There are two aspects of "the religious issue" in politics. The first is a candidate's personal religion and personal morality. The second is a candidate's attitude toward the separation of church and state and America's noble secular traditions.

Candidates should not be required to have led personal lives as pure as the driven snow. I'm not opposed to St. Rudy of the Twin Towers because he's had three wives. I'm opposed to him because his behavior as Mayor of New York City shows that (a) he never admits to mistakes; (b) he values personal loyalty over competence and honesty; i.e., his appointment of the now-indicted Bernard Kerik, whose shadiness was always common knowledge in New York; and (c) he is unwilling to listen to dissenters. I'm not opposed to Hillary Clinton because she tolerated an unfaithful spouse, but because her senatorial votes and public statements indicate that she has no courage to go against prevailing popular opinion and always tries to gloss over her previous actions and shift with the wind.

As for a candidate's professed religion, that makes no difference--as long as he or she upholds the separation of church and state. I'm not opposed to Mike Huckabee because he's a devout Christian, but because he's a Neanderthal Christian (even though he rejects any evolutionary relationship to Neanderthals) who doesn't "believe" in evolution. Does he "believe" in gravity? No doubt he also thinks that Tinker Bell didn't die because audiences clapped their hands.

Looking at the field of presidential candidates, I know that I will be voting for a Christian, but let it be a Christian who doesn't appropriate the image of the cross for campaign commercials. When I hear the talking heads on television praise Huckabee for his "sincerity," I wonder why anyone listens to their commentary. There are plenty of sincere fools in the world; this doesn't qualify them for the presidency. Huckabee's statement after the assassination of Benazir Bhutto was a classic in the presidential stupidity sweepstakes: he claimed that with the exception of Mexicans, Pakistanis accounted for more illegal immigrants to the U.S. than any other group. Confronted with immigration statistics demonstrating this was not true, he wasn't the least bit fazed by his gaffe; instead, he emphasized that he was a man of firm convictions. His convictions about immigration, like his rejection of evolution, are grounded in the kind of close-mindedness, in the religious or political sphere, that refuses to let any evidence interfere with faith.

And I'm not opposed to Mitt Romney because he's a Mormon but because, like Hillary Clinton, there doesn't seem to be anything he won't say, any position he won't fudge, in order to be nominated. I respect John McCain (though I disagree with his conservative Republican ideology) because he does not use religion as a tool to pander to the hard right in his party. He is who he is, take it or leave it--on immigration, on torture, on just about every issue you can name. Undoubtedly that is the main reason why he faces an uphill battle for the Republican nomination.

Religion in government or, to be precise, too much religion in government, ought to be a major issue in this campaign, especially in view of George W. Bush's federal judicial appointments, which have stacked the federal courts with right-wing Christians who display open contempt for
the separation of church and state. My guess is that Democrats will avoid church-state issues like the plague, since their own consultants have advised them that outspoken support for the separation of church and state can only lose them votes. How sad it is that we have departed so profoundly from the ideals of the founders, who established the world's first secular government. I believe that the Democratic Party has been badly served by consultants, such as Jim Wallis, the author of God's Politics, who have urged candidates to "get religion" and to justify their policies in terms of faith. Our problems, from the war in Iraq to growing income inequality and economic insecurity, have been created by humans and can only be solved by humans.

As for candidates who look to a "Higher Father" to shape their policies, Bush provides the perfect demonstration of what can be expected when a president listens to the voice of God instead of the voice of reason. I want a president who doesn't confuse his own desires with the will of God.