Religion and the state

---

The relationship between church and state is central to the functioning of democracy. During discussions on the unified European constitution some countries wanted to include a reference to the Christian and Judaic traditions of Europe. Catholic Italy suggested the incorporation of such a reference in the constitution, whereas secular France insisted on the strict separation of church and state. European leaders finally deferred to the French view in 2004. Europe's position was not anti-religious but an acceptance of the lessons of history, an admission that theocratic forms of government do more harm than good.

The separation of church and state started in Europe at the end of religious wars in 1648. It was then that the term "secular" was coined, denoting a commitment to rationalism that does not look down on religion. The political process, as conceived in Europe at the time, called for a democratic debate in which none of the interlocutors could claim divine inspiration. Europe continued to regard Christianity as a moral force but they kept it at a distance, allowing religion into the political fray only within the limits of the exchange of opinion.

The problem with religious groups is that they are ambiguous about their activities and goals. Their leaders disclaim any political ambitions even as they attempt to consolidate their grip over society. This goes for everyone, from the churches of Europe to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Religious groups often prefer to stay in opposition and snipe at the government rather than take office and become accountable. Look at the governments of the Taliban or Iran. Look at how incapable they proved themselves in matters of domestic and foreign policy. Even in its heyday, the MB preferred to stay out of government, though not out of the political game. Like Rasputin, who ruled Tsarist Russia from behind the scenes, the MB has preferred to flex its muscles at a distance.

The MB benefited from the experience of European communists who achieved massive popularity while in opposition only to show themselves as supremely inept once in power.

The MB has perfected the game of lacing politics with religion. It is the climate of tyranny and corruption that gives the merchants of religion the chance to peddle their wares and pose as victims. There is an implicit symbiosis between despotism and religion mongers, for each feeds on the shortcomings of the other. The religion mongers masquerade as victims to boost their popularity while the despots use the fanatics to tighten their grip on power. Democracy remains the only hope for freedom.