The single best argument for separation of church and state

[DavidPalm]

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

I’m sorry that I haven’t been able to participate in this more. Swamped. I agree with the last part of the statement above, of course.

But this answer is in reply to a bare assertion, that a state religion is never a good thing. For starters, the Catholic Church does not teach this. But beyond the bare assertion why would it be, in principle, bad for a state to affirm the truth of the Catholic religion and thereby give public recognition and glory to God? Is that actually worse than states which acknowledge no religion at all? After separating propaganda from reality and truth from false history, have we seen better fruit from atheistic states or indifferentist states than we have from confessional Catholic states? And what would be our measure or standard in answering that question? Economic prosperity? Freedom? Human Rights? And how are these to be defined?

I’m asking too. I don’t claim to have all these answers. But the Church has time and time again rejected the idea of an indifferentist state as vastly inferior to a confessionally Catholic state. At the very least, we would seem to require solid grounds on which to reject that teaching.

 

[Non_sum_dignus]

I’m sorry that I haven’t been able to participate in this more. Swamped. I agree with the last part of the statement above, of course.

But this answer is in reply to a bare assertion, that a state religion is never a good thing. For starters, the Catholic Church does not teach this. But beyond the bare assertion why would it be, in principle, bad for a state to affirm the truth of the Catholic religion and thereby give public recognition and glory to God? Is that actually worse than states which acknowledge no religion at all? After separating propaganda from reality and truth from false history, have we seen better fruit from atheistic states or indifferentist states than we have from confessional Catholic states? And what would be our measure or standard in answering that question? Economic prosperity? Freedom? Human Rights? And how are these to be defined?

I’m asking too. I don’t claim to have all these answers. But the Church has time and time again rejected the idea of an indifferentist state as vastly inferior to a confessionally Catholic state. At the very least, we would seem to require solid grounds on which to reject that teaching.

Well, my problem with the idea of a “state religion” is that the state tends to assume a proprietary interest in the religion. All authority, of course, flows from God and rightly belongs to God. Getting human beings to be proper stewards of that authority is problematic, though.

I think a state that does what you say, gives public recognition and glory to God, would be on the right track. I don’t know how to safeguard such a government from the imperfections of the people running it, though.

 

[Brandon_Rimmer_1]

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.

Absolutely! And the Protestant Christians, and other Christians such as myself. And the Jews. I think you would find a greater battle against this from the religious than the non-religious!

In fact, it seems to be the religious, like the OP, who want a secular and progressive state. Some of the most committed secularists I know are not in the Freethinkers group, but are part of my Bible Study.

 

[Brandon_Rimmer_1]

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

It would depend on the teaching.

State that is against murder and wanton promiscuity? Good.

State that forces people to attend Mass on Sunday or outlaws gay marriage? Terrible.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

It would depend on the teaching.

State that is against murder and wanton promiscuity? Good.

State that forces people to attend Mass on Sunday or outlaws gay marriage? Terrible.

Ok, but what is the general principle here?

 

[Brandon_Rimmer_1]

Ok, but what is the general principle here?

It would be Natural Law. I don’t accept or like natural law (I don’t think it works very well), but most of its social consequences are very mild, and it gets a lot of things right.

I would not mind living in a society guided by Natural Law.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

It would be Natural Law. I don’t accept or like natural law (I don’t think it works very well), but most of its social consequences are very mild, and it gets a lot of things right. I would not mind living in a society guided by Natural Law.

Natural law is an interesting subject. But I don’t think it’s nearly as clear as most believe.

Natural law can mean, for example, what is observed in nature (e.g. Darwinism).

It can mean the sort of law that arises absent Judeo-Christian revelation (e.g. Chinese law).

It can mean in accordance to God’s purpose for things (Thomistic law).

 

[AngryAtheist8]

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).

Frankly I think the idea that you can have no religious liberty without some degree of tyranny is an obviously false one. And I would say that of course condemning religious liberty implies forcing people to participate in state religion (assuming there is one).

 

[AngryAtheist8]

It would depend on the teaching.

State that is against murder and wanton promiscuity? Good.

State that forces people to attend Mass on Sunday or outlaws gay marriage? Terrible.

I think you’re underestimating just how nasty a Catholic theocracy/confessional state could be.

Just what would the Catholic-State do with people accused of things like promiscuity or being an active homosexual?

I suspect that they would be lucky if they merely got lengthy prison sentences.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I think you’re underestimating just how nasty a Catholic theocracy/confessional state could be.

Just what would the Catholic-State do with people accused of things like promiscuity or being an active homosexual?

I suspect that they would be lucky if they merely got lengthy prison sentences.

Want to find out what atheist Comunists did to homosexuals?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Want to find out what atheist Comunists did to homosexuals?

They went back and forth from tolerating them to killing them:shrug:

 

[Brandon_Rimmer_1]

I think you’re underestimating just how nasty a Catholic theocracy/confessional state could be.

Just what would the Catholic-State do with people accused of things like promiscuity or being an active homosexual?

I do not think it would be so bad. I am against promiscuity anyway, and gays should be afforded rights in accord with their human dignity (since we are going off of natural law, here). Sure, there would be serious problems, but not as severe as with many other possible states, even states that exist now (it would be worlds better than Sharia law, for example!)

The people who would get the worst of it would not be gays or people who sleep around. It would be heretics; people who claim to be Catholic but teach something contrary to what the hierarchy says they should. This would be terrible for them, but it is still a far better system than most.

If I got to choose, however, between the Athenian city-state from the golden age and government guided by Catholic-interpreted natural law, I’d choose the city-state.

I suspect that they would be lucky if they merely got lengthy prison sentences.

I suspect that there would be no prison sentences at all for the promiscuous and for gays. I suspect that there would be the death penalty for heretics.

 

[Julia_Mae]

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

I agree with this change: “a state with actions rooted fundamentally in the Gospels would be a very good thing.”

Never happen. Because the state, by definition, has power. Power corrupts. All states are corrupt. The trick is, to limit the corruption as much as possible. If our Constitution were actually in force, we would be doing that.

Now, why would a state based on Catholic teaching better than one based on Buddhist teachings? Or Ogallala Sioux teachings?

You only preserve religious freedom by rigorously keeping it separate from government.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Ok, but what is the general principle here?

Quote from my father:

“You rights end where my nose begins.”

 

[Non_sum_dignus]

Now, why would a state based on Catholic teaching better than one based on Buddhist teachings? Or Ogallala Sioux teachings?

You only preserve religious freedom by rigorously keeping it separate from government.

Because Catholic teaching is rooted in the truth of Christ, and it is observant of human nature, being authored by the creator of said human nature.

That said, I would have grave concerns about a Catholic state because of my concern that the government might try to assume a proprietary role over the Church. (I mentioned that upthread a ways.)

 

[uther]

It would be Natural Law. **I don’t accept or like natural law (I don’t think it works very well), but most of its social consequences are very mild, and it gets a lot of things right.**I would not mind living in a society guided by Natural Law.

Check out Romans 2:
[14] When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.
[15] ***They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them ***[16] on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

Natural law is really based in the conscience here mentioned by St. Paul which we all know was taken on voluntarily by Adam and Eve, ie., the knowledge of good and evil. I suppose whether we like it or not, everyone will be judged by it, while we Catholics will be held to an even higher and more precise standard.

 

[uther]

I’m sorry that I haven’t been able to participate in this more. Swamped. I agree with the last part of the statement above, of course.

But this answer is in reply to a bare assertion, that a state religion is never a good thing. For starters, the Catholic Church does not teach this. But beyond the bare assertion why would it be, in principle, bad for a state to affirm the truth of the Catholic religion and thereby give public recognition and glory to God? Is that actually worse than states which acknowledge no religion at all? After separating propaganda from reality and truth from false history, have we seen better fruit from atheistic states or indifferentist states than we have from confessional Catholic states? And what would be our measure or standard in answering that question? Economic prosperity? Freedom? Human Rights? And how are these to be defined?

I’m asking too. I don’t claim to have all these answers. But the Church has time and time again rejected the idea of an indifferentist state as vastly inferior to a confessionally Catholic state. At the very least, we would seem to require solid grounds on which to reject that teaching.

I think the trap that so many fall into here is in believing the mythology that secular is the equivalent of “neutral”. There is no neutral.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Because Catholic teaching is rooted in the truth of Christ, and it is observant of human nature, being authored by the creator of said human nature.

Well, that’s what everyone believes.

 

[Brandon_Rimmer_1]

Check out Romans 2:
[14] When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.
[15] ***They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them ***[16] on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

Natural law is really based in the conscience here mentioned by St. Paul which we all know was taken on voluntarily by Adam and Eve, ie., the knowledge of good and evil. I suppose whether we like it or not, everyone will be judged by it, while we Catholics will be held to an even higher and more precise standard.

I do not think God uses natural law. I don’t think he has much to do with it. I think God’s ethics are pretty close to Kant’s (and where they depart, so much the worse for Kant!).

But, since Kant’s ethics are very close to Natural Law ethics on most issues (if not identical; see Wojtyla’s ‘Love and Responsibility’ for the argument), the places where Natural Law gets it wrong are not typically serious. Where they are serious, the social consequences are mitigated by the Catholic (Universal!) realisation that all people are of infinite worth.

Even if a consistently Catholic state were to find, say, contraception to be illegal, this state would not be cruel to those who use it anyway, because even those who use contraception would be of infinite worth, and must be treated at all times with great dignity.

The upholding of dignity is why I do not fear the Catholic State (even if I would not agree with it entirely).

 

[Julia_Mae]

Even if a consistently Catholic state were to find, say, contraception to be illegal, this state would not be cruel to those who use it anyway, because even those who use contraception would be of infinite worth, and must be treated at all times with great dignity.

The upholding of dignity is why I do not fear the Catholic State (even if I would not agree with it entirely).

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

There’s a great deal of difference between theory and practice. Contraception would not just be illegal, it would be a felony. Condoms and pills trafficked like cocaine. Prison terms would ensue, all for the purpose of “saving their souls.”

Power corrupts. No one is immune.