church v. state

the "seperation of church and state" doctrine as we know it is pure myth. i know what you're thinking: but marcus, it is in the constitution! but you're wrong. it was a principle set forth in a letter by thomas jefferson to the danville baptists while he was president. in this letter, jefferson writes "there should be a wall of seperation between church and state." this is the first time that phrase appears in the american political vocabulary. many liberals (not all, but many) take this to mean that all forms of religion should be excluded from having any kind of contact with the government in all its many forms. what jefferson really meant was that we should not have a state-funded, national church. and i agree with that. what we don't hear is that two days later on that following sunday, jefferson left the white house and went to the u.s. house of representives in order to attend church because the u.s. house was used as a church until after the civil war, as was the u.s. treasury building.

this sheds light on another misconception: that jefferson was some sort of agnostic or deist. that he wasn't a christian. that when he wrote"creator" in the declaration of independence, that this was a very subtle and all-inclusive term that, whether you believed in God, Allah, fate, chance, or whatever, however you came into being, you had contract rights. but just take a look at the jefferson memorial. on the walls of the memorial is a quote by jefferson himself stating:

i have sworn upon the altar of God Almighty eternal hostility against all forms of tyranny over the minds of men.

-thomas jefferson

What do you think he meant by God Almighty? because if he meant God Almighty, then maybe he did mean Creator. and if he meant Creator and Creator was God Almighty, then this whole secular view of america simply disappears and we are left with a country that is very strongly founded on christian principles. so why should we be timid in advancing our christian beliefs as public policy?

the church and the state should be and will remain seperate entities, but christians and politics should not. i don't understand how liberal christians can support abortion. it absolutely blows my mind. i feel christians should understand their place in government and be more active. are we just so scared of pissing of some atheist that we allow our society to do things that would repulse Christ? i can imagine that on the day of judgement Christ will say to the christians of america what paul wrote to the galatians:

i am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel -- which is really no gospel at all.

am i now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? or am i trying to please men? if i were still trying to please men, i would not be a servant of Christ.

-gal 1:6,7 & 10 niv

we should not adopt one set of rules for our christian lives and another for our country, our government. it's ridiculous.

there was a movie that came out not too long ago called "the contender" starring jeff bridges and joan allen. in it joan allen's character is being nominated to serve as the new vice president or supreme court judge or some important position like that. the panel questioning her asks her some probing question about her spiritual beliefs. she is an atheist. she responds by saying that the capital is her church, that she prays at the altar of democracy, that just because she doesn't believe in a supreme being, her sense of morality and ethicality is no different than yours or mine.

are we as christians worshipping at two altars? there is only one God. but we hold our government in such high esteem that it might as well be a religion. our judges are the gods and our congressmen and women our priests. we sometimes view our democracy as so sacred it cannot, nay, must not be marred by christian ideals and beliefs.

but this is just what i think. what do you think?