This past week, Representative Lauren Boebert (R-Colorado) said out loud what many on the far right only think. She said she is “tired of this separation of church and state junk.” She went further to declare that the “church is supposed to direct the government.” Whether she knew it or not, she was advocating for a theocracy in the United States—something Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Illinois) immediately derided and described as the equivalent of establishing a “Christian Taliban.”
Boebert’s assertion that the church should direct the state will resonate positively with a significant portion of the evangelical right. Never mind that the Christian New Testament describes a Jesus who never claimed to be a political leader, who advocated paying taxes to the Roman occupiers, who rebuked Peter for trying to forcefully defend him prior to his crucifixion, who claimed that those who “live by the sword will die by the sword.” How does any of this square with pictures we’ve all seen lately of Jesus with an AR-15 slung across his chest? How does it square with another remark by Boebert two weeks ago, that Jesus didn’t have enough AR-15s to “keep his government from killing him?”
For those who agree with Boebert’s views, and there are many—she just won her primary election this past week after making these remarks—elections and the rule of law are mere guidelines, ones that can and should be violated if they go the “wrong” way. Ironically, the conference in Colorado Springs where she made her AR-15 remarks was called “All Things Are Possible,” an oblique reference to several New Testament verses, but, at least in my mind, also an indication of this tendency.
One of the primary founding principles of our nation was the freedom to practice one’s religion of choice. And to guarantee this freedom, the government had to give up all authority to establish a state religion, which of course it did via the First Amendment. Rep. Boebert should find comfort in that. She will never be coerced by the government into practicing something other than her choice of religion. But instead, she and those who agree, advocate exactly that kind of coercion against others.
Sadly, there is some logic behind this. If someone is absolutely certain about the unique veracity of their spiritual beliefs and the societal norms implied by those beliefs, and if they also believe in a God who will violently punish unbelievers (including entire nations), then they will naturally feel an obligation to intervene, even to the extent of establishing a theocracy. Even using violence if necessary. We see this in parts of the Islamic world, and the vast majority of us abhor it in that context. Why not in this one?