The Origins and Dangers of the ‘Wall of Separation’ Between Church and State

[Don Corleone]

Come on now, Pindar. My civics teacher in the 8th grade said that the First Ammendment requires all politicians to be atheists, we just haven't had 100% enforcement of it yet. He said that all the founding fathers were atheists and never intended for anyone with any religious beliefs whatsoever to even be allowed to vote, let alone run for office. He said you may not even be allowed to defend yourself in a court of law, own property or take custody of your children. He worked on the John Kerry campaign and he's the local chief of the NEA for my school district, so he must know what he was talking about.

Remember folks

If you pray, you must delay (filing for office)
If you kneel, you must repeal (your name from the ballot)
If you tithe, you're not politically alive
If you chant, you can't
If you attend church here in the present, you must remain a peasant!

Reprinted, without permission, from the NEA handbook on how to guide kids away from religion.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

In this day and age I must ask you, DC, was that... serious?

[Don Corleone]

As much as it will break Leftist hearts across this great land of ours...

[Goofball]

Come on now, Pindar. My civics teacher in the 8th grade said that the First Ammendment requires all politicians to be atheists, we just haven't had 100% enforcement of it yet. He said that all the founding fathers were atheists and never intended for anyone with any religious beliefs whatsoever to even be allowed to vote, let alone run for office. He said you may not even be allowed to defend yourself in a court of law, own property or take custody of your children. He worked on the John Kerry campaign and he's the local chief of the NEA for my school district, so he must know what he was talking about.

Remember folks

If you pray, you must delay (filing for office)
If you kneel, you must repeal (your name from the ballot)
If you tithe, you're not politically alive
If you chant, you can't
If you attend church here in the present, you must remain a peasant!

Reprinted, without permission, from the NEA handbook on how to guide kids away from religion.

Bollocks.

If that's the case then why does every Presidential candidate go out of his way to be filmed attending church and generally acting pious?

Because he woudn't stand a hope in hell of getting elected if he didn't publicly display his deep and profound love for Jesus.

The political situation is quite the opposite of what you just described.

If Jesus you do not revere, please don't run for office here.
If you don't worship, take yourself on a long trip.
If you do not pray, please go away.
If you don't read the Bible, you're not politically viable.
If you don't go to church, voters will leave you in a lurch.

There, that's more like it. I'm particularly proud of finding a rhyme for "Bible."

[Brenus]

For the French Republic, the separation between State and Churches is a pillar, a “marque de fabrique”, a distinction of the Republic.
France is proud of this distinction. French don’t pray God in Schools, Parliament, Army, Courts and others institutions.
Religions belong to the private life and can’t interferer in the public/civic life.

Debate of the law and the vote took place from the 21st of March 1905 t0 the 3rd of July 1905

Origins:
In 1516, the Concordat of Bologne is signed between Francois the 1st and the Pope Leon X. It limited the intervention of the Pope in the Church of France.

1682: Vote by the Gallicane Church of the Declaration of the Four Articles (temporal independence of the King, limitation of the Pope authority by the Councils and the customs of the King and the Church of France, possibility to contest the Pope decisions by a General Council)

1789: Article 10 of the Human Right Declaration recognised freedom of Religions, all religions.
The nationalisation (confiscation) of all Clerical properties, dissolution of all clerical congregations and associations were enforced, those involved in charity and teaching excepted.

1792: Secularisation of civil administration: marriage, birth certificate and death certificate became secular. Religious marriage became without legal importance.

1830: Catholicism stopped to be State Religion

1869: 1st appearance of the concept of Separation between State and Churches in the programme of Gambetta in the Programme of Belleville.

1879-84: With the Republic, heavy “laicisation” of France: no more compulsory of the Sunday break, cancellation of public prays, cancellation of the religious swear in court, laicisation of the schools, neutrality in public school in religious matters, laicisation of the teachers, law of divorce re-established, cancellation of prays in the Assembly.

1902-1905: Anti-Clerical politic of Emile Combes Government.

1905: Law of the Separation between the State and Churches (plural).

Modern developments:
1989: Polemic following the Islamic Hidjab.
1994: Religious symbols have to be discrete…
2004: All religious symbols are banned in schools.
2005: Commemoration of the 100 years of the law.

I don't see the danger of the seperation. With the talibans, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan I see the danger of State Religions.

[Lemur]

I don't see the danger of the seperation. With the talibans, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan I see the danger of State Religions.

Interesting point. One can see the harm in a state the denies religion, as with the Soviet Union and the Khmer Rouge. And one can easily see the danger of modern theocracy, as with Saudi and the Taliban.

But could someone raise an example of a state that failed due to the Western tradition of separating the church from the state? Please post if you can think of one, 'cause I'm coming up empty.

[edit]

I guess "state that failed" is the wrong way to put it. Attempt at better phrasing: Could someone raise an example of an oppressive/dysfunctional state that came from the Western tradition of separating the church from the state?

[Don Corleone]

Note to Alex and Goofy, two folks who usually seem to get my humor, I apologize for forgetting my [sarcasm] [/sarcasm] tags. Won't let it happen again.

[Goofball]

Note to Alex and Goofy, two folks who usually seem to get my humor, I apologize for forgetting my [sarcasm] [/sarcasm] tags. Won't let it happen again.

Sorry Don. Maybe my humor wasn't as obvious as it should have been either. I was trying to respond in kind, but maybe it did come across as a bit bitter...

[Pindar]

Could someone raise an example of an oppressive/dysfunctional state that came from the Western tradition of separating the church from the state?

U.S.S.R.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

I was just checking, DC. I wouldn't put that too far past the NEA...

[Major Robert Dump]

This is why it should be seperated.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z91EMFz7j7g

[Atilius]

U.S.S.R.

I don't think it's correct to assert that state and religion were separate in the USSR: it's more accurate to say that Christian Orthodoxy was suppressed by and subordinated to the militantly atheist state.

The state certainly trespassed in the sphere of the church. In the '20s hundreds of bishops and priests were executed. Most churches, monasteries, and seminaries were nationalized, closed, or destroyed and their possessions confiscated by the regime. Credentialed priests were required to have the sanction of the Soviet government.

In fact, I think it's more useful to view the USSR as a peculiar sort of theocracy in which the state "religion" was atheistic Marxism. Deviation from the one true faith was treated as a crime or (literally) as a mental disease.

[Soulforged]

I agree with what the article says. I don't know much of US history, but it seems that the article has the necessary to prove its point.

Beyond that, I don't really think it needs to go back to watch for traditions, when it's the necessity of everyday lives, particularily in a republic, to express one's ideas, wheter they're political, ideological or religious. Law's have to look more into the circumnstances that surround actuality than into the possibly cristalized traditions of the past.

Being an outsider I always found it strange to see such a debate happening on the USA. Things like banning public display of religious faith was really crossing the line between separation of state and church, and totally breaking this separation. It's contradictory to talk about a wall, and then break it for the convenience of the same organ wich is supposed to be the restricted one.

The separation between both, however, is a good thing in my opinion. If we now look back into history, those moments in wich one invaded the sphere of the other turned out to be two kinds of totalitarisms. If we look at the extreme form of both cases (like the teocracies in the Middle Ages, and absolutism in Modern Age and beyond) we'll see that when the spiritual power "swallows" temporary power completely it tends to rule society with an iron fist respecting moral standards and it becomes intolerant, specially of other religions or of no religious people. When the contrary happens, society turns practically amoral, behaving with zealotry towards the law and the respect to the State, "the great cause" is the greatness of the State, as long as you respect the law, wheter just or not, you're being a good citizen or servant.

Now, I don't agree with some points on the article. First, I don't think it's necessary that a religion exists to spread morality upon the citizens of an State, morality is far much older and has been out of religion since a long time ago persisting in philosophy and ethics. Second, I don't think that the morality preached by religions in general, is completely innocent. Part of this morality is intolerant of progress. However it's necessary for an open debate, that way, at least I believe so, the good ideas, will be left in and the others will not reach actions. As a consequence of this, I don't think that the morality preached by all religions necesarily brings discipline to the subjects.

[Lemur]

U.S.S.R.

Are you equating the persecution of religion (as I said, Soviet Union, Khmer Rouge) with the separation of church and state?

[Pindar]

I don't think it's correct to assert that state and religion were separate in the USSR: it's more accurate to say that Christian Orthodoxy was suppressed by and subordinated to the militantly atheist state...In fact, I think it's more useful to view the USSR as a peculiar sort of theocracy in which the state "religion" was atheistic Marxism. Deviation from the one true faith was treated as a crime or (literally) as a mental disease.

Communism is not a religion. Atheism is not a religion. The U.S.S.R. was not a theocracy.

[ezrider]

But could someone raise an example of a state that failed due to the Western tradition of separating the church from the state? Please post if you can think of one, 'cause I'm coming up empty.

Turkey.

Turkey are constitutionally secular but the current government is leaning toward Sunni muslim teachings in law. Turkey is also suitably dysfunctional and oppressive to meet your criteria

[Lemur]

Ooooh, Turkey, I didn't think of them. Good one. Although one could argue that the repressive nature of the Turkish gov has to d owith other factors, but still, good one ...

[Lemur]

If you pray, you must delay (filing for office)
If you kneel, you must repeal (your name from the ballot)
If you tithe, you're not politically alive
If you chant, you can't
If you attend church here in the present, you must remain a peasant!

Yup, there's nothing like declaring yourself to be an atheist to get the voters behind you. Why, I can't think of a politician at the state or federal level who isn't a card-carrying god-hater. Voters sure love them some atheists.

[Don Corleone]

You must have missed where I said that this was what the NEA was preaching in the schools but it hasn't been implemented properly yet, Lemur. Okay, maybe my hyperbole was a bit over the top, but really fellas, lighten up... To be perfectly honst... I was trying to channel Johnny Cochrane with the whole ryhming bizness... Can I get an amen?

[Lemur]

If you post, you must host (the consequences)
If you must joke, you must accept the pokes
If you edit, we won't forget it
If you use advanced formatting tools, you will be batting fools
Don't make the post if you can't eat the toast.

(Oh, and as requested, Amen.)

[Don Corleone]

Allelulia, brother Lemur. That's what I'm talkin bout...

[Devastatin Dave]

I'm calling the ACLU.... on you two!!!!

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

If you post, you must host (the consequences)
If you must joke, you must accept the pokes
If you edit, we won't forget it
If you use advanced formatting tools, you will be batting fools
Don't make the post if you can't eat the toast.

(Oh, and as requested, Amen.)

oh THank Ye Lemur
Ame.. Wait, you Ain't god!


didn't read the whole thing, have to go in a minute,so just making a quick post.


I think Religion and Goverment can't tangle,then you be having Reglious freaks (no offense) be getting into office and extreme aheists taking over.

[AntiochusIII]

The conclusion is dubious: religion as "indispensible" to the upholding of the Republican (as in, Republicanism, not the party, for the partisans) ideal? Sounds like just another repetition of the old caveat "Protestant Ethics (of America)", which doesn't hold much water to me at all.

The only truly large "benefit" that might possibly comes out of the domination of this religious ideal in the public life of Americans (often confused with the American Dream in general, which I disagree) is an informal code of ethics for public servants. Considering the behaviors of Presidents/Judges/Congressmen/every other public servants out there throughout the history of the United States, I doubt it contributes that much. Moreover, it is entirely possible to develop a separate tradition of ethics by secular means.

Quite frankly, having seen first-hand, and subject first-hand, to the lack of separation between a religion and a state -- albeit a very mild and tolerant one -- I don't like the idea. While all I "suffered" (if it is even that) were things like kneeling in prayer or studying religions that I did not really believe in, and that such things were mere annoyances equal to all other annoyances of school life, I'd imagine that a truly convinced believer of another religion would be utterly offended to pray -- or for his or her children to pray -- to the deity he or she does not worship -- an inevitability of the joining of the Church and the State.

I don't even want to go to areas when the ties are so deep the state becomes a theocracy. A theocracy is everything but the modern Western Democracy.

Truth be told, no atheists ever win high-profile elections in America. Jesus is still every President's personal savior.

[Pindar]

The conclusion is dubious: religion as "indispensible" to the upholding of the Republican (as in, Republicanism, not the party, for the partisans) ideal? Sounds like just another repetition of the old caveat "Protestant Ethics (of America)", which doesn't hold much water to me at all.

The answer to your question goes back to the sentiment/arguments that were put forward to justify popular sovereignty.