Another Anti-Theocratic Warning

This morning’s reading is Peggy Noonan, in today’s Wall Street Journal. Noting the rise of Mike Huckabee in the Republican primary polls, she theorizes (with some basis from supporting data in those polls) that the reason Republican voters are gravitating to Huckabee is his religion, to the point that other factors in forming that preference have been eclipsed. Here’s the money quote:

Christian conservatives have been rising, most recently, for 30 years in national politics, since they helped elect Jimmy Carter. They care about the religious faith of their leaders, and their interest is legitimate. Faith is a shaping force. Lincoln got grilled on it. 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. [¶] But they are not, and cannot be. They are central. Things seem to be getting out of kilter, with the emphasis shifting too far.

Notice that she’s not saying that faith and religion are irrelevant; instead, she legitimates the interest in the faith of a President. This is different than Mitt Romney’s have-it-both-ways take on that question; it’s different than my take on that issue, too. Her objection is to making faith a “determining factor” in a voting decision, to the sublimination of personal characteristics that obviously related to how a person would perform as President.

For someone like me, it’s easy to say, just look past a candidate’s religion. I’ve never had the choice to vote for a serious Presidential candidate of my own religious preference. I considered myself Roman Catholic (albeit always a rather skeptical one) at one point in my life, so John Kerry would have been a match, but by 2004 I was quite firm in my abandonment of faith altogether; he certainly didn’t campaign as an atheist — and I wouldn’t have voted for him even if he and I did share a common outlook on that issue. So I’ve never not had to hold my nose about the issue of religion. No current major candidate for President avows a secular outlook on life, much less eschews identification with a major denomination of Christianity.

To think about how dedicated Christians feel when confronted with this slate of candidates, and to understand how they could be attracted to Huckabee despite his otherwise-obvious flaws (I hope to have the full evaluation for you later today, Readers, and will certainly have it done by tomorrow), I have to ask myself — would I vote for an atheist candidate for President just because he or she was an atheist? The answer is, of course not. What a nonsensical question. Being an atheist neither qualifies or disqualifies one for the Presidency, any more than would nearsightedness or a dislike of mushrooms in one’s salad.

It’s one thing to like Huckabee because you agree with him on his social policy platform. (Although I question exactly how much difference it makes at the Presidential level; these kinds of issues tend to get resolved at the state level.) He seems like a nice enough guy with a strong moral compass. (Query if that’s something we care about in a President, either.) But it’s something else entirely to vote for him for no other reason than his religion.

I take Hillary Clinton at her word when she says she’s a Methodist. But I don’t see Methodists lining up to vote for her because they have that in common with her; I see Methodists having splits of opinions about her based on her policies and her personality. That seems like a much better way to pick a President.