October 11, 2008

An Argument for Separation of Church and State

The word war is a single syllable which produces an emotional result. Even to pronounce this word is to imitate an animalistic growl. War does not flow from the lips as much as it betrays intent with an underlying, sonic impression. War has been waged for many reasons: capital, power, honor, to name a few. There can be no argument, however, that the more common purpose of war throughout history has been to expand religious influence, although history is certainly not the only test. Modern man, like his ancestors, is guilty of killing in the name of God. To be objective regarding a question of an individual’s faith, or lack thereof, can be difficult, even for the most pious and devout. Understandably, someone would defend their beliefs, but some people could be controlled by others with the manipulation of the beliefs and emotions of the faithful. Some would use it to their purposes and ambitions. This latter concept leads us to form a state system free from tyranny, and repression of religious expression, as well as imposed morality by powerful religious institutions. The separation of church and state is necessary because faith is absolute, religion is a personal relationship of choice and perspective that should remain free from state influence and justice has need for the logical objectivity of ethical accord, not the unpredictable emotional subjectivism that sometimes accompanies religious morality.

“The LORD is a man of war, the LORD is His name” (Exodus 15:3).

I believe you can have both reason and faith, but only through the process of finding your beliefs. Your subjective reasoning leads you to your faith. Ayn Rand’s philosophy of objectivism describes independence as a primary orientation to reality, not to other men. She goes on to mention that the ability to profit from the thinking of others is what makes progress possible, not the imitation of someone else’s ideas, because the latter would be parasitic. The moral choice is to learn and think (Peikoff 251). Some people believe that as long as you accept your religious leaders’ explanation of your faith, you no longer require study. Within religious thinking there is a need for an individual to understand what God means to them. This is a process, beginning with a choice, to obey or not (Bowers). Study is necessary to realize the purpose and nature of God as understood by those who have experienced it, so a person can accept that choice in an educated, reasonable manner.

Many people, though, are arbitrary in how they find God. They blindly accept the word of their preacher, minister, rabbi, etc., thinking that they have no need to seek on their own; after all, others have the answers. This is not the true nature of worship. Worship, as defined by Webster’s college dictionary, is: “reverent honor and homage paid to God or a sacred personage or to any object regarded as sacred,” but this doesn’t purvey the nature of worship conceptually. Worship, to one who is religious, is the expression of faith. Faith in God is subjective because it is a choice. Acquiescence to someone else’s faith is not worship; it is social posturing or avoidance of the work and study required to truly understand the nature of God. Faith is the process of one person thinking and acting and feeling, and possibly accepting being found by something which seems to transcend them.

“The term ‘independent thought’ is a redundancy. Either a man is struggling to identify facts, to integrate, to understand – this is at once a state of thought and of independence. Or, he accepts the conclusions of other men without regard to facts, logic nor understanding. This is a state of dependence and of nonthought [sic].” (Peikoff 255)

Once you have decided to obey your faith you have made a choice. An action which contradicts this faith would be hypocritical. Faith must be absolute. Faith requires no evidence, only acceptance. For that reason, it cannot be a basis for making decisions regarding the choices of others. Faith can lead one. That one may lead others, but only by example and necessity.

Religion is individual. Hermann Hess describes this individuality well: “And where was Atman [God] to be found, where did He dwell, where did His eternal heart beat, if not within the Self, in the innermost, in the eternal which each person carried with him?” (6). Through religion a person may develop their principles. These principles are based in their understanding of the religion they’ve chosen, their awareness, and their experiences. They must codify their percepts into concepts. This should be an active process; all experiences should be considered in this manner, consciously. Those who understand religion must recognize the inherent principles and direct the process, or allow it to direct them, qualify this way of thinking, or accept its influence into consciousness rather than shallowly perusing the face-value and ignoring the responsibility of cognition. Unfortunately, there are many people who wish to be a part of the social strata of a religion, or a particular church, without the active nature of seeking. Accepting another individual’s god is a redundant act psychologically, because finding God could be compared to the definition of heresy. God, for one who is obedient, speaks directly to the one seeking, and, because of the way a person may internally conceptualize and experience a higher power, cannot be the same for two people, individuals being of unique perspective. If you believe that humans are atypical, one may never agree with another completely about what a god or gods mean to them, or even have the ability to explain that experience.

Others wish to use religion to reduce others to a slavery of purpose. Those individuals may be active in their recognition of religious ideas, but choose to ignore the true purpose and, instead, adjust the meaning to suit their ambitions. Freidrich Engels described one such situation, the result of the great Peasant’s War of 1525: “The Lutheran reformation produced a new creed indeed, a religion adapted to absolute monarchy. No sooner were the peasants of northeast Germany converted to Lutheranism than they were free men reduced to serfs” (55). Politically, ambition to ‘control’ (as opposed to ‘assist’) is not a democratic idea; authoritarianism is always the choice of one, in the end.

The principles of one’s choice evolve, outwardly, into expressed morality. Because it is based on principle, morality is subjective and, therefore, emotional in nature. Human nature could certainly be described as unpredictable, an animalistic symptom of emotion. Sometimes morality can be a weapon, wielded by an authority figure (i.e., religious and political leaders) to control the actions, and even the religious beliefs, of others. The faithful, then, are forced to replace their perspective of God with the authority’s perspective of God. Who may define morality for all?

Ethics, on the other hand, are a school of logical accord. Ethics can be agreed upon by many. In fact, Wikipedia defines it as:

“...a major branch of philosophy, encompassing right conduct and good life. It is significantly broader than the common conception of analyzing right and wrong. A central aspect of ethics is "the good life", the life worth living or life that is simply satisfying, which is held by many philosophers to be more important than moral conduct.”

I would add that ethics are necessary as a mutually agreeable mediation. Ethics make use of the fundamental nature of social humanity. Morality should relate directly to an individual’s life. Ethics should, in my opinion, relate to what those choices and relationships mean to others. The philosophy of ethics is based on the objective nature of human reality and, therefore, becomes a logical source for a fair judicial system.

Self-preservation is inherent to all living things. Survival is the basest instinct. To act for oneself is certainly human as well, we are not always so different from beings that crawl, slither, swim, or walk on all fours. We people would try to ignore our animalistic tendencies sometimes. Instinct is the cogs and gears that drive our subconscious, push on our intent like the hands of a clock. Our intent is the representation of our time spent on earth. And without the oil that is our Will-to-live (Schopenhauer 240) or Will to Power (Nietzsche 21) we would seize. We would end our forward momentum, dying like a shark that refuses to swim.

Justice is bigger than oneself. Justice is righteous and necessary. There is a natural, instinctive sense of social justice that exists beyond the written law of any society. It is an inherent social instinct which could be an example of the evolution of cognition, of even divine intervention. There is evidence of an awareness of justice in children before they are able to communicate verbally; children understand reward and punishment, for example. Children recognize justice before they question the existence of God.

Some Historical Background

The system of justice in the United States began with the adoption of British law. British law evolved from Germanic law of Kindred, which was retributive. Kindred law was oral for centuries but eventually became written “dooms”. This is the first written law of what is now Great Britain. Originally, man’s dependence on land was so fundamental that kindred law took priority. Classes of men were established, and their worth took the form of “wergelds.” Property and ownership did not exist, rather possession was the defining characteristic of the law, and a person’s oath gave the church sanction over the law. Charters became the written proof of ownership, and the concern of the courts was the state of mind of the individuals involved. Eventually, lordship overtook the kindred when the Code of Ethelred the Redeless was enacted from 979 to 1008 to suppress the lawlessness of the north. Using 12 thegns to rule over the decisions it was the precursor to the modern jury.

The conquest of the Normans in 1066 would see massive changes in the law of England. Here it developed into Anglo-Norman feudalism, and law was written in the Domesday Book and Northhamptonshire Geld Roll from 1072 to 1078, as well as the Charters and Writs in the time of Henry I and Stephan. Eventually the Pipe Roll would be our best historical example of the law in that period. Norman lords combined the English and Norman laws to best benefit them, the laws interpreted in their favor until the popularity of Roman Canonical court, appealing to papal court, would lead to the Charter of Liberties voluntarily signed by Henry I in 1100. The Charter explained the legal power of the King, and may be the document which inspired the Magna Carta of 1215. The Magna Carta was a contract forced upon King John of England (the first of its kind) to proclaim rights, respect legal procedures, introduce habeas corpus, and to make John accept that his will was bound by law. From this document came constitutional law and influence for common law (wikipedia). The “divinely ordained” kings were now limited in their powers within the law of the people (Lyon 85 - 641/2).

The phrase quod omnes tangit ab omnibus approbetur (“that which concerns all should be approved by all”) appearing in the writs of summons for the Model Parliament of 1295 is of a timeless nature (Lyon 85 - 641/2). It is the most basic concept used to form the British parliament, and could apply equally to the vision of the revolutionary colonials of the United States of America five hundred years later. It describes a fundamental principle for a government of the people. It is ethical in nature.

Justice is defined in Merriam-Webster online as:

“1 a: the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments b: judge c: the administration of law ; especially : the establishment or determination of rights according to the rules of law or equity 2 a: the quality of being just, impartial, or fair b (1): the principle or ideal of just dealing or right action (2): conformity to this principle or ideal : righteousness c: the quality of conforming to law 3: conformity to truth, fact, or reason : correctness”

Who is righteous? Who would decide your faith? Would you accept the faith of another in the face of threat? If it meant your life to refuse? If it meant the life of someone you cared about? This is what legislated religion could mean. It has happened throughout history. This is not justice; it was what the founders of the United States constitution feared. What we need to realize is the protection the separation of church and state provides for religious institutions, as well as non-religious individuals. This separation provides protection from persecution of an individual’s faith. Religion is separate from faith, in that religion can govern; it is a system of order (Bowers), but it cannot change what is in the hearts and minds of men, if they are not inspired. I am referring to the choice of one person. To be with God or not is a sentient act. It is a choice of faith.

Politicians still use religion as a method of garnering votes. Sarah Palin, the republican vice presidential candidate in the last election, mentioned her religious views in every public appearance. It seemed as if she wanted to draw attention away from her minimal political experience and wave a moral flag of distraction. I consider it in horribly bad taste to constantly refer to your religious beliefs when running for a position in government. The writers of the American Constitution were religious men who felt the need to protect religious practices from the state church of England, but their references to their religious ideals were statements of their character, not an insult to the people they would represent. Modern politicians pretend to understand the interests of social cliques from which they are quite far removed. Would they insult the very document they would be elected to protect? We have the freedom of speech in this country by the very same amendment that protects us from religion in government, but to refer to a previous point: leadership comes from living example. A leader is a role model who can draw on past experience and relate it to present situations, with the oral capacity to present their ideas in a cogent manner. Why would you need to work so hard to convince the public that you are moral, unless there is some question of your morality? Perhaps you need to convince the populace that there is a problem with the morality of the nation, but history is the evidence of a moral life lived. There is a reason the president only serves four years in office before another election is held: it is to learn from what the Magna Carta taught us about limiting the power of our leaders – power can corrupt the wills of men. Where, then, would be the nation’s values? The morality of the nation is not the concern of the President; upholding the values of the nation’s constitution is their concern. If the constitution were truly retained of original purpose, the nation’s values would follow. The national morality is only an example of the constitutional system, or the convoluted failure of trying to amend this important document to protect the powerful and trample the poor. Give the people a reason to be inspired by this country, not a reason to fear and resent the power monopoly.

Kings and nobility asserted divine ordination to apply inherited titles. If kings were truly divinely ordained, why were there so many of them? How could there have been war if they were all chosen by God? How could they have been overthrown? A monarchy is an attempt to have absolute power over the people, and they need justification. John Locke, creator of the political philosophy of Natural Law, claimed (in response to Sir Robert Filmer),

“I think he is the first Politician, who, pretending to settle Government upon its true Basis, and to establish the Thrones of lawful Princes, ever told the World, That he was properly a King, whose Manner of Government was by Supreme Power, by what Means soever he obtained it; which in plain English is to say, that Regal and Supreme Power is properly and truly his, who can by any Means seize upon it; and if this be, to be properly a King, I wonder how he came to think of, or where he will find, an Usurper.” (66)

It is apparent to modern society that kings used the idea of divine ordination to control their subjects, and yet we ignore the religious language of our current political candidates, who would even go so far as to refer to an Alaskan oil pipeline as “God’s Will” (Youtube). How have things changed? Now we have a plethora of knowledge readily available to us; yet, we choose to remain ignorant of the past.

There is no basis for religion in government because there is no quantifiable, evidentiary method for proving one religious faith viable over another. Faith requires no evidence; therefore it could be used by anyone who was willful enough to adjust it to their purposes. There have been many cults that twisted the minds of individuals to suit their goals. The events in Waco Texas in the early 1990s are one example (Associated Press). We must keep religion out of government so we may have the freedom to choose the faith by which to live, rather than choosing one to stay alive. We must understand the important issues faced by our nations and shun political candidates who would use religious treatises to influence us, rather than adhering to the issues of national and international policies. Improving economic policy, improving social relationships, creating an environment suitable to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, these should be our candidate’s concerns. A statement of your religious beliefs is responsible. Relating every political issue to your particular religion is irresponsible, because faith is not based on evidence. Elect individuals who care for the interest of the people, an individual who may inspire.

“But if it is a ruler who builds his power upon the people, and if he knows how to command and if he is courageous, doest not despair in difficult times, and maintains the morale of his people by his spiritedness and the measures that he takes, he will never find himself let down by them, and he will realize he had laid sound foundations for his power.” (Machiavelli, 36-37).

To disrespect the constitution of a nation by ignoring the visionary devotion its founders died to protect is not patriotic. To ask a nation to change its constitution to suit your individual values or morals is not patriotic. To do this as a citizen is, in fact, traitorous. To do this as the majority of the population is revolution. A question of modern laws has valid basis, if those laws contradict the original idea. The constitution is the fundamentally ideal representation of a free nation. If you are patriotic that means you agree with what the constitution represents. A law made to contradict this document is a freedom lost. To allow, or intend, these things to occur is not a quality of leadership; it is a quality of ownership.

Faith, like art, is inspired. Faith, like art, is subject to interpretation. We should be curious as to the motivations of the interpreters. Faith, like religion, is a question of “right” action. Ethics, on the other hand, are a question of necessity. When faith is described as necessary, we might examine the interpreters; but religious faith, like absolute authority, would tell us that the questions are unnecessary. There is no evidence required for theistic faith, so many would blindly accept those who lead with religion. Would we have no answers? There are too many faiths to consider. Doubting our leaders is patriotic. Dissent is also our right under the constitution, therefore, a specific religious faith may not lead, and a lack of religious faith may not represent a lack of ethics.

We must choose our leaders based on what is necessary. Examine what is important to you, and your values. Our votes may still be counted, and we are still able to ask if they are.

Works Cited

Associated Press. AP Archive. 09 Nov. 2008.

bgbloggger. “Sarah Palin: Alaskan Pipeline is God’s Will.” Youtube. 02 Sept. 2008.

Bowers, D. Scott. Personal Interview. Oct. 2008.

Engels, Friedrich. “On Historical Materialism.” Marx & Engels, Basic Writings on Politics & Philosophy. Ed. Lewis S. Feuer. New York: Anchor, 1959.

“Ethics.” Wikipedia. 2008. 11 Oct. 2008.

Hesse, Hermann. Siddhartha. New York: Bantam, 1971.

Holy Bible. Authorized King James Version. Ohio: World. No year.

“Justice.” Merriam-Webster Online. 2008. 12 Oct. 2008.

Locke, John. Two Treatises of Government. C. and J. Rivington, 1824. Original from Harvard University. Digitized 18 Apr, 2007

http://books.google.com/books?id=K1UBAAAAYAAJ

Lyon, Bryce. A Constitutional and Legal History of Medieval England. New York: Harper & Row, 1960.

Machievelli. The Prince. New York: Cambridge, 2007.

“Magna Carta.” Wikipedia, 2008. 26 Oct, 2008.

Nietzsche, Friedrich. Beyond Good & Evil, Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future. Trans. Walter Kaufmann. New York: Vintage, 1989.

Peikoff, Leonard. Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. New York: Meridian, 1993.

Schopenhauer, Arthur. The World as Will and Representation. Trans. E.F.J. Payne. New York: Dover, 1966. Google Books.

“Worship.” Webster’s College Dictionary. New York: Random House, 2005.