On June 29th, the first day of the month of Ramadan, the Islamic state of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) declared that they had established a caliphate in the Sunni dominated regions of Iraq and Syria. As far as I can tell this is the first caliphate since that of King Hussein bin Ali of Hejaz in 1925. A Caliphate, as anyone who played Age of Empires during their teens will know, is an Islamic state, ruled by a Caliph under the laws prescribed by Sharia law. Such a system is quite clearly the epitome of governance without separation of church and state. It hardly needs mentioning that this is not an Islamic problem; ISIS are a violent political Islamist group whose actions and caliphate need not be apologised for by the overwhelming majority of ordinary Muslims. It should however, remind us of the importance of separation of church and state and the failings of our own countries in this regard.
Separation of church and state is of such fundamental significance to the constitutional framework of a state that without it a country cannot consider itself either truly liberal or democratic. The concept emerged in the modern era out of the rubble of a Europe destroyed by centuries of religious wars. It was seen as pragmatic that a state should allow for freedom of religion, for it was likely that one's own religion would be not be in power in another state (or in one's own state in the future) and hence one's own toleration was born out of the hope that others would similarly tolerate one’s own religion. This conception of religious freedom was shepherded towards separation of church and state by the empiricist John Locke. In A Letter Concerning Toleration of 1689 he makes the case that religion is a matter of private conscience and hence should be free from the interference of the secular state - "the whole jurisdiction of the magistrate reaches only to these civil concernments".
Locke makes a number of further internal religious arguments which need not concern us, but if you read the Letter in full it seems to contain certain weaknesses and therefore I want to suggest a defence of separation of church and state of my own.
Religious faith is subjective, there is not, and indeed probably cannot be, any empirical or epistemic proof for its claims. It is important therefore that these unsubstantiated claims play no part in a state's institutions or its governance. It would be absurd for a state, which derives its entire legitimacy from the will of its citizens, to be erected on anything else apart from objectivity and rationality. Individuals are entitled to find salvation whether they see fit, but never is their justification for foisting that upon another, not least by a state whose powers are mere proxy powers of those who reside within it. This is hardly an original argument, secularists have been making it in one form or another for centuries.
The United Kingdom falls short in this regard. Its infringements may be relatively minor, but it is a repeat offender and looks unlikely to change its ways any time soon. The Church of England is the established religion and the Queen is its "Supreme Governor". The impact of this often seems to be entirely ceremonial, but its practical effects do occasionally come to the fore. Prior to Marriage (Same Sex Couples Act) 2013 receiving royal assent there was noise made the effect that it would not be possible to legalise same-sex marriage because the institution of marriage was governed by the churches' canon law which expressly forbids it. This was of course not the case, but did result in the so-called "triple lock" which bans the Church of England from performing same-sex marriages.
Furthermore, 26 Bishops sit in the House of Lords with ability to write and amend legislation. This offends the basic tenants of democracy; why should a group of people have become lawmakers simply because they are leaders of a particular religion? Anglicanism is so much part of the fabric of English life that the state has retreated on its responsibilities and allowed the Church of England to have preferential treatment. In recent years this receding of the state has widened to allow for the same for other religions (remember Prince Charles’ remarks about wanting to be “defender of faiths”) and we are left with a system rigged in favour faith schools, religious charitable trusts and the likes. This is not to say that these things may not be worthwhile (I leave that for another time), merely that for the state to legislate to their advantage offends the principle of separation.
As I intimated above, while they are clearly not the same thing, there is a significant theoretical overlap between freedom of religion and separation between church and state. Indeed some countries use the fact they have freedom of religion to disguise the fact that they have no separation of church and state. To take Israel as an example. (It is really very unfair to take Israel as an example. There are many other states who carry out a similar ruse and it undoubtedly has both greater freedom of religion and separation of church and state than all other countries in the Middle East. Note also that some countries have it the other way around; China broadly has de facto separation of church and state yet has limited freedom of religion which is constitutionally prescribed). Israel has commendable freedom of religion, but very little separation of church and state. This was neatly put by the legal philosopher Alon Harel as Israel having "freedom of" religion, but not "freedom from" religion. You are free to practice your faith as you wish, however if you want to carry out certain activities it must conform to certain religious norms. If one wants to get married for example, it has to be done in accordance with a particular interpretation of orthodox Jewish law; similarly, members of the Muslim or Christian “communities” must conduct their marriages under their religious laws, civil marriage does not exist. This, as with so many of the distortions of Israel's democracy, is not a creation of its own, it is a hangover from the Confessional Community system of those colonial pragmatists - the Ottoman Empire.
Political secularism, is weakening elsewhere. The USA, which prides itself on having an Establishment Clause in the First Amendment which states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”, is particularly lax in upholding this principle. Take the recent case Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. (the “Hobby Lobby decision”) for example. It was held that to require closely held corporations to provide contraception violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act 1993. No doubt it is a complex legal and philosophical issue as to whether corporations attract the rights of their owners, but surely it is an abnegation of responsibility on the part of (in my opinion the most important branch of) government to allow the religious beliefs of one citizen to undermine the medical coverage of another. It is the role of the state to provide equally for all its citizens (Even with the Affordable Care Act, American healthcare system doesn’t live up to that in the first place) and to allow someone to use their faith to deny a person a particular service, especially when it is the duty of the state to provide the service, is allowing the Church to encroach far too readily on the domain of the State.
"Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's". Arch-Catholic Justice Scalia (et al) would do well to remember these wise words in his religion’s founding text. Religion is a matter of private conscience, render it unto god, and it is the duty of the state to ensure that it remains there. Corporations, entities which are able to be proved exist, should be rendered unto Caesar, and it is the state’s duty to ensure they are not rendered unto god, something that would be grossly unfair to others.
Separation of church and state is fundamental to a fair constitutional setup. Britain has never realised this and countries which were created on such principles seem to have abandoned their commitment to it of late. Now is a particularly opportune time to be reminded of it.
Separation of church and state is of such fundamental significance to the constitutional framework of a state that without it a country cannot consider itself either truly liberal or democratic. The concept emerged in the modern era out of the rubble of a Europe destroyed by centuries of religious wars. It was seen as pragmatic that a state should allow for freedom of religion, for it was likely that one's own religion would be not be in power in another state (or in one's own state in the future) and hence one's own toleration was born out of the hope that others would similarly tolerate one’s own religion. This conception of religious freedom was shepherded towards separation of church and state by the empiricist John Locke. In A Letter Concerning Toleration of 1689 he makes the case that religion is a matter of private conscience and hence should be free from the interference of the secular state - "the whole jurisdiction of the magistrate reaches only to these civil concernments".
Locke makes a number of further internal religious arguments which need not concern us, but if you read the Letter in full it seems to contain certain weaknesses and therefore I want to suggest a defence of separation of church and state of my own.
Religious faith is subjective, there is not, and indeed probably cannot be, any empirical or epistemic proof for its claims. It is important therefore that these unsubstantiated claims play no part in a state's institutions or its governance. It would be absurd for a state, which derives its entire legitimacy from the will of its citizens, to be erected on anything else apart from objectivity and rationality. Individuals are entitled to find salvation whether they see fit, but never is their justification for foisting that upon another, not least by a state whose powers are mere proxy powers of those who reside within it. This is hardly an original argument, secularists have been making it in one form or another for centuries.
The United Kingdom falls short in this regard. Its infringements may be relatively minor, but it is a repeat offender and looks unlikely to change its ways any time soon. The Church of England is the established religion and the Queen is its "Supreme Governor". The impact of this often seems to be entirely ceremonial, but its practical effects do occasionally come to the fore. Prior to Marriage (Same Sex Couples Act) 2013 receiving royal assent there was noise made the effect that it would not be possible to legalise same-sex marriage because the institution of marriage was governed by the churches' canon law which expressly forbids it. This was of course not the case, but did result in the so-called "triple lock" which bans the Church of England from performing same-sex marriages.
Furthermore, 26 Bishops sit in the House of Lords with ability to write and amend legislation. This offends the basic tenants of democracy; why should a group of people have become lawmakers simply because they are leaders of a particular religion? Anglicanism is so much part of the fabric of English life that the state has retreated on its responsibilities and allowed the Church of England to have preferential treatment. In recent years this receding of the state has widened to allow for the same for other religions (remember Prince Charles’ remarks about wanting to be “defender of faiths”) and we are left with a system rigged in favour faith schools, religious charitable trusts and the likes. This is not to say that these things may not be worthwhile (I leave that for another time), merely that for the state to legislate to their advantage offends the principle of separation.
As I intimated above, while they are clearly not the same thing, there is a significant theoretical overlap between freedom of religion and separation between church and state. Indeed some countries use the fact they have freedom of religion to disguise the fact that they have no separation of church and state. To take Israel as an example. (It is really very unfair to take Israel as an example. There are many other states who carry out a similar ruse and it undoubtedly has both greater freedom of religion and separation of church and state than all other countries in the Middle East. Note also that some countries have it the other way around; China broadly has de facto separation of church and state yet has limited freedom of religion which is constitutionally prescribed). Israel has commendable freedom of religion, but very little separation of church and state. This was neatly put by the legal philosopher Alon Harel as Israel having "freedom of" religion, but not "freedom from" religion. You are free to practice your faith as you wish, however if you want to carry out certain activities it must conform to certain religious norms. If one wants to get married for example, it has to be done in accordance with a particular interpretation of orthodox Jewish law; similarly, members of the Muslim or Christian “communities” must conduct their marriages under their religious laws, civil marriage does not exist. This, as with so many of the distortions of Israel's democracy, is not a creation of its own, it is a hangover from the Confessional Community system of those colonial pragmatists - the Ottoman Empire.
Political secularism, is weakening elsewhere. The USA, which prides itself on having an Establishment Clause in the First Amendment which states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”, is particularly lax in upholding this principle. Take the recent case Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. (the “Hobby Lobby decision”) for example. It was held that to require closely held corporations to provide contraception violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act 1993. No doubt it is a complex legal and philosophical issue as to whether corporations attract the rights of their owners, but surely it is an abnegation of responsibility on the part of (in my opinion the most important branch of) government to allow the religious beliefs of one citizen to undermine the medical coverage of another. It is the role of the state to provide equally for all its citizens (Even with the Affordable Care Act, American healthcare system doesn’t live up to that in the first place) and to allow someone to use their faith to deny a person a particular service, especially when it is the duty of the state to provide the service, is allowing the Church to encroach far too readily on the domain of the State.
"Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's". Arch-Catholic Justice Scalia (et al) would do well to remember these wise words in his religion’s founding text. Religion is a matter of private conscience, render it unto god, and it is the duty of the state to ensure that it remains there. Corporations, entities which are able to be proved exist, should be rendered unto Caesar, and it is the state’s duty to ensure they are not rendered unto god, something that would be grossly unfair to others.
Separation of church and state is fundamental to a fair constitutional setup. Britain has never realised this and countries which were created on such principles seem to have abandoned their commitment to it of late. Now is a particularly opportune time to be reminded of it.