Separation of Church and State

 Skip to content

Chat history

You said:

Government and religion are in most advanced states (those I would say are civilized) kept relatively separate. There are exceptions here and there, many of which are trivial and not worth making a disturbance about. I think the main reason for secularism like that is because religions have a tendency to try to use government power (taxes, even criminal statues) to impose their views. Muslim countries tax non-Muslim citizens extra, things like divorce and gambling and various foods and alcohol, and a variety of human sexual expressions, and of course, "blasphemy," are all on occasion penalized when a religion gets control of government. This is what worries me so much about what is happening in Turkey -- it seems the one country where we use to be able to say Islam and secularism can get on seems to not be an exception at all. I tend to be tolerant of religious belief, thinking it merely demonstrating a lack in the person's ability to think beyond childhood indoctrination, but I tend to fear organized religion simply because it seems utterly unable and unwilling to allow freedom once it has the power to do so. The same of course can be said of other ideologies.

ChatGPT said:

I think you’re putting your finger on something quite real, and you’re doing it without the usual caricature. The practical case for secularism is not that religious belief is intrinsically wicked, but that once a belief system—religious or otherwise—acquires coercive power, it very reliably tries to universalize itself. Taxes, criminal law, licensing, education: these are irresistible levers. Even religions that begin with a strong emphasis on conscience and inward faith tend, once institutionalized, to confuse moral authority with legal authority.

Your examples are well chosen because they show how mundane this gets in practice. It’s rarely the grand theological questions that do the damage; it’s the regulation of everyday life—marriage, food, drink, speech, sex, inheritance. Those are exactly the domains where plural societies need the most room to breathe. When the state enforces a religious norm, it’s not merely expressing a value; it’s narrowing the range of livable lives. That’s why blasphemy laws are such a diagnostic marker: they reveal an inability to tolerate even symbolic dissent once power is available.

Turkey is especially poignant because it long served as a counterexample that both sides could point to. Secularism there was never quite the neutral referee it claimed to be—it was enforced from above and sometimes harshly—but it did create a civic space in which religious and non-religious citizens could coexist without constant legal friction. What you’re reacting to now is the sense that once the balance tips, it doesn’t wobble gently; it slides. That reinforces your broader worry: restraint seems to require a framework external to the religion itself, not merely goodwill within it.

Your distinction between private belief and organized religion strikes me as important. A person’s faith may be psychologically shallow, inherited, or even incoherent, but that’s largely harmless so long as it remains non-coercive. Institutions, however, have memory, hierarchy, incentives, and survival instincts. They don’t just believe; they strategize. In that sense, your final sentence is crucial: the problem is not unique to religion. Nationalism, Marxism, technocracy, even certain visions of liberalism can behave the same way when they sacralize their own assumptions and treat dissent as pathology rather than disagreement.

So secularism ends up being less an anti-religious doctrine than a humility principle: no worldview, however confident of its truth, gets to write itself directly into criminal law. History suggests that this separation isn’t guaranteed by enlightenment or education alone; it has to be actively maintained. Once people forget why the wall was built, they start seeing it as an inconvenience rather than a safeguard.

You said:

This does not mean we need an absolute wall between religions and government. Faith based charities, so long as they are not restricted to members or used to coerce, have a motivational benefit bureaucrats often lack. Religious edifices, artwork, etc., can be in public places. Public events can include segments of a religious nature if the participants want them, and of course religious history must be included in the general teaching of history or it would be incomplete. In short, in a free society, balance is maintained and freedom is allowed as much as possible.

ChatGPT said:

Exactly—this is the nuance that often gets lost in debates about secularism. The goal isn’t to banish religion from the public sphere, but to prevent it from wielding coercive authority over others. Where belief can inspire voluntary action—charitable work, art, music, festivals—it can enrich society rather than constrain it. These are precisely the areas where religion has historically shone: motivating generosity, fostering community, and shaping culture, without forcing anyone into conformity.

The line is coercion versus inspiration. A faith-based charity that serves everyone, or a religious artwork in a public square, doesn’t compel belief; it offers benefit or beauty that anyone can accept or ignore. Public events that include optional religious elements, or historical education that honestly addresses religion, serve knowledge and choice rather than power.

Freedom is maximized when people can participate voluntarily, but no one can be penalized for opting out. That’s the pragmatic heart of secularism: it’s not hostility to faith, but a safeguard so that a society of diverse beliefs can coexist without friction. In practice, it’s always a balancing act, but history suggests that societies that get it roughly right—allowing expression while preventing coercion—tend to be both freer and more harmonious.

If you want, I can sketch a “spectrum” showing different ways religion interacts with government in practice, from strict theocracy to open secularism—it makes this balance visually obvious.

ChatGPT can make mistakes. Check important info.