[The Urban Sombrero]

You know that I did not say anything like that. What I said was clearly stated. The State and the Church were one in England. Not a theocracy, because the secular side, the Crown, dictated terms to both. Most people plodded along in their mundane existence, accepting of their plight. There is your hapless majority. Not so with true believers, the true Church, who hated the fact that the King had his fingers in their spiritual lives as well. They had not the freedom of religion, or soul liberty as Williams liked to call it.

That was the call to stand against the prying eyes of the state, not the other way around. The good folks of England wanted free of the oppression of the King, at least at Church. And it was owing to this state of desperation, that the idea of the separation of Church and State was born.

Now, on to your assertion that men of character are somehow a bad influence on government. Men of God, by that I mean the saved, are never biased, never power mad, never given to tyranny or oppression, not prone to carve out special benefits for the minorities, fair, compassionate, brave, dependable, wise and dedicated. The why is because of two things. First is the fact that they are indwelt by the Holy Spirit of the Living God which changes their nature in a positive fashion. Second is the fact that they know their Master will judge their lives without any sort of favoritism or bias. You can say that such men would not govern well if you want, but no rational man is going to agree with you.

Deceit, distortions, distrust, dishonesty, machinations, misdirection, guile, graft, corruption, greed and most of all lying, are the manifesto of the evil one, Satan. Those who manifest such are the enemies of state, not servants of the state. I know which attributes characterize the kind of people I want standing watch over those I care about.

Were your description of "men of God" to characterize the great mass of churchmen, it would indeed be Supreme good. But that is not the issue. I do not dispute that such as you describe exist and have existed since Pentecost. If you are suggesting that the true and righteous men of God (women?) are alone qualified to rule over society, I might agree with you in a theoretical sense. However, we were discussing a man-made document, the Constitution. I do not trust the majority to rule justly. I do not trust the minority to rule justly. Again, the highest interpretation of the United States Constitution lifts up justice for all and freedom of conscience for all. If this nation pursues that path, it walks a road infrequently trod in history. The document binds all citizens to that vision, that pursuit.