With election fever running high, the emotional debates over the role of religious faith in the political arena have escalated. Some church-related groups have devoted unprecedented energy and resources to affect the tally at the polls.

From high school classrooms to the high courts, issues concerning the proper relationship between church and state are being hashed out. Admittedly, some specific cases are rather complex. Astute observers will note the shades of gray where proponents and opponents speak confidently of black and white.

In the midst of these emotionally charged exchanges it is easy for the more rational voices to be drowned out. But they must be heard.

Those advocating extreme positions on either side of the religious liberty debate are wrong. One side suggests that only private expressions of faith are appropriate within the realm of church-state relations.

The First Amendment clause forbidding the establishment of a particular brand of religion is over-emphasized to the exclusion of the free exercise clause that guarantees all Americans the right to express their religious views freely.

On the other extreme are those who undervalue the genius of church-state separation and look for special privileges for their particular religious viewpoints and endeavors. They wed their faith to partisan politics in ways that weaken both.

Recently, it dawned on me that for 13 years I served as a Baptist campus minister on state university campuses without conflicts with school administrators or any difficulties in fulfilling my ministry calling.

Perhaps the reason is that university administrators and I approached the unusual relationship — a denominationally-employed minister serving students and faculty in government-operated academic settings — with two shared principles: common sense and respect for the rights of all persons.

Common sense assures us that real faith cannot be coerced regardless of how subtle the coercion may be. Respect for others ensures that we value those who may not share our religious convictions — no matter how important those convictions may be to us personally.

Understandably, some university leaders had suspicions early on. I had to prove myself to be trustworthy. But that came quickly when campus leaders learned that I was as strong an advocate of church-state separation as they — if not stronger.

Preferential treatment was never my goal. I simply insisted on having the same opportunities to reserve space, advertise our events and relate to the broader campus community as other religious and non-religious organizations.

Trust was also increased by making myself available during times of crisis such as the tragic death of a student in the dormitory. And evidence that our ministry improved the school’s student retention statistics was no small concern for most educators.

On one occasion a university president asked me to serve on what was deemed the “sensitivity committee.” All other representatives were faculty or staff members.

The committee was formed when a Jewish counselor — new to the university — objected to an overtly Christian prayer given at a faculty meeting and likewise at graduation. During the initial committee meeting, he seemed rather surprised when the Baptist campus minister was the first to argue that sectarian prayers don’t belong at state university-sponsored events.

However, I also used the opportunity to launch a Bible study and prayer group for faculty and staff interested in exploring the Christian faith. It, of course, was a voluntary event on campus.

Asking government for anything more than equal opportunity to express our religious faith is asking for too much — or, in reality, too little -- for government-subsidized faith is a weakened faith.

Government’s helping hand on our treasured beliefs confuses allegiances and tempts us to put our trust in places less trustworthy than Almighty God. Such a faith — that requires the endorsement of, or preferential treatment from, political powers — is too fragile a faith for me.

If we can get past the heated rhetoric and unfounded fears, we will realize that the proven path of church-state separation is not that complicated, really. America’s vital religious liberties and healthy religious communities are not being enhanced by the hostile, counter-point exchanges often heard on Larry King Live or Fox News.

We need to raise the clearer voices that advocate a common-sense approach to convictional faith alongside a deep respect for the freedoms of all others as well.