Baptists Mark 400th Anniversary, Celebrate Religious Freedom (BeliefNet)

EXCERPT:

 UTRECHT, Netherlands — (RNS/ENI) Four hundred years after the first Baptist congregation was established, followers have been challenged to continue championing religious liberty.

“We as Baptists must continue to defend religious freedom for all peoples and all religions,” said Denton Lotz, the former general secretary of the Baptist World Alliance, at a special service held last Thursday (July 30) in Amsterdam to mark the 400th anniversary of the Baptist movement.

The service was held in a Mennonite church in central Amsterdam, a short distance from the site of what is honored as the first Baptist congregation, founded in 1609 by exiles from Britain who had fled religious persecution in England.

“If we fail to take seriously the 21st century and merely continue to defend religious freedom as though we were living under King James I, then we will have become irrelevant and our defense of freedom irrelevant,” said Lotz, who served as the BWA’s top executive for 19 years until his retirement in 2007.

Read the full article at http://blog.beliefnet.com/news/2009/08/baptists-mark-400th-anniversar.php

The First Baptist in America (Florida Baptist Witness)

EXCERPT:

By JERRY WINDSOR
Special to Florida Baptist Witness

The earliest Baptists in America stemmed from a group of like-minded individuals who surrounded Roger Williams. It was on Feb. 5, 1631, that Roger Williams (1603-1683) and his wife sailed from Bristol on the ship Lyon and landed at Nantasket, in the Massachusetts Bay Colony.

Roger Williams was born in London in 1603, the son of James and Alice Pemberton Williams. James was an importer and trader. He and his wife had a daughter Catherine and sons Sydrach, Roger and Robert. Roger studied at the Charterhouse and later at Pembroke College (B.A., 1627), a school in the Cambridge University system. Williams became an Anglican minister and on Dec. 15, 1629, married Mary Barnard, the daughter of a Puritan clergyman. While at Pembroke, Williams was one of eight students granted a scholarship based on his excellence in Latin, Greek and Hebrew. This in-depth study of the biblical languages brought some questions to the mind of Williams about such issues as infant baptism, believer’s baptism, religious freedom, and separation of church and state.

Read the full article at http://www.floridabaptistwitness.com/9835.article

J. Brent Walker – “Church and State in the USA: Promises and Challenges”

This thought-provoking address was given by J. Brent Walker of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty at the Congress on Religious Liberty in Buenos Aires, Argentina on April 28, 2008.  It was originally posted on the BJC website (bjcpa.org) and is reposted here in its entirety with permission.

Good morning! I appreciate the kind invitation of Raul Scialabba to participate in this Congress on religious liberty. I am truly honored and delighted to be here in Buenos Aires. I bring greetings from the U. S. and the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty. The BJC is a seventy year old group supported by fifteen different Baptist bodies and working on matters concerning religious liberty and the separation of church and state. Established to provide a united witness for Baptists in Washington D.C., the BJC works to defend and extend the religious liberty of all. History has taught us that if anyone’s religious liberty is denied, everyone’s religious liberty is endangered.

I. Introduction

Informing our understanding of the proper relationship between the church and the state is a conviction that religious liberty is a gift from God, not the result of any “toleration” on the part of government. It has to do with our being created in the image of God, and the ability that God gives us to respond as free and competent moral agents. This is why we Baptists treasure voluntary religion and “soul freedom” — a God-infused liberty of conscience — that Roger Williams, a 17th Century Baptist champion of freedom, and many other Baptists since then have fought for and sometimes died for.

Even though our religious liberty is a gift from God—not the result of an act of grudging concession by the state—in the U.S. we have chosen to tailor our political institutions to protect that God-given religious liberty. We do this mainly through the first two provisions of the First Amendment in the U.S. Constitution. The first sixteen words of the First Amendment provide: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” These two clauses require government to be neutral towards religion—neither helping nor hurting religion, but turning it loose to allow people of faith to practice their religion—or not– as they see fit, not as government wants them to.

Both of these provisions ensure religious liberty; both require an institutional and functional separation of church and state. Full religious liberty is a goal; church-state separation is the political means of accomplishing that goal. Simply stated, separation of church and state is good for both.

The wise architects of the U.S. Constitution had learned the lessons of history. They knew from experience that, as soon as government meddles in religion – for or against— or takes sides in religion – favoring one over another – someone’s religious liberty is at least threatened and persecution sometimes ensues. If nothing else, government control of religion – even in the hands of a benevolent government – often winds up watering religion down.

The U.S. Constitution is a secular document. It never mentions Christianity and religion is mentioned only once in Article VI and then to ban religious tests for public office. And, with the adoption of the First Amendment’s religion clauses, our founders made it clear that one’s status in the civil community would not depend on a willingness to embrace any religious confession.

II. Establishment Clause

There are two basic views about the meaning and interpretation of the Establishment Clause. The first is a broad view, or “no-aid view.” It understands the language “no establishment” to prevent governmental endorsement of and aid to religion in general, not just a ban on denominational discrimination or outright coercion. Proponents of this view point out that the nation’s founders considered and rejected three proposed amendments that would have expressly allowed the government to prefer or advance religion generally, as long as it did not favor one religion over another. For example, the Senate in 1789 rejected a proposal that provided, “Congress shall make no law establishing one religious sect or society in preference to another.” Instead, the founders settled upon much broader language that banned laws even “respecting an establishment of religion.”

Others take a narrow view of the Establishment Clause, sometimes called “non-preferentialism.” They understand the intent of the framers and the language of the First Amendment only to prevent government from preferring one religion over another, establishing a single national church or coercing religious choices. They would allow government to aid religion generally if done evenhandedly. Proponents of this view often point to the actions of the nation’s founders that showed little interest in keeping government from promoting religion, at least a generic Protestantism.

Generally speaking, the broad view of the Establishment Clause has been majority view for most of the past sixty years. Justice Hugo Black, writing in Everson v. Board of Education (1947), articulated its parameters when he said:

The ‘establishment of religion clause’ of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither the state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws…which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. In the words of Jefferson the clause against the establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a “wall of separation between church and state.” (Everson v. Board, 330 U.S. 1, 15-16, 1947)

Over the ensuing decades, culminating in a Supreme Court decision called Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), the Court fashioned a three-part test for deciding the constitutionality of government action challenged under the Establishment Clause. In order to be upheld, the law or governmental action must (1) have a secular purpose, (2) have a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religions, and (3) not foster excessive entanglement between church and state. Over the past several years the test has been criticized as encouraging hostility to religion and has been modified by the Court at least in the area of challenges to governmental funding of religion.

Those who have a narrow, non-preferential understanding of the Establishment Clause usually favor what is called a “coercion test.” This test posits that,

government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in any religion or its exercise; and it may not…give direct benefits to religion in such a degree that it in fact establishes a [state] religion or religious faith, or tends to do so. (County of Allegheny v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573, 659 (1989) Kennedy, J., concurring in part.)

Otherwise government is free to aid religion.

Establishment Clause cases tend to fall into one of two general areas. First, concerns are raised when government expresses an opinion on or takes sides in matters of religion. It has to do with attempts by government to promote or endorse religion in words or symbols. These cases involve, for example, government displays of the Ten Commandments and other religious symbols and state-sponsored religious exercises in the public schools.

The second general category of Establishment Clause cases has to do with what government does with public funds. These cases involve claims that government establishes religion by subsidizing pervasively religious organizations or religious activities. Examples include attempts to fund parochial schools and churches’ social service ministries.

III. Free Exercise Clause

The second religion clause – the Free Exercise Clause – is intended to prevent government from burdening or inhibiting the exercise of religion.

People disagree on how this clause should be interpreted and applied as well. Those who have a broad understanding contend that governmental exemptions based on religion are often permitted and sometimes required to remove burdens from the exercise of religion. This view says that robust religious liberty involves not just the right not to be discriminated against, but sometimes requires an exemption from facially neutral, general applicable laws.

So, for example, a Seventh Day Adventist could not be required to work on her Sabbath or risk losing unemployment compensation. Likewise, members of the Amish community would be entitled to an exemption from the compulsory education law that requires school attendance through age 16 when the Amish, for religious reasons, object to formal education through that age. This view of the Free Exercise Clause says that government may not impose a substantial burden on the exercise of religion without showing a compelling state interest – an interest of the highest order – and then it must do so in the least restrictive way. This broad view of the Free Exercise Clause was the majority view of the Supreme Court from the 1940’s through 1990.

Others take a narrow view of the Free Exercise Clause. They say that religiously-based exemptions from laws of general application, while in some cases permitted, are never constitutionally required. This view declares that the government need not demonstrate a compelling interest in order to justify burdening religious exercise; it simply must treat religion as it treats secular counterparts and not discriminate against religion. Of course, this view offers scant protection for the exercise of religion as a matter of right. But this narrow understanding of free exercise has become the majority view of the United States Supreme Court.

In Employment Division vs. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), the Court ruled that members of a Native American Church were not entitled to an exemption from the anti-drug laws to allow them to ingest peyote – a banned substance – as a sacrament in worship. As long as anti-drug laws are even-handedly enforced, government would not have to demonstrate a compelling interest to justify a denial of a religiously-based accommodation.

IV. Challenges

Having given this general overview of the interpretation of the First Amendment’s religion clauses, I now want to talk about two challenges to religious liberty in the U.S.

As I have said, both of these clauses in the First Amendment ensure religious liberty, but in different ways. The Establishment Clause keeps government from indirectly hurting your religion by helping somebody else’s religion and Free Exercise keeps government from harming your religion directly. Even though these provisions are complementary, sometimes—when taken to their logical conclusion—they rub up against the other clause.

This tension between the two clauses is good. If one assiduously enforces the Establishment Clause and forgets about free exercise, an environment of hostility to religion can result. However, if one concentrates only on the Free Exercise Clause and forgets about no establishment, the logical outcome can be a theocracy or something close to it. In either case, religious liberty would be diminished.

In short, it is important that we understand that government should accommodate religion, without advancing it; protect religion, without privileging it; sometimes lift burdens on the exercise of religion without extending religion an impermissible benefit.

Although U.S. constitutional law has come up with elaborate typologies to help us sort through this dilemma (mandatory, permissible and impermissible exemptions), I like to employ a common sense exercise. Every time we say “no” to government activity to uphold the Establishment Clause, we should find a way to say “yes” to its Free Exercise counterpart. This allows us always to try to find a “win-win” solution.

For example, if we disallow teacher-led prayer in the public schools or devotional Bible reading in the classroom, we should also permit voluntary student prayer, student-initiated Bible clubs, and teaching about religion at appropriate places in the curriculum. If we ban government subsidies for religion and religious institutions, we should favor tax exemption and permit government to fund separate religiously affiliated social service agencies that minister without religious discrimination. If we forbid government-sponsored displays of the Ten Commandments, we should permit private citizens to do so even in public places. Again, every Establishment Clause “no” should be teamed up with a Free Exercise “yes”.

The second challenge that confronts us in the U.S. has to do with how we uphold our commitment to the separation of church and state without diminishing the relevance of religion to public life. This is a particularly apt topic this year because of our quadrennial presidential elections.

The separation of church and state does not require segregation of religion from politics or strip the public square of religious discourse. Religious people have an equal right to vend their views in the marketplace of ideas and (with some limits) to convert their religious ethics into public policy by organizing, speaking out, voting, and running for and serving in office.

People of faith need not limit their piety to the church house or to acts of private devotion, nor do they have to concede the public square to others. They should be involved, and seek to transform culture in part through the political process.

Religion can be a positive force in politics—both running for office and in governing – in at least two ways.

First, when candidates and government officials talk about their faith it helps us know who they are and examine what their moral core is like. We should have a free and fluid discussion, as I think we have had over the past 30 years since Jimmy Carter in a sense broke the silence on talking about faith in a campaign. But we must always keep in mind that Article VI of the Constitution bans religious tests for office. True, that provision addresses only legal disabilities based on religion and citizens can take religion into account when voting. But we should make every effort to live up to the spirit as well as the letter of Article VI. And, we must be tolerant of some candidates who, although they might have deep religious convictions, are not comfortable discussing them publicly. We should respect their right to keep their deepest religious convictions private and not quickly conclude they are irreligious just because they are not used to bearing their souls in public.

Second, it is important to inquire about how a candidate’s religious views will impact public policy and how one’s leadership style will be affected. There must always be this linkage. It is not at all helpful to have a theological discussion isolated from impact on policy and governance. For example, will religion merely motivate or entirely dominate a potential office holder’s decision-making? Does a candidate’s religious convictions ordain a particular policy position? What about choice of language? Will it involve narrow and sectarian or broader and more inclusive language? What about a conscious effort not to let one’s religious beliefs dictate policy? Will a candidate promise, for example, to bracket his or her convictions? We tend to see this a lot in connection with the abortion issue (John Kerry, Mario Cuomo), capital punishment (Virginia Governor Tim Kaine) and religion generally (President Kennedy, Governor Romney).

All of this said, I want to offer three words of caution to the notion that religion can be helpful. The first is theological. Any foray into politics with focused religious motivation should be tempered with a dose of humility. For good reason. Was it Blaisé Pascal who said that “men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction?” We need to understand that, however sure we think we are of our position, the other person at least has something to say and maybe in the final analysis is right. As James Dunn has said of the bombastic broadsides that we hear mainly from the religious right in recent years, “What they say is not totally false; it is falsely total.” It often lacks a note of self-evaluation, of tentativeness, of humility that one needs to bring to bear on a public policy message based squarely on one’s religious conviction. This goes for extremism on the religious left as well.

The second caveat is ethical in nature. It has to do with the use or abuse of “civil religion”—a blending of a generic Judeo-Christian piety with U. S. patriotism to the point that one can’t tell them apart. It should not surprise us that, in a country as religious as the U.S., references to God find their way into our civil ceremonies, mottos, slogans and public rituals. These include, “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, “In God we Trust” on coins and the ubiquitous “God Bless America” at the end of almost every speech of public officials. These acknowledgements of religious heritage generally have been tolerated by our courts. But, I bristle when it appears civil religion is being used to advance a political agenda. We must apply some ethical breaks here on the general idea that including religion in a campaign and in governance is (or can be) a plus. It’s dicey and dangerous to judge a politician’s sincerity and good faith. But we do it the same way we make other judgments about such matters: observing the demeanor of the speaker and seeking to determine if they walk the walk as well as talk the talk.

The third cautionary note is a constitutional one. The ultimate outcome of religiously motivated policy initiatives should always have a secular purpose and have the primary effect that does not advance religion. That is what U.S. Representative David Price means when he talks about “a coincidence of the religious precept with broader public values.” For example, former Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court Roy Moore clearly crossed the line when he installed outside his court a two ton monolith bearing the Ten Commandments, as every court that looked at the case concluded. But at the same time Alabama Governor Bob Riley was seeking tax reform, explicitly citing his Christian beliefs and Jesus’ teachings about the poor for justification. Riley’s religious motivation, however, was proper because there were a number of non-religious arguments and secular justifications to support tax reform.

While it is permissible for religion to motivate a policy, it should not dominate it. Stated differently, Jon Meacham the editor of “Newsweek” has said religion is a thread in the tapestry of American life, not the tapestry itself. Religion should shape policy, but not strangle it. Moreover, if the only rationale for a policy position is an a priori religious assertion, it is hard for it to be debated and tested in the marketplace of ideas and on the political scene. There must be some secular rationale for public policy that is based on religious conviction. Otherwise, it runs risk of violating the First Amendment’s ban on the establishment of religion.

I do not shy away from talking about separation of church and state as some are wont to do these days. Properly understood, it does not ban, but actually makes possible, the full inclusion of religion in the public square. And with these three caveats, that is good for religion and good for politics.

V. Conclusion

Along with theological precepts and constitutional principles, good citizenship and common sense compel the same results. Another way to look at this is to think of the “golden rule.” Everyone appreciates the sheer reasonableness of the golden rule, people of faith and no faith alike. I would like to propose a golden rule of church-state relations: I must not ask government to promote my religion if I do not want government to promote someone else’s religion; I must not permit government to harm someone else’s religion if I do not want the government to harm my religion. Enlightened self-interest, common courtesy and fundamental fairness require no less. What could be more Christian than that?

PROFILE: Rep. Chet Edwards Champions Separation of Church and State in Congress

Rep. Chet Edwards represents President George Bush’s home district (including Crawford, Texas) in the United States House of Representatives. A moderate who considers himself a bridge-builder between left and right, and a Methodist who attends the Calvary Baptist Church in Waco, Texas, Rep. Edwards is a staunch supporter of the separation of church and state.

Toby Druin of The Baptist Standard interviewed the Representative in 2003, and asked him some important questions.  A couple of these questions and answers are below:

_ What are you trying to accomplish as a member of the United States House of Representatives?
___Several things. First, I want to protect the principle of church-state separation, which is embedded in the first 16 words of the Bill of Rights. Second, I want to play a role in educating members of Congress and the American people to the fact that church-state separation was designed to protect religion, not harm it. It seems that every generation in Congress makes an effort to assault the role of separation of church and state. It requires re-education that the reason our founding fathers believed in church-state separation was that they felt religion should be on a pedestal far above the reach of politicians and government. They erected the wall of separation out of reverence for religion, not animosity against it.

///

How do you account for the erosion in the commitment to church-state separation among some Baptists and other groups?
___The reason there have been so many attacks on the wall of separation is that there is a rightful sense that we need to return to core religious values and truths. That is the right end, but getting government involved in the process is absolutely wrong in achieving that end. All of human history shows that getting government involved hurts religion, not helps it.
___Some are motivated by the right reasons, but other political officials understand it strengthens their image with some groups if they push a religious cause. I don’t see where having government funding helps churches. It can only hurt religion and cause religious dissension. Those who tried to change the Bill of Rights found it politically expedient, and because of my opposition to it in my recent campaign, 10 mailings involving some 500,000 pieces of mail said I opposed children praying.
___I assume the National Republican Campaign Committee felt it helpful to misrepresent my position, but it is ironic that some people break the ninth commandment to try to accomplish their purpose. I consider it most gratifying that the people of my district had better sense than to believe it.
___I absolutely support voluntary school prayer but vehemently oppose government-sanctioned, organized school prayer. I have decided that protecting religious freedom is far more important to me than an election, however. If losing votes is the price of my protecting religious freedom, it is a small price to pay.

///

How important is religious faith in your personal life and as a congressman?
___It is a central part of my life and of my family’s values. I was born and raised in the Methodist church, but 10 years ago I married a Baptist preacher’s daughter, and though I am still a Methodist today, our family has attended Baptist churches in Virginia and Texas the last 10 years.
___One of the challenges is trying to set a good Christian example in public office without wearing religion on my sleeve. I think it is sacrilege when politicians use religion to their own political ends. That demeans religion. It is a constant struggle trying to set a good Christian example and trying to reach out to others with my faith while not showing disrespect by furthering my own political ends.
___Dr. Reynolds reminded me that St. Francis of Assisi said we should always preach the gospel and, if necessary, use words. One of the challenges of a person of faith was expressed by Sen. Sam Nunn of Georgia in the early 1990s when he said he had always struggled about which sins, based on his personal faith, did he have a right to turn into crimes using the power of government.

Read the full interview at http://www.baptiststandard.com/2003/1_6/pages/edwards.html

///

The following is text from a speech Rep. Edwards gave on November 19, 2003.

Edwards’ Floor Speech on Religious Freedom Mr. Speaker: I rise in support of H.Res.423, which recognizes the 5th anniversary of the signing of the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998. Religious freedom should be a fundamental right for every citizen of the world. This resolution urges a “renewed commitment to eliminating violations of the internationally recognized right to freedom of religion”. I strongly agree that we should make that renewed commitment, and I imagine this resolution will pass unanimously in the House today. Earlier this morning a number of House Members rightfully criticized religious bigotry and discrimination in Viet Nam and Cambodia, as well as in other parts of the world. I applaud my colleagues for saying the world should not tolerate torture, imprisonment and murder of people simply because of their personal religious faith. I am also deeply grateful to live in the United States, where we do not imprison citizens, because their religious faith is different from others. I believe perhaps America’s greatest single contribution to the world from our experiment in democracy is our model of religious freedom and tolerance. The foundation of that religious freedom is the principle of separation of church and state, imbedded in the first 16 words of our Bill of Rights: “Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” In his letter to the Danbury Baptists of Connecticut in 1802, Thomas Jefferson expressed his belief that the principle of church-state separation is one of the most sacred of our founding principles. Unfortunately, many Americans today have come to perceive that separation of church and state implies disrespect for religion. Nothing could be further from the truth as Jefferson stated over a century ago. Separation of church and state does not mean keeping people of faith out of government. Rather, it means keeping government out of our faith. By passing language saying “Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion”, known as the Establishment Clause, our founding fathers were putting religion on a pedestal so high that the hands of government and politicians could not reach it. Our founding fathers were right. Separation of church and state in America has led to more religious freedom, vitality and tolerance than in any other nation in the world, perhaps throughout the history of the world. Most nations have gotten it wrong, because they have tried to use the power of government to fund religion. With that funding has come regulation of religion and, ultimately, the result has been intolerance against the rights of religious minorities. While I am deeply grateful for our religious freedom in America, I am also deeply disturbed by recent Bush Administration regulations and proposed laws that would limit the religious freedom of American citizens. It would be ironic and tragic for Members of Congress to be pushing for more religious freedom abroad while allowing religious freedom to be denied here at home. Let me be specific. This resolution says, and I quote, “Whereas the right to freedom of religion is expressed in the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief” Instead of eliminating all forms of intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief, the Bush Administration actually supports using federal tax dollars to subsidize religious discrimination. This is known as their so-called Charitable Choice proposals. Under Bush Administration proposals, an American citizen can be fired from a federally funded job solely because of his or her religious faith. Let me repeat that. Under Bush Administration proposals, an American citizen can be fired from a federally funded job solely because of his or her religious faith. The Administration, for example, would allow a group associated with Bob Jones University to accept $1 million in federal funds to run a jobs training program, and with part our taxpayers’ money, they could print a sign saying, No Jews or Catholics need apply here for a federally funded job. To allow and to actually subsidize such religious discrimination when using Americans’ tax dollars is offensive. It is wrong and it is unconstitutional. We all know why, for example, a Baptist Church can hire a Baptist minister with their own money to carry out that church’s spiritual mission. However, long-standing federal policy has been that when organizations receive tax dollars, they cannot discriminate in job hiring based simply on a person’s religious faith. President Bush’s Administration wants to change that policy for billions of tax dollars and for potentially hundreds of federally funded jobs. I believe the Administration’s position flies in the face of this resolution, the Bill of Rights and Americans’ personal religious freedom. No American citizen should have to pass someone else’s religious test to qualify for a federally funded job. Not one American. Mr. Speaker, it is right for House Members to stand up for religious freedom in other nations, but I would suggest we should more carefully examine how Bush administration policies will lead to religious discrimination here at home. If Americans are denied the right to a federally funded job, the chance to feed their families, simply because someone doesn’t like their religious faith, then they are being denied the exercise of their religious freedom. Perhaps most Americans to date have not been concerned about these so-called Charitable Choice proposals for two reasons. First, they are not aware of these proposals. Second, most Americans consider religious freedom to be a right protected by our 1st Amendment. But, in the years ahead, when dozens, then hundreds, and ultimately thousands of Americans are denied a job simply because of their personal religious faith, Americans will be outraged and ask how did this type of religious discrimination occur here, in the land of the free. In my religious faith, it is said that we should take the log out of our own eye before pointing out the speck in someone else’s eye. That leads me to believe that, while we are right today to condemn religious discrimination in other nations, we should stop subsidizing religious discrimination here in America. When we say in this resolution, “Whereas all governments should provide and protect religious liberty” perhaps it would be good for us to practice what we preach. Religious freedom is a cherished right of American citizens. We should stop Bush Administration proposals that would put that sacred right at risk.