'Separation of Church and State' Is Not the Reason the Louisiana Law Requiring Displaying the Ten Commandments in Schools Is a Bad Law
And some thoughts about Julian Assange and so-called freedom of speech
As The Guardian reports, the state of Louisiana now requires schools to display the Ten Commandments and some families are suing to overturn that law, on the grounds that it violates the Constitution’s separation of church and state principle.
Let’s step back a think about this “separation of church and state” principle, OK? As you will see in my discussion of it below, the principle of “separation of church and state” is not a valid or good principle, regardless of whether one does or does not think the Ten Commandments should be displayed in public schools. Displaying the Ten Commandments in the manner the Louisiana law requires is a bad idea because it implies that those who don’t think these exact words are the sacred words of God are less worthy than those who do. It is not a bad idea because it violates some “separation of church and state” principle. Here’s what I mean.
Separation of Church and State is a bogus concept
Separation of church and state is a bogus concept because it rests on the false assumption that religion is only about how one worships God (or in general how one does something purely personal that does not affect other people.)
Given this false assumption, of course, it makes perfect sense that the government should not be in the business of telling people how to worship God (or do something purely personal that does not affect other people.) In other words, it would make sense to have a separation of church and state.
But religion is not simply about how one worships God. Religion is primarily about what values should shape society and only secondarily about an argument for why those values should shape society. Most people who subscribe to one of the main monotheistic religions say that it is wrong to commit murder* because God tells us so. Thinking that it is wrong to commit murder is not, per se, a monotheistic religious idea, since an atheist may also think it is wrong to commit murder. It is, however, a religious idea to think that the REASON it is wrong to commit murder is because God tells us so.
Since many, possibly most, people in the United States believe the RELIGIOUS idea that it is wrong to commit murder because God tells us so, they also believe that the government must not make murder legal even if a majority of people vote to make it legal. Why not? Because, according to the religious belief, God's will trumps any majority vote.
What about you, dear reader? Do you think that if a majority votes to make murder (and one could substitute slavery here, by the way) legal then it should be legal? I don't think it should, and I bet you don't either. But why not? What is more legitimate than a majority vote in a genuine democracy?
There must be SOMETHING more legitimate, right? Otherwise you'd have no basis for your opinion. Well you may or may not use the word "God" to refer to whatever it is that makes your condemnation of murder more legitimate than a majority vote to legalize it but whatever word or phrase you use it will be essentially "God" by a different name. It will be something that transcends mere human desires or beliefs, and your honoring its superior legitimacy is really the same as worshiping it, or close enough to make the difference unimportant.
How would you, dear reader, respond if a majority of people in a genuine democracy voted to make murder (or slavery) legal? You would probably say they have no right to do that.
Fine. But what would you then say if this majority told you:
"There should be a separation of church and state. The government should not allow religious people like you to make the government support your particular religious beliefs. The government should not be expressing support for your religion or any other religion. The government should only do what the majority says it should do with no obedience to anybody's God interfering with that."
I hope you can see that this "separation of church and state" argument is bogus. It is an argument that can be used to defend what ought not to be defended, such as making murder or slavery legal.
Both religion and government are about the values that ought to shape society, and when it comes to deciding such questions (not just strictly personal questions such as how to worship one's God) there cannot be a strict separation between church and state, nor should there be.
The bogus "separation of church and state" concept is part of a collection of related bogus concepts that the ruling class uses to defend what ought not to be defended. Three of these bogus concepts are: 1) that there can be a democracy of all the people when there is a fundamental conflict among the people; 2) that there is such a thing as the national interest; and 3) the concept of "freedom of speech." I discuss why these are bogus concepts here and here and here respectively.
Further reading re separation of church and state:
"The Myth of Religious Violence"** by Karen Armstrong, with historical perspective on the idea of separation of church and state]
Covenant Economics by Richard Horsley gives a fascinating account of how, when considering the actual historical context in which the Ten Commandments was originally written and read, it is a very egalitarian document that was perceived as such. The author makes similar interpretations of the rest of the Old and New Testaments.
Some thoughts about Julian Assange and so-called freedom of speech
First, it’s wonderful that Julian Assange is now released from his torturous prison confinement, although he remains in fear for his life because the CIA is evil. And it is only the enormous world-wide outrage at his imprisonment that is the reason why Assange is still alive and now free.
Second, let us please note that the same ruling class that imprisoned and tortured Julian Assange for using speech to do good and that made such speech illegal by labeling it “sedition,” tells us that the way for us to protect the right of people to use speech to do good is to fight for the right of eeeeeeeeeverybody to use speech, be it for doing good or for doing bad. Well, no! That’s not how it works in the real world. The way to make sure that people can use speech for doing good is to fight for the right to use speech for doing good, PERIOD.
As I write in my “The Right to Free Speech Is a Bogus Concept” :
Is Free Speech for Oppressors Required in Order to Safeguard Free Speech for Good People?
Some people argue that we need to stand up for the "Right of Free Speech" for everybody--including those who use it to oppress people--because that is the way to protect free speech for good people. The thinking behind this notion is that our society is ruled over by institutions that are neutral in the class war, like a referee in a fight. In this mistaken view, the neutral rulers of society will either adopt a "Free speech for Everybody" policy or else nobody will have a right to free speech, and so, therefore, if we want free speech for the "good guys" then we have to demand it for everybody, including those who use it for oppression.
But our society is NOT ruled by a neutral "referee" that imposes the same rule for both "sides" of the class war. Our society is ruled by the plutocracy--the oppressing side, and it is going to suppress free speech for our side--the anti-oppression side--as much as it can, and promote free speech for its own side as much as it can. The only way for those against oppression to get the right of free speech is to fight for it. Fighting for the right of free speech for oppressors is crazy. It is as crazy as it would be for somebody who wanted to ensure the right of cooks to use knives for food preparation thinking it was necessary to uphold the right of everybody to use knives for any purpose whatsoever, including murdering innocent people, in order to protect the right of cooks to use knives for food preparation.
We need to carefully think about how to respond to pro-oppression speech. Yes, this can be difficult. It requires taking into account all sorts of things to figure out how best to prevent pro-oppression ideas from gaining support and being acted upon. But let's abandon the fairy tale that we don't have to think because there is a general one-size-fits-all "no need to think" abstract "freedom of speech" principle that tells us what to do in all cases--fight to the death for EVERYBODY'S right to free speech. That's absurd.
-------------------
* I am using the word "murder" here to refer to murder most foul, in other words for example murdering one's neighbor because she didn't buy any Girl Scout cookies from one's daughter; I am not using the word for what many would say is justifiable killing of a human being, for example executing a criminal for a capital crime after a proper trial found the criminal guilty.
** Warning! Karen Armstrong is a very interesting writer but I was disappointed to discover that she quotes the words (two separate full phrases) of the 17th century philosopher, John Locke, on slavery so totally out of context that her assertion about what Locke wrote is flat out false. (I wonder if Armstrong ever read these words of John Locke: “He that has but ever so little examined the citations of writers, cannot doubt how little credit the quotations deserve, where the originals are wanting; and consequently how much less quotations of quotations can be relied on.”) I suppose one must be skeptical about the veracity of her other quotations, alas. In all fairness to Armstrong, however, her mistake was to use the wrong words of Locke out of context to make a point--that Locke defended slavery--that is apparently true: Locke wrote:
“But there is another sort of servants, which by a peculiar name we call slaves, who being captives taken in a just war, are by the right of nature subjected to the absolute dominion and arbitrary power of their masters.”
— Delphi Complete Works of John Locke (Illustrated) by John Locke
Armstrong's Thomas Jefferson quotation to show he approved of slavery is correct, and it makes her point that the advocates of separation of church and state were not necessarily less violent and oppressive than those who did not advocate for that separation.
The constitution of the USA never said these words SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE! It said that the government is not side with one religion over the others.