Hey, Tom!

Let's get this out of the way first: My opinion of religion in government and religious people in government is colored by the background which I have harped upon many many times and will not repeat yet again to the groaning of all here. Suffice to say: when they are good they are very very good, but when they are bad they are horrid. I've seen both.

First: The "wall of separation of Church and state" remark belongs to Jefferson, citation found here. Excerpt:

In an 1802 letter to the Danbury (Conn.) Baptist Association, Thomas Jefferson, then president, declared that the American people through the First Amendment had erected a "wall of separation between church and state." Jefferson, however, was not the only leading figure of the post-revolutionary period to use the term. James Madison, considered to be the Father of the Constitution, said in an 1819 personal letter, "[T]he number, the industry and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church and state." In an earlier, undated essay (probably early 1800s), Madison wrote, "Strongly guarded... is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States."

Is it in the body of the Constitution? No. It was, however, in the minds of the Founders. People mix that up because they often don't separate a work from its authors.

Government money given to support a church already in existence without a comparable amount given to other denominations is considered, in the legal world, a form of establishment. The path is one of "all or nothing", the same choices faced by public schools as government agencies. They choose nothing, because -- as religious sects blossom like daffodils in spring, more from each bulb yearly -- to include everyone is impossible. This leads to occasional dumbness (my personal favorite: "Mardi Gras is a spring festival...", from a 3rd grade social studies textbook), but is on the whole better than establishment.

Government officials have private lives. They may pray during their private moments, including those moments on public occasions when they are quiet and not sharing their thoughts, the same as anyone else. They may go to church, synagogue, mosque, meeting, mandir, temple (Buddhists -- no junkets to Jerusalem ;) ), or gurdwara. What they may not do is to compel the rest of us to participate in their religious activities and beliefs. Some officials have no trouble discerning this boundary and living by it. Others lack either the understanding, the subtlety or the respect for others' beliefs to do this.

Second: We all know people with a vocation. These are people with a passion for what they do. Some claim to have discovered why God made them. This is all fine.

When I was studying my Baltimore Catechism, "vocation" was defined as "a calling by God". The Catholic Church starts out defining these vocations in very basic categories. God calls us all to one of three states of life: single, married or religious (meaning clergy, nuns and brothers). Sometimes He calls us to all three, but sequentially.

So in some sense, if you believe in God, you can say that God called you to the life commitments you make. If it turns out you chose wrongly, it's not God's fault you weren't listening properly.

HOWEVER: The difference is ego. "I was called by God" or "God spoke to me and said..." should be a red flag coming from a person with civil powers. "God has placed this task on my doorstep" or "God help me in this work that Providence has put before me" and such remarks indicate not only a rather less, um, intimate relationship with the Omniscient but also admits that the burden, while God's to present, is ours to accept, and as such is subject to free will with all its human glories and foibles.

I don't know what Mr. Bush said. I would like to, though...

Third: I have known people who consider everything to be the result of God's direct intervention. And you're right, they're not pleasant to be around. But then, they don't consider pleasantness to be an option when faced with God's will, because He is Inscrutible, with a capital "Screw". The God they worship sits on high and smites the humble and the mighty with his Divine Flyswatter, seemingly at random. They mean well, but I, in my infinite wisdom, consider their view of Creation to be warped. Yet they do get elected to office. Beware of them.

Fourth: Thank you for acknowledging the multifaceted nature of liberals. I also understand that not all conservatives are whack jobs. Nor even most, I suspect, but I have conducted no polls. ;) We are products of our environment and our experiences.

You know what I think? If I were living where you are, I would probably be more conservative than I am. If you were living here, you would have become much more liberal. That's because we both like to argue.

Perhaps there is a vocation in that.

Regards--
Mary Anne