Steve Waldman, editor-in-chief of Beliefnet, opines that faith belongs in politics.
An excerpt (but read the whole thing):
The Left and Right have both followed the advice of the Founding Fathers at different points in history. Abolitionism and the civil-rights movement — two moral highpoints of our history — were driven by people attempting to impose their religious views on others. So is the right-to-life movement.
And some advice for those who speak out on issues of faith and morality:
There is, however, a problem with the way some religious conservatives approach the political sphere. The problem is not dogmatism, but laziness. Someone who rests the argument for a certain position entirely on the fact that his religion told him to is not really attempting to persuade. Even if one is motivated by faith, one still has to convince others using secular, or at least broad-gauge, moral arguments.
Earlier this week, in a Beliefnet article, Breakthrough for Nonbelievers, discussing Ron Reagan's speech at the DNC, Joe Conn, spokesman for Americans United for the Separation of Church and State says, "The polls continue to show that a lot of Americans are uncomfortable electing a non-believer, It's almost a de facto religious test,..." referring to the Constitutional prohibition of a religious test. Trouble is, he is wrong in his understanding of the Constitution. The Constitutional reference is a restriction of government power, not a restriction of individual liberty. No person can be considered ineligible to run for office because of their religion, but people are free to vote for whatever reasons they wish, including their religion and faith beliefs.