IS AN IDEOLOGICAL TEST DESIRABLE for candidates for public office? During the 1700's, Great Britain did not let Roman Catholics enter Parliament, even if they were willing to swear allegiance to the Crown. (It should be remembered that it was unclear whether a Roman Catholic could so swear, in good conscience, since the Crown was not Roman Catholic.) This is thoughtlessly despised nowadays.

But suppose we had a machine that could detect whether a candidate for office thought it would be okay for himself to take a bribe if nobody would catch him. Would it not be desirable to use the machine to disqualify the candidate? How about a machine which could detect whether the candidate really wanted to subvert the Constitution? How about, then, a machine which could detect whether the candidate believed in price controls? Or, why not then a machine which could detect whether someone believed in God? These last three, of course, are desirable only for those of us who believe in God, think price controls are bad, and do not want to subvert the Constitution. But those of us in that group should use the machines if they are available.

The reason we do not use such tests is not that they are undesirable, but that we cannot agree on which ones are desirable. That, of course, is a very good practical reason, but in theory such tests are good, and in no way unjust.