On the Separation of Republican and Democrat

Neutrality in Politics?

This sort of destroys the politics of neutrality, doesn't it? By that I mean politics are somehow to be this sacrosanct bubble where religious prejudices are checked at the door of the voting booth. We're constantly being told religion is either irrelevant or has no rightful place in politics. This argument is best exemplified by the frequent parroting of so many political candidates who claim to be "personally opposed" to this or that issue, but of course, "the people should have the right to decide." This is just a phony cover for legislative proposals for which no politician wants to take personal responsibility and so hides behind the lower nature of the masses for the votes. We've seen it with gambling, abortion, gay marriage, etc. �?all issues about which many people have strong religious views. Now Republicans and Democrats are dividing more along religious lines, confirming what has always been a factor, but increasingly so as the lines are dug deeper in the culture war.

Do I believe there is a possible danger of mixing politics and religion? Sure. I certainly don't want the Church to be a step-and-fetch-it to a political party, nor tied too closely behind an elephant much less a jackass. Bad things can happen there. However, this poll confirms what we've known all along. You don't leave your convictions behind before entering the voting booth. Behind every politician or political issue are character and ethics. Behind character and ethics are morals. Behind morals are faith assumptions and beliefs about the meaning of life and how to live it, especially in the context of our culture and nation. The only way to keep your religious life private is to become a schizophrenic, or worse a hypocrite. The American public increasingly realizes that faith matters, mostly by recognizing how alarming and rapid has been the decline in American values as we have systematically removed religion from public life. The only people benefiting from this falsely framed wall of separation are those who are doing the systematic removal of all things religious.
 

Testing Our Tolerance

If anything has happened of real benefit since 9/11, it's that with the exposure to a truly different religion or worldview- Islam, we are objectively witnessing how much religion does have to do with politics. Throw in a religion that has no underlying philosophy of the distinction between Church and State, and we will now see how much conviction we really do have about tolerance and religious pluralism. I can pretend to see no evil, hear no evil, and speak no evil, or I can say religious assumptions matter in the real political world and always have. Can the Church become too closely aligned to a political party? Yes, if your highest allegiance is to the State. If your highest allegiance is to God, you will not yoke yourself to a leader, a party, or a cause that does not represent the core of your beliefs.

It's one thing to separate the institutions, which is biblical; it's entirely another to try and separate God from either. That systematic removal of God is just another form of censorship, which is increasingly what we are seeing with such policies as removal of the Ten Commandments from public life, hate crimes which persecute speech and thought, or ejecting high school students for sharing their religious convictions in speeches. The blatant extent to which the secularists have tried to press for this point is becoming loony at best and diabolical at worst.

The First Freedom

The First Amendment is so simple and clear when not muddied and buried by our apostate judicial interpreters. "Congress" (not the states, all of which mention God in some form in their state constitutions) "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Coming fresh from Europe, that meant no state religion or denomination, pure and simple. But then the amendment states very plainly and strongly, "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." When do you hear that phrase even whispered in our judicial halls these days? It doesn't take a rocket scientist does it? Government has no business prohibiting any religious expression �?end of story! Now, there have always been and always will be kook-balls who will push their religious agenda over the line into criminal activity, like idiotic fanatics who fly 747's into skyscrapers. Criminal activity is to be prosecuted under criminal laws. Duh! Nevertheless, you don't stop practicing religion just because somebody embarrassed you.

The First Amendment was drafted to guarantee freedom of religion, meaning conscience and worship, but it did not stop there. It progressed through speech, press, assembly, and finally even to appeal, protest, and redress of grievances if necessary, and in that order! In other words, freedom of conscience would be meaningless if it could not be expressed and practiced in public ways. In fact, I will argue they began with freedom of religion because they actually meant to begin with freedom of religion. Duh! Liberty of conscience was viewed as the most inviolable right and the right upon which all other free expressions depended.

The Wall Worn Thin

What Gallup is affirming is that we are rediscovering that religion does matter, and we're beginning to act upon that conviction. We're weary of politicians talking out of both sides of their mouths, especially when it comes to their faith. The Church has also painted itself into a corner. Excommunication is once again being discussed for politicians who don't practice their faith. How far does one advocate immoral policies and stay in good standing with one's church. Not only has the wall analogy worn thin, but we are now realizing that Church and State are in certain ways interwoven and totally dependent on one another. Both are firmly established only upon strong moral character and ethics. Even with its long line of State churches, Europe has historically had Christian political parties both in name and in substance, because it was obvious that there were political issues of conscience that true followers of Christ could not abide and if necessary must form new political parties and structures to better serve their convictions. Parties will continue to change with the political winds, but it's nice to know which way the wind is blowing in a real storm and why.

Not every single political issue has a simplistic or obvious moralistic solution, but many policies are very obvious when measured against belief in a Creator, or the lifestyle of Christ, or the Ten Commandments and biblical revelation. Let us never concede to the politically spineless who think they can live in dualism and hypocrisy and boast of a clear conscience too. In many parts of the world, freedom of conscience costs you your life. Changing political parties hardly compares.