A Religious Test for President?

A recent article on FOX News reported on Mitt Romney wanting Rick Perry to apologize for a pastor's comments about Mormonism being a cult. In the article it quoted Mitt as saying, "Gov. Perry selected an individual to introduce him, who then used religion as a basis for which he said he would endorse Gov. Perry, and as a reason to not support me," Romney said. "I would call upon Gov. Perry to repudiate the sentiment and the remarks made by that pastor."

There is a huge error, I believe, in Mitt's statement. While I do not believe our nation can, or should, have a religious test for offices as a law, I find it ignorant and irresponsible for people to say individuals should not use religion as a basis for personal voting choices and endorsements. To me this is just one more inroad of the enemy that has already so powerfully succeeded in blocking faith from life—to so many faith has become a thing for Sunday and heaven, whereas science and their own strength and capability are left to provide the "real" answers to "real" life.

We find so many who have bowed to science's words over God's Word, and so many who find themselves in a hollow gospel that saves Jesus for Heaven, but leaves them alone to walk through life on a day to day basis and deal with all of life's "stuff" on their own. Now we are told (or at least it is implied) that someone shouldn't use religion as a basis for endorsing and supporting a candidate (or not endorsing or supporting one). How sad! Do we realize that if everyone who proclaimed to be a Christian actually voted on their faith and not on their own definition or right and wrong, or on their own economic best interests, we'd have a majority every time? Already, it seems to me, too few people are voting (or caring about) God's values and priorities.

If we don't understand a candidates world view then how can we possibly understand what makes that candidate tick, or how they will vote on issues that aren't even on the table for discussion yet? How can we understand a candidate if we don't understand their attitude toward right and wrong, man's condition, good and evil, humans and the environment, etc.? If someone is true to their world view it will define everything they do! For people who believe in evolution, they will find themselves believing that in man the answer will eventually be found because we just keep getting better and better. On the other hand, a Creationist recognizes the fall and decay of man and the absolute necessity for God to move and man to move in partnership with Him. To the evolutionist we are equal to animals and plants, but to a Creationist we are clear that we are custodians of them and that they were given to us for us, but not as our equal. To an atheist there is no absolute standard of right and wrong and moral relativism is the rule. To a Christian God is the source of right and wrong. To an atheist there is no explanation for evil, but to a Christian we see evil as real and having a source, and we are careful in dealing with people ruled by it.

On and on we could list the issues that should be dramatically affected by our faith and world view. If we are true to it, and it isn't just a political expediency to woo a mass of voters, it will be the very definition of who we are, how we act, etc. It should be true for every individual, not just politicians, but in the case of those running for office it is, to me, sheer ignorance and foolishness to imply a candidates faith should not be an issue in individuals deciding who they will support. To the contrary, I wish more professing Christians actually voted the way they feel God's Word reveals God would feel on an issue.