Maybe I'm just slow on this point, but I've not gotten a handle on how to communicate the need to "allow" people to bring their religions viewpoint into the political discussion while keeping the church-state separation in place. Jim Wallis, speaking about Obama and attacks on him by James Dobson, states it clearly for me:

The United States is not the Christian theocracy that people like James Dobson seem to think it should be. Political appeals, even if rooted in religious convictions, must be argued on moral grounds rather than as sectarian religious demands — so that the people (citizens), whether religious or not, may have the capacity to hear and respond. Religious convictions must be translated into moral arguments, which must win the political debate if they are to be implemented. Religious people don't get to win just because they are religious. They, like any other citizens, have to convince their fellow citizens that what they propose is best for the common good — for all of us, not just for the religious.

Obviously, for dogmatists like Dobson, religion is far more than the "moral grounds" by which to live. Religion is far more than that, of course, but in the political arena — which means the public sphere where people of differing beliefs and perspectives determine how government and related will serve the people — religion cannot be more. Most Americans want to preserve their own rights, including to worship (or not) as they choose. The only way this can be possible in a country of so many different faiths is to remove all religion from politics.

But not morality. Everyone has a moral basis for what they do. Mine is not based on religion; Obama's is (to a large degree). We both oppose war, we both support a woman's right to choose, we both see poverty as an evil. He does so as a Christian; I do so as a ... not athiest, not agnostic, and I hate saying "spiritual" because that's a cop-out. Let's just leave it as "completely and totally non-religious." But because both Obama and I accept the separation of church and state, and because we respect other people's moral beliefs, we have common ground from which to build a consensus.

There is absolutely no reason fundamentalist Christians (and members of other religions) cannot do the same. If someone opposes abortion (choice), the only thing the democratic process requires is that they make their opposition known without resort to "the Bible says so." And if they cannot translate a Bible-based belief into strong moral grounds, "free" of religious language, then I'd suggest they need to consider just how deep their belief is.

We have two choices. One, allow America to become a theocracy. Let religion make all the rules. The problem, of course, is which religion. Maybe the fundamentalists would win for now; what happens when the Catholics take control? Or the Methodists? What is Islam grows in strength? What if the athiests take over?! Unless all Americans can agree on the same religion, no specific belief system can legitimately dominate our politics.

The other choice is to keep our politics free of overt religious content. Any religions belief that is held with sufficient vigor can easily be "translated" into non-religious moral grounds. "The Bible says abortion is wrong" can easily be stated as "I personally believe life begins at conception, whatever the physical nature of the embryo." "The Bible says homosexuality is wrong" can become "I personally believe heterosexual relationships are the basis to a healthy society." "Jesus says we must care for the poor" can become "Poverty is a social ill that harms everyone, not just the poor." It can be clear to participants in a debate over issues that individuals have strong religious beliefs, but that does not mean that political arguments need be stated in religious terms.

For the sake of democracy, we have to make this effort. Politics must be based on moral grounds, but never on religious ones.