"'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.' Some nations have an established church...Clearly the First Congress did not want an established church here...Thomas Jefferson argued that the First Amendment was designed to create a 'wall of separation' between church and state. According to this interpretation, the First Amendment forbids not only favoritism toward one religion but also any support for religion in general." - Lineberry, Robert L. Government in America 4th ed. 1989. pp 147-148.

     The founding fathers knew well what they were doing when they built a "wall" between the two institutions. For the government is only legitimate so long as it is accountable to all of the people it governs, the nonreligious as well as the religious. A democratic state is as responsible to its "God-fearing" citizens as it is to its "heathen" citizens. Once one religious system becomes the official dogma, those who do not subscribe to that belief system are no longer being represented, and the political system has lost its legitimacy. Any government that has lost its legitimacy is in danger of being overthrown.

     Religious leaders interested in controlling the state make the following arguments: [1] All law is an implementation of someone's morality, and all current law is based upon the morality of the nonreligious; [2] the church is simply a collection of citizens, so to deny church involvement in policy-making is to deny the rights of the individual citizens.

     The first argument erroneously makes the assumption that law is based upon morality. The Law of the Land (in the US) has ALWAYS been the Constitution and has never been the Bible or any other religious book. Murder is illegal not because it is "immoral" but because one person is wrongfully taking away the right to life of another. As a protector of the people, the government must step in to ensure that everyone's rights and property are protected from threats both internal and external. No amount of "moral degeneration" will change the fact that murder is taking away someone's right to life. Even if murder became morally acceptable, it would still be illegal under the US Constitution.

     On the other hand, I don't want to deny the importance of religion in the formation of the United States. I list the following quotes as reference:

•	"The origins of American politics are to be found in the English Puritan Revolution. That revolution is, in fact, the single most important formative event of American political history...In the early colonies, church and state were often closely linked." Huntington, Samuel P. American Politics: The Promise of Disharmony. 1981. pp 154-155.
•	"Religion and republicanism would work hand in hand to create frugality, honesty, self-denial, and benevolence among the people." Wood, Gordon S. The Creation Of The American Republic 1776-1787. 1969. p 118.

     No one can deny the important role religion has played throughout history. It is an incredible motivational force, building up nations in one era and destroying them in another. In one era it justified a revolution to declare independence, in another it was used to justify slavery and witch hunts. My point being that religion can be used to motivate people to advance humankind or it can be used to motivate people to be hateful and unjust to one another. It is like a giant bus that believers climb into and allow their religious leaders to drive them around. The leaders can use this bus to take their people to a better place, or they can use the bus to run over the people not under their control. I fear that this latter use of religion is what has dominated the last few decades.

     This brings us back to the second objection of religious leaders, that the church is really just a collection of individual believers and cannot, therefore, be denied influence in the political process. True and false. Individuals cannot be denied the right to participate in a democratic system. However, the participation of organizations can be regulated...whether the organization be an interest group, political party, or church group. Members of a group typically gain more political representation than an individual who is not a member of that group - the guarantee of equal representation requires regulation of these groups.

     However, religious groups are, and should be, treated much differently than purely political organizations. Some religious leaders have successfully shielded themselves behind the "wall between church and state" to create powerful political organizations with little government interference (the "Christian Coalition" comes quickly to mind). Once the precedent is set up that the government may regulate church groups (which groups like the "Christian Coalition" will force to happen), I fear that no one's freedom of religion will be safe again. Jesus was not concerned with politics or about imposing the Law upon the nonbeliever, and neither should those who claim His name. Nothing good can come of this modern merging of church and politics. One can only hope that the followers of these religious leaders will get out of their bus before they run over too many more people.

     I repeat what was said earlier: the state is to govern the nonbeliever as well as the believer. The state cannot simply implement the will of the believers, but must also be concerned with the will of the nonbelievers, for they too are citizens of this country.

3/22/97