I believe it is a priority
to designate the responsibilities of both government and religion in regard to
public interest. As far as I can say, the purpose of government is to keep a
population as satisfied as possible (maximized mutils, to be specific). Now, the interests of the people - with
regards to an increase in their satisfaction, evolve over time. They require an
adaptation in policy-based governing. With this taken into account, the
question of an incorporation of religious ideals into religion is entirely a
governmental one.
If we consider the general values
that it seems we currently attempt to uphold to be "religious" in
nature, then it would appear that a total separation of government and things
that are "religious" in nature would seem to be rather contradictory
in regards to the purpose of government. However, these values have essentially
matriculated into society, and aren't typically considered in the
"separation" debate. Instead, focus is shifted toward deliberations
over the apparent will of god. This focus, I believe, has two implications on
political theory.
The first is that the will of god
has a direct influence over the values of the religious. Government must take
this into account in order to decide for the favorable majority. The second,
and more troublesome, is that the qualification - "acting under the will
of god" - becomes a verifiable condition of government that further adds
or detracts from the satisfaction of what is commonly labeled as the religious
population. This becomes difficult because it seems that empirical, physical
observations tend to result in more progressive and therefore satisfactory
decision-making. If government is to be concerned with the satisfaction of the
people, it seems most productive to base the totality of its working order on a
fundamentally scientific basis. So, because “acting under the will of god”
indicates a withdrawal from what is predictably the best measure of success, it
results in a contradictory course of action. That is, the need to appeal to the
desires of the people, and often the religious, in a matter of logical
conclusion determined by the basis of politics. As soon as we act in such a
way, as to appease the will of an unverifiable entity, we pull away from what
appears to be the best method. This, it seems, is the current course of action
of the US government – in which case, there is what I would consider separation
of “church” and state.
