IN THEORY:

Mitt Romney stepped forward with a speech about his Mormon faith last week, arguing that it would not have an undue influence on his administration if he were elected president. Meanwhile, GOP presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee has defended his decision as Arkansas governor to push for the early release of a convicted rapist who went on to murder a woman in Kansas because the evangelical Huckabee believed the killer had been saved while in prison. Arkansas parole board members say Huckabee’s faith and influence from evangelical leaders drove him to push for the man’s parole. How much emphasis should voters place on a presidential candidate’s faith and why?

The issue of a “religious test” has unfortunately been raised about the Romney candidacy, which was supposed to have been settled by the Kennedy candidacy in 1960.

No attention should be paid to a candidate’s religious affiliation. Personal beliefs, however, whether or not religious in nature, should be open to question if they have clear implications for preferences in public policy.

Examples, in the present political context, would include beliefs about the ultimate causes of “global warming,” or beliefs about same-sex marriage.

Deeply held beliefs might arise from religious, ideological, or even economic interests. The crucial issue is not whether a particular belief is “religious,” but whether it has foreseeable public policy implications.

Voters can then decide how important they think such beliefs might be in a candidate’s conduct of office.

In general, voters are likely to respect a candidate who honors a religious faith, who has shown moral integrity and who has demonstrated the requisite skills and talents for leadership.

Such is the kind of person, at least, to whom I would look as leader of my country. Gov. Romney’s speech in Texas stressed the importance of religious freedom and religious diversity in the founding and the history of this great nation, and in providing support for our basic values.

All elected officials must make numerous crucial decisions in office, some of which they might regret with the benefit of hindsight.

History is replete with examples. For the good of our society, leaders must therefore aspire always to make their decisions in light of the most keen spiritual insights available to them through whatever faith they embrace.

Tom Thorkelson

Director of Interfaith Relations for Orange County

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

With wisdom, the Founders wrote in Article Six of the Constitution: “No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” In the Federalist Nos. 51 and 56, James Madison praised the “no religious test” clause “as one of the glories of the new Constitution.”

The litmus test for political candidates should not be upholding Scripture, and a particular version of Scripture at that, but whether they will better serve our nation’s worldly interests by upholding the Constitution.

Since the Chief Executive does not determine religious beliefs or practices, we should resist the temptation to indulge the theocratic impulse.

I would vote for a professed atheist if convinced that candidate would preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of our secular commonwealth to the best of his ability. He need not add “so help me God” to convince me of the sincerity or purity of his commitment to America.

People of good will can debate whether God is guiding the fortunes of America, but one fact is for certain: He is not occupying the Oval Office.

Rabbi Mark S. Miller

Temple Bat Yahm

Newport Beach