The Load-bearing wall: Church v. State

As we discuss the conflict between church and state, Red Religiosity V. Blue Secularism, how about asking this: If a black church, a mosque or a synagogue were bombed (again), knowing full well that it would be by a fringe group, which is more likely? That initiators of said terrorist deed supported Bush or that its instigators supported Kerry? This thought exercise matters because it deals with the load-bearing wall that must remain standing between church and state. All religions have extreme factions. Within Christianity, one can travel from Quakers to the KKK and still be under the same canopy.

When we add a measure of religious zeal and state approval to the religious principles (whether distorted or not) of a particular fringe group, that group becomes emboldened, swells and, indeed, often overwhelms the main body it attached to originally. The Blue Secularists don't tell us this; it is our founding fathers that tell us this, our own history tells us this (think Salem) and, indeed, the history of man has pounded this lesson into our heads ad nauseam.

Vaunting one religion over the secular principles of state can morph much too easily into suppression of non-members. The secular state itself can, of course, run amok when it suppresses religion, or, in some cases, replaces it, becoming a "religion" in itself (think Communism, Big Brother). Equally bad. The War in Iraq, as a thinly disguised war of self-defense as opposed to outright aggression, comes uncomfortably close to elevating Democracy to the status of religion. Is our quest to liberate like-minds or to convert the unbelievers?? Well, we just don't quite know the truth to that question.

It is good to keep in mind that there are many, many people of faith (all faiths) on both sides of this issue of religiosity v. secularism, with the majority smack in the middle, supporting the separation of church and state. The media is doing a disservice when it frames this important argument with inflammatory language, pitting fringe against fringe for ratings. Is the newly ordained media shoring up the load-bearing wall of our democracy, or tearing it down brick by invective brick?