Religion and state?  It's an old controversy, yet one that is constantly being inflamed afresh by any number of incidents or decisions deemed worthy of notice by politician and pundit alike.  Much ink and verbiage has been spilled arguing over the division, or lack thereof, between the two.
     Nowhere does this dispute become trickier when we consider the degree to which a person in public office should allow her religious convictions to shape her decisions.  On the one hand, clearly, if a person has any level of religious foundation, she cannot but help render decisions out of this worldview.  If she is wise, however, she will realize that she is doing so in a highly pluralistic society, one in which not everyone will necessarily agree with her convictions.
     This notwithstanding, it is patently silly to insist that anyone holding public office should be expected to set aside all of her religious convictions each time she makes a decision.  She would be ignoring who she is.
     I mention this topic because at last month's meeting of my atheist discussion group we watched an interview conducted with a confirmed atheist who ran for a seat in Congress in the state of Arizona.  Even in the pluralistic society that we call America today, many people recoil at the thought of a person who professes a total absence of belief in anything having to do with the supernatural to hold public office and render decisions which affect thousands, even millions of people.  Religious conviction, many people say, is a prerequisite for holding office.
     (Unless one is presidential candidate Ben Carson, who insists that a Muslim should not be allowed to hold public office.  Quick memo to Mr. Carson:  Christians are not the only people who can credibly perform the duties of a public office.)
     Although I have religious convictions, convictions which have their basis in Christianity, I see no reason to make commitment, or lack of it, to belief in the supernatural a requirement for public office.  Why should religious people consider themselves to be the only ones capable of such a task?  If a nonbeliever can do the job and be sensitive to the needs of all of her constituents as well as the greater good (very broadly defined) of the country, why not?
     After all, unfortunately, many people of religion living in pre-World War II Germany voted to allow Adolf Hitler to hold public office, and many people of religion even today prefer strong and dictatorial rule over almost anything else.
     If God is in fact there, and all the evidence indicates that he surely he is, our decisions about who holds public office, whatever they be will, in the long run, always carry meaning and purpose.  The world remains in God's hands.