In several cases, federal courts have rejected the constitutionality of laws and policies on the ground that they have an exclusively religious purpose. Part of the courts’ analyses relies on the apparent religious motives of the policy’s sponsors or citizen-supporters to conclude that the law or policy has a religious purpose. However, the federal courts have also embraced the principle that no citizen’s religious beliefs may be employed by the government to disqualify that citizen from either public office in particular or political participation in general. If a motive is a type of belief that contributes causally to a person’s actions, Francis Beckwith asks, is not the religious motive analysis a type of “religious test for office” prohibited by the Constitution’s Article VI? When applied to citizens, doesn’t this analysis limit the political rights of citizens based on their beliefs, which is a clear violation of Supreme Court precedent? Please join us for a lecture by Beckwith addressing these pressing questions facing our nation.
