Religion & politics, aside from being the two topics you are never +supposed to discuss in polite company, are also considered by modern standards +to be two realms that should never mix. That is to say, your religion should +never influence your politics and (to a lesser extent) vice versa. +However this view does not seem to hold up neither in theory nor in practice +except by adopting either a very limited and superficial understanding of +religion or a position of a purely economic role for the State (and in this +latter case, not even so).
+ +To start in the general, we must focus on what both religion & politics +are. Religion, although many people have many definitions for it, I believe it +may be concisely defined as rendering unto a greater being their due. One may +ask what is inherently due to such a being, but the answer is that evidently +humanity has always rendered homage to that which it considers to be greatest, +whether this be pagan deities, God, or more recently with one's own identity. In +one manner or another there is some entity which we consider to be worthy of +praise, worship, and respect to a greater degree than any other. This, in turn, +will generally come accompanied by a philosophy which explains why this entity +ought to be praised, worshipped, and respected above all other beings, and +evidently such a philosophy will also end up having repercussions on how, then, +we ought to view other beings in accordance to how each being relates ultimately +to this greatest one.
+ +Politics, on the other hand, is the art of public policy; defining and +enforcing the rules by which we live together in a society. Some of these +policies are defined somewhat arbitrarily, in that it is simply used for the +convenience of having a common standard. An example would be the case of a +policy describing which side of the road to drive on (the left or the right), as +it ultimately does not matter so long as we all abide it to avoid collision. +These we can refer to as conventions. But other policies are defined not by +arbitrary or simply pragmatic judgement, but rather by moral or ethical +imperative such that the absence of such a policy or of its enforcement would be +permission to injustice. An example of this would be the prohibition of murder, +without which the injustice of murder would go unpunished. This we can refer to +as law. It is the latter of these two concepts which will be important for this +discussion. Furthermore, law, because it is not something arbitrary, will +necessarily be based on some value or principle which in turn proceeds from some +philosophy or worldview.
+ +When considering these two definitions, although there may certainly be +manners in which one should not affect the other, it should be evident that +there are also a great many ways in which these two coincide and influence one +another, and more importantly how religion influences one's politics. For if one +simply considers religion to be a set of customary cultural rituals with no +further significance other than perhaps the sentimental then certainly such +religion (if we can call it that) will hardly influence one's politics. But true +religion which is defined by adherence to something greater and additionally +provides us with an understanding of the world and how entities relate and ought +to relate to one another, such religion will inevitably provide us with values, +values which we are obliged to bring to the political sphere since it is not +merely a matter of customs but of truth and of justice.
+ +For this reason it is absurd for the modern secularist to claim that we ought +not to vote or enact policy in accordance to our religion, for then in +accordance to what are we supposed to vote and enact policy? It would be one +thing if we were speaking of certain ceremonial customs which it would not make +sense to impose upon those pertaining to another religion: precisely those +superficial elements of any religion which comprise its outward manifestations. +However, in regards to those matters which are not merely superficial +manifestations of piety, but substantial matters of ethics it is indeed unjustly +discriminatory and undemocratic to say that they ought not to be enacted as +policy on the basis of being proposed by a religious people. For at the core of +this argument lies either a tactical attempt to invalidate the religious +person's opinion (conveniently only applied when said religious person disagrees +with them) or an ignorant view that all ethical values of the religious person +(or at least those where disagreement is found) are merely the product of +arbitrary and groundless superstition. In either case the objective is to avoid +having to argue over the reasons for the disagreement: because the position is +influenced by the proponent's religious beliefs it therefore ipso facto +is not to be considered or in any way be taken seriously.
+ +The fear, of course, when speaking of this subject is that certain +moral values that one does not agree with shall be imposed upon the +whole of society, even if one does not agree with said beliefs. Yet although +this fear can sometimes be reasonable there remains the fact that all law is +ultimately an imposition of moral values on society, and a there will always be +a segment of society that does not agree with those laws or believes their own +breaking of the laws to be the exception. The question with law and moral values +is not whether everyone can agree to them but whether they are true and +reasonable. Therefore it is to be expected that all persons in a society will +advocate policy in accordance to their values and we must accept or reject them +on the basis of truth. It is to be expected that vegans will encourage policy +which restricts or even bans our access to animal products; I would disagree +with such policy not because it is an imposition of belief, but because the +vegan attribution of personhood to animals is wrong. Similarly as a Catholic I +will encourage policy which seeks to restrict or even ban abortion, not out of +some fideistic imposition of values, but because of the truth that abortion is +murder. And therefore, just as I would argue with the vegan's worldview to +ensure that I have access to animal product, so too would I expect a similar +discussion to be had on the issue of abortion.