Alkahest my heroes have always died at the end

I’ve never understood why the separation of church and state is still debated in this country. I have an even harder time understanding why people would try to undermine the separation of church and state, but as this article in the New York Times shows, they do.

Keeping religion out of politics and politics out of religion has a long history in this country. Our first amendment has a clause which states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This clearly states that congress may not create a national religion. But, may congress write laws with respect to a religion? Can congress financially support or encourage a religion? Supporters of the separation of church and state say, “no,” while many religious advocates say “yes.”

The only way to really answer the question is to look at the debate surrounding the first amendment and its prohibition of laws repecting an establishment of religion. This clause in the first amendment was strongly supported by Thomas Jefferson, who considered it a flaw that the consititution did not include such a statement. He had strongly argued for such language in the constitution of Virginia (where it was adopted) and in the US consititution (where it was not initially). Inaddition to coining the phrase “a wall of separation between church and state,” his subsequent actions tell us that he was clearly against the support of religion by the government.

Jefferson, as president, refused to declare national days of prayer or thanksgiving regarding them as unconsititutional under the Bill of Rights. Moreover, he argued against the use of public funds to pay for divinity professors at state supported schools. He was strongly supportive of the right to the freedom of conscious and regarded monetary payments to one religion as a quasi-endorsement by the government which penalized other religions.

Beyond the founder’s intent, we can also look at the pragmatic benefits of keeping the church and the state apart. de Tocqueville wrote in Democracy in America that he was amazed by the religious vitality in the US – far greater than what he observed in Europe in the 19th century. In conversations with a number of religious leaders, de Tocqueville was repeatedly told that the success of religion in the US was due to the separation of religion and government.

In Europe, most countries had established, national religions. As governments rose and fell, the established religions would change. Churches began to equate the survival of the state with their own survival and participated in attrocities that were not in accordance with their goal of caring for men’s souls. This resulted in the people becoming disillusioned with religious leaders and then disillusioned with religion itself. Such disillusionment resulted in the largely secular Europe we have today.

In contrast, the US pursued a model of keeping religion out of politics. In fact, de Tocqueville points out that many of the original 13 states had consitutions which barred religious leaders from holding public office. Separating the rights of concious from the laws of man inspired the people to maintain faith in their religions allowing religion to thrive.

Finally, de Tocqueville cautioned that as governments became more stable, religious leaders would forget the benefits of maintaining a distance from political power and would seek to establish special privileges for their churches. The New York Times article linked above shows exactly that trend. Where are the limits if we have laws and regulations that govern enterprise, but have exemptions carved out for religions engaged in such enterprises? We have obviously established some limits – after all, churches have to pay social security taxes for their employees. But why is the line drawn there? Why should a church have more benefits under the law than any other non-profit?

Could I establish the “Church of Christ the Consumer?” We could declare Walmarts and Targets to be holy sites for our communion and thereby earn tax exempt status for these businesses. That sounds far fetched, but given the role of churches in creating day cares, and other businesses, it is not entirely implausible.

Update: turns out I was somewhat wrong.  Churches don’t pay social security taxes for pastors (not certain about other employees), they are considered self-employed and have to pay the full amount themselves.  However, as this article discusses, pastors may opt out of social security entirely.  The problem being that when they retire in poverty, someone has to provide a social safety net for them and their former churches often seem to decline.

One last point brought up in today’s NY Times article is that any legal exemption for a church or other religious organization requires that the state make a determination of what is a valid religion (see my question about the Church of Christ  the Consumer).  Making this determination is an establishment of religion by the very fact that it has to identify criteria for recognizing an organization as a religion.

Brad DeLong discussing why we like diversity and identitity notes that in addition to prefering to discuss diversity because it is easier than tackling the hard problem of a lack of equality in opportunity, we like identity and diversity because they are inherently a good thing:

Now normally–in my usual mind–I am an enthusiastic supporter of what I take to be Walter Benn Michaels’s central point: that we have collectively gotten ourselves off balance because we are responding to the fact that celebrating diversity is easy and doing something about upward mobility and the intergenerational reproduction of economic and social inequality is hard.

When I am in my usual mind I grumble that the $400,000 a year that we at Berkeley are about to start spending on an Associate Vice Chancellor for Diversity would be better spent hiring ten full-time outreach coordinators and on-campus tutors to make the idea of equality of opportunity less of a joke, and to make the population that does attend Berkeley a little bit more like the population that could benefit from attending Berkeley–if only things had broken right for them before they reached college age.

But I must be outside my usual mind. Because my reaction right now is that we love identity not just because we don’t like to think about economic and social class, but because loving identity is a genuinely good thing in a diverse world, especially for America and Americans if we are to become who we are.

I don’t necessarily disagree with that, but I think that it’s also important to note that we like diversity and identity because we’ve evolved as a tribal species. Before we developed civilization, we lived in family bands. We then developed from families to tribes to cities to states to nations. In a modern society, we have to work with people from a variety of nations, backgrounds, cultures, etc. However, not too deep down, just under the veneer of civilization, we are still very tribal. We still prefer to interact with people that are “like us.” I suspect that this is why we like to discuss identity and diversity.