There has been much discussion in the press and in many forums about whether Bush's re-election was driven by the religious right and whether this gives him a mandate to further a religious agenda in the U.S. - possibly breaching the wall separating church and state.
Of those who voted for him, it's a sure bet there would be at least a few who are actually in favour of breaking down this wall, paving the way for a partial or even full theocracy. But such would be an extremely small minority and are not a threat. That doesn't mean there is no danger at all, certainly there is a possibility of some erosion, perhaps a few leaks; but not a breach.
Bush, for his part, is a mixed bag, on the one hand indicating through some statements that he has no religous agenda and that he understands the reason for separating church and state and will uphold it in the U.S., while on the other hand, saying that he would accept a theocracy in Iraq as long as it is "democratically" chosen by the Iraqis. If a theocracy is wrong anywhere then it is wrong everywhere.
More recently some sites have published statistics indicating that, while there was indeed an increase in votes coming from the religious right over the last election, it was a much smaller increase than Bush received from other groupings where religion was much less a concern.
However, what most statistics do show is that a very high number voted for Bush, or at least for the conservative right, out of concern for moral values. This concern cut across many groups regardless of their religious positions.
This seems to indicate a general trend towards renewed recognition of the importance of moral values, this after decades of moral values being more and more trivialized by many of the world's intellectuals. The left, over the last few decades, has become less and less principled while for the right it has increased, and this seems to have drawn more people to the right.
Renewed interest in moral values and moral principles is a good thing, however for centuries there has been a packaging of morality and religion that has been and continues to be accepted by a large majority. Many cannot imagine that there can even be a code of morality without a religious backing. This comes down to the alternative between reason or faith. If one believes moral principles must be accepted on faith - handed down from some higher authority than man - then one comes to such conclusions as "in reason there is no reason to be moral".
But this belies a fundamental misunderstanding of the role morality plays in our lives. Obeying a commandment is not an act of morality. Choosing an action because it is right is an act of morality. But to determine what action is right requires the use of reason, not faith. Judging the morality of an action is a measurement we must make in each situation. But a measurement of what? To measure anything there must be some standard, what is the standard of measure for a moral code proper to man? The only reasonable answer is: life - human life. The act of murder is not wrong because some alleged higher authority commands it, it is wrong because it violates a human's life - it is one person taking what is not rightfully his to take. The purpose of choosing one's actions based on moral principles is not for the sake of some afterlife, it is for the sake of this life here on earth. Ayn Rand said: "The purpose of morality is to teach you, not to suffer and die, but to enjoy yourself and live."
Along with the separation between church and state, we need a separation between church and morality. The former is dependent on the latter and without it, the former will be breached eventually.
