Religion in politics

So it's that time again, more or less. Last I was making "regular" entries to this blog President Obama was running for office, and now he's running for re-election. National elections in the USA bring out a lot of interesting, often strange, information about at least some of the candidates.

One of the candidates running for Republican nominee for President has said that abortion should not be legal because it is not in agreement with the laws of God (the Christian God). He, of course, completely entitled to that view as a private citizen, but as President of the US he must put such a view aside. The government of the United States is, by constitution and by intent of the country's founders, a secular government. And logic dictates that it must not be otherwise. In order to guarantee religious freedom to all of the country's citizens, and to uphold the right of each to freely exercise his/her religious practice, the government must be irreligious.

It is impossible for a committed monotheist to genuinely support pantheism, or atheism, or polytheism, or another monotheism. It may be possible for a pantheist or polytheist to genuinely support a monotheist, but there are certainly cases where this would not work (at least theoretically). No, a government, to ensure religious liberty (which implicitly allows religious variety), must act as a secular agent, without commitment to any specific religious position.

Furthermore, in such a pluralistic society, if any religious group dominates, it may seem right to them to make rules for society according to their religious mores. However, that majority would do well to remember that they may not always be the majority, and that the unfairness they dish out to minority groups likely will be visited back on them when another group becomes ascendant. Prudence demands fairness at all times. And fairness in a large, diverse society means that rules must accommodate the greatest number of citizens possible.

In the case of the candidate above, he is welcome to hold any position he likes about abortion, or any other matter. But his right to demand compliance with that position is limited to the one person he really has any control over: himself.