The relationship between church and state is the most important subject in the history of the West. Religious liberty's corollary, the separation of church and state, is the most important contribution the United States of America has made to world civilization.

There has never been an American doctrine of church-state separation, only a Baptist doctrine that has had great influence in America, according to America's best known and most widely respected church historian, Martin Marty. [    ]

Now, the heaviest possible shot must be fired across the bow of the ship carrying the current detractors of church-state separation.
Blithely ignoring the lessons of history, these detractors would sell our birthright for a mess of pottage.

Piddling dribbles of tax money are being doled out for "faith-based initiatives"--and for votes.
Pitiful little photo-op grants are being scheduled to buy silence on church-state separation today and votes for tomorrow.

Roving through the garden of religious liberty cultivated by wise pioneers in the past, these detractors, like Goths rampaging through Rome in her dotage, are bent not just on breaching the wall but on destroying it altogether so that not one stone is left on another.

In the name of George W. Truett and in the name of Liberty's Lord, let Baptists rise up now to stop these detractors. And let Baptists with one heart, one mind, and one will raise high the banner of religious liberty/church-state separation. As Chaucer put it, if gold rust, how shall Iron be clean? What our forebears secured at great sacrifice let us not basely relinquish.

On this memorial day for Foy Valentine, it seems not simply coincidental that Melissa Rogers has continued his legacy by publishing an article defending the principle of religious freedom. Some quotes:

Contrary to the suggestions of the Family Research Council, the impetus for this ban on government-endorsed religion is not hostility to faith, but rather a desire to ensure that the government doesn't meddle in religion.  The balance the court has struck in this area has helped safeguard the rights of conscience and ensure that religious matters generally remain the sole province of the religious community. Some of the results of this careful balance are civic peace amidst great diversity and remarkable religious vitality. [    ]

The rhetoric and advocacy positions of the Family Research Council and its partners reveal that they want the court to go far beyond rulings like these.  For example, they want to reintroduce school-sponsored prayer in a variety of settings and ensure that the government has wide latitude to erect religious monuments and otherwise endorse religion. They express a broad desire to use the machinery of the state to promote their faith.

Understandably, many non-Christians are alarmed by this agenda. As a Baptist Christian, I am alarmed as well.  All people should be free from governmental pressure on matters of faith.  We should exercise the great freedom we have to practice our faith, but we should not ask the government to advance religion for us.  Indeed, when the government promotes faith, it inevitably uses religion for its own ends, which warps religion and weakens its spiritual force.  As Baptist preacher John Leland said in 1804: "Experience, the best teacher, has informed us that the fondness of magistrates to foster Christianity has done it more harm than all the persecutions ever did."

While its rulings on these issues have not been perfect, the Supreme Court deserves great credit for striking the right balance.  It's a balance Christians should seek to preserve rather than undo.

As Judge Alito's confirmation hearings continue, senators should expose false claims about First Amendment interpretation and judicial motivations.  They also should seek to determine whether Alito would uphold the general ban on government-endorsed religion or whether he would drive constitutional interpretation in the direction favored by the Family Research Council.