I think it goes without saying that in an enlightened and intellectual society most people would immediately recognize whether a quote was factual and attributable to the person referenced or not. Please don’t get me started on all of the supposed quotes from personages such as Sokrates or Platon (yes, I use the correct Greek names here). Thus, it stands to reason – it actually seems all too obvious – that we do not live in an enlightened and intellectual society. This is obvious because such quotes are rampant, and few have the knowledge to discern whether they are real and properly attributed or not.

This leads us to the quote of the day (actually made a few days ago, but it is still lingering around), made by Sen. Josh Hawley and attributed to Patrick Henry: “It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here”. Not only have fact checkers shown that the quote cannot be attributed to Patrick Henry, but also that the sentiment expressed therein is contrary to what our founders envisioned. But, frankly, what can we expect from someone who gave a power sign to January 6th insurrectionists (albeit prior to their insurrectionist acts), encouraging them and who, by all accounts, can be classed as a Christian nationalist (and who would likely accept that title with pride)?

The frank fact of the matter is that this quote DOES express exactly the sentiment that many hold today because of misinformation – a sentiment which many wish to see as reality in this nation today. Thus, they try to use skewed history in order to facilitate their aims. Please allow me to break it down for the reader.

The first thing they are attempting to do is to skew history in such a way as to have everyone believe that freedom of religion only applies to Christians. Thus, they will state mindless things such as “peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here”. When their rhetoric constantly expresses the belief that our laws and even our Constitution are based on Christianity, this is where they are heading, making everyone who is not a Christian a second-class citizen at best. It is no misstatement that our founders were indeed Christians, for the most part. But the problem lies in the inference that our founders expected everyone to be Christians and that they expected history to follow suit in that everyone would remain Christian. And, frankly, if there were a few people of other faiths, such as Judaism, that would be no issue. Rule by Christians would benefit them too, it is thought. But that is the real point – it is alleged that our founders wanted Christian rule! No one else was to hold any level of political power or societal status, period. And even non-Christians would be fine with this because Christian rule would benefit them too.

To get there they not only misquote founders and others, but they, well, they have quit trying to say that separation of church and state was not a concept and have instead proceeded to say that it was and is a concept, but that it means that the state (i.e., the federal government) cannot interfere in religious affairs, but the Church CAN exert influence over government. And this is exactly what would happen if we had Christian rule. Of course, these people always overlook the fact that medieval and early modern Europe HAD Christian rule. Christian rule is presumed to be moral in their eyes. But an examination of it in European history shows a bit less morality than they wish for most to have knowledge of. The main point being that our founders understood what Christian rule was all about, so they elected to have neither a monarchy or a theocracy.

Let me drill this in just a bit more, please. Most people today – even those who know very little history – understand that we as a nation rejected the notion of monarchy and, thus, established a republican form of government with a president, not a king. For most people, that is not even a question. Sadly, there are a few today, however, who would establish a monarchy here – or, better put, a dictatorship, because that is what a monarchy really is, after all. They would allow the branches of government to remain, but all real power would be vested in the executive branch and the President if they had their way, trust me. Why? Because that is the way it always was, with very few exceptions, all the way from Constantine to the ending of the medieval world. Ever notice that democracy is just not a concept in the Bible? See, “God’s” form of government is kingship. Never mind that he supposedly told the Israelites that they would regret having a king. The only form of government being considered was in fact kingship. And that is exactly why medieval Europe always had either kings or emperors. They followed the biblical model.

But to twist history even further, some pseudo-historians have even begun calling the time of the Judges in Israel their period of so-called “democracy”. In so many words, these pseudo-historians would have everyone believe that it was not, in fact, the Greek Athenians who invented democracy, but it was instead the Israelites during the period of the Judges. I kid you not! Yet, these same pseudo-historians still adhere to the notion of a theocracy, which is, in fact, what the time of the Judges, more or less, was. It was, in short, a theocracy without a king. But once Israel selected a king, then it became a full theocracy. And THAT is what we had in medieval Europe! Those who don’t understand our history today do actually look to medieval Europe as a sort of standard. They don’t understand that our founders saw the flaws of theocratic government and shunned it in favor of a government by and for the people.

OK, so, again, their first priority has been to skew history so that most people today won’t understand that our founders were establishing a republican form of government exactly so that we would NOT have a king. Now, this leads directly to the concept of separation of church and state. Let me begin by asking a question. What would be the point of establishing a democratic form of government based on a certain religion – any religion or even the concept of religion to begin with? Put another way, how could a theocracy be created without a king or an emperor to keep it established? The point being that establishing a theocracy would make no sense at all if it was not coupled with strong leadership centered in one person who would keep it intact. In case no one has noticed, theocracies don’t work without a king or an emperor. They can’t hold together and continue to function. Why? Because inevitably rule by the many means that there will always be differing opinions and differing beliefs which will sometimes come into conflict. Thus, if you have, say, Pentecostals and Catholics in the same government they are naturally going to differ quite often. But if you have a Christian king or emperor, everyone has to acquiesce to him at all times no matter their beliefs.

Let me repeat again, please, theocracies do not work without strong rulers. Now, one may point out that, for example, the Roman Republic was a theocracy, and they would be correct. It was indeed a theocracy – and it was politically weak too. Its strongest point was its military. So, what happened? A military general – Gaius Iulius Caesar – took the reins of power over and above the objections of the Senate, thus solidifying rule by one person, a dictator, and making the Senate even weaker than it already was. He was both Pontifex Maximus and, in reality, sole ruler, albeit briefly. But his chosen successor, Octavian, was able to consolidate everything and make it all work. The Roman Republic was politically weak and could not have continued as a theocratic state without the establishment of an emperor. For better or for worse, that is what happened. The concept of separation of religion and state never occurred to the Roman. Freedom of religion did, but separation did not. And, in fact, no state or nation in all of recorded history had ever – ever – existed without an established religion until our founders made it so here!

So, the fact of the matter is that, knowing these things, our founders established a republican form of government WITHOUT establishing a religion! Our founders did not want an established religion of any kind in this country and, so, they effectively separated church and state even if no documents actually used the phrase. If they had wanted an established religion that would have been simple enough for them to have done. Even IF they had said that Christianity, in whatever form it would take, was to be the established religion, they would have understood from history that in order to do so they would have had to have established a kingship also. The point being that if they had wanted a theocracy, they would inevitably have established a kingship. There literally is no way around this. But instead, they made the executive branch of government the weakest branch! Really, the only real power the President had at first was as Commander in Chief. Not so today. I have often said that the President has too much power today and I stand by that statement regardless of the circus that the other branches often can be.

So, we should now understand that our founders did NOT want a theocracy any more than they wanted a kingship. In short, they did not want religious rule which logically means that they did not want Christian rule only. Yes, they did want government and the populace to adhere to good Christian morals and values, but not because they would be imposed by “Christian” government officials.

But another part of the reason that separation of church and state is a valid concept, and that it DOES mean that the state cannot impose a religion on the populace, is that it was already happening in the Colonies. Well, at least most of them. But some Colonies, such as North Carolina, did not have an established religion, so no particular form of worship was being imposed on the population there. Many, many, people left Virginia for the Carolinas exactly for this reason. Colonies such as Virginia were already effectively theocracies. When our Constitution and Bill of Rights were being formed, this issue was naturally in the minds of those who were selected as delegates. No other state wanted to have the religion of another state imposed upon it and its citizens. Thus, the entire concept of a state religion, whether it was to have to do with individual states or the entire country, was effectively wiped out here. Notice that following the Revolution no state actually had a state religion, at least for long. Contrary to the way certain pseudo-historians would have everyone believe, no religion was being imposed in any way upon the populace. Theocracy in this nation ceased, period. The only thing left to do was to state that “Congress” could not impose religion upon anyone AND to establish that no religious “litmus test” could be used to determine the worthiness of any political candidate. They didn’t have to reiterate that states could not impose their own religions.

Pseudo-historians will point out that many state constitutions referred to God and to religion. But they fail to mention, for example, that even in Tennessee until this very year ministers of the gospel were barred from serving in the state legislature! But sadly, they changed that by vote this year.

Now, let us please proceed to the concept of state’s rights. To some degree, I actually agree with this concept in principle. That is, to the extent that the federal government cannot enforce laws contrary to the laws of a given state within the borders of that state. So far, the concept has worked fairly well, with some exceptions – the main exception being with reference to slavery – and we know how that turned out. As it turns out, freedom has to be for everyone, not just some.

Still, the pseudo-historian will apply the concept of state’s rights to religion, and this is where it will get really interesting if I am not mistaken. See, even if “Congress” cannot pass any law establishing a religion, the pseudo-historians are already implying that states can! In their conceptual world, any given state could, in fact, make laws that state that ONLY Christians could run for public office, be teachers, or any number of other things. And they could conceivably go even further by mandating that only certain kinds of Christians in any given state would be acceptable. Thus, even some Christians would be left out! So, in their world, not only can any given state make abortion illegal, but they could make being a Christian a prerequisite for holding public office, etc. In such a world, inevitably, only Christians would be elected to positions in the federal government too because they would have already been vetted by their states. Thus, Christian rule would be imposed upon the entire nation, not by Congress directly, but by the laws of each individual state. And then, my friends, we would have a theocracy. But, of course, we would need a strong leader to keep it all together and functioning now, wouldn’t we? Enter those who would have the President function effectively as a dictator and it all comes together.

When you hear televangelist-types talk about a certain politician, ahem, stating how great he has been for Israel and for Christianity and at the same time stating that they literally don’t care about his morals (and they do say this) because of all the good he has done in both realms, realize that they are not about the gospel, they are only about politics and that he is their chosen Christian dictator who would impose their views on everyone else. All of them have the very same agenda – the televangelist-types, the pseudo-historians, the fake journalists, and the wacky politicians. They want a theocracy here in THIS nation and they will literally do and say anything to make that happen!