In defense of a secular state

[mojogeorgo]

In honor of this weekend's Blog Against Theocracy, here is some of a talk that Rob Boston of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State had to say at a talk in Columbus last year...

As I mentioned a moment ago, I see secularism as a sort of a platform upon which our religious liberty and our freedoms rest. Secularism as a legal principle means simply this, that the government is neutral toward religion. Neutral, not hostile. As applied in our First Amendment, the principle of secularism means that the state neither advances religion, nor inhibits religion. Now there are alternatives to secularism as a legal principle. And I would challenge those who are attacking the secular state to tell me which alternative they would like to see us adopt in the United States.

One alternative would be the legal establishment of a single church. We've had that in our history. If you go back, and you look at the colonial experience, you'll find examples of that. The Masssachusetts Bay Colony, for example, was a Puritan theocracy--a single established church. Some of the southern colonies had Anglicanism as their established faith, an example of this would be Virginia. And obviously, we know of examples today where you have a single established church. The Church of England, for example.

The question becomes, how satisfying is this arrangement for both the church and the state, and I would answer, not very. Think for a minute about the modern examples of an established church, in the western world. What you find there is really kind of a house-kept, neutered state church. It doesn't really do much. You know, they drag out the bishops in their nice robes and their fancy accoutrements whenever there's a royal wedding or a state funeral, but by and large, their subservience to the state is obvious, and their political voice is nonexistent. Their imact on the larger society is nil. And certainly their churches are not growing. In fact, they often sit empty on weekends--or maybe they'll be 1/4 full.

Now, the state may find this arrangement satisfying, after all, it manages to sort of quiet a voice that has historically challeneged government officials--religious leaders. But when they pay them off with subsidies or symbolic support, they don't have to worry about that any more. Now this single established model is something that grows out of the Middle Ages, before that, the Byzantine Empire, before that, the late Roman Empire. But you find that--my opinion is--it's outlived its usefulness. And smarter church leaders know this.

On January 1, 2000, at the stroke of midnight, the state established church in the country of Sweden, which was the Lutheran church, was disestablished, after hundreds of years of being the official church of Sweden. And it was the clergy of the Lutheran church who led the drive for disestablishment. Why did they do it? Probably because church attendance rates had dropped into the single digits. A free church, they argued, might be just the shot in the arm that religious groups need to get them back into the game.

Now that's one model. There's another way to go. You can have a multiple establishment. We could have a couple of different religions, or maybe ten or twenty or fifteen, Christian denominations or what have you, get some kind of preferential treatment from the government. There are countries that do this in the west right now--Germany is a good example. In that country, workers pay a tax that goes to a Protestant denomination or the Catholic church as they allocate. Now, this makes the churches quite well off--imagine that, if you're getting a cut of every worker's paycheck, even if it's a small amount, it's a pretty good deal.

But again, we must ask ourselves, how does this help the vitality and the life of the church? Well, again, if we look at the statistics in Germany and other nations that have this multiple establishment model, the church attendance is very low, and the churches don't have much of a public voice.

The other option would be, the theocracy--the theocratic state. This is more common today in the hard line Muslim nations. It's not so much a western phenomenon. A complete merger of religion and government. Now under this model, the established faith doesn't play a symbolic role. It instead takes an active role in influencing, or actually running, the government. Now, its faults are numerous, and they're very prominent. Probably most prominent among its faults is the idea that holy books are notoriously difficult to interpret, and they are open to many different interpretations. Therefore, in a theocratic state, it becomes the job of some supreme religious leader to decide which interpretation of the holy book will hold sway over the entire population. In hard line Muslim nations, narrow interpretations of sacred writings have led to the subjugation of women, absolute control of the media and the arts, public beheadings and state-sponsored mutilations in sports stadiums, crackdown on all forms of political dissent, and the absence of free elections. Pardon me for not being enthusiastic about this model.

Now, our founding fathers were familiar with all these models. So that brings us back to the secular state--why do we have a secular state? Because the founding fathers were familiar with all these models. The Massachusetts Bay Colony was a theocracy. Mutiple establishment was in some colonies, single establishment was in other colonies. They didn't even have to look beyond the shores of the new nation to see these models in action. The only real kind of secular state model at that time would have been Rhode Island, founded by the iconoclastic preacher Roger Williams, who allowed all religious groups to worship in his colony, even those that he disagreed with. But that was not the most common experience. That was an unusual thing to do. It was taken as a given throughout much of the founding period that of course religion and government needed to be related, of course there needed to be some kind of relationship. I'm not really aware of any country that dared to separate religion and government before we did, and establish a truly secular state.

Click here for more
http://independentbloggersalliance.blogspot.com/2007/04/in-defense-of-secular-state.html
http://blogagainsttheocracy.blogspot.com
http://religiousleft.bmgbiz.net/robboston.html

[AndyTiedye]

1. This is SOOOOOO Kicked and Recommended!!

:kick:

[mojogeorgo]

15. Thanks! n/t

[annabanana]

2. k&r . . . . . . n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

3. Great! Now, if we could just get rid of "The State"...

[sam sarrha]

5. running yellow dog libertarians.. what is so good about a Lord of the Flies Reality

where dogma dismantles reason.. what's in your water.??

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

6. I find nothing "reasonable" about the state.

Or, any other bunch of bosses. Political, corporate, or religious.

[sam sarrha]

8. cynicism is just mental laziness.. how about fire departments, clean water departments, the national

interstate system .. the army that protects your sorry Ass'd freedom..etc etc

you guys dont even want schools.. that is only to create an under class to exploit for profit..

waste'n my time trying to explain it, worse than freepers..

[Unvanguard]

9. Most left-wing anarchists have no problem with public services.

Simply with their control by a centralized and hierarchical authoritarian entity that concentrates control over the means of violence into the hands of the few.

[sam sarrha]

16. is that why Libs and NeoCons outsourse them to corporate fascists to rip us off

dogma vs Reason, keep the bath water throw out the baby

[sam sarrha]

17. left wing anarchists show some intelligence..

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. Who is "you guys"?

I have nothing against schools, FD's, hospitals, and a helluva lot more. You must have me confused with the American version of "Libertarianism". I'm an Anarchist.

[WinkyDink]

10. It's tough to be you, then!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. Not at all. What makes you think so?

I don't mind at all owing no allegiance to the state.

[sam sarrha]

18. you dont have to have allegiance.. just dont F*ck it up for everyone else.. your sh*t sounds like

sociopath.. without a 'common wealth' the Plutocracy makes us slaves.. but you don't seem to care who suffers from your dogma of chaos

[Leopolds Ghost]

20. Direct democracy IS the common-wealth Thomas Jefferson and William of Occam advocate.

I can't speak for T_L because most so-called "anarchists" are hypocritical assholes who own cars (purchased new) and houses, associate only with people like them, and otherwise do everything possible to benefit from existing liberal society rather than change it. There is a big difference between direct democracy, or social democracy, and chaos.

[Unvanguard]

21. Anarchists oppose class society as well as the state.

Our preferences for political organization do not hand all the power to corporations - rather to the people, self-organized and self-governing.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

24. Your ignorance of Anarchism is matched only by your pathetic attempts at insults.

Pardon me while I have a good laugh.

[sam sarrha]

28. so tell me what it is instead of what it isn't.. between your arrogant giggles

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

35. Do your own research and try and find out what your attempting to talk about.

But, I'll give you a hand.

Try looking up:

Mohandas K. Gandhi
Leo Tolstoy
Buenaventura Durutti
Emma Goldman
Alexander Birkman
Mikhail Bakunin
Emiliano Zapata
Ricardo Flores Magnon
CNT/FAI
IWW

You might also look up the philosophy of Cynicism

[sam sarrha]

36. my only point is simply to see this in your own terms and come up to a solution relative to today,

philosophers of the past tend to get used to validate laziness.. the old timey philosophers are a reference to those times..Spinoza was a lens grinder, he had a lot of time on his hands to think relative to his culture and the limitation of his tim, Niche was just bat shit insane and no medication was available to shut him up. we have similar problems but we need new thinkers to be relevant to Today. it is a different ball game..we have New tools, new solutions.. leaning on the past is lazy.. and ineffective, end of story.

if you need cancer surgery, as does our Bu$hitCo corporate fascist system, do you want a doctor educated by 1600's medical manuals to operate... or todays solutions

being able to quote the past is not going to solve our problems, and is a rut, it isnt cutting edge science any more it is a different world

[Unvanguard]

37. Birkman -> Berkman

and I'd add Peter Kropotkin to that excellent list.

The Anarchist FAQ is also useful.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

38. Anarchist typing skills :)

Yeah, Kropotkin.

Also, Noam Chomsky.

[sam sarrha]

32. enjoy the laugh i am just making fun of your arrogance

[Leopolds Ghost]

13. He he! Now if anarchists would realize their origins in the Reformation...

They wouldn't be so hostile toward religion
just because of a group of false-church theocrats in Madrid
who forcibly converted most of their subjects' ancestors to
Christianity.

[sam sarrha]

19. i personally just dont want them in my life in any manner what so ever, especially the government

i even V-chipped them out of my TV

[Leopolds Ghost]

22. I'm a populist, not an "anarchist" per se, but most of government is there to benefit the rich

It is possible to be a Jeffersonian populist, unfortunately, too many left-populists are racists or anti-semites, who, as noted in another thread, "hate the rich" and secretly desire to BE rich, which prompts them to actually care about who runs the government. A real anarchist (in the original 17th century definition) would not care who is in control of the government. The ideal Jeffersonian state is one in which the people control things directly at a local level, and national institutions exist only for the purposes of revenue-sharing and common defense. There is no reason extensive social services are not part of such a society; the past 40 years have proven they cannot be imposed on a class-based authoritarian "red state". There are countries that have gone thru dozens of governments with no impact on the civil service, the people who actually care about keeping the buses and water plants running regardless of who is in power. Those are the real leaders in any society, even Somalia or inner city Detroit.

[Unvanguard]

23. Whose "17th century definition"? n/t

[Leopolds Ghost]

25. Here are some links (info) for you on the 16th-c origin of church-state separation, anarchism, etc.

The Anabaptist heritage

* Freedom of religion
* Priesthood of all believers
* Bible as the sole rule of faith and practice
* Pacifism

All those who hold the idea of a free church and freedom of religion (sometimes called (link) separation of church and state) are greatly indebted to the Anabaptists. When it was introduced(5) by the Anabaptists in the 15th and 16th centuries, religious freedom independent of the state was a radical idea, and unthinkable to both clerical and governmental leaders. Religious liberty was equated with anarchy; Kropotkin(6) traces the birth of anarchist thought in Europe to these early Anabaptist communities.

According to Estep,(7)

"Where men believe in the freedom of religion, supported by a guarantee of separation of church and state, they have entered into that heritage. Where men have caught the Anabaptist vision of discipleship, they have become worthy of that heritage. Where corporate discipleship submits itself to the New Testament pattern of the church, the heir has then entered full possession of his legacy."

Anabaptism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabaptism

The word anabaptism is used in this article to describe any of the 16th century "radical" dissenters, and the denominations descending from the followers of Menno Simons. Today the descendants of the 16th century European movement (particularly the Baptists, Amish, Hutterites, Mennonites, Church of the Brethren, and Brethren in Christ) are the most common bodies referred to as Anabaptist.

Research on the origins of the Anabaptists has been tainted both by the attempts of their enemies to slander them and the attempts of their friends to vindicate them. It was long popular to simply lump all Anabaptists as Munsterites and radicals associated with the Zwickau Prophets, Jan Matthys, John of Leiden (also Jan Bockelson van Leiden, Jan of Leyden), and Thomas Muentzer. Those desiring to correct this error tended to over-correct and deny all connections between the larger Anabaptist movement and this most radical element.

English Peasant Revolt (1381)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Peasant_Revolt

The Peasants' Revolt, Tyler’s Rebellion, or the Great Rising of 1381 was one of a number of popular revolts in late medieval Europe and is a major event in the history of England. The names of some of its leaders, John Ball, Wat Tyler and Jack Straw, are still familiar even though very little is actually known about these individuals.

Tyler's Rebellion is significant because it marked the beginning of the end of serfdom in medieval England. Tyler's Rebellion led to calls for the reform of feudalism in England and an increase in rights for the serf class.

(See also William of Ockham)

whose Oxford seminary students helped organize the revolt.

This revolt came within yards of dethroning the British monarchy
and overturning all existing British rulers in favor of an agrarian
socialist state.

Thomas Muentzer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Muentzer

Thomas Muentzer (actually Thomas Müntzer) (1489 or 1490–27 May 1525) was
an early Reformation-era German pastor who was a rebel leader during the
(German) Peasants' War. Cf. Radical Reformation, Protestant reformers.

From 1517-19 Müntzer stayed in Wittenberg and was influenced by Andreas Karlstadt and Martin Luther, agreeing with their opposition to the Catholic church's sale of indulgences and its priests' abusive use of power.

Increasing Radicalism

In May 1520, Müntzer became a pastor in Zwickau in Saxony in 1520 on Luther's recommendation. In 1521 and 1522, however, the growing divide between Luther and Müntzer’s beliefs became apparent, as Müntzer developed his anti-intellectualism further and rejected infant baptism.

The Zwickau authorities expelled Müntzer in April 1521. He fled to Prague. He was initially feted in the town when he arrived in June, welcomed as a follower of Luther, with accommodation provided for him and invitations to preach in Latin and German in the University chapels. For unknown reasons, however, by November he was far less welcome in the town. That month he wrote the Prague Manifesto. This survives in 4 different versions in German and Latin, and is an angry, anticlerical, apocalyptic work.

In December 1521, Muntzer left Prague. He spent 1522 moving about, not staying in many places. In March 1523 he became pastor at Allstedt, a town of around 900 people in an enclave of Electoral Saxony in Thuringia. In June 1523 he married a former nun, Ottilie von Gerson. In November he was interrogated by George Spalatin and Frederick the Wise. Luther pressed for a private confrontation in Wittenberg, but Müntzer wanted a more public disputation, and nothing happened. In December 1523, Müntzer produced the first completely German liturgy, the Order of German Church Service, for use in Allstedt.

On 13 July 1524, Müntzer apparently delivered his Sermon to the Princes, a sermon allegedly given to Duke John of Saxony and his advisors in Allstedt, though the circumstances surrounding this event are unclear. The sermon focuses on Daniel 2, a chapter in which Daniel, hostage in Babylon, becomes an adviser to the king because of his ability to interpret dreams. In the sermon, Müntzer presents himself as a new Daniel to interpret the dreams of the princes to them. He interpreted Daniel 2:44 as speaking of the kingdom of God that would consume all earthly kingdoms.

Probably as a result of this event, combined with Luther's Letter to the Princes of early July 1524 which attacked Müntzer and Andreas Karlstadt, Müntzer and others from Allstedt were called to a hearing at Weimar with Duke John of Saxony on 31 July or 1 August. He decided that the printing press at Allstedt was to be shut down. Müntzer fled Allstedt soon after.

Peasants' War

In August 1524, Müntzer became one of the leaders of the uprising later known as the Peasants' War. One of his battle cries was Omnia sunt communia, all things are common. After fleeing Allstedt, he arrived in the imperial city of Mühlhausen in Thuringia. In mid-September, he and his associate Heinrich Pfeiffer took advantage of long-standing tensions between the middling craftsmen and city council to produce the Eleven Muhlhausen Articles, which called for the dissolution of the existing town council and the formation of an "eternal council" based on divine justice and the Word of God. Copies of this were sent to the peasantry in the surrounding village, but support did not materialise, apparently because the article expressed predominantly urban grievances which did not address peasant needs. On 27 September 1524, Muntzer and Pfeiffer were expelled from Mühlhausen.

Müntzer spent late 1524 in Nuremberg, but in mid-February was able to return to Mühlhausen. The following month, the citizenry voted out the old council and a new "Eternal League of God" was formed, composed of a cross-section of the male population and some former councillors.

Müntzer led a group of about 8000 peasants at the battle of Frankenhausen (15 May 1525) against political and spiritual oppression, convinced that God would intervene on their side. Utterly defeated, captured, imprisoned and tortured, Müntzer recanted and accepted the Catholic mass prior to his beheading in Mühlhausen in Thuringia on May 27, 1525. His head and body were displayed as a warning to all those who might again preach treasonous doctrines and treatening the riches of those with wealth and power.

Muentzer's legacy

In studies of the Reformation, Muentzer has often been ignored. To Protestant historians, he was a short-lived radical. Muentzer was then adopted by socialists as a symbol of early class struggle. Muentzer's movement and the peasants' revolt formed an important topic in Friedrich Engels' book The Peasant War in Germany, a classic defense of historical materialism. Engels describes Muentzer as a revolutionary leader who chose to use biblical language—the only language the peasants would understand. He then became a symbolic hero for the East German state (German Democratic Republic, GDR) in the 20th century, appearing from 1975 on their 5 mark banknote.

More recent studies, however, have been more sensitive to the context of Muentzer's life. He stands as a symbol of one of the many theological directions which could have been taken by the Reformation movement in its earliest stages.

[Unvanguard]

26. Ah, thanks. n/t

[sam sarrha]

30. sorry i believe in evolution. all our problems seem to originate from the 1600's and the 1400's,

Christians or Muslims, this is now and then is GONE... NOW is trying to be destroyed by antiquated thinking from both sides of different religions... i want neither, gOD is a phenomena related to the mind filling in the spaces it doesn't understand because of its limitations..

religion is all about limitations and often imposing them on others who dont believe for what ever reason, the reason doesn't matter, because religion doesn't matter.. religion is a belief not a truth, believing in an illusion does not make it a reality... even tho it was a belief started by goat herders 2000 years ago..i see no reason to perpetuate it..even with medieval debates however interesting
someone may find them.

if we could relate our problems to today, maybe we could get somewhere, we are facing the destruction of civilization itself and still debating how many angles can dance on the head of a pin.

we dont have the luxury to continue the religious debate, it is a waste of precious time

[Leopolds Ghost]

33. I don't care if you're religious; you're arguing the contrapositive so there's no disagreement.

You're saying it's desirable for you to be an atheist liberal;
I'm saying that it's possible for me to be an religious populist.

(i.e. I'm an anti-authoritarian center-leftist, to some nebulous degree).

The expressions A --> B == ~B --> ~A are equal, so we're talking past each other.

I'm just saying:

(a) religious people believe in separation of church and state, too, in fact, the very first advocates of the notion were quite religious, and many of them migrated to the US where they joined Deists like Jefferson and Atheists like Paine in a united front against their real oppressors, so there is no need to use the notion of a secular society as a cudgel to beat us religious folks over the head with. We agree!

(b) it is possible to have a cultural history and ties and be non-violent and still be an anti-authoritarian. One does not have to advocate taking us back to the year Zero, instituting a reign of terror over Republicans, or drinking blood out of the skulls of cable news anchors, as entertaining as that might be. Us Jeffersonians do not even advocate de-funding the social service network, which would be stronger if our system was set up differently, with more local control. America and Europe and even other countries have a long and proud history of (often suppressed) popular movements that were rooted in the same culture we all grew up with. This should be especially relevant to anyone who claims to be religious, like many American voters are.

(c) you don't have to be an anarchist to be a Jeffersonian populist.
It is possible to not put all one's faith that the government will not continue doing what it has been doing, siding with corporations or at best accommodating injustice, instead of providing a check on them as our politicians once claimed to be doing (but no longer even pretend to be doing anything other than ameliorating injustice while allowing it to continue).

The system we have now was set up after the Civil War to largely benefit the investor class and keep everyone else in a tolerable state of existence. As half-assed cultural wars centered on issues of vice and entertainment continue to pile up on our TV screens, what former Republican strategist Michael Lind calls the overclass has discovered ways to greatly increase what we consider a tolerable state of violence, poverty and disrepair while countenancing the behavior of the wealthy.

[sam sarrha]

27. and We are HERE to Change that.. not F'n give it up to them without a fight.. wake up

Cynicism is intelectual laziness, get to work

[Leopolds Ghost]

29. As Jefferson would say, the government is never going to be our "friend". What we can do is

Make sure that (allegedly) government-run services are run by and for the people. Relying on the bureaucracy to save us from corporations won't work. We have to simply make sure corporations and the wealthy are not running society like they are today. If that requires taking control of social services directly, so be it. We'll never have universal health care if it's a program administered by and answerable to elected officials. The centralized bureaucracy will always cater to powerful interests that pay their way, even if it undermines social programs such as welfare and public housing (which most liberals don't seem to support any more, for some reason, perhaps because these programs are always set up with an implication that the jobless are somehow immoral and should be forced to work at low-wage, shit jobs and live in crummy apartments far from the center city.)

[sam sarrha]

31. 98% of our problems can be resolved by eliminating corporate election involvement and go from there

to clean it up

it isn't necessarily the government.. but the oligarchy that try to take advantage it, and our laziness about constant vigilance to prevent it... the options to not being valiant not good.

so when the revolution happens, cause your kind couldn't do anything but be cynical.. shut up get out of the way

[Leopolds Ghost]

34. Can't we all just get along? n/t

[Ezlivin]

4. K&R!

N/T

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

7. the only reason

we have so many different faiths and denominations of faith here is because there is tolerance for but not establishment of religion. History has shown that this model for government works, and is actually beneficial to the establishment of many different views about God.

[Leopolds Ghost]

14. All State Churches are hated for a simple reason

And that is true-church Christianity preaches that the individual
should have no particular allegiance to his rulers. Only to God
and his neighbors.

The powers of the world, especially those that institute property
and military service, are inherently sinful, being the work of
(mostly violent and kleptocratic) men, not God, and must at best
be passively obeyed. This is not really much different from
Buddhist teachings about creation, or the doctrine of ahimsa.