On the Separation of Church and State: A Short Dialogue
Alexander S. Peak30 August 2006
Kris Wampler:
I’m wondering what you think about groups like the ACLU who, I believe, take church-state separation too far. I believe in the separation of church and state, but I also believe that Madison had something very specific in mind when he wrote the Establishment Clause. He believed an establishment of religion is essentially the declaration of an official government religion, and the use of taxation to compel citizens to support it.
That said, I don’t believe that many of the ACLU’s crusades reflect an accurate interpretation of church-state separation. I remember once when a county seal—Los Angeles’, I believe—displayed a tiny cross, and the ACLU was up in arms about it. But displaying a cross on government property, especially in the midst of other symbols, does not establish an official religion. At some point, you have to draw the line.
Alexander Peak:
Mr. Wampler:
I appreciate your asking.
It’s not that the ACLU takes separation of church and state too far, it’s that they actually don’t take it far enough (qualifier to come), or more accurately, they take it inconsistently. (Qualifier:) The ACLU often appears to aim to combine church and state; albeit, they make this combination in the name of separating the two. It’s a perversion of what a true separation of church and state would entail.
I agree with you, for instance, that a small cross on the seal of LA does not infringe upon the separation of church and state; however, I suspect we may have some differing ideas as to what an “establishment of religion” would entail.
My lack of objection to the cross on the seal is primarily based on the fact that it does not cost the tax-payers anything. I will also condone a statue of the ten commandments in a court-house, but only so long as it’s not funded by tax dollars. But, I will oppose all tax-payer funding of statues in court-houses, regardless of the religious or non-religious nature of the statue. As for the Pledge of Allegiance, I oppose it, not specifically because it mentions God, but more generally because it has any words at all—in other words, I oppose having a Pledge of Allegiance which students or anyone else is required to recite. The Pledge was originally written by a National Socialist to foster allegiance to the State. I humbly believe that if an individual wishes to make such a pledge, he or she should be free to use any words he or she likes, to include or exclude God as he or she pleases, and to structure the pledge any way he or she wants.
I stated previously that our idea of an “establishment of religion” may differ. Perhaps it does not, and perhaps you’ll agree with the following stances I take, but regardless I should address them for purposes of clarity. In my humble opinion, the governmental “establishment of religion” which our founders aimed to curtail does not simply include the formation of a national or state-wide religion. Take for instance the following example:
Let us say the state, in one of its leftist moods, decides that it does not like the intolerance of certain religions, and passes a law forcing all religions in that state to ordain any marriages requested by homosexual partners. Such a law hasn’t established a former state religion, but it still infringes clearly on the separation of church and state because it does create an “establishment” of religion, namely an edict to be supported by all faiths, or in other words a one-size-fits-all religious decree.
Now, let’s say the same state instead decides that it does not like what it sees to be an attack on the institution of marriage by homosexuals, and passes a law banning gay marriage. Such a law would invariably deny any church the authority to officially ordain a marriage between homosexuals. Once again, we see a combination of church and state which ought not exist.
In both examples, we see the state becoming theocratic in nature. Despite in neither instance there being an “official state religion,” the state, in each instance, sets a religious code or “establishment of religion.”
I don’t mean to invoke the slippery-slope argument that if a state enacts such a law, it inevitably will lead to an “official state religion,” but I will say that if the state feels comfortable passing such an edict, there’s no specific end to what other edicts it may in theory feel just in passing, including, for example forcing all Christian churches to recognize the bread and wine as Christ’s actual body and blood, as the Roman Catholic Church views it, rather than simply a representation of His body and blood as many Protestants view it. That may seem silly, but it’s no less silly than forcing all churches into accepting or rejecting institutions like gay marriage, when the individual churches are fully capable in establishing their own policies for such controversial topics.
This isn’t all to say that the state should never get involved in matters of faith. Consider, for example, a hypothetical religious organization which advocated the sacrifice of virgins. This would be a clear violation of the Natural Rights of the virgins, and a clear example of a disregard for the non-aggression axiom. In such an instance, it would be foolish for the state not to rule such violations of rights illegal, to give the cult what would be essentially a license to murder simply because it’s a religious group. For the government to grant to religious groups a license to murder, rape, steal, enslave, etc. would clearly be another combination of church and state: the cult would be committing its actions with the sanction and protection of the state. We must never forget that, as long as we have a government, it’s purpose is to protect one’s natural rights to life, Liberty, and property.
I hope this response answers fully your question.
Yours truly,
Alexander S. PeakKris Wampler:
Hey Alex,
To pick your brain further, if you don’t mind:
[You write,] “Let us say the state, in one of its leftist moods, decides that it does not like the intolerance of certain religions, and passes a law forcing all religions in that state to ordain any marriages requested by homosexual partners. Such a law hasn’t established a former state religion, but it still infringes clearly on the separation of church and state because it does create an ‘establishment’ of religion, namely an edict to be supported by all faiths, or in other words a one-size-fits-all religious decree.”
I see your point here in that the government may try to set a standard of what religious groups can do that is or isn’t “permissible” to the state. I think, in a sense, this does establish a formal religion, as Madison would see the term. I didn’t mean to imply that government should only be forbidden from specifically saying “The official state religion is X and must be followed and supported by all citizens.” An official establishment can take many forms, especially that of a law as you used in your hypothetical.
I’d also say that such a practice infringes on the freedom of exercise of religion, which I believe you and I would probably agree on. Churches, as any other private organization, have the right to set and exclude standards of membership, exclusion, approval, and anything else. No one has a right to be a member of any private organization or have the approval of the same.
Alexander Peak:
It sounds to me, then, that we are essentially in full agreement. There may be a small semantic difference here or there, but it brings us invariably to the same end opinion.
Related Thought Pieces
A Reply to “Why ‘Sex’ Is Not Equal To ‘Race’” (or .txt)
4 June 2008
Marriage and The State (or .txt)
4 October 2007
A Question About Gay Marriage
7 July 2006A Reply To “High school hosts ‘National Coming Out’: Parents protest campus events, including ‘gay’ film festival”
1 December 2005
