The Problem of “The Separation of Church and State”

In modern, secular societies, there is a belief that a political state should not interfere with the normative, daily practices of religious devotees as long as those devotees do not engage in practices which harm the common good. Combined with this is the belief that religion, because it is given freedom within the state, should not interfere with the daily functions of that state. The two should be seen as separate entities, and no extraordinary pressure from one should be put upon the other. One can be, and most people are, active in secular and sacred activities throughout their life. When there are common ideals shared between the two spheres of influence, one can engage both of them at once, but, when those ideals are divided, one must keep them separate, and act as a secular individual when involved with secular institutions, and as a religious individual when engaging one’s religious faith. A judge is expected to rule according to the established laws of the land; a politician is expected to work for those laws which work for the common good according to what the state deems as acceptable and possible, based upon the desires and needs of the people they represent; a religious devotee is expected to live up to the moral expectations of their faith which should be seen as expectations that are over and above the basic expectations of positive law.   

This so-called separation between the state and religion is illusionary.  In modern times, the state determines what is or is not an officially recognized religion, and the state determines if and when a specific religion meets specific societal standards; if a religion doesn’t, the state can and often does hinder its practice. Here one begins to see one of the real dangers of how things have developed: the so-called separation of church and state has become a control mechanism for the state, proving that there is no real separation between the two, but rather, state control of religion. That a state might interfere little with specific religious traditions at a given time and place does not mean the state will continue such religious liberty in the future. If a state changes its conceptions of what the common good is to be, its interactions with the religions within its domains will change. This is, of course, in the most ideal circumstance, where the state is seen as a relative good, and an imperfect means to promote for a specific end. The illusion becomes even more dangerous if the state sees its ideals as perfect, without room for improvement, and needing no apology, and that its ways are the only ways by which one finds truth, justice, and happiness in the world.  Once this happens, it is no longer purely a secular institute, but rather, it is a religious state, with its ideals forming the doctrines of a new religious tradition. Just because it doesn’t take the name of religion for itself does not mean it is not a religion (after all, many religions deny their religious status). And it becomes one religion (which tries to avoid the name of religion) judging the relative status of every other religion, allowing some, and not allowing others, depending upon how these religions can relate to the ideals of the state-practiced religion. Thus, when religions are judged according to whether or not they meet the ideals of a given political doctrine, what is happening is that a religion is being judged by another religious ideal, but one which masks the fact that the new ideal is religious.

Obviously there are good reasons for why we try to divide the two. There should be a distinction between the secular and sacred spheres of influence. But it must be known for what it is: a relative, inter-dependent distinction. What happens in one affects the other. Secular ideals influence members of religious faiths, and religious ideals influence secular institutions. If we can keep this in mind, and ever before us, the danger of the state forming a new, monistic religio-secular institution, is diminished (although, of course, never entirely overcome). More importantly, once we recognize this, religious devotees will be freed to practice their faith in the public sphere, even within the secular institutions of the state itself. While they will have to deal with the means provided to them, they do not have to avoid the ends desired by their religious faith as they work for the public good.