The Origins and Dangers of the ‘Wall of Separation’ Between 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.

[Pindar]

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.

Having little lemurs running around gives you excuse.

[Mongoose]

* The Ten Commandments is recognized by at least three distinct faith traditions.

The problem is that there are more than 3 distinct religions...

[Don Corleone]

The problem is that there are more than 3 distinct religions...

He's not making the point that the 10 commandments are adhered to by all religions. He's saying that since at least 3 significantly different religions honor them, the 10 commandments in and of themselves do not represent the adoption of a state religion.

If you're arguing for total inclusion or none at all, you had better be careful. There is no behavioral model to which 100% of the population would ascribe.

[Mongoose]

He's not making the point that the 10 commandments are adhered to by all religions. He's saying that since at least 3 significantly different religions honor them, the 10 commandments in and of themselves do not represent the adoption of a state religion.

If you're arguing for total inclusion or none at all, you had better be careful. There is no behavioral model to which 100% of the population would ascribe.

What I'm arguing is that favoring 3 religions over others isn't that much better than favoring 1 religion. The state being connected to 3 different religions is obviously better than just one religion, but it's still not good.

[Don Corleone]

I don't think recognizing the 10 commandments as a cultural legacy, regardless of their divine or not-so-divine origins, is favoring the 3 religions, but I think I understand your point.