Church-state separation in Iraq would promote liberty, stability

Church-State Intersection
By K. Hollyn Hollman

April 30, 2003

During a recent interview, Tom Brokaw asked President Bush about the prospect of an Islamic government in postwar Iraq, a country with a 60 percent Shiite majority. President Bush replied: "What I would like to see is a government where church and state are separated." He suggested that many citizens in Iraq would prefer a government that represented all Iraqis, not just certain groups, asserting in conclusion: "And I believe that can happen."

President Bush's embrace of church-state separation abroad honors what may be America's most unique contribution to modern constitutional government. In upcoming weeks, Baptists will honor that tradition by observing Religious Liberty Day. Sermons in many churches will reflect on the importance of religious liberty and the lessons from Baptist history that inform our commitment to the principle of church-state separation. It seems fitting that we look to America's past as we debate the future of Iraq, where religious differences are likely to present significant challenges.

For several reasons, President Bush's support for secular government — meaning one that is neutral, not hostile, toward religion — in Iraq is hardly a surprise. First, it reflects national security concerns. An Islamic state controlled by pro-Iranian Shiite clergy would likely oppose U.S. interests. Apparently reflecting the views of the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld has stated flatly that a government of Muslim clerics "isn't going to happen."

Second, on the domestic political front, any move to accept an Islamic theocracy would threaten to alienate important Bush supporters on the religious right, many of whom have openly voiced concerns about Islam. Even Pat Robertson, a usual critic of church-state separation, recently urged the president to adopt such a policy in Iraq, stating that it is going to be "absolutely imperative to set up a constitution and safeguards that say we will maintain a secular state" while respecting the faiths of all people.

These rationales, while perhaps compelling to the Bush administration in this case, do not capture the deeper and more universal virtues of church-state separation. Ultimately, the principal reason that President Bush should seek to promote this American tradition — not only in Iraq, but around the world — is that secular governments best promote the twin goals of religious liberty and social stability.

In the aftermath of decades of Baathist repression, the risk of religious strife in postwar Iraq is considerable. In addition to ethnic diversity, there are significant divisions between and within Sunni and Shia Islamic groups, not to mention Christian and other minorities. Some commentators thus suggest that Iraq is not fertile soil for the transplant of American political ideals. No one should naïvely assume that Iraq and other Middle Eastern governments will readily adopt and effectively implement American constitutional norms.

Nevertheless, it was precisely the experience of religious repression and sectarian strife in Europe and the American colonies that encouraged Baptist leaders such as Roger Williams and John Leland to promote the separation of church and state. This American principle emerged and gradually gained support from religious and political leaders in difficult and uncertain times, not an era of tranquility and stability.

For whatever reasons, President Bush has clearly set the proper course regarding the relationship between church and state in Iraq. Whether the seeds planted by American planners ultimately take root and bear fruit may depend on whether religious leaders in Iraq and elsewhere in the Islamic world embrace religious liberty and begin to appreciate the importance of church-state separation as the best way to achieve it — just as visionary Baptist leaders did in early America.