Separation of Church and State

Political freedom requires a separation of church and state. This principle is often advocated, but seldom fully understood. Properly, this separation is rooted in the principle of intellectual freedom. It means that every individual should be free to think about and accept any idea he chooses. To say that church is separate from state means that the state makes no evaluation of its citizens ideas, religious or otherwise. The states concern is only with mens actions, specifically actions that trespass on individual rights. It neither persecutes nor tolerates nor promotes ideasbecause it is unconcerned with ideas per se. From the other direction, to say that state is separate from church, means that a citizenincluding any faction of them, such as a churchis incapable of using the states coercive power to penalize or support ideas, religious or otherwise. If a citizen wants to hinder or support an idea, he must argue his case with others, not enact a law. In a free society, government has no power to persecute or establish religious ideas because it has no power to police ideas as such. No one, including those in government, may force their ideas on anyone. Q&A with Ayn Rand Can capitalism be justified on religious grounds? There can be no more disastrous errormorally, philosophically and politicallythan to assert that the ultimate justification of Capitalism rests on faith. To assert this is to announce that there is no rational justification for Capitalism, no rational arguments to support the principles which created this countryand that reason is on the side of the enemy.

The Communists claim that they are the champions of reason and science. If the Conservatives concede that claim and retreat into the realm of religion, it will be an act of intellectual abdication, the kind of intellectual surrender that the Communists irrational ideology could never have won on its own merits. The conflict between Capitalism and Communism is a philosophical and moralconflict, which must be fought and won in mens minds, in the realm of ideas; without that victory, no victory in the political realm is possible. But one cannot win mens minds by telling them not to think; one cannot win an intellectual battle by renouncing the intellect; one cannot convince anybody by appealing to faith. Capitalism is perishing by default. The historical cause of its destruction is the failure of its philosophical advocates to present a full, consistent case and to offer a moral justification for their stand. Yet reason is on the side of Capitalism; an irrefutable rational case can be, and must be, offered by its defenders. The philosophical default of the Conservatives will become final, if Capitalismthe one and only rational way of lifeis reduced to the status of a mystic doctrine. I am not suggesting that you should take a stand against religion. I am saying that Capitalism and religion are two separate issues, which should not be united into one package deal or one common cause. This does not mean that religious persons cannot crusade for Capitalism; but it

does mean that nonreligious persons, like myself, cannot crusade for religion. June 4, 1960 Letter to Barry Goldwater, Letters of Ayn Rand Sensing their need of a moral base, many conservatives decided to choose religion as their moral justification; they claim that America and capitalism are based on faith in God. Politically, such a claim contradicts the fundamental principles of the United States: in America, religion is a private matter which cannot and must not be brought into political issues. Intellectually, to rest ones case on faith means to concede that reason is on the side of ones enemiesthat one has no rational arguments to offer. The conservatives claim that their case rests on faith, means that there are no rational arguments to support the American system, no rational justification for freedom, justice, property, individual rights, that these rest on a mystic revelation and can be accepted only on faiththat in reason and logic the enemy is right, but men must hold faith as superior to reason. Consider the implications of that theory. While the communists claim that they are the representatives of reason and science, the conservatives concede it and retreat into the realm of mysticism, of faith, of the supernatural, into another world, surrendering this world to communism. It is the kind of victory that the communists irrational ideology could never have won on its own merits. Observe the results. On the occasion of Khrushchevs first visit to America, he declared, at a televised luncheon, that he had threatened to bury us because it has been scientifically proved that communism is the system of the future, destined to rule the world. What did our spokesman answer? Mr. Henry Cabot Lodge answered that our system is based on faith in God. Prior to Khrushchevs arrival, the conservative leadersincluding senators and House members were issuing indignant protests against his visit, but the only action they suggested to the American people, the only practical form of protest, was: prayer and the holding of religious services for Khrushchevs victims. To hear prayer offered as their only weapon by the representatives of the most powerful country on eartha country allegedly dedicated to the fight for freedomwas

enough to discredit America and capitalism in anyones eyes, at home and abroad. Conservatism: An Obituary, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal According to the Constitutional principle of the separation of Church and State, religion is a private matter; it should not be brought into public issues or into the province of government, and it should not be made a part of political movements. Consider the implications of the attempt to tie Conservatism to religion: if such an attempt succeeded, it would make religion an integral part of our political system, in direct contradiction to the Constitution. The next question to arise would be: which religion? Religions have lived in peace with one another and with nonreligious thinkers only since the XIX century, since the American establishment of the principle separating Church and State. Some of them, notably the Catholic Church, have never renounced their dream of regaining control of the States power of compulsion. Is this a goal that the advocates of Capitalism can support, assist or sanction? If this goal were to succeed, what would become of religious minorities? Or of those who hold no religion? June 4, 1960 Letter to Barry Goldwater, Letters of Ayn Rand A secular political movement does not exclude religious people. A religious political movement does exclude nonreligious people, such as myself and those who agree with me. June 4, 1960 Letter to Barry Goldwater, Letters of Ayn Rand Is the United States a religious nation? According to the Constitutional principle of the separation of Church and State, religion is a private matter; it should not be brought into public issues or into the province of government, and it should not be made a part of political movements. Consider the implications of the attempt to tie Conservatism to religion: if such an attempt succeeded, it would make religion an integral part of our political system, in direct contradiction to the Constitution. The next

question to arise would be: which religion? Religions have lived in peace with one another and with nonreligious thinkers only since the XIX century, since the American establishment of the principle separating Church and State. Some of them, notably the Catholic Church, have never renounced their dream of regaining control of the States power of compulsion. Is this a goal that the advocates of Capitalism can support, assist or sanction? If this goal were to succeed, what would become of religious minorities? Or of those who hold no religion? June 4, 1960 Letter to Barry Goldwater, Letters of Ayn Rand Sensing their need of a moral base, many conservatives decided to choose religion as their moral justification; they claim that America and capitalism are based on faith in God. Politically, such a claim contradicts the fundamental principles of the United States: in America, religion is a private matter which cannot and must not be brought into political issues. Conservatism: An Obituary, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal Are religious conservatives advocates of capitalism? Sensing their need of a moral base, many conservatives decided to choosereligion as their moral justification; they claim that America and capitalism are based on faith in God. Politically, such a claim contradicts the fundamental principles of the United States: in America, religion is a private matter which cannot and must not be brought into political issues.

Intellectually, to rest ones case on faith means to concede that reason is on the side of ones enemiesthat one has no rational arguments to offer. Theconservatives claim that their case rests on faith, means that there are no rational arguments to support the American system, no rational justification for freedom, justice, property, individual rights, that these rest on a mystic revelation and can be accepted only on faiththat in reason and logic the enemy is right, but men must hold faith as superior to reason. Consider the implications of that theory. While the communists claim that they are the representatives of reason and science, the conservatives concede it and retreat into the realm of mysticism, of faith, of the supernatural, into another world, surrendering this world to communism. It is the kind of victory that the communists irrational ideology could never have won on its own merits. Observe the results. On the occasion of Khrushchevs first visit to America, he declared, at a televised luncheon, that he had threatened to bury us because it has been scientifically proved that communism is the system of the future, destined to rule the world. What did our spokesman answer? Mr. Henry Cabot Lodge answered that our system is based on faith in God. Prior to Khrushchevs arrival, the conservative leadersincluding senators and House memberswere issuing indignant protests against his visit, but the only action they suggested to the American people, the only practical form of protest, was: prayer and the holding of religious services for Khrushchevs victims. To hearprayer offered as their only

weapon by the representatives of the most powerful country on eartha country allegedly dedicated to the fight for freedomwas enough to discredit America and capitalism in anyones eyes, at home and abroad. Conservatism: An Obituary, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal This leads me to the subject of the National Review. I am profoundly opposed to itnot because it is a religious magazine, but because it pretends that it is not. There are religious magazines which one can respect, even while disagreeing with their views. But the fact that the National Review poses as a secular political magazine, while following a strictly religious party line, can have but one purpose: to slip religious goals by stealth on those who would not accept them openly, to bore from within, to tie Conservatism to religion, and thus to take over the American Conservatives. This attempt comes from a pressure group wider than the National Review, but the National Review is one of its manifestations. June 4, 1960 Letter to Barry Goldwater, Letters of Ayn Rand Is there any difference between the [papal] encyclicals philosophy and communism? I am perfectly willing, on this matter, to take the word of an eminent Catholic authority. Under the headline: Encyclical Termed Rebuff to Marxism, The New York Times of March 31, 1967, reports: The Rev. John Courtney Murray, the prominent Jesuit theologian, described Pope Pauls newest encyclical yesterday as the churchs definitive answer to Marxism. . . . The Marxists have proposed one way, and in pursuing their program they rely on man alone, Father Murray said. Now Pope Paul VI has issued a detailed plan to accomplish the same goal on the basis of true humanismhumanism that recognizes mans religious nature. Amen. So much for those American conservatives who claim that religion is the base of capitalismand who believe that they can have capitalism and eat it, too, as the moral cannibalism of the altruist ethics demands.

And so much for those modern liberals who pride themselves on being the champions of reason, science, and progressand who smear the advocates of capitalism as superstitious, reactionary representatives of a dark past. Move over, comrades, and make room for your latest fellow-travelers, who had always belonged on your sidethen take a look, if you dare, at the kind of past they represent. Requiem for Man, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal Should abortion be legal? Abortion is a moral rightwhich should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body? Of Living Death, The Voice of Reason If any among you are confused or taken in by the argument that the cells of an embryo are living human cells, remember that so are all the cells of your body, including the cells of your skin, your tonsils, or your ruptured appendixand that cutting them is murder, according to the notions of that proposed law. Remember also that a potentiality is not the equivalent of an actualityand that a human beings life begins at birth. The question of abortion involves much more than the termination of a pregnancy: it is a question of the entire life of the parents. As I have said before, parenthood is an enormous responsibility; it is an impossible responsibility for young people who are ambitious and struggling, but poor; particularly if they are intelligent and conscientious enough not to abandon their child on a doorstep nor to surrender it to adoption. For such young people, pregnancy is a death sentence: parenthood would force them to give up their future, and condemn them to a life of hopeless drudgery, of slavery to a childs physical and financial needs. The situation of an unwed mother, abandoned by her lover, is even worse. I cannot quite imagine the state of mind of a person who would wish to condemn a fellow human being to such a horror. I cannot project the degree of hatred

required to make those women run around in crusades against abortion. Hatred is what they certainly project, not love for the embryos, which is a piece of nonsense no one could experience, but hatred, a virulent hatred for an unnamed object. Judging by the degree of those womens intensity, I would say that it is an issue of self-esteem and that their fear is metaphysical. Their hatred is directed against human beings as such, against the mind, against reason, against ambition, against success, against love, against any value that brings happiness to human life. In compliance with the dishonesty that dominates todays intellectual field, they call themselves pro-life. By what right does anyone claim the power to dispose of the lives of others and to dictate their personal choices? The Age of Mediocrity, The Objectivist Forum Is the use of birth control a right? In regard to the moral aspects of birth control, the primary right involved is not the right of an unborn child, nor of the family, nor of society, nor of God. The primary right is one whichin todays public clamor on the subjectfew, if any, voices have had the courage to uphold: the right of man and woman to their own life and happinessthe right not to be regarded as the means to any end. Of Living Death, The Voice of Reason

1. To prevent undue government influence on religious practice and teaching. 2. To prevent faith base organization from imposing religion via government authority. 3.When government is not separate from state. It is usually controlled by the teaching and practices of a single faith or belief , therefore it is unable to protect or support those citizen with religious beliefs or non-belief beyond the faith endorsed and respected by the State.

According to the Constitutional principle of the separation of Church and State, religion is a private matter; it should not be brought into public issues or into the province of government, and it should not be made a part of political movements. Consider the implications of the attempt to tie Conservatism to religion: if such an attempt succeeded, it would make religion an integral part of our political system, in direct contradiction to the Constitution. The next question to arise would be: which religion? Religions have lived in peace with one another and with nonreligious thinkers only since the XIX century, since the American establishment of the principle separating Church and State. Some of them, notably the Catholic Church, have never renounced their dream of regaining control of the States power of compulsion

Church and State: Keep Them Separated This post was written before I became an atheist and does not represent my current views. You can find more up-to-date posts on religion in my faith/skepticism category. (This is the article I wrote for the June church newsletter.) On my recent vacation I stopped by the Truman State University campus and visited some teachers and people I used to work with. One of them, a secretary who didn't know me well, but knew I was a minister, asked me this: "What do you think about them taking God out of everything? No prayer in schools . . . what's the world coming to?" I'm not sure if she honestly wanted to know what I thought, but I didn't tell her. We had one more stop to make, we were running behind already, and I wasn't about to try and start a discussion then and there. But it is something I've been thinking about, and my thoughts may surprise you. ... Rather than trying to sort out one issue in particular, I'm going to ask you to see a bigger picture. The debate over the separation of church and state is constantly raging over one issue or another. Legalized gay marriage and the constitutional

amendment opposing it has been in the news recently. A few months ago the phrase "One nation under God" was the hot topic. Before that it was evolution vs. creation in the science classroom and prayer in school. An in-depth treatment of any of these issues requires more space than our newsletter can hold and more research than I have time for. What I can do is ask this question: Do we want America to become a theocracy, or is the separation of church and state a good thing? Personally, I don't want to see America become a theocracy. When religious groups control or too strongly influence governments, the results are not good. History is full of examples: the Dark Ages in Europe, the Inquisition, the Salem witch trials, the Taliban in Afghanistan. If you really want to know about the dangers of an American theocracy, you need look no further than the state of Utah. The Mormon church, or church of Latter Day Saints (LDS), dominates public life in Salt Lake City. Ties between Utah public schools and the LDS church make life difficult for non-Mormon kids. Many of them convert just to escape the pressure. Parents who don't like what goes on in the schools are free to file a suit, but chances are the case will be heard by a Mormon judge. The church attempts to silence ideas that it doesn't agree with, and history is rewritten to cover the church's mistakes. And this is life in Utah with some separation of church and state. If the laws were relaxed things would only get worse. As a government and a religious group become more entangled, the rights of the minority are undermined. If the US government became overtly Christian, unbelievers would become second-class citizens. Not only that, but a theocracy would, in a sense, weaken the church. People would choose Christianity for its social benefits rather than its truth. The choice that is so important to faith would give way to pressure, fear and coercion. Nominal Christianity would be even more prevalent than it is now. Theocracy would be bad for unbelievers, bad for believers and bad for the state. C.S. Lewis, a strong proponent of Christianity, explained why a theocratic government would be dangerous: I am a democrat because I believe that no man or group of men is good enough to be trusted with uncontrolled power over others. And the higher the pretensions of such power, the more dangerous I think it both to rulers and to the subjects. Hence Theocracy is the worst of all governments. If we must have a tyrant a

robber baron is far better than an inquisitor. The baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity at some point may be sated; and since he dimly knows he is doing wrong he may possibly repent. But the inquisitor who mistakes his own cruelty and lust of power and fear for the voice of Heaven will torment us infinitely more because he torments us with the approval of his own conscience and his better impulses appear to him as temptations ("A Reply to Professor Haldane." On Stories. ed. Walter Hooper. Harcort & Brace Co: Orlando, Florida. 1996). Both the government and the citizens are protected by the separation of church and state, and it's been this way for centuries. Some people see separation as a new idea, brought on by activist judges and the decadence of the twentieth century. But was America, as many believe, created as a Christian nation? Most of the founders were Christians (although several of the more prominent framers were deists or Unitarians), but they were all careful to make America a democratic nation, where citizens are allowed to believe or disbelieve anything they want. Even the most devoted Christians who helped write the Constitution understood that theocracy would be bad for the nation and bad for the church. Many of the things brought today as evidence that this is a Christian nation are relatively recent changes. It wasn't until 1864 that the motto "In God We Trust" appeared on coins, and it was only added to paper money in 1964. The original pledge of allegiance didn't have the phrase "under God". It was added in 1954. Fifty years seems like a long time, but that should be kept in a greater perspective. For the last 200 years America has provided freedom of religion for its citizens. The framers understood that the state and religion should not be entangled. Early settlers in North America had left Europe to escape from oppressive state-sponsored churches. The framers remembered that fact and today's church needs to remember it and avoid undermining the very separation that protects it. I'm not suggesting that we should avoid the political process altogether. Christians have the same right as anyone to try to influence policy in our democracy. I understand that in some cases the separation goes too far, almost to the point of prohibiting the free exercise of religion, and we should work against that. But we need to ask ourselves, "What is our goal?" If we allow the church and the state to get too entangled then we may find that we've created a monster.

The 1st amendment of the Constitution is perfect, and quite clear. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. The Founding Fathers were quite aware of the dangers to Liberty of a Church indoctrinated State. The suppression of science, and the advancement of man, the killing of Great people for heresy, is a Black Mark in the history of man. Don't mess with my freedom or ill let loose these upon you. Concerned, the problem with your stance is this, you are not upset that the ACLU is entering your church, but you are upset that they are removing Christian prayer from government or public areas. No prayer in school? Should Muslims be allowed to observe Dhuhr, taking a break from class shortly after noon for their prayer? It is considered a large part of their religion. What if a student is not religious at all? Then, you are forcing them to observe your religion. As for the Ten Commandments in court houses, is that to state that those that do not believe in a religion consisting of the 10 commandments are to be tried in another court house? If my religion is scientology and I decide to evade taxes, why should I submit to a trial in a court house that shows a bias to another religion? And, if I am asked to give recite the Pledge of Allegiance to this country, as a soldier, and I am Muslim, then I want to state; "one nation under Allah". Would you be happy with that? What if I told you that "under God" was

added to the pledge in 1954 and was not part of the original writing, which stated; "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." Until they enter your church and begin telling you what to believe, they are not taking YOUR religious beliefs away, they are creating a government system that is equal to all, be it Christian, Muslim, Scientologist, Satanist, etc, and that is what government should be.....unbiased. The part that I think people forget, this Nation was created because people wanted to get away from those that forced their religion upon them. If "under God" is in the pledge, prayer is in school, the commandments are in court houses, then religion is being forced into places that are also funded by the taxes of those that may or may not agree with that religion. It is being forced upon those that do not desire to follow that religion