|
|
It is time that all governments (democratic, communist, Islamic etc) took steps toward a separation of ideology and state (i.e. belief and state). But before talking about what that means and what it will ultimately look like, I will show how all governments violate the separation of religion and state by promoting "their morals" and how that interferes with freedom.
Is a true separation of religion and state possible? Richard Eason writes:
1. All nations must have laws.
2. All laws try to prevent something "wrong" or promote something "right" - so all law is enacted morality.
3. All morality depends on beliefs that are scientifically non-testable and thus religious.
Governments cannot avoid basing laws on religious beliefs. The burning question is whose beliefs should form the basis of our law?
(See Legislating Morality by Geisler and Turek for more on this important subject)
Eason's observation is fair, whether we like it or not, all laws reflect somebodies moral views, which are in opposition to other moral views (E.g. relativists condemn absolute views. "All denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind" - Chesterton). Laws always reflect a moral outlook; that cannot be changed, but there are changes which must be made if we are to be protected from our own governments.
Everyone is concerned about who might obtain power and what views will be promoted or encouraged once they have it. Humanists (and others) are concerned about religious fanatics and the religious are concerned about those who label all religion as evil. Is it possible to be rid of this problem? I think the problem only exists because the government has taken on roles it should never have taken on in the first place.
Every government is trying to create what it regards as "good citizens." (It does this through education and the media, as well as attempting to win support for its values through government welfare.) Good citizens are a good thing but it always becomes a problem when the government tries to create them through the promotion of values. Is it the governments role to "educate" the people as to what is good?
Jean Jacques Rousseau, the
enlightenment thinker, said that the people will what is good but
they don't always see what the good is. Rousseau claimed that they (the
people) "must be shown the good road [they] are in in search of...." The public "must be taught to know what
it wills" (The Social Contract
Book 2, ch 6).
Can you see the problem with this kind of thinking?
'"What counts is what people want"/ "People don't know what they want"/ "Experts know what people want"/ "People want what they are told"' (John Lukacs, cited in Os Guinness' book, Prophetic Untimeliness, 2003, p. 74).
"If experts know what people want" what happens when the experts strongly disagree as is so often the case? Governments inevitably support those they want to be heard. This is a series problem. The Nazis chose who they wanted to be heard.
Good government is not a guarantee. Even good governments can take a turn for the worst and then government funding for education and the media can have some very nasty consequences. Many Germans thought
they had a good government in the early thirties. How do you know that
your government will remain good or what government might follow?
Consider this:
Where would Hitler's
Many would argue that our governments promotion of values is good. Alcohol and drug problems are increasing. Crime is on the rise. Gambling is causing more and more family problems. Divorce is on the increase. Isn't it strange that the more a government promotes their values the more societies problems seem to grow?
The answer?
It is time we had a separation of ideology and State. (Note: What I'm proposing is not a perfect system. No system is perfect. I am merely proposing a better system, particularly for the long run.)
What I am proposing will help ordinary people to identify what morality is best for society (and them as individuals) without it being imposed on them by their governments through the influence of intellectual elites (See). People will be able to identify which world view does the most good for individuals and society as a whole simply because it will be easy for them to identify who has their best interests at heart.
It
would be wise to keep in mind the alternative to the proposed
separation (for western governments at least), which is very grim if
present trends continue. The alternative is this: no changes are made
which means that the percentage of people with serious problems with
alcohol, gambling, drugs, crime etc will continue to rise. (These have
been increasing for the last 50 years.) Along with these problems come
increases in family violence and divorce. Future governments will be
forced to increase taxes to pay for the extra public servants in the
form of police, social workers etc. (You cannot keep increasing the
numbers of police, social workers and public servants forever.) With an
increase in crime there will also be increased corruption. The public
service will not be immune to this. (Technology can only carry us so far. In the hands of the corrupt technology is a dangerous thing.) No
matter how strong a governments economy is, it will eventually collapse
unless the heart of the problem, which is a moral problem, is
addressed. Obviously, the governments promotion of 'values' is not working as many had hoped. We
all want to live in a society where people are more honest, trustworthy
and kind. What system will actually encourage these virtues which we
all value?
So the issue is not just how do we help people but how are we to create citizens who are more helpful? Marvin Olasky suggests that we can learn from the people of the past. Unfortunately, we are often too quick to dismiss some of the old ways of doing things simply because we measure different periods in terms of results. But how would the people of the past, before government welfare, have fared if they had our technology and knowledge? (Would the volunteers have been able to do much more on a much larger scale?) How would we fair under our present system of government welfare, eduction etc if we had their technology and knowledge? (Would it be possible to be able to support government welfare, hospitals, education and media without industrialisation?) Only when we take those things into account can we make a fair comparison. And only then we will be in a good position to learn from the past and address our present crisis.
A Step in the Right Direction: A True Separation of Ideology and State
Media
The
government will have a role in the media, though it will be limited, particularly regarding television.
1.
The government shall provide no funding for private television networks
or productions, as funding must always be approved and so someone's
values are promoted.
2. The government should enact legislation which will help to reduce the amount of sex and violence on television. (But by enacting such legislation isn't the government pushing their values on others? How then are we to get around the problem? Read on.) The nature of commercial television is to become more sexually explicit and violent. This is inevitable because the more viewers a television program has the more money the station can charge for advertisements. What gets viewers? Sex and violence. Standards slowly drop; yesterday's late night movie is today's midday movie (note how the standards have changed over the years.) This is why all commercial television should be abolished. (Note: People will still be free to watch what they want. If they want porn they will pay for a porn channel. If they want the Brady Bunch they can pay for the Brady Bunch channel.) Commercial television is one of the main driving forces which is lowering our moral standards. As strange as it may seem, immorality, which commercial television gravitates toward, helps fuel things like Islamic fundamentalism (it strengthens the view of many Muslims that Islamic law is good and democracy is bad because of the things it allows and publicly promotes); television ads also increase the price of products. All TV should be true pay TV (without ads) where you only pay for the stations you want. If people want to advertise, they can do it via radio, newspapers, magazines etc. (Note: What I have suggested above does not mean that the cost of television would be out of peoples reach. Some stations would choose to provide subscription at very competitive prices (e.g. $1 per year) but no station would be permitted to broadcast free to air so that people will not have entertainment in their living room that they do not want.
3. The government must not own any television broadcasting corporation. It should have no more than two news programs per day which are to be no longer than one hour each. The government
news program would be provided for free and shown on one (or more) of the privately owned channels so that they would be available to those who do not prescribe to pay TV. The news programs should state what the government or those who represent the
government have done or intend to do and what laws it has passed. (Bills to be
debated should be publicly announced a week in advance and every day up until the day of the debate.) Political debates and parliamentary discussion will also be broadcast on private channels for free at the expense of the government.
Health Care
The Government can and should support health care (though
all hospitals will be private). This could be done through the following.
1. Government will provide pharmaceutical
schemes so hospitals and patients have access to cheap medications.
2. The government will assist in the purchase of medical equipment. A percentage (e.g. 80%) of the purchase of all medical equipment for hospitals and patients could be assisted through government rebates.
3. The government will help organisations control communicable diseases.
4.
The government would
provide paramedics and ambulances as well as other emergency response
services in the interest of public safety. (They should be able to
provide these
more than adequately since more government revenue will be available to
them.)
5. Governments will enact legislation
to ensure that no one was rejected treatment by any facility in the event of an emergency (no matter what their race or religion).
Does this seem like too much? At the moment the public health system would collapse without private hospitals. What I'm suggesting here would merely make the health care system more efficient while helping people to identify who cares the most. (Obviously those who care the most about others are going to build hospitals and provide the best service at a minimum cost.)
To clarify the following points I'd like to mention two
different neighbours I had at different times. One was an alcoholic who would
receive her payment from the government every fortnight; most of this was spent
on alcohol. The other neighbour played computer games all day and smoked dope.
He also received his payment every fortnight. He had a little boy. Do you think
the government payments helped him to be a better father? The more money the
government gives out the more social problems there seem to be. (see The Crisis of Giving by Os Guinness and Dangerous Samaritans by Dr Michael Bauman from the Summit Lecture series). What then should be the governments role when helping the poor?
1. The government will provide incentives to encourage people to donate to charitable organisations (such as reductions on taxable income).
2. Governments will provide a pension for the disabled and the elderly of equal amount despite the person's sex, race or religion.
3. In order to reduce the
number of people who are in need of support from individuals and charities, governments
must encourage employers to employ more people. This can be done by
legislating that fewer hours will be worked before overtime is paid
(e.g. 35 hours). All Governments can and should protect workers by
ensuring that all workers are covered by adequate workplace health and
safety legislation. (Historically, where those things have not been in
place, workers, particular unskilled workers, have been abused. See
note for increasing employment and protecting unskilled workers.)
Note:
One of the advantages of this approach is that with reduced taxation
there will be more jobs available, this in turn will reduce the burden
on charities.
4.
Government payments to the unemployed will be slowly fazed out but the
government will provide assistance to non-government organisations
(NGOs) who help the poor (ideally this assistance should be provided in the form of food). This assistance will be reduced over time
until there is no longer any government assistance for these organisations. This will help ordinary people to identify who actually cares the most. e.g.
Do Muslims, Atheists or Christians care the most? Whoever cares the
most will, in time, have the biggest impact on society. Isn't this the
way we want it to be? We want those who care the most to have the
greatest influence in our communities. If Atheists care the most
atheism will become the dominate view in society not because the
government promoted their views but because atheists were able to win over
the poor. By removing government funding a level playing field is
created for all world views. Naturally
the transition would have to be
done slowly and only those organizations which have a history of helping the poor would be assisted.
1. Since nobody
is morally neutral there should be no public schools. (Unless of course the
government is prepared to provide and fully fund Islamic, Christian, Hindu (etc) schools so
that they cater to all students. But even that would be seriously flawed as whoever controls the purse strings controls the curriculum. Note the problems the Church had in France when their government started paying priests. The Church merely became a tool of the government.)
2. The government shall not interfere with the curriculum but it should set some exams for subjects which are hard for the government to manipulate (e.g. The government would not set exams for history, the social sciences or philosophy. The government could set exams for grammar and maths in year 3, 7, and for physics, chemistry etc in years 10 and 12). The government would also hold those exams (for all schools and universities) so
that employers have a fixed standard by which to measure potential employees.
The government does not have to set the curriculum to ensure that a student gets taught
particular things, setting some of the exams will be enough. (Obviously those who set the exams will refer to particular texts, and so teachers will have to refer their students to those texts. The difference between this and the present public system is teachers will have greater freedom in what they teach on some subjects and complete freedom on others).
3. The government will have the power to close a school if the school encouraged it's students to use violence against others.
4. The government will enforce
laws to protect students (e.g. against sexual abuse).
5. Governments shall not determine who a school employees. Schools are free to choose or reject any teacher on the basis of their beliefs and values. (e.g. If a Muslim school rejects a Hindu teacher because she holds different values to them, that is the schools business and nobody else's. Every organisation, including universities, has selection criteria which discriminates against those who fall outside that criteria. Even clubs discriminate against those who wear thongs on their feet.)
6. Government's shall provide no funding for schools but may provide some assistance for students to ensure they get some education in the earlier grades. (As long as no favouritism was shown. Listen to Affirmative Action by Dr Michael Bauman.)
Isn't that the way we want it to be?
We want those who care the most to have the
greatest influence in our society whether they call themselves Atheists,
Hindus, Muslims or Christians. When governments stop promoting one world view
over others we will see who really does care the most. Rousseau's vision of enlightening the public will become a reality without government propaganda. A true separation of
religion and state will then exist which will allow equal opportunity for all
religious world views. When there is a true separation of religion and state
the ideas of elite groups will not be promoted by tax payers money.*
As a Christian I
believe that historically Christians have cared more for the oppressed and poor
than atheists (Listen to The Crisis of Giving by Os Guinness and Christian Influence on Western Civilization by Michael Buratovich; see also 6 Modern Myths about
Christianity & Western Civilization by Phillip Sampson, Christianity on Trial by Vincent Carroll and How Christianity Changed the
World by Alvin J. Schmidt.). If I am wrong and atheists have cared
more for others then atheism would rightly become the dominant influence when
there is a true separation of religion and state.
Naturally
the transition to a true separation of religion (or ideology) and government would have to be
done slowly. Government funding to the media would have to go first.
Non-government organisations who help the poor, disadvantaged (etc) would have
to be assessed and if it was determined that they have been doing a lot to help people
but could do much more, then they would be eligible to receive government aid to support and
expand their work.
Why a separation of ideology and state is necessary.
See also Ideology and State
©2006 - 2007 All Rights Reserved.
