Church, State—and Muslims.

I'd like to spill a few thoughts that I've been having lately over the role of religion (in specific, Christianity) in the public/governmental life of our country. Over the past few years, my faith has undergone major foundational changes, and I suppose that I can gauge just how radical the changes have been by the way I disagree more and more with the voices that I grew up with as a kid in the Evangelical Christian church. Evangelicals, if nothing else, take Martin Luther's ideas of personal interpretation and understanding of scripture about as far as it can go (I would say that for myself, I am not a part of the evangelical belief system anymore. If only for the sake of not taking up your time by listing all of my beliefs, you could think of me largely as what is called a 'Postmodern' or 'Emerging' Christian.)

 I noticed this, on CNN this morning (excuse the incredibly annoying anchor):

Now, I know that Cody will saying something to the effect of "they only show you the most radical people!" But in the case supposed scandal of a "muslim president," I'd have to say that the number of people who think this way is more than just a fringe pastor in some cornfield. My parents believe this, even! The pastor in the video spits out a scripture every 2 minutes and when he's challenged, he throws his hands up and says "hey, I'm just saying what the Bible says." The scripture that supposedly supports his claim that having a muslim president "is a sin. Exodus 20:3" states, "No other God, only me." How do you make the jump from 3,000 BC in the middle of the desert on the other side of the world to the present day and present such a phrase as infallible argument against an incoming president? Unbelievable. And even if Obama was Muslim, what exactly is the argument? And why is this a problem in a democracy that prides itself on diversity?

This brings me finally to the point of this post. The efforts of the evangelical christian movement are married to the religious political right, and the amount of people that subscribe to that national view is substantial enough to warrant an observation, I think. It seems pretty clear to me (and most others, I'm sure) that the modern evangelical christian view of an ideal America is not at all what the founding fathers had in mind. Despite what they think, the evidence that the founding fathers wanted a democracy that is independent from the will of the church is apparent. Though they try to assign modern evangelical beliefs to particular founding statesmen, the truth is that Christianity in this form did not exist at the start of our nation and its constitution. The idea that comes into my head when I think of democracy and righteous government is completely different from theirs. But I think that the case can be made that what they want is not at all democracy. You will not find a group more bitterly opposed to Middle Eastern governments (which tend to be theocratic in nature or at the very least hugely influenced by muslim leaders) and the muslim faith. Yet, it seems as though what Evangelicals are arguing for is the very same kind of structure, a theocracy—a government conducted (and a people ruled) according to the principles of a religion. 

Thoughts?