This is an email i recieved from my senator regarding the issue.  I agree with most of what he has to say.

Dear Nick:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the role of faith in politics and public life. I agree with you that this is a critical topic for many Americans, and I am glad you wrote.

Americans are, generally, a religious people. Ninety percent believe in God, seventy percent affiliate themselves with an organized religion, and thirty eight percent call themselves committed Christians. Given the role that religious faith plays in the lives of so many Americans, my underlying point is that public officials cannot abandon the field of religious discourse if they hope to address people’s needs and communicate with their constituents in a way that is relevant to them.

When politically engaged individuals ignore religion or discuss it only in the negative sense of where or how it should not be practiced, rather than in the positive sense of what religion tells us about our obligations toward one another, then others will fill the vacuum, such as those who use religion to justify partisan ends.

I am grateful for the words of support I have received from many regarding my stance on these issues. I also understand and appreciate the criticism I have received from those who disagree with my approach. On the one hand, there are those who take me to task for suggesting that there is an appropriate role for individual faith in the public arena, or say that this role can be adequately acknowledged without entertaining the connections between individual faith and public policy. On the other hand, those who do not share some of my positions on policy issues believe that the role of religion in one’s life is such that citizens and public officials are compromising their faith when they do not strictly adhere to religious teachings in their public decisions. They do not accept my tolerance for opposing opinions on policy issues that they consider to be articles of their faith.

I understand that, at first blush, these two concerns seem distinct. However, what is encouraging to me is that both reactions reflect an honest dialogue — critical, impassioned, but honest nonetheless — on these vital issues. This dialogue enriches our national conversation about the role of faith in politics. And it is a dialogue that keeps me continuously thinking about how these issues affect my public service.

Contrary to some members of my party, I am unwilling to ignore the role of religion in public life. But I do think that democracy requires that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal — rather than religious-specific — values. Democracy makes it imperative that the proposals I put forth and the positions I take as your Senator be subject to argument and amenable to reason. For example, I may be opposed to a given law for religious reasons, but if I seek to overturn the law, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church as justification. I have to explain why the law violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths — including those with no religion at all.

I recognize that this may be a difficult concept for some to accept. I do believe, though, that in a pluralistic democracy we have no choice. Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of the possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. And while basing one's life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, to base policy making on such commitments is problematic, given the diversity of beliefs in our great nation.

The Founding Fathers understood the need to preserve this diversity, and to establish the separation of church and state. As you know, the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution unequivocally states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . .” And to those who are concerned that my remarks were primarily directed at members of my party, I would note that they underscored that it was not atheists or civil libertarians who were the most effective early champions of the First Amendment. Instead, it was the persecuted minorities – Baptists like Rev. John Leland – who fought for this critical separation, in order to keep the government out of their religious practice.

Nick, as a public official and a person of faith, I do not accept that we must leave religion at the door before entering into the public square. Frederick Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, William Jennings Bryan, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King - indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history - were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause. What I do believe is that we should respect the clear and distinct boundary between the church and the government. And, when working in the public interest, we should translate our religious beliefs into language and arguments that are accessible to all Americans.

We certainly have a great deal of work to do to reconcile the divergent beliefs of our fellow citizens on the proper role of faith in public life. However, I am eminently hopeful that we can work to bridge the gaps that exist, and overcome the differences each of us brings to this debate. Americans are tired of seeing faith used as a tool of attack and divide. They want their elected officials to deal with faith in an honest way, a way that is respectful of their beliefs, and a way that adheres to the clear principles put forth by our Founding Fathers.

As your Senator, my goal is to approach the intersection of faith and politics in this manner. And I will certainly keep your thoughtful comments in mind in that process.

Sincerely,

Barack Obama
United States Senator

[sarcasm]You mean he came back from Africa long enough to respond to your letter?[/sarcasm]

I'm from Illinois too, so I'm allowed to make that remark.. ha ha

I'll admit that I kind of skimmed the letter, I'm tired, but from what I read I tend to agree, but will have to re read it when I'm fully awake to see what I really think..

All I know, is that America REALLY needs to pray about the next election. Not all candidates are what they seem like, and one of the front runners on the Republican ticket supports the morning after pill, gay rights, and abortion.  

Read up, study the candidates, and pray before you vote for the next President.

I now return you to your thread, already in progress....

Jacob, as in on of the three retarded amigos, is that you?

The constitution was written with the statement of seperation of Church and State meaning that the State was to stay out of the Church.  It was NEVER intended for the Church to stay out of the State.  Proof of that is to look at our government and tell me why it is important to have some God fearing people in Office. 

Think about when Isreal was in Egypt.  God was not about to allow his people to be lead or governed by unGodly people.

Just my thoughts

So when we have national ID forced upon us, or a chip in the skin we should just keep the church out of religion and except it???!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think the Church should voice its opinion when it comes to politics. Our freedom depends on it. GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF THE SAND CHURCH!!!

This is only my humble opinion.

 Come one Kyle, everyone knows the church should voice its opinion.  Everone should voice their opinion, and we have a voice, through voting.  As far as seeing a chip placed into your hand, never ganna happen.  It is NOT the mark of the beast as far as i can tell.

This is only my humble opinion.  See you Sunday.

It is the Republican party.  The Sen. that i emailed was Obama.  I have sent him other messages about the Real ID Act.  He voted for it, but only because of other things the Act contained.  He was strongly against the actualy national ID.

 As far as not voting religious beliefs go, i agree and disagree.  It is not fair to those of different religions to have to go by the laws and people we vote in, but that is the point of democracy, majority rules, yet keeps the rights of the minority.  So we have to keep the rights of the smaller equal with the rights of the larger.  At the same time, we cannot forget our convictions.  Our convictions, and our right to our convictions is what has made this country strong.  To vote against those convictions would be devistating.

I agree. We should not become a nation where religious beliefs are forced upon you. I still believe in choice. However, I will vote and make my political stance on my God-given convictions.

This country has fallen so far away from the design our founding fathers had for it.  They would not recognize it.  We have treated the constitution as a document that should be defined by each generation.  It was not intended to be so.

The heads of our Governement should be God fearing people. I do not hink the Church should be running this country nor the country running the Church.  However, there shoudl be God fearing people in those offices.

We need to wake up, we are being over run by our politcal silence.

Party lines are rediculious anyway.  Republican, Democrat, what ever when ever.  Who cares about Parties.  What matters is the people we put in office.

Listen to a song by Casting Crowns, called Silent night I think.  ANyway, it covers it I think.