Separation of Church and State
What does separation of Church and State mean? Does it mean anything at all? Is it just an excuse to discriminate against the freedom of speech of religious individuals? Is there something that Churches do, that their members expect them to do, that the State should not do?
Social Scientists frequently characterize Communism as a Religion. It behaved in Social Science terms like a religion. It was a belief system that provided The Answers. It divided into warring sects that ruthlessly suppressed each other. It suppressed other competing religions like Islam and Christianity. Was it a religion, a political party or an economic system?
It is a commonplace that Americans show a religious reverence for the Flag, the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and the Founding Fathers. Is this religion separate from our system of government?
Is Secular Humanism a religion or a political belief system? Does it take religious faith to believe in Liberal Democratic values?
If all of these things are religions how can you separate Church and State? If these strong and frequently faith based belief systems are not religions why does faith in a God make something into a religion? Buddhism has no faith in a God and is generally considered a religion. Confucianism does not deal with spiritual issues and is sometimes considered a religion.
Traditionally religions were considered to have something to do with a faith in God. This designation was possible in early US history because the culture was fairly uniform. Everybody was a Christian, all had worn themselves out in religious wars in recent centuries and no one wanted to oppress the other sects enough to risk giving the State the power to oppress them. This is the fundamental foundation of all human rights, reciprocity, do not give the State a power over others you would not want it to have over you.
Today Separation of Church and State has become a tool in religious wars between modern atheist religious systems which can generally be called Secular Humanism, the Church of Secular Humanism of the Shining Path of Political Correctness, and traditional theist religious systems.
This religious war is one of the major problems facing the US today. It divides the population geographically between high population areas and relatively rural areas. It divides it between Liberal and Conservative.
The traditionally religious feel that Liberal legislation and agendas in schools and government agencies throughout the US are attacking the traditional values that they hold sacred. They respond in kind by attempting to get religious values taught in the schools under other names.
For practical purposes in Social Science terms, Secular Humanism is a religion. This is a religious war, and because of Separation of Church and State being defined in traditional terms that do not accurately describe the current situation, the government generally ends up supporting the Secular Humanist religious fanatics.
In order to maintain real Separation of Church and State, it is necessary to define what a Church is more clearly in terms that fit what is happening in the world today and define more clearly the proper roles of Church and State.
Is a Church a moral authority? Generally Church’s make rules concerning moral issues like sexual behaviors and other matters of personal conduct effecting a persons moral well-being but not necessarily the physical well-being of others.
Is the State a moral authority? Should the State be making rules about oral and anal sex, or homosexuality? Of course the State outlaws murder and theft and there is a moral element to such laws but these legitimate areas of the States legislation are concerned with actions that injure others.
Where is the line? J.S.Mill set the line in his book “On Liberty”.
"The object of this essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him must be calculated to produce evil to someone else. The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign."
Hobbes stated in “Leviathan”,
“As it is necessary for all men that seek peace to lay down certain rights of nature; that is to say, not to have liberty to do all they list, so is it necessary for man's life to retain some: as right to govern their own bodies; enjoy air, water, motion, ways to go from place to place; and all things else without which a man cannot live, or not live well.”
Can you think of a better place to draw the line between Church and State? If the line is drawn here, with the Church providing moral guidance but having no power to physically compel an individual, then it becomes possible to examine issues on the basis of a clear standard to determine if the State is exercising it’s power in issues better left to the Church. The Church is a voluntary association of people sharing common moral values about their private actions. The Church has no power to exercise force over Citizens to compel their obedience. The State has the option of using force to punish infractions of its laws.
The doctrine expressed above is the Libertarian Party line. “Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign." It means that blue laws are generally violations of Separation of Church and State whether the organization promoting them is officially a religion or not. It means compelling citizens to accept a value judgment about a personal behavior by any means is a violation of Separation of Church and State. It is quite appropriate to define violation of Mr. Mill doctrine in “On Liberty” as a violation of Separation of Church and State.
The State has the power to compel obedience. The Church does not. The individual desiring an authority in private moral matters may choose the Church of his choice. Churches of course can use the opinion of the congregation to influence the behavior of the members, even going so far as to exclude those not amenable to the moral rules of the Church from membership.
To quote John Locke in his Letter on Toleration,
“merchants for commerce, or of men of leisure for mutual conversation and discourse, no church or company, I say, can in the least subsist and hold together, but will presently dissolve and break in pieces, unless it be regulated by some laws, and the members all consent to observe some order. Place and time of meeting must be agreed on; rules for admitting and excluding members must be established; distinction of officers, and putting things into a regular course, and suchlike, cannot be omitted. But since the joining together of several members into this church-society, as has already been demonstrated, is absolutely free and spontaneous, it necessarily follows that the right of making its laws can belong to none but the society itself; or, at least (which is the same thing), to those whom the society by common consent has authorized thereunto.”
This standard is unpopular with religious people who have The Answers. The traditional religions have always used the guns of the government to enforce their moral standards on individuals. The Secular Humanists today insist on doing the same attempting to force the acceptance of behaviors traditionally condemned by other Churches on the children of their members while successfully hiding behind the idea that since their ideology does not originate with God it is not in reality a religion.
It is an ugly religious war. It is not different in kind from the struggles between Catholics and Protestants, between Puritans and Anglicans, except that it has not yet become a battle between armies. Keeping the Government out of it will help to keep armed force from becoming the arbiter of the conflict.
The State has a legitimate interest in promoting tolerance between its Citizens. Such tolerance helps to prevent murders and various other crimes of person against person, and the State is intended as part of its purpose to use the force it possesses to prevent such actions.
There is a difference between tolerance and approval. The State cannot mandate approval of behaviors traditionally condemned by the Church. Churches have the right to teach that homosexuality is immoral. The State should refuse to enforce such teachings with laws oppressing homosexuality, but it cannot mandate teaching that homosexuality is moral or good nor can it legitimately mandate teaching that homosexuality is evil. Leave these matters to religions. The State should not become the enforcer or propaganda office of religious (moral) values that apply only to personal behavior.
Most religions are intolerant by nature. Secular Humanists cannot tolerate the teachings of traditional Churches. Traditional Churches cannot tolerate the teachings of Secular Humanism. The State should not be teaching either set of moral values in the classroom. To do so is a real violation of Separation of Church and State.
It is likely that the Secular Humanists would answer that condemning homosexuality is intolerant. That opposing intolerance is not intolerance. This is a modern argument, one that twists tolerance around into meaning forcing approval by force of arms.
John Locke wrote “A Letter Concerning Toleration” in the 1680s. Locke’s various works were instrumental in shaping the political philosophy of our Founding Fathers. In it he describes the reasons why religious intolerance is wrong and immoral. His position on the authority of the State is virtually the same as Mill position written a couple of centuries later;
“In the last place, let us now consider what is the magistrate's duty in the business of toleration, which certainly is very considerable. We have already proved that the care of souls does not belong to the magistrate. Not a magisterial care, I mean (if I may so call it),which consists in prescribing by laws and compelling by punishments. But a charitable care, which consists in teaching, admonishing, and persuading, cannot be denied unto any man. The care, therefore, of every man's soul belongs unto himself and is to be left unto himself. But what if he neglect the care of his soul? I answer: What if he neglect the care of his health or of his estate, which things are nearlier related to the government of the magistrate than the other? Will the magistrate provide by an express law that such a one shall not become poor or sick? Laws provide, as much as is possible, that the goods and health of subjects be not injured by the fraud and violence of others; they do not guard them from the negligence or ill-husbandry of the possessors themselves. No man can be forced to be rich or healthful whether he will or no. Nay, God Himself will not save men against their wills.”
If God will not save men against their wills is it not arrogant indeed for the State to assume such an authority over its Citizens? This is one of the fundamental issues of confusion over the role of government which occurs perennially throughout history. Parents and adults save children against their wills. There is a strong tendency throughout the history of political philosophy to see the State as analogous to the parent and to give it the kind of personal authority over the Citizens which a Parent must exercise over Children. This emotional confusion over the nature of the State is a source of much of the abusive authority which has been vested in the State throughout history. Separation of Church and State acts to limit this perennial error by removing the Moral authority of the Church from the State. Mr. Locke defines the differences in belief in his time;
“Further, the magistrate ought not to forbid the preaching or professing of any speculative opinions in any Church because they have no manner of relation to the civil rights of the subjects. If a Roman Catholic believe that to be really the body of Christ which another man calls bread, he does no injury thereby to his neighbour. If a Jew do not believe the New Testament to be the Word of God, he does not thereby alter anything in men's civil rights. If a heathen doubt of both Testaments, he is not therefore to be punished as a pernicious citizen. The power of the magistrate and the estates of the people may be equally secure whether any man believe these things or no.”
Each of these differences of belief included a belief in the wrongness and immorality of the other belief. Each included the belief that the misguided practitioner of the other belief was wrong and damned to Hell. Tolerance meant accepting peacefully the right of other religions to preach that you were evil, satanic, idol worshippers damned to Hell.
Tolerance requires recognizing and accepting the right of people who believe differently than you to believe that you are wrong. This is very tough for people to do. Most people prefer intolerance while mouthing words of tolerance.
This, accepting the right of others to believe that you are wrong, immoral, and damned to hell, is the meaning of religious tolerance and it includes the right of religions to teach that people who do not obey their commandments are immoral and damned to Hell.
Homosexuals who do not accept the right of Churches to preach that they are immoral and damned to Hell are as intolerant as Protestants who do not accept the right of Catholics to preach that they are immoral and damned to Hell. Tolerance means accepting the right of others to believe you are immoral, wrong, and damned to Hell.
This is the Tolerance that is intended to be protected by Separation of Church and State.
It is worth noting that Locke specifically excepts Mahometans who profess allegiance to foreign powers from Churches that can be tolerated. Locke maintains that those who profess military allegiance to foreign potentates who form a fifth column under pretence of religion cannot be tolerated by the Civil Magistrate. Religions to deserve Tolerance must accept the Civil authority of the State in which they live.
“Again: That Church can have no right to be tolerated by the magistrate which is constituted upon such a bottom that all those who enter into it do thereby ipso facto deliver themselves up to the protection and service of another prince. For by this means the magistrate would give way to the settling of a foreign jurisdiction in his own country and suffer his own people to be listed, as it were, for soldiers against his own Government. Nor does the frivolous and fallacious distinction between the Court and the Church afford any remedy to this inconvenience; especially when both the one and the other are equally subject to the absolute authority of the same person, who has not only power to persuade the members of his Church to whatsoever he lists, either as purely religious, or in order thereunto, but can also enjoin it them on pain of eternal fire. It is ridiculous for any one to profess himself to be a Mahometan only in his religion, but in everything else a faithful subject to a Christian magistrate, whilst at the same time he acknowledges himself bound to yield blind obedience to the Mufti of Constantinople, who himself is entirely obedient to the Ottoman Emperor and frames the feigned oracles of that religion according to his pleasure. But this Mahometan living amongst Christians would yet more apparently renounce their government if he acknowledged the same person to be head of his Church who is the supreme magistrate in the state.” Locke, “A Letter Concerning Toleration”
Catholics would have been excluded under this rule in England at the time of the infamous Gunpowder Plot. Some Mahometans can be excluded under this rule in the US today. The Founding Fathers would have little trouble with such a rule after 9/11.
Aristotle, “Virtue, then, is a state of character concerned with choice, lying in a mean, i.e. the mean relative to us, this being determined by a rational principle, and by that principle by which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect; and again it is a mean because the vices respectively fall short of or exceed what is right in both passions and actions, while virtue both finds and chooses that which is intermediate. Hence in respect of its substance and the definition which states its essence virtue is a mean, with regard to what is best and right an extreme.”
The rational principle is the need for the state to maintain peace between people of different beliefs and natures while also maintaining the rule of law. One excess is an establishment of religion specifically precluded by the Constitution in a couple of places;
Article 6, “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”
First Amendment “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”.
Using the State to enforce Secular Humanist values on the people contrary to the traditional practice of their religious beliefs is not different in fact from this excess. It is formally different a difference of words without any relevant difference in fact. The opposite excess is an absence of all ethical or moral force in society resulting in a kind of permissive anarchy without any rational system of justice. Virtue lies in dividing the authority of Church and State between that sphere where individual actions injure other Citizens and that sphere where individual actions injure only the individual involved or other consenting individuals. One sphere of action is the legitimate realm of authority by the State enforced by its legal authority and physical power.
The other sphere is the legitimate realm of the Church enforced by its moral authority. No one can ever be legitimately forced to either do or abstain from doing something for their own good. Force can only legitimately be used to protect Citizens from harm from others, not from themselves. Fundamental to this political virtue is the States teaching Tolerance of others. This Tolerance is two edged. It requires that those who consider a behavior evil and immoral to tolerate its existence. It requires those who indulge in such practices to tolerate the fact that others disapprove of them.
In the context of Separation of Powers, a moral authority separate from and independent of the State provides a counter to the power of the State. It questions the decisions and actions of the State, brings controversies to light and encourages public debate and discussion. Through its moral authority with the Citizens it encourages voting based on conscience and ethical concerns. Our system of government, with its checks and balances assumed a strong religious belief in the populace. Loss of the Church destroys the balance of power on which the US system was built.
In the interest of Full Disclosure
It is necessary here to mention the fact that I am a Reverend Church Dude. This is an iffy statement and requires some elucidation. I have participated in a number of email discussion forums for almost a decade. In one of these participants range from creationists to atheists. I tend to react to both sides with the same passionate dislike. When creationists come on pushing their pseudo-scientific attacks on evolution they meet short shrift from me, and when atheists come on pushing their hate literature against organized religion they meet the passionate opposition which hate mongers should always meet.
Atheism as a social movement has a dark and vile history. It tends to be strongest during the worst periods in the history of a given Civilization. Atheism as a social movement is almost always a hate movement. Atheism has no Sermon on the Mount, no Blue Cliff Records, no Confucian Analects. In order to sell Atheism as a social movement, the only tactic Atheists can adopt is to attack other religions. Thus Atheist literature is almost exclusively hate literature. It teaches only one lesson, that other beliefs about the existence of a God are evil. This is the only platform which Atheist literature can take as a selling point, because it is the basis of Atheism as a social movement.
If you have read Atheist literature, you will know that it is among the purest forms of hate propaganda in the history of humanity. Atheist movements have a long history of vile excess. The French Revolution with the Terror was an Atheist movement. The Nazi Death Camps were the result of the Nazi Race Religion which basically denied God and believed in Eugenics. The Communist Death Camps were part of an Atheist belief system. Lacking any teachings about, mercy, compassion, or other fundamentals which are present in all the major world religions Atheism seems to default rapidly to the most horrible forms of inhuman excess when it achieves power.
Thus my staunch opposition to Atheist dialectic when it was introduced into forums I participate in. This period of debate and discussion left me with a huge body of ideas about the positive role of the church and religion in society. Then I found a second hand copy of “The Story of Civilization” in a local book store for about a dollar a volume. It was irresistible and I determined to read it.
Reading the first volume I could not help being struck by how much like a bible it seemed. It begins with the origin story of humanity, and the births of early Civilizations. It has the tenor and voice of a bible. I found myself ‘inspired’ to design an agnostic church using it and the GBWW (Great Books of the Western World) as a Bible. I proposed that to be qualified to speak of Civilization, a church official should have read the entire Story of Civilization and half the GBWW. Having proposed this, I proceeded to do it to see how long it would take. It took me three years of reading about 20 or 30 hours a week. This is a very respectable period of study and learning from a very respectable set of books.
So, by this schedule of reading I qualified myself to speak of Civilization and the principles of Civil Society as a religious leader. Not caring to do the legal footwork to be ordained myself I logged on to the ULC (Universal Life Church) website and was legally ordained a minister in about 5 minutes.
Thus I am qualified as a moral authority by a respectable course of study, and legally certified as a religious leader by a 5 minute formality. I spent a fair amount of time and effort designing the Church of Civilization, including sample ceremonies, a calendar of ‘Holy’ days, including Archimedes day, and an agnostic version of Christmas.
Formally I am a Reverend Immortal Speaker of the Church of Civilization. This title derives from discussions with Immortalists, another new ‘religion’ based on the hope of some kind of physical immortality due to medical advances and breakthroughs, and the emotional effect on the reader of reading and rereading the Story of Civilization several times. What is the benefit to society of immortality? What could immortal provide to society that we do not have? The answer is a perspective on human affairs based on living for centuries or millennia. A normal human being with a normal lifespan can achieve this kind of perspective by doing the reading necessary to become a Speaker of Civilization.
There is a very real sense of vicarious immortality which grows on you as you do the reading. At times it can be tremendously depressing, the encyclopedic knowledge you acquire of mans inhumanity to man can hit you at moments with tremendous force. Still there are bright moments as well as dark in the history of Civilization. Hence the Immortal in the title Reverend Immortal Speaker. Speaker comes from the role of Speaking the principles of Civilization. Reverend, of course, is a common title of respect for a church official and the three combined allow a pun to horrible to resist. RIS is the abbreviation of Reverend Immortal Speaker, and we can say that a Speaker of Civilization has RISen above the limitations of mortal life to Speak with the voice of an Immortal on the issues facing people in their daily lives. As an Agnostic Religious Speaker I can honestly say that after doing the reading required I know a great deal more about what I do not know.
Similarly, it takes about nine months of reading the Story of Civilization for about two hours a day five days a week to read it once in its entirety. This qualifies a member of the Church to be a Deacon, and we can say that a Deacon has been ‘born again’ into the Church of Civilization after reading the Story of Civilization once.
My future as an RIS is not clear. It would be interesting to actually have a congregation and Speak weekly following the Calendar of Civilization for a few years in order to build up a body of sample sermons. The design process of the church really requires this to be complete. While I am open to the possibility, I am not temperamentally suited to evangelize and recruit a congregation. I have no plans of ever actually practicing my profession as a religious leader but am open to the possibility.
Still, I am legally and factually qualified to do so. I can marry and bury you. As this book makes it a point to ridicule the fanatic religious beliefs of the “Church of Secular Humanism of the Shining Path of Political Correctness” (The Democrats) and to ridicule the hypocrisy of the Republicans, who serve Mammon and claim to serve traditional Christian religious values, it is necessary to note that I am formally and legally a religious leader myself, though the Speaker of an Agnostic Church. The write up on the Church of Civilization is at, for those who may be interested: