Is Church-State Separation A Misnomer?

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Are the church and state really separate? I would suggest not. If they were, they could act independently, and the church would be free to do as it pleases.

But it is not. It must conform to the state's law.

In Western democracies, the church is given a lot of latitude, but that is at the pleasure of the state, which has the power to reduce or expand the church's freedoms.

That is, the church is entirely subordinate to the state, not separate from it, like a wagon being pulled uphill by a horse. The wagon is subordinate to the will of the horse and must follow it. Separate them, and the wagon is free to go its own way down the hill as the horse continues up.

Thoughts? Are the church and state actually separate? If you think not, can you suggest a more accurate description of the relationship between the church and state?

 

[WalterTrull]

Churches and states are man-made entities. They are what the people in them say they are. Many (I don't know if most) people are both members of a church and a state. Probably not much separation there.

 

[LuisDantas]

I think the Church is indeed subordinate to the State these days. Not so much in the past.

However, I also think that the ideal relatioship between Church and State is one where there is no particular need to officially acknowledge the existence of any religious movements. I have become convinced that there is no good to come from such acknowledgement.

 

[sun rise]

To me there's no absolute. There's a vast grey area where the guiding principles are government not meddling in church affairs and any one religion not seeking to have its principles overrule the Constitution.

In practice government restricts some religious practices and some religious organizations seek to have their beliefs enacted in law.

 

[Axe Elf]

The phrase "separation of church and state" wasn't intended to mean that neither recognized the other; it was merely a way of encapsulating the premise that no religion should be endorsed by the state; there should not be one ruling "state religion."

 

[Jumi]

Depends on where. Here at least the State Church still collects taxes directly and is supported by state funds as well as all the wealth they've gathered from having religious monopoly over a few centuries.

 

[WalterTrull]

Depends on where. Here at least the State Church still collects taxes directly and is supported by state funds as well as all the wealth they've gathered from having religious monopoly over a few centuries.

Booo.

 

[David1967]

Depends on where. Here at least the State Church still collects taxes directly and is supported by state funds as well as all the wealth they've gathered from having religious monopoly over a few centuries.

That Is terrible. Where is "here"?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Are the church and state really separate? I would suggest not. If they were, they could act independently, and the church would be free to do as it pleases.

But it is not. It must conform to the state's law.

In Western democracies, the church is given a lot of latitude, but that is at the pleasure of the state, which has the power to reduce or expand the church's freedoms.

That is, the church is entirely subordinate to the state, not separate from it, like a wagon being pulled uphill by a horse. The wagon is subordinate to the will of the horse and must follow it. Separate them, and the wagon is free to go its own way down the hill as the horse continues up.

Thoughts? Are the church and state actually separate? If you think not, can you suggest a more accurate description of the relationship between the church and state?

Jefferson didn't mean they would never interact, but rather...

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.'

Separation of church and state was merely the most convenient or common way to paraphrase him. Alternatively I guess you could talk about the First Amendment in the same way as the Second, but personally I'd stick with the current common wording instead.

 

[Jumi]

Booo.

Yep.

That Is terrible. Where is "here"?

Finland. The state church is Evangelical Lutheran and not very conservative on most issues. They try to profile themselves as the good guys and everyone's church. Although they like to build new Churches, most people go to them only for funerals or weddings or rarely for Christmas services. Most people that go there at any other time are older women.

 

[David1967]

Yep.


Finland. The state church is Evangelical Lutheran and not very conservative on most issues. They try to profile themselves as the good guys and everyone's church. Although they like to build new Churches, most people go to them only for funerals or weddings or rarely for Christmas services. Most people that go there at any other time are older women.

Thanks Jumi.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Are the church and state really separate? I would suggest not. If they were, they could act independently, and the church would be free to do as it pleases.

There is the question of when a church stops being a church. Currently, churches are not taxed. Does this mean that you could rebrand your business as a church and avoid all taxes? Of course not. If you are acting as a business you are a business, not a church. You shouldn't be able to hide behind the church label in order to escape responsibility to the law.

But it is not. It must conform to the state's law.

As long as those laws do not prevent people from freely exercising their right to religious expression then I don't see the problem. Churches should conform to labor and safety laws like everyone else. I see no reason why a church should be able to construct a building that doesn't conform to the building codes of that state. Requiring churches to follow these laws in no way infringes on peoples' constitutional rights.

In Western democracies, the church is given a lot of latitude, but that is at the pleasure of the state, which has the power to reduce or expand the church's freedoms.

There are these things called courts which can strike down laws which infringe upon the constitutional rights of churches.

 

[Revoltingest]

"Separation of church & state" is a label for the particular
constitutional situation here, ie, avoiding establishment of religion.
It never was about total separation, since religions are still subject to law.
Since it's not a comprehensive literal description, it's not a misnomer.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

In Western democracies, the church is given a lot of latitude, but that is at the pleasure of the state, which has the power to reduce or expand the church's freedoms.

There are these things called courts which can strike down laws which infringe upon the constitutional rights of churches.

You seem to be implying that the Constitution and the courts are not part of the state when after I say that the state has absolute authority over the church, you say that it is limited by those two.

Sure, the Congress and executive branch are limited by the courts and Constitution, but all of that is the workings of the state, and the church must submit to its choices, whether those choices reflect tolerance or not.

The state is sovereign, and as I understand it, the church is subject to the state including to its courts and Constitution.

How is that properly called church-state separation?

"Separation of church & state" is a label for the particular
constitutional situation here, ie, avoiding establishment of religion.
It never was about total separation, since religions are still subject to law.
Since it's not a comprehensive literal description, it's not a misnomer.

If the term isn't descriptive of the actual arrangement between the two, doesn't that make it a misnomer? Perhaps it should be called exclusion of church from state.

This mis-phrasing leads to confusion. Thermos just mentioned taxes. In this area, the churches argue that they should be exempt from taxes because the state has no business in its affairs. I suggest that this is incorrect. In fact, giving the church special tax breaks that other entities don't get is favoring the church by using the taxes of others to cover the church's share of the cost of running a society.

 

[Revoltingest]

If the term isn't descriptive of the actual arrangement between the two, doesn't that make it a misnomer?

Seldom do labels ever describe anything completely.
One must know that a label is shorthand for something more complex.

Perhaps it should be called exclusion of church from state.

"Exclusion" doesn't seem to be more accurate than "separation".

This mis-phrasing leads to confusion.

If someone is confused by one label, then substituting another won't fix the problem of not
understanding what the label references. Separation of church & state is complex, with a
foundation of both the Constitution & the writings of its authors. No label will convey all of that.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

How is that properly called church-state separation?

There are no religious tests for elected officials.

There is no state mandated religious teaching, nor a state church.

Public tax dollars are not allowed to be used to evangelize for a chosen religion.

The state can not outlaw religious teachings.

It is also worth mentioning the Lemon test (Lemon v. Kurtzman 1971) which is the current precedent for determining where the wall is between church and state.

1. The statute must have a secular legislative purpose. (Also known as the Purpose Prong)
2. The principal or primary effect of the statute must not advance nor inhibit religion. (Also known as the Effect Prong)
3. The statute must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion. (Also known as the Entanglement Prong)

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If someone is confused by one label, then substituting another won't fix the problem of not
understanding what the label references.

How about if the way out is labeled entrance? Wouldn't substituting another label - exit, for example - help with the confusion?

Barnum famously labeled exits egress just to confuse people thinking that they were about to see another attraction. Although it wouldn't be what Barnum wanted, wouldn't choosing another label mitigate that confusion?

There may not be an optimal phrase for the relationship of the church and state in secular governments, but calling it separation seems inaccurate given the subordination of the church to the state.

There are no religious tests for elected officials.

There is no state mandated religious teaching, nor a state church.

Public tax dollars are not allowed to be used to evangelize for a chosen religion.

The state can not outlaw religious teachings.

It is also worth mentioning the Lemon test (Lemon v. Kurtzman 1971) which is the current precedent for determining where the wall is between church and state.

1. The statute must have a secular legislative purpose. (Also known as the Purpose Prong)
2. The principal or primary effect of the statute must not advance nor inhibit religion. (Also known as the Effect Prong)
3. The statute must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion. (Also known as the Entanglement Prong)

So are you agreeing, disagreeing, or neither, that this relationship is misnamed when called church-state separation? Remember who made those rules, and who can change them. I'm emphasizing the subordination aspect here, which the word separation seems to deny or overlook. I don't see an answer to, "How is that properly called church-state separation?" there.

 

[Revoltingest]

How about if the way out is labeled entrance?

Well that would be silly.

Wouldn't substituting another label - exit, for example - help with the confusion?

Not if the people are expecting "Ausgang".

Barnum famously labeled exits egress just to confuse people thinking that they were about to see another attraction.
There may not be an optimal phrase for the relationship of the church and state in secular governments, but calling it separation seems inaccurate given the subordination of the church to the state.
So are you agreeing, disagreeing, or neither, that this relationship is misnamed when called church-state separation? Remember who made those rules, and who can change them. I'm emphasizing the subordination aspect here, which the word separation seems to deny or overlook. I don't see an answer to, "How is that properly called church-state separation?" there.

Here's the fundamental thing.....
Labels need to convey the intended meaning.
People know better than to parse the label literally.

Take the label, "affirmative action".
It literally means that some good steps taken.
About what? It doesn't say.
But is it really good? That's highly debatable.
Despite this, everyone knows what's referred to.
No one uses the more accurate.....
"government imposed sexism & racism in hiring & schooling"

 

[Shushersbedamned]

A person and a street are separate, but when the person takes a casual stroll through it he may be robbed, beaten, kissed or murdered. He may buy useless things, step on someone's toes or accidentally break a picture of a street artist. The person and the street after all this, as painful as the memories may be, are separate.

 

[dfnj]

Are the church and state really separate? I would suggest not. If they were, they could act independently, and the church would be free to do as it pleases.

But it is not. It must conform to the state's law.

In Western democracies, the church is given a lot of latitude, but that is at the pleasure of the state, which has the power to reduce or expand the church's freedoms.

That is, the church is entirely subordinate to the state, not separate from it, like a wagon being pulled uphill by a horse. The wagon is subordinate to the will of the horse and must follow it. Separate them, and the wagon is free to go its own way down the hill as the horse continues up.

Thoughts? Are the church and state actually separate? If you think not, can you suggest a more accurate description of the relationship between the church and state?

The spirit of separation of church and state is the church can do whatever it wants as long as it doesn't involve functions of government shared by all denominations. You would think church's themselves would be the biggest proponents of the separation because it prevents one denomination from dominated the others.

You could argue evangelicals are not qualified to ever be part of government because the idea of personal God violates the separation. Evangelical religions require a person to be biased in order to achieve salvation. This certainly seems like a Constitutional issue to me because this type of religion did not exist when our founders created our Constitution.