"Politicians and operatives claiming that God spoke to them is as old as the hills," Frederick Clarkson, author of "Eternal Hostility: The Struggle Between Theocracy and Democracy" told BuzzFlash.  "Whether said in earnest or as a matter of crass pandering, when people say such things, they should be viewed with extreme skepticism. Not so much to question whether or not God spoke to them, but because they were so unwise as to say so."

Let me expand on this point in light of Cain's revelation.  

Much is implied when they make statements invoking a divine call to run for office. The inference is that they somehow embody God's politics.  That their policy ideas are God's policy ideas.  That they are God's chosen pol. That they have God's endorsement.  

While it is hard to top an endorsement from God, what if God has, as seems to be the case this time, several candidates in the same race?   Maybe they were mistaken. Or perhaps God was up to something else.  

Perhaps God wanted people to see the shameless way that pols invoke his name. Perhaps God wanted treat us to some spectacular displays of political sleazebaggery in the way pols will use and abuse God to achieve vainglorious ends.  Perhaps God wanted us all to see the difference between people who honestly aspire to public service and those who are all about egotism and extreme vanity.  (If that was God's intention, Herman Cain was a great pick!)  

Cain and his GOP colleagues forget or ignore the fact that we live in a pluralist society in which as a matter of constitutional authority, plus more than two centuries of legal development, and a profound matter of cultural ethos, we are equal as citizens.  This reality stays the same whatever our religious or non-religious views may be, whether we change our minds and how often we might do so.  As we have seen, faith-based political appeals can lead to some pretty spectacular cases of religious bigotry as well as outrageous pandering that undermines the civic and religious integrity of anyone who engages in, encourages, or otherwise supports such behavior.

Evangelical scholar David Gushee recently called on fellow evangelicals to recognize and end this problem which he sees as inherently corrupting of both Christianity and American politics.  He writes:

Republican presidential candidate can be counted on to turn out for the Values Voter Summit, [sponsored by several Christian Right organizations] perhaps our current best symbol of everything that's wrong with evangelical politics, the old formula of support in exchange for access appears alive and well.

What's the impact?

This version of Christian politics is inherently corrupting to Christian faith, ethics and witness.  It encourages politicians to take God's name in vain, and to do so routinely.  (That would be a violation of the Ten Commandments, if Christians still cared about such things.) It tempts church leaders to abuse their offices and abandon their core vocations as they entangle themselves with politics.  It confuses the message of Christianity with that of the politician of the moment.  It damages the moral witness of Christians in culture. It makes it harder for millions to even consider the claims of historic Christian faith.  It drives many away from God altogether.

That's what advocates of church state separation, especially Baptists, have been saying since before the Constitution was written.  I told Berkowitz:  

"When the framers of the Constitution barred religious oaths and other 'tests' for public office (in Article 6), they were responding in part to the age old opportunism of politicians.

"The framers were wise enough to recognize and address the fact that pols don't necessarily mean everything that they say, and that many will say whatever is necessary to accomplish their ends.  So when we hear contemporary pols and their employees claim that God made them do it, we might ask ourselves whether they are really any more credible than pols who in other contexts say that Satan made them do it."