The Separation of Religion and State: Context and Meaning (Report‪)‬

The term "church and state" is currently sharing space with similar terms such as "separation of religion and politics" and "separation of religion and state." (1) I can think of three possible reasons why this is occurring. First, the term "church" is monocultural, it is Christian, thus it is of limited use when referring to societies that fit what Rawls (1993, xviii) called "the fact of pluralism." Muslims, Jews, and Buddhists don"t have churches. Thus no comprehensive understanding of the boundaries separating religious institutions from the state is possible by reference to a doctrine of church and state. Second, with the rise of non-conformist, liberationist, and evangelical types of religion much of the most significant phenomena of interest to political scientists cannot be captured by the term "church and state," for such movements operate outside institutional--church--structures. Finally, there has been a legal and philosophical trend over the last 60 years to remove more and more religion from the public sphere, making "church and state" too narrow in terms of defining exactly what courts and philosophers wish to keep separate. For these three reasons the phrase "church and state" becomes too restrictive and misleading and, thus, inadequate as a linguistic reference for contemporary political science and philosophy. However, alternative terms such as "separation of religion and politics" and "separation of religion and state" on closer analysis fall short of analytical rigor. The idea of a separation of religion and politics is immediately useless for analysing the limits of interaction between two different entities, for it is simply impossible to separate religion and politics. Take the following: 1. Politicians and judges never being informed by their religious views when executing their office.