Separation: Is it Anti-Religion?

Church, State, & Religion

• Church / State Separation • Church / State Myths • Ten Commandments • Sabbath Laws • Jehovah's Witnesses • Separation of Church & State

• Site Resources • Main Site Index • What is Atheism? • Religion & Theism • Skepticism & Logic • Arguments for / against Gods • Evolution vs. Creationism • Religious Timelines • Hate Mail • Glossary • Book Reviews

• Chat Room Join others in the Agnosticism/Atheism chat!

• Discussion Forum Do you have an opinion about this page? Make it known on the Discussion Forum!

Myth:
This "separation of church and state" is anti-religion

Response:
This argument is a common strategy among those who want to appear to support the right to the freedom of religion. They correctly point out that the government cannot be hostile to religion, but by twisting things around they make it seem as though attempts by the government to remain detached from religious issues is a form of hostility. In this way, they attempt to get government involved with religion and religion involved with government, as if that were a solution to what is in reality a non-existent problem.

What many forget is that the separation of church and state not only protects the state, but also protects their religion from government interference. And, just as importantly, it protects religion from being made trite and irrelevant by virtue of its involvement with the state.

In the first place, it is obvious even to most of those who deny that there should be any such separation that the state should not be allowed to interfere with churches. There simply cannot be any religious freedom if the state is allowed to dictate to churches what they may and may not teach, what permissible dogmas they can hold, and so on.

But what is not quite so obvious is how the state ultimately trivializes religion when the two get mixed together. The state is not permitted to promote particular religious doctrines as religious doctrines, that much is clear - but in the attempt to do it anyway, some really poor rationalizations are used. The most common is that we aren't really dealing with "religion" anymore and that the doctrine, symbol, or words have magically become "secular" over the course of time.

But do devout Christians really want their holidays, their religious symbols and quotes from their savior, Jesus Christ, treated by the state as irreligious, secular components of society? Does that really make any sense at all? There are two choices: argue that these religious symbols and words are secular in order to get government endorsement, or reject government endorsement in order to preserve their religious nature. Truly devout believers can only justify the latter option - which leaves open the question of the true motivation of those who follow the first choice.

Throughout American history, many Christians have recognized that the separation of church and state protects Christianity as well as other religious faiths. Roger Williams, for example, argued very explicitly that in order to try and keep the Church pure from the influences of evil, it is necessary to keep it separated from civil government. More than that, however, he also thought it was important for the state that it, too, be kept separate from the workings of the church:

Magistrates [officials of the civil government] have no power of setting up the form of Church Government, electing Church officers, punishing with Church censures, but to see that the Church does her duty herein. ...And on the other side, the Churches as Churches, (though as members of the Commonwealth they may have power) have no power of erecting or altering forms of civil government, electing of civil officers, inflicting Civil punishments (no not on persons excommunicated) as by deposing Magistrates from their Civil Authority, or withdrawing the hearts of the people against them, to their laws, no more than to discharge wives, or children, or servants, from due obedience to their husbands, parents, or masters; or by taking up arms against their Magistrates, though he persecute them for conscience. (Roger Williams, Bloudy Tenent of Persecution for Cause of Conscience (1644), page 248-249).

James Madison expressed a similar sentiment when he said "Religion flourishes in greater purity without than with the aid of government." In a letter from 1819, he further noted that "the number, the industry and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church and state." In neither case were these men expressing a position which was anti-religion. On the contrary, they both believed that religion is important to people and wanted to ensure that it would be able to continue doing good by separating it from the power of the state.

It is important to keep in mind the fact that the United States is a country where religious belief and religious diversity are usually greater than in most other places. In countries where there is an established church and/or official state support for religion, both belief and diversity is generally lower. If the separation of church and state was really anti-religion, it would have to be argued that religion has flourished here more than elsewhere in spite of separation rather than because of it.

I have yet to see anyone actually make a case for the former, while the case for the latter has been made quite often. Instead of even trying, books and articles attacking church/state separation normally ignore this issue and only focus on a few incidents where Christians have had problems due to separation claims.