Palestine, Texas

We've started a long trip. I feared that I would have no access or ideas to post.

Today, as we were driving through east Texas, seeing the many huge Baptist churches, I considered just what is happening during this election. The incredibly long, sometimes bad tempered campaigns, I thought that this was a ploy to make Americans so sick of the candidates and their non-statements that no-one would vote. Then, as the Democratic candidacy came down to Senators Clinton and Obama, race and religion raised their ugly heads.

What difference does it make that one presidential candidate is a woman, another black and the third a Vietnam veteran. Do any of these things have any effect on their competence to manage this country? Who cares if one is Christian or another Moslem? All three have shown their dedication to America and their ability to campaign.

But that Moslem thing really sticks in my craw. I have yet to decide who I want for president. I am certain that I don't want it to be me. But this religious interference with our government bothers me.

From their letters and papers, it would appear that our founding fathers wanted no religion to tell our legislators how to run the country. They did not just speak of the various forms of Christianity. They included Islam, Judaism, Bhuddism and Hinduism in their discussions. We have falloen away from that.

The separation of church and state is an important part of our constitution. But preachers are able to use their pulpit to state their views on who should govern this country and how they should do it. The fact is that many of these religious leaders have great influence on their congregations. Another fact is that mass media have given some of them incredibly large followings... people who will do as their pastor suggests.

That is not separation of church and state. It puts the churchs squarely into the political arena. That, I beleive is wrong. We are up against the rule of separation and the guarantees of free speach and assembly. Never-the-less, it doesn't seem right to me that any religious leader can accept his tax free (separation) status, then try to put his views of government as gospel to his followers. It has been suggested that such a leader's church be stripped of its tax free status. Not a bad idea, but impractical since they already have such a firm grip on our elected leaders.

Besides, it would put the congregation in the position of having to report on their chosen faith. We don't want to put agents in every church to make certain that its leader stays away from politics. That smacks of the worst of totalitarianism. The chrch leaders are understandably unwilling to part with the power they have gained from their sermons on who is right.

But still, some of their preaching is right down the line of intollerance and hate. How to control this is not so much the problem as how did it get that way and will it ever swing in the other direction.

Notice, that I don't say anything about the "good old days." Anyone with access to newspapers of the 19th and early 20th centuries will note that name calling and obstreperousness were just as popular then as now. We certainly do not want to return to the days of the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. Leaving the policing up to the government puts us right into the position that we have fought so hard to leave. The answer is individual action. If your pastor starts politicking fromthe pulpit, it's time to walk out of the service. Do it publicly and answer (softly and courteously) the questions of your fellow congregants. We pay these preachers. If we leave and don't pay our dues, they are out of a job, usually.

It is our responsibility to clean up our act.