“When a religion founds its empire upon the desire of immortality which lives in every human heart, it may aspire to universal dominion; but when it connects itself w/ a government, it must necessarily adopt maxims which are only applicable to certain nations. Thus, in forming an alliance with a political power, religion augments its authority over a few, and forfeits the hope of reigning over all… The Church cannot share the temporal power of the State without being the object of a portion of that animosity which excites the latter.”
Alexis de Tocqueville
Darryl Gnostic Hart then comments
As Alexis de Tocqueville observed as early as 1835, the separation of church and state is not a boon for secularization but for religious authenticity and piety.
Bret responds,
1.) This quote suffers for not distinguishing religion from Church. de Tocqueville starts with talking about “religion” and before the quote is closed he is talking about Church. No Christian Nationalist desires a ecclesiocracy. No Church should desire to share the temporal power of the state, all Christians and churches should desire that Biblical Christianity be the faith that informs the temporal power of the state and no other faith.
2.) This quote fails in realizing that all governments are animated by and are expressive of some religion/faith. There are zero exceptions. All governments legislate, adjudicate, and enforce law. All law is a reflection of morality. All morality, without exception, is the result of some religion. Neither de Tocqueville nor Hart, as much as they might have desired and desire can change that.
3.) If one is a postmillennialist one does not agree w/ de Tocqueville that the Christian religion ever must forfeit the hope of reigning over all though postmillennialists quite agree that heathen religions must forfeit the hope of reigning over all precisely because Christ is King and so Christ, having dominion, shall have dominion so that the knowledge of the Lord covers the world as the waters cover the sea. After all, Scripture teaches that the Kings better kiss the son lest they perish in the way.
4.) We quite agree that a Christian state will excite the animosity of the heathen that live under the rule of a Christian state. For example, those who desire to kill their unborn babies will have a animosity for a Christian state that brings the death penalty against them for torturing and murdering their babies.
5.) The fact that animosity will exist by some in the social order against a state founded on the Christian religion is no reason for the Christian religion to not be embraced by the state since it is inescapably the case that the state is going to be founded on some religion and is therefore going to have some who will have animosity towards that state since it is founded on a religion that those with the animosity don’t share. For example, I have mountains of animosity for a current state, founded on Humanism as a religion such as it is. If we were to have a Christian State should we be surprised that the Mooselimbs or Hindus or Bagels would have animosity for the state? If Christ is King who cares who has animosity for the King?
6.) As to Hart’s statement, understand that there is no such thing as separation of church and state. One can make a distinction as to how church and state in a Christian social order are to operate (Church holds the Keys, State wields the sword) but one can never separate since both Church and State sever together under the same Master.
7.) As such, per #6, Hart’s demand for separation of Christian church and state is only a means by which some other union of some other combination of church and state will be fused. For examples, currently we have a union of Church and State right now with the humanist church in the guise of government schools, being in union with the State. Separation of church and state is a myth. It never happens.
8.) As to secularization, it is also a myth. It is true that the separation of Church and State is not a boon for secularization. That is because secularization is a myth. Instead, the complete divorcing of Christian church and State leads not to secularization but instead leads to the triumph of some other union of some other pagan religion and State relationship.
So, as much as like de Tocqueville’s “Democracy in America” we can not help but observe that Alexis got this one wrong.
As for Hart … well, he is routinely in error.
