I don’t mind theological certainties which can be demonstrably shown to be true, or to be of value. “Thou Shalt Not Kill” makes sense, because it can be demonstrated that murder is morally bad for any community. Likewise “Thou Shalt Not Steal”. But frankly, your belief in the final Judgement after death has no demonstrable truth, meaning, or value in life itself. I don’t begrudge your believing in it, but I would certainly resent it if you made it the basis for some political policy. The value of a policy proposal should rest on what can be demonstrated in life, not on what effect you might believe it will have on your fate after death.

Obviously there are good reasons for this. My own theological beliefs are undoubtedly quite different from your own. But if they can’t be demonstrated to have any value in this life, I don’t see how they can be sensibly adopted by others simply because I appeal to theological certainty. This is no different than suggesting that scientists should bow to the theological certainty of religious people that we did not evolve by natural selection, but were created by God in the manner described in Genesis. I’m sympathetic to many aspects of creationist religion. I have my own particular beliefs on the issue as well. Yet I see no reason why scientific inquiry should be guided by such beliefs. It would lead to chaos and some very bad decisions with very bad consequences.

So, as far as I am concerned, go ahead and inject theological notions into the public debate, but only if they are strongly supported by evidence, demonstrable in life, and not dependent upon belief or religious certainty. Much of theology is, in my opinion, false on all levels. I think that my own theology is right, however. Most people think similarly – they just think that their own theological ideas are correct, and those who differ are wrong. So what does a polity do? Vote based on theology, in which case the majority-held beleifs win, or vote based on demonstrable benefit, in which case only ideas, whatever their origin, that work get enacted? I think it’s pretty obvious what produces a more desirable society to live in.

Another distinction, I’ve always felt folks lose track of when discussing this issue is the distinction btwn churchmen vs individual actors. It seems clear to me that churchmen acting politcally as churchmen presents many of the problems you lament, but how can a religious individual (i.e. Bush or an evangelical) act politically in any way other than in light of religious certainty?