THE CONSTITUTION COMES FIRST: No Religious Law, Christian, Islamic, Jewish or Otherwise, Stands Above American Law

THE CONSTITUTION COMES FIRST

No Religious Law, Christian, Islamic, Jewish or Otherwise, Stands Above American Law

Introduction: One Constitution, One Supreme Law

America is an extraordinary experiment.

For nearly two and a half centuries, people representing countless religions, cultures, ethnicities and traditions have lived together under one constitutional system.

That system does not require us to believe the same things.

Quite the opposite.

You may be Christian.

You may be Jewish.

You may be Muslim.

You may be Hindu.

You may be Buddhist.

You may be an atheist.

You may belong to another faith entirely.

The Constitution protects that freedom.

But when someone enters public office, another principle becomes equally important.

The Constitution comes first in the exercise of governmental power.

An elected official does not take an oath to Christianity.

An elected official does not take an oath to Islam.

An elected official does not take an oath to Judaism.

An elected official does not take an oath to atheism.

Federal and state officials are constitutionally bound to support the Constitution.

That distinction is enormously important when discussing Sharia law and Muslim candidates for public office.

A Muslim American has precisely the same constitutional right to seek public office as a Christian American.

The Constitution settles that question explicitly.

Article VI prohibits religious tests for federal public office.

Therefore, saying that someone cannot serve because he is a "devout Muslim" would contradict the very Constitution we claim to defend.

But there is another question Americans absolutely have the right to ask.

Does this candidate accept the United States Constitution as the controlling civil authority of American government?

That question should be asked of everyone.

Suppose a Christian candidate announced:

"The Bible should replace the Constitution, and biblical religious law should become mandatory American civil law."

Americans should challenge that candidate.

Suppose a Muslim candidate announced:

"The Quran and Sharia should supersede the Constitution, and Islamic religious law should become mandatory American civil law."

Americans should challenge that candidate.

Suppose an atheist announced:

"Religious Americans should lose their constitutional freedoms because religion should disappear from society."

Americans should challenge that candidate too.

The principle is not anti-Muslim.

It is pro-Constitution.

America doesn't require citizens to surrender their religion.

America requires government to operate within constitutional boundaries.

That is the line we should defend.

Sharia as Personal Faith Versus Government Law

This distinction is particularly important because "Sharia" is frequently discussed as though it means only one thing.

For Muslims, Sharia can encompass religious and ethical principles governing prayer, fasting, charitable giving, family behavior, diet and personal morality.

Americans are free to organize their personal religious lives around those principles.

A Jewish American may follow Jewish religious law.

A Catholic may follow Catholic doctrine.

A Baptist may follow biblical teachings.

A Muslim may follow Islamic teachings.

That is religious liberty.

The constitutional problem would arise if anyone attempted to transform religious doctrine into a competing governmental authority that superseded constitutional rights.

That cannot happen merely because someone believes God commands it.

Religious Freedom Works Both Ways

Sometimes we forget what religious liberty actually means.

It does not mean:

"My religion is protected, but yours isn't."

It means:

Government cannot decide which religion makes someone sufficiently American.

That protection is tremendously important for Christians.

Imagine an America in which Congress could announce that Catholicism was unacceptable for public officials.

Or Mormonism.

Or evangelical Christianity.

Or Judaism.

Once government receives the authority to decide which religions qualify people for citizenship or political leadership, religious freedom becomes dependent upon whoever controls government.

The Founders deliberately prevented that.

Article VI's prohibition against religious tests protects believers from government.

But Candidates Can Be Questioned About Their Beliefs

Religious freedom doesn't mean voters must ignore a candidate's political philosophy.

Quite the contrary.

If someone's beliefs affect how that person intends to exercise governmental power, voters have every right to ask questions.

Do you support the Constitution?

Do you support freedom of speech?

Do you support freedom of religion?

Do you believe Americans should be free to leave a religion?

Do you support equal protection under American law?

Do you accept American courts as the legitimate interpreters of American civil law?

Do you believe religious law should ever supersede the Constitution?

Do you believe government should punish Americans for violating religious commandments that aren't violations of American law?

Those are legitimate questions.

And they should be asked without regard to the candidate's religion.

There Cannot Be Two Supreme Laws

America cannot function with competing supreme governmental authorities.

Article VI establishes the Constitution, federal laws enacted pursuant to it, and treaties under U.S. authority as the supreme law of the land.

That means a state cannot simply declare itself superior to the Constitution.

Neither can a church.

Neither can a mosque.

Neither can a synagogue.

Neither can a religious tribunal.

Americans may voluntarily seek religious guidance in their private lives, provided ordinary laws and constitutional rights are respected.

But ultimately American civil authority remains American civil authority.

There is one constitutional order.

Muslims Are Not a Monolith

This point is equally important.

There are millions of Muslims with enormously different political and theological beliefs.

It would be inaccurate to assume that because someone practices Islam, that person necessarily wants to impose an Islamic government upon America.

The same reasoning would produce absurd conclusions about Christians.

Christians disagree about theology, abortion, marriage, taxation, immigration, foreign policy and virtually every other political question imaginable.

Muslims likewise hold diverse views.

Evaluate individuals according to what they actually advocate.

America's Christian Heritage

There is no reason Americans must erase Christianity's enormous contribution to American history.

Christian ideas influenced American culture, morality, abolitionism, charitable institutions, education and countless individual Americans.

Many important figures in America's history understood their lives through Christianity.

That heritage deserves recognition.

But appreciating America's Christian heritage is different from claiming that the Constitution established Christianity as the country's official religion.

It didn't.

Indeed, Article VI's religious-test prohibition is one of America's earliest constitutional protections for religious pluralism.

That protection ultimately strengthened Christianity as well.

Churches didn't need government permission to preach.

Americans didn't need government permission to worship.

Faith could flourish independently of government control.

The Same Standard for Everyone

Here is the standard America needs:

Believe whatever your conscience tells you to believe.

Worship freely.

Pray freely.

Read your sacred texts.

Attend your church, synagogue, mosque or temple.

Or attend none at all.

But when exercising governmental authority, obey the Constitution.

A Christian president doesn't get a different Constitution.

A Jewish senator doesn't get a different Constitution.

A Muslim governor doesn't get a different Constitution.

An atheist judge doesn't get a different Constitution.

Everyone operates under the same law.

Conclusion: The Constitution Is the Common Ground

America does not need to become a Christian theocracy.

America does not need to become an Islamic republic.

America does not need to become an atheist state.

America needs to remain America.

Our greatest strength isn't that every American believes the same thing.

We don't.

Our strength is that people who disagree profoundly can nevertheless live together under a constitutional system protecting everyone.

That means protecting Christians.

It means protecting Jews.

It means protecting Muslims.

It means protecting atheists.

And it means protecting Americans from governmental establishment or imposition of religion.

There is nothing inconsistent about simultaneously saying:

A Muslim has every right to hold public office.

And:

Islamic religious law cannot supersede the United States Constitution.

Both propositions arise from the same constitutional principle.

Likewise:

A Christian has every right to hold public office.

But Christianity cannot simply replace the Constitution as America's civil legal system.

Our loyalty as citizens is not measured by whether we attend the same house of worship.

It is measured politically by our commitment to the constitutional order that permits all of us to live together.

So when someone runs for political office, don't ask:

"Is this person Muslim?"

Ask:

"Will this person uphold the Constitution?"

Don't ask:

"Does this person pray differently than I do?"

Ask:

"Will this person defend my right to pray as I choose?"

Don't ask:

"Does this person's sacred book look like mine?"

Ask:

"Will this person defend my freedom to read mine?"

And if any candidate, from any religion, tells America:

"My religious law stands above your Constitution, and when I acquire political power I intend to impose that religious law upon you,"

then voters have discovered something enormously important about that candidate's political philosophy.

The objection shouldn't be:

You belong to the wrong religion.

The objection should be:

No religious authority gets to replace the Constitution.

That distinction isn't political correctness.

It is constitutional consistency.

The prohibition against religious tests is part of the Constitution we are defending.

The supremacy of the Constitution is part of that same Constitution.

We cannot defend one by violating the other.

America's formula is actually beautifully simple:

Freedom of religion for everyone.

Religious government for no one.

One Constitution governing us all.

That protects the Christian.

It protects the Muslim.

It protects the Jew.

It protects the unbeliever.

Most importantly, it protects the American experiment itself.

The Constitution comes first.

Bill Conley