Religion, Politics, and Separation of Church and State

In contemporary political debates, a phrase that frequently appears is the “separation of church and state.”  Most often, people appeal to this phrase in an attempt to argue against certain religiously-grounded beliefs from having an influence on government policy.  Since this has significant implications for some of the most important and controversial political issues of our day, it is important that we carefully examine exactly how “separation of church and state” should be defined.

Separation of Church and State

The phrase “separation of church and state” appears nowhere in the U.S. Constitution.  Rather, it first appears in an 1802 letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association, in response to a letter from them expressing the concerns about threats to their religious freedom in their state.  Jefferson writes, “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.”^[1]https://billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/primary-source-documents/danburybaptists/  

It is clear that Jefferson intends his phrase “wall of separation between Church & State” to be an explanation of what is entailed by the First Amendment’s prohibition of an established religion (a government-funded church) and its guarantee of religious freedom.  Jefferson defines the free exercise of religion as the government creating no restrictions on people’s opinions, faith, or worship, while still allowing the government to control people’s actions.  Since worship itself is an action, this distinction might seem problematic, but apparently what Jefferson means is a person should have a right to act in whatever manner his conscience and religious beliefs tell him unless these actions are “in opposition to his social duties”; in this case, it is legitimate for the government to interfere, since it is the government’s responsibility to maintain social order. (For example, a religious practice involving kidnapping people and using them as human sacrifices in worship would not be allowed, no matter how sincere the religious beliefs of those practicing it.) Thus, having a “wall of separation between Church & State” means that the government cannot have an established state church and that the government cannot impose particular religious beliefs, faith, or worship on its citizens.  

Politics and Religion

Many people, however, use the phrase “separation of church and state” in a quite different sense than what Thomas Jefferson intended.  For many people, “separation of church and state” is a principle to be used to delegitimize the influence of religious beliefs on the laws of the United States.  Since church and state are separate, they argue, religious beliefs must be confined to the private sphere, and the public and political sphere should be free of the influence of people’s religious beliefs.  This idea, which might more accurately be termed the “separation of religious beliefs and government,” is highly problematic.

First, there is a historical problem.  This is simply not how the separation of church and state has been understood and practiced throughout American history.  As Barack Obama pointed out, “Secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square.  Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, William Jennings Bryan, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King – indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history – were not only motivated by faith but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause.  So to say that men and women should not inject their “personal morality” into public policy debates is a practical absurdity.  Our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition.”^[2]“Call to Renewal Keynote Address,” June 28, 2006. http://obamaspeeches.com/081-Call-to-Renewal-Keynote-Address-Obama-Speech.htm.  

Secondly, there is a philosophical problem.  It is this: there is no self-evident moral truth, nor is there any coherent secular account of morality.  Any coherent account of morality must make reference to some kind of transcendent religious or metaphysical reality.  Now, as Obama points out, “law is by definition a codification of morality.”  Thus, it is actually logically impossible to separate out religious and metaphysical beliefs from the public and political sphere, since the morality enshrined in governmental laws must logically be grounded in some kind of religious or metaphysical belief.  Even if we prohibit religious believers from making explicit reference to their religious beliefs in the political sphere, it is in fact impossible to prevent their religious beliefs from determining their political actions, since their religious beliefs are what ground their moral, and thus political, beliefs.  It is better that people be explicit about how their religious beliefs influence their political beliefs and actions, rather than pretending that they are grounded in some kind of vague, neutral, self-evident morality, which does not actually exist.  

Politics and Religious Pluralism

But if we allow various religious beliefs, which a variety of conflicting conceptions of the common good, to influence government policy, what does this look like, and how does it work?  The answer is, it looks very complicated, and it works with great difficulty.   In a pluralistic, democratic society, working together for the common good in the public sphere requires that people of various beliefs and worldviews come together, say what they believe and why they believe it, and then engage in the hard work of finding where we have common ground, where we can compromise, and where we need to agree to disagree.  Since the question of when it is legitimate to be tolerant and compromise and when it is not is sometimes precisely the question about which there is the sharpest disagreement, this process can often be very messy.  Yet we cannot retreat from this task to some kind of neutral, secular moral and political theory, for none such exists.  

In the minds of many people, there is a neutral self-evident secular morality that provides a foundation for our public policy, and then there are personal religious beliefs which some people add onto this, which only apply to their personal or private lives.  It is really the opposite which is the case.  There are a variety of religious, metaphysical, and ideological beliefs, each of which provides a foundation for a particular morality.  What many people think of as a self-evident secular moral code in our society is in fact a byproduct of these particular moralities as they intersect and create a moral consensus in our society.  

All this means that the morality of our society, part of which is enshrined in our government’s laws, is a historically contingent compromise produced by the interaction of various competing belief systems and worldviews.  And this compromise is constantly being renegotiated as different belief systems become more or less widespread and influential.  The only boundaries there are for how this process affects the laws of the United States are those provided by the U.S. Constitution.^[3]Yet we must recognize that the Constitution itself is a historically contingent product of particular ideological beliefs that are by no means self-evident, and that even the Constitution can be … Continue reading  We cannot have an established state religion, nor can we impose particular religious beliefs, faiths, or manners of worship on others.  But we cannot avoid having religious beliefs affect government policies.  The government can and does impose religiously-grounded moral beliefs on its citizens.^[4]The distinction between religious beliefs and practices on the one hand and morality on the other is not without problems.  For example, neither Christians nor Muslims would agree that whether … Continue reading

Freedom of religion means the freedom to act on our religious beliefs in every sphere of our lives, including the political sphere, as long as we do not take away the freedoms and rights of others.  Navigating how to do this in a religiously pluralistic society requires much wisdom, understanding, and respect for others; these are virtues we must develop if we want our democracy to work well.