is it possible to separate church and state?

[Clivedurdle]

Reading Dennet's latest book, I was reminded of Durkheim, who I read decades ago!

What if formal religions as we have them know, not "folk religions" are integral parts of societies, in much the same way as armed forces, bureaucracies, a form of leadership, taxation, markets and laws are? I know I am being structural functionalist, but arguably, as war is part of society, are not religions?

If we want to end war and religion it might help if they were understood as things done by human societies, and to begin to try and imagine what would be needed to replace them.

Knee jerk solutions - oh its poverty, capitalism, inequality are not enough - these are also symptoms.

I am arguing that war and religion, like markets, solve problems. They might not do them very well, but there is no point attacking them directly if we are unclear what bits of our societies they may be holding up!

Dennet comments that sheep have entered a contract with us, in return for food, health care and personal carers called shepherds who protect them from random death, they give us the right to kill them when we choose.

What bits of societies are religions holding up?

[Pavlov's Dog]

I am not sure how the thread title matches the OP. To answer the thread title, yes, it is possible (as well as desirable) to separate church and state.

As for religions holding up bits of society, I think we have already moved past the need for religions once we established constitutional governments.

Religions are primarily a means of social control. Rules and/or guidelines for how people should behave and interact. At this point, even without religion we have laws, other types of rules and ettiquette to guide us. We don't need the Ten Commandments to tell us that murder is wrong, because we have statutes that say murder is wrong. We don't need the church to feed the poor, we have welfare programs. Basically the state has replaced religion as the babysitter and does a much better job.

There will inevitably be arguments over which type of government (the new religion) is the best one or whether we need a babysitter government at all. Still, I say that we do not need religion, because whatever useful functions it had in the past have been taken over by the state. Whether we need the state is another question.

Religions receive the authority for their rules from gods or prophets or other spirtual figures. The state, in theory, gets its authority from the people. Because of this I would take the state over religion anytime.

[Majestyk]

The thing to remember is that a republic is established by an functions under the rule of law. A democratic republic is one where the laws are derived by the will of the people. And in a represeentive democracy, the will of the people is expressed via elected representatives.

Ideally, Church/State separation is easy to achieve simply by maintaining that the government cannot recognize that which cannot be verified using its judicial rules of evidence. In other words, to invoke the name of a god, the existence of such an entity must first be demonstrated in a manner consistent with standards of evidence used by the courts.

[Clivedurdle]

My point is what if religion, following the functionalists, is a core part of society, it canot therefore be separated from the state - something similar would have to replace it - media?

[Toto]

The "state" is not identical to society. Modern theories of democracy emphasize that a democratic society depends on non-governmental institutions - so called "civil society" that is not under government control but allows people to join together in voluntary social arrangements of their own chosing.

Popular music is a core part of society, but not a necessary part of government. Religion could be like popular music - something people may be drawn to, but not something that should be forced on them by the government or regulated by law.

[Padre Bear]

My point is what if religion, following the functionalists, is a core part of society, it canot therefore be separated from the state - something similar would have to replace it - media?

This does seem to be an assumption of various of the Founding Fathers. Even the separatists were given to quotes concerning the importance of religion in creating a moral stability in society. So I understand the question to be through what mechanisms is this function to be fulfilled if not religion. Do schools need increased emphasis on moral ethics, do we need to strengthen homes, where can the development of a basis for values be done so that society does not descend to complete chaos?

[Oresta]

This does seem to be an assumption of various of the Founding Fathers. Even the separatists were given to quotes concerning the importance of religion in creating a moral stability in society. So I understand the question to be through what mechanisms is this function to be fulfilled if not religion. Do schools need increased emphasis on moral ethics, do we need to strengthen homes, where can the development of a basis for values be done so that society does not descend to complete chaos?

The assumption here and in Clivehurdle's posts is that ethics and morals can be based only in a supernatural belief system, which is not true. One might turn the functionalist approach around here and say that a society's need to sustain itself through reverence for life, cooperation mutual support, etc. arose first and susequently was codified into religious tenets.

[Clivedurdle]

The assumption here and in Clivehurdle's posts is that ethics and morals can be based only in a supernatural belief system, which is not true. One might turn the functionalist approach around here and say that a society's need to sustain itself through reverence for life, cooperation mutual support, etc. arose first and susequently was codified into religious tenets.

I do NOT hold the assumption that supernaturalism is required for morals and ethics - in fact I derive them like Rawls, Theory of Justice - from questions about how we ought to act towards each other assuming a veil of ignorance - would I be satisfied with my lot in life if for example I were an afghani village female in Taliban days.

I would support cooperative mutual models, but where do they cease being political models and become religious models? Is not a humanist atheist moral model like a religion but shorn of ritual? Do we need ritual - like the oath of allegiance?

[Clivedurdle]

The "state" is not identical to society. Modern theories of democracy emphasize that a democratic society depends on non-governmental institutions - so called "civil society" that is not under government control but allows people to join together in voluntary social arrangements of their own chosing.

Popular music is a core part of society, but not a necessary part of government. Religion could be like popular music - something people may be drawn to, but not something that should be forced on them by the government or regulated by law.

Our freedom of association was won from government, so technically it is under government control but they no longer have the power to enforce it, although various states do try -

[Padre Bear]

The assumption here and in Clivehurdle's posts is that ethics and morals can be based only in a supernatural belief system, which is not true. One might turn the functionalist approach around here and say that a society's need to sustain itself through reverence for life, cooperation mutual support, etc. arose first and susequently was codified into religious tenets.

I don't mean only can be but rather predominantly have been and therefore if a purely secular society is to succeed what mechanisms need to be developed to support values such as order, motivation for care of the poor, respect for others, etc.

I don't think either Clive or I have said that religion is necessary. I noted the Founding Fathers had written of this being an important contribution of religion to the success of the new nation.

If not religion then what needs to emerge to fulfill these purposes through public education, etc. Social groups, also, used help in this process but they have largely deteriorated in the present culture.

[Oresta]

I do NOT hold the assumption that supernaturalism is required for morals and ethics - in fact I derive them like Rawls, Theory of Justice - from questions about how we ought to act towards each other assuming a veil of ignorance - would I be satisfied with my lot in life if for example I were an afghani village female in Taliban days.

Sorry for my unwarrented assumption. Upon closer reading I think I understand the question you raise.

I would support cooperative mutual models, but where do they cease being political models and become religious models?

That's an intriguing question. Historically, the function of religion in human society was to give people a sense of control over the natural world, to feel protected by a power greater than that of an often terrifying world. It also functioned to give legitimacy to social mores and the leadership of some members. By the Middle Ages in Europe we see heads of state (presumptive "defenders of the faith") in conflict with their popes, followed by the Reformation, the beheading of a couple of kings, and the Age of Reason.

The concept of a secular government created by "we the people" was revolutionary, but not surprising given the course of history - at least here in the western world.


Is not a humanist atheist moral model like a religion but shorn of ritual? Do we need ritual - like the oath of allegiance?

Atheism is not in any way a religion. More on this later. I'm off to the Jazz Festival.

[LeeVegas]

Dennet comments that sheep have entered a contract with us, in return for food, health care and personal carers called shepherds who protect them from random death, they give us the right to kill them when we choose.


This is absurd. Even assuming an individual sheep was cogent enough to "enter a contract," would that contract apply to the entire species throughout history? Domestication of livestock is in no way a "contract."

LV