“Church/state separation is the human corollary of God’s gift of religious liberty. To transgress it is to break moral law. A free church in a free state is the building block of this great nation for 243 years. Religious school vouchers violate it. Stop them now.”
I follow this anonymous Twitter account which often tweets about issues that I agree with. I often agree with the author’s conclusions, but I do not always agree with how the conclusions are reached. Case in point, the tweet quote above offers propositions that support the conclusion that school vouchers are a bad idea. I agree with that. I do not agree with the propositions the author used.
Does that matter?
Well, it is certainly interesting to see how people think, how they support their beliefs about this world, and the basis for their decision making. Two rats can find the same cheese, but that does mean the paths they took are equal. So yes, it does matter. To me at least.
So let me address the propositions so I can break them down and see what each has to offer. Then I will provide a different way to support the idea that school vouchers are a bad idea.
Proposition 1. Church/state separation is the human corollary of God’s gift of religious liberty.
True or false?
I had to review the meaning of corollary. It means, “a proposition that follows from (and is often appended to) one already proved.” It is my guess then that a human corollary is one formed by “a proposition that follows from one already proved”. Which proposition is already proved? I’m not clear about that. Let me first eliminate “human corollary” to see if I can make sense of this.
Church/state separation is (the proposition that follows from one already proved) of God’s gift of religious liberty. Ah Ha! I get it. The proposition that has already been proved is “God’s gift of religious liberty.” And because this gift is alleged to be true, it follows (necessarily) that church and state separation is a true proposition.
I can argue this from a couple of different directions. First, and the more obvious, is to argue against religious liberty being a gift from God. That proposition is based in faith, not fact, so we cannot say it is “proved”. We can say it is believed though. I would have to allow that. The proposition (hereafter prop.) is actually a hypothetical – an assumption, but to the point, does it prove that church/state separation is true, or necessary?
No, not at all. A gift of religious liberty says nothing at all about how church and state should be related – combined or separated or some combination of each. Just because I give you $100 does not state or imply how I think the Federal Reserve should be run.
Prop 2 “. To transgress it (Prop 1) is to break moral law.
Since Prop 1 is not true, Prop 2 can be dismissed as not true. But let’s take a look at it again just to make sure. What is a “moral law”?
There are many definitions, but let’s start with this one. “(in some systems of ethics) an absolute principle defining the criteria of right action (whether conceived as a divine ordinance or a truth of reason).”
Is it an absolute principle that church should be separate from state? If morality comes from God, can we agree that God would never make a rule that says church and state must be separate? That sounds reasonable to me, but maybe others are not so easily convinced.
Is this rule of separation a truth that can be derived from Reason? I think so. But I do not deny that many governments have enjoyed success by including the church within the domain of the state. While it may be reasonable to keep state and church separate, it is not evident that it is necessary to do so.
If we cannot say with certainty that something is a moral law, what transgression do we commit if we break it? Would the occurrence of the transgression be just as uncertain? I think so. Prop 2 is false.
Prop 3 “A free church in a free state is the building block of this great nation for 243 years.”
That statement, as it is written, is very interesting. I want to focus on the terms free church, free state, and building block. A free church, I infer, is a religious institution which is not compelled to obey commands, laws, edicts, or rules which are contrary to the purposes necessary to ensure the institution’s survival and growth. A free state would be one not so encumbered by a greater institution that doomed it to a similar fate as the aforementioned free church. A free church is therefore free from certain interference, and a free state is too.
A building block is a foundation stone. It has a critical function to support that which is built upon it. Presumably then, Prop 3 says that a free church and a free state is one of the necessary components of our nation. Is that true?
Perhaps. It sounds reasonable. But does that mean a church must be separate from a state? No, it says nothing at all about the relationship and powers of church and state. It only says that both are necessary components. The leaders of a church often consult with leaders of a local community, a state government, and even the Federal government. A relationship exists. Is that a fair analysis?
Maybe not. More needs to be said about the Doctrine of Separation. It fundamentally addresses the necessity of the separation of conflicted authorities. The church derives authority from God and the state derives authority through the conference of power from its citizenry. Separation implies that neither the church nor the state will act in a way which encumbers the other. Their powers are separate in that respect.
The church and state both attend to the needs of the congregants and citizenry, respectively. Separation of authority would imply that neither the church nor the state have the stated authority to interfere in the affairs of the other. Likewise, insomuch as the state works within its domain, and the church operates within its domain, separation implies that neither party can interfere with how the other attends to its role and responsibilities within its domain.
Here is the problem. The domain is the same for church and state. The domain is composed of citizens. Conflicts arise when either the state or the church violate the rules of the other, or otherwise cause a conflict in any matter that is of concern to the other party.
The Public School system, which is run by the state, is seen as the course of conflict for some churches. What is taught in school does not always agree with or conform to what is taught in church. Many churches offer their congregants the opportunity to attend a private school that teaches a curriculum that conforms to the religious teachings of that particular church faith.
The question becomes, should a parent be able to receive a refund from the state, for the purposes of paying the tuition at a private school.
The answer is no. So I agree with the conclusion of the author. But the propositions offered are, to me, nonsense.
*****************************************
I’ll try to explain my view on these matters as quickly as possible. First, it is in the State’s interest to provide each child of school age an opportunity to secure an education. Since it is the State’s interest, then all citizens who live in that State bear an obligation to participate in attaining and protecting that interest.
There are some religious folk who are taught that God’s interest supersedes the interest of the State – that God’s Law is superior to the laws of a State. So you see, at the root of this problem is the issue of authority.
There is another argument that bears repeating. Some people say that churches teach religious based ideas that are known to be false. Others are questionable. Still others omit important information that might broaden a student’s understanding. For these reasons, they believe the quality of education received at a religious institution is relevant in the determination of why school vouchers should not be given to parents who want their children to attend a private and religion-based school.
That is not my argument, although I will not disagree or agree with it here. My argument remains with a citizen’s obligation, which, I must point out, has absolutely nothing to do with any of the nonsensical propositions henceforth discussed.
A citizen enjoys the pleasure and privilege of being a member of a state, and assumes certain obligations because of that membership. Plain and simple. Everyone helps pay for public education. Everyone benefits.
Second, a citizen cannot escape the obligation because of an objection to what is taught in public schools. (There are other ways to do that.)
That is the end of my argument. I do not need to say much more than that. For instance, it is not necessary to dismiss any citizen’s request for a tax refund to be used as a school voucher to pay for tuition to a private school. It isn’t necessary because it doesn’t matter. It is enough to rely on the two propositions I provided above, and will repeat below.
1. Citizens, as a condition of membership, bear certain obligations.
2. Citizens cannot abrogate obligations.
The strength of a State depends upon its ability to enforce the rules necessary for the State to achieve its interests. (Its interests are determined by those who empower it as an Authority.) A State which permits some residents to withdraw money from the Public School system, such that the school system suffers, is acting against its own self-interest.
The conflict that arises between the teachings of some religions and the teachings of a public school system can be resolved by the family that freely chooses to send students to a private school. But the (financial) obligation of the citizens of that family to the state remains the same. If you don’t meet your obligations, you have no claim to the benefits provided by the State, including membership. As an aside, if the state should say a parent could not send a child to a religious school, then that would be a violation of the First Amendment. But requiring a parent to pay taxes to fund a public school system so the state can meet its obligation, imposed by the majority of citizens — that would not be a violation of the First Amendment.
Final Word
Rather than argue the merits of church/state separation, I approached the problem of school vouchers from the idea that members of a state bear certain obligations. It is through a democratic means that the State is obliged, and it is democracy that obliges all citizens to participate. If the State should fail, there would be no means to protect the religious freedoms so many churches enjoy.
That creates a paradox. A discussion perhaps for another day.