[Superman]

Some say that John Kerry's faith is deep and strong, but that he puts that aside when doing his job as a senator. I notice there is a presumed separation of church and state, at least in the United States of America. In fact, the progressive liberals (not what Kerry is by a long shot) and the token liberals (bingo) both have a reputation for being amoral. Not immoral, amoral. They seem non-religious.

Some say the fiscal differences between the parties and the candidates are quite small. We've got (as is usually the case) a Republican president that is setting a new world record for deficit spending, and a liberal candidate that is cozy with the corporate world.

It is said that the real difference between the parties right now is on the "social " issues. Not the usual social issues. But rather the "moral" social issues. One party promises to stamp a moral code on our nation's laws. Abortion. Gay marriage. Gifts of my tax dollars given directly to churches by the federal government under the heading of "education." Yadda yadda.

Does anyone see a problem here? Besides me, I mean? Let me spell it out. Liberals seem non-religious. The United States of America is a nation where a sharp line is drawn between church and state. Should politicians seem religious? Should they grind the axes of their religious beliefs on the grinding wheel of congressional legislation? Have we decided to eliminate the barriers between church and state? And how do the Republicans explain that this agenda promotes "freedom?"

Most importantly: Are we reversing our nation's longstanding policy of separating church and state? This strikes me as a very fundamental constitutional question. I have seen no opportunity to vote for or against a constititional amendment combining church and state. And yet I feel like I'm dressed for a wedding, wondering whose church will be married to this bridegroom (my nation). My church (Roman Catholocism) is prepared to take over. Everybody okay with that?