"We know that man is by his constitution a religious animal"- Edmund BurkeThe separation of church and state is foundational to the Western understanding of democracy.What role, if any, does religion (both personal and institutional) have in the political sphere of a society?______________________________________________________________
The separation of church and state is foundational to the western understanding of democracy. According to the this understanding, democracy is more than voting, it is a political system that provides greater freedom, fairness, and opportunity than any other system yet developed. Democracy is rule by the people; R.P. Wolff describes it so:
“Just as the truly responsible man gives laws to himself, and thereby binds himself to what he conceives to be right, so a society of responsible men can collectively bind themselves to laws collectively made, and thereby bind themselves to what they have together judged to be right. The government of a democratic state is then, strictly speaking, no more than a servant of the people as a whole, charged with the execution of laws which have been commonly agreed upon.”
1At the heart of democracy's greatness is pluralism. Democracy is not a system in which one world-view dominates the political system, leaving people of competing world-views like 'fish out of water'. Michael Novak explains that
“In a genuinely pluralistic society, there is no one 'sacred canopy'. By intention there is not. At its spiritual core, there is an empty shrine. That shrine is left empty in the knowledge that no one word, image, or symbol is worthy of what all seek there... Believer and unbeliever, selfless and selfish, frightened and bold, naïve and jaded, all participate in an order whose centre is not socially imposed.”
2When the separation of church and state breaks down, the centre is politically imposed, destroying pluralism and bringing tyranny.
The principle of the separation of church and state was designed to increase religious freedom, but as many people today think of it, it actually reduces religious freedom. The concept of this separation is often used as an argument to prevent 'religious' people engaging in the political process, or to prevent religious views affecting issues that have become 'political' (e.g. abortion). However, to use the concept of the separation of church and state in these situations is contrary to the principle's purpose and meaning. The separation of church and state does not mean that people have no right to engage in politics informed with their religious convictions. In fact they have just as much right to engage in politics as those people who are informed by non-religious convictions. The principle of the separation of church and state is foundational to real democracy because without it, pluralism is lost and democracy merely allows us to elect our own tyrants.
Many people equate the principle of the separation of church and state with the separation of religion and politics. The principle, however, is concerned with the separation of the institution of the church and the institution of the state. Many times in history tyranny has been the result when the state took control of the church. For example, the Spanish inquisition tortured and killed people in the name of religion, and the British government enforced membership of the state-approved church in the seventeenth century, www.noapathy.org describes it thus:
“England went so far as forbidding worship in private homes and sponsoring all church activities and keeping people under strict dictates. They were forced to go to the state established church and do things that were contrary to their conscience. No other churches were allowed, and mandatory attendance of the established church was compelled under the Conventicle Act of 1665. Failure to comply would result in imprisonment and torture.”
3The principle of the separation of church and state is often thought to have originated in the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and indeed, this does seem to be where it was first formalised. However, the origins of the principle are much older than this. Gary North says that:
“God has established three institutional monopolies: family, church and state. Each of these is a God-ordained Government. Each of these is a covenant... Each of these three governments is to protect the other, and each deserves protection from the other”
4David Noebel notes that “North calls for protection, not inference.”
5 According to the Christian, the church and the state were proscribed by God as separate institutions. Even if we now consider ourselves to be a 'secular' country, this principle is part of our common law heritage originally from Britain. Without this principle, tyranny is a likely result.
Given that the church and the state are God-ordained institutions, what are their roles in society? The church's role is to provide moral and spiritual guidance; and the state's role is to administer justice and protect its citizens. The church is incapable of administering justice (in fact it should practice mercy); and the state is incapable of providing true values as: “The human mind has no more power of inventing a new value than of imagining a new primary colour, or, indeed, of creating a new sun and a new sky for it to move in.”
6 Values and morals come necessarily from God. The church and the state should never try to usurp power and responsibility from one another, nor should one be allowed to die out or to be absorbed by the other. This is what is meant by the separation of church and state.
While the institutions of church and state must be kept separate, religion and politics are inseparably entwined. This is because, in a democracy, everybody votes according to their beliefs about what is best for individuals and for society, and the individual's religious beliefs necessarily play a large part in this. Another reason for the connection between religion and politics is that without a higher authority (i.e. God), the state becomes the sole creator of law, justice, and human rights. The state has no one to answer to, and the laws it creates cannot be said to be unjust or wrong as there is no God given law to compare it against. David Round says:
“A secular state, by its very nature, recognises no limits to its own power. That cannot be a good thing. Even if, Heaven forgive me, God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him; for in the last resort, if we are not ruled under God we will be ruled by tyrants.”
7How is New Zealand's own secular state dealing with this issue? If the separation of church and state is thought to be important then we are less likely to fall to tyrants, but is this truly the case? Many people, including those in government, have a confused notion of the separation of church and state as described earlier and as a result, religion and politics have become separated from each other. Due partly to the misuse of this principle, religion has become privatised and no longer affects public judgements as it should. People no longer measure the state against the unchanging values of God and have allowed the state to become the source of values. Providing values and morals for society is the proper domain of the church. When the state usurps this responsibility, the secular state is, in effect, becoming both the law giver and the law enforcer; with a very real risk of tyranny.
Who is responsible for this? It does seem that some people have had an active role in the state acquiring this extra power. When politicians (and other authorities) misuse the principle of the separation of church and state to silence religion it is not an honest misunderstanding; they really do hope that religion will go away so that they can dictate values and morals to society. People desire power, and politicians are certainly no exception. The church has power to shape the values of society, and the state desires that power. If the state controls values and morality, it therefore defines right and wrong. If the state defines right and wrong, its decisions cannot be said to be wrong. One example of this is shown by New Zealand's Prime Minister, Helen Clark, in her blatant admission of social engineering and persecution when asked by Oliver Hall in the Express newspaper:
“Is the government worried about the level of homophobia shown by groups of the religious right like the Maxim Institute in New Zealand?”
9She replied:
“We legislated against hate crimes. You just have to keep working over a long period of time on several values in society that does not condone that sort of attitude ... It’s a very small minority point of view and I think through continuing to set the tone of tolerance, acceptance and diversity, you just have to further marginalise such people. Hopefully one day nobody will think that way.”
10Not only does Ms Clark admit to doing this, she sees nothing wrong with this manipulation of values. The state decides what is right and wrong and if the public disagrees then the state must work to change these conceptions. Clark points the moral finger at the 'homophobic religious right' when in reality it should be pointing at her: she is guilty of subverting democracy for her own ideological ends. A democratic state is required to act according to the wishes of the constituents, not to act to change the wishes of the constituents. Democracy is valuable because it allows the state to be influenced by all members of society; a Christian has as much right to have his or her views influence the state as has a Buddhist, a Humanist, a greenie, a Pakeha, or a Maori. Helen Clark, however, seems to think that Christians do not have the same rights as people with other belief systems.
It is not only Helen Clark who misunderstands the principle of the separation of church and state however. The political party United Future New Zealand would “ensure that all schools implement an integrated character education programme.”
11 Character education is about “incorporating universal values such as honesty, respect for others and the law, tolerance, fairness, caring and social responsibility into a school's culture.”
12 'Character education', as United Future terms it, is not the responsibility of the state; it is the responsibility of the church and the family. Individuals may decide that they want a school that teaches values and morals, and for that they send their children to a special character school (be it Christian or other) that does not obtain its values and morals from the state.
If the government obtains the power of teaching values in schools then the government can decide what values are taught and what political bias is involved in them. The value of 'tolerance', for example, is widely abused for political ends in New Zealand and around the world. Traditionally, tolerance has meant 'respect, within limits, for differing beliefs', but in recent times it has come to mean 'accepting as equally valuable and equally true differing beliefs'. As well as this change in definition, tolerance is often politically biased toward particular groups (this is the root of 'political correctness'). For example, orthodox Christians and others are labelled intolerant for believing that homosexual behaviour is immoral, but 'tolerance' is not extended in their direction: the belief that homosexual behaviour is immoral is not accepted as 'equally valuable and equally true'. An example of this is shown by Helen Clark above (7): “...through continuing to set the tone of tolerance, acceptance and diversity, you just have to further marginalise such people. Hopefully one day nobody will think that way.”
13The principle of the separation of church and state is important for democracy and for both religious and general freedom. A proper understanding of this principle needs to be reinforced in our society and the responsibility for teaching morals and values given back to the church where it belongs if we are to avoid tyranny in the future. This will no doubt be difficult in our secular society, but perhaps it is time for us to be a little less secular - our freedom depends on it.
1Wolff, R.P., In Defence of Anarchism, 1970; Berkeley, University of California Press.
2Novak, M; The Spirit Of Democratic Capitalism, pg. 53; © 1982, 1991 Michael Novak; Madison Books, Maryland.
3Author Unknown; http://www.noapathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html4Quoted in: Noebel, D; Understanding The Times; pg 481; © 1991 Summit Ministries; Harvest House Publishers, Eugene, Oregon, United States Of America.
5Noebel, D; Understanding The Times; pg 481; © 1991 Summit Ministries; Harvest House Publishers, Eugene, Oregon, United States Of America.
6Lewis, C.S.; The Abolition Of Man; © 1944, 1947 C.S. Lewis Pte. Ltd. © renewed 1971, 1974; Posted on-line by The Augustine Club at Columbia University, March 2002,
www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/.7Round, D; Evidence, Autumn 2005; © 2005 Maxim Institute; Maxim Institute, Auckland, New Zealand.
8Novak, M; The Spirit Of Democratic Capitalism, pg. 53; © 1982, 1991 Michael Novak; Madison Books, Maryland.
9Hall, Oliver; Express newspaper 24/11/2004
10Clark, Helen; Express newspaper 24/11/2004
11United Future Education Policy;
http://www.unitedfuture.org.nz/policies/education-character.php; accessed 9/9/05
12United Future Education Policy;
http://www.unitedfuture.org.nz/policies/education-character.php; accessed 9/9/05
13Clark, Helen; Express newspaper 24/11/2004
KR
