Ron Paul has never suggested the American government was CHRISTIAN. he said it was inspired by some Christian theological background such as humanism. his core argument is that the FEDERAL govt should protect the rights of individuals within the states whereupon they are infringed, but if the entire state of alabama consists of christians, and they want to make christian ideology available at a courthouse for a reminder or want to use christian teachings as a basis for law, so be it, so long as it doesn't restrict the practices of another person in any way.
same could be said if Oklahoma wanted to be a Wiccan state, or NJ consisted of a majority who wanted more Islam in their government.
he is stating that there is no clause in these documents that forceably removes religion as being a basis of state authority, that the ability for religion to be an excuse for persecution IS protected against, while being thoughtful of it in lawmaking is not. and this is true, humanism itself, which is the base paradigm behind even political correctness, is DEFINATELY judeo-christian. its a judeo-christian paradigm, mirroring the rules passed down to man in that religion. before that you could just worship a God of murder, and go on a killing rampage and be serving your God. so a total seperation of church and state means that valuable lessons learned philosophically by religious teachers cannot be used, which is absurd.
the point here is that the government protects your individual rights. the federal government is not empowered to establish a church, so it can't be an official religion, and the state governments are the ones that might want to make religious teachings involved in legislation, so long as they dont infringe on civil liberties, and represent the feeling of the majority. state religiou holidays are a PERFECT example of this.
