This post is a part of a larger “blogswarm” underway this weekend all around the topic of church/state and liberal fears of a theocracy. If you can imagine a few misguided secular progressive zealots have again intentionally picked resurrection weekend to “Blog Against Theocracy.” My friend Bob Ellis over at Dakota Voice calls them BATS adding the “S” to stand for silliness. Bob has organized eight or so South Dakota bloggers return a volly of truth this weekend in something he’s calling “Blogging Against Secularism.” I’m honored he invited me to participate in the discussion though I’ll probably be the least of the contributers (if nothing else because I’m pretty focused on Easter right now). I’ll post my contributions, probably only two, here and at my Voices Carry pro-life blog. You can follow the rest of the blogswarm this weekend here.
Who are we kidding, it is absolutely relevant what Sen. Barack Obama’s church teaches and that his spiritual advisor is black liberationist Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Like gives birth to like. Though many tried to dismiss it several months ago, it was centrally important for the electorate to know the full story behind Mitt Romney’s Mormonism. (Mormon salvation is that each man becomes a god of his own planet and spends eternity populating it with spirit babies – Mormon women can look forward to being eternally pregnant.)
Hypothetically, do we really think that electing a candidate with a pacifistic Mennonite or Quaker background would have no bearing on their ability to fulfill the role of Commander and Chief? Who are we kidding? Voting for Mitt Romney or Barack Obama or Senator “Secular” from South Wherever is to vote their worldview into office. It is impossible to separate a person from what they believe.
Even, and especially, those who claim no religious viewpoint… while admitting to being non-religious, they betray the fact that they bow at the altar of secularism and those gods are giving voice and influence in governance. Somebody’s moral framework is going to shape society; the only question is whose. The culture war is a war of religious world views, a fight for who will set this nation’s moral agenda. And, morality touches every aspect of political and public life – economy, education, law, healthcare, defense, foreign policy, family, science and life. What we believe is central to who we are, how we live, how we think and how we view everything and everyone around us. There is no such thing as a politician who keeps his faith private. He/she may not speak about it, but it daily informs all they do. Voters therefore are not just electing men or women, they are electing what these men and women believe, and we are electing their religious world view.
Our government is “us.” It’s of the people, by the people, for the people. And we can talk about it all we want but “church” is inseparable from all this because “church” isn’t a building or an organization. The “church” is people, as again, is our government. So, I am the church and, I am the government. You’d have to cut somebody in half to separate the two.
Because so many American’s erroneously assume “separation of church and state” is written somewhere in the Constitution, secular progressives are able to effectively sideline conservative Christians from participating in the process. In writing the phrase “separation of church and state” in his private letter to the Danbury Baptist’s, Thomas Jefferson was saying the founders intention was that one Christian denomination over another should not be adopted as the religion of the state. But Jefferson’s wall was never meant to keep religion out. Jefferson believed in the free exercise of religion in all sectors of society, public and private. John Jay, founding father and first Supreme Court Justice clarified the central role the Christian Faith was to play in governance – “Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers. And it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest, of a Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.”
Knowing that no one can approach governance from a moral vacuum, the basis of ones beliefs is an especially critical question. Far more scrutiny should be given those who claim no “religious bias” than those who claim a religious perspective. The reason being those supposedly without religious bias, when elected, expose the country to untested unknowns many of which are counter to moral standards that have proven to be societal stabilizers for centuries.