The Separation of Church and State

With religion on the rise in America, maintaining the separation of church and state is now a pressing issue. This talk begins with an examination of the current views for and against the idea of separating religion from government. Onkar Ghate argues that both sides of the contemporary debate are mistaken and explains why today even most well-meaning Americans are unable to mount a tenable defense of the principle. To understand the nature and meaning of the principle, Ghate explores some of the history behind it, focusing on John Locke's crucial contributions. He completes the lecture by sketching a full philosophical argument for the separation of church and state.

This talk was recorded at the 2009 Objectivist Summer Conference in Boston, MA.

SUBSCRIBE TO NEW IDEAL, ARI'S ONLINE PUBLICATION

SUBSCRIBE TO ARI’S YOUTUBE CHANNEL

SUPPORT THE AYN RAND INSTITUTE WITH A DONATION

EXPLORE ARI

FOLLOW ARI ON TWITTER

LIKE ARI ON FACEBOOK

[michaz.]

---- THE FIVE QUESTIONS ----
by Larken Rose
1) Is there any means by which any number of individuals can delegate to someone else the moral right to do something which none of the individuals have the moral right to do themselves?
2) Do those who wield political power (presidents, legislators, etc.) have the moral right to do things which other people do not have the moral right to do? If so, from whom and how did they acquire such a right?
3) Is there any process (e.g., constitutions, elections, legislation) by which human beings can transform an immoral act into a moral act (without changing the act itself)?
4) When law-makers and law-enforcers use coercion and force in the name of law and government, do they bear the same responsibility for their actions that anyone else would who did the same thing on his own?
5) When there is a conflict between an individual's own moral conscience, and the commands of a political authority, is the individual morally obligated to do what he personally views as wrong in order to "obey the law"?

[SpacePatrollerLaser]

Over the past 30 years I have noticed a nasty and dangerous trend in the abortion debate. When the so-called "Pro-life"er asks the "Pro-Choice"er "don't you think that the [embryo, fetus] is a living human being". the latter responds with this or something like it "I don't want to get involved in philosophy". Given that those are the two poles in which the discussion is cast. I think we would have to support the "Pro Life" side, until we could become a major, or even significant, player in that debate, The "Pro-Choice" position is worse since it specifically rejects philosophy per se, which puts the "Pro-Life"ers closer to us than their opposition. This represents a retreat from the line of argument that won Roe v Wade in '73. Granted this was settled back than and should not keep coning up but still, it would be an easy win for the "Pro-Choice" side if they would defend the position. They are forfeiting the argument

[frederickfarias]

The government of the state to tolerate all religious views, instead of a separation is in example similar to Indonesia's plurality. Which enables the government to still support the most popular religion. So there is not freedom from religion.

[Grumpyfrump]

No theocracy around here. Objective leadership alone.

[SpacePatrollerLaser]

There is something I hear that is not exactly true. Faith (in the religious sense) is blind acceptance of the unproven, or the like. I am speaking hear of the trained clergyman here, not of the Hicksville Baptist Church in Boonies county

By the 15the century two things were accepted as proved by Reason. 1. The existence of God: From Aquinas "it is better that a man not believe in God at all than to believe on Faith". This led, ultimately to Rationalism and Solipsism because you are trying to generate a fact by way of Reason. Now, it provided an "answer" to questions of science the workings of which nobody had a clue so it "sorta" worked. 2 The goodness of God. Again both of these were accepted as proved by Reason. here is where "faith" came in. Remember this was in a time before we had a tiny fraction of a percent of the knowledge that we have now and a thing, to get any worthwhile evaluation of it, must be interpreted in its time or you commit what David Brudnoy calls the "presentist fallacy". This was at a time when one person could learn all that was considered knowledge. The philosophers had some idea, no doubt based in mathematics of finite vs infinite. So, having proved the existence of God by Reason and since this God acted as the repository of all physical laws (this is 1440) God had to be infinite. Since Man does not know everything, the mind of manis "finite" and therefore unable to grasp that which is infinite. Now since the goodness of God had been proved a priori, then the faith that was required to move forward was justified, as reasonable. As you see, it is semi-rational rather than totally irrational and it was the best they had to work with.

Beyond that, the Church, by providing local places to meet was the social and media center. How many times have I said that we Objectivists need to organize from the local to the national/global; and I don't mean just "study groups". I mean the full panoply of human socializing

Now, here is a quiestion. Would it be proper for the State to forbid childhood indoctrination into ANY philosophical system. I posit for discussion this. Not now, but at some time in the next 100 years since it requires a child to give adherence to things he not only does not understand, but hasn't, by nature as a child, the wherewithal to process, nor the experience to understand, until at least 14 years of age and all you do is damage. From the Christian perspective it deprives the young adult of the "New birth" that is apparently how the completion of the adult brain is experienced. How many of you, when you adopted Objectivism felt like a "new person"? I can remember the year and month; mid October 1968

[jamesbuchanan]

I came to a slightly different concept of the "socas" (separation of church and state) by studying law. The socas is a separation of powers, which permits checks and balances on each. The civil authority is separated from the moral authority.

This plays out in law and courts in a very simple way. The state may make an act illegal, but has no moral authority to make any act guilty. The church can declare any act to be guilty, but has no civil authority to make any act illegal. In theory, both church and state must agree in order that any man be punished.

This dynamic was developed over centuries of battles between church and state for supremacy. Prior to the disintegration of the Roman Empire, civil and moral authority resided in one body; religion and the state were one. The middle ages were a time when the Roman Catholic Church tried to revive the Empire under the church, and local civil authorities pushed back in order to maintain their independence from papal authority.