SEPARATION OF CHURCH
AND STATE IN THE UNITED STATES FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF ONE “CONSERVATIVE”
In General:
The idea that church and state can be separated is a
chimera. The term, separation of church and
state, is not used in the Constitution of the United States nor is it especially
hinted at. For the most part it would
have been, I believe, wholeheartedly rejected as a concept by many, if not
most, of the founders of the nation.
The phrase, “Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” is contained
in an amendment to the Constitution passed by Congress as part of the Bill of
Rights about two years after the Constitution itself was passed as the
foundation upon which our government stands.
Note the amendment does not forbid States from making such law, nor
Presidents from making religious proclamations (Thanksgiving) and so on.
The founders of the United States were an extraordinary
group of thinkers bringing something entirely new into the world. Much of what they created was created in an
effort to moderate the
impact of factions, including religious factions, but many
others as well, on the governments and peoples of the newly created United
States.
At bottom it is evident many of the founders realized
government is, intrinsically, every bit as much a “religion” as is any of the other tens of
thousands of religions mankind has accepted as being true religion at various
times in history.
The founders realized that governments must be formed to
avoid anarchy. Each citizen of a
government either gives up or is forced to give up some freedom to attain the
benefits of a just government. Absent a
just government, the unscrupulous among us would have free rein to impose
unjust governments. If we must have
government however, “That government that governs least governs best.” (Thoreau:
On Civil Disobedience).
All government is religious in nature.
What The Founders
Intended And Most Philosophical Conservatives Accept:
The Federalist Papers
are generally recognized as “founding documents” because of their influence, as
the fledgling nation sought to create a Constitution capable of providing both
liberty and order through time.
In Federalist No. 10
(and elsewhere) James Madison, labelling factions “mortal diseases” leading to
the deaths of popular governments wrote:
AMONG the numerous
advantages promised by a well constructed Union, none deserves to be more
accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of
faction. The friend of popular governments never finds himself so much alarmed
for their character and fate, as when he contemplates their propensity to this
dangerous vice. He will not fail, therefore, to set a due value on any plan
which, without violating the principles to which he is attached, provides a
proper cure for it. The instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into
the public councils, have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which
popular governments have everywhere perished; as they continue to be the
favorite and fruitful topics from which the adversaries to liberty derive their
most specious declamations.
Madison described factions succinctly (bolding is mine in
this as well as throughout):
“By a faction, I
understand a number of citizens, whether
amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and
actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the
rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the
community.”
So how can factions be controlled? Madison again:
“There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.” Further, “There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.”
Continuing, Madison put forward:
“It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it
was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an
aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential
to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the
annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to
fire its destructive agency.
The second expedient is as impracticable as the first would be unwise.
As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to
exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection
subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his
passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be
objects to which the latter will attach themselves…. The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man;
and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity,
according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different
opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as
well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders
ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other
descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have,
in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and
rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to
co-operate for their common good. So
strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that
where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful
distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and
excite their most violent conflicts.”
Madison’s few words are at the very heart of what most philosophical
conservatives today hold to be true; our government was founded to provide the greatest
portion of liberty possible to all citizens.
Providing that liberty requires respect for the liberty of individuals –
minorities must be protected from the excesses of majorities of all stripes; every action government takes violates the
inalienable right to liberty of someone, or many some ones, so government
should only act when a clear need to violate the “unalienable” rights of an
individual or group of individuals is present, and, as Madison goes on to
explain, because all government is accomplished by force, a form of government
that makes it very difficult to bring about radical change in a short period of
time must be maintained; factions must be controlled in a way allowing them to
bring about change but, change should not come as the result of a quick flaring
of public temper but rather as the result of building agreement over time that
radical change is needed.
What About What Is Purported
To Be The “Separation Of Church And State?
If you think the founders of the United States had any ideas
regarding a strict separation of church and state,” you should read the
nation’s founding document; the Declaration of Independence. There is no lack of clarity there.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the
pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted
among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That
whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the
Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,
laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such
form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
The founders, some of whom were openly religious and some of
whom were not, understood that all just governments are based on religious principles. The founders were not alone in understanding
that maxim. Perhaps the best “sound
bite” on the subject comes from the French philosopher Voltaire who famously
said, “If God did not exist, it would be
necessary to invent him.” Quite an
interesting little statement that can be understood in a number of ways by
someone actually thinking about the philosophy of religion especially given
that Voltaire was skeptical of Christianity as well as being an advocate of the
separation of church and state.
Every Reader Of This
Little Paper Is Likely To Be Religious But May Not Know It
In a really broad brush sense, any discussion of the part
religion should have in government must begin with some thinking about what is
good, and what is “not good.” For good
and evil, moral and immoral to exist, God must exist.
Discussion of the distinction between good and “not good” is
a different animal than any discussion about what good and evil might be. Pascal’s famous wager is one of the best
explanations of the conundrum those who deny the existence of God must face. A more or less glib explanation of the wager
follows.
Pascal says each and every one of us must, willingly or
unwillingly, make a bet with our lives.
If we bet on God and we are right, we gain eternity. If we bet on God and we are wrong, we lose nothing,
we’re just worm food in the end anyway.
If we bet against God and we’re wrong, we pay for being wrong for all
eternity. If we bet against God and we
are right, we’ve neither lost nor gained and we’re still just worm food in the
end. The only rational bet is to bet on
God.
The above explanation is extremely foreshortened. Pascal’s argument is one with true depth and
makes for fascinating reading. You
should give it some attention at some time in your life if you believe yourself
to be a serious thinker; especially regarding social issues.
In terms of this little effort, I’d be willing to bet nearly
each and every one of you almost
assuredly harbor, in your innermost thoughts, the idea that some things are
moral and some things are immoral. So what does that all mean, what gives
you the authority to decide some thing is moral or some thing is immoral?
If we are just the end result of something that spontaneously
combusted in the primordial slime then crawled out and over the span of millions
of years become all sorts of flora and fauna there can be no thing that is
moral and there can be no thing that is immoral. There can only be rules and regulations imposed
upon us by someone, or some thing, with the power to do that (God) or, rules
and regulations we impose on others because we are more powerful than those
others.
So the separation of church and state discussion fundamentally
comes down to the question, “Does God exist.”
If God, however defined, exists, then God decides what is
morally good and what is not morally good.
The opposite of what God defines as “good” is “evil.” Evil can only exist in the context of good.
If God does not exist, the person with the most destructive
weapon or with other means to impose their will on others (control of a
government for example) defines what is good and evil; but only for the time
that person can hold on to power. That person (or group of persons) becomes,
for all practical purposes a self-made God wielding power over the rest of us; neither
an atheist, nor an agnostic, can consider a Hitler or a Stalin, or a Mao, “evil”
nor can they label any of those leaders “good.”
Government and Religion
For whatever reason, some have a tremendously difficult time
with the idea that God must exist. Many
of those people want to bring “good” into the world but, as I’ve contended in
the above, “good” is a concept that relies on the existence of a god or godlike
power with the ability to determine what is good and what is evil. Some “gods” impose that determination, others
invite acceptance with the penalty for turning down the invitation being
exclusion from life with that God.
Enter the convenience of government as a substitute. Remember
Voltaire? If God didn’t already exist we
would have to create him? The past two
or three decades have seen the ascendance of a long existing religion titled
“Secular Humanism.”
As accurately explained by that all knowing fount of
knowledge, Wikipedia, “Secular humanism is a philosophy or life stance
that embraces human reason, ethics, and philosophical naturalism while
specifically rejecting religious dogma, supernaturalism, pseudoscience, and
superstition as the basis of morality and decision making.” In other words, mankind can be its own God.
Secular Humanists see their god each day when they look into
a mirror, but the question they fail to consider is this; “Who decides which
person’s concept of human reason, ethics, and philosophical naturalism is
correct and thus should be imposed on even those who do not agree?” If there is disagreement who decides which
side is “right.” Who decides what is
religious dogma, supernaturalism, pseudoscience, or superstition? And who decides which ideas of morality and
decision making should be imposed on the rest of us who may not accept the
conclusion arrived at?
Consider Madison’s words again:
“A zeal for different
opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as
well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders
ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other
descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have,
in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and
rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to
co-operate for their common good. So strong
is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no
substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful
distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and
excite their most violent conflicts.”
The rise of Secular Humanism as a powerful religious idea
has coincided with the rise in the use of the term “Separation of Church and
State.” The term does not appear in the
Constitution. Secular Humanists, of
course, support strict separation of church and state because, as they
supposedly eschew religion, they can justify having their own religious
precepts passed into law as being the result of rational thinking, while
opposing other ideas on the basis of “separation of church and state! Nice to have your cake and eat it too!
The protections to the God given unalienable rights
mentioned in the Declaration of Independence are built into the
Constitution. One of those protections
is the prohibition regarding Congress establishing, either directly or by its
actions, a state religion, of any kind. Congress
cannot support a particular religion nor can Congress forbid the free exercise
of any religion. A religion must be afforded the same
treatment any other faction is afforded; nothing more and nothing less.
That requirement is not “separation of church and state,” it
is integration of church and state in a way meant to allow the state to benefit
from the good things religion might offer as well as allow the state to control
the excesses of religion.
When any group of citizens rips away at foundational ideas in order to achieve
selfish aims it tears away at the foundation built to control, to the extent
possible, the excesses of faction. When
the foundation finally erodes away we are all closer to the day when the
powerful among us, whether liberal, conservative, right wing or left wing,
Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Green Party, Progressive, Socialist, or any
other group ultimately seeking control of the rest of will finally gain what
they want; the ability to determine, and impose on the rest of us, their own
definition of what is right and/or wrong; their own religious views.
