I attempt to show: (1) that secularism, as we conceive it today, is not fundamentally irreligious and that a hazy, ambiguous account of religion only softens secularism’s resolution; (2) that our modern conception of religion is false: Not all religions have God, faith, moral codes, devoutness, rituals, afterlife, metaphysical, supernatural, et cetera, and not all religions come from wishful thinking, fabrications of the imagination, irrationality, superstition, et cetera; (3) that religious philosophers and scholars are relying on a materialistic approach and cherry picking religious properties, which is what makes religion appear ambiguous, and that all the arguments to prove religions ambiguity effectively prove religion’s all-encompassing reality; (4) that since secular beliefs and experiences seem to overlap and entail religious properties, as well, then we must all be religious to some degree–––the sacred and secular are married, for better or for worse. If true, then each secular position holding the same characteristics of religion can, therefore, become a religion unto themselves over time (i.e., Statism).
So, before I begin the next instalment of this series on understanding religion, I would like to know your thoughts: If the line between secularism and religion is truly blurry, where does the separation of Church and State begin? Or rather, how should we understand the separation of Church and State?
It’s a really tricky concept to pin down. Though the concept is inherently Christian in its origins, it’s inception almost depends upon a Christian culture (though not denominationally dependent) to properly execute. Theoretically, both entities should be sovereign in their own sphere.
In todays world, perhaps in the same way that the Christian is called to walk in the tension between submission to government and submission to God, the separation of church and state can be viewed through a similar lens.
That's a good point –– it is a tension that may very well be with us until Christ returns. That said, at this point in my studies, I’m not even convinced it’s even possible; perhaps, at a municipal level it is, which is focused on infrastructure, zoning by-laws, etc. But on a federal level the lines begin to blur. From what I can tell, there is a religion is in the White House right now under the guise of secularism (i.e., naturalism, atheism, etc.), which assumes there is no moral truth or religious truth (i.e., pluralism), and that everything is contractual and subjective (consequently, this renders truth as political in a sense). I’ve spoken about this at some length before; I think it is a very big problem. Many federal rights/laws are inherently moral (i.e., abortion), so a nation undercuts their own lawmaking by denying objective moral truth. Also, a contract cannot be a basis for any kind of truth; that is to render the inherent nature of truth a competition, which means truth is modifiable. Moral truth is necessary, not just for individuals but for everyone. It is a public concern that is good for everyone. This means moral truth belongs in the public square! It has to be political. And Christianity teaches moral truth.
All that to say, it all just depends on which religion is in the White House and how that religion is able to manage the variety of religious perspectives and participants in society, which, in my head, is inextricably contingent on objective moral truth in order to sustain and reflect moral laws in our political system and rights (equality, freedom, etc.). This is also inherently theological. Religious views are foundational for a nation’s constitution and, thus, moral culture, rights, and laws. For instance, if there's no equality, there's no democracy. Yet, equality is grounded in the theological notion that everyone is created in the image of God. Equality is bankrupt otherwise. It was in ancient Greece, as Aristotle remarks, and it is in naturalism and atheism because there is no standard, basis, or way to say equality exists in nature. It is just something we agree to because of our trickling Christian conscience, but it is only a matter of time before people realize it is a social construct, which is subject to modification (i.e., Communism; “some are more equal than others”). In other words, theology directly informs morality and affects a nation’s constitution and national rights/laws. Perhaps, the better question is, then: Which religion best satisfies the quest for moral truth?
It’s a really tricky concept to pin down. Though the concept is inherently Christian in its origins, it’s inception almost depends upon a Christian culture (though not denominationally dependent) to properly execute. Theoretically, both entities should be sovereign in their own sphere.
In todays world, perhaps in the same way that the Christian is called to walk in the tension between submission to government and submission to God, the separation of church and state can be viewed through a similar lens.
That's a good point –– it is a tension that may very well be with us until Christ returns. That said, at this point in my studies, I’m not even convinced it’s even possible; perhaps, at a municipal level it is, which is focused on infrastructure, zoning by-laws, etc. But on a federal level the lines begin to blur. From what I can tell, there is a religion is in the White House right now under the guise of secularism (i.e., naturalism, atheism, etc.), which assumes there is no moral truth or religious truth (i.e., pluralism), and that everything is contractual and subjective (consequently, this renders truth as political in a sense). I’ve spoken about this at some length before; I think it is a very big problem. Many federal rights/laws are inherently moral (i.e., abortion), so a nation undercuts their own lawmaking by denying objective moral truth. Also, a contract cannot be a basis for any kind of truth; that is to render the inherent nature of truth a competition, which means truth is modifiable. Moral truth is necessary, not just for individuals but for everyone. It is a public concern that is good for everyone. This means moral truth belongs in the public square! It has to be political. And Christianity teaches moral truth.
All that to say, it all just depends on which religion is in the White House and how that religion is able to manage the variety of religious perspectives and participants in society, which, in my head, is inextricably contingent on objective moral truth in order to sustain and reflect moral laws in our political system and rights (equality, freedom, etc.). This is also inherently theological. Religious views are foundational for a nation’s constitution and, thus, moral culture, rights, and laws. For instance, if there's no equality, there's no democracy. Yet, equality is grounded in the theological notion that everyone is created in the image of God. Equality is bankrupt otherwise. It was in ancient Greece, as Aristotle remarks, and it is in naturalism and atheism because there is no standard, basis, or way to say equality exists in nature. It is just something we agree to because of our trickling Christian conscience, but it is only a matter of time before people realize it is a social construct, which is subject to modification (i.e., Communism; “some are more equal than others”). In other words, theology directly informs morality and affects a nation’s constitution and national rights/laws. Perhaps, the better question is, then: Which religion best satisfies the quest for moral truth?