After months (years?) of writing on politics, an occasionally on its intersection with religion, I’ve come to realize that while I’ve managed to write many, many words on why religion needs to stay on a parallel road with the political process, I’ve never specifically enumerated why. Over the past several weeks, religiosity in politics has reached a fevered pitch, and most disturbingly, proselytizing has been radically increasing. In response to the latest round of political purity tests involving religion, here’s the five reasons why religion needs to be taboo at the political dinner table. (Obligatory disclaimer: This is written about the “big three” major religions, in alphabetical order – Christianity (including Catholicism), Islam (not including Taliban, or other radical sects organized specifically for terrorist purposes), and Judaism. This is not about cults.)

1. – The business of politics is dirty. This is not news, and was used as an argument against granting women the vote – we didn’t need to be concerning ourselves with all that filth when there was filth enough at home to clean! But for whatever reason, people selectively forget this when they get it in their heads to argue political points from a religious perspective. They forget that religion is meant to be sacred – decidedly not dirty. Just think to yourself, every time someone brings God to the political table, they’re smearing mud on what should be pure.

2. – Religion is personal. Sure, it’s been said that politics is personal. It’s a nice saying, but outside of the wonderful world of political junkies, it’s generally inaccurate. Most people do not live and breathe politics. However, religion is invariably personal. Yes, there is a limited number of religions out there, but the way those religions are observed (or not) is limited only by the number of people on this planet. There is even diversity of faith within any given religious organization. Suggesting that political bodies govern based on any religious precepts is the greatest attack on religious freedom. Suggesting that political bodies protect the rights of the people to observe their personal belief systems as they choose is the true way to guarantee Freedom of Religion.

3. – Yes, Virginia, there is such a thing as secular morality. Anticipating the inevitable argument that religion is the basis of many laws, atheists are not necessarily immoral. They are capable of recognizing that there is good and bad in this world, and that it is a good thing to avoid doing bad things. Humans are generally moral creatures by nature, and while useful in encouraging people to be well-behaved, they do not “need” the threat of retribution from a mystical force to keep themselves in line. Earthly punishments are typically enough to keep most in line, and the ones that don’t seem to be able to follow the rules wouldn’t anyway. There’s a reason why serial killers and career criminals are called aberrations.

4. – Like men, all religions were created equal. This one has gotten me into quite a few arguments over the years, primarily because I do not hide the fact that I distrust all religions equally. Every religion has skeletons in its closet. Every religion has caused men to act in a negative manner at some point in its history – some still do. They have all been the source of war and death at one point or another. And it doesn’t matter “when” in that history atrocities have occurred for the sake of a given faith. The fact that it did occur once (or more times) means that a similar situation could happen again.

5. – No religion is “right” – no religion is “wrong”. On the purely theoretical level, there is no way to prove which faith is right or wrong. That is the very nature of faith – believing in something without the benefit of proof. People following religions are the ones doing right and wrong, but qualitative statements for or against any given religion based on the actions of the followers are an exercise in stupidity as well. See number two here. No matter how organized a given religion may be, there is no way to absolutely control all of the followers, period. There will always be someone that takes things too far, and does things that are contrary to the precepts of a given faith, typically through misinterpretation of sacred texts. We call it “radicalism”. If these people were doing what the majority of a given faith believe is “right”, then we wouldn’t bother pointing out that they were on the fringe, now would we? And to keep things fair, Christianity, Islam, and Judaism all have radicals. I don’t typically come across ones from the last two, but I regularly get abuse from the first.