The separation of church and welfare state

So much for a truce in the culture wars. The recent conflict between the Obama administration and the Catholic Church about birth control has restarted an old argument.

Presidential candidates who have carefully prepared their economic and foreign policies are being questioned about the cost of contraceptives. 

Beyond the immediate issue of contraception, the debate soon turned to issues of religious liberty.

Catholic insistence on doctrine is in opposition to a federal mandate. The government is certain its new policy falls within its jurisdiction as a health care and insurance issue.

The immediacy of this debate has overwhelmed the larger issue of the relations between church and state.

Like many complex and controversial policy issues, the interaction of church and state has been a bipartisan disaster.

The faith-based initiatives of George W. Bush established a direct financial link between religious organizations and the federal government. President Obama has left the Bush policies in place despite criticism from secular groups.

At the time, few people thought the link would go beyond a simple funding mechanism.

Federal money, however, came with many invisible strings attached. Religious organizations essentially invited the government to take an interest in their activities. The unsurprising result is that the government, after funding such groups, now feels justified in regulating them, as well.

In recent years, the separation of church and state has mostly been interpreted so as to prevent one denomination from claiming the title of official state religion. This is perfectly sensible. An official religion would derive disproportionate benefits and funding through the state from non-believers and followers of other faiths.

Separation of church and state is also intended to prevent the state from intervening in matters of conscience. If a church opposes abortion or contraception, it has every right, as a private organization, to do so.

After choosing to accept financial help from the state, religious groups are now also subject to rules imposed by the state.

Religious groups have accepted the premise that government has a right to continuously expand.

This makes opposition to one particular expansion of government more difficult to explain and defend. What churches really need to do is re-evaluate their political philosophies and add some more libertarianism.

The logical progression of the welfare state is to appropriate greater and greater parts of society and place them within government control.

Sometimes, as in the Civil Rights movement, the results are good. Other attempts just seem foolish. Prohibition, for instance.

In the worst cases, government appropriates every aspect of life, resulting in the totalitarianism of North Korea or former East Germany.

Only a clear definition of the proper role of the state and the proper role of the church in society can improve the relations between government and religious groups.

In the current birth control controversy, both sides are ignoring the larger issue. Sadly, the best arguments for limited government intervention in religion, and vise versa, are not being made.

­— jzsoldos@indiana.edu