[I]n a pluralistic democracy with no established religion, the most important factor to consider for a candidate to the presidency is not his or her religious affiliation but a conformity to natural law…a consistent respect for life, liberty, families, rights to associate and develop communal relations, rights to education and knowledge.

The presidents of the United States have been affiliated with an immense variety of religious denominations. Numerous presidents in the past have been Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist or Unitarian. Five or six (if we count Barack Obama at present) would be categorized as non-denominational. There have been a couple of Quakers, a couple of Dutch Reformed and Disciples of Christ, a few Congregationalists and one Roman Catholic.

Is there any case in which the religious commitment of a president (or lack of it) seriously affected religion in general or national policies?

Arguably Thomas Jefferson’s 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists interpreting the First Amendment as constructing a “wall of separation between church and State” has risen to the status of the official interpretation, rather than Jefferson’s personal opinion.

George Washington’s Episcopalianism presumably set the stage for acceptance of more Episcopalians in the presidency (12) than members of any other denomination.

Richard Nixon’s Quaker affiliation didn’t seem to instill any pacifist leanings in him, and he did take the oath of office, which was not in line with traditional Quaker customs.

Dwight Eisenhower’s pacifist parentage did not seem to have any effect on his war policies.

John Kennedy’s election helped open the door to possible future Catholic presidents.
A “card-carrying” atheist might be an obstacle to the public manifestation of religion, starting with the oath of office, and to the “bully pulpit” for a citizenry made up of motley groups of theists.

A Scientologist president, basing his “religious” beliefs on the teachings of L. Ron Hubbard would almost certainly have difficulty offering respect and recognition of the God worshipped by Christians. So also for a Buddhist, Hindu or Muslim president.

Some Mormons claim to be Christians, but the Mormon “trinity” is a flesh-and-blood evolving trinity nothing like the Christian Trinity. And, more problematic, Mormonism is based on the doctrine of the early apostasy of all Christians – especially Catholics (see the Book of Mormon, 1 Nephi 13:5,6 and 13:26).

Could a Mormon conscientiously take the oath of office on a Bible? And if the presidential candidate is a Mormon bishop, as is Mitt Romney, this adds a new dimension to the “bully pulpit.” Certainly such a bishop-president would have enhanced authority for Mormon believers. How would such a situation jibe with the separation of church and state?

Mike Huckabee, an ordained Baptist minister, was a candidate in the 2008 presidential election, and questions were raised about the appropriateness of a minister-president. The United States has never had an ordained minister as president, although there seems to be no explicit constitutional provision against this possibility.

But aside from such belief-hurdles, in a pluralistic democracy with no established religion, the most important factor to consider for a candidate to the presidency is not his or her religious affiliation but a conformity to natural law, which is to be expected of all persons aside from religion or lack of religion. By conformity to natural law, I mean a consistent respect for life, liberty, families, rights to associate and develop communal relations, rights to education and knowledge.

Minimal expectations for alignment with natural law might include the following: respect and promotion of family values; respect for all citizens and their legitimate aspirations; efforts to build up reasonable governmental structures and prevent injustices; and support for education and politically or culturally relevant free speech.

Howard P. Kainz, PhD, is professor emeritus in the Philosophy Department at Marquette University. His most recent book is “The Existence of God and the Faith-Instinct.” This Op-Ed piece previously appeared at the Milwaukee

Journal-Sentinel and is used with his permission.