Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!usc!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: cdalzell@kean.ucs.mun.ca Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Separation of Church and State Message-ID: Date: 30 Aug 90 04:21:09 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Memorial University. St.John's Nfld, Canada Lines: 52 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article , bukys@cs.rochester.edu > One important point has been neglected in this discussion of > established churches, the U.S. establishment clause, and the influence > of Catholic and Protestant philosophy on the relation of church and > state. > > An important difference between the U.S. and its predecessors, and to > some extent between the Reformation-influenced European governments and > the others, is the principal of checks and balances, which is a product > of the Reformation's heavier emphasis on the awareness of the > fallenness of man. Checks and balances go right back to the Middle Ages and are an important feature of old-time Catholic political theory, although that particular phrase seems American. You may be right as to the reason given for these checks and balances. Fear of tyranny is certainly one aspect, but on a more positive note, they can be justified on the grounds that you should give people and groups the freedom they need (and hence the relative autonomy) to do the job they have. The awareness of man's fallen nature can have a variety of effects on political theory. You can argue that since man is so rotten, he needs to be ruled by a firm hand and a tyranical central authority. Hobbes took that view, if not mistaken, and don't forget that Bismark considered himself to be a consistent Lutheran politician. (There can be no morality in government, especially foreign relations, so do what **works** with as much blut und eisen as the job takes.) My own feeling is that the big split in Western political thinking is between the checks and balances people, on the one hand, and the centralizers on the other, and I think that the main determinent is the time and pace at which a nation industrialized, not the religious beliefs it had. (I am not an historian; just making this up as I go along). Alexis de Tocqueville, writing about the condition of France prior to the Rev. and comparing it to the U.S. of A. (About which he also wrote) noted that the freedoms and privileges of French towns, which they had enjoyed from Medieval times and which had died out under the absolutism of the later Louis's, were much the same as the constitutions of American towns as he had observed them in the 1830's. He seemed to think that in many ways, Americans were old-fashioned Europeans. Recall that the U.S.A was not on the industrial or scientific leading edge at the time of the American Revolution. But I should also point out that Canadian political life is full of checks and balances, and the English Canadian soul has generally been Protestant, but for some reason, we have always felt more confidence in the honesty of politicians and civil servants. ODdly enough, that confidence is waning now, precisely as fewer people attend churches of any denomination. C. Dalzell