There is this constant but misleading refrain that originated from a Supreme Court decision.

The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach. (from here (

There is a wall of separation between church and state, and the court borrowed the phrase “wall between church and state” from Thomas Jefferson, but they took what he said out of context (see Thomas Jefferson’s Letter to the Danbury Baptists). Consider the way the First Amendment is written.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The First Amendment restricts CONGRESS. The First Amendment protects the church from the state, not the state from the church. The object here is to prevent any church from using government power to establish itself as a state supported church.

The First Amendment specifically protects the free exercise of religion. That means we have the right to follow the dictates of our conscience, to vote for people who will not use government power in ways that violate our religious beliefs or force us to violate our religious beliefs.

So why should Christian churches should take an interest in politics? Consider the questions we are asking the candidates running for seats on the Prince William Board of County Supervisors => County supervisor survey–Family Alliance. What are some of the issues we address?

  • Taxes? How much money will our government let people keep so that they can take care of their families?
  • Zoning decisions? Don’t these decisions involve health and safety issues? Isn’t one of the problems government officials must resolve is deciding where churches can be built?
  • Abortion? Euthanasia? Don’t Christian churches have a role in protecting life? 
  •  The Equal Rights Amendment? Should we add these words to the Constitution as an amendment?

    Equality of rights under the law shall not be abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

    How would this amendment be implemented? It is one thing to say that men and women should be treated equally before the law. It is not the same to insist that men and women are the same, that such amendment should be used as an excuse for abortion “rights” or same-sex “marriage”.

  • Education? The Christian church has no interest in who teaches children or what children are taught?
  • The Difference between rightful and wrongful discrimination? Isn’t discrimination often wholly appropriate? Should parents be forced to entrust their children to the care of people they don’t trust? Should churches be forced to hire people who will not — have shown a flagrant disregard for — the tenets of their faith?
  • Illegal Immigration? Is God the author of confusion? Should Christian churches advocate the creation of chaos? Would it be wise — would God consider it wise — for the United States to open its borders and accept the consequences of unregulated immigration?
  • Gun control? How does the Bible define human rights? Do we have a right to self defense?
  • Sex? Gender choices? Do we choose our sex? What does God require us to do to respect our sexual differences? What is appropriate subject matter for the instruction of children about sex?
  • Family law? When does the responsibility of the state to protect children supercede the responsibilities of parents? Should school officials be required to provide parental notification when they counsel children they believe have suicidal impulses, problems with depression, drug abuse issues, and “problems” with pregnancy and contraception.
  • Charity? Should faith-based providers be allowed to compete for government contracts without compromising their beliefs?

Should pastors tell the members of their churches how to vote? Probably not, but can the members of Christian churches rightfully ignore such issues. Don’t Christians, as part of the Body of Christ, have the responsibility to help the members of their church become informed so we can vote responsibly? Isn’t what the Bible says relevant?

Proverbs 27:17 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

17 Iron sharpens iron,
So one man sharpens another.

The Bible teaches us to work together, to love each other enough so we can carefully discuss important matters without unnecessary conflict. Currently, we are in the process of getting the candidates participating in the June 11th primary election to respond to our surveys. On Monday we will provide a list of the contested elections in Prince William County. We need your assistance in encouraging the candidates to respond to our surveys. With your help we can get timely responses from the candidates and distribute informative voter guides for the primary election on June 11th.

Thank you for your assistance.

This entry was posted in 2019 Election, Citizen Responsibilities, Constitutional Government, Marriage, religion, School Choice, Voter Guide and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Tom,

    Great summary outline of the relationship between Church and State responsibilities and issues for Christians, as well as all religious sects to consider.

    Now if we can only obtain from the Supreme Court and Congress a legal definition of religion is, or is not, which should have been done long ago, it will both start and end the grey cloud overhanging this issue.

    For example, what is the difference between a religion and a political entity? If an entity claims to be a religion that believes in a personal calling from their Deity to kill someone who does not believe or follow their religious precepts, should they be entitled to protected by the First Amendment and/or tax breaks to help fund them beliefs?

    In my opinion, without a legal definition, there will always be people who are confused about the relationship and red lines between Church and State on both local and State governing bodies.

    Regards and good will blogging.

    • Tom Salmon says:


      Since it would be difficult to do so and their definition would almost inevitably upset a substantial group of people, I doubt SCOTUS will define what constitutes a religion, but who knows. What might happen is they will clarify certain activities that are not protected by the First Amendment.

      • Interesting comment. I may write a post on the subject of your summary. Would you mind if I reference your new blog. Do not want to get u fired.

        • Tom Salmon says:


          No problem. Not responsible for what others say even if I agree. Not getting paid for this anyway. Volunteer group.

          • Tom,

            I don’t know what to make of the fact that Obama and Clinton avoiding the word Christian victims of Muslims suicide bombers.

            In this report, instead of saying Christians, they used the term “Easter Worshipers.”

            How sad that politicians are now afraid to mention the word Christian victims of Muslim suicide bombers for fear that it will upset Muslims and cause another Sri Lanka massacre.


            Is something wrong with understanding of freedom of religion according to the First Amendment in regards to religious freedom or is it time for Congress and the Supreme Court to define what is religion or a political entity?

            What are your thoughts on this issue?

            Regards and good will blogging.

          • Tom Salmon says:


            Factional politics seems to be the driver. I expect puzzlement arises from two causes.
            1. These days we call factional politics identity politics.
            2. Obama and Clinton disguise their motivations.

            Look at what the politicians behind the identity politics movement advocate. The vast majority of Christians still support the traditional family, oppose abortion, disdain Socialism, reverence constitutional rights for all Americans, favor an America first foreign policy that avoids optional conflicts, and so forth. Muslims are generally social Conservatives, but in a nation with relatively few Muslims, they tend to feel isolated. So they gravitate to the party that seems most willing to “protect” them. Identity politics is a protection racket. How difficult is to defend the rights of someone from a person who isn’t trying to attack them?

            Identity politics is an empty promise. Since almost nobody is trying to discriminate against Muslims, blacks, women, homosexuals, the disabled, and so forth, the identity politics crowd has to propose outrageous nonsense like same-sex “marriage” and fake hate crimes to stir up animosity. Thus, because of fears engendered by demagogues, blacks, Muslims, Hispanics, and other minorities often vote for politicians who appear to be caring and compassionate, but advocate policies that tear apart families, cheapen our culture, waste money, and reward rich donors.

          • Identity politics and political correctness has become a phobia based on foolish fear in my opinion.

            Thanks for your reply which is wise insight on ths issue which I will include I my next post to address the subject of “Easter worshiper”, instead of “Christians”.

            Regards and goodwill blogging

  2. Tom,
    I wrote the post and linked your post. Hope you don’t get “fired”. Perhaps instead, you and your readers get politically “fired up” on the issues relative to Christianity.
    Regards and good will blogging.

Comments are closed.