An Illegal Interview on CNN?

That's the rhetorical question Welton Gaddy who heads the Interfaith Alliance posed in an e-blast today.  He makes a good point.

Sunday night's Compassion Forum on CNN provided an opportunity to get some relevant answers about the respective stances of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama on the role of religion in government. Instead, the moderators asked some clearly inappropriate questions about the candidates' religious beliefs, and failed to ask others that would have given the voting public insight into the candidates' positions on these important issues.

 Here is the money quote:

If a potential employer asked you questions about your religious beliefs in a job interview, it wouldn't only be offensive, it would be illegal. The media needs to stop imposing a de facto religious test on the candidates.

The Compassion Forum was essentially a public interview for the job of President of the United States. And if it had been an interview for any other job in America, a good number of the questions asked would have been downright illegal.

Article VI of the Constitution promises that, "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." So why did the Compassion Forum's moderators ask about Senator Clinton's belief in the Trinity, and what Senator Obama would tell his children about creationism?

Americans would be much better served by hearing Senators Clinton and Obama talk about how they will respect their constituents' religious diversity and how they plan to balance their private faith with their public oath to uphold the Constitution and the separation of religion and government.

Many important issues were discussed Sunday night. I only wish the moderators had pushed the candidates to elaborate on issues like teaching intelligent design in our public schools and government-funded religion paid for by your tax dollars, rather than asking questions that do little to move the national conversation on faith in public life forward.

Not all questions related to faith and public life need be what, in other circumstances, would be a clear violation of the civil rights of our candidates.

The Interfaith Alliance Foundation and Americans United for Separation of Church and State via thier joint project, First Freedom First, have come up with a list of better questions about the relationship of faith and public life.

The media might try them out sometime:

1  Leaders on the religious right often say that America is a "Christian Nation." Do you agree with this statement?

2 Do you think Houses of Worship should be allowed to endorse political candidates and retain their tax exempt status?

3 Do you think public schools should sponsor school prayer or, as a parent, should this choice be left to me?

4 Would you support a law that mandates teaching creationism in my child's public school science classes?

5 Do you think my pharmacist should be allowed to deny me doctor-prescribed medications based on his or her religious beliefs?

6 Will you respect the rights of those in our diverse communities of faith who deem same-gender marriage to be consistent with their religious creed?

7  Should "faith-based" charities that receive public funds be allowed to discriminate against employees or applicants based on religious beliefs?

8 Do you think one's right to disbelieve in God is protected by the same laws that protect someone else's right to believe?

9 Do you think everyone's religious freedom needs to be protected by what Thomas Jefferson called "a wall of separation" between church and state?

10 What should guide our policies on public health and medical research: science or religion?

[Crossposted from Talk to Action]

•  John McCain's answer to Question 1

  Here is how John McCain answers the first question.)

  by Frederick Clarkson on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 04:33:14 PM PDT

  •  If John McCain believes in Christianity...

    ...I'm a monkey's uncle and plenty else besides.  He is full of crap, and would claim to worship the FSM if he thought it would make him Commander in Chief, which is the only aspect of the presidency that holds any interest for him.

    by Rich in PA on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 04:39:33 PM PDT

    •  Kind of an interesting catch-22, isn't it?

      On the one hand, if John McCain believes in Christianity, you're a monkey's uncle. On the other hand, John McCain and his party have made it pretty clear they don't believe in evolution, so any possible relation between any human being and a monkey is precluded.

      And yet, somehow, such a contradiction never prevents their "macaca" moments, does it?

      by wiscmass on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 04:48:22 PM PDT

      •  you're trying to dematerialize me, aren't you?

        Join the club!

        by Rich in PA on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 07:22:03 PM PDT

•  In retrospect, it probably would

  have been wiser just to avoid that particular venue altogether.  I realize that the organizers likely thought that they were serving the public interest, but there is too much opportunity for misstatements, confusion, and downright mischief to occur.  In one of the very rare cases in my record, I agree that McCain took the smart route.  Warmest regards, Doc.

  by Translator on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 04:38:12 PM PDT

  •  Screw Religion..what about Iraq and health care?

    I'm sick of organized religion rearing its' ugly head everywhere in our society.

    Butt out!

    by Brad007 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 04:56:40 PM PDT

•  It's insanely distasteful to solicit...

  ...religious silliness from our candidates, but it's not illegal and it's certainly not a "religious test," which refers specifically to a state-administered religious standard.  The media, interest groups, and voters are entitled to apply their own religious tests, delusional as they are by definition.

  by Rich in PA on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 04:38:15 PM PDT

  •  Gaddy called it

    a defacto religious test, which is most certainly is. As for being illegal, if it had been a civil service job inteview it would have been. It is a rhetorical question with an excellent point.

    by Frederick Clarkson on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 04:39:44 PM PDT

•  I think most of those and other questions on

  religion are useless.  How about asking serious stuff like: What are your detailed plans for getting us out of Iraq; or what are you going to do about the looming recession; or health care crisis?  

  ThAT is what America wants to hear.

  by Phil S 33 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 04:38:25 PM PDT

•  Thank you for this discussion

  It's way past time.

  by bookwoman on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 04:38:30 PM PDT

•  WTF? Illegal?

  Had Obama or Clinotn refused to answer they would have been struck from the ballot?

  Geez.

  I saw an inane discussion of religion among consenting adults.  That's all.

  by bugscuffle on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 04:40:27 PM PDT

  •  rhetorical question

    Read the diary.

    by Frederick Clarkson on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 04:41:38 PM PDT

    •  Geez.

      How thin.  I do McCain's retiscence about his religious life, though.

      by bugscuffle on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 04:44:49 PM PDT

      •  I do PREFER McCain's retiscence, I mean.

        by bugscuffle on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 04:47:42 PM PDT

  •  Rhetorically speaking, yes

    Had one of them refused to answer a question, it would have put them in a bad light, giving the implication that they had something to hide.

    Which would cause many to decide not to vote for that person.

    I think avoiding the religious crap altogether eliminates this possibility.

    Illegal? Not likely, but totally wrong, and essentially the same as a religious question in a job interview, or a de-facto religious test?  Yup.

    by second gen on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 04:45:43 PM PDT

    •  Depends on the job for whether it's illegal.

      ie, churches can certainly have religious tests.  The upshot is that the illegality of religious tests is a statutory minimum, not a constitutional floor.  We can drop that minimum if public policy calls for it.

      So it may be illegal to ask an applicant about religion, but by itself that may not be so illuminating.  To probe the public policy question, we need to talk about why it's illegal, whether it should be for all positions, etc.

      by burrow owl on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 05:21:43 PM PDT

•  Sorry Mr. Clarkson....

  No one forced these candidates to respond.  It is they who deserve the blame not the Interfaith Alliance.  

  During an early debate, it was Mike Gravel who was the only one to answer appropriately when the eight or so candidates all expansively recounted their religiosity, as he said:

  It seems to me that those who pray the most are the most willing to go to war and kill people.

  Only when (and if) we get a serious candidate who is willing to expend political capital keeping religion out of politics will be reverse the Christianization of America that occurred under this administration.

  by arodb on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 04:43:30 PM PDT

  •  we have a common responsibility

    to not violate the civil rights of people.

    CNN put on a shameful display and our candidates also set a bad example. All three remaining presidential candidates have done a fair amount of pander dancing. It goes with the territory. But there are lines, and they have been crossed.

    by Frederick Clarkson on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 04:46:00 PM PDT

    •  Atheists are marginalized...

      to the greatest degree in my memory.  Or maybe with Dkos I just pay more attention.

      It is like the Marinos, the covert Jews during the Spanish Inquisition.  They must have played the game of being Christians to have survived.

      Now atheists can live, but they cannot really be sincere, or they have no political viability.  Even the Pledge of Allegiance, actually without the "under god" is an affront to independent thinking.

      Their is a court decision from 1943 that says the pledge can not be imposed, yet every city council begins with it.  Not to participate makes that the issue, and nothing else matters.

      You may have caught the recced diary about the Illinois Democratic representative who excoriated, and tried to remove a witness at a hearing because of his atheism.

      I've heard no demands that she apologize from the party, the state or our candidates.

      by arodb on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 04:57:19 PM PDT

      •  We are. One thing that

        I very much try not to do is evangelize my position.  It is a matter of faith, so to speak, and your position is as valid to you as mine is to me.  That is what really ticks me off about the evangelical folks, they do not respect my views.  I am just wrong, in their view.  I guess that I would feel differently if I heard voices in my mind on a daily basis.  Warmest regards, Doc.

        by Translator on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 05:17:40 PM PDT

      •  Maranos

        not Marinos.  Peace.

        by Clio2 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 05:22:14 PM PDT

      •  well, I wrote about that atheist

        and called for apologies. The legislator did, in fact apologize and the apology was accepted. I agree that the Party and others should have joined in the call for an apology. Olberman made the legislator his worst person, and he was far from alone in condemning her attrocious behavior.

        Look, the Interfaith Alliance and Americans United are seriously supportive of the rights of atheists. Whats more, some of the leading atheist organizations in America are organizational supporters of First Freedom First. The ten questions are intended to draw out a debate about the rights of individual conscience, both relgious and non-religious; and the separation of church and state.

        Best to know and appreciate your allies, arodb.

        by Frederick Clarkson on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 07:20:20 AM PDT

    •  Being in politics does curtail civil rights....

      The fourth amendment right to privacy is curtailed by financial disclosure laws.

      Any entity can ask any question they wish, and only the candidate can set limits, if he/she so choses.

      And even freedom of speech, the most basic right, is limited in my state.  A majority of any elected body my not discuss any issue that may come before their body, unless it is at a meeting open to the public.

      I actually challenged the over-the-top disclosure law of NY State, where the info, actually only goes to the party leaders, not the public.

      I lost on a technicality.  
      ----------------
      I agree with the goal of the diary, but the focus must on the political candidate to make a change, not to rely on the fine print of the law.

      by arodb on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 05:12:47 PM PDT

      •  not relying on the fine print of the law

        Gaddy asked a rhetorical question that draws on an important constitutional principle that undergirds all rights related to individual conscience.

        Either we as a whole society embrace these principles or we don't.

        It ain't not technicality, bub.

        by Frederick Clarkson on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 07:23:00 AM PDT

  •  That's not how it works.

    No one forced these candidates to respond.

    That's why you can't ask the question. Otherwise you create a situation where there aren't fair hiring practices because you favor individuals that are willing to respond.

    But this isn't a hiring situation, so technically it doesn't apply. The interviewer isn't authorized to make a hiring decision.

    I would agree with Clarkson simply as a matter of respect and common sense, however. The same reasons why it is illegal to ask such questions in an interview is why we shouldn't ask them in a debate. But here are some of the off-limit topics:

    Race
    Color
    Sex
    Religion
    National origin
    Birthplace
    Age
    Disability
    Marital/family status

    We've already blown through a few of these, and probably a few more before we're done.

    by johnsonwax on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 05:03:25 PM PDT

•  I was very disappointed in Obama's

  choice to participate in this forum.  It is absolutely disgusting and disturbing that this was considered a legitimate event.

  by audiored on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 04:48:38 PM PDT

  •  well,

    he had the most reason to participate given the email smears still going around about him.  Turning down this forum would have confirmed the worries of a lot of silly people who may actually, finally realize he's not a Manchurian candidate.  

    by loralei on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 04:56:26 PM PDT

  •  I wasn't.

    It made sense for him to do so, given the rumors and utter crap that's been making the chain-email rounds about his religion.  It enabled him to speak directly to the people about his faith - something he's clearly good at talking about.

    by mistersite on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 04:59:55 PM PDT

•  It seems the media is out of touch here.

  Ever since George W. Bush began his race for the White House, elections have turned into finding out who has your values, over who would make the best President.  It is the reason we got the Chimp in office.  The Chimp was not elected as a leader, but as a guy you could have a beer with, even if he doesn't drink, and a guy who is churchy enough, he was not elected for his intelligence.

  Now we have this recent "elitist" kerfuffle, and the Right wingers are putting out posters of Obama with the word, "snob" written underneath.  I know Obama isn't a snob, but if he was would it matter?  We are not electing a friend, we are not electing someone, because maybe he will like me enough to invite me over to the White House for a pint.  I will never go golfing with him.  So why is this "folksy charm" thing important?  Because the media keeps talking about it?

  I have never heard once the media say that it is important that the voters pick their candidate as someone who is a quick learner, has good managerial skills, and their ability to bring the country together.  But that is what is happening, the people are choosing Obama because they feel he will bring the country the kind of leadership it needs during this countries hardest times since the Second World War.

  People are fucking scared to death about the future of this country, they have seen what electing a short sighted war monger, born again, cowboy.  They have been witness to the destruction of America for electing a baboon.

  So the pundits can tell the people they want to vote for someone who is likable, and the right-wing can try to paint Obama as an elitist, but the people will elect a great President, Barack Obama.

  by kanuk on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 04:51:42 PM PDT

  •  You have a point

    and yet, we have to deal with a strange reality, and that is this:

    A great many Americans have a serious inferiority complex concerning higher education. And they vote accordingly.

    This opinion is based on admittedly selective personal experience,and I think complaints against "eitism" really refer mainly to the tastes and attitudes that tend to go with higher education.  

    There is also a "rural" inferiority complex vs. "urban" (with most people apparently identifying as "rural," regardless of the reality -- thanks to country western music, perhaps.)

    Looking at "the rich" vs. the "rest of us" -- most people are willing to identify with "rich" (perhaps because they hope to be rich thmselves one day), but only so long as the rich appear to be down-home, not-too-educated, self-made, and so on. Shrubbie's accent is no accident.  

    I think this is the great unspoken prejudice that we aren't even talking about and may be a serious complicating thing for Obama. However, if a Democrat can reach people despite the anti-higher-education prejudice, I think Obama may be the one.  

    by Clio2 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 05:36:13 PM PDT

•  agree with pts you have made and signed petition

  at link. What was the reason Mccain gave for not participating? I doubt that it was on principle, but rather that he is not as well spoken as either of his dem opponents. Obama is on the receiving end of way too many smear campaigns to opt out of this forum on principle. It would  just exacerbate current lines of attack.

  by no expert on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 04:54:16 PM PDT

  •  thanks

    I dunno what McCain's reasons were.

    by Frederick Clarkson on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 04:55:29 PM PDT

    •  Regardless of his reasons,

      he took the smart way out of this one.  Not going to vote for him, but even a broken clock is correct twice a day.  I am interested to your take on my responses to your questionnaire.  I am sure that we will not agree on everything, but if we did, one of us would be superfluous.  Warmest regards, Doc.

      by Translator on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 05:13:05 PM PDT

      •  well, long conversation there

        but I'll pick one point of departure. Doc.

        I have no problem with the tax exemption of churches, which should abide the same rules as any other tax exempt organizations. If I had my druthers, I would tighten up the eligibility requirements and enhance enforcement.

        The answer for church politics is simple. Don't use  church resources to be involved in the political process. It ain't rocket science, and the IRS is surprisingly clear on the point. Play by the same rules as everyone else. Everything will be fine.

        Finally, the elimination of tax exemption for religious organizations is a political non-starter. It is never going to happen; and people who don't like it should get over it.  There are other fish to fry.

        by Frederick Clarkson on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 07:36:40 AM PDT

•  How I would have

  answered, but would not have been caught in the trap in the first place, but as a thought experiment, try these.  They are not made up, my real views.

     1  Leaders on the religious right often say that America is a "Christian Nation." Do you agree with this statement?

  No.  This Nation was founded on the principle that the state and the church are separate and unrelated.  While many of the men who were Founders were Christian, their experience with the Crown soured them in blending the two.

     2 Do you think Houses of Worship should be allowed to endorse political candidates and retain their tax exempt status?

  Neither.  They should not have tax exempt status in the first place.  That places them in a subservient position to the state, and that is not allowed.

     3 Do you think public schools should sponsor school prayer or, as a parent, should this choice be left to me?

  Public schools should not sponsor prayer.  Nor should they prohibit it.

     4 Would you support a law that mandates teaching creationism in my child's public school science classes?

  No.  Science is science, and matters of faith are not science.  Therefore, there is not any overlap.

     5 Do you think my pharmacist should be allowed to deny me doctor-prescribed medications based on his or her religious beliefs?

  No.  If in her or his professional judgment I might be harmed, then the pharmacist has an obligation to resolve the issue.  (This happens all of the time, by the way, when different physicians, or even the same physician, prescribe drugs to a patient.  It is the duty of the pharmacist to resolve the issue).  But if there is a religious component to her or his judgment, the state board needs to remove the license to practice.

     6 Will you respect the rights of those in our diverse communities of faith who deem same-gender marriage to be consistent with their religious creed?

  Yes, with this caveat.  Marriage is a religious observation.  That is between the faithful and their fellows.  Legally, civil unions are contracts and as such are regulated by the state law.  I would support civil unions between any two persons regardless of gender, with all of the tax, inheritance, and other benefits now recognized as legal "marriage", but the term "marriage" should be struck from all civil and criminal law and replaced with "legal union" or some similar term.

     7  Should "faith-based" charities that receive public funds be allowed to discriminate against employees or applicants based on religious beliefs?

  This question is bogus.  No charity should receive public funds, regardless of whether it is "faith-based" or not.  If the state decides it is in its benefit to contribute funds to a specific entity, then they should be appropriated directly and lawfully.

     8 Do you think one's right to disbelieve in God is protected by the same laws that protect someone else's right to believe?

  Yes.  The First Amendment applies universally.

     9 Do you think everyone's religious freedom needs to be protected by what Thomas Jefferson called "a wall of separation" between church and state?

  Yes, with no reservation of any kind.

     10 What should guide our policies on public health and medical research: science or religion?

  I have two arguments for science.  First, religion has not been very successful in treating health and promoting medical research.  Second, science is the only mechanism that we have that can address these issues in a logical way.  Does it always work?  Perhaps not, but its success rate is superior to the rate for religion.

  Sorry for such a long comment, those are my view and I approve this message.  Warmest regards, Doc.

  by Translator on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 04:56:51 PM PDT

•  To me, it is ironic

  That a "compassion" forum is a religious grilling in front of the media. Are the right wing evangelists compassionate? Not in my experience--they seem most comfortable fomenting hatred and bigotry.

  by marketgeek on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 05:01:46 PM PDT

  •  Agreed. While I do not think that

    is was illegal (public figures are held to a different standard than us mere mortals), it was ill-conceived and foolish for the candidates to endorse with their presence.  Warmest regards, Doc.

    by Translator on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 05:03:50 PM PDT

•  Finally...someone asks the right questions

  instead of all this nonsense about what Rev. Wright said...what about what Hagee said or the Pope? Or Robertson or Fallwell or any of a dozen others?

  by Temmoku on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 05:59:12 PM PDT

•  Excellent candidate-specific questions at FindLaw

  I was deeply disappointed in the CNN forum. I expected the most basic of questions relevant to that audience. Similar to your #9, I wanted them to ask, "What is your position on separation of church and state?" I guess the question is either too basic, too complex, or too toxic because it never got asked.

  I found an interesting article from January on FindLaw.com. Titled "The Questions That Each Presidential Candidate Should Be Asked Regarding His or Her Views on the Constitutional Line Between Church and State," Marci Hamilton, author of God vs. the Gavel, had these questions to ask Clinton:

  Would you continue your husband's legacy, while he was President, of currying favor with religious organizations and entities? Although President Bush has been far more public about it, President Clinton, first, made a point of attending prayer breakfasts and consulting the views of prominent conservative Christians. No one can criticize a President for seeking spiritual guidance, but his actions regarding religion did not end with private contemplation and solace. Instead, he initiated the "charitable choice" programs, and set the stage for President Bush to bring the evangelical Christians to political power.

  Bill Clinton also did more for religion, as a President, than any President before him (except Grant, who tried to Christianize those who were called "Indians" at the time), by enthusiastically signing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). RFRA was subsequently struck down by the Supreme Court in Boerne v. Flores as unconstitutional, because Congress and the President had put themselves in the position to amend the meaning of the First Amendment, and had overstepped federal power to the detriment of the states . RLUIPA, meanwhile, has been a disaster for residential neighborhoods trying to maintain their character in the face of ambitious building projects by religious landowners.

  Do you truly believe in the separation of church and state? Or, would you continue your husband's legacy of backing legislation to benefit of religious entities, without consideration of those who would be harmed by such legislation? For example, would you support the legislation Senator Kennedy has proposed that would immunize churches from the government's eminent domain decisions?

  For Obama, she wrote:

  Sojourners Magazine ran an excerpt of one of your speeches in November 2006, in which you stated the following: "[G]iven the increasing diversity of America's population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers."

  Now that you have been on the campaign trail for over a year since then, what conclusions do you draw about the religious diversity of the American people? What is the value of diversity? And what, specifically, are the dangers of sectarianism that would most concern you as President?

  And John Mc4MYCain?

  In a 2000 speech in Virginia Beach, you said the following: "[M]y faith [is] the faith that unites and never divides; the faith that bridges unbridgeable gaps in humanity. It is the faith I would die to defend." How does this statement translate into presidential actions?

  Let me be more specific: In a prior column, I described the debacle caused by Sens. Kennedy and Santorum, who are Catholic, when they tried to give away land owned by the Old Soldiers Home in Washington, DC, to Catholic University for pennies on the dollar. Luckily, veterans were alerted to the bill that Kennedy and Santorum had slid into other legislation, and to avoid litigation (which I promised I would to file on behalf of the veterans if they went forward), they amended the law to at least require submission of bids in a competitive process. Veterans contacted you about the issue, and you stood for them, and against Santorum and Kennedy, when they needed you to. This is a very different attitude toward religious lobbyists than other representatives possess.

  What is your view on federal subsidization of religion in other contexts? We can start with the Faith-Based Initiative. Have you studied which religious organizations have been the beneficiaries of this program, and why it seems to have been skewed to certain ones? Does that concern you? And how do you compare these programs with the pork-barrel spending you have so often publicly criticized?

  As an atheist with many agnostic friends, I'm deeply concerned about the "churchification" of America. I also have religious friends who respect my right to my beliefs, just as I respect their right to theirs. Since the next president will likely appoint at least one justice to the Supreme Court, I find the issue important to address, but no one seems willing to address it.

  by 1BQ on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 06:49:33 PM PDT