by Nominis Expers
It has been said that people's religious beliefs represent their innermost personal and private feelings, that discussing them on the campaign trail amounts to "playing the religion card", and that the man of principle refuses to do such a thing.
The fact is that a person's religious beliefs make up a great part of their total "worldview", comprising the lens through which an individual looks at the world, reality, and life itself. Hopefully, this view is formed and informed by something more than mere "feelings". While feelings are a part of being human and an important part of human interaction, the distinction that needs to be made here is between "feelings", which are subjective, and "thought", or "thinking", which is a cognitive process. "Feeling" and "thinking" are not synonymous. A little thinking and objective analysis wouldn't hurt when seeking to understand the world around us.
Our overall approach to life is indeed personal. In this country (the USA) there are no laws mandating what our beliefs are to be. It's a matter of personal liberty. However we also have the right to express those beliefs. We may feel discomfort hearing opinions and beliefs expressed that are contrary to our own. We may make others uncomfortable in relating our own views on what is right or wrong, good or bad, true or false; but this does not preclude our right to express our opinions. We have freedom of religion under our constitution, not freedom from religion, just as we have freedom of the press, not freedom from the press.
As far as privacy goes, we are under no obligation to disclose our thought processes (or feelings!). Neither are we, however, under any obligation to refrain from expressing our concerns in the public arena. The first amendment guarantees that congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Free exercise includes freedom of expression.
The phrase "playing the religion card on the campaign trail" is a way of presenting the subject in a derogatory light. It infers a candidate is disingenuously expressing a viewpoint not personally held in order to curry favor with a certain block of the voting population. This is a possibility of which we should be aware. We should also be aware, however, of another possible card playing strategy. Refusing to discuss religious beliefs can be a way of avoiding inflicting discomfort on a block of voters whose opinions on morality, ethics and law differ from one's own. Far from being a principled decision to respect the "private and personal zone" of John Q. Public, it may be a conscious choice to "play the cards" close to one's vest so as not to risk alienating potential supporters.
In making an informed decision to support or oppose a candidate, it can help to know not only the issues and a particular candidate's stance, but also the basis of that candidate's opinions. Which condition is preferable and more advantageous: to wonder what those vying for public office have up their sleeves, or to deal with candidates who lay their cards on the table?