The aim of this essay is to restate, examine, and revise the standard American liberal understanding of the separation of church and State. The revision is theoretically rather than constitutionally or legally oriented. Its result is an account of the separation that blurs the line somewhat, in the interest of a partial (but only a partial) accomodation of religious arguments, practices, and institutions in the political sphere - and also in the State budget. But in this account, the line is still drawn so as to prevent any entrenchment of religious orthodoxy - or any other orthodoxy - in either the politics or the law of the republic. Citizens may make religious arguments just as they make ideological arguments, and they may defend religious interests just as they defend any other interests, subject to constitutional constraints. What they can't hope for, and must never be allowed, is the use of the State's coercive power to make their religion dominant over the others.
[1]
David Hume.
An Inquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals
,
2006
.
[2]
Matthias Schmitz,et al.
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques
,
2004
.
[3]
S. L. Carter.
The Culture of Disbelief
,
1994
.
[4]
R. Neuhaus.
The Naked Public Square: Religion and Democracy in America
,
1984
.
[5]
R. A. Morris,et al.
The myth of the nation and the vision of revolution
,
1982
.
[6]
A. Macintyre,et al.
After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory.
,
1981
.
[7]
F. Sorauf.
The Wall of Separation: The Constitutional Politics of Church and State
,
1976
.
[8]
R. Bellah.
The Broken Covenant: American Civil Religion in Time of Trial
,
1977
.
[9]
C. Brinton.
The Jacobins: An Essay in the New History
,
1961
.
[10]
Leonard Carmichael,et al.
The Human Condition
,
1960
.
[11]
G. Hegel.
Philosophy of right
,
2012
.