Religion and Politics Again

This is a disagreement among friends. I believe Peggy Noonan gets it right when she worries that religion has become the decisive factor in the race for the Republican nomination at this point. Noonan is no friend of the naked public square, and she is on target when she writes, “But there is a sense in Iowa now that faith has been heightened as a determining factor in how to vote, that such things as executive ability, professional history, temperament, character, political philosophy and professed stands are secondary, tertiary.”

The statement is often attributed to Martin Luther (although nobody can find the reference), and I’ve even seen it attributed to Erasmus: “I would rather be ruled by a smart Turk than by a dumb Christian.” There is important wisdom in that. Charles Krauthammer in the Washington Post is also troubled by the ascendancy of the religion factor. “Now, there’s nothing wrong with having a spirited debate on the place of religion in politics. But the candidates are confusing two arguments. The first, which conservatives are winning, is defending the legitimacy of religion in the public square. The second, which conservatives are bound to lose, is proclaiming the privileged status of religion in political life.”

Fair enough, although one can argue whether the first freedom of the First Amendment has a “privileged status” in terms of protections afforded it. But then Krauthammer says this: “In this country, there is no special political standing that one derives from being a Christian leader like Mike Huckabee or a fervent believer like Mitt Romney — just as there should be no disability or disqualification for political views that derive from religious sensibilities, whether the subject is civil rights or stem cells.” Please Charles, spare us “religious sensibilities.”

But to his main point: It is true that, in terms of the constitutional order, no special political standing comes with being religious. Whether or not there is a special standing when it comes to politics as actually practiced in a democratic society, however, is up to the voters, in this case the voters of Iowa. Krauthammer is confusing a constitutional-legal question with a political-practical question. The religion-and-politics question has always been with us and has heated up in the last thirty years. If it is now reaching something of a boiling point in Iowa, the explanation does not require grand constitutional or cultural analysis. The reason is largely circumstantial. One leading contender is a Mormon and the other is a Baptist preacher. We’ve never had either in the White House (although Jimmy Carter came close). If either Romney or Huckabee is the nominee, we can be sure that religion will play an unusually prominent part in the election, with Obama or Clinton vigorously competing in the piety sweepstakes.

I’m reasonably sure the constitutional order will survive the contest. Politics in America has frequently been played as an unpredictable circus, and this is one more surprising act. The only people who have reason to be alarmed are the more fanatical proponents of the naked public squarel, a dispirited fellowship to which Peggy Noonan and Charles Krauthammer certainly do not belong.