Former North Carolina Senator John Edwards believes that politicians should speak openly about their faith but not politicize it. According to the 2004 Democratic vice presidential nominee and 2008 presidential candidate, faith should not be used as part of any political strategy:

I embrace faith, and I believe America should embrace all faiths and those who don’t have faith. If we are multicultural and multifaith then we ought to embrace all faiths. Faith is not a political tool.

       How can a politician both embrace faith and yet not politicize it?  Senator Edwards argues that the constitutional separation of church and state, which he endorses, does not require the separation of faith from politics in the mind of the individual politician.  In his words from an interview with David Kuo, the Constitution does not mandate “freedom from religion.” It is “not possible” for him, he explains, to separate his faith from the rest of his life, including his political commitments. Instead, he argues, politicians should “express their faith.” When asked by Kuo about the source of his commitment to anti-poverty programs, for example, Edwards responded that his programs arise both from his impoverished childhood and from his Christian belief. “If you took every reference to taking care of the least of these out of the Bible, there would be a pretty skinny Bible.”

         Does this commitment to the public expression of faith mean that the senator translates his religious beliefs into public policy? Apparently not. Edwards’ position is that faith informs policy but does not provide its substance. He insists that he “would not, under any circumstances, try to impose [his] personal faith and belief on the rest of the country.” The president’s responsibility runs to people of all faiths or no faith at all. Although he values faith-based organizations and worked for one of them in North Carolina, for example, Edwards believes that any aid to such organizations must honor constitutional limits (i.e., not promote faith). In particular, FBOs receiving federal aid should be subject to anti-discrimination laws.  The Constitution, not faith, sets the limits of public policy.

         Some politicians express their faith publicly in order to attract voters who share their religion. Several Democrats who believe that the Republicans won electoral success through that strategy now include more God-talk in their speeches as a way to appeal to religious voters. Edwards decries that political strategy, arguing that public religion should not be used as the basis for an appeal to voters but as an explanation to voters of one’s personal identity: 

If you’re being asked about how you make decisions, what are the things that affect you when you make decisions, I think it’s perfectly reasonable under those circumstances to give honest answers about your faith and how your faith affects your value system and what you believe and what you care about.

         Edwards has explained his faith most directly in the context of his family life and personal suffering.  He was raised as a Southern Baptist, but as a young adult fell away from his childhood faith. When his son Wade died suddenly in 1996, he explains, “my faith came roaring back.” His faith, namely that “God will be there when you need him. . . . That when things seem at their worst and their lowest, he will always be there for you,” has also helped him to confront other difficult challenges of life, most notably his wife Elizabeth’s cancer diagnosis.

         Aides to the Edwards campaign report that there were no political strategy meetings about Mrs. Edwards’ cancer. Instead, the couple met privately to discuss how they would confront this latest sorrow. Disease is not a political tool. Across the country, cancer survivors of all political stripes united to encourage Elizabeth Edwards and wish her well. Many citizens of faith and no faith admired the Edwards family’s courage, perhaps wondering how they would deal with the death or serious illness of a child or a spouse, or recalling how such losses had tested their strength. After all, as the candidate frequently observes, other families have faced similar challenges to his.

         In such circumstances, faith may come roaring back…or not, because reactions to suffering are individual. From such experiences, many people learn what Edwards promises to teach other politicians: that faith is not a political tool. Instead, faith should be something that sustains politicians to seek the best political solutions to the problems—such as poverty, or disease, or inadequate health insurance--that test people’s faith.