“The government of the United States is in no way founded on the Christian religion. The United States of America should have a foundation free from the influence of the clergy.”
~ George Washington
In order to speak about secularism as a foundational principle of modern liberal republicanism, I need to talk about the historical relationship between the church and the state, and how that relationship affects and relates to the nation and the individual. I must also offer a few definitions:
The church: An institutional entity that seeks to exercise control of people’s visions of the nature and will of god.
The state: An institutional entity that exercises civil governance over the people within a single society and also within a specific geographic area.
The nation: That group of people over which both the church and the state seek control within any one society and within their prescribed sphere of influence.
The individual: Any person who is a member of any nation within what is referred to as a ‘nation state.’
I believe, in large measure, that the interests and power of the state and the nation are always at odds and are thereby, in most respects, inversely proportional to one another. This means that as the power of one increases, the power of the other must decrease proportionally. Power between these two actors is a zero-sum game, and yet this does not mean that the two cannot both flourish within a society. If we find the proper balance between the two, both the nation, and thereby the individual, and the state can exist in a healthy symbiosis; each supporting the other and possessing an appropriate and manageable amount of power.
Also, under this scenario, the power of the state includes other institutional actors who seek control over the nation and the individual. For our purposes here, this other actor can be broadly defined as “the church.” More specifically, it means any society’s dominant religious sect, and in the United States, this group encompasses the multiplicity of denominations which broadly comprise the fundamentalist evangelical protestant church.
The power playing field between these actors has never been level, because it has always been two against one: the church and the state verses the nation, and within the nation, the individual. For centuries, the church and the state, in close collusion with one another, were able to completely subjugate the nation. The rise of modern, liberal republicanism changed that equation and may have actually leveled the playing field, because the nation, under the principles of republicanism, is generally able to resist the ambitions of both the church and the state.
From the formation of the most primitive human governments, to the kingdoms of post-Medieval Europe, the church and the state made war against each other over absolute control of the population. The conflict was bitter and physical, with kings finding themselves condemned to hell by the church, and the lands and assets of the church being seized by the state. A number of high-ranking officials on both sides lost their lives in this centuries-long war. All of this was for control of the mass of peasants, artisans, and all others outside of the nobility who comprised the nation; the ‘mass of folk,’ as it were.
Eventually, during the early Renaissance period in Europe, the church and the state came to terms, made peace, and split the spoils of social control. Instead of fighting one another for absolute, unlimited control, they joined forces and supported each other’s control over a more limited segment of the individual’s existence.
The peace they forged, as durable as it has been, has always been marked by an intense distrust and dislike of one for the other. The church and the state despise each other, and each covets what the other has. This, of course, begs the question “what, exactly, does each of them have?” The division was, and continues to be marked out in the following manner: the state has control of the individual’s life, and the church has control over the individual’s death. In colloquial terms, the state owns your ass, and the church owns your soul.
Unfortunately, for both the church and the state, this peace, and the division of power over spheres of social control which came from it (as unforeseen as it may have been at the time) led to the birth of secularism as a sine qua non of modern republicanism.
********************
Amendment 1 to the Constitution of the United States
“Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances”
The First Amendment to the Constitution begins with the prohibition of collaboration between the church and the state. It separates them, placing a wall between them. The church is not allowed to meddle in the affairs of the state, and the state is not allowed to meddle in the affairs of the church. In order to solidify this division, the state does not tax the church. The purpose of this practice is to remove the church from any interest in the the affairs of the state. Since the church pays no taxes to the state, it has no right to even attempt to influence the politics or policies of the state.
I understand that in the United States of America in the early twenty-first century, this separation is, at the very least, blurred, if not erased altogether, but that theory/practice dichotomy is not yet a subject of this essay.
The political philosophers of the Enlightenment to which modern republicanism owes it origins had an awareness of history and current events that seems to have been lost in the United States of America in the twenty-first century. Because of this awareness on their part, secular republicanism is meant to limit the effect that both the church and the state have on each other, and more importantly, the effect and amount of control each has over the nation and the individual. Secular republicanism is, in some ways, the practical expression of the victory of the individual over the state and freedom of the individual from the church.
What, then, are some of the practical applications of secularism as a pillar of republicanism? I have identified three very important aspects, or rules, regarding the relationship between the church and the state in a secular republic on which I will elaborate below
Rule number one: The state cannot favor one religious sect over another. It cannot favor Islam over Judaism, just as it cannot favor any sort of polytheistic, or animistic religions over Christianity. The religions chosen by human cultures to help people weave their way toward salvation and some form of personal nirvana are as numerous as the cultures themselves, and the state cannot discriminate between them.
This is not to say that the state cannot place limits on how religions practice their belief systems, but these limits must be very, very circumspect. The state has the right and the responsibility to protect people from abuse by others, whether the abusers be secular thieves, religious leaders, or other devotees of the individual’s faith, but it must always cast a wary eye on creating and enforcing various limits on religious practice.
Consenting adults have the right to voluntarily subject themselves to all sorts of strange and bizarre acts in the pursuit of almost anything. It doesn’t matter whether the goal is to bring them closer to god, or to orgasm, the state must stand afar and not intervene. However, when the circumstances move from consent to coercion, then the state may, and should, step in to protect the individual from such abuse by anyone, especially the church. This is because any religious sect can and will, if allowed, exercise incredibly intense forms of control over the individual.
Rule number two: The state cannot use the nation’s tax dollars to support the endeavors of any religious sect. This act immediately violates rule number one, as the state cannot afford, unless it seeks to tax the nation into absolute poverty, to support the religious endeavors of every church and/or religious sect operating within the society over which it has governance. If the state uses the nation’s tax revenue to support the endeavors of the church, it will inevitably favor one sect over all others, and this favoritism will then, inevitably, lead to collusion between that particular religious sect and the state, which will then, inevitably foster animosity between religious sects, which will then, inevitably lead to people hating one another.
Financial support of the church through use of the nation’s tax revenue not only creates tacit, if not blatant support for that religious sect’s belief system, but it alters that sect’s dogma so that the church begins to support and validate the actions of the state as an extension of the will of god. Before too long, the nation will find itself saddled with a hybrid government that is no longer a secular republic free of religious interference, but one that is a partnership between the wealthiest secular interests in society, and a theocratic support system that subjugates the nation into obedience under a non-democratic state.
Unless you are completely unaware of twenty-first century American history, you know that this rule has already been violated by the United States government. When President George W. Bush announced that the United States government would support humanitarian endeavors of various Christian denominations through what were called “faith-based initiatives” with the tax dollars of the American nation, I was appalled. This was a clear violation of one of the most important foundational principles of modern republicanism; the separation of the church and the state.
Likewise, if you think that there is not clear competition between religious sects in any society, then you have not eyes to see, nor ears to hear. Each devotee represents an increase in the profitability of that sect. Any religion (what I have also referred to as sects) which has the financial backing of the state gains an immediate advantage in the acquisition of new devotees over other sects. This financial association gives them not only the freedom to spend their revenue on increasing the size of their congregations, but it also allows them to advertise their sect as preferred by the state, and tie their dogma to hollow, populist patriotism.
Financial support of the state for any religious sect, will invariably affect both the dogma of that religious sect, and the politics of the state so that they move ever closer to a single unit seeking control over the nation and the individual.
Rule number three: Secularism is an essential principle of modern republicanism because it protects both the church and the state from each other. I mentioned this earlier in this essay, but shall elaborate on it here.
Patriotism and faith are two elements of the life of any individual that should never be intertwined. When they are, the result is a state that will begin to claim that its rule is derived from the will of god, and a church that will give ecclesiastical support to the worst imperial tendencies of the state. When this happens, no republic can long survive.
Republics are always under pressure from non-democratic forces in this world. The secular forces of totalitarianism, and the totalitarian forces of religion are always attempting to undermine the rights of the nation and the individual, thereby subjugating both to their will. We must remember that in no religious sect’s vision of heaven is that place a democracy. In fact, heaven is the most totalitarian realm ever created in the human imagination. A god does not put its decisions before the committee.
Both the church and the state possess within themselves the worst drives of the human animal; the lust for power for its own sake, and this is true regardless of your personal opinion of either of these two institutions. Since I have placed that statement in this essay, I feel I must remind the reader that I am not speaking about the deep and sincere faith held by any individual, but the disingenuous propaganda of any institutional church that directs the course of that faith. When the subject is god, people are about faith, churches are about power.
Because of this, republics must be secular in nature. This doesn’t place the state in a position above the church, it places the state in a place completely separate from the church. It allows both the church and the state to conduct their business without interference or influence from the other. Secularism, as a foundational principle of republicanism, is not only supposed to prevent favoritism of the state for one religious sect over another, but it is also a mechanism designed to prevent the church from favoring one political party over another. Therefore, the state cannot offer financial support, nor even comment on the righteousness (or lack thereof) to any religious sect’s dogma for any reason. Likewise, no church has the right to speak in favor of any candidate for public office, or allow its facilities to be used for any political purpose, even if that link is somewhat tenuous.
********************
Each of us is aware that the principle of secularism, of a strict separation of the church and the state has been under attack in this country for at least a couple of generations, and even though it is the forces of the the political right and their “conservative christian” allies that have sought to erase this separation and thereby establish their “free market theocracy,” we are all responsible for allowing it to happen.
Every time a person speaks of the good of bringing god into the political life of this nation, and another person within earshot who understands the true nature of patriotism doesn’t immediately confront this person, the wall of separation between the church and the state is torn down just a little bit. When someone speaks of such things, it is the responsibility of each of us to remind them that their faith is their business, and since we all have the benefit of living in a secular republic, it has no place in the political life of this nation, or in the life of any other American.
Every time someone says that “we need to bring prayer back into the public schools,” a place where prayer has rightfully never been welcome, and another person doesn’t confront this assertion in the strongest possible terms, the wall is demolished a little more. Tell me that there is a Christian who calls for prayer in our public schools who would support a multi-day regimen of prayer in which Christian prayer is observed on one day, Muslim prayer is observed on another day, Buddhist prayer on yet another, and so on down the line, until all of the world’s religions are represented in this exercise. I tell you that if such a person exists they would be excommunicated from their church forthwith upon discovery of such a rational and blasphemous opinion.
I maintain an acceptance of the ancient dictum that money is the root of all evil; I accept that as truth. I also maintain, perhaps even more fervently, that religion is the root of all hatred. It is the father of all intolerance and the mother of all bigotry.
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. It is error alone that needs the support of the government. Truth can stand by itself.”
~ Thomas Jefferson
There may be no more important thread upon which our republic hangs than the complete and total separation of the church and the state. More importantly, there may be nothing more intensely tied to our daily freedoms, liberties, our constitutionally guaranteed rights, and the right to worship as we choose, free from unwanted interference than this separation. This is, of course, because both the church and the state have a propensity to overstep their boundaries in all matters of social control, and if we allow them the slightest collusion, the fate of this republic, and the principles of reasoned enlightenment upon which it was founded, may be doomed to an early grave.
© 2022 Christopher A. Hollrah