Why a candidate's church matters

Well past the expiration date in politial terms, Obama finally resigns his membership in the church once pastored by Jeremiah Wright. And some in the press, who usually have no problem castigating conservative candidates for their association with religious leaders true to the historic Christian faith, raise the double standard on behalf of their favored son:

Ultimately, Obama concluded that it was not enough to disavow the incendiary words of the Rev. Wright, or to distance himself from a pastor who had married him and his wife and baptized his children. If the pulpit of his church would continue to serve as a forum for divisive political rhetoric, he would have to extricate himself from the church.
Yet, just as Romney should never have to resign from the Mormon Church to revive his own political fortunes for another campaign, some say Obama should not have to resign from Trinity United Church of Christ to maintain his political credentials.
The problem, some say, is bigger than any candidate. It is the inevitable intermingling of religion and politics in a nation which attempts to uphold a devout separation of church and state.
"No candidate for the presidency should ever have to resign from or join a particular house of worship in order to be a viable candidate for that high office,'' Gaddy says.

The Constitution prohibits a religious test for office, and some will try to claim Romney and Obama have been subjected to such an exam. Nonsense. They were permitted to put their names on the ballot and request the support of the public in their run for office. The Constitution requires nothing further. It particularly doesn't require Americans to ignore the claimed faith of candidates seeking high office. To do so would be most counterproductive. We are often told to consider the "whole person." One's religious background (or lack thereof) is a major contributor to one's character and judgement. It should, in fact, form the foundation for their approach to life. Only those who claim a nominal religious affiliation for the sake of the cameras try to play the game that their faith is "only personal," and doesn't inform their views and actions. Such faith, the Bible informs us, is dead. And I question the commitment of anyone who changes churches mainly to remain "politically viable." The question of what one holds to be objectively true and non-negotiable is an important one when it comes to selecting leaders.

The pundits can howl all they want. Personally, I find little about modern America that encourages me, but the scrutiny of candidates from the LDS church and one that preaches ethnic liberation theology tells me not everyone in America has fallen into the multicultural anything goes haze. Yet. That doesn't mean the powers that be won't keep trying. "Media... media will put them to sleeeeeeep...."