How to Balance Religious Beliefs and Public Service

There is a lively debate going on over at the New Republic Web site (free registration required) between Damon Linker, author of The Theocons: Secular America Under Siege, and Richard Bushman, History Professor at Columbia University and author of Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling. The discussion is lively, intelligent, and civil -- I recommend it to any interested parties. I was particularly intrigued, however, by a segment from Linker's initial article that sparked the debate. Towards the end of the essay, Linker says:

Article VI of the U.S. Constitution famously stipulates that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." Though the Framers meant to prohibit a test compelling office-seekers to affirm a particular set of religious views, it makes sense to treat the proscription as applying negatively as well--as prohibiting a test that would exclude members of certain religious sects from holding office. In our time of heightened sectarian tensions--when devout believers and secularists increasingly perceive themselves to be stationed on opposite sides of a cultural chasm--it is crucially important that Americans remain committed to allowing every qualified citizen to run for public office, regardless of his or her religious views.

But defending the constitutional right of every qualified citizen to run for office is not the same as saying that a candidate's religious views should be a matter of indifference to voters. In the case of Mitt Romney, citizens have every reason to seek clarification about the character of his Mormonism. Does he believe, for example, that we are living through the "latter days" of human history, just prior to the second coming of Christ? And does he think that, when the Lord returns, he will rule over the world from the territory of the United States? Does Romney believe that the president of the Mormon Church is a genuine prophet of God? If so, how would he respond to a command from this prophet on matters of public policy? And, if his faith would require him to follow this hypothetical command, would it not be accurate to say that, under a President Romney, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints would truly be in charge of the country--with its leadership having final say on matters of right and wrong?

Linker's argument, of course, should sound familiar to those acquainted with the debate before John F. Kennedy was elected president. But it presents an interesting and vital question that public figures must consider: to what extent, if at all, should personal beliefs govern political decisions? This is all the more important if we consider how personal beliefs affect the decisions of judges, something Richard Bushman alludes to in his response to the essay. And I would submit that ethical attorneys must also ask themselves the same question: to what extent should my personal beliefs affect my legal practice?

In his response, Bushman notes that, per the Church's Web site, "[e]lected officials who are Latter-Day Saints make their own decisions and may not necessarily be in agreement with one another or even with a publicly stated church position." Similarly, LDS judges and attorneys must make their own decisions which may not necessarily correspond exactly with Church positions.

Most Latter-day Saints involved in the law profession would probably agree that personal beliefs have a place in their practice, but the extent of its influence likely varies by person. Now that Mitt Romney has official declared his presidential candidacy, his balance of personal belief and public duty will doubtless be an issue of continued scrutiny. This gives each of us a chance to reexamine our own beliefs and the role they play in our profession.

My personal opinion is that religious beliefs can make attorneys more compassionate and conscientious legal advocates. However, I also believe that an attorney is beholden to the public and to the clients he or she represents, and that these obligations may temper or even supersede Church directives. At some point, every attorney must make his or her own decision regarding the balance of obligations. Now that his candidacy is official, former Governor Romney will try to convince the public that he has made the same determination.