I don't follow baseball. So it should have come as no surprise that my last-minute decision to quickly check team colors before heading to Petco Park last Sunday revealed that I was - you guessed it - wearing the opposing team's colors. (To my credit, I was wearing Padres blue. But layering it with red resulted in what could easily be mistaken for Philly pride.)

But I should introduce myself as something other than an ignorant sporting event attendee. I am your new conservative KPBS (stop right there - did I just use "conservative" and "KPBS" together?) citizen blogger, and my attendance (sans red layering tee) at a Padres game brought politics, faith, and patriotism into focus. Perhaps there's just something about singing "God Bless America" with 30,000 strangers during the seventh inning stretch that triggers feelings of unity, pride, and yes - true thankfulness. This, combined with the Saddleback Church Civil Forum of the evening before, got me thinking about the place that religious beliefs - anyone's religious beliefs - hold in American politics.

It is important to recognize and practice the separation of church and state. We do not live in a theocracy, and this country was founded on the principle that every individual is free to practice his or her religion. Separating religion and government, however, does not render a candidate's faith irrelevant. Without morality, a government has no reason for existence - what need would there be for law? And as long as morality is an important feature of our nation, so too will the religious perspectives of presidential candidates be of interest. This much is made clear by the attention given to the recent conversations Pastor Rick Warren had with Barack Obama and John McCain

Warren was an excellent moderator, posing serious and thought-provoking questions that went beyond what one might expect during a faith forum. And before we rush to judge Warren's motives, it should be noted that he said in a CNN interview last month that he would not publicly support one candidate over the other. In reading Alma's most recent post, it occurred to me that had Obama and McCain been interviewed by a Muslim imam or a Jewish rabbi (interviews I would find newsworthy and interesting), very few would express suspicion at the motives of the interviewer. If Warren had an "all encompassing mission," as Alma puts it, I believe he made it quite clear: "I think I can set up an environment that people can actually say, oh, so that's what that guy's really like." Why must "Christian" be a code word for "Crusader"? I certainly don't believe that "Muslim" is a code word for "terrorist." But back to the forum...

Obama and McCain gave answers that clarified their personal beliefs on such issues as abortion, same-sex marriage, and Iraq. Like it or not, morality drives policy. Give me one policy - from war to abortion to funding for public education - that is not driven by some underlying moral principle. And because morality drives policy, we should all care about the religious perspectives of Obama and McCain. Are there values that are completely removed from religion? Perhaps some people would like to think so. But we are heavily influenced by a Judeo-Christian ethos. That ethos may be shaped and manipulated by individuals, but it is still one of the foundations of the West, at least for now. With regards to individual interpretation, I found it very interesting to hear, for example, that Obama defines marriage as being between a man and a woman while still supporting same-sex unions. Where does this belief stem from, if not a religious root? Is there a non-religious agrument against same-sex marriage? (Let me hear your comments - I've long been looking for a response to this.)

So let me unashamedly say that this conservative Republican lets her religious views drive her voting practices while at the same time making use of non-religious reasoning. (You will rarely find religion in my posts.) No, Mr. Obama, I am not bitter, despite clinging to religion and arguably having a husband who clings to guns. I am thankful to live in a country where it is plausible for two people to sit down and talk about their faith in light of public policy, the way a Padres fan and a Phillies fan might stand side-by-side and sing the Star Spangled Banner. My views may differ significantly from those presented by the other citizen bloggers, but I will not apologize for my perspective. While there's something very empowering about feeling like you are preaching to the choir, there is something quite character-building about knowing that you are not. So by all means - let the comments commence. (My hope is for respectful dialogue and disagreement rather than an offensive game of hardball. I've been told by concerned friends and family that my voice will serve one of two purposes: I will either provide ammunition or be a human punching bag. While I don't mind the former - although I dislike the violent terminology - I will not back down and subject myself to the latter.)

But I dare say that the things that are important to me are, in one way or another, important to the majority of us in spite of our disagreements. From my vantage point (and trust me, it was a good one - I was about as far up and as far back as one can get) in the stands of Petco Park, I couldn't find a single person who chose to remain seated during either patriotic hymn that was sung. Standing beside my husband, in civilian clothes but rigid in salute to our flag, I dared to think that this is what unites us: a sense of freedom, a moral perspective, and a good game of baseball.