This article discusses different kinds of relationships between church and state. The relationship of the two has been a significant factor in the development, sustainment, and downfall of civilizations. Historically the relationship has reflected political policies, military doctrine, and social issues throughout different nations. There is a wide array of different beliefs and opinions that lie in between ideal secularism and pure theocracy. Most extreme secularists believe that there should be a clearly drawn line to separate government from religion, and religious views should not be a factor in government doctrine. On the contrary, extreme anti-secularists feel that religion should be influence state laws, education, social issues, and military goals. These different beliefs vary greatly from one individual to another, and the relationship of church and state varies greatly from one nation to the next.
Let’s start with the basic definitions of the terms. The term secularism is very vague, and is interpreted differently from one person to the next. There is personal secularism, which pertains to decreasing significance of faith in day-to-day life. Personal secularism is en entire topic within itself, but will not be addressed much in this paper. The specific definition that is relative here is government secularism, which is essentially “separation of church and state”, but even that aphorism is vague. There are different stages of government secularism, but it generally means that the government shouldn’t be affiliated or influenced by the church. On the opposite end of the spectrum is theocracy. In a theocratic state religion and the government are intertwined. Iran, for example, is a theocracy where politics and social life are greatly influenced by Shia Islam, the state religion Majority of other nations are somewhere in between the two extremes, many of these nations still struggle to find a stable middle ground.
During ancient and medieval times state governments and institutionalized religion had virtually no separation, religion was usually considered as one of the many functions of a community. In monarchies, the ruler was usually also the highest religious leader and sometimes viewed as a living god. In more recent history, especially with the advent of democracy, state rulers weren’t necessarily viewed as gods, but still needed the approval of religious leaders to make most state decisions. The state protected religion, and religion validated the state, making the two intertwined.
The notion of secularism dates back to The Enlightenment, which started changing Western societies’ outlook on religion and faith. Many of The Enlightenment philosophers rejected religious beliefs and superstitions, emphasizing reason and logic. This gave birth to Deism, a belief that God should be revealed by nature and reason, not scripture and faith. Views of God and religion fluctuated throughout the centuries that followed, but majority of Europeans began to turn away from blind faith, although institutionalized religion continued being a major part of government.
So what caused governments to become more secular? In the United States Constitution a clause in the First Amendment states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The phrase “separation of church and state” actually doesn’t appear anywhere in the Constitution, but coined later by Thomas Jefferson. To this day it is a controversial matter of whether the Founding Fathers intended to have a clear Separation, or simply didn’t want a central religion.
Regardless of the Founding Fathers’ intentions, today U.S. is rather secular. However, it’s selectively secular. When it comes to education, most public schools are extremely secularized, substituting phrases such as “Merry Christmas!” with “Happy Holidays!”, in order not to offend anyone. However when it comes to other issues, such as Elections, we’re not nearly as secular. In the 2004 Presidential Elections, the major issues turned out to be “moral issues” such as gay marriage and abortions, not the employment, National Deficit, or the war with Iraq.
It seems the U.S. has had a hard time finding a comfortable zone of moderate secularism. As surprising as it seems, the French might actually serve as a good example for the our country to follow. The French system called Laïcité, derives from the same Greek word as secularism, is a time-tested system of government secularism that seems to work well.
Laïcité is a core concept in the French Constitution, which formally states that France is a secular republic. The French government is legally prohibited from recognizing any religion, with the exception of military chaplains, and Alsace-Moselle, formally Alsace-Lorraine. Laïcité is not practiced in Alsace-Moselle primarily because it was a part of Germany when the French law was instituted.
Laicity, which is the natural English spelling of the term, does not necessarily imply any hostility of the government with respect to religion. It is best described as a belief that government and political issues should be kept separate from religious organizations and religious issues. This practice is meant to protect both the government from religious interference, and religious organizations from political quarrels and controversies.
French politicians generally refrain from openly demonstrating that their policies are influenced by religious views. Religious reasoning is generally considered incompatible with reasoned political debate. An example of this can be seen in the case of Christine Boutin, a French politician, who opposed same-sex marriage on religious grounds. Unlike in the U.S., she was quickly marginalized, and herself criticized for homophobia purely because her reasoning was based on her personal religious views.
The French view religion as a private matter. Although allowed to openly practice their religion, French politicians and civil servants are supposed to be neutral when it comes to mixing their views with political issues.
So if the French have this seemingly fair-minded system, why can’t the United States find a equivalent equilibrium? Anti-secularists believe that ridding Western Society of religious influence will lead to a degeneration in morality, and eventually a decline in culture. Bill O’Reilly, for example, believes that the US government has a secular agenda to rid our society of Christianity and Judaism. O‘Reilly, an anti-secular conservative, believes that if we continue to secularize, then eventually it’ll become too easy to pass legalization of narcotics, euthanasia, abortion at will, and gay marriage because the objection to those issues is usually religious-based.
O’Reilly’s views on secularization seem to be in sync with many other Americans’ views. What is to stop our society from continuing on our path of demoralization if the government continues with it’s “secular agenda”? Kevin Hasson, founder and chairman of Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a law firm specializing in religious freedom, believes that government’s efforts to enforce secularism will inevitably lead to “government hostility to publicly expressed religion.” That ties into O’Reilly’s point, once religion is shunned down upon, and Americans become secular on a personal level, our government laws and policies will be based on anything and everything but morals.
It seems that the reason for opposing secularization is primarily the fear of decline in society’s morality. The challenge with government secularism is finding a middle ground that will not lead to a decline in morality, and at the same time will provide us with a fair political system based upon reason and equality. An ideal secular government shouldn’t have a state religion, and shouldn’t favor any specific religious group or organization. The state’s policies, laws, education system, military doctrine, and other components should not be ruled by religion as they are in Iran for example. Maybe we can learn something from the French Laïcité system. It’s been put to practice for over a century, and they don’t seem to be much less moral than we are. Only time will tell into which direction the United States social and political system will steer. Whichever direction that’ll be, let’s hope that we’ll be able to learn from the mistakes of others before making our own.
Works Cited
A.D. “O’Reilly: “War” on Christmas.” mediamatters.org 21 Nov. 2005. 19 Sept. 2006 <http://mediamatters.org/items/printable/200511210003>.
HowStuffWorks.com. 2006 Convex. 15 September 2006 <http://people.howstuffworks.com/election-issue.htm />.
Rempel, Gerhard. “AGE OF THE ENLIGHTENMENT.” Sullivan-County.com 19 Sept. 2006 <http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/y2k/age_enl.htm>.
Secularism
This article discusses different kinds of relationships between church and state. The relationship of the two has been a significant factor in the development, sustainment, and downfall of civilizations. Historically the relationship has reflected political policies, military doctrine, and social issues throughout different nations. There is a wide array of different beliefs and opinions that lie in between ideal secularism and pure theocracy. Most extreme secularists believe that there should be a clearly drawn line to separate government from religion, and religious views should not be a factor in government doctrine. On the contrary, extreme anti-secularists feel that religion should be influence state laws, education, social issues, and military goals. These different beliefs vary greatly from one individual to another, and the relationship of church and state varies greatly from one nation to the next.
Let’s start with the basic definitions of the terms. The term secularism is very vague, and is interpreted differently from one person to the next. There is personal secularism, which pertains to decreasing significance of faith in day-to-day life. Personal secularism is en entire topic within itself, but will not be addressed much in this paper. The specific definition that is relative here is government secularism, which is essentially “separation of church and state”, but even that aphorism is vague. There are different stages of government secularism, but it generally means that the government shouldn’t be affiliated or influenced by the church. On the opposite end of the spectrum is theocracy. In a theocratic state religion and the government are intertwined. Iran, for example, is a theocracy where politics and social life are greatly influenced by Shia Islam, the state religion Majority of other nations are somewhere in between the two extremes, many of these nations still struggle to find a stable middle ground.
During ancient and medieval times state governments and institutionalized religion had virtually no separation, religion was usually considered as one of the many functions of a community. In monarchies, the ruler was usually also the highest religious leader and sometimes viewed as a living god. In more recent history, especially with the advent of democracy, state rulers weren’t necessarily viewed as gods, but still needed the approval of religious leaders to make most state decisions. The state protected religion, and religion validated the state, making the two intertwined.
The notion of secularism dates back to The Enlightenment, which started changing Western societies’ outlook on religion and faith. Many of The Enlightenment philosophers rejected religious beliefs and superstitions, emphasizing reason and logic. This gave birth to Deism, a belief that God should be revealed by nature and reason, not scripture and faith. Views of God and religion fluctuated throughout the centuries that followed, but majority of Europeans began to turn away from blind faith, although institutionalized religion continued being a major part of government.
So what caused governments to become more secular? In the United States Constitution a clause in the First Amendment states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The phrase “separation of church and state” actually doesn’t appear anywhere in the Constitution, but coined later by Thomas Jefferson. To this day it is a controversial matter of whether the Founding Fathers intended to have a clear Separation, or simply didn’t want a central religion.
Regardless of the Founding Fathers’ intentions, today U.S. is rather secular. However, it’s selectively secular. When it comes to education, most public schools are extremely secularized, substituting phrases such as “Merry Christmas!” with “Happy Holidays!”, in order not to offend anyone. However when it comes to other issues, such as Elections, we’re not nearly as secular. In the 2004 Presidential Elections, the major issues turned out to be “moral issues” such as gay marriage and abortions, not the employment, National Deficit, or the war with Iraq.
It seems the U.S. has had a hard time finding a comfortable zone of moderate secularism. As surprising as it seems, the French might actually serve as a good example for the our country to follow. The French system called Laïcité, derives from the same Greek word as secularism, is a time-tested system of government secularism that seems to work well.
Laïcité is a core concept in the French Constitution, which formally states that France is a secular republic. The French government is legally prohibited from recognizing any religion, with the exception of military chaplains, and Alsace-Moselle, formally Alsace-Lorraine. Laïcité is not practiced in Alsace-Moselle primarily because it was a part of Germany when the French law was instituted.
Laicity, which is the natural English spelling of the term, does not necessarily imply any hostility of the government with respect to religion. It is best described as a belief that government and political issues should be kept separate from religious organizations and religious issues. This practice is meant to protect both the government from religious interference, and religious organizations from political quarrels and controversies.
French politicians generally refrain from openly demonstrating that their policies are influenced by religious views. Religious reasoning is generally considered incompatible with reasoned political debate. An example of this can be seen in the case of Christine Boutin, a French politician, who opposed same-sex marriage on religious grounds. Unlike in the U.S., she was quickly marginalized, and herself criticized for homophobia purely because her reasoning was based on her personal religious views.
The French view religion as a private matter. Although allowed to openly practice their religion, French politicians and civil servants are supposed to be neutral when it comes to mixing their views with political issues.
So if the French have this seemingly fair-minded system, why can’t the United States find a equivalent equilibrium? Anti-secularists believe that ridding Western Society of religious influence will lead to a degeneration in morality, and eventually a decline in culture. Bill O’Reilly, for example, believes that the US government has a secular agenda to rid our society of Christianity and Judaism. O‘Reilly, an anti-secular conservative, believes that if we continue to secularize, then eventually it’ll become too easy to pass legalization of narcotics, euthanasia, abortion at will, and gay marriage because the objection to those issues is usually religious-based.
O’Reilly’s views on secularization seem to be in sync with many other Americans’ views. What is to stop our society from continuing on our path of demoralization if the government continues with it’s “secular agenda”? Kevin Hasson, founder and chairman of Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a law firm specializing in religious freedom, believes that government’s efforts to enforce secularism will inevitably lead to “government hostility to publicly expressed religion.” That ties into O’Reilly’s point, once religion is shunned down upon, and Americans become secular on a personal level, our government laws and policies will be based on anything and everything but morals.
It seems that the reason for opposing secularization is primarily the fear of decline in society’s morality. The challenge with government secularism is finding a middle ground that will not lead to a decline in morality, and at the same time will provide us with a fair political system based upon reason and equality. An ideal secular government shouldn’t have a state religion, and shouldn’t favor any specific religious group or organization. The state’s policies, laws, education system, military doctrine, and other components should not be ruled by religion as they are in Iran for example. Maybe we can learn something from the French Laïcité system. It’s been put to practice for over a century, and they don’t seem to be much less moral than we are. Only time will tell into which direction the United States social and political system will steer. Whichever direction that’ll be, let’s hope that we’ll be able to learn from the mistakes of others before making our own.
Works Cited