> Hmm, not exactly. You can't proclaim specific denominations from the WH, but
appeals to the God of your choice are part of the legitimizing boilerplate of
political discourse. I think every State of the Union address since Reagan's
first has ended with some variant of "God bless America." And it says "In God
We Trust" on our money, joining our twin national passions of piety and the
dollar.
Sure sure, in the rhetoric, but not officially. And in the imagination, that makes all the difference. The fact is, the institution is not religious as such. Rhetoric comes and goes, but there is still the split-face of the law. Freedom of religion does not mean that religion is free to pass binding legislation. In other words: you can have all the religion you want, have a big religious cake and walk right through the middle of Washington - but you still can't argue demoninationally from the oval office. Believe, but don't legislate with the belief. Strangely, "In God we trust" (except when it comes to law-making). I'm sure there is some passage in the constitution, somewhere, that reads "you can't say, in making laws, 'because God says so!'" That's the splitting point. Belief counts for everything which translates into nothing.
> It'd be nice if family values-style religion had less influence on policy,
but unfortunately it has plenty.
Sure thing. But I wonder, would "family-values" be as popular if they were called "Christian Family Values" or "God's Family Values" ? I doubt it.
ken