I Think I'm In Favor of the Separation of Religion and Presidential Campaigns

Is anyone else getting tired of the religion discussions in the presidential campaign? About all it does is pave the way for snide comments like this from Howard Fineman:

On the Republican side, meanwhile, the race is shaping up in an even more unexpected way: a contest between two former Northern moderates (Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney) for the right to take on a Southern Baptist preacher, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who believes in the inerrancy of Scripture but not in Darwinian evolution.

Eugene Robinson in the Washington Post is singing from the same liberal song sheet:

It would be ridiculous, in this day and age, to have a president who completely rejects evolution, saying to those who disagree, "If you want to believe that you and your family came from apes, I'll accept that." But at least he pledges not to try to keep schools from teaching accepted scientific truth.

Of course, these statements ignore the reality that Darwinian evolution is anything but scientific "truth" since, like human caused global warming, it can't be proven using the scientific method. At best it's consensus - at worst a terribly flawed theory.

Be that as it may, what possible difference does it make if the president believes in Darwinian evolution? I know there are some religious conservatives who actually consider that a qualifying factor, but not me. The president is not in charge of evolution or creation and if frankly doesn't matter what he thinks about either.

Charles Krauthammer is also tired of the endless religious discussion in this campaign:

WASHINGTON -- Mitt Romney declares, "Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone." Barack Obama opens his speech at his South Carolina Oprah rally with "Giving all praise and honor to God. Look at the day that the Lord has made." Mike Huckabee explains his surge in the polls thus: "There's only one explanation for it, and it's not a human one. It's the same power that helped a little boy with two fish and five loaves feed a crowd of 5,000 people."

This campaign is knee-deep in religion, and it's only going to get worse. I'd thought that the limits of professed public piety had already been achieved during the Republican CNN/YouTube debate when some squirrelly looking guy held up a Bible and asked, "Do you believe every word of this book?" -- and not one candidate dared reply: None of your damn business.

Instead, Giuliani, Romney and Huckabee bent a knee and tried appeasement with various interpretations of scriptural literalism. The right answer, the only answer, is that the very question is offensive. The Constitution prohibits any religious test for office. And while that proscribes only government action, the law is also meant to be a teacher.

In the same way that civil rights laws established not just the legal but also the moral norm that one simply does not discriminate on the basis of race -- changing the practice of one generation and the consciousness of the next -- so the constitutional injunction against religious tests is meant to make citizens understand that such tests are profoundly un-American.

Now, there's nothing wrong with having a spirited debate on the place of religion in politics. But the candidates are confusing two arguments.

The first, which conservatives are winning, is defending the legitimacy of religion in the public square. The second, which conservatives are bound to lose, is proclaiming the privileged status of religion in political life.

I don't think anybody is going to win if we insist on making our presidential campaign about religious beliefs. One of the most religious presidents in history was Jimmuh Carter and look at the legacy he gave us.

Let'e get back to a person's actual qualifications to do the job of president, and not when, how, where and to whom they pray.