The phrase, “separation of church and state” isn’t in the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson used the phrase in a letter to Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut reassuring them that they would be free to exercise their religion in peace.

He didn’t say there would be separation of mosque and state; or temple and state. Protestants and Catholics are the only two religions that use the word “church” to describe their meeting place. Christianity was the religion of the American people. It was the worldview of the founding fathers and the presupposition of the people. I’m certainly not saying they were all true believers, but Christianity to them was like water to a fish. It is just the way things were.

The Bible says there should be separation of church and state. The church has its job. The state has its job. Neither ought to try to take over the job of the other. However, separation of Christianity and state is a recipe for disaster. Separation of religion and state is impossible. The only question is: Which religion is the state going to presuppose?

As an example, we can take the Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision. The court pronounced that 2 dudes or 2 gals can marry each other. However, they limited marriage to two. The limited it to people. They limited it to people who aren’t blood relatives. They limited it to two consenting adults. They upheld all those limitations, because of the religious beliefs about marriage. Their religious beliefs dictate those limitations.

I realize some of those limitations weren’t up for debate, but they would probably uphold those limitations if they were considered.

You could say they maintained those limits for scientific reasons, saying that the offspring of cousins or siblings will probably have birth defects. But the desire to avoid birth defects is a religious belief.

You could say they limited marriage to consenting adults because children are unable to consent. Believing that a marriage ought only be entered into by consenting parties is based on nothing but blind faith and religious presuppositions.

I have no idea what possible reason they could give for limiting marriage to two people. I don’t think their humanism can offer any possible basis for the outlawing of polygamy. But rest assured, if they come up with a reason to limit marriage to two people, it will be a religious reason.

What I’m saying is that we need the state to openly hold a Christian worldview. It is the worldview that this country was founded on. It is the worldview that gave us our liberty. And as we leave it behind, we will suffer more and more tyranny.

I’m also saying we ought to be honest with ourselves. Ruth Bader Ginsburg may have fooled people into thinking that Christianity can’t be brought into matters of the state, but the religion of secular humanism is being brought in lock, stock and barrel. Can we be honest about that, and stop pretending that the government can reject religion, or make decisions without religion?