As an evangelical Baptist pastor I am very supportive of the separation of church and state.
But I wonder if you know what it really means? I have yet to see it discussed with any accuracy in the Canadian press.
Unfortunately the significantly under-informed secular media generally assumes and erroneously promotes the popular notion that the separation of church and state means that religious people will leave their beliefs at the door, or be forced to get out of politics – as though political actions will be instead be motivated by some religion-free agenda. They seem to envision a society and government free of any religious flavour, where one solitary group in our society alone, the adherents of secular thought, totally dominate the public square and so will be free from religion – never having to hear a religious word or thought in any public venue.
That is absolutely NOT what the separation of church and state has ever meant except in the weird totalitarian fantasies of secular pundits and their disciples in the media who worship at their anti-religious altar. The separation of church and state is about the freedom of religion. It is the freedom for religion.
It may surprise you to know that it was early Baptists and other Christian dissenters in England 400 years ago who were the primary developers of the concept of separation of church and state which ultimately shaped the American political expression of the idea. It was a part of their contention that dissenting Christians, Jews and Muslims should be free to practice their religion without any interference or punitive action by the Anglican government of the day. The King, you’ll notice, might well remain head of church and state, but nevertheless could not restrict the religious beliefs or practices of others.
The separation of church and state does NOT mean, and has never meant, that religious people will be kept from influence and vigorous involvement in political or public life. It does not mean that references to religion will be kept out of public events. That, of course, would mean arbitrarily restricting a whole segment of the population on the basis of their beliefs, intentionally trying to keep them from democratic participation in the public square. That is precisely the opposite of the separation of church and state. The desire to target certain segments of society (in this case Christians or other religious advocates) and restrict them from public involvement is as abhorrent as any other form of tyranny and should be treated as such. It is a blatant and revolting bigotry; a disgusting feature of our current Canadian political climate. Secularism is not some religiously neutral alternative for society: it is simply another collection of beliefs about religious ideas – and so it must not be allowed special status among other beliefs.
What the separation of church and state actually means, instead, is that the state may not allow itself to be used as a big stick to make individual citizens or groups adhere to the beliefs or practices of any other group. It means that no matter how strongly people believe something, they may not use the government to force others to comply with the practices, rituals or activities that come from their beliefs. That’s all.
Most simply, the state may not be co-opted by a bunch of zealots or ‘true believers’ in anything in order to force others to adhere to their cause or practice. Doesn’t matter what the beliefs are – beliefs about God (whether he exists or not), beliefs about religion, about science, about the environment – the government is not a tool for you to get others to comply with your perception of the world. It is illegitimate and an overt act of evil to use the state to force others to submit to whatever you believe.
In contrast with the ridiculous and bigoted secular media myth that consistently gets misrepresented as separation of church and state, the actual assumption of advocates of a genuine separation of church and state is that believers in a variety of things will gather together freely and democratically to shape the society in which we live. As a result, the state will naturally reflect the beliefs of that democratic pool. In a strange and even schizophrenic existence the state will participate in the religious life of the nation on occasion because it will fairly reflect the beliefs of her citizens. The crazed popular notion that citizens will simply leave their beliefs about religion behind when they get to the public square reflects a truly shallow understanding of how a person’s identity and psychology are constituted, and what a person’s beliefs in fact are. Worse, it represents a selective and inappropriate attempt to get religious people to adhere to the particular beliefs and practices of the secular agenda.
Again, the state may not in this fashion be co-opted by a bunch of zealots, and that, of course, is exactly what radical secularists are and what they intend to do – to grab government power and society and to shape them and the public behaviour of others according to their own peculiar beliefs about God (that he does not exist) and religion (that it is acceptable only in private), and so also to ensure that any reference to religion in any public forum whatsoever is struck down. That is a precise violation of the separation of church and state; it is nothing other than an evil attempt to misuse the power of the state to persecute those who don’t share secular beliefs.
Bottom line: the government is not a big stick for you to strike down others who disagree with you. Baptist Christians learned and taught that lesson 400 years ago. Now it is time for secularists, environmentalists and all other social control freaks to learn the same lesson.
I’m an evangelical Christian. My beliefs and practices are none of the government’s business. Period. And neither is my political involvement subject to evaluation or restriction by secular zealots or other anti-religious bigots and their government funded agencies. It’s none of your business why I think what I think or believe what I believe. My life and my perception of the world and truth are not subject to your control or agenda. And you who advocate such are the enemies of a free and democratic society, the enemies of the separation of church and state, and guilty of participating in the darkest threat western society faces today.
3 Comments(+Add)
Hey Bob, just some quick thoughts on this.
Your Church and State perspective is, of course, correct. That is the basis that it was founded on. But I wonder how we Christians would feel if it was not a Christian heritage that our government was built upon but rather some other faith which was radically different to what we believed….
I realize that the faith heritage of a nation ultimately doesn’t matter when it comes to the importance of your point – forcing your faith upon someone doesn’t make it real for them, nor right.
Freedom is a prickly thing though – it always has those who would misuse and abuse others in the name of the right to their freedom – those who write hate literature claim freedom of speech; those who enslave others in cults would claim freedom of religion…
If our faith is real then it is part of who we are and is no more separable from the rest of our life than taking our brain and setting it aside while we go for a run. Because of this, those who oppose our faith – or any faith – will stand opposed to having religion in the places you mention.
Ironically, those who are open to multi-faith meetings/services and other such “displays of unity” will be more accepted by the government – it’s only us “fools” who are so audacious as to state that there’s only one way to heaven that really seem to be opposed.
To put it another way, religious freedom seems to be something supported by our society for everything except Christianity – I think they also use the term “religious tolerance.”
I guess that what the government says it wants and what it really wants are two different things – good thing they’ve never done that before, eh?
Bottom line thoughts are, ultimately I would be interested to know how you achieve the separation of church and state when there are so many aspects of our society that affect us and that need to be legislated in order to keep out anarchy.
Are you willing to give up things such as Clergy Residence allowances and tax-exemption status for churches to allow for true non-interference?
What do you think this separation would look like if and when it was manifested?
Scrambled thoughts…
In His service and yours,
Carl
So, two things there at the end.
1. The need for legislation is real enough. The issue is how far along the spectrum of restrictions do we go. I think there are some foundational freedoms, God given, over which which the state has no authority. The freedom for individuals to live and act out their faith (or beliefs) is beyond the purview of the state. It is logically prior to the existence of government, and not negotiable with government.
Legislation should start after the intent of that freedom. The government should be invested in maximizing the freedom of individual citizens. The imposition of restrictions or legislation should directly further that end. So, where murder or theft, for example, are the expression of one person’s freedom at the expense (and end) of another, laws against killing and theft are necessary in order maximize individual freedoms. For me, less direct infractions on others freedoms require less, or no, restriction.
Anarchy, then, is not the maximizing of freedoms, but is rather a situation
where the state has failed to strive for an established balance of maximized freedoms between individuals.
Great article by Andrew Coyne, recently in MacLean’s, where he identifies why Civil Right’s laws are appropriate when they forbid companies or corporations from discriminating against certain minorities as customers. He suggests that the state of affairs in the south, where a black man or
woman could not shop in some stores, was a de facto cartel against the black community which restricted their freedoms. Because of that, the freedom for a store owner to decide to whom he would or would not sell must be trumped
by the need for the black community to survive in freedom.
2. Clergy allowances & tax-exemptions. The separation of church and state means that the state cannot make laws which restrict or compel a person’s religious life.
So, that’s the kind of thing I’m including when I write “The state will naturally reflect the beliefs of that democratic pool – meaning that it, sometimes in a strange schizophrenic existence, will likely even participate in the religious life of the nation on occasion because it will fairly reflect the beliefs of her citizens.”
I would think that the current balance of religious involvement would allow more of a connection under the appropriate separation of church and state. Right now, there’s some debate about a Youth Unlimited / Youth For Christ ministry work which they’d like to consolidate in one facility, and different levels of government have stated intent to support with funds.
I don’t know all the details of the facility, but the local NDP chap is opposed because he thinks YU/YFC is a cult of some kind. It’s obvious to any who’s informed that this guy is a twit. But his claim is that separation of church and state means that no government funds should go to YFC because of their evangelistic hopes as expressed on their website.
His lack of knowledge about religion, then, is not just a lack of theological understanding, but also about separation of church and state. The separation of church and state requires that the government not compel or restrict individual citizens in regards to their faith life and practice. But it in no ways forbids the government from participating in the religious life of the nations people, nor from having religious people involved in her. As a fair and democratic reflection of the populace, it is entirely legitimate for the state to support a work that has originated in the religious community. The justification for this, in my thinking, is that the work is intended in part to help at risk youth – and that is a means of maximizing the free opportunities for those youth – and so the state does well to throw in it’s weight.
We have an interesting debate going on this topic at the following link:
http://www.surveymagnet.com/2010/07/does-separation-of-church-and-state-really-exists/
Come join the discussion