawicki’s letter with reference to protection of the candidates’ freedom of religious expression. She is correct, but if religious expression is made to appear as if it is supported or encouraged by the government, that is a violation of the amendment.

what I think Ms. Sawicki is actually getting at is that she does not want any candidates with NO religious affiliations or beliefs. It is true that a candidate who denied any religious belief would have a very difficult time getting elected to the presidency, in spite of a significant prevalence of nonreligious voters in the U.S. today.

Perhaps I should call Ms. Sawicki’s attention to Article Six of the Constitution which says, in Paragraph Three: “ ... no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” Thomas Jefferson said, in a letter to his nephew Peter Carr, “Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there is one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.”

Could Jefferson be elected president today if he made such a statement? And if not, how could a “religious test” not have been applied?

Steve Weeks

Mundelein