The idea of separation between church and state has always been a major issue in politics. Wikipedia: “According to recent surveys, 83 percent of Americans claim to belong to a religious denomination, 40 percent claim to attend services nearly every week or more, and 58 percent claim to pray at least weekly. A majority of Americans report that religion plays a "very important" role in their lives...” What does that mean for the separation between church and state? The staunch opposition to abortion has in the past been substantiated by the notion that life begins at conception. But the question is: from where is that viewpoint being derived – from religion or from reason? And can the two be reconciled in the political arena?
The first defense of having religion in politics is this: Religion, as a belief system, is no different from any other belief system. Not many would argue a separation between Church and State when it comes to someone whose policies is formed around, let’s say, Aristotle. Whether it is someone’s classification as being Aristotelian, Atheist, or Protestant, there is no difference. Just because some belief system is qualified as religious, it should not prohibit the particular religion from being expressed in politics. Ah, but this line of argument does not hold water for one important reason; religion in most cases includes some sort of authoritative figure. It is this which separates a set of beliefs from religion. I will come back to this idea of an authoritative figure later in the post.
The role of separation of church and state really only comes into effect regarding moral and ethical dilemmas, like the aforementioned question of abortion. But I think if we take a step back, we will realize that we don’t strictly derive our morals from religion. When it comes down to it, we play the part in imposing our interpretations on the Bible, Qur’an, etc. All people must interpret the text in some way, even the Sadducees who famously took the Bible literally, still have to interpret, for example “an eye for an eye”. What does that mean? Does it mean takes someone’s eye out who took out yours? Let’s say if you just injured the eye? Let’s say?...Translation by its very nature involves some sort of interpretation. Interpretation of what the text is trying to say is necessary. The question: “What is the text trying to tell us?” is in its nature a question of interpretation.
There is no religion without interpretation.
So if it is really our interpretation that counts, where are these moral and ethical answers to questions on topics like abortion/stem cell research derived? They can be derived from three things.
First, certain evolutionary biologists might argue that morality comes from a certain innate feeling built into human DNA (that gut reaction human beings have to cold-blooded murder) - why? In order that society can survive, natural selection would favor the genes of a race in which order can be maintained. An instinctive sense of what is right would most definitely help humans (or their precursors) evolve. It can also come into play when analyzing religious texts. For example, if we were to look at the story in Exodus, when Moses kills the Egyptian hitting the Israelite, one might ask: was that the right course of action? Our innate sense of right and wrong can come into play when answering this question.
The second thing is the socio-political environment in which one finds oneself. An example to this would be the question of polygamy. It is a question whose answer is largely derived from the environment in which one finds oneself. It is up to the individual to interpret the religious text in his/her sense of morality. A part of one’s sense of right and wrong is derived from society. And as a side note, this has proved to be convenient throughout history. Religion provides a justification for the moral values one already possesses. It reinforces the values and in certain circles can keep order. One can admonish the rebels in society by pointing to the text, thereby keeping status quo (whether for good or for bad).
The first two ways to derive morality from religious texts (evolution, society) does not actually involve the particular text, it is merely a reflection of the person and society; does that remove the authoritative element of religious texts? It depends. This brings me to the third place morality can be derived – tradition and its system of interpretation. If you hold by a tradition of interpretation, then there are three ways morals are derived, not just the former two ways. And being that nothing in life is black and white, but a spectrum, many people fall somewhere in between.
The Old Testament, for example, represented a revolutionary break from the past system of morality. The treatment called for slaves was very humane. This system of interpretation is what is passed down via tradition. Without this orthodox approach to religion, we are left to the first two ideas of where morality comes from, and consequently, with only two ways to interpret the religious texts. Whether orthodoxy or the more liberal sects of religion is better, is a question whose answer would fill up bookshelves. But just one point – a major factor that causes the condemnation of ultra-orthodox factions is their lack of acceptance of the social and political climate in which they live. They maintain just one side of the interpretive coin (that being tradition) and as a consequence live in a bubble. This is a shame. (Though the one good thing is that ensure that this one particular side of the coin never gets lost.)
So just to reiterate a really important point – there are three parts to interpretation of religious texts from which morality can derived. The first involves evolutionary biology, the second involves society, and the third involves traditions passed down, which at times can maintain a sense of objectivity. There is a saying among certain Orthodox teachers of the Bible: “The Bible was spoken in the language of man” – calling for the necessity of all three ways to interpret the Bible. Others disagree and maintain that the first two are only necessary. Again, that particular discussion for another time.
What I am getting at is that it is more important who is interpreting the text than what is being interpreted. Many point to the Qur’an as the source of Islamic Fundamentalism. I think history has clearly shown that it has not always been that way and there are plenty of modern day Islamic worshipers who are opposed to fundamentalism. A little though experiment – have Protestants and fundamentalist Muslims switch religious texts for a while. The Protestants will simply reinterpret the Qur’an to make it fit their normal lifestyle and the Fundamentalist Muslims will take the Bible and justify Jihad anyhow.
Many religions have their sour moment in history. The Spanish Inquisition is not one of the kindest moments of Christian history, and not many would say that the sentiment felt by Christians in the 15th Century is felt today. It is not the Bible that has changed in the last 500+ years, but society. Society has evolved, and so has the interpretation of the text. Also, the fact that not every Church-going Catholic will agree on a set of ethics means that it is not the text that is informing the decision, but the interpretation.
So, if one’s morality is chiefly a reflection of oneself, one’s society, and one’s tradition, when does separation between church and state actually come to play? Tradition is not a factor regarding church and state, because when one includes tradition, it must necessarily include the other two ways of interpreting (or one ends up living in a bubble) – therefore, in totality, it maintains its individualistic interpretive quality due to its symbiotic relation with the other two modes of interpreting.
The answer lies in diction. It is separation between church and state, not ‘Bible’. What we want is not a separation between Bible/religious text and state (for that is fine, as it is simply a person’s relative interpretation), but between the religious institution and the state. The religious authorities and institutions are the ones who we need to have separated from politics. When America elects someone, they aren’t electing that person’s Pope/Rabbi/Caliph/etc.
In a historical context, this makes perfect sense. America’s founders were (by and large) religious men. “In God we trust”, “One nation under God:”…but despite this we have a separation of Church and state (though to be fair, they might not have anticipated the growth of Atheism). A Judeo-Christian Law system is fine, as long as it is not the religious authorities who are interpreting it. It is fine if the religious values are the reflection of the individual, but once one takes the position of an authority and brings that into the state, then problems arise. For then the Pope/Rabbi/Caliph is running the state, and not the elected representative. What would become of an American system of democracy if an elected president then turned to a religious authority for his/her interpretation? The state is on the road to a theocracy (and possibly like Hayek’s book title, Road to Serfdom). Look at Iran. Case and point.
Since our interpretive quality to the text is inevitable, separation between bible and state is fine. In fact, the major difference in the values derived from the Qur’an, Bible, and other religious texts is by those who interpret it. The fact that there are still many Muslims who live in modern society proves that it is not the text/religion, but the fundamentalist people that are waging war. For the fundamentalists, the religion acts as a justification for their hatred towards the west. Any other text could have been used.
Religion can be a great thing, it can be used for good, but it can be used for evil. It is up to our generation to make the best out of it in the political arena and in all aspects of life.
