Jamie_L

Since coming to this board, it has been brought to my attention that the U.S. is one of the only Western nations that explicitly separates church and state in it's Constitution (I may be wrong here - correct me if I am). Yet, oddly enough, countries whose governments allow a national church on paper seem to have fewer (or less vocal) fundamentalist religious constituencies.

In a number of places, both in the writings during the U.S.'s infancy and more recently, people have said strict church-state separation does not squash religion, but rather allows religion to flourish. Is it possible that the vocal and powerful fundamentalist Christian movement in the U.S. is direct evidence for this? Has the U.S. history of church-state separation given rise to such a flourishing religion that churches now have more power than ever?

In other words, will church-state separation be its own downfall?

Jamie

ohwilleke

First, I would say that your premise is not entirely correct, in that there is certainly some species of freedom of religion in many countries, and some, such as Sweden are disestablishing their state churches.

On the other hand, certainly the U.S. has among the strongest formal freedom from government establishment of religion (Turkey is probably the closest rival). And, the paradox of freedom of religion leading to one of the most religious countries on earth is a widely recognized phenomena which probably is at least partially a cause and effect relationship.

This being said, the alternative in the U.S. is not the same thing that has led to a strong secularism trend in Europe. No denomination of Christianity is so strong in any state in the United States that it could securely be established as the official denomination of the United States (while there is one denomination (or at most two or three) of Christianity that is the established religion in almost every country in Europe that lacks an establishment clause type arrangement). The bureacracy and disincentive to innovate when there is a monopoly held by one denomination of Christinaity has been a big factor in European secularism. The choice has been between being Catholic or being secular, between being Anglican and being secular, between being Lutheran and being secular. Yoiu can't live in Italy and say, I don't like the Catholic Church, I think I'll be a Methodist, without a lot of hard work.

Establishment, to the extent that it ever happened in the U.S., would probably be of "Christianity" rather than a particular denomination, and hence would not have the same effect.

hedonist ogre

I tend to subscribe to this hypothesis. I'm part of the way through a book called The Battle for God by Karen Armstrong about the rise of fundamentalism in the 3 big monotheistic religions.

I think the catalyst for our current brand of fundamentalism was the removal of forced prayer from public schools. Of course, fundamentalists had been around for many years before, but I think that ruling really woke them up to the fact that the US is not a theocracy.

So, yes, sometimes I wonder, paradoxically, if the US would be more secular today had it been founded with a national church.

DMB

From my observation of how things used to be when I was young and before Britain became "multicultural", if you were asked your religion and said "none", "atheist" or "agnostic", you got put down as "C of E". There were always lots of uncommitted people dragooned into church attendance and nobody seemed to care whether you believed or not. You could, of course, choose to belong to another sect, but nominal membership of the C of E was almost synonymous with good manners or good citizenship. Upper class people, in particular, went to church to set an example to the lower orders. In England, from before I was born, it has normally been considered very impolite to discuss religion (you might upset someone).

I think one could argue, therefore, that long before changes in society that led to a re-examination of the position of religion, the established church was simply a hollow sham.

fromtheright

ohwilleke,

Is this your definition of establishment of religion? If so, then I believe most conservatives, believe it or not, and even Christian conservatives would agree with you.

Arrowman

Just FYI, the Australian Consitution says (S.116):
"The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth."

Original thinkers, aren't we

Strelnieks

The idea being discussed here goes back at least as far as De Toqueville's "Democracy in America" (1832) in which he pointed out the great influence and power of religion in America. He noted that religion had never been associated with the state in the US, so it never got involved in the state's embarassments, limitations, scandals, abuses, etc.

In Europe, the churches have been associated with power for centuries and have suffered accordingly. They repeatedly pitted themselves against progress and the enlightenment. In the US, the churches each stand and fall on their own merits or ability to win over people. They allied themselves with democracy (as absurd as that is theologically, it seems to be historically true for the 18th and 19th centuries, at least) and rarely opposed advancement (a major exception being the race issue, perhaps).

The more official power they get, the more they will suffer in the long term. It is getting over the hump that is going to be hard.

Strel

liquid

All this is one of the main reasons, that despite being a committed secularist, I don't campaign for the disestablishment of the Anglican church in the UK.

It's fairly wishy-washy, attendances are low, it makes little effort to affect politics (besides the odd media piece where they are asked to comment on morals), it accepts science and evolution totally, and it has a fairly liberal stance, relatively.

All this stands as a great big block to even more loony cults and denominations.

DMB

Liquid: I don't entirely agree. Until the House of Lords is (ever) properly reformed, we still have C of E bishops sitting there. This gives a green light for other denominations and religions to press for representation as well.

England and Wales have huge numbers of C of E schools, and smaller numbers of catholic ones as well as a few jewish. All these are largely funded out of taxation, even though they are free to try to indoctrinate their pupils. In rural areas, parents often don't have a vaible alternative to church schools.

The delightful Labour government ( )have decided in their great wisdom to reduce the financial contribution that the faiths have to make to the running of their schools and have also agreed to extending the same status to muslim and other types of faith schools. This is ultimately socially divisive and dangerous. What we need is to sweep away public funding for faith schools and put the money into raising the standard of the publically funded secular schools.

But as long as wehave an established church, it can be used as a peg on which to hang these abuses.

ohwilleke

This is my definition of a harmless establishment of religion. My point is that a multi-denominational establishment in the U.S. could be far more threatening than the mono-denominational establishment which had such good results abroad.