Politicians are not obligated to keep their religious views private since doing so is not a necessary condition to uphold the principle of separation between church and state.

Anti-Catholic concerns swept over our country when, charismatic and handsome though he is, President John F. Kennedy was elected as the President of the United States. He did not keep his religious views private: he openly asserted his Catholic faith (https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16920600), which was not in contradiction with his upholding of the principle of a secular government. His proclamation of his religious views did not interfere with his performance as a president, and, until today, he continues to be widely hailed as one of the best presidents in our history.

The lesson that we can derive from this valuable experience in our history is that one's personal religious identity does not necessarily clash with the principle of the separation between church and state. Kennedy's successor Lyndon B. Johnson did not hesitate to support the Civil Rights Movement by citing Judeo-Christian influences, yet he still was a distinguished liberal and left-leaning president who did not interfere with the country's secular values.

A very common joke I hear online is the comparison between religion and a penis: "it is good to have one, but not good to show in public". There may be some truth in this statement, yet many renowned politicians did not hesitate to show theirs in public, to no harm at all.

A politician's religious beliefs will inevitably influence their policy making, so to air them publicly is the correct, transparent move.

• To keep one's religious views private can simply mean to be kept entirely to one's self.
• In another sense, to keep one's religious views private may mean to not explicitly speak of them or let them be known to the public, or to media. Yet, the politicians religious values may be publicly displayed as they are reflected in their actions and policies.
• In an ideal world, I believe religion and the state should be kept seperate, or further, religion should be made totally obselete, due to its oppressive and pacifying powers on the people. See my points on "Religion is the opium of the people". However, whilst religious identity is in decline, we are not yet in this position in society.
• Thus, keeping religious views private may not prevent their inevitable influence unto their politics whether the politician is aware of it or not, hence it is more transparent to air all beliefs to the public so they can identify the source of potential biases and prejudices in policy making.
• Although I do not feel it is right to deliberately let personal religious views inform public policy, and they should be private in this sense, shielding these views from the public eye may allow for religion's influence to creep in unnoticed.
• Exposing the inevitable value-ladenness of politics ensures transparency and awareness of religious influence enables the elimination where necessary of the negative impacts of religious doctrine.