No earthly power can make someone believe something they systematically resist. At the same time, I am not called to leave well enough alone. How can one make disciples of all the nations without confronting those around them? Does my right to say someone is deceived violate their right to believe as they wish? What if I am in a government position, can I seek to apply the religious principles I hold to or is that unconstitutional? Are you to follow government before religion or vice versa? Surely you should follow your god before your government. That sounds good, but what if you are religiously committed to the Church of Satan and part of your "duty" is living sacrifice. This could be a problem and while this is certainly an extreme point, it raises a difficult question. Where can we draw the line between religious freedom and government restriction. I really do not know.

Perfect freedom cannot exist outside of utter anarchy. My bias as a Christian is that not all religions are equally valid. Religion is often mutually exclusive. I desire for the world to be "saved" but at the same time, I believe that every religion that holds to something outside of faith in Christ is in a dire straight. Do I have a right to believe that? Do I have a right to do everything in my power to seek to convert those around me to the salvation I hold to? It is impossible to have total allegiance to two things and so there comes a point when the relationship between church and state must be compromised. It is for this reason that contradictions must exist, contradictions which become a "curious meld of religion and government".

I cannot speak on behalf of all men, I cannot speak for the Muslim or the Jew, the Catholic or the atheist. I can only speak on one behalf and that is of a Christan young man who seeks to resolve the conflict of allegiance betweem devotion to God and devotion to state. Up to this point, it is a compromise which can be upheld but only time will tell if such a volataille allegiance can hold up. Anytime a government is based on a flexible standard, one open to interpretation and amendment, things are always subject to change. Religion in it's purest sense, should be unchanging, not subject to the whims of majority or the ideology of the court, but rather grounded in divine authority. As such, the relationship between church and state is a very unstable one, and it is certainly possible that in the future, U.S. policy may be much more antagonistic to religion than it now is. I pray that is not the case.