In Response To ... Index  /  Site Directory 

Note: This essay first appeared in the April 2007 Baptist Studies Bulletin.

       I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute -- where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be a Catholic) how to act and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote -- where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference -- and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.
            I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish―where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source―where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials―and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.
            For, while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been, and may someday be again, a Jew―or a Quaker―or a Unitarian―or a Baptist. It was Virginia's harassment of Baptist preachers, for example, that led to Jefferson's statute of religious freedom. Today, I may be the victim―but tomorrow it may be you―until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped apart at a time of great national peril.

            These were the words of presidential candidate John F. Kennedy in 1960, in response to Baptist opposition to his candidacy born out of fear that Kennedy’s religion might influence his politics.  Although written 47 years ago, he accurately foresaw a day when religion would endanger our nation.
            We now live in a time when many American evangelicals, including some Baptists, endorse presidential candidates precisely because of certain religious views, with the expectation that their candidate, should he win the presidency, will reshape American politics at home and abroad to mandate certain religious beliefs upon the whole of America.  In so forsaking the Baptist, and American, heritage of separation of church and state, the “whole fabric of our harmonious society” has been “ripped apart at a time of great national peril.”
            As the spring of 2007 arrives, yet another presidential election cycle is upon us, arriving earlier than ever as candidates from both major parties seek early front-runner status.  The Religious Right is again seeking a candidate who will impose their religious views upon all of America.  And this time around, the “Left” has discovered religion, evidenced in the “God-talk” of Democratic candidates.  Christians are tempted to choose the candidate who best speaks the language of their personal religious convictions.  But John F. Kennedy’s words of long ago remind us of the folly of turning presidential campaigns into religious contests.
            Our Baptist forefathers of old, led by John Leland and Isaac Backus, refused to let religion compromise their politics, or politics compromise their religion.  In politics, they sought out individuals who would champion minority groups and respect and fight for equal rights for all citizens, regardless of religious affiliation or absence of religious affiliation.  In matters of faith, they zealously guarded any attempt by politicians to use religion as a wedge, hammer or anvil.
            The wisdom of John F. Kennedy and our Baptist forefathers reminds us to be especially wary of presidential candidates who insist on resorting to “God-talk.”  Instead, we should listen carefully to discern those candidates who have a true respect for all American citizens, a commitment to treat all as equals, and the courage to not allow religion to further rip apart our great nation.