Being an atheist, I'm not going to get into the murky issue of whether Governor Rick Perry is Christian enough. However, to answer OP's questions, my opinions are:
1. A public official should not use his or her official position, resources, or funds to promote religion. That said, a public official still has the right to practice religion freely, but any religious activity must be as a private individual rather than as a public official. Thus Governor Perry can host a religious rally, but he should not sponsor it as governor or use state funds to organize it. Even if it is done in a personal rather than public capacity, however, it may still be in bad taste because the governor would still be sending a message of solidarity with evangelical Christians and not with other religious views in his state. Real people don't make a fine legal/Constitutional distinction between Rick Perry as governor of Texas, Rick Perry as Republican presidential hopeful, and Rick Perry as private citizen.
2. It is murky to discuss what is or is not Christian teaching and what is imperative for a Christian to do. However, I am sympathetic to Kathleen Kennedy Townsend's argument that an interpretation of the Bible that mandates public action to oppose gay marriage and other socially conservative positions should, in fairness, include the more liberal, welfare-state-supporting tenets. Most Christians seem to divine an interpretation of the Bible and religion that suits their preconceived political ideology and lifestyle, though.
3. Someone's religious views are likely to have an impact on their policy aims, and this seems fair because foundational principles (inspired by religion, philosophy, ideology, personal experience, etc.) are going to be reflected in anyone's idea of the wisest course of action. The Constitution does, however, restrict a public official's enforcement of his or her views on others. Thus policy can be religiously, philosophically, or scientifically inspired, but it must remain within the bounds of the Constitution.
4. If a candidate makes their religion a theme of their campaign, inevitably, any hypocrisy will be debated. Another question is whether such a campaign is unnecessarily alienating and divisive to voters/constituents who don't share the candidate's/official's religious views. I would say so; I would say I do not feel represented by a politician who uses religion as the central basis of their decision making and public message. Of course, many on the hard Right don't identify with Barack Obama and so don't feel represented by him; this leads them to question his legitimacy as President and even his birth. Insofar as President George W. Bush tied himself to the Religious Right, I did not feel he fully represented me as President. I did not consider him to be lacking in the authority to act as President although I disagreed with the Supreme Court's ruling in Bush v. Gore. If a President were even more Evangelical than Bush and, say, openly pushed policies that directly infringed on my freedom as an atheist, then, yes, I would definitely deny his authority insofar as he was acting contrary to the Constitution and would probably deny his authority as President altogether although I may not be in doubt to his legitimacy as sitting President. The difference is, even if I acknowledge this President was duly and legally elected by the popular vote and the Electoral College and legally inaugurated as President (thus legitimate), I would be compelled to disobey any law/order that infringes on my freedom to not practice religion and feel the act diminishes all authority in my eyes. This may be the rationale of many Tea Partiers in regards to President Obama, health reform, and the individual mandate although I do not see the same fundamental infringement that they do.
16 Aug 2011, 10:33 am
