Separation of church and state

Basically I never like writing about religion and the candidates. Part of it is in knowing religion is something in which many people find comfort. My own beliefs are not mainstream. I have written about them and won't go more into it except as it relates to politics. To be honst, I could more easily vote for an atheist than a religious zealot. That doesn't mean I would not vote for a religious person, but it would be with a caveat.

I think someone's spirituality should show up in their actions. I trust how I see people treat others, how they live their lives more than pious words. When I vote, it's never going to be on how close someone claims they are to god. In fact, that might be a deal breaker. I have known too many people who use religious jargon to gain power.

We are in the war in Iraq at least partly because GW Bush convinced himself and others that he could receive guidance and advice from his father in heaven therefore had no need to discuss diplomatic or war strategies with his father on earth. He has said god told him to run for president. Many people believed him, and it reassured them where it came to voting-- if god wants him, how can I say otherwise. Maybe he even believed himself.

Because of how the religious right is operating today in America, to write about an election, I can't avoid the subject of separation of church and state. Religion is one of those issues that can fall under character, temperament or issues unless it's all fraud when religion becomes a mask, a subterfuge.

I said I wouldn't vote for a zealot, but what about ordinary, everyday religious types? If they don't try to tell me it's why they should be elected, if they don't preach to me in every speech, if they aren't determined to foist their religion onto me, if their religion provides them community, security and stability, then it would not prejudice my vote.

To some voters, their view of religion in candidates would be the exact opposite of mine. They want to know the candidate's beliefs about god. They want that person's religious beliefs to fit comfortably with their own. While I might overlook religion, they would demand it. Some of this is from fear of what god might do to them if they elect the wrong person.

People like James Dobson foster this fear. Here is a letter he sent to his followers: What will happen in four years if Barack Obama is elected president. Naturally, the letter has made the email circuits. My daughter said when she got it, she sent back this question-- what no meteor strikes?

[Dobson makes a good case for a flat tax rate with no deductions for anything or at least making sure that any group like his are considered political action, not religions.]

If any presidential candidate was not openly Judeo-Christian, could they be elected today in the United States? I doubt it. Does this make sense? Not to me.

For the 2008 presidential election, we have four candidates who all claim to be Christians. Other than Joe Biden (practicing Catholic so does he have accountability for the pedophile priests? just kidding... kind of), the other three all have wacky pastors in their backgrounds one way or another.

Although McCain does not (that I know of) attend a fundamentalist church, he did request the endorsement of zealots who believe god brings bad things like terrorist attacks (and this wasn't just Jeremiah Wright but also Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell) or hurricanes to punish the wicked (John Hagee). I should add that the bad things strike innocent people not the wicked. Does god have bad aim?

With the current candidates, Sarah Palin is the religious zealot. Worth reading: Is Palin a Christian Nationalist? In reading anything about her religious beliefs, she sounds like someone who believes in a theocracy. She thinks she got the governorship because of a witch doctor's anointing; and if she ends up President Vice President, she will feel it was god's gift to her-- and the country, of course.

From the media coverage, you might get the impression that Christians are united behind one candidate and that's Palin, but the ones who most want Palin are what I call christianists-- a form of the Christian religion with little adherence to what Jesus actually taught. They get their religious ideas at least partly from an early fundamentalist, the Apostle Paul, who wrote most of the Letters of the Apostles to early Christians to explain what Jesus really meant.

[Paul had been a fundamentalist Jew, had a cathartic, religious experience on the road to Damascus that converted him to Christianity. He then set about changing the free form of Jesus's teachings from it's what is in your heart that matters most into something with rules, consequences and basically preparing it for a new church to take over power. I don't put down Paul for what he did. This is how he saw life and what he truly believed as he expounded on many things like women not teaching in the church, females wearing head coverings because Eve got fooled by the serpent and not Adam, and on and on with equal illogic which could lead to a book more than a blog.]

Whether people such as Dobson or Agee are Christians or christianists, I obviously cannot say for sure (but could hazard a guess), there are Christians who do favor Obama. Some of them have formed a group called Matthew 25 which takes marching orders from the Gospels, not the letters of the apostles.

To be honest, given my own views of religion today, you won't see me mentioning one of the pluses for Obama is that he's an ardent Christian, which I do believe he is. I give him credit however, that he seems to know the Bible and understands the heart of Christ's teaching, but I'd rather not hear sermons from politicians.

Repeating where I came in, I don't want any of these candidates to tell me I should vote for them because of the church they attend-- or don't.

The founding fathers, who knew something about religious persecution, had it right-- separation of church and state. That doesn't mean banning religion. It means not letting it be a reason for selecting leaders. It's way too easy to defraud with pious words followed by anything but ethical deeds.

Because it's such an important issue with many ramifications for citizens in our country, because I have a LOT of ideas on it, this is the first of three blogs on the subject of religion in politics. Coming soon will be the political ramifications of religion on two issues-- homosexuality and abortion.