The election of Andrew Scheer, a devout Catholic and social conservative, as Conservative party leader has raised a tricky question for journalists: How should they cover his religious beliefs, if at all?

People of faith have at least two reasons to be concerned when journalists begin reporting and commenting on religion. One is methodological. The other is sociological.

Journalism is an evidence-based craft and is, by definition, secular. A journalist cannot explain an event by saying God stepped in any more than a physicist or a chemist can do so. That doesn’t mean a journalist can’t hold religious convictions; it only means that those convictions aren’t a useful part of the journalistic method.

The other day, some old video surfaced on my Facebook feed. It was the TV coverage of the 1987 Edmonton tornado in which 27 people died. I was a local CBC reporter there at the time. I am embarrassed to admit that in reporting on some people whose house was destroyed, I said they “miraculously” escaped by taking refuge in their basement. It’s a well-known and scientifically defined phenomenon that tornadoes skip over lower ground — which is why you’re supposed to head to the basement if you see a tornado coming. No miracles necessary (even as metaphors).

Not surprisingly, some people of faith are suspicious of a craft that refuses supernatural explanations as a matter of principle.

As for the sociological reason … I don’t have any data to prove this, but I believe newsrooms disproportionately attract people who are skeptical about religion, just as they need to be professionally skeptical about everything else.

It is indisputable, I think, that many newsrooms are socially liberal places. In most, you will seldom hear a reporter express a personal view on tax rates, the size of the deficit or whether a carbon tax is preferable to cap-and-trade. But on abortion rights, gender rights and same-sex marriage, reporters are often quite open about their views, and dissenters tend to keep their opinions to themselves.

Fewer religious people in newsrooms also means fewer reporters with the experience of church, synagogue, mosque or temple that would help them understand religious community life or the details of specific religious beliefs.

But that should be a spur to better, more sophisticated coverage of religion, not an injunction to ignore the subject. I reject the idea that journalists can or should just ignore the religious thinking or motivation of politicians — that they should regard it as somehow off-limits.

According to the Pew Research Centre, 27 per cent of Canadians say their religion is very important in their lives. This is considerably higher than in most developed countries such as the U.K., Australia, France or Japan, though it’s much lower than the United States, where the number if 53 per cent.

In many religious faiths, adherents have a positive duty to bring their beliefs into the public sphere if they can. In one of his books, Preston Manning actually had a little glossary of terms drawn from his evangelical Christian tradition and the equivalent secular terms that could be used on the stump without getting people’s antennas up.

In a recent column, Andrew MacDougall, Stephen Harper’s former director of communications, warned Canadians to expect “anti-Christian sneers” from the Liberals, directed at Scheer. And it’s true that the Liberals used the crudest kind of rhetoric against Stockwell Day when he was leader of the Canadian Alliance, warning about “fundamentalism” and sending an aide to a TV studio armed with a stuffed ‘Barney the Dinosaur’ to mock his supposed beliefs on evolution.

Scheer is a Catholic — and not just a Sunday Catholic. Unlike most Catholics in Canada, according to surveys, he adheres to the church’s official teaching on matters of sexuality, abortion and homosexuality, and has voted those views as an MP. Scheer is a Catholic — and not just a Sunday Catholic. Unlike most Catholics in Canada, according to surveys, he adheres to the church’s official teaching on matters of sexuality, abortion and homosexuality, and has voted those views as an MP.

To the degree that these attacks worked, there was complicity by some journalists who were as uninterested as the Liberals were in the accuracy of these smears. It was all crazy good fun to mock Day’s unfamiliar beliefs — which extended, for example, to a ban on campaigning on Sundays. But Day also failed to explain how and in what ways his religion affected his political views, which they plainly did.

Scheer is a Catholic — and not just a Sunday Catholic, but one who lives his religion and is proud of it. Unlike most Catholics in Canada, according to surveys, he adheres to the church’s official teaching on matters of sexuality, abortion and homosexuality, and has voted those views as an MP.

The role that Catholicism plays, or wishes to play, in domestic politics was not just a hot topic in Constantine’s Rome and in the Reformation. In recent years, the Catholic Church has used the pulpit to promote political action supporting its views on sexuality as well as on peace, poverty and climate change. In parts of the world, it has squelched Liberation Theology and in others refused communion to Catholic politicians who defied the Church on abortion.

In the United States, John Kennedy (who, remarkably enough, remains the only Catholic ever to have been elected president) felt he needed to give a speech during his campaign in which he directly addressed his faith: “I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote …”

That certainly mischaracterized the Church’s position, but it was enough for the voters. Years later, when Mario Cuomo was considering a run for the presidency, he gave a remarkable speech in which he tried to reconcile his personal opposition to abortion, rooted in his Catholic faith, with his pro-choice position as a politician.

In Canada, Catholicism in politics is more common. It is not often remarked upon, but during the last half-century, every prime minister but two (Kim Campbell and Stephen Harper) has been a Catholic. That is every single Liberal, plus Joe Clark and Brian Mulroney. But most of them have, for whatever reason, not been influenced greatly by their faith when it came to law and policy, at least on the issues most urgent to the Church. Pierre Trudeau began the dramatic liberalization of Canada’s laws on divorce, abortion and homosexuality.

John Turner, it is true, agonized over the abortion issue, as did Paul Martin, for a time, over same-sex marriage. But they and their parties bent to the winds of political liberalism.

Andrew Scheer has promised not to re-open the abortion and same-sex marriage debates — a commitment he has explained in tactical terms by pointing to the need to avoid dividing the party or the country. But of course, that does not tell us anything about how he would approach new issues as they arise. (He has opposed transgender rights, for example.)

In the leadership race, Scheer was not the original favourite of social conservatives; they went first to Brad Trost and Pierre Lemieux, who promised not just to live their religion but to act on it in Parliament and in government. But as they were knocked off the ballot, their supporters gravitated to Scheer.

Some people may think this is a cheap shot, but I will note too that Scheer took the trouble in his victory speech to talk about “radical Islamic terrorism”. The significance here is that the debate over that phrase has turned partly on whether it is legitimate to link the acts of terrorists directly to their religious beliefs. Some people think we shouldn’t even have that discussion because bigots use it to smear all Muslims.

I guess Scheer and I agree on this much: To the extent that someone’s religious beliefs affect the world outside the home and the place of worship, they are a legitimate area of public and journalistic inquiry. If a politician’s beliefs — religious or ideological — inform political action, we want to know about it.

It would be good for democracy and the public if Scheer laid out his own detailed view in a speech, as JFK and Cuomo did. If he doesn’t, that’s no excuse for journalists to join in a smear, or to substitute their own ignorance for evidence, as they sometimes did with Stockwell Day.

But asking questions and evaluating answers is not just legitimate. It’s a journalist’s job.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.