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

[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

[sharrukin]

Benito Mussolini, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, and Adolf Hitler were atheist heads of state and proof that, yes, you can develop a separate tradition of ethics by secular means.

The Reich Concordat with the Catholic Church (1933)

Art. 32. In view of the special situation existing in Germany, and in view of the guarantee provided through this Concordat of legislation directed to safeguard the rights and privileges of the Roman Catholic Church in the Reich and its component states, the Holy See will prescribe regulations for the exclusion of clergy and members of religious orders from membership of political parties, and from engaging in work on their behalf.

There is a downside to separating entirely, morality and religion from the politics of the state.

[Devastatin Dave]

This is why it should be seperated.

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

Do you think the cameraman was shaking so badly because of trying to hold back a giant belly laugh or was convulsing in extreme abdominal pain from his bowels ready to rupture from the extreme multitude of off key notes?

[Major Robert Dump]

Do you think the cameraman was shaking so badly because of trying to hold back a giant belly laugh or was convulsing in extreme abdominal pain from his bowels ready to rupture from the extreme multitude of off key notes?

I don't know, was probably not a professional photographer but some staff member who snuck in with a camera and then sold it for big $$$$, or maybe he worked for John and was doing John a favor so the moment could be relished by he and his family forever. Either way, its comic gold, and I will forever cherish it.

[Duke of Gloucester]

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

Speaking as someone who lives in a country with an official state religion (to which I don't belong), I would say that state religions don't always come with the dangers you associate with the three Islamic nations you identify.

[Ironside]

Speaking as someone who lives in a country with an official state religion (to which I don't belong), I would say that state religions don't always come with the dangers you associate with the three Islamic nations you identify.

But interestingly does this state religion have less influence here in northern Europe than in the US.

Ask yourself, what would happen with Blair if he said publically that the inspiration for the Iraq war came from God?

Would people care if it was public knowledge that he was Christian, but offically never based his decisions directly on it?

(Atleast in Sweden it would be a public outcry for the first, but none would care for the second).

Plenty of state churches exist or did recently exist in Europe (in Sweden they separated in 2000), they aren't much influencal nowadays though, and haven't been for decades.

[Devastatin Dave]

Either way, its comic gold, and I will forever cherish it.

Agreed, its hard to type while pinching my nipples....

[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.

[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.

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

I am equating the U.S.S.R. as an oppressive/dysfunctional state that came from the Western tradition of separating the church from the state. Bolshevism is a product of the Western Tradition. It assumed political power in Russia. It separated the church from the state: excised it in fact. The subsequent U.S.S.R. was oppressive and dysfunctional.

[Keba]

I am equating the U.S.S.R. as an oppressive/dysfunctional state that came from the Western tradition of separating the church from the state. Bolshevism is a product of the Western Tradition. It assumed political power in Russia. It separated the church from the state: excised it in fact. The subsequent U.S.S.R. was oppressive and dysfunctional.

Communism is a totalitarian regime, pure and simple. The reasons for persecuting religion are two-fold. One, religion can mobilise people and has influence on them. Two, Marx's claims that religion is the opium of the masses.

While it may have origins in the West's tradition of seperating state from religion, it is in no way an example of, or connected with it.

And communism was seen as a religion by the higher-ups. Replace religion with communist propapaganda, Marx's teachings and such. You'd be surprised how much indoctrination went on in Communist countries (I believe still does, but the few remaining are weird).

Yes, communism seperated church from state, but for entirely different reasons, religion (church) was a threat, a large one, therefore, it had to be neutralised.

Are you advocating the merging of church and state? That a religion followed by some of the population dictate lives for everyone?

[Duke of Gloucester]

While it may have origins in the West's tradition of seperating state from religion, it is in no way an example of, or connected with it.

America and France have a tradition of separating the state and religion, but I am not sure it is a Western tradition. In fact it is difficult in a monarchy because the coronation is a religious ceremony. So which other Western countires separate the state and religion?

[Keba]

America and France have a tradition of separating the state and religion, but I am not sure it is a Western tradition. In fact it is difficult in a monarchy because the coronation is a religious ceremony. So which other Western countires separate the state and religion?

The easier question is ... which countries don't?

Simply put, all Western countries are seperated from religion to a greater or smaller extent.

It does, in fact, originate from France and the USA. Though France went through a phase in which it did not separate, but rather, merged the church with the state (clergy was appointed, it could recieve no commands from outside the state, and was paid by the state) ... that turned out to be a failure, so the state and church were seperated later.

[sharrukin]

To ensure its own survival a purely secular state must marginalize the Church. When secular ideologies enter the sphere of morality they seek to eliminate their rivals. Religion is just such a rival. The Church holds that an individual owes obedience to a higher moral law and basic loyalty to a higher power. This makes blind obedience to an earthly governments problematic. Totalitarian governments must be anti-religious in principle. A central tenet of these movements becomes a hostility to established religion. Religion acts as a limiting factor on what men will do, and Totalitarian governments who wish to remake society for the betterment of all, see this as a challenge and a threat.

The separation of Church and state if it means that one should not establish a state religion is not a problem. If you take it to mean that the state is non-religious; indeed separate and independent of religion, then it tends to become murderous. Where politically secular governments take power, you almost always see tyranny and massacre. In France with the revolution, in Russia with Bolshevism, in Italy with Fascism, the Nazi movement in Germany, etc. The history of secular governments, unhindered by religion is not a pleasant one.

[Pindar]

Communism is a totalitarian regime, pure and simple. The reasons for persecuting religion are two-fold.

If you admit the Soviets persecuted some X then they can be considered oppressive (one of the criteria of the question).

While it may have origins in the West's tradition of seperating state from religion, it is in no way an example of, or connected with it.

This is a non sequitur. If something has its origins in a thing then it is by definition connected with that thing.

And communism was seen as a religion by the higher-ups.

This is not correct. Neither Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Khrushchev, Brezhnev or the larger swath of apparatchiks that followed or attended those mentioned saw communism as a religion.

Yes, communism seperated church from state, but for entirely different reasons...

The rationale for doing a thing is distinct from the fact a thing was done. The question did not ask about reasons for doing a thing, but an example of an oppressive/dysfunctional state that came from the Western tradition of separating the church from the state. The U.S.S.R. meets these basic criteria.

Are you advocating the merging of church and state?

No, I'm answering a question about oppressive governments that came from the Western Tradition of separating church and state.

[Pindar]

I did answer a question (post #7) that asked for an example of an oppressive/dysfunctional state that came from the Western tradition of separating the church from the state.

And I certainly appreciate it, although I'm not sure I'm in total agreement. The Soviet Union actively persecuted religion, as you said, "excised" faith. Although one can argue that this sprang from the Western tradition of separation, I'm not sure it's representative.

The Soviet persecution of religion would be one example of the oppressive nature of the state you asked about. Mass slaughter of its own citizenry would be another. I think the Soviet Union fits all the base criteria you put forward: an oppressive/dysfunctional state that was part of the Western Tradition that separated church from the state.

Regarding the use of representative above: I'm not sure which sense you are using this. The initial question simply asked for an example. I think the U.S.S.R. is a perfect example. Representative status may mean more than an example of a thing however, it can mean something that qualifies for a whole. The Soviet Union is not representative of the Western Tradition of secular/religious division as there are other models. It is an interesting case however in that they actively sought to replace traditional religious sentimentality with a new ethic.

Let's suppose a continuum, spanning from abosulte theocracy to state-enforced atheism. Lots of room for gradations in between. I don't think it's intellectually honest to put the Western tradition of separation between church and state at the atheist end of that scale.

That is true. The separation of church and state itself does not imply atheism, but a base recognition of distinctive spheres. The rhetorical impetus for separation of church and state in the West comes from St. Augustine who was quite a religious guy.

Anyway, here's the sort of fightin' language from a legislator that you would never hear today. Can you imagine the uproar if a 2006 politician said he would "fight" religious pressure groups? Unthinkable. Barry Goldwater, 1961:

Goldwater would never have been able to stomach the Moral Majority. But then, the 50's and 60's were not the 70's. Times change and politics change to reflect the times. The seduction of the G.O.P. by Evangelicals is a fascinating topic all on its own.

[Lemur]

Regarding the use of representative above: I'm not sure which sense you are using this. The initial question simply asked for an example. I think the U.S.S.R. is a perfect example. Representative status may mean more than an example of a thing however, it can mean something that qualifies for a whole. The Soviet Union is not representative of the Western Tradition of secular/religious division as there are other models. It is an interesting case however in that they actively sought to replace traditional religious sentimentality with a new ethic.

Yeah, I appreciate your clarification. The Soviet Union seems more like a fuller, fouler expression of the let's-replace-everything ethos that began with the French Revolution. (Well, I guess it really began with the Levellers, the Diggers, and some of the Italian egalitarian heresies, but let's not go crazy.)

But absolutely, you answered my initial criteria entirely. As usual, my criteria just weren't very well expressed.