Whenever I hear someone call for the separation of church and state, I shake my head. Not because I disagree with them, but because church and state (in many parts of the world) are already separate. There hasn’t been a fusion of church and state in Western Civilization for hundreds of years, so why are we trying to reinvent the wheel?

But perhaps I’m taking the phrase “separation of church and state” too literally. Perhaps when people call for separation they don’t mean to imply that the church should not formally control the state (or vice versa), but that neither institution should influence the other’s business. Perhaps they mean that religious ideas cannot be used as justification for law. Perhaps they mean the word “God” should never be used in public, certainly not by any public official. Or maybe they just don’t want to hear the words “God Bless America” anymore.

In the United States, the most vocal lobby group on this matter calls itself Americans United for Separation of Church and State. According to their website, their mission is to “[preserve] the constitutional principle of church-state separation as the only way to ensure religious freedom for all.” For all my searching, I couldn’t uncover what they meant by “separation,” though they seemed to emphasize preventing the implementation of religiously motivated laws.

In light of the ambiguity surrounding the term, this is what a “separation” should entail.

The state and the church should remain distinct from each other. There should be no favouring of any religion over another by the state. A constitution should not be a mirror of any religion’s holy book. Religious observances should not be forced on anyone. And an individual should not hold an influential position in both a religious and political institution simultaneously, as this could be interpreted as a conflict of interest.

But there are several things not implied by such a separation. For instance, religion should not be evicted from public life. People should be proud to practice their faith(s) freely, peacefully and respectfully, and should be able to incorporate that part of themselves into their public work.

They should not be forced to live out their faith only in the privacy of their home or place of worship, but should be allowed to speak openly about their beliefs with anyone willing to listen.

Public officials should not identify themselves firstly as religious persons when conducting business, but neither should they have to check their beliefs at the door.

Consequently, state observance of a religiously-based holiday does not constitute a fusion between church and state, but merely reflects the convenience of taking days off at times that have historically been deemed important.

A person of faith should not be discouraged from holding public office. Moreover, religious ideas can be valid bases for laws, so long as those ideas are backed up by reasoning acceptable in secular society and are approved by democratic will.

Some of the objections I’ve listed have nothing to do with “state” at all, yet I have heard all of them argued against under the premise of separation, which takes the matter too far and too literally.

Both state and church (or mosque, synagogue, etc.) operate best when neither controls the other. It is important, though, that the pendulum not swing so far as to outlaw religion altogether.

Josh Bernier is a second-year politics student at the University of Winnipeg.

Published in Volume 64, Number 19 of The Uniter (February 11, 2010)