A while back I wrote to request an interview with Jim Wallis, a self-appointed leader in the Religious Left to ask him whether he thought being a believer should be a job requirement for a politician.
From: Eva Young [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 5:30 PM
Subject: Does Jim Wallis have a comment about Romney's recent statement?
Presidential candidate Mitt Romney was recently heckled for being mormon.
"We need to have a person of faith lead the country."
Does Jim Wallis agree with him?
Wallis's communications director responded:
Good to hear from you -- thank you for being in touch. I'm not sure if
Jim Wallis is available for a comment on this particular question at this time, but please do check out, a recent posting on www.godspolitics.com on this
issue by Tony Jones.
The post didn't answer the question so I tried again:
The post I mentioned does not address the issue I'm asking about. Romney said that a person should be required to be a "person of faith" in order to be President. The logical conclusion to that would mean that atheists or agnostics could not be President under Romney's qualifications. Does Jim Wallis believe this or does he respect the constitution on this matter (no religious test)? Does Wallis believe that atheists or agnostics have no morals because they do not have faith?
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
Colin from his staff directs me to another post.
How about this recent posting by Jim
Wallis's post has lots of words in it - but doesn't directly address the issue - which is whether he believes someone has to be a person of faith in order to serve in a political capacity. I've always found it ironic that "strict constructionists" like Judge Scalia have evidently not read Article VI in the constitution - which was very clear on that topic - not to mention the first amendment.