Quite a few people think that God is required for people to be good - not just on the personal level, but also on the national level. This explains why they are horrified that some want the United States government to refrain from singling out their god for recognition and support - after all, unless the government does this, then the people will fall into immorality and the nation will no longer be "good."

This, at least, is the general attitude adopted by Phil Brennan in a column at NewsMax:

America, the nation, can no longer claim goodness as one of its virtues. He would be shocked to learn that there are Americans who are offended by the very notion of goodness in their fellow citizens and who will do everything to see to it that it is driven out of public life. A nation that is good does not allow small bands of surly malcontents to impose their wills on the majority. A nation that is good would not tolerate a judiciary gone mad to ally itself with those who would ban any mention of God in the public square, or indeed, even in the private sector.

Brennan wants the nation to be good, and apparently "being good" must include playing fast and loose with the facts. People want to ban not only "any mention of God in the public square" but also "even in the private sector"? Forgive me, but I must have missed the reports where people walking around out in public were being forbidden from mentioning God or their religion. Were all of the televangelists taken off the air when I wasn't looking? Were all of the churches, mosques, and synagogues shut down and sold during the night? Will my site be shut down because the word "God" appears here so often?

Then there is the ridiculous notion that people who want to prevent the government from singling out any particular religious or religious belief for special treatment are somehow guilty of being "offended by the very notion of goodness." Brennan is, quite frankly, a prat to suggest that goodness lies only in those who believe in his god and in those who believe that government of all citizens should give special favors to believers in his god.

Here's a radical idea: a nation that is good treats all citizens equally and doesn't get involved in religious disputes. A nation that is good doesn't pick and choose certain religious for endorsement or patronage while discriminating against others. A nation that is good in one in which political and religious authority are kept separation - religious leaders don't make claims on political power while political leaders don't make claims on religious power.

I won't bother picking apart the rest of Phil Brennan's nonsense - after the above, it actually gets far worse if you can believe that! Suffice it to say, Brennan doesn't demonstrate the slightest respect or consideration for people who have different religious beliefs than him - such is always the case with people who oppose separating church and state. For them, "religious freedom" is a con in which there is "freedom" for the favored religion(s) and second-class status for everyone else. That isn't freedom, no matter what language they use to dress it up in; it is, rather, a type of theocracy.

Read More:

• Religious Right
• Christian Nationalism
• Religious Intolerance & Bigotry
• Separation of Church and State 101