I'd like to preface by stating that while I'm an educated man, I do not claim to be a religious scholar or expert. I am simply a curious citizen who has watched the social debate between liberals and conservatives spiral out of control, especially as it relates to politicians using religion as a basis for their arguments or decisions.
There are many interpretations of God's will, spanning the three major Abrahamic religions (amongst others). The major views, especially in Christianity, is that the Bible is either:
a) the direct words of God, or
b) man's interpretation of the word of God, or
c) man's attempt at explaining existence, using the best wisdom of their time
For all practical purposes, I consider myself an atheist, with a caveat. It's not that I do NOT believe in God, but rather I need proof that God exists or doesn't. And since it is impossible to prove, and must rely on faith, then I take the stance that if God does exist, He has no direct impact on my life.
As someone who sits outside the circles of religion in the modern world, I find it offensive that religion still plays such a large part in politics and government in general. It defies reason and logic. There are simply too many unreasonable problems that occur when reconciling religion with leadership roles in our government (from Federal agency directors, to Senators, to the President).
God Spoke To Me
Consider you are walking down the street in New York, San Francisco, or Seattle. You pass a someone holding a sign that says God hates fags." You stop and ask how this person knows God's stance on homosexuality, and their answer is "He told me." Most reasonable people would come to the conclusion that the person is either a) lying or b) suffering some mental illness or other break with reality.
Now, consider you turn on the television and there's a well-dressed, affluent, white woman on television saying she's running for political office because "God told me to."
If we assume that people on the street are lairs or have mental problems when they say God spoke to them, why do we not reach the same conclusion when a politician says it? How can you discount one and not the other? Do we believe that the man on the street is ill but the woman on television is simply speaking metaphorically?
My conclusion is that the woman on television is a liar who simply said what she believes supporters want to hear (which means she's a politician, not a divine conduit to God). That, or she's mentally ill and hears voices, which means I wouldn't want that person in a position of leadership within our state or federal government.
Do This, Don't Do That - The Bible Says So
A common argument raised in many social debates is that God would disapprove/approve of any given topic, because it says so in the Bible. The issue of same-sex marriage is a classic and currently relevant example.
Conservative's argue that same-sex marriage should be disallowed because the Bible offers several arguments against it:
a) God commands that humans "be fruitful and multiply" (Genesis 1:28).
b) "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus 20:13).
Ignoring, for a moment, the problems with the various translations over the years, an examination of these three examples yields the following practical problems:
a) If marriage is a vehicle for fruitful procreation, which is an argument used by conservative politicians and activists, then why is there no clamor to prevent marriage between two heterosexual couples who cannot have children? Or choose not to? Additionally, if a heterosexual couple has a child out of wed-lock, is that not proof that marriage is not required for fruitful procreation?
b) This falls into the category of evolving Laws that simply are not followed in modern society. Leviticus is meant to point out that that homosexuality is punishable by death. However, there are plenty of other references to acts that the Bible also prescribes the death penalty for, which are now considered silly (Leviticus 20:9 and 20:18 as two examples). My interpretation is that these Laws were a culmination of the best wisdom of the times they were written, and as such cannot be expected to be relevant today.
One cannot simply choose which of these Laws to obey, either one must accept the Laws laid out in the Bible as ancient wisdom which has evolved, or they should all be applied with equal consistency.
As a constituent, and a citizen, I don't care what religion a member of my local government, or the federal government, belongs to. Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or Buddhist, it does not matter to me. A person's relationship with God (or gods) is personal, and each person is entitled to their own world-view and how God plays a role in that.
However, when that person uses their religion to justify their decisions made in an official capacity, a line has been crossed (and at this point it matters not if one is considered a liberal or a conservative). Consider, for a moment, someone goes on national television and says that we should import Afghan and Iraq citizens into the U.S. to work on farms, in mining, and other manual labor jobs.
How would we justify that? Deuteronomy says we can take captives (and even wives if their women elicit a desire in us). Will the argument that the Bible provides for the use of slaves means we can re-institute slavery now?
Of course it doesn't, which is exactly why using the Bible as a basis for laws and leadership decisions now is inherently flawed and illogical, and infringes on the the rights of those that don't hold the Bible, or any other religious text, in the same regard.