A commentator in South Carolina remarked that none of the candidates were perfect, and Jesus was not on the ballot. I suspect persons of all political stripes can agree with this statement.
But what if he were?
More generally, is it rational to talk about a "Christian" government or an "Islamic" government?
I think it is not, and I would encourage folks in the Middle East and AFrica who are forming new governments to proceed with care. You can certainly have a government run by Christians, as the US generally has. You can have one run by Moslems, as Turkey has.
But when you place the Church (or the Mosque, or the Council of Imams, or whatever) _directly_ in charge of the government, you tend to degrade the quality of religious thought and behavior, and you don't necessarily get very good government, either.
Why? Well, most of what government does has little to do with religion. There is not an Islamic way to build a highway or a water-treatment plant, nor a Christian way to run a telephone network. This is not to say they there are not people of faith who are skilled in these areas. But the decisions on how and what and where and when should be resolved by essentially secular processes of democratic debates along with good engineering and science.
The Catholic Church reached its greatest extent of temporal power in the late Medieval period. This was not a high point for theological process or religious living. Instead, we got Crusades, Inquisitions, and the Borgia popes - and ultimately schism and Protestantism.
So, don't vote for Jesus. He already has a job.
And create, if you are a Moslem country, a government of Moslems, not an Islamic government.
Comments