10 Thoughts on Atheism and the Separation of Church and State
I’m going to differ from my standard post format (you know, a pretense at independently verifiable information and sourcing) and just post some random thoughts on the topic.
1. There appear to be two ideological sources for the separation of church and state. One is pragmatic, by separating all churches from the state the state does not become a vehicle for inter-cine religious conflict. It is the great compromise argument, the state puts religion to one side and gets on with business.
2. The second ideological is democracy. Demos kratos, or rule by the people, would appear to imply that the highest source for authority in a democracy is the will of the citizenry. Religion makes a “higher claim” upon the moral judgment of the officers of the state. Surely where a true democracy exists, this is unacceptable, and it would follow that the officers of the state must separate themselves entirely from religion.
3. The afor mentioned argument is entire nonsense. I am an atheist, and no matter the status of democracy, were I an officer of the state, I would continue to adhere to my own higher source of authority. Where my own understandings of ethics and morality, what is right and wrong, were in absolute conflict with the will of the people, I would consider myself bound to defy the will of the people. Am I thus rejecting democracy?
4. In a representative democracy we empower our representatives with the power to exersize discretion. But what about delegative democracy?
5. Would an “devout” or “practicing” atheist (ie. one who could not put aside the notion that there is no god, and the beliefs of the religious are predicated in falsehood), under the first ideological model for the separation of church and state, be violating the separation of church and state? Surely they too would be in breach of the great religious compromise?
6 If state education exists to develop critical and rational minds, surely state education should involve the questioning of superstitious religion?
7. Considering (that as an atheist I believe) that religion is founded in falsehood, should the state have a role in countering these falsehoods?
8. What about if these falsehoods (religion) are harmful, should the state counter them as they would seek to counter false ideas about the relative safety of certain illicit drugs?
9. Surely all belief founded in falsehood is dangerous?
10. Having brought up the topic of religion on a political blog, have I in spirit violated the separation of these fields of thought that the separation of church and state appears to enshrine?
Update: In case you’re wondering, this post was inspired by the Blasphemy Challenge:
Stories the server thinks are related:
Posted: by Kieran March 18th, 2007 under Society, Education, Governance.
Comments: 2
Comments
Comment from Gordon Drennan
Time: March 21, 2007, 5:09 pm
I am an atheist. But I can imagine that if I lived in a country ruled by a tyrant or warlords that I would much prefer the rule of law. That in a country where most people are muslim, sharia law, which gives everyone rights, and imposes rules on everyone including the rulers, would be far preferable to the arbitrary rule of an absolute ruler. Somalis overwhelmingly preferred the Union of Islamic Courts to the warlords. The majority of Afghans preferred the Taliban to the warlords there. Now they are saying the under “democracy” they have gone back to more lawlessness and more corruption and more drug trafficking than they ever had under the Taliban, and that’s why the Taliban is resurgent. Iran preferred the Mullahs to the Shah. Iraqis want shariah law. You can’t transplant our form of rule of law to countries that have never had it. Governments need someone overseeing them to ensure they behave, and in countries with no democratic traditions religion and religious leaders can perform that function. At least until democratic institutions take root.
Comment from Kieran
Time: March 21, 2007, 5:13 pm
Any degree of order is certainly prefferable to death under complete lawlessness.
The Islamic Courts Union was a most interesting situation, people rejected warlordism and reverted to the only other form of authority to appeal too, spiritual authority.
One could see it as an almost organic emergance of law and order from a situation of bloody chaos.
Ethiopia’s determination to push a potential regonal rival back into the dark ages was particuarly disheartening, irrespective of my atheist beliefs vis a vi the Islamic Courts Union!
Write a comment