The top three Democratic primary candidates kept busy on the campaign trail last Sunday, all employing the same tried-and-true political strategies: giving inspiring speeches, kissing babies and of course, crossing the line between church and state as much as possible.

In a state like South Carolina, which sits in the middle of the Bible Belt and features a powerful evangelical voting bloc, any politician knows that winning votes means discussing religion, even if it goes against the very fundamentals the nation was founded on.

Edwards knew it, and he chose to visit Zion Baptist Church to meet with its congregation Sunday afternoon. He hoped to sway voter opinions before the South Carolina primary election Saturday by showing up in the place that means most to them.

Obama knew it, too, though his tactics were more subtle. Instead of hosting his rally in a church, Obama gave a 45-minute speech in a Columbia convention center – after, of course, the Forces of Abundant Life gospel choir sang uplifting tunes like “It’s About Jesus” to the crowd. Oh, and don’t forget about the talk he gave from the pulpit of the Martin Luther King Jr. Ebeneezer Baptist Church in Atlanta that same morning.

Though Clinton didn’t arrive in South Carolina until Monday, the senator still managed to find a church to preach at on Sunday. Clinton reminisced to the congregation of the Abyssinian Baptist Church in Harlem about her old church youth group, picking up the endorsement of famous black pastor Calvin Butts along the way.

So what’s the big deal about campaigning at a church? The Founding Fathers probably wouldn’t be too happy about it, since they believed that too much entanglement between government and religion could lead to disaster.

However, to expect a complete and total separation of church and state would be naïve and unrealistic. It will never be possible to perfectly split the two, as it is so easy for one to seep into the other. Candidates always rely on their personal religious beliefs to some extent, and to ask them not to do so – to ask them to completely ignore their faith – would be asking them not to be themselves.

We must still recognize that complete separation of church and state is the ideal. That means that whenever we have the opportunity to keep the two separate, we must strive to do so. No one forced the candidates to appear in churches last Sunday; they could have chosen to uphold the nation’s original values by speaking in a secular venue, instead.

The road from democracy to theocracy has to start somewhere, and we must strive to always be careful not to accidentally set off down that road.

When churchgoers see a politician speak from a religious pulpit, with an enormous crucifix hanging over their head or a gospel choir warming up in the background, things can get confusing. Is this person a presidential candidate promising to protect the religious freedoms of the First Amendment, or is he/she just a new kind of preacher at the pulpit, quoting the Bible in a power suit instead of ceremonial robes?

If Congress started hosting church services in the Senate chambers every Sunday morning, people would become alarmed. Why should it be any less alarming for a politician to discuss government affairs in a religious environment?

Staff: - 01/23/07