* WELCOME HOUSTON CHRONICLE READERS! *

I've once again been struck by the ignorance that abounds in the media regarding the Constitution and what it means when it uses certain terms. It is as if there is an intentional rejection of the history of certain words and phrases, in the interest of getting a story.

Take this comment from none other than Bob Novak, who should know better (after all, he covered the Constitutional Convention along with Helen Thomas)

The U.S. Constitution prohibits a religious test for public office, but that is precisely what is being posed now. Prominent, respectable Evangelical Christians have told me, not for quotation, that millions of their co-religionists cannot and will not vote for Romney for president solely because he is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. If Romney is nominated and their abstention results in the election of Hillary Rodham Clinton, that's just too bad. The evangelicals are adamant, saying there is no way Romney can win them over.

Romney is well aware that an unconstitutional religious test is being applied to him, but he may be seriously minimizing the problem's scope as limited to relatively few fanatics. He feels the vast majority of conservative voters worried about his faith will flinch at the prospect of another Clinton in the White House. But such a rational approach is not likely to head off a highly emotional collision of religious faith and religious bias with American politics.

No, Bob, there is no "unconstitutional religious test" being applied to Romney, based upon what you have written in this column.

As used in the COnstitution, the term "religious test" refers to oaths or actions that are required of a citizen BY GOVERNMENT before they might hold office or receive some government benefit. Such tests existed to one degree or another in most of the colonies prior to the Revolution, and were common in England into the 1800s. Many of them were directed at Catholics, and required that the officeholder take an oath that they rejected the authority of the pope and certain "false and pernicious doctrines" which were part of the Catholic faith. Quakers and Baptists were also often targetted by such oaths. The prohibition, therefore, is one on GOVERNMENT ACTION, not private action.

Unless I missed something in the Novak piece, no such religious test is being required by government.

What is happening, for better or for worse, is that questions are being raised in some minds about voting for a Mormon, given that faith's divergence from certain historical doctrines of the Christian faith. Now I've never heard such questions raised in the Republican or religious circles in which I run, but the media keeps telling me that they are. But assuming that they are, that does not constitute a violation of the prohibition on religious tests -- for the Constitution cannot and does not dictate what factors may be considered by individual citizens when they enter the voting booth, as the individual vote of a citizen is most decidedly NOT a government action.

Which is not to say that I approve of those who would let Romney's religion enter into their calculations. If it goes on, I find it offensive -- just as I did when Ted Kennedy raised the religious issue against Romney when he was the GOP nominee for Senate.