First, let me say that I am a Christian. I believe in God, I put my faith in God, and I believe that the Bible is His Word. I am not religious, but I am spiritual--religion is man's invention, the Spirit and Soul are God's. Now, let me say that I am also a Liberal Democrat. I am pro-choice (NOT anti-life), anti-war, and in general I think that Barack Obama has some pretty nifty ideas.
Some people might call that contradiction. I call it compartmentalising.
I do not let my spiritual beliefs dictate my political standpoints. I am pro-choice, but I would encourage any of my friends to consider all options before terminating a pregnancy. Ultimately, though, it is HER decision, and no one else's. I believe that if we are going to tell women they MUST carry pregnancies to term, then we ought to take responsibility for the decision we made for them (i.e. we have to take care of her children as well as we feel she should). I believe in the sanctity of life, and would be seriously tormented if faced with an unwanted pregnancy, but I cannot say what I would do. It would be a decision made in prayer, between me and God and no one else.
I am anti-war. Religion, man's most dangerous invention, has been a large cause of more bloodshed throughout history than any other. Despite President Bush's official reasons for entering into the wars we now find ourselved in, religious difference remains a driving factor. It allows the average American to separate "them" from "us". "We" are not like "them". They are evil, extremists, zealots. We are good Christian people bringing American freedom and religion to the poor savages. One question: if we are trying to bring them so much good, why are we killing civilians? I believe that if we really want to convert anyone, there are many better ways to do that than to kill their loved ones... You know, like... prayer? Sounds silly, taking a peaceful route to ministry, but I think that the angry hellfire-and-brimstone preachers seldom cause many people to convert.
So, what place should religion have in our nation, whose Constitution guarantees freedom of religion?
"None" is not a good answer. The religious often have a set of morals, often dictated by their religion. While we may not all agree on the fine details of those morals, we can agree on the basics. Religion can serve as sort of a deterrant against many crimes. If people believe that a certain higher power awaits to bring them retribution, they have more incentive to follow the rules than if they believe that the only people who will be pissed off are the government. (By the way, I know this probably sounds more coherent in my mind than written out... I apologize. I'm tired, but I need to get this off my chest.)
"Everywhere" is an even worse answer. Religion is an individual choice. If you want to join the church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, more power to you. If an FSM follower wants to run for president, may he do better in the polls than John McCain. If s/he decides that s/he will impose FSMism as the official religion of the US, we have a problem. A candidate's religion should affect his or her political standpoints only to the point where it provides a moral structure, not to the point where he or she condemns any naysayers.
So, where does that leave us? I believe our politicians and candidates should make their faiths known, so that we know the basic set of moral values on which they are basing their actions. However, I do not believe that any person's religious or spiritual beliefs should be the deciding factor in whether or not they are elected. For a while, there was a rumor that Barack Obama was a Muslim. I asked, "So what?" The answer I got was that Muslims are extremists, and that if he was a Muslim, then he would support the terrorists. Vastly inaccurate. The Quran prescribes a peaceful, devout lifestyle, as well as tolerance. It is just as easy to become a Christian extremist as to become a Muslim extremist. All you have to do is take one passage of your Holy Text too seriously and ignore a few other key passages.
I believe that the people with whom a candidate associates is important. However, I don't believe we should base our judgment of a candidate solely on every single person to whom s/he has ever spoken. How many of us know, respect, and are even friendly with people with whom we disagree? I know, for instance, that I strongly disagree with many of my friends on many issues. I also know that I do not always (okay, I seldom) agree with my pastor in all his sermons.
Anyway, the entire point of this is that mixing religion and politics is like mixing a spark with a fuse that leads to a pile of dynamite. It could totally blow you to smithereens, or it could not... but it still doesn't have much benefit.
