Separation of church and state

Many of us wonder why there is a separation of church and state. Under this policy, the church does not interfere with the affairs of the state and vice-versa. In extreme cases, the separation of church and state involves limiting the exercise of religious beliefs only in church structures or within the private confines of the home. The display of faith in public is prohibited. In some countries, one is not even allowed to carry a Bible or a rosary in public view. 

Why is there a need to separate Church affairs from state affairs and vice-versa? Is such separation borne out of necessity? Is it a prescription for good government? Or is it because there are different types of religion and the state does not want to favor anyone? 

The internet provided some interesting answers, although most of them are quite indirect and incomplete. Thomas Jefferson explains that “Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faith or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within the religion itself. Erecting the “wall of separation between church and state,” therefore, is absolutely necessary in a free society.”  

What happens if the government favors a particular religion? Harry Blackmun has this to say: “When the government puts its imprimatur on a particular religion it conveys a message of exclusion to all those who do not adhere to the favored beliefs. A government cannot be premised on the belief that all persons are created equal when it asserts that God prefers some.”

What if there is no separation of church and state? Robert Heinlein tries to answer this question. He said that “Almost any sect, cult or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.” Is it possible to have a middle ground in the principle advocating the separation of church and state? Ronald Reagan declares that “Freedom prospers when religion is vibrant and the rule of law under God is acknowledged.”

How is the principle of separation of church and state applied in some countries? In one country, while its constitution guarantees freedom of religion, the state collects some taxes from recognized religious communities upon their request and a fee is charged for the service. Religion is taught in some schools but no teacher can be compelled to teach the subject of religion because the state considers itself as neutral as far as religion is concerned. But those who teach religion are required to secure prior permission from their religious community.

In another country, the King is also the head of the state church. Its constitution requires that more than half of the members of its legislative body are members of the state church. The same constitution guarantees freedom of religion but while it guarantees such freedom, it also designates one type of religion as the official state religion. And the church propagating this religion is administered through a government department.

In another country, while there is separation of church and state, the Pope had accepted the ordination of a bishop who was pre-selected by the government for a Catholic association. In another country, the separation of church and state means the separation of religion from political power. While it protects religious expression from state interference, it also puts a limit to public religious expression to ensure that public power is insulated from the influence of religious institutions. In another country which has Islam for its religion, conversion to another religion is totally prohibited and any violation is punishable by death.

In Dignitatis Humanae, the Second Vatican Council’s Declaration on Religious Freedom, the Catholic Church teaches that all people are entitled to religious freedom. However, while it permits the separation of church and state, it does not support a separation of religion and politics. It believes that the proper role of the Church is to guide and inform the people of their rights. In the Philippines, the Catholic Church has always opposed any bill that seeks to impose the death penalty. It is now also strongly opposing the passing of the Reproductive Health bill, which aims to guarantee access to methods and information on birth control and maternal care. 

Which policy therefore is best for a country — complete, partial or no separation at all of church and state? In a democratic setting, it is the people who decide what is best for their country and their preference is expressed in their constitution and statutes. But what does the Bible say? “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (Mark 12:17). It also says: “But Peter and the apostles answered, ‘We must obey God rather than men’” (Acts 5:29) and again in Romans 13:1 — “Let everyone be subject to governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established.”

How do you apply these Biblical prescriptions to a particular country? The answer to this question may vary from one country to another for indeed, the practice of faith, whether by individuals or by countries, is a subjective decision.