There was a time when the leadership of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) supported religious liberty for everyone, undergirded by the separation of church and state. We tend to forget that many Baptists stood alongside Enlightenment-era thinkers such as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison to build the church-state wall.

Unfortunately, the leadership of the SBC fell into the hands of right-wing fundamentalists some years ago. These days, the individuals running the nation's largest Protestant denomination spend inordinate amounts of time trying to politice their churches on behalf of the most reactionary Republicans imaginable, in a misguided crusade to use the law to enforce their theological views.

Woe be it to anyone who tries to tell them this is not a good idea. Recently, John L. Yeats, SBC recording secretary and director of communications for the Louisiana Baptist Convention, blasted Americans United for Separation of Church and State in a Baptist Press column because AU dares to remind houses of worship that, under the rules of the Internal Revenue Service, they may not intervene in campaigns by endorsing or opposing candidates.

In election years, AU sends letters to churches nationwide reminding them of the terms of this law. These letters go to churches of many different denominations and political persuasions. AU calls this effort "Project Fair Play."

Wrote Yeats, "In the 2000 election year, Barry Lynn, AU executive director, wrote, `Federal tax law, which governs the activities of houses of worship, prohibits churches from engaging in partisan politics on behalf of or in opposition to a presidential candidate.'"

Added Yeats, "Did you see what he said? `Federal tax law, which governs the activities of houses of worship....' What is the government doing policing the activities of a church?"

I hate to break it to you, John, but all 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations have been barred from endorsing or opposing candidates for more than 50 years. Tax exemption is not mentioned in the Constitution. It is a benefit, not a right. One of the conditions put on it is the ban on partisan politicking. When congregants make a tax-deductible donation to a church or other charity, they shouldn't have to worry that the money will be spent on partisan endeavors.

The denials by Pastor Hagee and his minions of an ulterior end times agenda were directly contradicted by members of their own organization.

But CUFI has an ulterior agenda: its support for Israel derives from the belief of Hagee and his flock that Jesus will return to Jerusalem after the battle of Armageddon and cleanse the earth of evil. In the end, all the non-believers - Jews, Muslims, Hindus, mainline Christians, etc. - must convert or suffer the torture of eternal damnation.  Over a dozen CUFI members eagerly revealed to me their excitement at the prospect of Armageddon occurring tomorrow.

Therefore it is time for America to embrace the words of Sen. Joseph Lieberman and consider a military pre-emptive strike against Iran to prevent a nuclear holocaust in Israel ...

If I should die with more than ten pounds, may every man call me a liar and a thief.

... you are blaming the persecution of the Jewish people on the Jewish people for their rejection of Christ.

For years the Left in the US acted as though there were no real Communist threat -- that it was all just so much fear-mongering. It was just "Red Scare", devoid of substance. Today they say that there is no threat from the violence of the Islamists -- that this, too, is just so much fear-mongering. True to their word, much of the Left maintains a consistent rhetoric.

But the branding is going even further. The "Nazi" brand that they throw out at conservatives seems to be wearing thin. Now, it seems, we're the "Communists." Yup. And you know something -- I don't entirely disagree. If that is unexpected and confusing, let me explain.

It is unfortunate that the conservative movement inherited the neo-conservative agenda. The founder of this movement, Leo Strauss, was a disaffected socialist, seeing the failures of socialism, and as a disciple of Nietzsche found another approach that he and his disciples could carry forward. This approach is based on the use of force and would establish the United States as a global authority.

The irony is that the Left also wants a global authority, but they want the UN while many conservatives (with a way of thinking similar, though not necessarily originating in the neo-conservative agenda) want the US to take a moral authority over much of the world. By (some of us) accepting the neo-conservative agenda we also accept a great deal of the movement's Marxist, Hegelian, Nietzschian roots. We are not "Communists" but we have created an unnecessary association. It's an association which we should break.

It is a sad and tragic piece of our history that, through a variety of means, the US' military authority (not at all a moral authority) is used to enforce American justice world-wide. Haiti, the Balkans, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea -- there's so much more. We have troops everywhere. We may be in Darfur sooner than we would like. Both movements, the Left and the Right, have led us to this inevitable point.

One might also say, because of our nation's Christian ethical heritage, that we are effectively enforcing a Christian ethic on the world.  We are forcing the world to behave as we believe is best.  Now, I'm not a relativist or postmodern, so I'm not going to make this an equivocation of one ethic vs. the other ethic, and neither is right.  What I am saying is that we are imposing this ethic on the world through our direct involvement and, when called upon, through the UN.  After all, the controlling forces in the UN still bring Western thought, thus, in the perception of the recipients outside of the west, a Christian ethic coupled with Western economics.  We remain imperialist, whether from the Right or from the Left.

The Left complains about the neo-conservative agenda; the Right about the Marxist agenda. I will submit here that both are wrong. (I'm not promoting isolationism, but another way of thinking. There are certainly more than two choices.) Our globalism (militarist, corporatist, and economic) is now coming back to haunt us. We have progressed so far as to engage in commerce with a nation that is our sworn enemy (PROC) and neither party (neither dominant world view, that is) is willing to break that tie. (It seems that the main goal of both sides is the maintenance of votes and how to buy them from illegal aliens and pseudo-science politics of the global warming conversation.)

Today's retreat from reason and sense, political and scientific, leaves us with little hope. Our liberal society is failing for a multitude of reasons. (Most important to remember is that all societies fail. Even within Islam we've seen a history of leadership styles and government configurations over the centuries, ranging from tribalism to militarism to their modern quasi-corporatist systems.) It's easy to blame the Relativists and Pluralists, for they are part of the problem. But it's also the Corporatists and the general Power Hungry of all stripes who are the greatest blame. It is they who have opened the international doors which should not have been opened.

As the West continues to fade (it may take another century for our understanding of liberty to disappear into textbooks) the economic authority of the rest of the world will fade with it. The world requires a certain mindset in order to maintain Progress, and without the West the works of Hobbes and Descartes will be rendered useless. After Progress comes the nihilistic end of liberalism and tolerance, the nihilism of postmodernism. But the Postmoderns, Religious Left, and Religious Right will be relegated to footnotes when history is written. Their effects on our society will be notable, but not ultimately world-changing. Just as when Rome collapsed into anarchy, the collapse of the West will likely leave the world in a state of anarchy.

So what's the next step? Where shall the West go -- how shall we separate from problems and perhaps avoid our imminent social collapse? I don't know that we can. Augustine's City of God seems to have some of best formulations available, but it would require an update to suit our era. A little less (yes, a lot less) theocracy and the system could provide us with a secure framework for the whole of society.

Our problem is not our social structure.  We would be in the same position if we were either more liberal more Christian.  Our society is failing because it is aging as do all societies.  We are tired and do not know how good we have it.  The events of 9/11 woke us up for about six months, and then we went back to sleep.  The British society woke up from its collapse, not from a social change, but by way of a revival via Whitfield and Wesley.  That revival did not cure all of its problems, but it provided a Life and Energy that they did not know before.

The Lord does not owe America a revival.  His hand has no guarantee.  Nor does He necessarily protect his children from harm as that is often his hand of discipline.  Let us be aware of our sin in our society, in our government, in our conduct, in our private behavior.  We cannot depend on the Right or the Left for social stability.  Let us acknowledge our sin and ask His forgiveness.  He gives it only in His grace.  We cannot earn his favor by being good or by being Good Americans.  It is His and His along to give freely.  And he does.

There are currently no restrictions on the doctrine and practice of the church within its walls.  But could there be some if the Pluralists are able to establish a "secular society"?  The answer is a very simple Yes.  There would no only be expetations placed upon our practice and doctrine, but the very fabric of the First Amendment would be affected.  It doesn't take an extremist long to find a "compelling interest" in order to restrict liberty.  So not only would the Establishment and Free Exercist clauses be thrown out, so also would go the the Abridgement and Assembly clauses.

Far-fetched?  Nutty?  It's not happening and I won't pretend that it is.  The only real problem faced today with regard to religious liberty in the US is the 501(c)(3) restrictions on free speech.  Though there are other smaller matters, mostly local ones (like manipulated zoning concerns),  this is one of the few that broadly affects the nation.  But other than that, there are few significant problems.

But I don't trust them.  The Pluralists (not all the Left are so extreme) would demand pluralism in all of society, even within the private confines church life.  But this doesn't frighten me because, like the Dominionists on the Christian side, they don't have enought money, influence, or people to make it come about.  In a practical sense, the lion has no teeth.  As a result I confront the issue for everyone's understanding, but not attempt to stop the nearly-inevitable.  Some people just need t get a liberty card.