A recent Register opinion piece by two former Lieutenant Governors has caught some attention. The piece deals with the intersection of religion and politics, and emotionally asks people not to use religion as a wedge to separate people in this political season. The two authors claim that certain candidates are trying “try to make religion, or the form of it, or the lack of it, a qualification or disqualification for public office.”

The authors also want to “remind the nation that the Constitution prohibits any religious test for public office and that the divisive use of religion to manipulate voters is unacceptable.” They go on to say, “The president must serve all Americans without prejudice toward any religious or nonreligious beliefs.”

OK, let’s call this what it is. First, they’re ticked at Mitt Romney for saying that “freedom requires religion,” thereby (allegedly) alienating atheists. Second, they’re ticked at Mike Huckabee because they think he’s talking too much about faith and implying that he’s using his faith to try to get people to vote for him.

It really irks me when people who know better use the whole “the constitution prohibits a religious test” argument. The constitution prohibits the government itself from adopting a religious test for those who run for office. That has no bearing on what issues and factors individual citizens use to determine who they want to vote for to be president.

Faith is a legitimate thing for people to look at in making this decision, but perhaps not in the way you are thinking (or the way the above editorialists assume that us Bible-thumping, narrow-minded hicks would look at faith).

First, a person’s professed faith tells me a little about their value system. As the editorialists state, “our faith should inform our values, and those values are the bases of decisions and judgments we make in the public sphere.” I feel, as a voter, I want to know what faith will be informing a candidate’s values and decisions once in office. But what tells me even more about a person is whether or not their actions, conduct, and policy positions are consistent with their professed beliefs. Bill Clinton claimed to be a champion of women’s rights, but when it came right down to it, we all found out that he didn’t even have respect for the woman he married, so, in my mind, that makes him a hypocrite, and, therefore, someone who I don’t trust with the responsibility of public office.

This is also what bothers me about Mitt Romney. It’s not that he’s a Mormon. I have great respect for the Church Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints for the strong pro-life and pro-traditional family values it has espoused over the years and continues to support to this day. The question for Mitt is this (and it’s the same one Jan Mickelson tried to ask before Mitt got all “intense” back in August): Why did it take you until you were almost 60 years old to figure out that abortion is wrong, when your church has been telling you it’s wrong your whole life? Why did you not support the marriage amendment that would have stopped gay marriage in Massachusetts? Why did you name a gay couple as Adoptive Parents of the Year when you’ve been taught from a young age that homosexuality is wrong and not at all an ideal environment in which to raise children?

As for Huckabee, I think he’s gotten somewhat of a bum rap on the faith front. The man can’t go anywhere without people asking him at length about his faith. Yes, he did include “Christian Leader” text in his ads. Is he not supposed to tell people that being a minister was his job for 12 years? He was criticized for his question about what Mormons believe regarding Jesus and Satan being brothers (which, by the way, I’ve heard many people in news interviews say is true based on statements from the official LDS website, www.lds.org).

I wasn’t there, and I don’t know how or why he asked a reporter that question. But let’s assume the worst, that Huckabee was trying to tell everyone that that is what Mormons believe. Huckabee had just been attacked by Romney and Thompson leaking to the press the fact that a long time ago, Huckabee and his wife had signed a newspaper ad put together by the Southern Baptist Convention. This ad was signed by numerous other Baptist leaders. The ad stated that, along with lots of other stuff, Baptists believe wives should submit graciously to the servant leadership of their husbands. Huckabee was raked over the coals in the press for that. So to summarize, it’s not fair for Huckabee to question Mitt’s religious beliefs, but it is totally fair for Romney and Thomson to question a tenant of Huckabee’s faith. Maybe it’s not what I would have done, but I understand Huckabee’s frustration over the double standard. The thing I find most upsetting is the insinuation from the indignant talking heads on cable that a minister shouldn’t be president. Isn’t that a religious test, too?

In short, I think it is absurd to suggest that people should not examine a candidate’s faith, and particularly, whether a candidate’s conduct adheres to their professed faith (and if not, why not). The Register’s editorialists plead, “Do not ask us to vote for you based on your personal religious affiliation. Do not ask us to stand in judgment of your opponents' religious beliefs.”

Here’s some advice for them: Don’t be so blinded by a candidate’s religious beliefs that you refuse to acknowledge his well-reasoned policies and leadership capabilities. Don’t distort the Constitution by claiming we’re violating the “religious test” clause when you know full well that’s not what’s happening. And most of all, don’t accuse others of imposing a religious test, when you’re actually imposing one of your own.