Separation of Church & State

Most modern democracies boast of separation of church and state. What exactly does this mean and why is it so important.

The reason I ask is because recently a friend was praising the concept. I was surprised at that because she has always been an ardent supporter of legislation on account of her religious beliefs. I told her it was odd because she always wanted the state to act in accordance to her religious beliefs. Her response surprised me because I had never perceived the concept in this way.

According to her the separation of church and state is purely to prevent establishment of state appointed religion. People should be free to choose faith. However, religion is not prohibited from influencing faith. In fact authority is divine ordained position and a state is expected to uphold core religious views. For me that is a contradiction because once you start upholding ones religious views, people are just free to choose for namesake but are being forced to follow one set of rules. According to her that is not the case since there is just one fundamental concept of right and wrong irrespective of faith and the state should choose right over wrong.

This was a complete curve ball for me. To me no religious or moral authority ought to dictate what a state should do. A state is an agent that is to act in a utilitarian manner to create maximum benefit for the people. It should create laws that are universal but that do not undermine ones religious belief. How does everyone else perceive the separation?

I remember we had a long debate on this topic some months back. It was about whether religion should be taught in public schools or not - somewhat similar concept.

....

Religion, I think, is a personal matter and better left that way. i don't want the schools to associate with religion in any way. as it is there are so many peer pressure related problems in school. why to add religion to this already volatile mix of all nationalities and races in public schools??? what would happen to kids who come from families who follow their religion moderately? wouldn't these kids feel like an outcast as compared to devout hardcore religious people? I say religion is better left outside public schools. i would like to end my post with a decison from a court of law which goes like this:

"There is no such source and cause of strife, quarrel, fights, malignant opposition, persecution, and war, and all evil in the state, as religion. Let it once enter our civil affairs, our government would soon be destroyed. Let it once enter our common schools, they would be destroyed."

Supreme Court of Wisconsin, Weiss v. District Board, 1890-MAR-18.

Really?

Yes I will be celebrating Yule. Otherwise I am not a fan of celebrating birthdays two months late. Also the south can secede again as far as I care.

well secularitation is what almost every country is today despite some states such as the vatican city which is still under the direct rule of the pope and also under the direct rule of the roman catholic church and also some of the islamic states in the world where its politics is greatly influence by their religious teachings. the state and religious affliations should be seperated because the people have to have their own freedom to choose and believe whatever religions they choose, cause religions is a matter of personal things which is the relationship between a person and god and should never be intervened by other people. the relationships of a person with their religious beliefs is purely their relationships with god and other people relationships with god. also if the church or any other religions is given the power to influence the states then the religions will be impure and corrupted just like the popes of the past were corrupted because of the powers greater than the kings given to them. not only the popes but also the people who have high positions in religions. even the popes and the clergy did things that were not permitted under their religions nonetheless they still do it because they thought they were fine for them to do it. politics with the influence of religions will also create unfairness to the people who do not embrace the states' religions, those people who want to embrace their own faith will be persecuted and treated with discrimination, treated harshly because the state or rather the religious affliations will always be afraid that these people will be able one day to take control of the states and also destroyed the religious affliations.

Interesting topic! We were learning about law systems in CIMA which means I have plenty of facts to talk about!

Seperation of State and Church means that religion does not make any impact on legistation whatsoever. The appointment of a head of state, the decision of a court case or punishment of wrongdoers are based on morel grounds and not what religion dictates.

No, most states are NOT secular today either. They SAY so, but its a hard score to prove. And its not just the Vatican City that openly pronounces itself religious. In countries like Saudi Sharia law is the main source of Law. Sharia law is a god-given or otherwise religious law. And in countries such as Pakistan and Iran Sharia Law exists together with statute(parlimentary law) That's the same for most Muslim states.

For a state to be completely secular, the constitution should not only provide the right-it should be practiced! Imagine a non-majority group Head of State. india's a good example for vice versa with Manmohan Singh. But imagine, a Hindu president of USA! Religion plays a lot in politics-whether we accept it or not.

moral principles rather than religion makes you good or bad. Religion can be lethal. imagine a fanatic ruling a country. It totaly deprives a person's right of thought and intelligence! As long as people have the intelligence and goode will there need be no religion to dictate what should be and not be. A religious country always doesn't mean a developed one!

Originally posted by: diktaz

Interesting topic! We were learning about law systems in CIMA which means I have plenty of facts to talk about!

Seperation of State and Church means that religion does not make any impact on legistation whatsoever. The appointment of a head of state, the decision of a court case or punishment of wrongdoers are based on morel grounds and not what religion dictates.

No, most states are NOT secular today either. They SAY so, but its a hard score to prove. And its not just the Vatican City that openly pronounces itself religious. In countries like Saudi Sharia law is the main source of Law. Sharia law is a god-given or otherwise religious law. And in countries such as Pakistan and Iran Sharia Law exists together with statute(parlimentary law) That's the same for most Muslim states.

For a state to be completely secular, the constitution should not only provide the right-it should be practiced! Imagine a non-majority group Head of State. india's a good example for vice versa with Manmohan Singh. But imagine, a Hindu president of USA! Religion plays a lot in politics-whether we accept it or not.

moral principles rather than religion makes you good or bad. Religion can be lethal. imagine a fanatic ruling a country. It totaly deprives a person's right of thought and intelligence! As long as people have the intelligence and goode will there need be no religion to dictate what should be and not be. A religious country always doesn't mean a developed one!

yeah i know there are a lot of muslim states, vatican city is just one example of a country which is not secular. even country like indonesia even though it is secular and islam is not the state religion is somehow influenced by islamic teachings in its politics.

If we talk about the theoretical core concept of Separation of Church & State then it would imply that religion and government should be independent from each other. Moreover, this concept looks to be useful in the smooth transition from religion being in power to govt controlling the state in long term. Nevertheless, in reality or practice, there could be some problems in the implementation of this concept.

Take the example of bigamy, etc. If some religion allows it then how does the state interfere?
For these kinds of problems, state can say that religion is free to do what it wants as long as it does not impinge on the basic rights of the citizens.

Thus, there is a need to define some basic rights in order to avoid problems in practice.

Originally posted by: diktaz

Seperation of State and Church means that religion does not make any impact on legistation whatsoever. The appointment of a head of state, the decision of a court case or punishment of wrongdoers are based on morel grounds and not what religion dictates.

No, most states are NOT secular today either. They SAY so, but its a hard score to prove. And its not just the Vatican City that openly pronounces itself religious. In countries like Saudi Sharia law is the main source of Law. Sharia law is a god-given or otherwise religious law. And in countries such as Pakistan and Iran Sharia Law exists together with statute(parlimentary law) That's the same for most Muslim states.

For a state to be completely secular, the constitution should not only provide the right-it should be practiced! Imagine a non-majority group Head of State. india's a good example for vice versa with Manmohan Singh. But imagine, a Hindu president of USA! Religion plays a lot in politics-whether we accept it or not.

moral principles rather than religion makes you good or bad. Religion can be lethal. imagine a fanatic ruling a country. It totaly deprives a person's right of thought and intelligence! As long as people have the intelligence and goode will there need be no religion to dictate what should be and not be. A religious country always doesn't mean a developed one!

True that about the lack of secularism. That is why the separation of church and state can apply only to a democracy. In the case of Vatican church and state are the same. Similarly Saudi Arabia and other monarchies, dictatorships etc do not have a popular state but the sate is an individual or a group who holds inherited or seized power. There is no conflict because the state is there only to govern, but not equally govern.

On the other hand many Scandinavian nations which are typically considered most secular actually do have a state religion established. It goes to prove as you say equality and fairness is a moral issue.

One of the problem in USA is the aversion to the concept of 'secularism'. Many people still perceive secularism to be a 'communist' concept. The liberal stances adapted by many religious states in Europe has given rise to fear of the trend of 'Eurosocialism'. That compounded by the fact that many people still believe that America is a Christian nation, and the founding fathers may have been open to religion....but only if it does not conflict with Christian morality. So ironically issues like abortion, death penalty, gay marriage, drug control etc are 'religious' issues in the United States while they become 'human rights' issues in religious states like Norway, UK, Spain etc.

The question is can a nation claim to be truly secular and democratic and still tie the church and state together? Ironically it seems that Constitutional monarchies manage to to this while pure democracies like India and USA...tend to falter. Of course that is purely my perception.

Originally posted by: karandel_2008

If we talk about the theoretical core concept of Separation of Church & State then it would imply that religion and government should be independent from each other. Moreover, this concept looks to be useful in the smooth transition from religion being in power to govt controlling the state in long term. Nevertheless, in reality or practice, there could be some problems in the implementation of this concept.

Take the example of bigamy, etc. If some religion allows it then how does the state interfere?
For these kinds of problems, state can say that religion is free to do what it wants as long as it does not impinge on the basic rights of the citizens.

Thus, there is a need to define some basic rights in order to avoid problems in practice.

Personally I feel the problems and conflicts arise when we assume that the state ought to be responsible for legal paternalism and legal moralism. Whenever an authority tries to impose paternalism or moralism on others, it infringes on another persons intrinsic freedom. The only principle a state ought to act on is to 'protect from harm'. The action of the state should not propagate any moral or paternal principle but simply protect from harm. So things should be allowed or prohibited based on net harm they cause to individual and society rather than religious sanction or not.

Hence banning bigamy because a religious text prohibites it, is not secular of the state. But banning bigamy because it can cause widespread social harm to people would be reasonable. (Although I would argue that there is no harm in bigamy).

On the same note that is why I tend to have an aversion to people who argue based on 'For the Holy book/person etc tells me so'.