America remains, despite minor skirmishes on its ramparts, a Christian nation. Certainly, with unfettered immigration and the arrival of Buddhists, Moslems, Hindus and even counting the stalwart host of the Hebrew caucus (we do not yet have statistics on the Madonna/Demi Moore Kabbalah sect and wearers of the red string), the belief in the One God and His Son, Jesus, remains dominant in this nation’s theology. Give or take a million or two, the adherents to the Holy Bible make up about 80 per cent of the citizenry and has remained relatively stable - at least as much so as faithful spouses, honest policemen, virtuous Congressmen, harmless drunks and prostitutes who offer credit - but at much lower percentages.

The long-standing strength of Christianity as the acknowledged if uncrowned state religion dates back to the first settlements on the shores of Massachusetts and North Carolina. Those fleeing England’s and, later, Europe’s religious oppression found happy refuge in the New World. And, as religions are wont to do, established stern doctrines to ensure the sanctity and purity of their congregation and their new homes. Heretics were driven to the wilds and the inhospitable hands of the local aborigines, witches (or, at least, women who didn’t please their husbands or pray with sufficient energy) were burned and children who chased squirrels or kept pet frogs were vigorously exorcized. Early Christianity in frontier America was not tolerant of anything and was not, by any stretch of imagination, a "Big Tent".

When the Old White Men set about writing the laws of the new nation in 1787, they were well aware of the power of religion, in general, and Christianity, in particular, within their newly-liberated states. It was very fortuitous that most of the appointees gathered in Philadelphia that hot summer were, for the most part, not theologians. They were practical men who, while recognizing that religion was a strength in the new frontier, had no intention of establishing a theocracy. The "Big Three" of the Convention - Washington, Madison and Franklin - could best be described as Deists (if not agnostics) and wanted no part in establishing a fundamentalist state. Well schooled in history and keenly aware that history was replete with the shenanigans of spiritualism run amok, the leaders deliberately and very clearly erected a sturdy fence with distinct (if often lately misinterpreted boundaries) separation of church and state. The state would not mess with man’s search for salvation however he may seek it; no church would have a privileged place in the government. The fence was completed when the Bill of Rights was approved in 1789.

In the First Amendment, these words were added to the Constitution:

Herein, lies much mischief. What the first sentence of this simple compound sentence actually means has taken what was sturdy if not very imposing fence and, over recent years, has transfigured what was an unimposing little boundary line for centuries into a barricade that would humiliate the Great Wall of China, the Berlin Wall and the Normandy beachhead combined. And the battle continues to rage today, fueled by the upcoming national elections for the highest office in the land.

To my myopic and failing eyes and feeble cortex, the meaning should be clear even to mental giants like Brooke Hogan, Jessica Simpson and Michael Moore. The phrase simply means that, unlike the Mother Country and its Church of England, America shall not establish a Church of America. And, immediately following, the government will not regulate how a man can seek Heaven. Simple enough, wouldn’t you say?

But here’s the rub: simple words, required in the days of simple people, are - when dissected and rolled about and interpreted by the minds of those with their own agendas - prone to stretching, twisting and deformity. The result is that, in contemporary America, there is no issue to which there is not moral - which is to say, theological - implications. The very nation which desperately and deliberately sought to keep government out of religion and religion out of government has accomplished neither. They are as inextricably blended as single-malt Scotch, pop and country music and the American gene pool. In brief, there is, in the United State, no way to separate political issues from religious doctrine and the resulting mishmash has wrought much devilment in our affairs.

The battle lines may waver, slightly, from issue to issue, from bill to bill, from party to party, but they never dissolve completely. The skirmishes currently raging include the proposal to remove the phrase "In God We Trust" from some of our currency, the banning of the Ten Commandments from federal courthouses and the never-ending "Merry Christmas" versus "Happy Holidays" conflagration. And, with a the quadrennial beauty contest some refer to as the Presidential elections, the holy wars - like the alcoholic cousin at the family picnic - rears its ugly head once again.

The contest at hand - if one can actually call it that - will, over the next few months, deteriorate into a predictable, essential decision about the depth of the candidates faith. It will be a necessary and sufficient question for the majority of the Great Booboisie ¹ to decide how to vote, to whit, which candidate best embodies the abiding faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and which candidate is most likely to see the Kingdom of God. Certainly, there will be lesser considerations (likeability, physical appearance, perception of intelligence, oratory, wife and family, past experience, and the like) but, when the curtain falls on the voting booth, the final decision for the Common Man will be simple: Is this man a Christian with a capital "C"? On this simple assessment made by even simpler voters will hang the leadership of this nation for four years. For me, that is a singularly frightening prospect.

The religious test will be even more prominent in the election of 2008. Because one of the candidates was sired by a foreign national (Kenya) with roots in a non-Christian (Muslim) background, for many, religion becomes an even more preeminent consideration. Already, on the Internet and in political attack ads, opponents of this candidate are initiating a form of character assassination which, in political circles, is known as "guilt by association." Since the candidate was fathered by a Muslim, he very likely has a sinister attachment to this religion (if he is not a "closet" Ayatollah, himself) and, once in office, will activate a scheme to undermine America’s Christianity and establish Islamic ideals in the White House. It’s a desperate, malicious ploy based on the one of America’s deepest fears: attack from within the government. [The same nightmare was given cinematic fame in two versions of "The Manchurian Candidate".]

While the possibility is beyond believability for anyone with half a functioning cerebrum, for many red-blooded, Bible-thumping, modern day Billy Sundays, this is an evil that is very possible and that must be defeated at all costs. The very thought of a Worshiper of Allah and His Prophet, Muhammad, elected as President of the Christian Republic will cause the True Believers to become apoplectic, to foam at the mouth, to whip out their Continental Army replica flags, to hide the women and children in the corn cellar and raise their voices to "Onward Christian Soldiers". If there may be a renewal of 15^th Century Crusaders, this will be the year.

That the religion test is still part of the election process is, to me, sad enough since the noble Founding Fathers specifically rebelled against it. But convinced as I am that it will be the final arbiter of millions of votes on November 4^th, it is even more disconcerting. This election should not be about who believes in Jesus to the greatest degree or, as some will have you believe, which candidate might not believe in Jesus, Son of God, at all. This election should be to decide which policies and political philosophy will best serve the interests and betterment of the nation. It should (but will not and never has) decide which candidate will bring the most effective skills to what was once described as "The Most Powerful Office in the World", a phrase we once proudly believed in that, today, merely brings snickers and derision from the rest of the world.

If one were to cut through all the irrelevant but highly-emotional wrappings, ribbons and bows - that is, those things that will mesmerize the attentions of 99% of the proletariat - what church the candidates attend, how loudly they caterwaul to the hymns and what their pastor preaches (already a big issue this summer) will mean absolutely dog squat when it comes to leading this nation. What will matter is what the candidates believe the Constitution says and, even more importantly, what their view of the role of government is in the affairs of the citizenry.

But simple choices are what the Babbitts ² long for and if their options can be reduced to simple, emotional, gut-level decisions, so much the better. When the clock-puncher does not have to actually think, analyze, sift and discern and need only rely on his own prejudices, biases, belief system and personal "truths", choosing what to have for lunch, who to drink beer with and who to vote for as President are reduced to the same familiar, comfortable mechanism. And, once acted on, the third-rate citizen can return to where he is most at ease, namely reposed in his Lazy Boy, holding his remote control in one hand and a Miller Lite in the other. He can now return to his typical intellectual pursuits, which is to say NASCAR, the UFC or Smackdown.

Content in his reclination, his mind is untroubled. After all, when has a President actually done anything to damage the Republic?

__________________________

1. "Booboisie," was H.L. Mencken’s word for the ignorant middle classes. As a nationally syndicated columnist and book author from the first half of the 20^th century, he constantly attacked ignorance, intolerance, frauds, hypocrites, charlatans and the unfailing quest of Americans for "averageness".

2. From the novel by the same name by Sinclair Lewis (1922). The title character, George F. Babbitt lives a professionally successful life, but is nevertheless unhappy. The name "Babbitt" came to represent - in the writings of Henry Louis Mencken - the plebeian, the hourly wage earner or, in brief, the Great American Joiner. Mencken felt that the uninformed, uneducated and chronic followers in American culture were the prime reason the country was the land of the mediocre and why the average men they elected President were just what the people deserved.