Some Thoughts On Church / State Separation In Britain And The USA

If you speak out against the Church today, people might nod in agreement or, at worst, admonish you for being so negative towards the deeply held beliefs of others. One hundred years ago, you could have gone to prison for the crime of Blasphemy. Two hundred years ago you would be lucky to escape with your life. In Britain in 1998, only about ten percent of the population attends Sunday Church on a regular basis. It is estimated that at least twenty percent have no religious convictions at all. Whether they would go so far as to call themselves atheist or agnostic I don't know, but the effect is the same. If asked, many Britons would probably say that their religion was C. of E., although they themselves rarely enter a church except for weddings, funerals and christenings (seen more as a nice family tradition than a necessity for the safety of a baby's immortal soul). Interest in religion in Britain is on the decline, albeit quite slowly. Reflecting this, the power of the Church Of England (the official Established religion) is also waning. Nobody is thrown in prison for denying the Truth of scriptures, or doubting the divinity of Jesus Christ.

The Church in Britain has a bloody and monstrous history, as do Churches all over the world. When this is pointed out to people, a common rebuttal is "Yes, but that was so long ago. We've learned from our mistakes and it could never happen again. You can't compare the Church today with the Church of the seventeenth century." I can't help thinking that the only reason it still is not happening is that the Church simply doesn't have the power and authority to persecute the population any more, not because the religion has magically changed from brutal and intolerant to gentle and caring. The Church, based on the Bible and the teachings of Jesus Christ, has slaughtered countless numbers of people across the world. What parts of the Bible or the teachings of Jesus have changed in the last couple of centuries? As the attitudes of people drift away from the extremes of religion, so the religion loses its authority over the lives of the people. Many people who describe themselves as Christians do not actually agree with much that the Churches teach, and the Churches slowly adapt themselves to this changing belief (so that they may still claim the allegiance of the people). The flock seems to be leading the shepherd... [1]

As the population grows indifferent to the Church, the power that the Church holds over the country becomes less and less. Even so, the Church Of England is still the Established Church, and the potential for it to regain some of its former power remains. We are still a Monarchy, although the Queen has remarkably little power nowadays. In theory, she has the power to dissolve Parliament should she so desire, but that is unlikely to ever happen. The Royal family makes a living as Good-Will Ambassadors to other countries, a useful tourist attraction, and provides employment for tabloid gossip columnists, but that's about it. No other religion is entangled with the State in the way the that Church of England is. If the Church saw an opportunity to regain its former position, do you think it would pass up the chance lightly?

In the UK, we have no separation of Church and State, but you might not realise it to look at us. Our Parliament contains Christians, atheists, agnostics, Muslims, Jews and probably Hindus and the occasional Pagan as well. In the USA, atheists are still automatically disqualified from holding public office in some states. The current Prime Minister, Tony Blair, is a Christian, but I don't think I've once heard him end an official speech with "God Bless you all, and God Bless Britain". Politicians rarely, if ever, mention their personal religion whilst engaged in official activities. The various Bishops and ArchBishops still make themselves heard, but fewer and fewer people are listening to them. Most people have the simple intelligence to make up their own minds about matters of morality; this is reinforced nearly every day by a news story involving a priest of some sort getting up to no good, or a high-ranking clergyman saying that he doesn't really believe in God anymore, but people should go to Church anyway because it's good for them. Recent (1998) events in America involving President Clinton have no doubt added to this. Clinton blubbering to the religious leaders at his Prayer Breakfast struck me as quite reminiscent of Televangelists after they have been caught rolling around in a huge pile of their viewers' money with a prostitute, whilst having a conference call to a Third-World dictator and a local Drugs Baron (well, maybe that's a slight exaggeration, but you get the picture).

In the USA, there is official separation of Church and State. Many religious people and their churches accept this, and recognise it as beneficial to the country. The Church is not allowed to dictate laws, and the Government is not allowed to dictate how people should worship, if at all. The Government is officially neutral towards all the numerous religions in America, giving preferential treatment to no one religion to the disadvantage of any of the others (in practise, this doesn't work so well, but at least it is on the law-books). As well as non-religious organisations, there are plenty of religious organisations that fight to uphold this "wall of separation".

Religion thrives on persecution. Not the persecution of heretics this time, but the persecution of itself. If a Church perceives itself as being under attack, this gives it strength. People who were drifting away are encouraged to come back, rallying under the banner of their particular deity. Not only are they fighting for their local church, they are fighting for their GOD, and for all the other followers of that God. In Britain, the Church is not under attack, but is slowly eroding with the passing of time. The Clergymen cannot claim to be persecuted by people who don't give a hoot about whatever they have to say. They cannot say they are under attack from the Government when they are the Established Religion of the country. They can make noises about the rise of secularism, and the supposed decline in morality and virtue, but the simple truth is that people would rather watch telly, dig the garden or just stay in bed on Sunday than sit in a cold Church only to be told how sinful they are.

In the USA, however, things are quite different. As mentioned, many (if not the majority) of the faithful see the separation as a Good Thing. Unfortunately, the influential and politically motivated Religious Right (i.e. the Christian Coalition) sees government neutrality as an attack on their religion. If the government denies them a privilege or refuses to pass a law on the grounds that it would be unfair to other religions and secular society, they see that as hostility towards themselves, their religion and their God (exactly how much of this is due to genuine pious indignation and how much is political is an interesting question in itself). Thus, the rallying cry goes up: The Atheistic Government is against God, Jesus, Morality and Family Values! The government, in being careful not to persecute minor religions by benefiting a major one, is accused of persecuting the followers of the major one ("If you're not with us, you're against us", goes the traditional false dichotomy). The call goes out, and money and votes come flooding in.

In Afghanistan today, the Taliban rule. They are followers of fundamentalist Islam. The Church and State are not separated - the Church is the State. Qu'ranic law holds precedence over all other laws. Replace "Taliban" with "Christian Coalition", "Qu'ranic" with "Biblical", and look a few years ahead into one possible future for the USA. Many of the original European settlers in America were trying to escape the persecution of fundamentalist Christianity. There are many in power today, or doing their darndest to get into power, who would see a return to the religion of Europe of a couple of centuries ago. If it were possible for these politicians to speak to the dead, I suspect that their ancestors would have some dire warnings about the direction that they are taking.

It is a complex issue, to be sure. Is it better to have no Church/State separation, as we do in the UK, where the Churches do their own thing and are a mild nuisance at worst; or total separation as in the USA, where the Churches consider themselves under attack and become politically active in order to being down the Wall and ultimately "Bring America back to God" (whether it likes it or not)?

Looking at Britain today, having an Established Church might not seem to be so bad, and some might hold it up as an example to convince others of the folly of separation. But you must remember that in order to get to the stage it is at today, Britain has had to endure centuries of church rule - witch burning; imprisonment or execution of heretics and blasphemers; censorship of print, speech and thought. The Church is only fading because people, generation by generation, are slowly realising that they no longer need to be told how to act in a civilised society (if, in fact, they ever did). Some might argue that this is because the teachings of Christianity have pervaded the collective consciousness. Others might suggest that it because those teachings are dissolving from the collective consciousness and society is adopting a more humanistic outlook, giving more regard to our neighbours than to our alleged Creator.

In Britain, there are organisations lobbying for separation of Church and State (e.g. The National Secular Society). If this ever comes about, I think it will happen over many generations. If the Government of Britain passed a law this year to enforce complete separation, and impartiality towards all religions (as in the USA), I think we would see a sudden rise in the political motivation of the Churches and experience the same sort of problems that the USA is having today with the Christian Coalition. It cannot easily happen in one fell swoop, but it could happen eventually, and hopefully painlessly for both sides.

If the USA lost its Wall Of Separation, would the Churches sit back down, say "That's a job well done", and retire from public life? Or would we suddenly see a surge in laws against blasphemy, heresy, abortion, euthanasia and non-Christianity in general? Would we see a Christian Utopia, where happy smiley people love their neighbours like unto themselves, or something resembling Europe in the Dark Ages, where neighbours spy on each other, monitor Church attendance and burn books in the street? If America loses the Wall, don't expect the relationship between Church and State to be anything like it is in Britain today - expect it to be like Britain was three centuries ago. Is this paranoia and scare-mongering, or is it an attempt to learn from history?

Keeping Church and State separate seems to be a hard, continuous struggle in America today, but it is necessary for the preservation of the rights of not only the non-religious, but the religious as well. If the Wall falls, liberties and lives will be lost - not just lawsuits.

© Adrian Barnett 1998

A related thing seems to have happened with schooling (while I'm at it, I might as well make this point too). In the Good Old Days, the clergy were educated and literate, and passed on their knowledge (of the Bible) to the illiterate masses. Ignorance was good, as people only learned what the churches wished them to learn. When the state began setting up schools and educating children, this was a threat to the church - children would learn things about the world without the guiding hand of religion directing them along the correct Biblical pathway. Thus, we have many church-run schools. Admittedly, they are good schools and provide their pupils with a decent education. However, a cynic might suggest that education is not the whole purpose of these schools - religious education is the main thing. If the kids are going to be educated, then the churches make damned sure that the Bible is included right from the start. If the children get good grades then no-one can complain and many parents will want to send their children to those schools. The cost of a good education often becomes a life-long arbitrary belief in the supernatural deity of the particular sect that runs the school. Certainly, this will often be harmless, and occasionally beneficial. However, as we know all too well, a strong religious conviction can often be extremely damaging to individuals and society. Also, how much more would the child have learnt if less time was spent studying the supernatural realm and more time devoted to learning about the real world?

There has recently been some controversy in Britain because a Seventh-Day Adventist Church is setting up a school. The children may well come out with good exam results in numerous subjects, but many will also come out believing that evolution is a lie and the world was Created exactly as it says in Genesis, for the Adventists believe in literal Biblical Creation - possibly not the best way to teach children to think scientifically and rationally. And so the cycle of ignorance continues...