At 11:13 AM +0100 24/3/02, Martin W. Smith wrote:

> > How would it be to say that the United States is a Christian state? It is,
>> for all intents and purposes, isn't it?
>
>Not for *all* intents and purposes, but, yes, the US does not fully
>implement the strong interpretation of the principle of separation of
>church and state.

I'm not sure I'd agree with that. The head of state in the US is not also the head of the officially sponsored church. (As in the UK for example.) But even in the UK, the church/state unity is almost entirely symbolic, the monarch is not the head of government and it is no longer compulsory to adhere to the dogmas of the official church.

It seems to me that, while there is also much symbolic official adherence to religion in the US government, it is also largely ritual. And even so, that is not at all in conflict with the separation of church and state. It is one thing to cling to the symbols and rituals of a particular religious tradition, it is entirely different to have a state sponsored church. A religion is distinct from a church, after all.

Being a "Christian state" doesn't seem to mean much in reality, except that most people in the US are nominally Christian. Rather than say nominally Jewish. There does seem to be an unhealthy amount of church-going happening there, but no apparent restrictions on what churches one must attend.

What you are probably referring to is the phenomenon of laws which demand adherence to particular moral strictures, which are derived from a particular religious doctrine. But many of our cultural codes derive from the ancient past of our cultures. Which inevitably means that they have a religious connection as well, since our cultural codes were once exclusively passed from generation to generation in the form of religious dogma. Sometimes these religious codes become anachronistic of course, but not always so. It is a pity that some people choose to justify legislative strictures by ancient dogmatic codes, but I maintain that this isn't necessarily a breach of the principle of separation of church and state.

There also doesn't seem to be the same degree of institutional discrimination in favour of, or against, those who do or don't adhere to a state-sponsored religious doctrine as we were discussing in relation to Israel. (Let alone a state sponsored church.) Perhaps it is more subtle and I'm not aware of it? But you would need to give examples to convince me that the US doesn't adhere to the accepted principles of the separation of church and state.

Bill Bartlett
Bracknell Tas