It has been sad to note the increasing intolerance to religion in our country, particularly toward Christianity. The state of Oklahoma is currently embattled in a desperate attempt to keep a granite statue of the Ten Commandments on their state house grounds. Their state supreme court ruled the statue as being unconstitutional because it is using state money to benefit a religion. The decision is currently being challenged, but the outcome of the Ten Commandments is still uncertain. There could be many non-religious arguments made to keep the statue on site, not the least of which is the fact that the Ten Commandments has been a basis of law for cultures for millenia and therefore has historical significance, but I wish to take this issue right to the heart of the state vs. religion issue.
Those who would argue for a separation of church and state and freedom of religion have effectively moved beyond these premises and now are pushing for freedom "from" religion. It is not enough to ensure the government will never endorse a Christian denomination (the issue at stake in the letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists where the phrase "wall of separation of church and state" is actually found), but now we must make sure that government is completely washed of religion. No influence whatsoever. This seems to be what liberals want: to have no intersection between religion (particularly Christian religion) and the state. The first amendment to the Constitution states that, " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." The basic language used and the intent it represents means that the government will never establish a country-wide denomination (as had been done in England over which bloody wars had been fought just 100 years earlier) or religion that it requires people to adhere to or participate in. It also promises that people will be able to practice their religion freely, without the government censuring their pulpits or disbanding their churches (again, as had been done in England earlier). However, this protection of the people was never meant to be license for the government or special interest groups to reduce the people's right to express their religion in all spheres of life, including government and politics. The very concept of no religion or no God actually is a religion they are trying to push down our throats. It is atheism.
In fact, liberals don't want us to repress our religion. They may think they do, but if they really stopped and thought through the full implications of what they push for, they would realize their attack on religion is ridiculous. They want religious people to take office and to make decisions based upon their religious beliefs. They really do. They may rant that this is not so, but it is. They may say to "leave religion out of it," but I guarantee that this is not what they want. The very idea that they have a voice and a right to be heard is a religious one. It is a Christian one, I would argue. The Christian religion states that all mankind were made in God's image and therefore have value. If a person has value then what they say must have value as well. Therefore, it is important that a government not restrict free speech. OK liberals, no religion, then you have no right to speak. Also flowing out of the idea that all men were created in God's image is the idea that all men are created equal. If all are in God's image, then no one kind of person is better or superior to another. This is a Christian idea. Racial issues find their solution in Christianity. OK liberals, no religion, then which ever ethnic group can battle their way to the top has every right to dominate the others. Another big issue is the idea of giving. I don't know about you, but the naturally giving person is the exception, not the rule of society. Most people have what they have and do not give much thought to the needy child or the aging population. There is not a line of people waiting to give money at every soup kitchen or homeless shelter. That is not something we just naturally do, but religion informs us about the need to care for those less fortunate than ourselves. All the major religions speak of the importance of giving. Most assign it as a duty. Christianity teaches that giving should not be from a duty but from a cheerful or willing spirit. It is the religious nature of our country that has taught us to care for those in need. OK liberals, no religion, then no medicare or medicaid, food stamps, or any other government aid. Liberals, if they are honest, do not want people or politicians to leave their religion in their homes or places of worship. They want us to exercise our religion and to express it politically.
We as a country need to be very careful what we ask for. If we truly want a country devoid of the influence of the Ten Commandments in our politics, we very well may get such a country. I don't know about you, but I do not want to live some place where human life, speech, and need among others are completely ignored and suppressed.