Baptists urged to fight for church-state separation

K. Hollyn Hollman of BJC. Photo: BJC

The Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty (BJC) carries on a long history of Baptist advocacy for religious freedom and secular government.

Baptists? Yes.

In a recent op-ed piece for the Associated Baptist Press, BJC’s general counsel K. Hollyn Hollman exhorts Baptists to fight for religious freedom and the separation of church and state. In her words,

From our beginnings and throughout our history, Baptists have made their mark on behalf of the separation of church and state as the best means to secure religious liberty for all. Yet, for some, pride in the historical contributions of Baptists does not translate into bold support for religious-freedom protections today. Baptist Americans, like all Americans, benefit from the constitutional tradition that keeps our government from establishing religion and interfering with religious practices. In many communities, however, we are in the majority and have lost sight of the compelling story that informs our freedom.

. . .

If we fail to exercise our freedom responsibly or lose sight of the importance of having a government that is neutral toward religion, we can hardly claim the mantle of those Baptist heroes whose stories we love to tell.

Hollman describes Baptist historical figures like John Leland, who lobbied James Madison for a Constitutional amendment to protect religious liberty, and Roger Williams, who founded Rhode Island after being expelled from the Puritan colony of Massachusetts.

She takes a strong stance on displays of religious nature on government property:

There is no question that most Americans cherish their religious identity and that religion is on display, not just in our homes and houses of worship, but in the public generally. It is a natural consequence of the freedom our Constitution protects. However, when religious monuments are displayed on government property in a context that aligns the government with a religious message, our freedom is threatened . . .

If we stand against religious establishments, how can we sit back and let the government choose which Scripture or symbols to promote on behalf of its citizens? Aren’t those decisions best left to the consciences of individuals and faith communities? Whether it is a solitary cross on federal land or a monolith engraved with a version of the Ten Commandments on the courthouse lawn, government-sponsored religious displays run counter to the principle that the government should not interfere with the religious choices of individuals.

These aren’t just pretty words from Hollman. BJC has a long history of advocating for the separation of church and state. Originally founded in 1936 as a public affairs committee of the Southern Baptist Convention, the Committee merged with a similar committee of the Northern Baptist Convention in 1937. By 1949, the organization had begun to refocus its mission, adding to its first constitution:

The [Baptist Joint Committee] shall be empowered to enunciate, defend, and extend the historic, traditional Baptist principle of religious freedom with particular application to the separation of church and state as embodied in the Constitution of the United States.

The BJC operated in this vein, funded by the two Baptist conventions, until the 1980s. The increased fundamentalist milieu in the Southern Baptist Convention led to a growing controversy over the BJC; by 1991, the organization was completely defunded by the SBC. BJC staff clung to the principle of church-state separation in spite of controversy and loss of funding. They continue to defend this principle today, supported by fifteen Baptist organizations and conventions . . . just not the Southern.

Recently, we told you about the Supreme Court case of Christian Legal Society vs. Martinez, in which the Court decided that Hastings College of Law had a legal right to refuse public funds to a Christian student organization which restricted membership to those signing a statement of Christian faith. Many religious organizations filed friend-of-court briefs in the case, siding with the student organization demanding exemption from the College’s nondiscrimination policy. BJC filed a brief, as well.

BJC’s brief was not filed on behalf of either party. From a BJC release:

In its brief, which was also joined by The Interfaith Alliance Foundation, the Baptist Joint Committee maintained that what Hastings has given with one hand – a forum for student clubs to organize around common interests – it has taken away with the other by conditioning access to the forum with acceptance of the all-comers policy. The brief urged the U.S. Supreme Court to avoid rendering a decision that sanctions either direct funding of a private religious organization and their religious activities or that unduly curtails the expressive association rights of the organization.

The Baptist Joint Committee’s view of this case was primarily one concerning religious groups’ “equal access” to public forums and facilities generally available to non-religious groups, but only so far as government entities stay out of the business of funding religion, said BJC General Counsel K. Hollyn Hollman.

Hollman said, “While equal access to a student forum facilitates religious expression without creating the risk of government endorsement of religion, a public university’s funding of religious student groups beyond the incidental sort previously upheld by the Court threatens an Establishment Clause violation and confuses the application of equal access to the forum.”

In short, the BJC stance was exactly that taken by Hastings College. The religious student group could make use of College facilities, but could not receive funding.

BJC was not neutral earlier this year, on the case of Salazar vs. Buono, the Mojave desert cross. They took a strong position, filing a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of . . . the plaintiff, Frank Buono, who sued to have the cross removed.

Hollman comments on the outcome of the case:

In church-state battles, there are always strong voices from the Christian majority who fight mightily to have the government advance religion, or at least advance the most popular religious symbols. In public debates, they undermine the separation of religion and government, and by implication the protection for religion it provides, often by asserting misguided arguments to achieve their goals. Unfortunately, Justice Kennedy’s opinion (See page 1) in Salazar v. Buono is now Exhibit A in this phenomenon.

Kennedy went out of his way to declare the cross not an exclusively religious symbol of one particular faith, but rather a symbol used to honor heroism and sacrifice. Justice Stevens took a different point of view, one with which BJC concurs:

The cross is not a universal symbol of sacrifice. It is the symbol of one particular sacrifice, and that sacrifice carries deeply significant meaning for those who adhere to the Christian faith. I certainly agree that the nation should memorialize the service of those who fought and died in World War I, but it cannot lawfully do so by continued endorsement of a starkly sectarian message.

The Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty (BJConline.org) is one religious organization that understands the need for and fights to maintain a secular government, standing at a distance from religion . . . the only way all Americans can have true religious liberty.

Related articles:

1. BJC outlines top myths about separation of church and state
2. Top 5 myths of the separation of church and state
3. Senate Committee Should Question Elena Kagan On Issues Relating To Church-State Separation, Says Americans United
4. Lecturer explains: Church-state separation equals bigotry
5. Reason in the Rotunda: Speaking up for church-state separation in Minnesota’s Capitol

Jenny Donati is webmistress and co-editor of Secular News Daily. Jenny is an outspoken secularist who believes firmly in the separation of church and state. She demands evidence to support arguments, and holds herself to the same standard. She doesn't write about herself in the third person . . . but there's a first time for everything.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry.