Despite being part of the political, philosophical, and religious landscape of America for over 200 years, the notion of separating church and state continues to be a radical notion. We need a way to explain the concept which makes it easier to accept without undermining its radical, vital nature. I believe it’s possible to reframe the separation of church and state that not only avoids misrepresenting it, but emphasizes what’s is most important: separating religious from civil authority.
This is not a recommendation that we dispense with the phrase “separation of church and state,” but when we do talk about it I think that we should get specific and explain that what we seek is the strict separation of religious authority from civil, political authority.
Spheres of Authority
What does it mean, to separate religious from civil authority? First, it requires the recognition that there exist at least two spheres in a person’s life which involve different types of authority over them: civil and religious (assuming that the person has any religion, of course). If a person is unwilling to acknowledge that these two spheres are distinct, preferring instead for civil and religious authority to be invested in a single entity, then then they will be acknowledging that on some level they prefer a theocracy.
Second, separating religious from civil authority requires insisting on the idea that there are religious matters over which civil authorities should have no power and civil matters over which religious authorities should have no power. Reasonable people may disagree over where exactly the lines are drawn and that isn’t a problem, but there will also be broad agreement over many fundamental issues.
Prayer, for example, is obviously a religious matter over which civil authorities should have no power. Most people who are not theocrats will agree with this, but consider the implications: If civil authorities should have no authority over prayer, then it is outside their authority to tell people when they should pray, how they should pray, what their prayers should include, who should lead their prayer, to whom they should pray, etc.
Once someone accepts such principles, it becomes more difficult to then turn around and defend the notion that government bureaucrats should insert prayers into political proceedings like city council meetings. Similarly, it is difficult to justify laws that are being pushed for purely religious reasons — after all, if religious dogmas are the only arguments being used, then this is probably a religious matter over which the civil authorities should have no power to begin with. Attempts to claim that this is a civil matter will almost certainly involve the construct of secular arguments for the proposed law.
Zoning decisions would be an example of a civil matter over which religious authorities should have no power. They may voice their opinion just like anyone else in the community, but their lack of authority here requires that we not give them any say over what sorts of businesses can open where — like a liquor store moving “too close” to a church.
Religious Values in the Public Square
One of the arguments commonly used by religious conservatives to undermine the separation of church and state is that “religion” is a basis for values and values cannot be removed from politics; ergo, separating church and state isn’t possible. This further allows them to portray separationists as godless atheists seeking the elimination of values from public discourse. Specifying that the point of separating religious from political authority, however, renders such arguments impotent.
To say that religious leaders have no authority over civil matters while government bureaucrats have no authority over religious matters does not in any way suggest that religious values cannot enter into public debates. It does, however, create boundaries in the ways that they can be used. For example, it will not be possible to use “religious values” as part of an effort to involve the government in what are clearly religious matters. It would likewise be illegitimate to have the government promote particular religious doctrines by erecting “monuments” that exist solely to promote texts holy to certain religious groups but not others.
It will also not be possible to transform civil matters into religious ones by framing those matters in purely religious ways. For example, it would not be a legitimate exercise of civil authority to define marriage in a manner that is consistent with and pushed by particular religious groups over and above the definitions used by other religious groups. Marriage may be a civil matter, but defining marriage in a religious way would improperly transform it into a religious one
Implications for Theocracy
The concept of separating religious and civil authority obviously has negative implications for many of the most popular causes on the Christian Right — but what sorts of responses might they offer? Who would argue that something like zoning questions are really religious matters over which religious leaders should have some say? Who would argue that prayer is really a civil matter over which civil authorities should have jurisdiction?
Specifying that the separation of church and state means separating religious from civil authority should not in any way weaken the principle. There are still many in the world who are convinced that the two spheres of social authority should be closely aligned, if not identical. Witness, for example, the Islamists in Iraq who attacked the “godless doctrine” of democracy.
For many, getting them to recognize that imams, priests, and rabbis should have no authority over civil affairs while elected politicians and government bureaucrats should have no authority over religious affairs would represent a significant as well as positive shift in thinking. It’s still a radical notion, however, and needs all the support we can give it.
