Much of the present debate over public expressions of religion arose out of an increase in appeals to religion for the advancement of public policy positions. For example, President Bush has used denominationally-specific religious language to advance the so-called “faith based initiative” and to build support for the military invasion of Iraq and continued support for the war in Iraq, speaking to a convention of Christian broadcasters about the war as a component of one of the high moral hours in American history and of the faith-based initiative as a means of advancing biblically-based transformation. The use of religious rhetoric for such purposes is fraught with complications and problems.

Certainly religion and morality have a role to play in shaping public opinion on public policies. However, since government should never be a vehicle for establishing the sectarian views of any religion, government is best strengthened when religions focus their support on the core values of democracy—those values that advance the public good not the legislative agenda of a particular religion, those values that represent secular expressions of common religious convictions. Religious appeals for the support of civil rights differ dramatically from sectarian persuasion aimed at building support for government vouchers to finance religious education.

Religious people, whether as advocates for a specific public policy or campaign leaders for a particular politician running for elected office, should advance their opinions regarding public policy in a manner reflective of respect for a religiously pluralistic nation and for a government that has pledged its support for the guarantee of no establishment of religion.

Religion as a motivator for the support of a particular public policy agenda is perfectly understandable and appropriate. However, religion is inappropriate when used as the tool to gain support for that agenda. Once religion-based initiatives are introduced into the political process, those initiatives should be subject to the same critical evaluation, slings, and arrows that greet any other political initiative. Pointing to a religious motivation or claiming religious authority for a certain political position does not exempt that position from the scrutiny and criticism that are a vital part of the political process.

I find it in the best interest of my personal faith to support a government that is secular. I come to that conviction not because of a low view of religion but because of my passionate conviction about the importance of religion. I do not want the government advancing my faith or any faith, religion over non-religion or non-religion over religion.

That being said, I would not attempt to silence a politician who chooses to speak of her or his religious convictions. Actually, I think it is healthy for all of us to speak of our religion when it is natural to do so. In a political campaign, a candidate’s reference to his or her religion can be a valid and helpful form of self-identification. However, when a politician suggests that her or his religion should be a primary reason for people to elect him or her to public office, I insist on probing questions: What role will religion play in your decision-making on legislative issues and foreign policy? Will you use your elected office as a base from which to advance your particular religion?

I also have grave difficulties with politicians who fill their campaigning for public office with speeches devoted to sectarian-specific theologizing and activities aimed at using religious education as a cover for partisan persuasion. I find Mr. Obama’s electoral “faith clubs” as disturbing as his Sunday sermons in which he asks Christian congregations to pray for his ability to bring in “the kingdom.” I am appalled at a senior Senator who declares that the United States Constitution established the United States as a “Christian nation” as Senator McCain opined. I find problematic Mr. Romney’s suggestion that freedom depends on religion. Mr. Huckabee’s suggestion that the words of the Bible should replace words of the Constitution frightens me as does his easy identification with divine power as the driving force of his campaign. I continue attempts to change Senator Clinton’s mind about her support for the faith-based initiative.

In the most religiously pluralistic nation in the world, some candidates for the White House seem to aspire more to the position of pastor-in-chief than commander-in-chief. Those who want to lead our nation seem to be among the worst offenders in efforts related to remove the religious freedom clauses from the First Amendment and to lift Article VI completely out of the Constitution. Support for an unqualified freedom for public expressions of religion is open to serious question in my mind. What is the purpose? Is the expression a matter of public witness, of political strategy, or of proselytism? It makes a difference! Let us not forget that not all people who use religious language are really religious and not all people who are really religious use religious language.

Religion has a vital, public role to play in the life of this nation. But it ought not be one that spawns deep divisions, seeks the establishment of a theocracy in which one person or party claims the role of “Theo,” threatens the constitutional provisions of religious liberty, seeks to negate the beauty and the blessing of religious pluralism, or elevates one religion to a status that disparages all who do not embrace it.