Religion affects stance on issues; why separate church and state?

Luke Wake / Columnist

It is ludicrous to argue, as many secularists do today, that elected leaders should set aside their religious beliefs when they make policy decisions.  To be fair, there is some logic to their notion that you should not force your values upon others.  Our great nation protects every individual’s right to believe what he or she wishes to believe.  Separation of church and state mandates that no state religion be forced upon us. 

It is then absurd for secularists to be crusading against religion.  With the ACLU and other such groups ordering cities to remove any reference to religion, one would think we lived in Red China, where religious freedoms aren’t protected.  The fact of the matter is that secularists are hostile toward religion and they seek to eliminate its face from every aspect of society; however, their crusade is not promoting freedom of religion at all but suppression of religion. 

This philosophy of anti-religious political action has been taken up by a minority of individuals who wish to impose their will over the majority.  They do not uphold the values of democracy when they promote atheism as the state religion.  Surely separation of church and state does not translate to: our government shall promote the values of the atheist faith.  Still, some people seem to believe just that.  They believe that religious values should have no place in American politics and that politicians should set aside their convictions and govern as atheists, so as to avoid imposing religious values.

Conversely, the secularist believes voters should set aside views on morality and cast votes as if they, too, were atheists.  This is, however, impossible for someone with true convictions.  You cannot separate your religious values from your political ideology; they are intrinsically intertwined.  If you have a spiritual belief it must be represented in your political ideology. 

If one believes in the sanctity of human life they cannot, with good conscience, vote against life by supporting someone who is pro-choice or pro-euthanasia.  If someone believes, spiritually, that marriage should be between a man and a woman, they cannot vote, in good conscience, for someone who does not share that value. 

To do so they must rationalize to make what they know is wrong seem right.  Many people try to justify voting against their principles, saying, ‘I don’t think this should be an issue’ or ‘I don’t think I should force my views on others,’ both of which are irrational sentiments.  You cannot justify ignoring a candidate’s stance on gay marriage or abortion by saying ‘I don’t think that should be an issue.’ Like it or not, they are issues.  The gay marriage debate has grown into a hot issue this year and in my opinion, abortion is still the greatest human rights crisis facing the world. 

Now, for a moment, contemplate the absurdity of John Kerry’s justification, of his 20-year voting record in the Senate, against life.  Kerry said, "I don't like abortion. I believe life does begin at conception. But I can't take my Catholic belief, my article of faith, and legislate it on a Protestant or a Jew or an atheist . . . who doesn't share it."  That statement tries to have it both ways but the Senator fails to realize that if you’re pro-choice, you’re not pro-abortions. As an elected official he has a solemn duty to do that which is best for his nation and not that which he believes will get him re-elected.  If he truly held a pro-life conviction he could not bring himself to support abortion in the least, but of course it still remains to be seen if Kerry holds any real convictions at all. 

In voting you voice your opinion by saying ‘I trust this candidate to uphold my values;’ logically you must then be voting for the candidate who best upholds your values.  We must also remember that we live in a republic, not a democracy, and our leaders are elected to represent the populace, but they must act according to their own conscience.  They have every right to govern with whatever value system they so choose.  The constitution protects their right to religion and they cannot be expected to separate religious beliefs from policy practice.  As voters we have a responsibility to elect officials who uphold our values; this is our most imperative duty as citizens and these are our most sacred rights.

Contact Luke Wake at pendulum@elon.edu or 278-7247.