No, religion should not be in politics. I have absolutely no problem with politicians or anyone else being religious, and if religion provides them with a strong personal moral code to stand by, that's great! In my opinion though, the problem here is that laws (and politics in general) are meant to be "objective" (via google: "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts"), whereas in many ways, religion is too "subjective" ("based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.")

This is not very insightful in people intelligence.

Religion is part of someone. Even if their not overly religious, its part of what formed their opinions, their parents opinions. It is the internal guide to their reflexes and responses. Religion is that moral thread in families determining right from wrong. That you pass down as naturally as your genes.

Religious morals govern most people's conscious. Its the line you won't cross. Even if that line erodes in life some, which it does..it's stll the line you won't cross.

You can't seperate a person from what makes them who they are.

I think just by being in some positions, you would have to be able to make tough decisions in an objective unemotional manner regardless of religion.

Separating emotion from an objective decission is a leadership skill.

I wouldnt call that a separation or removal of religious influence in someone's decissions.

I personally want someone leading that has a discernable religious conscious.

I am realistic, religion within is just check and balances, its not perfect.

But it's that good part in us, the part that honors high moral standards.

Even if you miss the mark, aiming, even caring to aim is better than not aspirng to good values.

accountability to a higher standard then themselves. Answering to something bigger than themselves.

Here in the U.S., so many people have so many different ideas about religion and how life should be lived. If a country is being ruled with a single religion's doctrines in mind, then that country will most likely be ruled somewhat subjectively by that particular religion. This means they could intentionally or unintentionally be imposing that religion's ethical code on people who don't follow that religion.

On the other hand, with politics dissociated from religion, it's intended to be objective, where it has more to do with what at least most of the general population would consider to be basic human rights. Does this mean that religion in politics doesn't address basic human rights and would always be bad? No, not necessarily, but my point is that it would be very difficult to make it work, and VERY easy for it to go horribly wrong.

We don't want a theocracy or a law of doctrine. We want separation of church and state.

But they outlined a lot of that in the beginning. They had a pretty good idea of what they didnt want.

We are overboard in our thought or understanding of the separation of church and state.

It didn't mean there is no incluence of God in government. Not of doctrine.

Like, the Mormons believe in many wives, well their doctrine is in opposition to law. So church doctrine doesnt supercede law. It also means state can't come in church and make church governing decissions. And if grievances occurr when tried in court, one can't be in favor of 1 and not the other because of religion. State is neutral.

Its pretty much that simple.

Conclusion: Too many people have too many different ideas about religion to make it a solid foundation for a political system that affects EVERYONE. A secular system like we have tries to be more objective and maintain laws that are fair to the majority of people, without being subjective to their particular beliefs.

Religious affiliation doesnt matter to much, we won't become a theocracy.

We will always argue moral choices of law, like abortion.

Again you cant separate our values from political life. If you did, it would be worse.

I have to say, religious morals hasnt been the downturn of our country, its actually Secular Humanism that is weakening America.

The absence of faith and living without a religious barrier. Religious faith is that moral standard you try not to go to far away from.

And thats what we want for our leaders

You can't twist law to coform to a religious belief. And you can't create a law in respect of a religion. Thats not Constitutional.

Your post is almost crazy paranoid, when really its the other way around that is more likely concern. It's an absurd line of thought.

Its like you all don't know what to yell about next.

There is no such thing as making society conform to a narrow view of Religion through Government. What would religion force that is a narrow view?

Cultural standards of right and wrong, moral authority, kindness and charity are defined from something and from somewhere. And your concience is your adjuster, it keeps you within acceptable standards, its your bar you reach for.

It also the standard inside yourself that corrects you when you go below acceptable standards.

If you gathered these values from your Christian parents, whether you like it or not, it was the cultural influence that defined your concious. You answer to something inside.

Our laws are based on moral concience of right and wrong, as defined within Judeo Christian standards of morality.

The value of human life, the freedom of choice by free will, judicial fairness in trials and punishment, the golden rule, rights, tolerance, promises, responsibilities, actions, and reactions.

High standards and also low standards of conduct are defined within you by the acceptable norm of cultural standards.

Separation of Church and State doesn't have very much to do with standard of right and wrong. We don't create laws based on a specific religion, and we don't allow specific religious doctrine to apply when in contradiction to law.

Issues of Abortion and gay marriage, you don't have to be religious to agree or disagree with either of these.

AborUntion from an economic standpoint is wasteful, and morally, I personally believe life starts at conception.

I oppose abortion beyond the morning after pill.

And birthcontrol is both economically sound and morally sound.

But these issues are neither religious government or secular government.

We are not secular. We have moral roots that define our basic definition of right and wrong, and fair and unfair. And that is the standard of cultural norm in American society. None of like when people don't keep an acceptable level of our cultural standard. We apply our law as common sense, a guide of concience.

How often do we have to look up a law to tell us right or wrong. And how often does society punish through the courts when someone is acting in good concience according to our cultural norm?

Even atheists who come from a family of atheist, in America, are governed by the cultural norm of right and wrong, which is based on values with roots in Judaism and Christianity.

Look at Israel, predominately high moral standards and high values regarding life. The standard of cultural norm of right and wrong, is very different than the countries that surround them.

Look at countries that surround them, more serial killers in 1 area the size of a town than all of America has born in a lifetime.

I agree, I'm still waiting for someone who is openly atheist to run for president.

This country is a place of diverse beliefs. Everyone doesn't share the same religious beliefs, therefore, we CANNOT include religion into politics. We can't incorporate everyone's faith so that means we shouldn't incorporate anyone's. Besides, there is a separation of church and state. Politics should be based upon logic, not religion. It's not fair to those who don't believe in religion.

This nation is a region of differing opinions. Everyone doesn't share the same religious beliefs, therefore, we won't include practices into politics. We can't integrate the worlds beliefs so that suggests we couldn't integrate any human being. Besides, there is a split of sanctuary and the authority. Judges should be based upon science, not belief. It's not unbiased to those who refuse believe in doctrine.