Do church and state really need to be separate? Are they at all? Many Americans are keen on the line drawn between these two spheres, regarding it as a key tenet of American values. Yet we know that the faith of our leaders can often be a discussion piece. With the possibility of a Mormon presidential candidate, this dialogue is renewed.
Half a century ago, it was no secret that President Kennedy was Catholic. Officials are often sworn in with a hand on a Bible for government posts, and when Rep. Keith Ellison asked to be sworn in with a Koran, it caused quite a stir.
So where do we choose to draw this line? It seems that for most Americans who believe in this separation, it is important to them that state decisions not be informed by places of worship.
Where I find fault with the reiteration of the separation of church and state is that it seems to exclude the reality of the lives of many Americans. The fact of the matter is that for many Americans, faith is still an active part of their lives.
For some, this means regular attendance to a house of worship, while for others it means practicing from the comfort of their homes. Our elected officials are, ideally, representative of the American people. Sure, they have constituents to hear, staffers to inform them and special interests to A M H O T G /
satisfy, but it’s hard to imagine that their own beliefs are not a part of their leanings when they have some wiggle room. In fact, I should hope that someone I actively vote for, whose views resonate with mine, uses their personal values in their decision-making process. Their capacity to make decisions that I can be on board with is why I wanted them to be elected in the first place. When I think of the fabric of the American populace and of our varied values and beliefs, I hope that our representatives serve this public as a whole — that if somebody’s age or gender is considered in representing them, their possible religious values are also taken into consideration. Our elected officials are most effective as public servants when voters can connect with and understand their whole personality.
My Unitarian Universalist faith is absolutely a part of my understanding that same-sex marriages should be equal to “traditional” marriages, as well as my belief that health care should be universally provided for every American. I cannot separate my faith and values from my weekday life in the same way that I cannot separate my weekday activities from my time in church on Sundays — and that has an impact when I’m at the polls.
I have found that in expressing kindred faith values, the political right has recently taken the lead in comparison to the political left. As a Democrat — and a coastal one at that — I often notice an uneasiness within my political community with the idea of incorporating religious beliefs in political discourse. I have often felt that it could behoove us
to incorporate an understanding of faith in our political dialogue in order to reach out to a wider audience.
I don’t think it’s an accident or a product of demography that this has been resonating with voters on the right. For many, Democrats included, values at the polls and the pulpit are intertwined.
Should a politician ignore this in their diction, they are not espousing a staunch belief in the separation of church and state but rather implying that their constituents’ faiths, their values, are not something they’re willing to concern themselves with — and yet this effort could make all the difference.
This weekend, from March 23 to 25, for the first time, about 100 Young Democrats between 18 and 35 years of age will meet in Washington D.C. to discuss how we can explore theincorporation of faith in our politics with the guidance of guest speakers and leaders at the YDA Faith & Values Leadership Summit.
I will be attending because I look forward to meeting like-minded young people and hearing from folks who have experience with faith in Democratic politics. Even more than that, I look forward to being a part of the dialogue for my generation and forming the start of a comfortable understanding of expressing faith values in the political diction of the Democratic community.
Pegah Zardoost is a senior at UC Berkeley and the finance chair of the Senior Class Council.
Comment Policy
Comments should remain on topic, concerning the article or blog post to which they are connected. Brevity is encouraged. Posting under a pseudonym is discouraged, but permitted. The Daily Cal encourages readers to voice their opinions respectfully in regard to the readers, writers and contributors of The Daily Californian. Comments are not pre-moderated, but may be removed if deemed to be in violation of this policy. Click here to read the full comment policy.

Democratic party hates religion
The Constitution does not ask for you to leave your faith at the door. It tells you that all faiths are welcome. We distort the Constitution when we try to exclude faith, because that was not the intention. The Constitution wanted to make everyone feel free to express their faith. However, now we have people like the other posters before me ridiculing others for their faith. Establishing a state religion is unconstitutional. Having faith and using it is not. If you remove all faith from government, then you have established a state religion of atheism, and that is actually unconstitutional.
When theocracies start becoming such a good idea? I for one do not want anymore religious nuts in power.
I cant believe that intelligent human beings in the year 2012 are still worshiping Jewish apocalypse cults from 32 C.E.
There is no hope for our species.
I am much more appalled to learn that intelligent human beings in AD 2012 are using stilted and inaccurate constructions like “human beings…are still worshiping [sic]…cults.”
“Cult” describes the system of worship, doesn’t it? Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say that human beings worship gods? Or perhaps you’d prefer the term “invisible sky daddies,” which would certainly bolster the tone of amused yet aggrieved superiority that you seem to be aiming for.
Religion being an important part of life and religion being part of the political fabric of the nation are separate issues. One is constitutional and one is not.
Wrong. There is nothing unconstitutional about people freely incorporating religion in their lives, including their political lives. It is unconstitutional for the government to endorse a religion over others.