The wrong kind of influence...

In the above video, I believe the pastor is sincere in his beliefs but he is crossing a line and not just breaking Federal law - I think this is abuse of authority. Throughout history, leaders of religious entities have held political sway over their subjects and it doesn't take much to see the trail of devastation in its wake.

First, there is argument over what was meant by separation of church and state as it is never actually mentioned but implied in The Constitution of the United States:

"Article. VI. - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths (Paragraph 3)
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

"Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

In both cases, the government's role is what is restricted. That being said, when religious groups attempt injection of their beliefs into legislation, they cross the line of constitutionality. Many religious groups often point out that this country was founded on the principle of religious freedom; that is not even close to being largely true - just read The Declaration of Independence.

Here is the first sentence:
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

Then next part, the preamble, lays out the rights of the colonists to declare independence. It is the third section that outlines the grievances the Second Continental Congress has with England's King George III. The list is rather long so I will not present it here. What is of note is that there is no mention of religion or religious persecution as part of that list. There goes the founded-on-religious-freedom argument.

So why is it even mentioned in The Constitution? At that time, there was a high level of anti-Catholicism (a leftover of the internal religious strife of the previous 300 years in England's history) even to the point where many Catholics were forbidden to hold public office. Also, there were numerous sects of the predominantly Protestant faith - not everybody got along. So in order to be fair, there could be no preference to one. The framers also felt it would be embarrassing for anyone to leave because of religious persecution so best to keep government out of religion.

Second, my biggest concern is that inserting religious beliefs into election grossly simplifies the priorities electors must consider when choosing a candidate. This argument of choosing candidates based on moral values and religious principles goes against reason. I'm not saying you shouldn't consider it but it shouldn't be the only thing. When I hear people say, "he goes to church" or "she's a believer," it infuriates me because those personal qualities do not always translate into who the best qualified individual is. We are also so diverse in our beliefs so who gets to choose? We have spent the last seven years with a president who was elected, in part, with a manipulation of those parameters in mind and what does the United States have to show for it?

- A misguided police action (it's not a war if Congress doesn't declare it so) where resources were diverted away from where we should actually be - Afghanistan. We are no safer.
-An economy in peril thanks to deregulation chiefly supported by those of "good moral character" - I lost my job, my home and life savings but my elected official is against abortion, against gay marriage, supports prayer in school and an amendment to outlaw flag burning and that's really important to me. You may think God will provide for you but it didn't have to happen - that is my point.
- The criminal willingness of the current administration to circumvent its constitutional responsibility to all of its citizens nevermind The Constitution itself.
- Low standing in the international community. The terrorists and those who support them do not hate us for our freedoms. They hate us because we're sticking our nose in their business and arrogant to think we know best. We used to be known as a force for good but no more - we are reviled.

I can't stop you from making your choice based on whatever it is you base your decisions on. I only ask that you consider other factors. What follows will flip many of my friends who know me to be an atheist but I simply had to:

Gospel of Luke, Chapter 10, verses 25–37.
On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?" "What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?" He answered: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'" "You have answered correctly," Jesus replied. "Do this and you will live." But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?" In reply Jesus said, "A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an inn and took care of him. The next day he took out two silver coins and gave them to the innkeeper. 'Look after him,' he said, 'and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.' "Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?" The expert in the law replied, "The one who had mercy on him." Jesus told him, "Go and do likewise."