Church and State Versus Religion and Politics

A conspecific remarked the other day that as long as there was a separation of church and state, the church should avoid political issues altogether. She meant making noises about peace and some of the other inconvenient teachings of Jesus Christ, and I don't reckon that it would have bothered her much if the preachers had been doing some flag waving. She's not the first person I have encountered who opined about the separation of religion and politics, although she was the probably the least thoughtful. Usually. my conspecifics worry about a totally secularized political sphere and wonder if the separation of church and state won't lead to decadence and immorality.

Okay, They're dumbasses, too. The separation of church and state does not entail the removal of religion from politics or politics from religion. It's not possible and not even something to strive for.

Every individual human being, when doing his political thing, will necessarily do it in a manner consistent with his religious convictions insofar as he does anything consistent with them. He will vote according to his conscience if his conscience permits him to vote and if he has a vote or a conscience. If he is an office seeker, his campaign will be tempered by the strictures of his convictions, if he has any and if they permit him to seek office. If he is an elected official, he will discharge his duties in a manner consistent with his convictions if he can. Religion will be everywhere in the political sphere because the political sphere is inhabited by religious people. (Even atheism is a sort of religious proposition, and all the atheists I know also have moral and ethical principles, which are fundamentally arbitrary and irrational, on which they rely.)

Although there are issues beyond the cognizance of the state, such as matters of conscience and conviction, there are no such issues beyond the cognizance of the church, especially if the church pretends to an interest in its members' whole lives. There is no topic off limits to the sermon giver (except what he reckons will get him in hot water with the consistory). In principle, the most political of issues, perhaps something as banal as a local bond issue, is grist for the sermonizer's mill and is certainly subject to analysis in the light of religious convictions.

Let's be clear, however. I am a staunch advocate of the principle of the separation of church and state. I merely recognize that religion and politics are inextricable. The institutions are not inextricable and, if men are to have any freedom of conscience worth having, must be kept so. It is in the first instance blasphemous for a state actor to claim to stamp any conviction with the imprimatur of legitimacy. Religious conviction is, as Madison said, the product of reason and experience and never can be imparted by force. The state, the instrument of force, must have no part in the matter. If it is conceded that the state may prefer and encourage monotheism in general, something our HIndu friends may find offensive, then what principled argument can be made that the state may not prefer Baal over Jahweh? Or require immersion or forbid infant baptism? The state is simply incompetent in the matter.

By the same token, the church must stay out of the state. How can a church exercise any state function without advancing its own views? How can a church accept any state preferment or subsidy and remain free of control of state actors?