Why not ask candidates what they believe?

FRANK MIELE

As we prepare to celebrate the birth of Christ, it is worth looking around and considering what Christ would think of the mess we have made.

First of all, because of his insight into the nature of man, we have to assume he would not be surprised. There is no indication anywhere in the New Testament that Jesus was naive. On the other hand, there is also no suggestion that he would just shrug the mess off and tell us to do better next time. Instead, he would expect us to do better this time.

Jesus had fairly high standards, for himself and for his followers. He told us to pick up our own cross and follow him - and that meant being willing to suffer for our beliefs, being willing to die for them if necessary, and always remembering to put our own will in second position to the will of God, just as Jesus had to do.

Jesus was no chicken. He didn't join any armies, and he didn't lead the expected war against the Roman Empire that some of his followers wanted, but he took a stand. He didn't just go along to get along. He said what he believed, and believed what he said.

Perhaps, most importantly, he had a moral code that gave him strength, substance and certainty. Indeed, the moral code he lived and died by was so powerful that it ultimately changed the world, shaped Western civilization and helped our founders create the nation we live in today.

Unfortunately, that moral code - like the cross itself - is now foolishness to the Hollywood elite and a stumbling block to our politically correct leaders. More and more we see Christians mocked for their beliefs, or pressured to keep quiet. Former Gov. Mike Huckabee, for instance, had to explain repeatedly to the mainstream media last week why his Christmas greeting advertisement in Iowa had "hidden" Christian symbolism.

Not the "hidden" Christmas tree plainly visible at his side. Not the "hidden" words coming straight out of his mouth which explained that "what really matters [about Christmas] is the celebration of the birth of Christ." No, it was the bookshelf in the background that looked like a cross to some viewers that made media pundits see deviltry in Huckabee's Christmas ad.

Turns out these folks were convinced the "floating cross" was an attack on former Gov. Mitt Romney, who is a Mormon. Oddly enough, no one has explained how the cross symbolism hurts Romney, whose church is officially known as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and who has publicly professed that Jesus is his personal savior.

Probably, the people making such allegations are actually trying to kill two candidates with one well-aimed stone. It is unlikely they are trying to protect Romney from Huckabee, but rather trying to protect the nation from what they perceive to be two kookie religious zealots who will use their "moral code" to govern with principle rather than simply by doing what is convenient or popular.

Indeed, it has become something of a truism of late that we should not select our political leaders because of their religious beliefs. Even Romney gave a speech this month in which he said, "A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith."

Certainly, it is plain in the Constitution of the United States that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." That is a wise and useful prohibition. We the people should be able to elect whoever we want, and should not see our favored candidates excluded because of their faith or lack of it.

But there is a difference between a requirement for office and a requirement for what each individual voter expects of the candidates they will support. There, it seems vital that the electorate should consider the moral qualifications of the candidates, and specifically the moral code or world view that each candidate subscribes to. After all, it is the beliefs which a candidate has before being elected which will inform his or her choices after taking office. If you want abortion to be legal, for instance, you should not vote for someone who believes abortion is murder. If you want to improve border security, you should not vote for someone who believes that all people have a God-given right to migrate wherever they choose.

Some people will say that a person's religion is a private matter, and of course it is. But when you run for public office you shed a certain amount of privacy, and what matters to the public is not what a candidate will do in church, but what they will do in public as a result of their belief system. If our democracy is going to have any meaning, then voters must consider what moral creed a candidate follows.

Toward the end of that same Sermon on the Mount where Jesus advised us to "judge not lest ye be judged," he also had this to say of false prophets: "You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they?" In other words, he taught us that in place of haughty judgment we could substitute wise discernment, and recognize that not all those who come to lead us are suitable for the job. Even those in "sheep's clothing" may inwardly be "ravenous wolves."

It is foolish to think that when choosing our public leaders we should not consider their moral character. Who would want to elect immoral leaders, after all? Yet in large part, moral character is shaped by one's religion or one's decision not to follow a religion at all. This doesn't give a free pass to those who profess to be religious. As Jesus implied, it is often those who pretend to be religious who are the most dangerous among us. But likewise it does not mean we should select our leaders based on some kind of religion-free criteria.

Don't forget, our national leaders are moral leaders as well as political leaders. And it is easy to see that moral character does matter to the American people by looking at the presidencies of Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, among others. Nixon and Clinton were perhaps the most skilled politicians of the last half-century. Nixon was one of the most successful presidents in our history when it came to pushing an agenda through Congress, yet he was ultimately forced to resign in disgrace because of a moral failing. President Clinton did not accomplish as much as Nixon, but he governed over a period of prosperity and optimism and had great personal popularity, yet he too was disgraced by a moral lapse and was only the second president in our history to undergo the ordeal of impeachment.

As we select our new president, in this coming year, in seems we should first think about our own moral values, then ask which candidate will promote those values in his character and his policies. This does not mean voting only for candidates who are of the same religion as us, or who have the same world view, but it does mean realizing that we can't just pretend our values don't matter. If we don't publicly vote for our values and embrace them, they are not values at all. They are window dressing.

. Frank Miele is managing editor of the Daily Inter Lake. E-mail responses may be sent to edit@dailyinterlake.com.