06/07/2023 – Religion & Government Part 1: Models of Separation
What should the relationship be between the government and religion? Should they be completely separate? Should they find ways of working together for common goals in society? Or, should there be a state-endorsed religion? This is the first of a great three-episode series. Check this out. This is TenOnReligion.
Hey peeps, it’s Dr. B. with TenOnReligion. If you like religion and philosophy content one thing I really need you to do is to smash that sub button because it really helps out the channel. The transcripts are available at TenOnReligion.com and new episodes are posted every two weeks, at noon, U.S. Pacific time, so drop me some views.
We’re going to get into the issue of church and state, or more broadly, religion and government, by looking at a book titled, The Challenge of Pluralism: Church and State in Six Democracies. This is the third and most recent edition of this book which came out in 2017. The relationship between religion and government in these six countries are grouped into three pairs which will be the three episodes in this series. In this episode, after an introduction into the topic, we’ll be covering the first pair of the United States and France under the category of models of separation. The next episode will cover the Netherlands and Australia under the category of models of pluralism. The third episode will cover England and Germany under the category of models of establishment followed by a conclusion to the entire three-episode series. Let’s get started.
The book covers six western liberal democracies have which sought to deal with the relationship between church and state yet approached the question in different ways. The challenge of pluralism is how best to live together when driven apart by issues defined by religious faith, yet still honor the idea that diversity is important to the common good. There are three driving questions here posed by the authors. First, how far can a democratic government go in permitting religiously motivated behavior that is contrary to society’s welfare or norms? For example, does the religious freedom of one group harm others in public health or safety or normal functioning of society? Not just things like human sacrifice or polygamy but also the role of women in society. Second, should the state encourage and promote consensual religious beliefs and traditions in an attempt to support the common values and virtues that bind a society together and make possible limited, democratic government? And third, when religious groups and the state are both active in the same fields of endeavor, how can one ensure that the state does not advantage or disadvantage any one religious group, or either religious or secular belief systems over others? Advantaging could mean funding of some religious groups but not others or creating laws benefiting one religion over another. The goal here should be for a government to be evenhanded toward people of all faiths and of none.
So, what are the models? The first model is the strict church-state separation model. Religion and politics are seen as clearly distinct areas of human endeavor that should be kept separate from each other. The second model is the pluralist or structural pluralist model. Under this model society is understood as made up of competing or perhaps complementary spheres. Religion is not a separate sphere with only limited relevance to the other spheres as the strict separationists do, but as having a bearing on all of life. The third model is the established church model. Under this model the state and the church form a partnership in advancing the cause of religion and the state. Church and state are seen as two pillars on which a stable, prosperous society rests. All six countries selected for inclusion in this study are stable democracies, religiously pluralistic, and each with distinctly different approaches to church-state issues. Let’s get into the first model.
Models of separation include the examples of the United States and France. First, the United States. The U. S. currently has a population of more than 330 million people. Throughout its history there has been a struggle to define and practice church-state separation. Ethnic diversity has continued to increase along with the rise of the unaffiliated. No one tradition is dominant, and the closest one to being dominant is Christianity, which is fractured into hundreds of separate groups.
The church-state issue has largely been waged in the courts. In fact, no other country in this study vests such authority in its judicial system. The book highlights five distinct historical stages in U. S. Supreme Court church-state relations where it leans first one way and then the other. The heated battles continue not only among advocacy groups and news media outlets on each side but even among individual Supreme Court judges. One key historical case was the 1879 dispute that prohibited polygamy because it differentiated between religious beliefs and actions.
The place of religion in schools has also been a key battleground where the American system has largely hammered out the meaning of the First Amendment’s establishment clause, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” This means that the primary effect of a law should neither advance nor inhibit religion. Thus, parents could not have their children instructed in their family’s own faith in a public-school setting because it would allow religious groups to spread their faith through the tax-supported mechanism of the public school. Classes of religious instruction had to occur on sites away from the public schools. The government may not favor, encourage, or promote religion. But public schools can teach about religions in global comparative perspective, the role religion has played in history, and the sacred texts as forms of literature. The problem is, the very issues that most Americans turn to their communities of faith to address are largely discussed in secular terms by the schools. This creates a dilemma. On the one hand, integrating religious perspectives would violate government neutrality on matters of religion. On the other hand, to shun any sponsorship or recognition of religion implicates the promotion of secularism or antireligious ideology. There is therefore no evenhanded treatment of religious versus nonreligious perspectives.
The U. S. is currently wavering between two conflicting church-state approaches: the strict separation or no-aid-to-religion model, and the neutrality or equal-treatment model. There are three problems to mention here. One, closely divided and conflicting rulings over the years by the Supreme Court has created uncertainty. Two, there is a loss of religious freedom by religious organizations. And three, religious minorities or nontraditional faiths are often marginalized in the process. But the question remains, does the government inadvertently violate neutrality when it recognizes and favors a secular non-religious perspective? The enormous emphasis put on the judicial system’s inconsistent decisions over the past two centuries has created a rather convoluted understanding of issues surrounding the relationship between government and religion in the United States. But now, on to France.
The current population of France is around 66 million people. Its view regarding the relationship between government and religion is utterly defined by a French concept called laïcité which means a separation of religion from the public sphere. This word is actually a bit more complicated for those unfamiliar with French culture and there’s an excellent video explaining it well. I’ll leave the link in the description if you want to learn more after watching this video.
In France, the highest constitutional body – the Constitutional Council – generally considers the constitutionality of proposed legislation. But the Council is not a court; it does not hear disputes or appeals from citizens, so the situation is quite different than that in the United States.
Going back in history, the French Revolution (1789-1799) was the watershed moment for modern France that uprooted the Old Regime. This was the injustice of imposed authority. It targeted the twin institutions of the monarchy and the Catholic Church. The prevailing view was that society needs basic values agreed upon by the state and its citizens. This was heavily influenced by the Enlightenment ideas of equality, liberty, and community. The French version is different from the British or American bill of rights in that universal equality forbids all social distinctions unless they serve the common good. How does the state integrate people most effectively into this vision of the common good? Through education and state control of religious behavior in public society. Article 1 of the preamble of the French Constitution expresses the fundamental law on religious freedom: “[The French Republic] shall ensure the equality of all citizens before the law, without distinction of origin, race or religion. It shall respect all beliefs.” Article 10 of the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen states, “No one must be disturbed because of his opinions, even in religious matters, provided their expression does not trouble the public order established by law.”
The meaning of laïcité is already difficult to render into English, and to make matters worse, it has no real consensus on what it means practically in France. It is a contested term. Some see it as pure secularism, while others see it more like the separation of church and state. Religion is seen as a private domain within people’s residences and places of worship and to bring religion which evokes particular values out of these private spaces violates the idea of unity around common values for all. The problem is that it is nearly impossible to maintain a pluralism in private when citizens cannot reconcile the pervasive requirements of their faith with the compartmentalizing expectations of their political culture.
The modern French approach to church-state relations took shape with the attempt of French revolutionaries and their Republican heirs to diminish and contain the cultural influence of a previously dominant majority religion. This is quite different from the American version of separationism which is largely institutional. In the U.S., religion is still in the public arena by private citizens without state backing and even U.S. Presidents likely would not be elected if they did not display religion in some way, shape, or form. France’s version of separationism is more assertive while the United States’ version is more passive in comparison. The European Enlightenment philosopher Rousseau, an influential figure even in France today, famously argued that one of the virtues of his civil religion would be intolerance of the intolerant, that is, an unwillingness to put up with what he saw as irrational rejection of the general will. The question is to what extent should the state police the boundaries of a culture based on shared values? People are free to practice their particular religion in private and freedom from that religious particularity in public creates a neutral space for all citizens.
The United States and France represent two differing examples of what the authors are categorizing as models of separation. Religion and politics are seen as clearly distinct areas of human endeavor that should be kept separate from each other. So, what do you think about the models of separation category? Do you think the United States or France has the best implementation of this model? Leave a comment below and let me know what you think. In the next episode we’re going to look at two countries used as examples of models of pluralism, the Netherlands and Australia. Under this model society is understood as made up of competing or perhaps complementary spheres. Until next time, stay curious. If you enjoyed this, support the channel in the link below, please like and share this video and subscribe to this channel. This is TenOnReligion.
J. Christopher Soper, Keven R. den Dulk and Stephen V. Monsma, The Challenge of Pluralism: Church and State in Six Democracies. Third Edition. Lanham, MD: Rowland & Littlefield, 2017.