Is the United States a Christian nation or a nation of religious freedom and tolerance? Are we implicitly the United Christian States of America in the same way as the Islamic Republic of Iran? Some Christians seem to think so and have been conducting an unrelenting campaign to make it so.
Consider the not so very subtle comments by the not so subtle Paul Harvey: “Life, liberty or your pursuit of happiness will not be endangered because someone says a 30-second prayer before a football game…. But it’s a Christian prayer, some will argue…. If I went to a football game in Jerusalem, I would expect to hear a Jewish prayer. If I went to a soccer game in Baghdad, I would expect to hear a Muslim prayer…. And I wouldn’t be offended. It wouldn’t bother me one bit.
When in Rome…..” In short, Mr. Harvey wants us to believe that we are a Christian nation rather than a nation with a majority of Christians and are thus justified in incorporating Christianity into our official public acts. But Israel was explicitly established as a religious state and look at the trouble that has caused them and the rest of the world. And though I have not attended a soccer game in Baghdad, I doubt that I would hear a Muslim prayer at one, though prayer rooms are set aside in most buildings for those who wish to pray when called. America has made a different choice. Our constitution tries to protect us from our government and from each other by limiting what our government can do and what a majority of citizens may decide. The separation of church and state is an instrument of that protection.
The prohibition against discrimination in law and public matters on the basis of sex and race is another such protection (after the 14th amendment). Discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation has not explicitly achieved that status but social attitudes have moved a long way in that direction. I found it interesting that in the Vice Presidential debate, where both candidates expressed the same views against “gay marriage”, Sarah Palin stated that she accepted the right of people to choose their sexual orientation. This is a significant advance over anti gay views widely held a generation or two ago but unfortunately still reflects the mistaken view that we can chose to be gay or straight. According to the Anchorage Daily News of Aug 6, 2006, “Palin… said she doesn’t know if people choose to be gay.” Too bad, she should know better.
The narrow adoption of Proposition 8 in California to eliminate the right of same–sex couples to marry provides an example of the mixing of church and state that might not have occurred to you. The problem arises (aside from ignorance and bigotry) because the set of legal rights and obligations bestowed by the state in “civil unions” goes by the same name, “marriage,” as the status bestowed by religious groups. The Catholic, Baptist, Episcopal, Sunni, Buddhist, etc. churches (even the Mormon Church) should be free to define marriage, and who they wish to marry, in whatever manner they think appropriate. At least that is the American perspective. But the state must abide by the words and spirit of its constitution. It may not (or at least should not) discriminate against gay and lesbian couples in granting the marriage contract. And we seem on our way to getting there. What stands in the way is mixing the roles of church and state. Let’s keep them separate as provided in our constitution, not withstanding that the majority of our citizens are Christians of one sort or another.
Warren's space 
My dear Warren,
I agree with you in the separation of Church and State. As a devout Christian, I reject these “born again” evangelists for hijacking Christianity and making it into a pressure group subservient to the zionist agenda. I do not go to church nor follow any man in my relationship with my Lord and Saviour. I consider myself a devout Christian, and most probable a better at it than ninety nine percent of these hate mongers that call themselves Evangelicals. Yet, I fall short, very short, of what Jesus expects from me. It is by grace we are saved, not by merits! No real Christian, that is, anyone who has the Holy Spirit in him, would lambast and alienate others because of their sexual orientation. The hatred and vindictiveness of these right wingers is reminiscent of Nazi anti jewish propaganda.
I pray to the Lord to forgive my many sins, to make me a better person; I pray for all my friends, you included, so that one day the Lord will touch their lives and that we may share eternity together. I strive for love, compassion, tolerance, forgiveness towards my fellow humans, not hatred, intolerance, vindictiveness and bigotry. This is found nowhere in the Bible that Ive studied for over thirty years!
These people are not good people, Warren. They DO NOT represent Jesus nor His teachings. They have perverted His teachings and the Bible as a whole in order to fulfill political agendas. We are taught that we are NOT of this world and are NOT to participate in politics. These pseudo Christian evangelicals of today are precisely the saducees and farisees of yesteryear! With their manipulated Biblical teachings, taking verses out of context and twisting Christ’s teachings to further their goals, they have managed to alienate so many people, among them gays, liberals, and anyone who loves human beings for their natural qualities. They are what the Bible calls the last day false profets! There is no Hell bad enough to compensate for the suffering and heartache they have inflicted on so many!
Dont despair my friend, they have no moral quality to judge others, and if they do, in that same measure they will be judged and will pay exponentially. If there is a book tha I more or less know, it is the Bible. Rest assured that they are not Christians at all!
Warmest regards,
Oscar
Nice post Warren.I completely agree as long as one side is using the word "marriage" in a cultural/religious sense (Yes on Prop 8) and the other side uses it in a "legal contract" sense (No on Prop 8), we will continue to face major problems in fighting discrimination. Another complication however, on the No on Prop 8 side, is that many people feel like accepting anything less than use of the term "marriage," as opposed to "civil unions" or "domestic partnership" will be second class. I would argue that it is not, and getting hung up on hetero-normative semantics has been a great hindrance to the achieving equality.-Ray
Added for Don Devine, Second Vice Chairman of the American Conservative Union and Editor of its "Conservative Battleline"Proposition 8, of
course, left gay civil unions fully intact. Being a true libertarian, I see the
problem as the state taking over a function and brand-name owned by the church.
It was the state – primarily with the rise of divine-right kingship that
overthrew the medieval order and then the French Revolution – that did not
respect separation of church and state on the matter of marriage. As far as a
football game, if it is played on private property as it should if the
government had not taken over the education and sports-stadium businesses, what
is wrong with a Christian prayer? The creation of marriage for one man and woman
and civil unions for the rest is one of those messy compromises that necessarily
take place when the state usurps what should be private social rather than
government political matters. If one insists on government (whether legislature
or court) performing the function, the majority sentiment (whether a democracy
or not) will rule and that includes its religion. As Hayek made so clear,
equality before the law cannot work if government does everything because people
are not equal on everything.