Should Government and Religion Be Separate?

My Very First Public Debate

Last December, the Acton Institute hosted a debate on whether government and religion should be separate. I participated with my debate partner, Sebastian Morello, Editor of The European Conservative and the author of an excellent book, The World as God’s Icon. He also has a book that, in my view, has three strong chapters out of four. I reviewed that book, Conservatism and Grace: The Conservative Case for Establishment, here. Morello is also a student of the late conservative philosopher Roger Scruton, a brilliant observer of European politics, and a bit of a sophisticate (he’s a wine critic and has even taken part in a fox hunt!). I’m more of a McDonald’s critic and have mainly hunted for food at Walmart.

I defended a quite modest separationist position. I distinguished between three ways in which religion and politics might mix: the level of the citizen, the level of the legislator, and the level of the state itself. I argued that mixing religion and politics is permitted and even commendable at the levels of the citizen and legislator but not at the level of the state. I argued that more substantial forms of establishment, like a coercive confessional state, are unjust. I then argued that more moderate forms of establishment, like subsidizing an established church, probably don’t work based on a survey of the empirical literature in economics, political science, and sociology. As one might expect, my arguments came from political philosophy and political economy.

Sebastian argued for an establishmentarian position but in a much different manner than I did. Sebastian claimed that all societies have some religious establishment in some manner or another and that, given that we must have an establishment, we should hope to establish the right one. He also argued that if we get the culture right, then an established state will arise from that culture. So, he rejected my claim that we could confine religion in politics to the levels of the citizen and legislator. The social and spiritual nature of the human person will continually expand, grow, and shape human societies. Sebastian did not defend a particular form of establishment or a range of forms of establishment. Scruton’s influence gives him less confidence in reason, so he declined to say much about what he supported. I found this to be a weakness of his position, but he found it a strength.

I prepared tremendously on the empirical side. I had arguments backed by arguments laid out in my notes. I prepared an overview of over a dozen recent papers on social scientific theories of religiosity. But Sebastian’s method of argument was so different from mine that we couldn’t get into those claims.

I was much more nervous than Sebastian, who has far more experience in the media spotlight than I do. I also should have looked up more often and spoken more slowly. The trouble was that while I had timed many of my responses, I wanted to ensure I shared them in a logical order.

The structure of the debate threw me off. I prepared for stringent time controls, with each exchange timed to the minute, but those time controls were not enforced, so I had to be quicker on my feet than expected. I tend to talk too much, so I find time controls relaxing.

Acton told us they wanted to avoid the contentious debate, so our gracious moderator, John Pinheiro, asked us questions to ensure the discussion was productive. However, we did not coordinate expectations about how much the moderator would guide the discussion, which I should have asked about. My expectations were attuned to the need for strict time controls. So, after my opening statement, I did not always know who had the floor. Sebastian felt the same way, but his more relaxed and comfortable style served him well.

I have a hard time watching the debate and not thinking I came out ahead in my opening and closing statements. Sebastian did not challenge my two main contentions. While eloquently articulated, his argument that some form of establishment is inevitable was critically ambiguous. My critique of his argument became more precise in my closing statement than when I offered it in the discussion.

Sebastian’s best argument was that my modest separationist view was unstable. It would either tend towards more robust forms of establishment of religion or decay into secularism. But without some account of what the establishment of religion comes to, I thought the argument ultimately failed.

My favorite part of the day was getting to know Sebastian over wine after dinner. He’s a fantastic host. I found that we had a remarkable set of common convictions. He is staunchly Catholic doctrinally, but Orthodoxy profoundly influences his pastoral theology (he has served as a catechizer). We agreed on understanding what it means to live a Christian life. We even commiserated about the dangers of falling in love with Aquinas. You can become so intellectually fulfilled and encouraged that you can forget to develop spiritual practices. Morello is an accomplished Aquinas scholar with an excellent short book defending a neo-Platonic reading of Aquinas (The World as God’s Icon). I read his book in preparation for the debate and agreed with nearly every word. I found Sebastian utterly charming and look forward to learning more from him.

Another point of interest is that we both reject standard liberal approaches to church-state relations and integralism. Sebastian’s conservatism grounds his skepticism of integralism, given that it is a radical ideal theory.

Since this was my first debate ever, I know there are ways to improve, and I look forward to your feedback. I want to do this again, as the process forced me to think more clearly about my views.