The Separation of Church and State: A Faulty Syllogism

This is an idea that I’ve been pondering for some time and I would love some feedback on it from religious individuals and atheists alike. Before continuing, be aware that this is the very short condensed version.

It has always struck me that the point of moral philosophy is to derive normative mechanisms for determining normative behaviour. In other words, for establishing how one ought to determine what one ought to do. This is not an uncommon characterisation of the discipline though I would welcome feedback from anyone that would care to disagree. Political Philosophy and political systems are a natural extension of this principle. They simply provide an extended framework for how people ought to interact within the confines of the state.

Religion can be viewed in much the same way. It provides strict guidelines for moral action and in doing so attempts to provide normative solutions to the problems of everyday life. As such it can be viewed as an alternative political system as opposed to a separate category of moral thought or a separate discipline.

Many nations now strive for a secular society in which church and state do not interfere with each other. While I do not disagree with this sentiment (for reasons I will address below) it strikes me that this is a faulty syllogism. The actual issue is one of a separation of state and state. There is nothing unnatural about such a separation. Most nations refuse to allow political parties with certain aims from operating. An example of this is any political party that seeks to exclude certain members of the population from participating or existing within the state. It is easy to see how a religious political party could fall into the same trap.

The idea of a religious political party claiming to purport an objective truth would change the political landscape in a liberal democracy substantially. Most political parties claim simply to represent the best policy for the nation at the time and see their opposition as representing a different theory or subjective view of how the nation should be run. In contrast, a religious party inherently suggests, as they claim to represent an objective truth, that their opponents are objectively wrong. What this suggests is that a vote for the opposition is not simply misguided, or the wrong objective decision, but rather morally wrong. It is not what one ought to do.

Although this suggests that the question as originally stated is indeed a faulty syllogism, it does not in any way disagree with the resolve of secular society.