A historical irony

Independence Day fell on a Sunday this year. That strikes this writer as being somewhat profound, given the efforts of some to make our government a theocracy. "Faith-based" federal programs, government-backed proselytizing in occupied countries and pulpit electioneering are some of the things that lead me to write such strong words. \nDon't get me wrong; I am a person of faith. I am thankful that I am allowed to worship each Sunday in a place that is freely accessible and safe. It reinforces the foundation of my existence and gives me much-needed peace in a world of turmoil. In some places in this world -- Sudan comes immediately to mind -- Christians worship under the threat of death.\nWhat is my gripe then, you or many of my fellow Christians may ask?\nIt is that we are taking for granted something that has worked well for our system of government and our houses of worship since the framing of our Constitution: the separation of church and state.\nThis subject has been hotly debated in recent years. Some, such as Harvard professor and writer Stephen Carter, say that the framers of the Constitution never intended for such a separation. Some, in fact, do their best to lay the blame on one man -- Thomas Jefferson -- as the instigator of the concept, and then to discredit him because he was a deist.\nBut even if we take Jefferson out of the picture, look at what his successor to the presidency and the often-declared "father of the Constitution" James Madison said in 1803: "The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries."\nThese are wise words, historically speaking. They are also relevant in view of what is going on, not in Europe, but in many parts of the Middle East and northern Africa today, where theocracies of Islam rule. \nBut the U.S. government would never mix church and state, you might say. We must have learned our lesson from history. \nOr have we? How far is far enough? How much is too much? Are we really doing ourselves a favor by mixing politics and religion? Will not one dilute the other, homogenizing each other and simultaneously corrupting each other? \nLook at what Madison wrote in 1819 in a letter to Robert Walsh, defending the separation: "The civil Government, tho' bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability and performs its functions with complete success; whilst the number, the industry and the morality of the priesthood and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the state."\nRecently, the Southern Baptist Convention, which has been closely aligned with the Bush administration, took offense at the strategy of using church rosters for campaign purposes.\n"I'm appalled that the Bush-Cheney campaign would intrude on a local congregation in this way," said Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, in the Chicago Sun-Times. "The bottom line is, when a church does it, it's non-partisan and appropriate. When a campaign does it, it's partisan and inappropriate," Land continued. "I suspect that this will rub a lot of pastors the wrong way."\nI agree completely. It seems ironic, though, that this was never an issue when the Southern Baptists were telling the administration what they needed to do. Now that the tide has turned on them, there suddenly is a problem.\nOr maybe there always has been.