The following is a continuous series on the religious views of the 2008 Presidential candidates. They will be updated regularly up until the election. This is my opinion summary of each candidate’s religious views, and how they may affect their ability to be President. Each candidate’s individual page will have their actual quotes on religion.

Additional God & State Religion Guide to the Election

**Click on a candidate’s name for quotes on religion**

Democratic Candidates

Obama is clearly a religious man, privately. He seems to change his views on how much it should be a part of holding office depending on who he is speaking to. More often than not, he seems to take a non-invasive stance on religion, willing to possibly leave it in the church, rather than take it with him to the office.

Like many others in the campaign, Obama is not afraid to embrace religion when politics calls for it. His line about creating a “Kingdom right here on Earth” was somewhat out of place for him in other circumstances, but for a candidate on the trail, it’s becoming more and more normal to simply pander to the religious.

Hillary Clinton seems genuinely religious. She is not afraid to defend her religious beliefs, nor invoke the Bible when she feels it’s necessary or helpful. How much of it is pure politics is unknown, but judging from her past, as well as her husband’s, anything she says must be taken as politics first, and belief second.

Having said that, she seems to be steadfast with her religious views, yet their potential impact on the nation’s politics appears low. My belief is that she is someone who prays, even when no one is looking, but will not have an affect on her major political decisions. Hillary is a politician and Democrat first, and everything else second. I think she is a believer, but I think the level she takes it to is relatively harmless to American politics.

Make no mistake about it, John Edwards is religious. He is a devout Christian, and he’s neither shy about it, nor ashamed to be so. Edwards often speaks about his faith, and one can only assume he’ll continue to do so.

Edwards has had a rough ten years in his personal life, including the death of his oldest son, Wade; and his his wife Elizabeth’s diagnosis of breast cancer. Following the death of his son in 1996, Edwards said that his faith that had faded came “roaring back.” For the past decade, Edwards has spoken openly about his religion, and how it affects his views.

Though he defends the separation of church and state, Edwards is in my opinion the most genuinely religious of the democratic candidates running for President. He is in favor of faith-based programs, but says he understands the difficulty of keeping them fair and non-discriminatory. An Edwards presidency would bring religious quotes and likely faith-based initiatives, but probably not in an intrusive way.

I believe John Edwards is religious, and as President would be openly Christian. I do not, however, feel he is a threat to force religion upon anyone, or cross any lines that would offend non-Christians. Part of that is that his Democratic constituency and colleagues wouldn’t allow it, but part of it also is that it is a personal faith for him, as opposed to a public faith.

Having said that, I think Edwards is the biggest threat of all of the Democratic candidates to make religion an issue for those who don’t want religion to be an issue. There will be faith-based programs, and talk of faith. For those of us that prefer our religion separate from our politics, Edwards is not the choice.

Republican Candidates

Giuliani seems to be a Catholic by association only. He identifies himself as a Catholic, but doesn’t base his life or decisions on his religion. He prefers to keep his religion between himself and his church, and doesn’t believe that religion should play any role in policy making. His stances on abortion and gay marriage confirm his willingness to make political decisions that may contradict his religion’s stance.As the 2008 Presidential campaign rolls on, Giuliani’s faith is being questioned more and more. Mostly because of his stance on abortion, Giuliani is facing fierce opposition in the religious world. Conservative Christians have vowed to run a third-party candidate if Rudy gets the GOP nomination, based only on his religious views.

While Romney’s personal religious beliefs are pretty much cut and dry, how he’ll balance them with Presidential powers is still unknown. One thing for sure is that you don’t become Governor of Massachusetts on a religious platform.

Romney is one of the most religious Republican candidates to run for President who likely will not have the support of the “religious right”. Many Christians, specifically evangelicals, see Mormonism as a cult, barely a step above Scientology. While I can’t personally disagree with these views on Mormonism, I believe that as the election gets closer, Romney will slowly win the support of the Republican party’s religious base.

Romney claims to support the separation of church and state, and vows that Mormonism itself will not be what dictates his views. He does however live by the Mormon faith’s belief set, and sees those views as his own, not the church’s views. What I mean by that is that he is pro-family, and therefore supports pro-family legislation. While he may be pro-family because of the teachings of the church, he would support legislation because it is now a “personal” belief, not just what the church would support.

I believe that Romney would bring a solid amount of religion into the office with him. I believe his core values agree with many of the Christian values, and feel that he is a threat to legislate his religious views. He will not pass a law because it follows what the Bible says, but he may support a law that goes by his beliefs, which are heavily influenced by the Bible.

Personally, I am suspicious of any candidate who has lived their life as a member of the Latter Day Saints. To be a practicing Mormon, to me, is by itself grounds for disqualification for the Presidency. If you believe what the LDS teaches, and you are not qualified to be President of the United States. As much as I disagree with all religions, Mormonism is in it’s own world as far as ridiculousness goes.

I think if given the chance, Romney could leave his religious beliefs to himself, but I think that the never-ending questions will never let it go away. I also feel that to win the election, Romney will have to win over, or cater to Christians, possibly leaving him in debt to his religious base upon taking office.

I had previously said that I see Romney as the most religious, and most dangerously religious candidate currently running for President. That his combination of the depth of his beliefs, as well as the actual beliefs of the LDS church make him a threat to the separation of church and state in the United States. I no longer believe that that is true. In a time when getting the religious vote is as important as any other, Romney has stood firm in his stance that religion will have no say in matters of government on his watch. I believe that the LDS membership alone is grounds for being unqualified to lead a nation, but his record in government has never mixed with his religious beliefs, and for now, I think we have to judge him on that. I don’t believe what he believes, but I believe him when he says the church/state separation will be honored.

I get the impression that Fred Thompson wants to say he is a Christian because he knows that he needs to be to be President. Of all of the Republican candidates, he strikes me as least likely to invoke God for political purposes. Both Thompson and Rudy Giuliani seem to be only as religious as they need to be to win votes.

Thompson claims to be a member of the Church of Christ, but admits that he is not much for practicing his religion. The more he is pressed on religion, the more likely he will be to embrace what roots he may have, if only to pander to the religious wing of the Republican party.

More than once, Thompson has referenced the founding fathers and their religious beliefs, though each time either out of context or wrong. He said that Jefferson spelled out that our basic rights come from God rather than government, but that is completely out of context, knowing what Jefferson’s religious views were. Like many of the founders, Jefferson was a deist, believing in “a” creator or force, but not necessarily God as it is understood in modern religious discussions.

He also claims that the founding fathers would cringe at some of the rulings made by the courts through the years, protecting the separation of church and state. His statement that “they ignore the fact that the founders were protecting the church from the state and not the other way around,” is just false. The founders wanted protection both ways. They wanted the government protected from the church as much or more than the other way around. The church’s rise in England is what led to the formation of the United States, and the founders wanted to protect this nation from the evils that churches can instill upon a state.

In my opinion, Thompson means no harm with his religious beliefs, and is likely no threat to start using God to pass bills if elected. His views on where religion fits into this nation’s framework scare me though. I do feel that if he were to be elected, he could easily be manipulated by the religious powers in the Republican party to act on their behalf, and not see what he is doing may be wrong.

Overall, I feel that Thompson’s religious views are harmless, but that if he becomes more outspoken on religion, then he should be watched. If he starts pandering to the religious right, it is not because he believes it, it’s just politics. And that is just as dangerous as truly believing it.

Ron Paul is a non-apologetic religious man. While I will not hold anyone’s religious beliefs against them, my job is to tell you how it may impact their potential presidency. Paul claims to be a strict Constitutionalist, and is really a Libertarian not a Republican. Which is why his complete misinterpretation of the Constitution is alarming and surprising.

Take these quotes, for instance:

“The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers.”

“Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion.”

“The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America…”

These quotes unfortunately are just factually wrong. First, the notion of the separation fo church and state is taken directly from Thomas Jefferson’s writings. To say that the notion has no basis in the Constitution is more accurate, but still not accurate. The First Amendment was created to be the wall of separation that Jefferson speaks of.

Second, to say that the Declaration of Independence and Constitution are both replete with references to God is silly. There is not a single mention of the word God in the Constitution. That’s far from “replete with references.” The Declaration of Independence mentions God, but is not an official policy document of the United States. And considering Thomas Jefferson was the author of the Declaration, and an outspoken Deist, it’s hard to believe that Jefferson’s writings on anything can be evidence of this nation being a religious state.

And lastly, the Founding Fathers did not envision a robustly Christian nation, they envisioned a nation in which all religions were tolerated and had equal freedoms. They went out of their way to create a government in which no religion had any more power or influence than another, and they were all to be kept separate from the government.

Paul falls into the same trap as Fred Thompson, in that he is letting his lack of historical knowledge dictate his beliefs and possibly future plans.

Paul is a religious man, and doesn’t seem to do it for political purposes, as he refuses to toe the party line on any other issues. I believe his religious views are truly from the heart, but nevertheless potentially dangerous for those of us that want the separation of church and state honored and maintained.

McCain’s Christianity can be confirmed as far back as his time at the Hanoi Hilton as a POW during the Vietnam war. The stories from his time there survive, including many stories about the faith of McCain and those there with him. How it has played out since then is a more complex picture to paint.

While maintaining his Christianity, McCain has referred to himself as an Episcopalian for many years. Yet, he’s attended the North Phoenix Baptist Church for years as well. Now, he’s even referring to himself as a Baptist. I think McCain knows he is a Christian, and feels as if he’s religious, but is just struggling with the semantics and details of his religious-ness. While many have denounced McCain as not knowing what religion he belongs to, I think it’s simply a matter of not knowing himself what religion he is classified as. Raised as an Episcopalian, but attending a Baptist church can make it tough to answer the question of “what religion are you?”

I don’t think McCain’s confusion is a problem. In the past he has denounced Conservative Christians like Jerry Falwell, then made nice with them when he needed their support. He has called the United States a Christian nation. He has supported teaching creation in schools. These are the things that I stand against.

While his Christian nation comments may have been blown out of proportion, I still think he doesn’t quite understand the roots of this nation. In his defense, I don’t think he truly believes that America was founded as a Christian nation, only that it was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, a much more acceptable argument. Nevertheless, he seems to repeatedly make comments that either aren’t true, or are easily misconstrued.

As for supporting teaching creation, to me there is no excuse for this. This is a stance that no educated person should support. Finding the facts on scientific issues like this should be no challenge to a United States Senator.

Personally, I don’t think McCain would be much of a threat to church-state separation issues as President, but I do feel that his insistence on changing views to make everyone happy or to get votes, does pose a threat. At the root, I think McCain is educated and knows what he feels, but often says something completely different. The number of times McCain has changed his position on major issues is the number one thing I fear. If a religious issue were to arise while McCain were President, I don’t feel that he’d do what’s right, but rather what he feels would make the right people happy. But overall, I would say McCain is a very low-risk candidate for those who want their religion separate from their politics.

Being an ordained Baptist minister, Huckabee probably has the most religious “street cred.” He is a man who has stood by his faith for his whole life, and interprets the Bible literally. He does not believe in evolution, but is willing to accept it’s possibility. He believes in creation, but is willing to accept that it may not be the literal 6000 year old version.

While I agree with Huckabee that the question about evolution was asked at the wrong place and wrong time in the middle of a Republican debate, the answers that he Sam Brownback and Tom Tancredo gave cannot be ignored. Three of the ten candidates at that debate said that they do not believe in evolution. As much as I would like to believe that those beliefs will have no bearing on their ability to be President, I can’t ignore the fact that they don’t believe in evolution.

In theory, it should not matter when it comes to certain opinions on matters of faith. But not believing in evolution is simply grounds to be considered unqualified. If you “don’t believe” in an accepted scientific fact, how can you be expected to lead the nation in any other matter.

Moving on past evolution, if you take that out of the equation, I feel Huckabee is willing to accept church-state separation in a legal sense, but at the same time will use his faith to dictate his decisions.

I don’t feel Huckabee is a major threat to legislate morality at a dangerous level, but his overall views on religion make him an unacceptable candidate to me personally.

Vice-Presidential Candidates

Sarah Palin

There is much to be afraid of when Ms. Palin is discussing religion, and some of it seems scarier than others. There are quotes, there are rumors, and there is policy — and Ms. Palin has a fair amount of each to draw conclusions from.

There is no doubt that Sarah Palin is religious. She is likely the most religious candidate from either party to appear in this election season. Mike Huckabee is pretty close, but Palin seems to be a bit more on the extreme side.

According to those that know her and those that are familiar with the churches she has worshipped at, Ms. Palin is a Bible literalist — meaning she truly believes in the story of creation and that the world is just 6,000 years old. Using the same level of competence that I judged the other candidates with, I must disqualify her as a potential president based on this belief. No one who really believes that the Earth is 6,000 years old is qualified to hold the highest office in the world.

Another issue I have with Ms. Palin is her proclamation of a “Christian Heritage Week” in Alaska. Oddly enough, I don’t have a problem with the actual decision to have such a week, I have a problem with how they did it. While this is not in any way a Christian nation, there is quite a bit of Christian history and heritage that should be allowed to be celebrated, just as many other groups are. The problem is that they picked quotes to include in the proclamation that were so out of context that they were flat out dishonest. Among the men they quoted were Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. These are two men that would have fought with all of their might to never have their name on such a proclamation. Neither were religious, certainly not in the traditional Christian sense, and both were completely opposed to religion mixing with politics. Jefferson himself penned the famous letter that first mentioned the wall of separation between church and state. This proclamation is acceptable to me in theory, but failed miserably in execution.

Having said that, Ms. Palin is a special kind of politician who seems to govern according to law, and not according to belief. Despite supporting an Alaskan Constitutional amendment to define marriage as between one man and one woman, when it came time to make a decision, she vetoed a bill that would have denied gay couples health care. In essence, she stood up for the law when she could have just as easily gone the way of her beliefs. I respect this.

Sarah Palin is an extremely religious lady, and some of her religious beliefs can only be called extreme. I find it dangerous for those of us that believe in separation to ever have someone with these beliefs in the White House. I understand that Ms. Palin is not running for President (now), but there is a realistic chance that she eventually does run for President. For this reason, I believe that the McCain-Palin ticket is hurt by Palin’s religious views.

I personally have no desire to see someone of Ms. Palin’s religious views in the White House, but in the case that John McCain wins the election, I have a small amount of faith that Palin will continue to keep her religion to herself. Aside from the occasional cringe-worthy quote from her, she seems to be quite good at keeping her religion and politics separate. Since I have always said that the most important part of a politicians religion to me is their ability to keep it in their personal lives, I am not nearly as afraid of Ms. Palin in the White House as others are.

As always, judge her as you will, but as I do, try to judge her based on her actual quotes and actions, not speculation and analysis from others. I’ve provided what I can, but feel free to continue to research on your own to draw your own conclusions.

Joe Biden

Biden is a fine example of a religious man who understands the proper role of religion in government. He is a very religious person, and unapologetically Catholic, but keeps his faith relatively private. He’s not afraid to tell you about it, but he’s also not about to govern by it.

As I’ve said many times before, I have no problem with people being religious. I am an atheist, but I am not concerned with your faith. If my neighbors are Christians, why is that my business? That, to me, is the essence of religion in America. I believe it to be a private matter, and appreciate any elected official who governs that way. Biden is one of those.

You can agree or disagree with his political views, but when it comes to forming them, he is honest enough to form opinions politically, rather than by church beliefs.

I don’t agree with what Biden believes, but if he’s not going to use his religious beliefs to legislate my actions, then I have no problem with his views.

I can safely conclude that Joe Biden is not a threat to the separation of church and state in America.

************

These pages will be updated regularly with new quotes, in order to try to provide the most accurate representation of each candidate’s religious beliefs, and how those beliefs will affect their ability to be President.The summary of each candidate is my opinion, and my opinion alone.