What is the proper role of religion in politics? Comments in threads below have pointed out that if religion is a source of personal morality, it is unrealistic to expect anyone to dissociate their religion from how they address public issues. On the other hand, the freedom to practice one's religion in a pluralistic society must reach a limit so that your values aren't imposed on those who don't share them.
Similarly, over on Fr Terry's blog, in the comments a discussion is sort-of underway about how conflicting religious views can be reconciled when they clearly disagree. As Dr Primrose quoted in the comments here, an LA Times columnist reflected on competing rallies of African-American christians pro-and con-prop8. Professing the same faith, each rally argues that THEY are the right Christian viewpoint.
A new study claims that a mind-boggling 77% of the pro-Prop8 donations are coming from Mormons, many of them out of state. I have real issues with some conservative religionist in Utah limiting my rights here in California (though I should point out I have the same issue with a California Mormon doing so). my marriage here has no effect on them, but their denial of my marriage has a huge effect on me. They are attempting to force me to live under their religious rules which I do not share. What's next, banning caffeine?
On the other hand, I am all in favor of the big anti-Prop8 sign outside the Episcopal Cathedral St John's in downtown LA, mainly because they agree with me, of course. Being honest at heart, I freely admit my double standard.
Still I believe that the knee-jerk response against religion in the political sphere is largely driven as a response to the conservative religionists who are attempting to force their view of morality on all others by "majority rules". (Just think: if "majority rules" ruled, then "activist judges" would never have de-segregated the South). This is because it is the conservatives who are most active in limiting the fundamental rights of others. How do we establish meaningful discourse and protect ALL our rights, when we have such profound disagreements?