Some Americans will vote for political candidates, or against, on the basis of the candidates’ religious beliefs or faith. We must allow this to be both legal and correct in the sense that no law stipulates the basis on which votes are to be cast. Such is a civil right, and we do not ask that a voter defend his or her decision. Oughtness, however, is not so simple because the exercise of civil rights isn’t necessarily morally right. If we feel we ought to factor religious beliefs into our voting decisions, we are logically obliged to be certain we understand candidates’ beliefs and have a reasonable understanding how they might affect performance in public office.

The classic instance of a religious test, of course, was the 1961 candidacy of Senator John F. Kennedy, a Roman Catholic, for the presidency. Prejudices were encouraged by centuries of despotic Catholic rule in most European and Latin American countries. Suspicions were fueled by the fact the entire Kennedy clan was not only characteristically Irish in culture but conspicuously committed religiously.

Many people voting next week don’t remember the conflict, because they weren’t even alive. Many who were have simply forgotten the fears, suspicions, prejudices, and hostility of that day. We need to remember them: We thought we understood JFK’s religion then while few actually did.

First, many non-Catholics, and even some Catholics, failed to understand the current political perspective of the Roman Catholic Church itself. They didn’t even know what it was by then, much less understand. If one was worried about the Pope and the Vatican, he should have looked more closely at American Catholics and American Catholic clergy. History has recorded nothing of the dire predictions many made.

Second, most failed to understand Kennedy himself. However good a Catholic he was, first and foremost he was a politician. He would let nothing, even his church, interfere with his political agenda. I don’t think he never had to choose between them.

The considerations of 1961 are not factors in the 2008 presidential contest, but we should have learned something from our earlier experience. Principal among them is to be accurately informed and to decide with understanding.

Only Senator Joe Biden is Roman Catholic, but I recognize nothing that would suggest this to be a factor for serious consideration. Nor have

I heard anyone make such an attempt. Sen. Barack Obama, Sen. John McCain and Gov. Sarah Palin have all made definite and frequent references to their religious faith and several times have answered specific questions about it.

I’ll not repeat them, because they have been well reported and remain available for review.

Another reason for not getting into them here is the great difficulty in assessing what we have heard within the context of political campaigning. This is a hazardous context in which to analyze something as intimate as personal religious faith. Politics pressure candidates to declare what a particular audience wants to hear and to do so it in the way most effective with the particular audience. All four are very good at this. This is not to question anyone’s sincerity or honesty, but to be realistic about the political process.

I caution against voting for someone because you think you agree with what you think is his or her religion, because we can find no necessary connection between professed religious beliefs and political behavior. I think we should be able to recognize such, but we can’t.

I am not willing to assert any opinion about the correctness or sincerity of any of these four relative to their personal religious faith. For my part, religious considerations per se will have little if any part in my choice.

Consider candidates’ personal religion while voting, if you will, but let your consideration be informed, intelligent, and fair. Above all, let it be not to satisfy your preference but to benefit our nation.