This post was inspired by this article in my local paper this morning and the many recent and excellent posts on OS on Atheism in politics. Something has been bugging me about the this for a long time, because it seems to me that the people who advocate and insist that this country is a Christian country are overlooking a very important issue. History has taught us that once church and state merge, only one narrow, state-sponsored interpretation of the Correct Religion is allowed. In other words, the state tells churches how to run their business.

Now we know there is a certain segment of the population that think the separation of church and state is for sissies and the Founding Fathers didn’t really mean it, anyway. Yeah, I know, I know. But given the number of people who identify as Christian, and think the Founding Fathers were this monolithic Christian group, let’s just say the separation of church and state isn’t exactly a given.

So let’s say that the Christians have their way and turn this country into the Christian Theocracy, the next question to ask is who’s version of Christianity wins? Would it be the branch that sees Jesus as a radical reformer who would be in favor of healing the sick and feeding the poor? Or would be the Christians of the suburban and rural white churches who win? The Christianity of “He who is without sin…” or the Christianity of  Fred Phelps who says “God hates fags”? OS’s Real Live Preacher or Sarah Palin?

I have to wonder if the people who think we need more religion in public life have thought this one through. Do they not get that once religion and government are merged, their own version of Christianity might not be the one that “wins”? And if their own version isn’t the winner then their own church will be dictated to and told how to worship? “Sorry dudes, that’s the wrong hymn book, the state only recognizes this one…”

Talk about your dual-edged sword.