Separation of Church of State: what does it mean?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state#Friendly_and_hostile_separation
Ooh, I can’t resist giving my two cents here…
Freedom of worship is not equivalent to freedom of religion, despite the opinion of many non-religious or nominally religious people. Therefore, I firmly believe that politicians must be allowed to let their religous beliefs influence their policies, since for them, it is no different than a non-religious person allowing their political beliefs to affect their decisions.
So I think a Catholic politician, assuming they are actually Catholic (i.e. believe everything the Church teaches), would be obliged to oppose abortion, regardless of what the majority felt was right within their constituency. It would be wrong for such a politician to promise that he would vote to maintain the status quo (which in Canada is 0 laws restricting abortion). On the other hand, such a politician would be wrong to vote to impose aspects of Catholicism on the general population that are only required of Catholics, such as abstaining from work on Sunday (and these two categories sort of blend into each other, so there’s definitely a grey area).
I also think those working in any public institution, whether they be a teacher, a senator, or a civil servant, should be free to express their religious beliefs openly and freely, provided they do not actually impose such beliefs on others. The idea that religion is a private affair that ought to be left at home when one goes to work is absurd, in my opinion, and preventing people from bringing their religion into the public sphere is a violation of their religious rights, as far as I am concerned.