The nightmare parable sketched out in the previous post illustrates what seems to be an increasingly popular version of what "religious liberty" entails. In this version, the state must play a role — sometimes a very active and aggressive role — in order to protect and preserve the religious beliefs and culture of its citizens.
Religious liberty is one of the most basic and most important of our freedoms, involving fundamental matters of individual conscience. That's why this liberty — along with freedom of speech, of the press and of assembly — is protected and enshrined in the first of the amendments that constitute our Bill of Rights.
Here is what the First Amendment has to say about religious liberty:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …
I consider the two clauses of this statement to be complementary and mutually reinforcing. From my own Baptist perspective — a perspective shaped by the hard lessons of history — the free exercise of religion can only be guaranteed by the strict prohibition of the establishment of religion. I believe the two clauses, together and in harmony, constitute an argument for the separation of church and state.
One alternative to this position calls itself an "accommodationist" approach. Accommodationists tend to see a tension between the two clauses of the First Amendment. Where I see the two clauses as simply two sides of the same Caesar's coin, they view the clauses as almost opposites.
The protectionist view, the kind described in the parable below, goes further even than the accommodationist approach. They view the two clauses as not merely in "tension," but at war. Where I see the establishment clause as the guarantor of free exercise, they see it as the enemy of religious liberty.
The protectionist view is rarely argued explicitly, but it does have a few vocal proponents. Consider, for example, David Barton.
I've tended to dismiss Barton and his " Wallbuilders" organization as an ineffectual part of the loony fringe. David Barton is a revisionist and a theocratic goofball who wrote a book called The Myth of Separation. But he is also now a paid consultant for the Republican party — which makes him an influential part of the loony fringe.
The fact that someone as dangerously dishonest/crazy as Barton now wields influence in the party that controls all three branches of government is, frankly, terrifying. It also shows that this protectionist idea of the synthesis of church and state is gaining ground.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In