Douglas Wilder, the governor of Virginia, is getting a bum rap. He`s catching it for suggesting that senators inquire into the religious beliefs of Clarence Thomas and how those beliefs might affect any decisions that gentleman would render on the Supreme Court, particularly about abortion.
All right, Gov. Wilder`s phrasing might have been more precise. As he put it, ”I was in Poland not long ago, and the pope came there reiterating that he thought abortion was wrong and shouldn`t be permitted. The question is,
`How much allegiance is there to the pope?` ” Pulling the pope in from left field, or rather from Poland, was unnecessary; the governor`s language had a ring of the old tunnel-to-Rome myth that bedeviled Al Smith`s presidential campaign back in 1928.
Doug Wilder would have done better to speak about the Senate`s obligation to ask the nominee about any conflict between his religious and civil obligations. Nor should the governor loosely equate a church`s doctrine with its leader-as if belief were a matter of personal allegiance.
How one words a point is important; it can be of the essence. But the governor did offer his apology if he had offended. Surely it is the part of both Christian charity and simple, non-sectarian good manners to accept it. It would have been nicer if the governor of Virginia knew how to apologize. A gentleman does not say, ”I am sorry if I offended,” but ”I am sorry,”
period. Simplicity is responsibility.
But once translated into the precise and proper, Doug Wilder`s question is perfectly fair. John F. Kennedy addressed the same essential issue, and with impressive grace and candor, when he ran for president in 1960. Neither his words nor his choice of subject demeaned him. He did not pretend that religious beliefs are irrelevant, or act horrified that anyone should want to know more about his and how they might affect his official conduct.
John Kennedy even recognized that a conflict might arise between his private beliefs and public office, though he did not anticipate one. He assured his audience-a convention of Baptists-that if he could not resolve such a conflict, he would resign his office. Fair enough. That`s a good rule for all candidates, not just Catholic ones. American life would be richer and more responsible if there were more resignations for reasons of conscience.
The increasingly popular practice of politicians` giving religious testimony can get sappy, particularly at prayer breakfasts, but that is no reason religion should be treated as if it were a matter of no consequence-or a dirty little secret it would be shameful to inquire into.
The senators have not only a right but a duty to explore the philosophy of nominees to the Supreme Court of the United States, since its justices will be shaping American law-and therefore American politics and philosophy-for years to come. The law, as they say, is a great teacher. It is proper that senators ask what a Justice Thomas would teach, just as it is proper for him to decide how fully to answer such a question; he would not want to prejudge questions that might come before him on the bench.
One would like to think that in these supposedly freer, more candid times, the same sort of questions about abortion or church and state that Douglas Wilder would put to a Catholic nominee could as well be posed to a Protestant or Jewish one-or to any potential justice with or without what the sociologists call a belief system. (It`s the ones without who worry me most.) Judge Thomas has no obligation to answer if he thinks the question inappropriate, but the senators have an obligation to inquire.
If a man is what he thinketh in his heart, what better way to find what manner of man Clarence Thomas is? Here at least is a field of inquiry on a higher plane than his race, which continues to attract the speculation and theories of those fascinated most by the obvious and superficial.
Yet the unspoken assumption persists that it is somehow impolite or unconstitutional to inquire into what role a nominee`s religion may play in his approach to the law. Are we all supposed to pretend that a judge`s rulings are never shaped by a personal philosophy in which faith may play a part, that decisions of the Supreme Court are handed down by strictly secular storks?
This Republic has wisely chosen to separate church and state, not religion and thought. ”In this representative democracy,” the worthy Richard John Neuhaus of the Center for Religion and Public Life has written, ”the state is forbidden to determine which convictions and moral judgments may be proposed for public deliberation.” Yet a genteel conspiracy of silence seems to descend when the topic is religion. That`s understandable-religion can be an explosive and divisive topic-but surely the way to defuse it is not to ignore it, but rather treat it with the respect and, yes, interest it deserves.
More Top Picks Dell Xps 16 Review