The thing is, I'm so suspicious of all politicians that I usually assume they're using their supposed devotion as sort of a smokescreen for their unethical behavior. Many people don't investigate politicians' actions as in-depth as we do, and will therefore automatically consider an overtly religious one "less corruptable" than a secular one. It's potentially a very effective propaganda device.
IMO one can have morality without religion (in fact history suggests there's not necessarily a correlation between the two), and one's past actions are usually a pretty good indicator of his future actions. This is even more so with politicians. Of course there are exceptions, but I will continue to take a very skeptical eye.
Thanks for reminding me about the Catholic church's statements against the war - it does support what you've been saying. Deciding whether to support the war must be a difficult choice for some. Hopefully it has led to increased study about all the issues.
Davo, your point that I'm skeptical about Evangelicals' true motives is well taken. Although I try to keep an open mind, I do indeed have some skepticism based on personal experience growing up (went to school with a few devout Baptists, and they were always preaching to everyone, handing out cards that said we were going to hell, etc... and their parents weren't much better).
This all gets back to my opinion that the religion-based poltical viewpoint generally seeks to impose its view on others (outlawing actions it deems immoral so others can't pursue them), while the secular viewpoint generally allows people to fight their own personal moral battles and choose on their own whether to pursue those actions.
This is another reason why many people are skeptical about religion in politics... "why is someone else's belief worth more than mine?" The "liberal" position on many social issues is to let them remain legal in order for everyone to make their own choice. The "religious" position is to outlaw those issues so only one viewpoint is allowed.
