PART III
http://www.padnet.org/CSS2/CSS2Dem.html
Church-State Separation:
A Keystone to Peace
Clark Moeller, January 2004 --
[Copyright 2004, Pennsylvania Alliance for Democracy -- Printing, copying
and distribution is encouraged with full attribution.]
DEMOCRACY
Church-state separation has an important influence in our society that goes
beyond managing the conflicts among some institutional religions and
between these and government. The continued integrity of church-state
separation is vital to all civil rights, not only our freedom of religion.
In this section, it is argued first that civil rights can become part of a
country's culture, but they are not line items to be bought separately.
Civil rights evolve as a set, albeit unevenly, and religious liberty is a
vital part of civil rights in the United States. The second proposition is
that the integrity of civil rights is essential to the stability of
established democracies such as the United States. And third, this
stability is maintained by trust and tolerance.
A country becomes democratic in the most rudimentary sense when
free elections are conducted according to written civil law. For example,
Iran, which is still largely a theocratic state, has begun holding free
elections. To this extent, it is employing secular procedures for selecting
some of its leadership. As a country adds statutes for civil rights such as
freedom of speech, freedom of the press, or due process in judicial
matters, the level of democracy increases, as does its secular character if
the civil rights displace theocratic authority. As more rights are added,
such as religious liberty, and as these are sufficiently guaranteed so that
citizens take them for granted as part of their culture, we call the
democracy "established." The adoption of civil rights laws and their
implementation has been and continues to be an evolutionary process.
Culture: When we talk about the culture of a community or country, we are
referring to the accepted wisdom about what works in life and what doesn't;
how success is measured, status is attained, and equality is measured;
where the line is drawn between your rights and mine; which rights will be
defended by the government, and which are merely aspirations in the
society, written in law but not enforced, as is the case for freedom of
religion in China.
A growing body of research indicates that the cultural
characteristics of countries have a significant bearing on whether
democracy becomes established, and if established, whether it is sustained.
Two important research efforts contribute to this understanding.
First, Freedom House has published since 1978, "its comparative
assessment of the state of political rights and civil liberties in 192
countries and 17 related and disputed territories. Widely used by
policy-makers, journalists, and scholars, the 600-page survey is the
definitive report on freedom around the globe."84 According to the Freedom
House annual evaluations, the average civil rights ratings for western
democracies is 84; for nonwestern democracies 64; and for non-western
authoritarian regimes 40,85 as noted by Russell Bova, professor of
political science and director of the Russian Areas Studies Program at
Dickinson College. He concludes that "the most compelling explanation for
the difference [among the levels of civil rights in different countries] is
a cultural one."86
Second, a World Values Survey (WVS) has been conducted in which
people were asked in face-to-face interviews their opinions on 350 issues
such as freedom, politics, economics, religion, family life, work, income,
health, leisure, friends, and gender roles. The respondents were identified
by age, gender, economic standing, and education. The WVS was first
conducted in 1990-91, in 43 countries. Since then, the WVS has been
repeated twice and additional countries have been surveyed, which together
cover a sampling of about 75% of the world's population.87 These and new
surveys are being conducted under the supervision of Ronald Inglehart,
professor of political science, University of Michigan, and others.88 The
data from this research "provide standardized cross-cultural measures of
people's values and goals" using a common database for the first time.89
These data in combination with the Freedom House ratings make it
possible to ascertain which values are present in a country when democracy
gets started.90 This analysis also identifies which values contribute to
democracy's survival once established. For example, the analysis indicates
that emerging democracies such as South Korea91 tend to form in response to
social changes stimulated by their economic development.92 On the other
hand, the stability of established democracies, such as the United States
and other Western industrialized democracies, is influenced less by
fluctuations in the prosperity of their economies than by the degree to
which certain cultural variables exist among the population.93 These
variables include political rights, civil rights, and interpersonal trust.
"The evidence suggests," Inglehart notes, "that culture plays a
much more crucial role in democracy than the literature of the past two
decades would indicate. The syndrome of trust, tolerance, well-being, and
participatory values ... seems particularly crucial. In the long run,
democracy is not attained simply by making institutional changes or through
elite-level maneuvering. Its survival also depends on the values and
beliefs of ordinary citizens."94 These social variables, reports Inglehart,
indicate "greater stability over time than does the economic indicator.95
In many advanced democratic societies, such as the United States
and the Scandinavian countries, the younger generation as a group is
increasingly interested in quality of life and self-expression rather than
economic development when they are compared with their parents.96 This is
consistent with the theory that as income increases, its marginal value
decreases, just as our interest in food decreases once we have eaten. The
increased interest in the environment, women's equality, and civil rights
are each a manifestation of the shift of interest toward quality of life
concerns.
Economic development appears to be critical to helping a democracy
get started, but once established, having a culture of civil rights is a
more important factor to democracy's survival. "Political culture,"
Inglehart claims, "plays its most crucial role in helping democratic
institutions survive over the long run."97
Civil Rights: When nascent political and civil rights get a cultural
foothold, as happened in Western democracies, these rights evolve into a
more robust set of rights because they work for the society. For example,
one of the most solidly researched findings of political science, according
to Spencer Weart, is that "well-established democracies have never made war
on one another."98 This benefit is unique to democracies. Perhaps the
single most important reason that there are no wars among established
democracies is that their political cultures reflect to one another
expectations that differences can be negotiated.99 Negotiation is a skill
which their leaders learn in the domestic politics of a free society.
Tolerance of others' ideas and skills in negotiation have been tested in
practice to reach compromise. This has proven to be of mutual benefit to
all parties.
Second, established democracies are less corrupt than other forms
of government, which makes them more efficient economically. An annual
evaluation of corruption levels in countries is conducted by the
Transparency International Corruption Perception Index (TICP), Berlin,
German. A comparison of the country rankings by TICP with the Freedom House
rankings for political freedom and civil liberties, indicate that the more
civil liberties a country has, the less corruption it suffers.100
A third important advantage of democracy is that democratic
governments kill fewer of their citizens than other forms of government. To
put this into perspective, between 1900 and 1987, according to R. J.
Rummel, professor emertitus of political science at the University of
Hawaii, all "governments murdered almost 170 million people - a figure that
far exceeds the 34.4 million battle deaths thought to have resulted from
all international and civil wars." Democratic governments were responsible
for only 1% of the 170 million. The vast majority of the state murders were
carried out by authoritarian regimes such as Nazi German and Red China.101
However, we should remain mindful that the United States remains the only
western, established democracy that still uses capital punishment, thus
contributing to the 1% of the 170 million deaths.
Another unique benefit of well-established democracies is that "no
substantial famine has ever occurred in any independent country with a
democratic form of government and a free press,"102 according to Amartya
Sen, who won the 1998 Nobel Prize for Economic Science.
The fact that political and civil rights succeed in the face of
major threats to survival appears to be a critical factor that has given
democracy an evolutionary advantage103 over other forms of government, such
as dictatorships, theocracies, and communism, during the last 200 years.
Between 1870 and 1990, the number of democratic nations increased from 1 to
65, from 2% to 33% of all existing nations.104 Since 1990, additional
countries have developed the procedures for democracy even as they struggle
with deeply held local traditions that conflict with democratic values such
as civil rights.105 By 1999, 65% (120 out of 195 countries), were evaluated
as being democracies by Freedom House,106 albeit many of these have only
the barest political right of free elections and few other civil rights.
Another evolutionary advantage for democracy seems to be that civil
rights evolve symbiotically. Three explanations follow for this dependent
relationship among civil rights. First, "freedoms of different kinds
strengthen one another," argues Nobel Prize winner Amartya Sen. "Freedoms
are not only the primary ends of development, they are also among its
principal means. ... [W]e also have to understand the remarkable empirical
connection that links freedoms of different kinds with one another.
Political freedoms (in the form of free speech and elections) help to
promote economic security. Social opportunity (in the form of education and
health facilities) facilitates economic participation. Economic facilities
(in the form of opportunities for participation in trade and production)
can help generate personal abundance as well as public resources for social
facilities."107 Sen argues that establishing and maintaining freedoms such
as democratic civil liberties are essential to eliminating poverty in the
poorest of nations as well as in the wealthier nations.
The second explanation of the interdependence among civil rights is
from Orlando Patterson, professor of sociology at Harvard University. He
defines three freedoms that have a "powerful coherence. ... [1] One is free
.... to the degree that one is not under the power of another. [2] One is
free ... to the degree that one exercises power over oneself, over
others,108 and over property. And [3] one is free to the degree that one
shares in the collective power of the community [democracy]. Each makes
possible and guarantees the other. Without democracy, the other two
freedoms are constantly at risk; without the other two freedoms, democracy
is empty."109
My explanation of the interdependence of civil rights follows. To
have full freedom of religion without freedom of speech is not possible.
Freedom of speech without a free press makes no sense. Freedom of religion,
speech, the press, and peaceable assembly are essential for free elections.
Free elections are the minimum foundation of a democracy. Free elections do
not continue without an independent judiciary that can adjudicate
differences of opinion about election procedure. An independent judiciary,
in turn, depends on a separation of powers, due process, freedom of speech,
religion, and rights of the accused to face witnesses.
Others who are civil rights experts also have seen these
interdependencies. Federal Judge Benjamin N. Cardozo said in Palko v.
Connecticut, "...freedom of thought ... is the indispensable condition of
nearly every form of freedom." John Swomley, PhD, an ordained United
Methodist minister, and the author of a score of books, has written,
"[o]ver a period of thirty-six years in seventy-nine different countries,
in some cases for extended visits, I became more firmly convinced that
human rights, religious liberty, and political freedom are intertwined.
Each of these is dependent on the other two."110 Martin Sheffer, professor
emeritus of political science at Tuskegee University, agrees, "I do
believe, like the framers, that without religious freedom all other
freedoms will become less absolute."111
In summary, civil rights evolve interdependently, and in the United
States religious liberty as defined by church-state separation is an
essential component of these interdependencies.112
Trust: The development of these interdependencies is facilitated by the
function of trust in society. Being able to trust that your legal rights
will be protected by society has great utility, reducing risk, and
conserving other resources. You don't have to be on guard all the time or
spend all your money to protect your rights when the community's culture
supports civil rights voluntarily and, if it doesn't, the laws are enforced
by the state. Consistent with this, the data from the World Values Survey
indicate a strong positive correlation between the level of interpersonal
trust and a nation's average gross national product (GNP) per person.113 In
a back-handed way, other research supports this. "Hard evidence has
documented corruption's detrimental effect on many aspects of economic
development," writes Seymour M. Lipset, professor of public policy at
George Mason University. "Research indicates that higher levels of
corruption significantly reduce GNP growth rates."114 Corruption and
distrust go hand-in-hand.
We have had a dramatic experience supporting Lipset's observation.
In 2002, Enron Corporation's stock value evaporated as news spread about
its fraudulent accounting practices. Perhaps the most shocking revelation
was that the prestigious, world-wide accounting firm Arthur Andersen
collaborated in these frauds. This jolted investors who trusted these
corporations, which were seen as emblematic of American economic prowess.
The Arthur Andersen deceptions and the failure of the Securities and
Exchange Commission to police Arthur Andersen dramatically transformed
investor attitudes. Subsequent federal investigations focused on other
corporations, such as Worldcom, which were involved in similar frauds on
the public. Disillusioned domestic and foreign investors fled the capital
markets of the United States. The stock market nosedived because of
distrust.115
In a similar way, the trust in the Catholic Church in the United
States has plummeted as a result of the priests' sex crimes against
children. As survivors disclosed the sexual abuse they had suffered, the
loss of trust spread among citizens fueled by the deceit and cover-ups by
the church leadership. Court ordered payments using more than $100 million
of parishioners' donations to settle lawsuits added salt to the wounds of
the faithful.116 Some church insiders expect this amount to reach $1
billion.117 As a result, Catholic Church attendance declined by 7% in one
year. Those saying that their faith was "very important" to them "dropped
from 61 to 49 percent during 2002. ... slightly over 20 percent had asked
themselves whether they should leave the church because of the scandal,"
reports Peter Steinfels, the New York Times reporter on religion.118
"According to Catholic Charities USA, nearly one quarter of Catholics have
chosen to decrease their giving because of the sex sandals."119
Political rights in a democracy also depend on trust that the
candidate or party that lost an election will "accept the rules of the
democratic process,"120 as Inglehart notes, and not overthrow the new
government. The data from the World Values Survey also indicate there is a
strong positive correlation between a country's degree of interpersonal
trust and its level of civil rights.121 The more extensive are a nation's
civil rights, the greater is the level of interpersonal trust among its
population. For example, the World Values Survey shows that 83% of
Norwegians report that they trust their fellow Norwegians. In contrast, 62
% of Brazilians, 45% of Russians, and 40% of Nigerians report they trust
their fellow citizens.122 Norway is a securely established democracy with
strong civil rights. The other countries mentioned have fewer civil rights,
according to Freedom House data. "The available evidence cannot
conclusively determine the causal direction, but it does demonstrate that
culture and political institutions tend to go together, with trust and
stable democracies [with developed civil rights] being closely linked,"
notes Inglehart.123
Trust helps bind various civil rights into a culture that supports
established democracies.
Tolerance: Tolerance is an open-mindedness that helps us understand
others' points of view, and understand their needs as the context changes.
The success of church-state separation has been achieved, in part, because
most citizens in the United States have learned to act with self-restraint
and to express socially tolerant attitudes.124
For many clergy, tolerance is a virtue that can bridge sensitive
boundaries within congregations split over issues of gays or the role of
women in the church. It can help bridge the boundaries that segregate
communities: Jew from Muslim, Southern Baptist from Methodist, and the
secular from the religious. It is a value of the United Nations:
"... faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of
the human person, in equal rights of men and women and of nations large and
small ...
And for these ends ...To practice tolerance and live together in peace with
one another as good neighbors and
To unite our strength to maintain international peace and security..."
- Preamble to the Charter of the United Nations, June 1945
Tolerance in practice is essential to a government "of the people,
by the people, and for the people," particularly as our population grows
more diverse. Democracy is enhanced to the degree that everyone counts, and
tolerance is the social value that helps this happen.
Trust, tolerance, and civil rights have become the functional
foundation of our democracy because of their proven utility, but they are
not immutable, as will become clear in the following..
continue...
.
|
