The connection between the church and the state dates very far back in time. The idea of the separation of the two only arose during the Antiquity and Medieval Europe with figures like Martin Luther, where the pope ruling the religious sphere and the monarch ruling the secular sphere led to power struggles and leadership crises. During the Enlightenment, the debate finally came to the centre of attention.
As always, we'll start with some definitions:
Secularism: the separation of religion from civic affairs and the state; neutrality on issues of religion. This may connote atheism, antitheism, naturalism, secularity, and neutrality on topics of religion. As a philosophy, secularism seeks to interpret life based on principles derived solely from the material world, without recourse to religion.
Secularisation: the transformation of a society from close identification with religious values and institutions toward non-religious values and secular institutions.
John Locke (1632-1704) (whom we discussed last week as a key proponent of empiricism) and his theory of 'the social contract' is often credited with the concept of secularisation. He argued that the state and church each have their own roles: the state should concern itself with the governing of the people and religion should concern itself with transcendence and other-worldly doctrines, but that each should not impose on the other. He also firmly argued that the liberty of conscience should be protected from the government, an idea that went on to influence the Kulturkampf in Germany and Switzerland, other French Enlightenment philosophers, and Thomas Jefferson and the American Constitution.
Some scholars argue that secularism and secularisation happens as a process of modernisation and social and economic development, some argue that it results from our inability to adapt to the broad ethical and spiritual needs of mankind to the fast advance of the physical sciences, and some even argue the "modernisation" thesis, that intellectual and cultural elites promote secularisation to enhance their own status and influence (after all, if the pope isn't the almighty all-powerful, someone else has to be, right?).
Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud were among many notable names in philosophy who postulated the decline of religiosity in society with increasing modernisation and they weren't exactly wrong. As time has gone on and our society has developed, the state seems to have the desire to separate the church and state more and more.
Modern democracies are generally recognised as secular, but you could take one look at America and argue that religion still plays a major role in politics. Whereas in Europe, the influence of religion on the state seems to be declining. In fact, France has their own strict system of secularism, called Laïcité, where the absence of state religion is deemed a prerequisite for democratic freedoms.
In Australia, our constitution prevents the Commonwealth from establishing any state religion. But, I'd argue that religion still has a seat at the table in our politics. Look at our new NSW premier or our Prime Minister (two very outspoken Christian men) who both 'sit on the conservative side' for much of their politics. Are they influenced by their religious views? Might that influence their politics? Is that a good thing?
I think my ultimate question for you all is this: Is it possible for true Secularism to ever be achieved? Or will the church and state always weave their way in to influence one another? My gut is telling me no, but I could be wrong. What do you think?
Happy researching!
