Requesting that politicians disclose their religious beliefs serves but one purpose – to discriminate against them based on their religious beliefs.  This is the antithesis of what our Founding Fathers had in mind when they developed this “free nation.”

How does knowing whether a candidate is Jewish, Christian, Catholic or Muslim reveal their true worth as an effective politician? It really doesn’t. All it does is give some voters a false sense of security in knowing that they can vote for someone whose religious beliefs they are familiar with.

After the Declaration of Independence was signed, Americans became free of the religious confines of Great Britain. The 55 men who collaboratively developed the constitution intended to keep religion and politics separate. Article VI, section 3 of the Constitution states, “No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

Granted, this does not prevent voters from inquiring about politicians’ religious views and it certainly doesn’t prevent people from voting for a candidate based on religious beliefs. However, the article reveals that our Founding Fathers did not see a basis for factoring in one’s religious beliefs when searching for effective, qualified politicians.

In a religionandpolitics.org article titled “Let’s Focus On Policy, Not Just Theology,” Time magazine reporter Amy Sullivan revealed that more and more Americans are searching for political candidates that share their religious views. She wrote, “Since 2000, more than two-thirds of Americans have told Pew pollsters that they want their president to be a person of faith, effectively imposing a test of religious belief for candidates.”

Many feel that a politician’s religious views will reflect in their opinions on controversial issues such as gay marriage and abortion, as well as impact their political decisions on such topics.  This is not true. Politicians have compromised their religious beliefs in order to gain public approval.

Presidential candidate Mitt Romney has changed his view on abortion since becoming a front runner in the 2012 elections. Romney, a devout Mormon, initially said he was pro-life, and only changed his position after running for president.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has issued numerous statements on the subject of abortion that indicate the Mormon Church is more inclined to be pro-life.

The Mormon Church only condones abortion if it is deemed “necessary,” leading many to consider it a pro-life religion. The 1983 revised version of the LDS Church’s General Handbook states, “The Church opposes abortion as one of the most revolting and sinful practices of this day. Members must not submit to, be a party to, or perform an abortion. The only exceptions are the rare cases where, in the opinion of competent medical counsel, the life or health of the woman is in jeopardy or the pregnancy resulted from incest or rape. Even then, the woman should consider an abortion only after counseling with her husband and bishop or branch president, and receiving divine confirmation through prayer.”

Had Romney’s political standpoints truly reflected his religious beliefs the governor would have sustained his position of prochoice. Clearly, this is one instance where a politician’s religious beliefs were put on the back burner for the sake of political gain.

And if a politician were to remain true to his or her religious beliefs when pushing bills or passing legislature, how would that be fair to American citizens who don’t share those views?

As a conservative Christian, it wouldn’t be an imposition to have a politician passing laws that fit with my beliefs. But I doubt the agnostic, Muslim, or Buddhist would share the same feeling. Imposing religious based law on those that are not that religion would be an injustice.

While inquiring about a politicians religion is not the same as voting based on a politicians religion, It is human nature to trust those you can find familiarity with. Therefore, if we revealed every politician religion people could not help but discriminate against those whom do not share similar theology. All that would do is create another area in which voters could discriminate against capable and worthy politicians. This type of discrimination was something our Founding Fathers were trying to escape from—not create.