Bruce's post made an extremely important point: that at least in his book God's Politics, Jim Wallis seems to share with Jerry Falwell a desire to use religious faith as a means of imposing upon us a form of spiritual immaturity that brings as its logical result, dependence. Anti-Liberalism, whether from the Left or Right maintains this paternalistic desire to tell us what constitutes the truth on faith issues.  It is a specific faction's desire to impose the formula for salvation upon all.  And in a fit of providing misinformation, even an economic liberal such as Wallis mistakenly interprets Enlightenment principles as hostilely atheistic.

This does not square with Wallis's previously stated opposition to a theocratic nation.  Perhaps Wallis did not think his thoughts through to their logical conclusion. Or perhaps it is an unspoken but unjustified fear that by following the Enlightenment principle of religious tolerance to its natural end that faith itself will eventually be discarded.

Both these possibilities seem present when Wallis states at page 66 of his book, "The best response to bad religion is better religion, not secularism," it sounds as if he did not ask himself the obvious question of whose religion would be the antidote. Do we answer fundamentalism with Catholicism, with Lutheranism or even a form of Judaism?

If this were indeed the case, Wallis would not be the only liberal guilty of not making required connections of reason. His inconsistencies clearly suggest that all of us who embrace liberal democracy must revisit the historical considerations that first moved the great Enlightenment thinkers to formulate a society that keeps church and state separate. Beyond that, we must also be able to explain to those who are either undecided or oppose church-state separation why neutrality actually strengthens the freedom of conscience.

In order for us to more successfully advocate a Liberal philosophy, we need to reread and consider sixteenth and seventeenth century European history. Only then will we remember that the concept of church-state separation arose out of the often violent intolerances different Christian denominations visited upon each other; an often overlooked aspect of this important discussion.

At the outset of the Twenty-first century, we are far removed from these experiences.  It is time for us to revisit religious conflicts such as The Thirty Years War, as well of battles between Huguenots and Catholics in France. And this is even before we address the abhorrent anti-Semitism that abounded throughout the continent.  And for those who may still yet argue that such religious strife cannot happen today, we must then direct their attention to the recent past in Northern Ireland. With these examples in mind Wallis may reconsider just how far religious influence should control public policy.  

Within such past context we will better understand why liberal democracies have continually moved toward separating issues of faith from issues that can be empirically known. Being able to frame the separation of church and state within historical experience as well as philosophical remedy will give our arguments greater traction. We must relearn and then reargue the basics.  Then maybe folks such as Wallis will more readily see within this Enlightenment principle is the secular embodiment of the Golden Rule.

Beyond European justifications, the need for church-state separation also needs to be discussed morre often from the very American perspective of James Madison who described in Federalist No.10 how certain religious factions could impose their will contrary to the aggregate will of the majority. Another fine example is Thomas Jefferson who passionately fought the freedom of conscience. Their knowledge is the foundational philosophy our system of government. As such, it serves as the strongest argument for explaining both the parameters and necessity of church-state separation.

Yes, certain Enlightenment figures such as Diderot or Spinoza severely questioned religion as a basis of true knowledge, but others such as Sir Isaac Newton, John Locke and Immanuel Kant all believed in God. And although Locke did not extend his concept of religious tolerance towards atheists and Catholics, without intending to do so, he took one of the first bold steps in the direction of its universal application; the framers of the U.S. constitution took it the rest of the way.

As mentioned above, many anti-Enlightenment advocates get confused over the concepts of certitude and tolerance. The influential eighteenth century philosopher Immanuel Kant stated that no one could know with exact certitude if God exists. Conversely, he also argued that no one could know with exact certitude that God does not exist. Such subject matter falls into the realm of belief, not empirical knowledge. And it is because Enlightenment principles require privatizing the area of belief many of its opponents mistake this for religious hostility when clearly it is not. The thrust of Enlightenment thought does not discourage belief in God, just that its regulation is an individual matter--as distinct from what we think of now as public affairs.

Anti-Enlightenment believers also fail to see is that secular liberal democracy espouses the very same morality as the Judeo-Christian ethic of the Golden Rule: the prohibition against self-exemption. As Stephen Holmes points out, the core value of Liberalism is not nihilism at all, but adherence to the ideal that both the richest and poorest of citizens must be subject to the same laws. The evolution of Enlightenment thought has brought us to a point where each individual is politically equal. In squaring his contradictory statements on church-state influence Jim Wallis and those of similar thought will hopefully understand how this Enlightenment-derived belief is the moral equivalent of Christianity's core value of doing unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Both the Golden Rule and the Enlightenment prohibition against self-exemption wisely recognize that for the sake of domestic tranquility that while we legislate the will of the majority, we simultaneously do not trample upon the rights of minorities.

Wallis is dead wrong at pages 68-70 of God's Politics when he says of those of us who cherish a secular society :

"...believe that the separation of church and state ought to mean the separation of faith from public life...

The secular fundamentalists tell us that religion should be restricted to one's church and family. No talk of faith, they seem to be saying, ought to be allowed to seep into the public arena for fear of violating the First Amendment or alienating the nonreligious."

The Enlightenment taught that the particulars of each individual's faith belong in the private sphere. But it seems that Wallis incorrectly translates that to mean that religious influences are not welcome in shaping a common morality. Instead, we draw the line at the point where a subjective means to salvation is codified for all to follow--especially when it goes against the aggregate will of the people. Such separation ensures that faith will freely flourish without any arbitrary authority being able to curtail an individual's freedom of conscience.  But we will only win this argument when we explain the historical experiences that originally led us to separate church and state.

As Kant told us,"sapere aude": dare to know.