The Tea party is a wing of Dominionism which is a wing of the rich elite.

What Ken Buck , a candidate for the Colorado Senate, has said, is enough proof that the Tea Party has been sedated by New Apostolic Reformation poison.IT is SHOCKING that many Christians in America will actually buy what he said about church and state but yet again it is not shocking.

Ken Buck and other Political Evangelicals are actually sounding so Roman Catholic.This is because the ” Church is One with the State” doctrine is actually from early Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox philosophy.Now the tongue speakers and Evangelicals have joined the same bandwagon ??…Apostasy, falling away.

American Christianity has sanctified the love of the world with the name of Jesus and now since things have gone wrong because “the heathen are in power”it is time to change the system .

Many Christians worship America or their nations and not God and that is Idolatry A SIN.The wages of sin is death.

The Republicans are at it again this time having bullied the Tea party to their side.However the reality is that many are tired of this type of religion and politics mix.Yet this is not about the Democrats or Republicans because the voting system works to the advantage of the wicked rich elite whose votes count more than the entire population.

BOTH WINGS ARE SOLD OUT TO THE AGENDA OF THE ANTICHRIST NWO. And hence the more the votes form these rich elite the more the say on the laws and policies.That is not democracy that is tyranny.

Also what I have found strange is that Sarah Palin and Company keeps referring to the founding fathers and NOT the word of God.By that I mean they want to save America for the sake of the founding fathers .Yet how can politics, an earthly thing save America from her spiritual problems? Only Jesus saves.

This is the same stream of thought the Pharisees had when they boasted about being the children of Abraham yet they did not do what Abraham would do and that is believe in Jesus Christ.

Christians worldwide should know that the only reason why the church should be separate from the State is because she is joined to the Lord alone.

State church is heresy because God’s word is clear , the church is the body of Christ not the body of Caesar.When Caesar is the head ,the body has to be Caesar’s not Christ.

And guess what ? IT is not me or other critics who will avenge the State churches…it is God who will judge them for the sake of his holiness.

The Church in America that wants to be in bed with the State better prepare for judgments from the Lord.
Arthur Owiti

Separation of church and state hyped as a campaign issue
By Rachel Rose Hartman

For the second time in the past two weeks, a tea party Republican has sparked a miniature media furor by questioning the separation of church and state.

“I disagree strongly with the concept of separation of church and state,” Colorado Senate candidate Ken Buck said in a video publicized yesterday. “It was not written into the Constitution.”

Buck made the remark in 2009, but video footage of the event was posted on liberal website ThinkProgress Tuesday — just one week after tea party Republican Christine O’Donnell made headlines for asking during a Delaware Senate debate where in the Constitution that provision exists.

Many liberal commentators poked fun at both candidates — especially O’Donnell, whom critics claimed was not looking to score a debate point but was demonstrating her own deficient grasp of the Constitution. The same critics derided both tea party hopefuls as “extremists” — but the absence of any constitutional basis for church-state separation has long been a bedrock belief in conservative circles.

Indeed, a review of recent public statements from prominent conservatives shows how widespread the idea is — and how, in a movement conservative context, provoking the derision of liberal commentators on the issue is far from a liability.

* Sarah Palin in April stated: “Lest anyone try to convince you that God should be separated from the state, our founding fathers, they were believers. And George Washington, he saw faith in God as basic to life.”
* Republican Sharron Angle, candidate for Nevada Senate, has repeatedly made clear her position that a separation of church and state is an “unconstitutional doctrine.”
* Dan Severson, Republican candidate for Missouri secretary of state, said last week: “Quite often you hear people say, ‘What about separation of church and state?’ There is no such thing. I mean it just does not exist, and it does not exist in America for a purpose, because we are a Christian nation.”
* Republican House candidate Glen Urquhart of Delaware also questioned the separation of church and stat — and gained extra media attention for suggesting it was Adolf Hitler who coined the phrase.
* GOP Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, whose insurgent 2008 presidential bid is widely credited as one of the forerunners of the tea party movement, in 2003 wrote in an essay: “The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers.”

Such assertions obviously command little assent among liberal Democrats — but for candidates such as O’Donnell, Buck and Angle, the refutation of a constitutional basis for church-state separation alerts the powerful evangelical conservative base that they are candidates keenly attuned to the worldview of the evangelical right.

Buck spokesman Owen Loftus told the Denver Post that the left is just using the video as a distraction in the closing days of the campaign.

The First Amendment to the Constitution states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …” And the idea of a “wall of separation” demarcating the spheres of church and state is credited to Thomas Jefferson, in an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association.

The Supreme Court ruled in 1947 that the Establishment Clause of the Constitution prescribes a “wall of separation” between religion and state, but conservative legal thinkers contend that the ruling isn’t grounded in the original intent of the Founders or the Constitution’s actual language.