People who want pure separation from church and state should be calling for the removal of religious establishments as non-profit organizations, rendering them intelligible for tax exemptions. Most churches would crumble underneath the financial duress.
I have no problem with churches being non profit. However, when the pastor gets a new convertible without tax because it's 'for business' I have an issue. Corruption is something I don't agree with. Especially in a spiritual establishment.
Otherwise, churches can be tax free.
As for religious ideas influencing political matters, whether you as an individual like it or not, some people rely more on moral convictions rather than ethical mandates. Ignoring the influence of moral persuasion is a recipe for failure in a democratic republic.
Here I'm confused. Are you saying that a candidate wouldn't be viewed as moral if he was an atheist? This goes back to the discussion regarding religion and morals being separate and one not equaling the other.
And what exactly is the difference between a moral conviction and an ethical mandate?
I toss in a null value, finding religious institutions to be extremely helpful on a personal level while apprehensive when clumped together with other motives contrary to doctine.
Yes, they may be helpful on a personal basis. But when they influence the government and such then it goes too far. Even if these motives aren't contrary to their doctrine.