separation of church and state

Justice as fairness provides, as we have now seen, strong arguments for an equal liberty of conscience. I shall assume that these arguments can be generalised in suitable ways to support the principle of equal liberty. Therefore the parties have good grounds for adopting this principle. It is obvious that these considerations are also important in making the case for the priority of liberty. From the perspective of the constitutional convention these arguments lead to the choice of a regime guaranteeing moral liberty and freedom of thought and belief, and of religious practice, although these may be regulated as always by the state's interest in public order and security.

The state can favour no particular religion and no penalties or disabilities may be attached to any religious affiliation or lack thereof. The notion of a confessional state is rejected. Instead, particular associations may be freely organised as their members wish, and they may have their own internal life and discipline subject to the restriction that their members have a real choice of whether to continue their affiliation. The law protects the right of sanctuary in the sense that apostasy is not recognised, much less penalised, as a legal offence, any more than is having no religion at all. In these ways the state upholds moral and religious liberty.

- John Rawls, A Theory of Justice

Baptists suffered tremendously when the Church and State were merged. In the history of the Baptists, they fought very hard to be freed from the control of the political authorities in matters of their faith. With such a history, Baptists consider the separation of Church and State as very important in their beliefs.

The belief in the separation of Church and State is consistent with the New Testament model (unlike that of the Old Testament). The New Testament churches were separated from the State.

- Thomas C.M. Chin, The Baptist People