First off: I maintain various beliefs in accordance with the foundational teachings of the dominant religion of my culture, on the basis of my experience and (for what it's worth) reason. None the less, I appreciate and principally agree with the idea that "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion." [wiki]
Until now, I thought the separation was merely a measure to allow/enforce the government's oblivion to religious disagreements (as you'll see in that wiki reference above, it apparently isn't oblivious...), such that it could not force any person or population to participate in any religious activity nor affiliate with any such institution or ideology. That's tolerable and appreciated, since my views differ from many people around me, and we all wish to remain free without raising social tumult about it.
Today it became clear to me that there's more to this than meets the eye -- or at least met mine at first. I do not suffer the delusion that the founders were overtly religious, nor that they were opposed to religion -- to my knowledge they all had Christian upbringing of some sort, but many had become 'deists' [wiki] and diverted in other ways. Thus I submit it's reasonable to believe that since the founders had some consciousness of something spiritual, and since their writings address matters of spiritual significance to (different populations within) society, the writings themselves may also embody an understanding of something spiritual (or at least philosophical).
To summarize the observation and assumptions I incurred today:
- The benefit of society is served by means of exercising morals (utilitarianism)
- Church facilitates determination of the people's moral sensibilities (indoctrination?)
- Serves as the "mind" of the people
- State facilitates the people's exercise of their moral sensibilities (legislation)
- Serves as the "hand" of the people
The essential problem here is that the "hand" should have no influence on the "mind". This metaphor falls apart though: in an actual person, the mind should have direct control over the hand; in our government, the people are of varying "mind[s]", so the people should act as intermediary between their respective "minds" and the "hand".
The founders established the separation between Church and State in part as a response to their dislike for what they observed in England and other European countries in which the States sponsored and/or enforced Church participation (i.e. "hand" controlling "mind").
To borrow a biblical analogy, the "hand" controlling the "mind" would eventually result in the "blind leading the blind"; society would end up in a downward spiral (kind of like a toilet bowl) trying to resolve its various issues without any standard widely enough accepted to bring succinct consensus.
... In other words, society would replace its thinking cap with a dunce cap, intelligent decisions being replaced by the habit and trend of the whims of unguided "law makers", which at this stage seem to be more motivated by money than morals or utilitarian good.
So. Another reason to appreciate the remnants of our well-structured society, and reason to involve ourselves in our political process, as well as whatever other peaceful means we can find to maintain and promote the general welfare. Let's try not to become so short-sighted as some of our "law makers" and other leadership.
