With the controversial requirement for all organizations that provide health insurance to their employees to provide for birth control, family planning, etc. it is very timely for Rick Santorum to attack President Obama on religion.

On Saturday, Santorum questioned President Obama’s religious views in front of conservative voters in the Midwest. He claimed that President Obama’s policies, namely the most recent ones concerning birth control, were based on a faulty theology — a secular theology — not one based on the Bible.

Now it must be said that later Santorum attempted to clarify his statement, saying that he merely believed that President Obama was attempting to force his views on the church, not that Obama was simply not a Christian, but the significance of the attack hits home.

The relation between church and state is forever a shifting and precarious one. Where is Jefferson’s proclaimed “wall of separation,” and what is religious freedom? More practically, how are stances on those ideas going to impact this next presidential election?

The way Santorum is talking, it seems to imply that he would promote policy that is dictated by the ideals of the Bible, which the current President is not doing.

I feel it apt to mention that President Obama is a Christian, a long-time member of the United Church of Christ, and that their beliefs are significantly different from those of the Roman Catholic Church of which Santorum is a member.

What some might see Santorum asserting is that the United Church of Christ is not following the ideals of the Bible.

However, this sort of debate over theology goes both ways (does the Protestant Reformation ring any bells?). Furthermore, why is it that these issues of religion even bear on this most recent election?

The issues at hand are not simply exclusive to religion, but are placed on the table for the whole of society to discuss.

As much as many of them may try to deny, Christians themselves are inseparable from the culture at large, thus the debate that is occurring within society is also occurring within the church as well.

Christians are conflicted over how to handle issues such as abortion, gay marriage and economic policies.

These issues, which are extremely contentious in all sects of Christianity, are simply playing out in the political realm.

This is hardly the first time that religion has been an issue in elections. John F. Kennedy was a member of the Roman Catholic Church, and many worried that he would “follow the Pope,” making the U.S. subservient to him.

After a slew of Supreme Court cases concerning prayer in schools in the 1960s and 70s, Reagan told the public that he would put prayer back in schools.

If America is full of people of different religious bents, then of course religion will impact elections whether it is an explicit issue or not. In this case, religion is certainly an explicit issue.

The question that voters need to ask is how candidates’ religious beliefs inform their political views and vice versa.

In Santorum, we see a man championing the beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church, and you better bet that his religious beliefs would impact his presidency.

The United Church of Christ endorses same-sex marriage and sex education, so it is not as if President Obama is ignoring the beliefs of his church. They just seem to be more in line with the progressive elements of American society as opposed to Catholic beliefs.

As I mentioned before, religion is inseparable from the culture of which it is a part of.

It is a virtual certainty that the ideas about controversies that one finds in churches will be the same ideas that are touted in the coming presidential election.

Michael is a sophomore majoring in philosophy and English.