American nation is very religious and, consequently, religion has long played at least something of a role in political campaigns. The United States is the first country in the world history to build its society on the basis of the separation between church and state. It is one of America’s unique presents to civilization and the main guarantor of our religious liberty.

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is the cornerstone of American freedom. It states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.

However, the role of religion role has been getting larger and larger in the last two decades. Religion has become a direct, self-conscious force in the political life. The consequences of blurring the line between religion and politics have brought new groups into politics, altered party coalitions, and influenced political campaigns and election results. Religious institutions have become more actively engaged in politics. These days, many candidates seem to be running specifically as religious candidates, asking voters to support them for religious reasons.

Although most of Americans welcome religion to the nation’s political life, they feel ambivalent about the extent and contours of that involvement. More people are comfortable with churches discussing social and political matters, yet the majority admitted being uncomfortable with members of the clergy embracing their political views from the pulpit. Such ambivalence over religion and politics also shows itself in divisions over “charitable choice” — an initiative, approved as part of the 1996 welfare reform bill, which allows faith-based organizations to obtain federal funding to administer social services and public health benefits on behalf of the government. It is very disturbing that the divide between politics and religion is diminishing.

The escape from religious persecution was the aim of the first settlers that came to America. They no longer wanted to be forced to live their lives under religious law. Not surprisingly, that position was reflected in our Constitution. The separation of Church and State, as defined in our constitution, holds true when concerning the tax exempt status of the church. It ensures that private citizens cannot impose their private religious beliefs upon others, not even in the role of some government official.

However, when it comes to politics, the boundaries between Church and State become blurrier and blurrier. In all levels of government elections, there are candidates running on the moral principles of their religion.

We don’t need to delve into the history and carry out exhaustive research into the spiritual lives of American presidents to establish that the vast majority of them affirmed regularly, in a variety of ways, their belief in a supreme deity. This deity could be defined as one’s personal God who seeks intimate relationship with humans, revealed in Jesus Christ; the supreme deity of natural theology, creator and sustainer of the world; the old God of the Judeo-Christian tradition; the transcendent deity whose power and timelessness supersede the frailty of human life; the God of self-help, who helps those who help themselves; or a deistic God, the great beholder, who created the universe and left it to run on its own.

American presidents beginning with George Washington have used religious language in their public speeches. Claims of the United States as a heavenly chosen nation and requests for God to bless American decisions and actions have been commonplace. Scholars have called such discourse “civil religion,” in which political leaders stressed religious symbols and transcendent principles to engender a sense of unity and shared national identity.

Belief in God has consistently given American presidents a sense of accountability to divine authority, commitment to seek divine guidance, and the hope of heavenly protection for the life of the nation. There were several reasons why God has mattered to our presidents. They have recognized that a higher court of appeal than opinion polls evaluate their decisions. They have asserted that the advice of advisers, cabinet staff, and joint chiefs, the opinions of spouses, and the dictates of personal conscience don’t add up to enough guidance for the momentous decisions thrust upon them. Finally, in times of crisis, they have admitted that even the very best human efforts and accomplishments are not enough to secure peace and safety for the country.

This is a proven historical fact that strong religious faith has often been an advantage, especially if a candidate was a member of what was regarded as a “mainstream” faith. For those candidates whose religion was not shared by the majority of the population, personal religius belief has been more of a disadvantage than an asset.

Let’s take Roman Catholic candidates for example. By the late 19th century, a large part of the American population were adherents of Catholic religion. However, many Protestants looked at Catholics with a jaundiced eye, making it very difficult for Catholics to win presidential elections. In fact, John F. Kennedy was the only Catholic who has successfully run for the White House, although strange as it may seem, it is George W. Bush who could well be regarded as the nation’s first Catholic president.

While John F. Kennedy tried not to mix his faith with politics, George W. Bush has invited the doctrine of Roman Catholics into his office. Although his political base is solidly evangelical, Bush is surrounded by Roman Catholic politicians and priests who have been shaping his speeches and policies to a degree perhaps unprecedented in American history.

The presidential election of 2004 was the latest campaign in which candidates openly expressed their religious beliefs. Religious institutions became incredibly active in political mobilization. As for voters, they could be classified not just by their policy preferences but also by the depth of their religious faith. Such standard demographic characteristics as gender, age, income and region could not help sociologists predict who will be the President. In fact, a much more powerful predictor of votes for president then was whether a person regularly attends religious services.

As for the 2008 presidential campaign, it seems to be a continuation of the trend of the last 30 years. Candidates in both parties, well aware of the fact that consequences of being an atheist are electorally suicidal for anybody seeking public office, have talked a good bit about their faith. On balance, it appears that such discussions helped most of the candidates. Survey evidence gives us some hints as to why this may be the case. Religion appears to be a very important part of the life of Americans, and they are interested in how religiosity influences candidates. A recent poll by the Forum and the Pew Research Center found that almost seven-in-ten Americans agreed with the statement, “It’s important to me that a president have strong religious beliefs.” Moreover, an interesting relationship between respondents’ perception of candidates’ religiosity and their favorable views of the candidates was found by the same poll. The more a candidate was perceived to be “religious,” the higher the candidate’s favorability.

However, an increasing number of Americans see negative aspects to mixing religion and politics. According to the Time poll of 2004, 49 percent of Americans said that President Bush’s religious faith made him “a strong leader,” while 36 percent thought it made him “too close-minded.” Now those numbers have reversed: 50 percent say Bush’s faith has made him too close-minded, while 34 percent believe it has made him a strong leader. The number of Americans who think that Bush has used religion more to divide the country than to unite it has grown from 27 percent in 2004 to 43 percent now.

Moreover, a growing number of American voters dislike President Bush’s public expressions of faith. The percentage saying the president mentions his faith and prayer too much has risen from 14% in 2003, to 24% in 2004 to 28% currently. Criticism of Bush on this issue is most common among liberals (52%), seculars (47%) and Democrats (45%), although it has increased significantly since 2003 among mainline Protestants (+24%), moderates (+20%) and women (+19%). Slightly more than half (52%) say Bush mentions his religious beliefs an appropriate amount ¬ a 10-point drop from July 2003 ¬ while just one-in-ten believe he discusses faith and prayer too little.

Many Americans embrace religious influence in public life, not willing to remove religion from the public. Yet, they’re also getting tired of the religion becomes highly politicized. forms it is taking. They don’t want religion to be too far to one side or the other, or too much in favor of one particular group.

A recent national survey released by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life reflects public’s contradictory attitudes or toward the relationship of religion to politics and social issues, and unhappiness with extreme positions. The poll shows that the public is not divided into liberal and conservative camps, it wishes to find middle ground on controversial social issues.

The poll shows that relatively few people say they belong to either extreme – the “religious right” or “religious left.” Only 11 percent identify with the religious right, a slight drop from the 1990s, perhaps a result of the decline of the Christian Coalition. The right includes about one-quarter of conservative Republicans and 20 percent of white Evangelicals.

As for the “religious left,” only 7 percent of Americans identify with it, which is nevertheless an increase over previous years. Since the 2004 election, considerable agitation has arisen within religious circles over the political agenda of the right, with new groups forming to present alternative views on values.

The same poll reveals white Evangelical Christians (about 24 percent of the US population) as having views “distinctly different from those held by the rest of the public and even other religious groups.”

When asked, for instance, which should have more influence on American laws – the will of the American people or the Bible – 60 percent of white Evangelicals chose the Bible. Other Protestant, Catholic, and secular groups voted the opposite way by huge majorities.

As in the past decades, the public is still divided over whether religious organizations should express their opinions on political issues. About 51% think churches and other houses of worship should speak out on day-to-day social and political questions, while 44% believe these organizations should not discuss political matters.

Interestingly, support for churches expressing political views is particularly high among white evangelicals and black Protestants (67% each) and conservatives (61%). Opposition is greatest among white Catholics (58%), liberals (56%) and those ages 65 and older (55%).

As for evangelicals, mainline Protestants and Catholics, their support for church involvement in politics is associated with high levels of religious commitment. Whereas only 41% of highly committed white Catholics believe churches should stay out of political matters, 67% of less committed Catholics feel this way.

Republicans and Democrats are also divided. Thus, 66% of conservative Republicans think churches should voice opinions on political issues, compared with only 45% of moderate and liberal Republicans. On the contrary, 52% of conservative and moderate Democrats believe churches should express their views on such subjects, compared with just 35% of liberal Democrats. The public’s overall view has not moved since August 2004, when the gap between those who favor a political role for religious organizations and those who oppose such a role was also 51%-44%.

As for the idea of clergy discussing political candidates or issues from the pulpit, it is definitely not appealing to the public. Only 31% think this is ever appropriate, while 63% answer that clergy should never use their position in this manner. As we can see, opposition to this particular intersection of religion and politics is widespread. Even 56% of evangelicals say clergy should not express their political views while in the pulpit. Again, opinion on this issue has been largely stable over time, although Gallup found even less support for discussing candidates and issues from the pulpit 40 years ago, when only 22% said it was appropriate.

Since the time George W. Bush welcomed “charitable choice” legislation (a part of federal welfare reform of 1996 approved by President Clinton ) and promised to place faith-based initiatives at the center of their administration’s efforts to defeat poverty, the role of religion in solving America’s social problems has become a major topic of widespread, vigorous debate.

Supporters of church-state separation regard defeating “charitable choice” proposals as one of their major struggles. They raise the following objections to charitable choice wording:

• it violates the Church/State separation by permitting sectarian organizations to obtain federal funding to administer social services and public health benefits on behalf of the government;

• it allows religious institutions that receive government funds to discriminate in their employment practices on the basis of religion;

• it violates the religious freedom of program beneficiaries by subjecting them to religious indoctrination while they are attending a religious organization to receive their government benefits;

• it adversely affects the religious mission of houses of worship by funding social services that may already be performed with voluntary donations. Voluntary donations do not have the government restrictions and limitations that go hand in hand with government funding.

Negative responses come not only from those who fear the Church infringing upon the State, but also from faith communities themselves who don’t want government intrusion into religion. Some Faith-Based Organizations wish to remain independent from government and the “strings” attached to taxpayer support. They may want to be free to criticize the government without risking their funding. They may prefer not to divert resources from their religious mission to manage government grants and contracts with their demanding reporting requirements. They may have fears that receiving government funding will, over time, secularize their programs and services.

In practice, the idea of faith-based organizations receiving government funding to provide social services has many reservations. It is doubtful that the majority of American citizens would allow such religious groups as the Church of Scientology, Nation of Islam, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Muslim Americans, Buddhist Americans, etc. apply for federal funding to offer social services.

Apart from religions acceptability, growing concerns are expressed about what government might do to religion and what religious groups might do to the people they are trying to help. On the one hand, 68% express fears that faith- based initiatives might result in too much government involvement with religious organizations. On the other hand, six-in-ten worry that religious groups would try to convert to their faith those who receive social services. About the same percentage would not allow groups that encourage proselytism receive government funding. 78% oppose the order allowing government-funded religious organizations to use religious beliefs as a criterion in their hiring of staff and volunteers. Indeed, the concept of Hiring Practices is the most controversial, and it is blocking the passage of related federal legislation. Advocates of Church/State separation cite this as an illustration of “federally funded discrimination” on the basis of religion while the Bush administration praises this effort to “reduce discrimination” of religious organizations who want their staff to share religious beliefs.

Furthermore, the survey determined that attitudes toward “charitable choice” have become more politicized. Republicans have become more enthusiastic about it, whereas Democrats have become somewhat less approving. Among Republicans, white evangelicals are more enthusiastic than other conservatives and moderate Republicans. On the side of Democrats, a bare majority of white liberals like the idea, while black Democrats accept it as gladly as Republican evangelicals.

Charitable Choice provides preferential treatment to religious organizations over their secular counterparts while sending a clear message that the government favors religious solutions to social problems. Charitable Choice also contradicts neutrality by skewing the marketplace in favor of religious perspectives. But Charitable Choice most seriously and directly conflicts with neutrality theory by allowing faith-based providers to influence the religious choices and behavior of recipients through a government-funded program. Few actions could be more inconsistent with neutrality toward religion.

It is questionable that the product provided by churches and other faith-based organizations is fundamentally different from secular programs. It is unconstitutional that religious agencies have a right to receive public funding while insisting on preserving the integrity of their spiritual approach. It violates government neutrality toward religion to allow pervasively sectarian organizations provide government-funded services in a secular manner. Finally, recipients have the right to be free of religious indoctrination.

As we see, Charitable Choice appears to be the most controversial issue in the US politics these days. Any way, it represents a radical approach to the delivery of government-funded social services, signifying departure from past jurisprudence based on separation between Church and State.

Religion can never exist in isolation. The realization that religion concerns and shapes our fundamental view of the nature of human life has come home in politics. But where is the border between politics and religion? The trend is showing that there is no such a border. The Americans are connecting politics to the values they learn at church. The increasing role of religion in politics lately is dangerous to the democratic process and this trend needs to be stopped.

Politics has to consider the beliefs and different viewpoints of so many people while religion has its own group which it has to answer to. Religion can have these single moral judgments on things because religious groups don’t have to answer to anybody but God and their worshippers. By bringing religion into political decision, people are belittling faith. It is true that a majority of the country is Christian but it is utterly wrong to expect to shut out the voices of all the minorities who might take issue.

Both political parties make use of peoples religious beliefs to receive votes. It isn’t wrong that they say they want to uphold the people will and values because that is why people vote. What is wrong is that they are attacking each other over who is more religious, which results in a trivialization of religion.

The USA was founded to give everyone the freedoms that a free person should have including freedom of religion, and from religion. When religion mix with politics there is a violation of our rights as citizens.