When Keith Ellison, the first Muslim ever elected to Congress, announced that he would take his oath of office by swearing on a Koran, Americans were outraged. Popular talk show host Dennis Prager said it was “an act of hubris … that undermines American civilization.” A few months later, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney became the first Mormon to run for president. This time, the press kept asking whether Americans would vote for someone whose religious beliefs were not mainstream Christian. These events call to mind the constitutional requirement that there be no religious test for public office.

More than 200 years ago, our founding fathers attempted to forestall such questions about the faith of elected public servants. In Article VI of the Constitution, they addressed the honor and commitment that elected officials should render to the Constitution, by swearing or affirming to uphold it. This established the new nation on a foundation of respect for individual conscience. Quakers, particularly, did not swear oaths. Nor was it considered desirable for agnostics or skeptics to swear an oath on a Bible they did not believe in. By allowing an oath or affirmation, the Constitution respected the rights of conscience of all who might serve in elective office.

Article VI next declared that there be “no religious test for public office.” Religious tests for elected offices were common in colonial days, and survived in most states after the Revolution. Public officials were required to declare their fealty to God, to the Christian faith, or to articles of faith. In the new national government, no such test would be imposed. The drafters understood that this meant any Quaker, Jew, Catholic, Muslim, Hindu, or infidel could be elected. This is exactly the sort of nation they intended to create.

Keith Ellison’s critics missed a golden opportunity to celebrate the genius of the American constitution. Article VI requires elected officials to swear an oath in order to impress upon them their solemn duty to uphold the Constitution. For a Muslim, the Koran serves this purpose far better than a Bible. It makes no more sense to ask a Muslim to swear on a Bible, than to ask a Christian to swear an oath on the Baghavad Gita, a Hindu holy scripture.

Meanwhile, those questioning Mitt Romney’s Mormonism ought to heed the wisdom of our founding fathers. “No religious test” may not bind the prejudices of the people in choosing for whom to vote, but its spirit should guide us. We can evaluate a candidate’s public policy positions on the merits, knowing they have been shaped by religious values. But it is not necessary to judge the candidate’s faith. We want to know whether a candidate has the experience, the judgment, and the character to serve effectively. Whether they are Mormon, Jewish or Christian doesn’t answer that question.

It is wrong to reject Mitt Romney because he is a Mormon. Every candidate has the right to be judged on the merits. Religious differences should not enter into the ballot box. This is the kind of nation the founding fathers sought to create in adopting our Constitution. Two hundred years later, the questions remain: are we worthy to inherit this freedom? And can we sustain it?