Young: Religion's grip on politics too snug

A brief but significant exchange in the debate between Republican candidates in Jacksonville, Fla., last week illustrated one stark reality of modern America: Politics is faith-based, especially on the right.

While the left often tries to dress up environmentalism or social justice in religious garb -- as if the principle of Christian charity applies to giving away taxpayer money -- belief seems integral to the politics of the right. But is this entanglement an essential part of our liberty, as some would argue, or is this close embrace really a chokehold?

During the debate, an audience member asked the candidates how their religious beliefs would affect their decisions as president. Ron Paul's response was the most modest: His religious beliefs affect his character and the way he treats people, but his political decisions would be influenced only by "my oath of office" and promises made to the voters.

Mitt Romney said he would "also seek the guidance of providence in making critical decisions" and uphold the Judeo-Christian ethic on which this nation was founded. Newt Gingrich added that any president should seek divine counsel "because these are decisions beyond the ability of mere mortals." He promised to repel a "war against religion and in particular against Christianity" waged by secular elites. Rick Santorum asserted that the Constitution itself must be seen as rooted in religion because it protects "God-given rights."

Yet reasonable voters of any faith should be troubled by a politician's claim that he will consult God -- and not just, say, ask for the strength to do the right thing. Gingrich's statement, probably meant as an expression of humility, also smacks of arrogance. God tends to tell politicians what they want to hear -- and a politician convinced that his or her decisions are divinely guided will be far less likely to consider that they may have been faulty.

What about the notion that it's crucial for our freedoms to have a religious foundation? According to Santorum, "If our president believes that rights come to us from the state, everything government gives you, it can take away." If those rights come from the creator, as the Declaration of Independence says, then they are "inalienable," and the government's job is to protect them.

There's been much debate about the founders and religion. Certainly, for many of them, the "Creator" was a far more impersonal entity than the God of the Bible; the Constitution eschews any mention of a deity. Many devout believers have espoused the subordination of the individual to the divinely empowered state -- while many agnostics and outright atheists (Ayn Rand, anybody?) have championed the individual against state power.

The idea that rights come from God can be easily used to argue that no rights that contradict one's sacred text of choice deserve to be protected. Santorum himself believes it is appropriate for the state to enforce religiously based morality on such issues as abortion and homosexuality.

Finally, faith-based politics send a troubling message of exclusion to the nonreligious. If leaders are expected to endorse divinely granted rights, does this mean that an agnostic, let alone an atheist, is unfit to serve? The Constitution expressly prohibits religious tests for public office; still, more than half of Americans say they wouldn't vote for someone who doesn't believe in God.

Yet it seems that more and more of us are uneasy about the excessive mixing of politics and religion. In a 2008 Pew Research Center poll, 46 percent said they were uncomfortable with politicians talking about how religious they are -- an increase from 40 percent in 2004, an increase that was especially marked among conservatives. Religious ideas shouldn't be excluded from the public square; but neither should they have a monopoly.

Cathy Young is a regular contributor to Reason magazine and the website RealClearPolitics.