The single best argument for separation of church and state

[Bubba_Switzler]

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”–C.S. Lewis

I recently came across this quote again. It has to be one of my all-time favorite from one of the greatest Christian minds.

It occured to me that this is a great argument, perhaps the single best argument, for the separation of church and state. If by “church” we mean not symbols or mere clerical institutions but the body of thought oriented to what is ultimately good for us.

It is one thing to aim the power of the state at defending rights and boundaries It is quite another to enlist it the cause of reforming us for our own good. I am very grateful to the Church for its moral teachings and guidance. But I shudder at the thought of priests with search warrants and guns.

Should we be any less concerned with non-church busybodies acting against our will for our own good? CS Lewis thought not.

 

[ACCT]

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”–C.S. Lewis

I recently came across this quote again. It has to be one of my all-time favorite from one of the greatest Christian minds.

It occured to me that this is a great argument, perhaps the single best argument, for the separation of church and state. If by “church” we mean not symbols or mere clerical institutions but the body of thought oriented to what is ultimately good for us.

It is one thing to aim the power of the state at defending rights and boundaries It is quite another to enlist it the cause of reforming us for our own good. I am very grateful to the Church for its moral teachings and guidance. But I shudder at the thought of priests with search warrants and guns.

Should we be any less concerned with non-church busybodies acting against our will for our own good? CS Lewis thought not.

We also agree that a state religion is never a good thing.

1st In the USA there is a separation of church and state. So there is no combining Christianity with economics except in attempting to enforce morality within the system, which has been done through laws and through those that work within the system.

2nd: Love is not taking what little I or anyone else earns and giving it to someone else that did not earn it. My church teaches that we should give freely or be a cheerful giver. I cannot be a giver unless it is I who is giving. I did not say that it is wrong to give to the poor even those that do not earn what they have. I am saying that for me to be Christian it must be I that gives. I cannot give if money is taken away from me and given to whomever.

 

[Rich_C]

I would bet my boots that Mr. Lewis was warning people about a secular, progressive state, not a religion, in that quote.

 

[ACCT]

I was watching an atheist convention on T.V. the other day. Atheists seem to be paranoid about this country becoming a theocracy. We would have to completely change the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to have a union of Church and State in America. I can assure the alarmists in the atheist movement that the greater opposition to that change would come from the Catholics themselves.

 

[BListon]

Well we all know what happened during ths Spanish Inquisition, many many people were tortured and killed, also the fact that Henry viii created an entire church just so he could exhalt himself as head, and go through as many wives as he wished. Also remember the Penal laws of Ireland created by the Anglican Church to convert all “heathens” to Anglicanism. Also… what would happen if you get people like the Westboro Baptist “Church” running an entire country… you’d have a mess, that’s what.
“Absolute power corrupts absolutely.” John Dalberg-Acton

 

[Julia_Mae]

I was watching an atheist convention on T.V. the other day. Atheists seem to be paranoid about this country becoming a theocracy. We would have to completely change the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to have a union of Church and State in America. I can assure the alarmists in the atheist movement that the greater opposition to that change would come from the Catholics themselves.

Except for this rather well-known one who advocates Catholic Dictatorship. youtube.com/watch?v=St9kZqWxNfU

Perhaps the atheists heard about it.

 

[boomerang]

I had just recently read an article about the Greek Orthodox Church (in Greece). Apparently, some years/decades ago the church gave much of it’s landholdings to the Greek government in exchange for the government “taking care” of the church, i.e., paying the bills and the salaries of the priests. I guess this arrangement was working fine until this current economic crisis. Now there is no more money for the church. No money for priest’s salaries, to keep the lights on, or for church charities which the people need now. When most people (especially atheists) think of separation of church and state, they think of some sort of church takeover of government. It can work the other way, too.

 

[mitex]

I was watching an atheist convention on T.V. the other day. Atheists seem to be paranoid about this country becoming a theocracy. We would have to completely change the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to have a union of Church and State in America. I can assure the alarmists in the atheist movement that the greater opposition to that change would come from the Catholics themselves.

I think it swings both ways. Obama has no right to force the Church to cover contraception or force them to adopt to gays.

However I think the Church needs to withdraw from politics and let her affiliated and allied groups cover the things such as pro-life and family initiatives. Quite frankly I’m surprise the IRS hasn’t gone on a spree revoking the charitable status of Churches, mosques, and synagogues many of whom push envelope by advocating politics from the pulpit.

Historically separation of Church and state was good for the Catholic Church here in America. It allowed it to grow free from persecution. But I think both government and Church need to reexamine their current approaches to each other.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Thanks for all the interesting replies. I can’t respond to them all but I’ll throw out some clarifications and thoughts:

1. I am very much mindful of secular busybodies. There seems to be a tendency of secularists wielding the separation in order to force out religion and make space for secular values. By that reading, “church” means organized religion. But, as I hinted in my OP, and as I think Rich C correctly notes, CS Lewis was not primarily concerned with church but with secular authority. And I think he got it exactly right.
2. It is certainly an appropriate time to rethink our views on the separation of church and state and on freedom of religion. Again, I don’t think that either “church” or “religion” should be so narrowly defined as to give carte blanche to secularists. Rather, the essential freedom is one of, on the one hand, conscience and acting according to conscience as freely as practical, and, on the other hand, circumscribing the tendecy of enacting legislation for our own good. To borrow from CS Lewis, when we use law to protect ourselves from others or to force others to do things for us, we know that we are imposing on others for our benefit even if we feel justified in that imposition.
3. We have now the experience of over 200 years of history (under the US Constitution) with which to judge what is a danger and what is scaremongering. It seems pretty obvious, in hindsight, that theocracy is not, and has never been, a genuine threat. (Those who think it is are revealed by the need to reach back to the Inquisition for an appropriate boogy man.) But authoritarianism has riden secular ideologies with no end in sight.
4. The Church is at its best when it relies on argument and persuasion to change people for the better. Is there any reason to think that this does not also apply to secular values?

 

[sw85]

We also agree that a state religion is never a good thing.

Wait, what? I don’t agree to that. With respect to what is state religion “never” a good thing?

Certainly not with respect to promoting holiness. Secular society has produced virtually zero saints. The Middle Ages, by contrast, produced thousands of them, despite having far fewer people to work with.

If you mean with respect to something else perhaps you should be more clear about what you mean. Whatever it is, I doubt it’s such an important criterion to justify the monumentally hubristic claim that state religion is “never” a good thing.

And monumentally hubristic it is. Nearly every society for all of history has been ordered along intensely religious lines. Are you prepared to say your ancestors were all vile idiots, and everyone for all of history got it wrong until we brilliant Americans came along?

I was watching an atheist convention on T.V. the other day. Atheists seem to be paranoid about this country becoming a theocracy. We would have to completely change the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to have a union of Church and State in America. I can assure the alarmists in the atheist movement that the greater opposition to that change would come from the Catholics themselves.

I don’t doubt that, but I suspect it’s because most Catholics are actually solidly in the enemy’s camp.

Well we all know what happened during ths Spanish Inquisition, many many people were tortured and killed, also the fact that Henry viii created an entire church just so he could exhalt himself as head, and go through as many wives as he wished. Also remember the Penal laws of Ireland created by the Anglican Church to convert all “heathens” to Anglicanism. Also… what would happen if you get people like the Westboro Baptist “Church” running an entire country… you’d have a mess, that’s what.
“Absolute power corrupts absolutely.” John Dalberg-Acton

With due respect, do you even know the historical context within which the Inquisition occurred? Do you know the numbers killed by it? (I’d wager it’s less than the number of unborn children killed every day in America by abortionists).

However I think the Church needs to withdraw from politics and let her affiliated and allied groups cover the things such as pro-life and family initiatives. Quite frankly I’m surprise the IRS hasn’t gone on a spree revoking the charitable status of Churches, mosques, and synagogues many of whom push envelope by advocating politics from the pulpit.

Oy vey, this meme again. The Church is tax-exempt because it’s a non-profit organization: it has nothing to tax. Nothing about it being a non-profit organization necessitates that it shut its mouth to the injustices promulgated by this degenerate sinkhole of a nation.

 

[mitex]

Wait, what? I don’t agree to that. With respect to what is state religion “never” a good thing?

Certainly not with respect to promoting holiness. Secular society has produced virtually zero saints. The Middle Ages, by contrast, produced thousands of them, despite having far fewer people to work with.

If you mean with respect to something else perhaps you should be more clear about what you mean. Whatever it is, I doubt it’s such an important criterion to justify the monumentally hubristic claim that state religion is “never” a good thing.

And monumentally hubristic it is. Nearly every society for all of history has been ordered along intensely religious lines. Are you prepared to say your ancestors were all vile idiots, and everyone for all of history got it wrong until we brilliant Americans came along?

I don’t doubt that, but I suspect it’s because most Catholics are actually solidly in the enemy’s camp.

With due respect, do you even know the historical context within which the Inquisition occurred? Do you know the numbers killed by it? (I’d wager it’s less than the number of unborn children killed every day in America by abortionists).

Oy vey, this meme again. The Church is tax-exempt because it’s a non-profit organization: it has nothing to tax. Nothing about it being a non-profit organization necessitates that it shut its mouth to the injustices promulgated by this degenerate sinkhole of a nation.

If you would read my entire statement you will see that I pointed injustices by the government towards the church.

At the same time the Church’s job is to focus on religious and spiritual matters. Temporal matters unless they are somehow violating some moral teaching that is intrinsic to society the church has no business being in. The Church for most instances has no business telling government how to run or operate.

I’d probably fly the coop the day I see a SWAT team with crosses on their ballistic vests breaking down the doors to some morally (but previously legal) sketchy establishment.

There is a reason Church and state are separate. Its to protect both institutions.

 

[BListon]

Wait, what? I don’t agree to that. With respect to what is state religion “never” a good thing?

Certainly not with respect to promoting holiness. Secular society has produced virtually zero saints. The Middle Ages, by contrast, produced thousands of them, despite having far fewer people to work with.

If you mean with respect to something else perhaps you should be more clear about what you mean. Whatever it is, I doubt it’s such an important criterion to justify the monumentally hubristic claim that state religion is “never” a good thing.

And monumentally hubristic it is. Nearly every society for all of history has been ordered along intensely religious lines. Are you prepared to say your ancestors were all vile idiots, and everyone for all of history got it wrong until we brilliant Americans came along?

I don’t doubt that, but I suspect it’s because most Catholics are actually solidly in the enemy’s camp.

With due respect, do you even know the historical context within which the Inquisition occurred? Do you know the numbers killed by it? (I’d wager it’s less than the number of unborn children killed every day in America by abortionists).

Oy vey, this meme again. The Church is tax-exempt because it’s a non-profit organization: it has nothing to tax. Nothing about it being a non-profit organization necessitates that it shut its mouth to the injustices promulgated by this degenerate sinkhole of a nation.

With all due respect to you too, but the point is that people WERE killed in the inquisition. I don’t know or claim to know how many were killed.but one human life is just as valuable in God’s eyes as one thousand. Also sin is sin no matter if you are Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran or Jewish. God is not going to hold you less accountable because you are Catholic.

 

[Julia_Mae]

A STATE RELIGION IS NEVER A GOOD THING.

julia mae<–possessor of monumental hubris (or else just familiar with history)

 

[DavidPalm]

With all due respect to you too, but the point is that people WERE killed in the inquisition. I don’t know or claim to know how many were killed.but one human life is just as valuable in God’s eyes as one thousand. Also sin is sin no matter if you are Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran or Jewish. God is not going to hold you less accountable because you are Catholic.

All societies, secular or otherwise, severely punish outright traitors with penalties up to and including capital punishment. Treason remains a capital crime to this day in the United States. How exactly are Catholic states of by-gone days to be pilloried with some grave transgression for enacting that penalty for that crime, while modern secular states are given blanket absolution for exactly the same thing?

With regard to the theme of this thread, I agree very much with the brakes thrown on by “sw85”. Is there any evidence whatsoever that purely secular states are superior in the things that matter the most, that is, in men being free to do good and to shun evil? Not a shred that I can see.

What’s more, it is the solemn teaching of the Catholic Church, which the Second Vatican Council explicitly left “untouched”, that the State has an obligation to give due deference to the one true Faith established by God, that is, the Catholic Faith. Please see my article in the New Oxford Review:


Separation of Church and State: Manifest Destiny or Manifest Heresy?

How exactly that deference is expressed is a matter of circumstance and prudence. But for the State to be absolutely neutral with respect to religion is contrary to our Faith, as has been taught by numerous Popes, a teaching which Vatican II left “untouched”.

 

[BListon]

All societies, secular or otherwise, severely punish outright traitors with penalties up to and including capital punishment. Treason remains a capital crime to this day in the United States. How exactly are Catholic states of by-gone days to be pilloried with some grave transgression for enacting that penalty for that crime, while modern secular states are given blanket absolution for exactly the same thing?

Amen:thumbsup:. That is exactly what I am getting at. God is going to hold each an every one of us for our OWN actions, not the actions of those around us. I am an American, but that does not mean that I am going to personally be held accountable for the abortions, and other sinful things that run rampant through our nation, but neither am I free from God’s judgment just because I am Catholic, you can still be labeled “Catholic” and not play by the rules.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

How exactly that deference is expressed is a matter of circumstance and prudence. But for the State to be absolutely neutral with respect to religion is contrary to our Faith, as has been taught by numerous Popes, a teaching which Vatican II left “untouched”.

Suppose a country were 100% Catholic. What would we expect the relationship bewtween church and state to be if there were no concern for non-Catholic faiths? What laws would we expect?

 

[DavidPalm]

Suppose a country were 100% Catholic. What would we expect the relationship bewtween church and state to be if there were no concern for non-Catholic faiths? What laws would we expect?

Great question. I’ve thought about this quite a bit, but still need to think about this more.

That the State is Catholic would mean, at the very least, as Pope Leo XIII taught in Immortale Dei, that secular leaders are responsible:

to favor religion, to protect it, to shield it under the credit and sanction of the laws, and neither to organize nor enact any measure that may compromise its safety. This is the bounden duty of rulers to the people over whom they rule.

Leo XIII and other popes have taught that the laws of a well-ordered State would be enlightened by Catholic moral principles. I would think that things that manifestly harm the common good, like pornography and contraceptives, would be illegal in a well-ordered Catholic state. So there would be certain “freedoms”, so-called, that non-Catholics would not have.

But I think that charity and mercy in a well-ordered Catholic state would dictate a stance of tolerance–in the classic, not modern sense of that word–toward those of other faiths or of no faith at all. I’m not great fan of the SSPX, but I thought that their former superior general, Fr. Schmidberger put it very well in an interview to Die Welt:

The condemnation of religious liberty by the popes never implied the will to force others to accept the Catholic religion, but it implied that a state, in which the majority of the population is Catholic, should acknowledge that the Catholic religion is the religion revealed by God. At the same time, it can very well to [sic] tolerate other religions and confessions and even lay those tolerances down in civil laws.

Obviously, in today’s pluralistic times, such a tolerance would have to find broad application. At the other hand error never has a (natural) right. When, however, it comes to man being capable of recognising God by the light of reason and of being aware of the true religion, then this is also true for statesmen; and it is exactly this that the Popes, up to Pius XII, maintained by condemning religious liberty. Everything else is, in the end, agnosticism (my emphasis).

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Great question. I’ve thought about this quite a bit, but still need to think about this more.

That the State is Catholic would mean, at the very least, as Pope Leo XIII taught in Immortale Dei, that secular leaders are responsible:

to favor religion, to protect it, to shield it under the credit and sanction of the laws, and neither to organize nor enact any measure that may compromise its safety. This is the bounden duty of rulers to the people over whom they rule.

For the most part, I think this is what we would call freedom of religion. At a minimum, there would be no law encroaching on the free exercise of Catholicism. The recent HHS mandate is a perfect example of a violation of this. But this is something that we can easily demand even in a society that is not uniformly Catholic.

Leo XIII and other popes have taught that the laws of a well-ordered State would be enlightened by Catholic moral principles. I would think that things that manifestly harm the common good, like pornography and contraceptives, would be illegal in a well-ordered Catholic state. So there would be certain “freedoms”, so-called, that non-Catholics would not have.

I’m trying to get a handle on what really this would mean by removing the issue of non-Catholic citizens but you raise two good examples. Would we expect laws against pornograhy and contraceptives?

(You would think it goes without saying that a Catholic country would treat abortion as homicide but there are plenty of contrary examples of that.)

But I think that charity and mercy in a well-ordered Catholic state would dictate a stance of tolerance–in the classic, not modern sense of that word–toward those of other faiths or of no faith at all.

I’m not great fan of the SSPX, but I thought that their former superior general, Fr. Schmidberger put it very well in an interview to Die Welt:

The condemnation of religious liberty by the popes never implied the will to force others to accept the Catholic religion, but it implied that a state, in which the majority of the population is Catholic, should acknowledge that the Catholic religion is the religion revealed by God. At the same time, it can very well to [sic] tolerate other religions and confessions and even lay those tolerances down in civil laws.

Obviously, in today’s pluralistic times, such a tolerance would have to find broad application. At the other hand error never has a (natural) right. When, however, it comes to man being capable of recognising God by the light of reason and of being aware of the true religion, then this is also true for statesmen; and it is exactly this that the Popes, up to Pius XII, maintained by condemning religious liberty. Everything else is, in the end, agnosticism (my emphasis).

I guess I just don’t see any issue with the state acknowledging that Catholicism is true. (know, of course, that this annoys atheists, and would be a problem even for Protestants). There is certainly, until recently, been a de facto recogntion of a broad Judeo-Christian truth in government. Whether that can be stretched to include atheists and Muslims is open to debate.

The above are certainly interesting and merit further discussion. But what I’m really after here is a conceptualiization of separation of church and state and of religious freedom that applies to secular quasi-religion as well as organized religions. What I detest most of all is the modern tendency to use the seperation of church and state as a way of clearing religion (e.g. Christianity) from the public sphere to make room for secular, often anti-Christian values to be institutionalized.

 

[Non_sum_dignus]

A STATE RELIGION IS NEVER A GOOD THING.

julia mae<–possessor of monumental hubris (or else just familiar with history)

No, but a state with policies rooted fundamentally in Catholic teaching could be a very good thing.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

No, but a state with policies rooted fundamentally in Catholic teaching could be a very good thing.

That’s exactly the distinction I’m trying to figure out.