In Support of Separation of Church and State

Separation of church and state was in the news this week after the phrase came up in a debate between two U.S. Senate candidates in Delaware. One of the candidates, attempting to cast herself as a champion of religious freedom, argued that separation of church and state is unconstitutional because the words themselves do not appear in the Constitution.

In fact, the much-maligned phrase "separation of church and state" is a metaphor coined by President Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to explain how the First Amendment protects religious freedom. So, the principle of separation of church and state is very much in the Constitution, even if the words aren't.

It's always stunning to me that so many religious people in the U.S. think the separation of church and state is somehow hostile to religion, when in fact just the opposite is true. This tells me many people are ignorant of both history and current events.

Even as the U.S. Senate candidates were preparing to debate, a court in predominantly Buddhist Bhutan was sentencing a man to three years in prison for showing Christian films to his neighbors. He was attempting to promote civil unrest, the Court said. Liberal Bhutanese objected --

And although we may not like the tactics used by the Christians to proselytise or "sell" their religion to impoverished and vulnerable groups, let's not lose sight of the bigger picture, in terms of religious tolerance, and what constitutes "promoting civil unrest."

-- however, my impression is that the conviction is supported by at least some Bhutanese. Although officially people of Bhutan have freedom of religion, the government has a history of protectionist policies regarding Buddhism. "Church" and state are not separate in Bhutan.

Likewise, many American Christians want the government to protect and promote Christianity, and the First Amendment restrictions on government interference in religion frustrates them to no end. When, for example, public school systems are barred from coercing children in classrooms to pray, or the display of the Ten Commandments is prohibited in courtrooms, they interpret this as a violation of their religious freedom.

But without separation of church and state, a religious majority can use the government in ways that most Americans, including conservative ones, would find disturbing. The man imprisoned for showing Christian films is a prime example, and there are others. Earlier this year, the American recording artist Akon was barred from performing in a concert in Sri Lanka because he had made a video considered disrespectful to the Buddha. And a woman visiting Sri Lanka was arrested for attempting to mail copies of a book she had authored. The book described her conversion from Buddhism to Islam.

There certainly is no separation of church and state in the People's Republic of China. Religion is permitted, but regulated; the government assumes the role of head of all religions. For example, Catholic bishops in China are chosen by Beijing, not Rome. I've written a lot about Beijing's control of Buddhism, including the government's insistence that it has sole authority to recognize reborn lamas.

In Europe, for centuries religious institutions benefited from the patronage of monarchs. So heads of churches conspired with political forces to knock kings off of thrones and replace them with kings of their own.  Europe suffered centuries of religious warfare, and religious institutions were corrupted by power. Most Americans today are sadly ignorant of much of European history, but the 18th century men who wrote the Constitution knew this history very well and were determined America would not go down the same path.

So, the very first two clauses of the Bill of Rights address religion. Congress is prohibited from the establishment of religion, which was understood to mean Congress could not designate any one religion the "official" religion of the U.S. This prohibition was extended to state governments by the 14th Amendment. Very basically, the "establishment" clause today is interpreted as a prohibition on favoring one religion over another, but government does not have to shut all religious expression out of public life as long as all religions are treated equally.

This clause prevents a majority religious faction from using government to enforce its religious practices and beliefs on everyone else, or awarding itself tax money, or otherwise making government a tool of its own ends. U.S. Christians sometimes argue that if a majority of people want public school teachers to lead Christian prayers in class or teach religious doctrines in place of science they should be allowed to do so, but this is precisely the sort of misuse of government power the establishment clause prohibits.

The second clause prohibits government from interfering in the free exercise of religion. It is unfortunate that many U.S. Christians think that the free exercise of their religion includes a right to dominate the nation's religious life and force their views on everyone else.  And the same criticism applies to the Buddhist establishment in Bhutan and Sri Lanka, it seems.