Church and State

[TNF]

Where do you stand on the overlap between religious institutions and the state? Should your country maintain (or enact, as may be the case) separation of church and state? If you live in a country with an established church, should it be disestablished? Or on the other hand, if you live in a country without one, should one be established? Should the state fund religious schools? Should religious schooling be banned? Be as broad or narrow as you want on this, I'm just throwing out suggestions here.

[DavidB.]

My views on these issues depend on the country. I will be discussing the situation in the Netherlands here, but that's no blueprint as to how things should be organized in other countries.

Historically, the separation between church and state has not been really strict in the Netherlands. Pillarization divided our society in four highly segregated pillars from the 1910s until, say, the early 1970s: the Catholics, the Protestants (divided in many subfactions), the Socialists and the Liberals (the most loosely organized group, mainly because this is basically the "NOTA/Others" category). In politics, christian democrats have been dominant, even though they always needed to cooperate either with liberals or with social democats. As a result of pillarization, many semi-public organizations still have a Christian character, even if only in name.

A landmark in Dutch political history was the so-called Pacification in 1917. Socialists and liberals wanted universal suffrage, whereas Catholics and Protestants wanted their schools to be financed publically. In 1917, the parties compromised: universal suffrage (for men) would be implemented and the equal financing of confessional and public schools was incorporated in the constitution. I am absolutely opposed to changing this. The current system works largely as a voucher system and I'm glad with the competition, allowing everyone to open schools they want and to send their children to the schools they think are appropriate.

However, I do side with seculars on a minor issue. In many places, shops cannot be open on Sundays. The issue has been decentralized, but there is still too much regulation, since Christian Democrats and the Socialist Party (for socialist reasons) are against shops opening on Sundays. I understand that shops in highly Christian bible-belt villages shouldn't be opening their doors, but I object to the idea the government forces my supermarket, situated in a non-Christian, minority-majority area in one of the big cities, to close its doors early on Sundays.

That being said, I mainly side with Christians and conservatives when it comes to church-and-state issues. Secular parties made a big deal about the ban on blasphemy, which has been repealed by the current government (which consists of two secular parties). While I agree such a law is wrong, the whole backlash against Christians and religious people in general was absolutely disproportional, since this law had been a dead letter for decades.

[dead0man]

I think people should be able to worship whatever spaghetti monster they want (as long as nobody is getting hurt that doesn't want to get hurt), and I think the state should leave them alone.  I prefer if the state doesn't have an "official" religion, but I don't care if your state does(and by "state" I mean nation state, not US state).  If you work for the state, you can't not do your duty because your church says you shouldn't.  On the other hand, if you, say, make wedding cakes, the state shouldn't be able to compel (FORCE) you to if you don't want to.  (unless you are the only business providing this service in a specific area, but if there are other places to make your cake, why don't you, I don't, GO THERE instead)  Having a cross on a monument (even if paid for with Federal, state, county or city dollars, even if it's on state owned land) doesn't mean the govt supports that religion.  I don't care about the ten commandments in public parks (though in court houses is probably a bit too far, but even then I don't really care), or the fact that "In God We Trust" is on our money.

I suspect most Americans fall somewhere fairly close to me on the subject too.

[bedstuy]

I think America basically gets it right.

There should be a separation of church and state, allowing minor symbolic things like "In God we Trust" and "God Bless America."  Those symbolic "10 Commandments" issues get waaaaay too much focus when they're literally just symbols.  I see that as a metaphorical God which is just a figure of speech almost.  I'm not offended by that sort of thing.

I am offended by people trying to make their religious beliefs into the law of the land.  What a religion says is totally irrelevant to what the law should be for everyone.  It should be taboo to say, "my religion says life begins at conception so that should be the law."  The same goes for gay marriage or any other issue.  Religion can inform your thinking, but you ultimately need a secular reason for any law.  Republicans seem to forget that and they want to impose their Christian Sharia law on atheist gays who couldn't care less about what their God says.

For religious schools, I'm fine with them existing.  But, they ought to meet basic minimum standards.  They ought to primarily focus on instruction about reading, writing, math and science (not religious science) and do it in English.  Sending a child to a school that only focuses on reading the Torah or the Koran is abusive and amounts to neglect.

[dead0man]

However, I do side with seculars on a minor issue. In many places, shops cannot be open on Sundays.

I don't approve of such laws, or banning the sale of anything for churchy reasons on certain days and times.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Obviously anti-blasphemy laws are horrible and runs in the complete opposite direction of what the West should be about.  If blasphemy makes certain people violent, maybe, you know arrest the violent people not the people non-violently expressing their opinions....crazy idea!  It doesn't matter how stupid, rude/dickish, racist or just wrong the non-violent opinions are.  Those dumb, bigoted assholes are still way better than the violent, no matter either parties motivations.

[dead0man]

What a religion says is totally irrelevant to what the law should be for everyone.  ....  Religion can inform your thinking, but you ultimately need a secular reason for any law.

Very much agree.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't care.  If parents want to start their kids off in adult life a little more ignorant than a public school grad, they should have that right.  Just makes it that much easier for the rest of us.  I understand the other side of that though, and would be willing to compromise a bit.  Banning private or religious schools would be very bad in my opinion, I would not compromise on that (even though I would never consider sending my own kids to one).

[DavidB.]

Oh, something I forgot. When we introduced gay marriage in 2001, of course we Dutch needed a moderate hero compromise for government officials not wanting to perform gay marriage, the so-called "refusing civil servants". Initially, the idea was to phase this out: while civil servants already serving before the implementation of gay marriage had a right to refuse performing gay marriages ("it's ok as long as the marriage can be performed in your municipality"), new civil servants wouldn't have this right. However, municipalities kept hiring new "refusing civil servants" and the coalition agreement of the CDA-Labour-ChristianUnion government in 2007 acknowledged a right for civil servants not to perform gay marriages because of conscience issues. This created an enormous backlash, resulting in several parliamentary motions against the "refusing civil servant" in the next parliament, which caused many municipalities to fire their "refusing civil servants". This government has agreed on "solving" the problem altogether: it is illegal for municipalities to hire new "refusing civil servants", and municipalities have the right to place existing "refusing civil servants" in another position. A few days before this became law, a Bible Belt municipality quickly hired three new "refusing civil servants".

On the one hand, I think secular parties have blown the issue out of proportion: this has truly been made a big deal while in reality it isn't: no one has ever been denied a marriage. On the other hand, I object very much to municipalities hiring new "refusing civil servants" after 2001. These people should have known that gay marriage is the law of the land and if you don't want to do your job, you shouldn't apply for it. I think "refusing civil servants" who held their position before 2001 should be able to keep their jobs (without getting a new job at another department), but "refusing civil servants" who were hired after 2001 are simply not properly doing their job and they should either get a job at another department or be fired.

[DavidB.]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Obviously anti-blasphemy laws are horrible and runs in the complete opposite direction of what the West should be about.  If blasphemy makes certain people violent, maybe, you know arrest the violent people not the people non-violently expressing their opinions....crazy idea!  It doesn't matter how stupid, rude/dickish, racist or just wrong the non-violent opinions are.  Those dumb, bigoted assholes are still way better than the violent, no matter either parties motivations.

I agree. But the point is that these laws had been dead letters for decades and decades. Already in 1966, it was clear that no one would face punishment for this anymore. Everyone can say blasphemous things these days and really no one cares, the Netherlands is one of the most secular societies in the world. So this has been made a big symbolical issue for seculars, as if they were hugely oppressed by Christians and conservatives, while in reality, this law caused exactly no harm for anybody. So while I agree with removing it, all the anti-religious sentiments that came up were uncalled for.

[Gass3268]

We generally do a good job in the United States on this issue, but we have to be ever vigilant as there will always be those who would love to force their beliefs down our throats. Totally against an established church and funding religious schools, but they have the right to exist (unlike homeschooling).

 

[DemPGH]

Complete and total separation of the two to include no religious exemptions for laws, no support of private or religious schools from the state, no endorsed state religion, no religious memorials or monuments on state property. I'm also very skeptical of "religious liberty" arguments, although I wouldn't blanket rule them out. One out of a hundred might be legit.

I'm okay with private schools and religious schools so long as they pass accreditation, and at some of them you can get a very good education, which is fine if you're willing to pay for it. Right now unaccredited religious schools can exist (and boy, are they nutty), but of course degrees from them aren't worth much. (Somewhat related, I'm deeply skeptical of charter schools and I think homeschooling should not be allowed).

My main concern in the USA is religion in the public sphere and the backdoor ways in which it is very strongly endorsed by governments, often local. That's what I think the main problem is.

[TDAS04]

We generally do a good job in the United States on this issue, but we have to be ever vigilant as there will always be those who would love to force their beliefs down our throats. Totally against an established church and funding religious schools, but they have the right to exist (unlike homeschooling).

I tend to agree with this.

[Antonio the Sixth]

That's one of the few areas where I think France really gets it right. There have been some excesses in recent times due to the rising tide of islamophobia, but it's easy for anyone to differentiate between genuine laïcité and the bigotry that disguises as it.

[Cassius]

That's one of the few areas where I think France really gets it right. There have been some excesses in recent times due to the rising tide of islamophobia, but it's easy for anyone to differentiate between genuine laïcité and the bigotry that disguises as it.

'Genuine laïcité' is, at heart, a purely anti-clerical ideology.

Anyway, you know, reunite the Anglican Church with Rome, impose Roman Catholicism as the official state religion, all that jazz.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Lol "Separation of Church and State".

[Antonio the Sixth]

That's one of the few areas where I think France really gets it right. There have been some excesses in recent times due to the rising tide of islamophobia, but it's easy for anyone to differentiate between genuine laïcité and the bigotry that disguises as it.

'Genuine laïcité' is, at heart, a purely anti-clerical ideology.

Not really, but even then I wouldn't have much of a problem with that. The clergy must know its place.

[All Along The Watchtower]

I basically support the way America does things (Protestant, American, etc.)

[PJ]

Obviously in support of the idea of religious freedom, and I'm opposed to everything mentioned in the OP. Established churches bear far too much influence and ought to be disestablished where they exist. I don't like private schooling in general for a variety of reasons, but I'm strongly opposed to religious schooling of minors either in the public or private sphere, which essentially amounts to indoctrination of children in that it denies them the right to decide their religious beliefs for themselves.

However, I don't interpret religious freedom to encompass the liberty to deny service to customers or deny a job to employees; the right to be free from discrimination supersedes this.

Additionally, there are several issues with church and state, such as Under God in the Pledge of Allegiance, public display of the 10 commandments, etc., that I guess I would be opposed to in theory, but it's generally a waste of time to focus on them, simply because it doesn't accomplish much and is so insignificant in the grand scheme of things. I also oppose taxing churches on the basis that non-profits should generally remain tax-exempt.

[DavidB.]

Not sure how it is in America, but being against religious schools is a pretty radical point of view in the Netherlands and according to me. The basic freedom to raise your children with your religion is not something that should be infringed.

[PJ]

Not sure how it is in America, but being against religious schools is a pretty radical point of view in the Netherlands and according to me. The basic freedom to raise your children with your religion is not something that should be infringed.

Yeah, neither party supports this in the US, unfortunately.

[Torie]

Basically, I favor the SCOTUS approach. The state should not finance religion (although it does deem them for taxation purposes as the same as charities, which is a debatable matter, and perhaps in a a more perfect world would not obtain, but we don't live in a perfect world), not be hostile to it, not favor one religion over another, or religion over secularism, or secularism over religion, but allowing students to go to religious schools with vouchers, where it is the parents that are making the decision as to how to cash the voucher rather than the state, is just fine, and making reasonable but not excessive accommodations for expressions of religious conscience. Everything is a balancing test.

I don't like the term separation of church and state. Religion and public policy are inextricably intertwined. Values come to a substantial extent from leaps of faith, be it religious and secular (secular one's being a priori assumptions). Better is the way SCOTUS puts it, which is that the state should be neutral towards religion, or lack of religion, but not disengaged from it.

[The Last Northerner]

Somewhere between French/Turkish Secularism and (former) Eastern Bloc Atheism.

No public presence of religion
No public observation of religious holidays
No funding for religious organizations (outside really old historical buildings maybe)
Removal for religious symbols/mention of god from all flags, currency, public buildings, etc.
No religious garbs on government property
None of that 'deny you services because of my religion' crap
No public school-led prayer or any of those silly things.

Many of these are token issues in the grand scheme of things but the idea is that religious extremist get their way too often.

[DC Al Fine]

I'm skeptical of the term when it's presented in debate, largely for the reasons Torie outlined.  Religion and public policy intertwined, so "separation of church and state" tends to devolve into promoting western secularism above other views, even if its original proponents are neutral and arguing in good faith.

In terms of actual policy:

1) The state should provide vouchers which can be used for public, religious or secular private schools. Perhaps these could be adjusted for household income.

2) Churches should remain tax exempt like other non-profits, although I'd welcome audits of for-profit schills like Osteen and Meyer. On the property tax issue, municipalities should finance through better taxes anyway, like VAT or income taxes.

3) I don't really care about symbolic issues like school prayer, ten commandments in courthouses etc, but I side with the secularists 90% of the time.

4) On religious liberty issues. There should be strong protections for people's jobs on both sides. Business owners should be able to render services to whom they please, although there should be leeway depending on the situation. I have more sympathy for a photographer in a large city, than the only grocer in a small town.

[TNF]

I believe that the state¹ should seek to destroy religion, which puts me at odds with probably everyone else in this thread. Religious ideology is simply too dangerous to allow to be left alone, even in a socialist context, as the Polish case (where the faux union Solidarnosc was little more than a front for the Catholic church and American imperialists) pretty well illustrates. To that end, I am definitively in favor of state atheism and the suppression of religious belief insofar as is possible.

It goes without saying that I am opposed to any and all state subsidy for any religious organization, for any purpose. I am in favor of the expropriation of all property owned by religious groups, prohibiting religious schooling, and prohibiting public worship services entirely. I have no issue with private religious ceremonies or services, but I am against public religious meetings and support a ban on proselytizing. Priests, rabbis, imams, and members of religious orders (which should themselves be prohibited) should be denied the right to vote or hold political office and one should have to be an atheist to hold public office, period.

Religious belief should be openly ridiculed in schools, state organs, and should be challenged by state-funded journals and organizations. In doing so, however, the state should recognize that the underpinnings of religious belief have a materialist underpinning and every effort should be made to raise the overall productivity of labor and expand social welfare provision and science education, so as to dispel the root causes of religious belief.

The general idea should be to freeze religious belief where it is at present and constrict its possible growth by a direct ideological offensive against it and making every effort at the socialist development of the economy, which would do in what remains.



¹Implied here as a theoretical workers' state, i.e. the only kind of state that I would support any of the above measures being taken under. Within the confines of bourgeois democracy, I believe that the utmost separation of church and state and total non-interference in religious matters is the best policy, because allowing the bourgeois state to get involved usually means that certain segments of the population (i.e. members of minority faiths) get the short end of the stick and end up being stigmatized/discriminated against/become an 'other' in society that ultimately divides the workers' movement and undermines solidarity.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I have a feeling of sentimentality towards dear old CofE, but its continued existence as an established church (not to mention the Lords Spiritual seats in the Lords they occupy) is fairly anachronistic in a pluralistic society. Although I don't care about symbolic crap like prayers in council meetings (the Secular Society really needs to find a better thing to do with their time) and statues of the Ten Commandments, I draw the line at religious instruction, public funding of religious schools etc. if I'm honest, I find it a little creepy to see really religious kids.

anyway here's something really gross: I met an Anglican libertarian who wanted to "privatise" (disestablish) the Church so it could "compete in the free market" rather than "stay in the public monopoly". Yuck, yuck, yuck. I'm not religious at all, but even I consider that sort of gross language borderline blasphemous.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

the state should recognize that the underpinnings of religious belief have a materialist underpinning

The apostles held all property in common, and God smote a couple who wanted to keep some for their own.