Is Separation of Church and State indispensable to a democracy or not?

[Freddy]

Kadiot:

Is Separation of Church and State indispensable to a democracy or not?

I never thought about it. The United States is not a democracy, it is a representative republic.

Which is a form of representative democracy. There are many forms. As opposed to a direct democracy. Which I don’t think exists any more apart from certain areas of Switzerland. And when referendums are run (Brexit for example).

 

[Dan_Defender]

Besides, it’s more theoretical than real. This is even more apparent in democratic Muslim countries, IMO.

I agree. Take Turkey for instance, in theory it is a democracy but in practice it is run like a dictatorship and this is why it may never be accepted into the European Union.

 

[neophyte]

Which is a form of representative democracy.

It’s founded on democratic principles, but the founders were explicit in their distain for democracies and their insistence that the US is not one of them. It’s an important distinction.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Which is a form of representative democracy.

It’s founded on democratic principles, but the founders were explicit in their distain for democracies and their insistence that the US is not one of them. It’s an important distinction.

Disdain for direct democracies. Like the original one in Athens (but which didn’t allow women the vote).

Australia is a parliamentary constitutional monarchy. The US is a federal presidential republic. They are both forms of democratic government. That is, both are forms of government which allow all citizens the right to vote to decide who runs the country.

In Australia, political parties run for office and the representative of that party in your area is democratically voted for. The party with the most representatives wins power (and who then select a leader) whereas in the US the parties declare a nominee to lead the country and the democratic vote is for the individual.

Both systems are democratic systems although the means to achieve goverment is drastically different.

A yacht and a power cruiser both use significantly different methods in gettting you where you need to go on the water and they are both boats. Saying that the US is not a democracy is like saying a cruiser isn’t a boat because it hasn’t got sails.

 

[neophyte]

Disdain for direct democracies.

Exactly. And if you call our form of government “a democracy” you’re leaving out important information. It’s not a democracy, it’s a democratic representative republic.

 

[Kadiot]

Hi Freddy. Sounds like you’re knowlegeable about Comparative Constitutions. Can you say that Separation of Church and State NOT indispensable to a democracy?

 

[TK421]

Several democracies in Europe emerged without a clear separation of church & state, so no.

 

[EmilyAlexandra]

Democracies are the most vile form of government and since we are not one, I would rather see the question asked with respect to a republic.

Ah, the false distinction between a democracy and a republic… The United States is both.

I’m not sure how you could possibly justify the claim that democracy is “the most vile form of government”. I live in a country which is a democracy but not a republic (other examples include Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and another dozen Commonwealth realms, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Spain, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Andorra, Liechtenstein, and Monaco). I think all those countries are doing pretty well in terms of governance. Winston Churchill said:

Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.

 

[Dan123]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[phil19034]

Discuss.

Besides, it’s more theoretical than real. This is even more apparent in democratic Muslim countries, IMO.

It is not indispensable.

I would love to live in a Catholic democratic republic.

In regards to Muslims: the concept of “Separation of Church and State” is an absolutely foreign & alien concept to them. They don’t see how it’s possible to separate one’s faith from their daily actions.

Now to be fair, Christians used feel the same way until the Protestant rebellion.

 

[phil19034]

I find it odd that you favor the Eastern Orthodox on this point, when they certainly are not fans of separation of Church and State. They are the established Church in various countries and have much more embedded relationships with the temporal governments in such places than Catholics do anywhere. Historically, the Eastern Orthodox Churches were much more defined by their relationship to the imperial power (and now, to particular nations).

Certainly the act of faith cannot be coerced, however, as the Catechism noted, every society is governed by some ideology or another. And said ideology is always imposed on others. If public authority and its laws are not inspired by the Gospel, it will be something else. Why should we not want society governed in light of what God says is good for us rather than some other ideology? Why would we only permit society to be governed by other conceptions of good, except exclude our true good?

Very true. This is why they wanted the Patriarch of Constantinople to skip ahead of Antioch and Alexandria to become the #2 Patriarch, simply because Constantinople was an imperial city where the Emperor spent a lot of time.

 

[Kadiot]

Phil, Islamic countries and Muslim states don’t make a lot of debates and splitting-hair analysis on the separation of Church and State.

Their religion demands and requires that these two are one. In practice, there are gray areas, but again for them it is by default and normative that it be such.

So whether the Church and State “separation” be settled as this or that in the academe or the UN says it should be this or that, all conclusions and supposed correct perspective cannot be imposed and implemented worldwide, as Muslims and their Islamic States will always insist that their religious ways will always be their state ways. Maybe not on its perfect form, but will always be along this way.

 

[Freddy]

Hi Freddy. Sounds like you’re knowlegeable about Comparative Constitutions. Can you say that Separation of Church and State NOT indispensable to a democracy?

If people vote for a combination of the two then I have no problem. But it then becomes a theocracy. How should we solve this dichotomy?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Disdain for direct democracies.

Exactly. And if you call our form of government “a democracy” you’re leaving out important information. It’s not a democracy, it’s a democratic representative republic.

If you call what I have a boat you are leaving out important information. It’s not a boat, it’s a yacht.

Oh, sorry. It’s both.

 

[phil19034]

Phil, Islamic countries and Muslim states don’t make a lot of debates and splitting-hair analysis on the separation of Church and State.

Their religion demands and requires that these two are one. In practice, there are gray areas, but again for them it is by default and normative that it be such.

Yes, I know. I just didn’t go into depth.

 

[Pattylt]

So whose religion would you use?

Well, being an agnostic, I’d go with the “Nones”.

This is why thinking of any theocratic type government in America is useless…we have way too many varieties if religion already and all of them would object to any other than their own.

I couldn’t imagine living in a theocracy. I think I’d seriously consider leaving. Of course, it depends on not only which religion is chosen but in how much they’d incorporate their religion into the law.

 

[Kadiot]

Hi aitapyh. I agree with you. There’s no justice for other means of faith that contradicts “the church”.

As an example, an atheist (for the sake of the example is a religious position) may consider abortion to be okay, but a christian may not.

How do we decide which action is permissible?

In terms of morality and social existence, it should be dictated by philosophers (religious leadership?). While economy and such stays as the state.

My problem with even this however is having a system based on majority is not justice to the minority.

If a country is 90% christian, and the other 10% say, paganism… In a pro choice pro life debate, the pagan group is not being heard…

At least philosophers can come to conclusions. Including when to consider a fetus human… that is to say that someone may argue for conception in a philosophically sound way, and someone may argue for at birth with sound reasoning.

But the point is, there will at least be arguments that can really get closer to the truth.

 

[Freddy]

You wanna know why a true democracy just won’t work for long, let alone if you mix religion into it. Imho it is because the idiots outnumber the intelligent people and within both groups the narcissists outnumber the altruistic.

I think you’re close there. But I’sd swap ignorant for idiots. And I’d include myself in the ignorant.

In a true democracy we would all have to vote on everything. And none of us are suitably well informed on literally everything to be able to honestly hold to a decision on complex matters. Should we spend money on a school or more roads or better defence? Should we have trade agreements with some countries and not others? Should we increase taxes for some and drop them for others?

I don’t know about you but I’m a complete klutz when it comes to finances (my wife handles our money). So I don’t want to vote on financial matters for example. I would prefer to hear from a group of people who do know about it and then select the ones I think are more trustworthy to spend the country’s cash wisely.

 

[EmilyAlexandra]

This question has to be addressed on a case-by-case basis. The country in which I live, the UK, has no church/state separation, but this does not make us undemocratic. For example:

• The Church of England is the established church in England, the sovereign is its supreme governor, its 26 most senior bishops sit in the House of Lords, and its three most senior bishops are members of the Privy Council.
• Prayers are said every day in the House of Lords (by a bishop) and the House of Commons (by the speaker’s chaplain).
• Every order of chivalry has a prelate/dean/chaplain, who is always an Anglican bishop or priest or Church of Scotland minister, and a chapel, which is always an Anglican or Church of Scotland church.
• The sovereign is a member of the Church of Scotland and either attends the General Assembly or is represented by a Lord High Commissioner. The first formal act undertaken by the monarch is the swearing of an oath to “maintain and preserve the Protestant Religion and Presbyterian Church Government” (in Scotland).
• The sovereign is always crowned by the archbishop of Canterbury at Westminster Abbey.
• Every person in England and Wales has the right to be married in their Anglican parish church, even if not a member of the C of E or Church in Wales.
• The archbishop of Canterbury is authorised by Parliament to confer academic degrees upon persons owing allegiance to the British monarch.

Thus it can be seen that in the UK the lack of any church/state separation has little impact on most people’s everyday lives.

The impact of the establishment of the C of E is probably more apparent to those who are members of that church. For example, bishops and other senior members of the clergy are at least notionally appointed by the monarch, and bishops cannot be consecrated without something called “the Queen’s Mandate”. Some parish priests are also appointed by the Crown, the Duchy of Lancaster, the Lord Chancellor, etc. The church is governed by synodal legislation known as “Measures”, which have the force of Acts of Parliament and can be enforced in English courts, whose decisions can be appealed to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Thus the church is to some extent subordinated to the state.

Some secularists point out that the UK and Iran are the only two countries in the world where seats in the legislature are reserved for clergy. However, the bishops generally attend and vote in the House of Lords quite rarely, and their impact on legislation is negligible. It also offends me more that 92 hereditary peers sit in the House of Lords than it does that 26 bishops do.

Therefore, many British people feel that the relationship between church and state is in fact beneficial. The negligible impact of the church on state affairs is tolerated in part because the established C of E and national Church of Scotland are moderate forms of Christianity. Furthermore, they are to some extent moderate forms of Christianity because they are established/national churches. It seems likely that a disestablished C of E would possibly become much more liberal or much more conservative or would split into two or more rival factions.

 

[otjm]

Too often we are hearing from the Church the talks about abortion in the context of human rights but too little we are hearing from the Church about the social rights as the human rights, that should be considered as such in the deliberation before voting.

Actually, the Church speaks up quite a bit about social rights.

And many people do not want to hear what the Church has to say - which applies to both Left and Right, although on different parts of what the Church says and has been saying.

Too few people have read Rerum Novarum, the foundational document issued by Pope Leo 13th in 1891; and the Church has been expounding on social justice since then.