I mix religion and politics every day when I thank God that the United States has a two-term limit for the office of President.

Aside from that secret vice, I adhere to the precepts stated in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, so I was filled with trepidation last Saturday when I sat down to listen to the so-called "debate" between Senator Obama and Senator McCain hosted by Pastor Rick Warren at his Saddleback Church in Orange County.

Though I had heard of Rick Warren's books, I was unaware of the extent of his church's connections with the media, nor was I aware of his discipleship to management guru Peter Drucker.  No matter how warm and fuzzy his religious message might be, this was truly a man with an agenda.

It seems Pastor Rick has a passel of supporters, (his books sold over 25 million copies) as well as legions of detractors. Without a doubt, many of his adversaries appear to be other pastors from even more conservative religious right persuasions, so I guess jealousy has a hand in some of the negative tracts I encountered.

But still I had to ask...how had Pastor Rick done it.... who gave him the go ahead to coerce these two candidates into spilling their guts about their personal religious convictions?  This encounter is unprecedented in American politics and it does not bode well for the preservation of the separation between church and state. 

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...

One way it’s tough to evaluate candidates for office as a voter is from looking at their personal religious beliefs.  Thanks to the First Amendment, we have a secular civil government.  That may be right or wrong, and I know some readers here would argue for wrong, but that's the way the Founding Fathers set up the system of checks and balances, and that's the way the system has worked most of the time during last two centuries. 

Personally, I don't think a person's religious beliefs are part of the equation unless they choose to make them so.  I prefer to look at their proposed policies, and the conclusions about politics and law they reach as a result of those beliefs.  A candidate's experience in implementing policies, and success in competently managing programs, are more important to me than his or her source of inner strength in reaching those accomplishments.

I don't think the topic is off limits though.  It can be very interesting, and telling, to see the labels a candidate can slap on himself in an effort to ingratiate to a specific voting block.  From my perspective, the contortionist act generally backfires.  The more a person's claimed devoutness becomes the central part of their proffered character, the tougher it becomes to see past personal deviations from that claimed faith, like infidelity, eating shrimp, and wearing white after Labor Day.

In polite company, so the saying goes, refrain from speaking about religion and politics.  The two subjects tend to roil deep ideological divides between friends and peers where none were apparent.  In the interest of political conversation, however, perhaps discussing the two topics is a worthier pursuit than silence, especially when contemplating a candidate's character. 

Does the role of religion in a politician's private life transmute into a dangerous public weapon used against his or her opponents? Or does the candidate's religion materialize into a useful tool with which to frame issues of morality, ethics, values, and judgment? 

Alternately, may a modern politician publicly avoid discussing his or her religion without engendering the mistrust of voters? 

Enter Pastor Rick Warren of Saddleback Church in Orange County, California's dual conversations on CNN last Saturday with both presumptive presidential nominees.

His premise at the outset of the forum is that "faith is a worldview."  I think by "faith" Pastor Warren means "Christian faith" and by "worldview" he may mean something closer to an all encompassing mission.  The self-proclaimed "values-voters" (a moniker I only use as shorthand reference, wishing it were something else) often is a one-issue voter.  Want to guess what that one issue tends to be?  The big issue probably does not need to be spelled out, but it has to do with sexuality, as do so many other socially conservative issues. 

So, does a modern presidential candidate hurt his chances of election by emphasizing a worldview that does not include his or her "faith," and more specifically, his or her Christian faith? 

Can there be an agnostic or atheist, or Jewish, president of the future United States?  Or have voters created the need for this type of forum because Christianity is the perennial elephant in the room, so to speak? 

Did you know today is the 57th Annual National Day of Prayer? Oh, stop rolling your eyes. Our country desperately needs all of the prayers it can get right now. The National Day of Prayer is an annual observance held on the first Thursday of May, inviting people of all faiths to pray for the nation. What? Are those crazy Christian fanatics at it again? No, this annual look to the heavens was actually created in 1952 by a joint resolution of the United States Congress (PDF), and signed into law by President Harry S. Truman.

"What about separation of church and state?" you worry (or in the case of Florida, the separation of church and plate). Where in the Constitution does it say as a nation we can't pray for divine guidance? Since the first call to prayer in 1775, when the Continental Congress asked the colonies to pray for wisdom in forming a nation, the call to prayer has continued through our history. Benjamin Franklin observed "the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men... and if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?"

I would submit that a nation can certainly fall without it. Some would say that America is on a precipice right now, very much in need of inspired aid.