Is The Principle Of The Separation Of Church And State Valid?

May 9, 2008
by Evans Munyemesha

The assertion that people, in the major, must not only submit to the State whether by habit or the respectability of their own ignorance, but also that they must separate the affairs of the State from those of Church is most unfortunate because the reasons given to support this assertion generally say nothing about why they must submit to it, how it came about, or the foundations of its authority.

Accordingly, what has ever been considered as most important to all, to the advance of the people's interests, has been, of all things, least rigorously examined. Those who have attempted to unravel the mystery of the State-Church separation, with a rare few exceptions, have fallen into the errors of their ancestors by commingling fairytales with scientific knowledge.

Let us examine this closely to see where we end up.

It is everywhere admitted that people in a given territory be bound to the rule of an invisible Central Power that falls under different names and titles and is represented by a single individual answering to 'Head of State'; and that this invisible State through its human representative must direct the economic activities of all. The universal acceptance in the apparent direction of the economy by this central power seems to imply that economic regulation can make arbitrary power legitimate, reinforcing it by the color of the law.

To admit that this practice is just is to admit implicitly that economic despotism can be made virtuous by law. Can there be more groundless reasoning than this? And if economic despotism can find justification in this way, all manner of despotisms can, with equal force of argument, however wrong, find justification by the same means. Having founded a despotic practice on this loose foundation, ground is laid for corruption, immorality, intrigue, bribery, government-favored monopolies, fraud, and all manner of possible evils.

Further, it appears to me that economic regulation having no basis in scientific examination must then be a practice founded on the suppression of liberty. Consequently, it must be of a greater temptation to those whose chief interest is to tyrannize over others. I observe there are sorts of people who are willing to promote general economic regulation, and very keenly defend that position such as Professor Paul Krugman, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama on healthcare. But an examination of their argument beyond mere words becomes plain that they are only interested in promoting regulations whose benefits accrue directly or indirectly to their advantage.

Let me hastily add here that those who invoke the power of the invisible State to their side in their attempts to advance their interests in economic regulation as well as in almost all other matters seem to be vaguely aware without admitting it that their designs and the reasoning behind them are false and weak, thus, requiring the support of the regulator to defend them from the invincible force of sound reasoning and demonstration. Never at any time has an economic truth required the aid and violence of the State for its diffusion.

On the contrary, those 'economic truths' of Hillary Clinton, Ben Bernanke, Obama, and McCain need the support of the State because on their own they would be relegated to the waste heap. Where a person appeals to the engine of the law to help in the diffusion of his or her economic principles is in itself a confession that his principles are inferior and worthless; they must be forced upon us who have no use for them.To this odd power of the State all must fix their eyes without let, ceaselessly debasing ourselves by committing the care of our lives to it.

(Article Continues Below)

This rather strange and thoroughly disturbing belief allows, in time, the appearance of other various minor powers, answering to appellations such as bureau, agency, department, etc. These minor powers in all their various political colors represent the State's clergy. Their unrelenting quarrels over the interpretation of the paper Constitution being no different than the quarrels by ecclesiastical men over the interpretations of the Koran, the Bible, the Satanic Bible, the Torah, and other sacred texts.

Whether clergyman of the Church or of the State, each has his own opinion on the meanings of the contents of his religious or political Constitution. The laws that are said to emanate from the sacred Constitution are obscure and incomprehensible. They are puzzles calculated to befuddle the masses and profit professional law interpreters. These laws are said to bear justice but injustice is their fruit. Such being the case, the laws are under continual repair and repeal.

The people, so bound to this central power and ministered over by the political clergy, are constantly reminded that, like in the old times where a portion of their produce (tithe) belonged to the State in Heaven, a portion of their earnings (tax) today belongs to the State on Earth. It is such a curious turn of events that the same institution that claims to be capable of everything is yet incapable of supporting itself without recourse to 'legal robbery'.

In the continued evolution of the State from a religious institution to a secular one, Hell is represented by the prison system; Divine King by the President; Apostles by legislators; Isaac, the son of Abraham, the sacrificial lamb, by the soldiers on the battlefield.

Without any further comparisons, it is safe to say that the State is thus at least an extension of the common idea in the belief of some mysterious universe-ruling Holy Power with human attributes. Note that neither the original Power, the Intelligent Designer, nor its current derivative called the State is visible to human eyes or accessible to human intelligence.

Each is an enigma understood only by mentally sick and perverse men who claim to represent either one or both. Note still that the mentally sick men who claim to be acquainted with either the State in Heaven or on Earth are the least likely to be acquainted with the clearly superior Natural Laws that govern social life.

Therefore, the State, if born of the Church and is at least molded after it in its most distinctive features, derides the raging debate that the Church and the State be distinctly separated. An attempt to distinctly separate the two without any thorough knowledge and accurate comprehension of their natures and relation has been an unwise direction of efforts towards an object in which success is hopeless.