The religious political efforts have gathered steam, with Trump issuing an executive order allowing churches to endorse and donate to candidates.
In general, religions lay claim to moral high ground by definition. Religions are, by and large, founded upon faith. Upon belief in the unknowable or unprovable. Indeed, the fact that they are unprovable is what, for some people, make religions something they can cling to in an uncertain world. Certainty is not required, merely belief. Sometimes blind, unwavering and unquestioning belief.
To each their own, I say. You want to believe in a man who was crucified, died, and then rose from the dead? Fine! You want to believe in someone parting the seas so his people could escape? Great. You want to believe in a flood that swept away all but a remnant of all life? Wonderful, most religions do. I don't think many people who aren't with ISIS would claim that ISIS' beliefs are "good", but they are, still, beliefs. What about the pastafarians who worship the flying spaghetti monster?
All of these are examples of religions. There are nearly as many religions as there are people as different people believe different things.
The problem I have with this whole thing is that religions disagree. Sometimes in detail, sometimes in the bigger picture...but they disagree.
How can you base even a single law on unfathomable, unknowable and unchallengeable belief? How can you base a political role like a Presidency on something like that? How could you possibly run a country's government on nothing more than belief? What about the overwhelming majority of the people who will disagree with you on one subject or another?
Where does it end?
Thomas Jefferson made himself quite clear:
"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."
This separation is there for a good reason: government must be able to be challenged, and changed to remain relevant to the people who elected it.
Not to mention the tax implications. Established and accepted religions are tax exempt. If you create a non-taxed body that can still operate in the political world, you know full well we're going to be seeing "The Church of People Who Want Lower Taxes", and "The Church of Business", and so on. These would be "Churches" formed solely as tax dodges.
Base a government on religion and you're creating a government that cannot adapt to meet changing needs, will alienate a large percentage of its population, lose vast amounts of revenue and will, sooner rather than later, bring itself down.