A secular perspective in the United States seems paramount to the longest-term success of the venture as it’s labeled.
The First Amendment prohibits the Congress from making a law “respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. Our “free exercise” of religion, however, must not infringe; therefor, political action is inherently disqualified.
We know these things yet argue about them incessantly, as if unsolved in their hopeful intent. But, there is meaning to be taken (with grains of salt and parcels of pride).
The politics of secularism regarding another tenet under which we live– the separation of church and state— is that we are not free, or able, to ethically function as political representatives (even in campaign marketing stages) if we exhibit as religious representatives in our various states of campaign performance. If anything, such behavior should prove in public display that one would not be able to serve an entire populace of demographically-diverse individuals and families . . . that in fact we only care to appeal to one. And rather as well that they’d tend to favor views congruent to their own personal, sectarian way of life. Our representatives are our lawmakers. Their personal opinions in matters of religion and health should be of no ill consequence to a member of society.
The simplicity of the problem is astounding, and difficult to settle. It’s difficult because everyone’s pushing for an extra foot of influence. Politics, after all, are of critical importance and unavoidable . . . contrary to what we’d all like to believe. We experience politics almost as soon as we discover that we can communicate with the world outside of us . . . before we can speak a complete sentence! We often don’t realize until too late that politics determine the nuances of our lives in their entirety.
What the politics of secularism also mean, is that we shouldn’t necessarily market forms of atheism as the way to govern, either, because governance doesn’t require atheism any more than it requires religion.
Take agnostics as an example. While any agnostic is as relevant under the U.S. Constitution as any other sectarian ideological adherent, any atheist (or theist) can get confrontational and demeaning in general banter (and other venues of free speech, especially in social media); but, agnostics shouldn’t then also be subject to atheism as an encompassing, societally-accepted norm any more than an atheist should be subject to an encompassing theistic religion as ‘normal’, for example.
Again, this all seems to strongly suggest the ‘right’ answer. But, it’s still difficult and that’s our fault because we’ve allowed too much in the wrong places. We’ve weakened our resolve in civic and personal matters, such as the politeness of not discussing religion or politics in workplaces or schools.
Instead, in politics where we must declare (whether in society or business), we should promote the secularism (as the separation of church and state which is our nature and the basis for protection of all), upon which we’re founded.