July 15, 2007	Sunday	Jamadi-us-Sani 29, 1428

WASHINGTON: Is it too late to draw a bright line in politics between the public’s right to know and a candidate’s right to privacy? Let’s hope there’s still time — though after reading last Saturday’s front-page New York Times story concerning Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s faith and her political life, I’m wondering if maybe the clock has run out.

It was one thing to read about Clinton’s Methodist upbringing and her role as a church youth-group member and Sunday school teacher. It wasn’t even surprising to learn how Clinton’s faith and her teaching on forgiveness helped her endure disclosures of her husband’s extramarital affairs. She’s discussed that before.

The article, however, also took us to ground seldom trod: a quiz about Hillary Clinton’s theological views.

I admit, vote-seeking politicians are usually the first to let it be known that they are persons of faith. And as a recent Times poll suggested, voters like their politicians, especially presidential candidates, to have strong religious convictions, even if they don’t share the same beliefs. The poll also indicated that beyond knowing whether a candidate is or isn’t a person of faith, most voters, while God-fearing, aren’t keen on mixing religion and politics.

For those who do care about such things, however, the Clinton interview was a veritable feast.

The story, and a transcript of the interview that accompanied the article online, revealed the extent of the inquisitiveness. Clinton was asked to respond to such questions as:

* “Tell us a little about that more personal side of your faith — what does it look like today in terms of spiritual habits? Do you read the Bible regularly, do you pray?”* “Do you believe in this personal relationship with God that some people talk about?”

* “What does that look like for you, and how do you feed that personal relationship with God?”

* “Do you believe that the resurrection of Jesus actually happened, that it actually historically did happen?”

* “And, do you believe on the salvation issue — and this is controversial too — that belief in Christ is needed for going to heaven?”

None of that, in my view, is necessary or important to determining a candidate’s fitness for office or stance on key issues. True, a politician’s view on public matters may well be informed by religious beliefs. But knowing where a candidate stands ought to be enough; where the candidate sits on the Sabbath is less important.

You want to know a presidential candidate’s views on abortion, stem cell research or assisted suicide? Go ahead and ask. But you can do so without next demanding to know the extent to which those views are influenced by religious affiliation. In fact, the answer to that question may be complicated if not unknowable. —Dawn/The Washington Post News Service