One of the things not stressed enough in the book Moral Minority, which I briefly reviewed here a few days ago, was the main reason for the Enlightenment: war.

The Enlightenment occurred after a long series of religious wars in Europe. These wars were long, internecine, and bloody. Though spurred on by religious differences, it was obvious to most observers that another chief problem was who ran the states. Because only a few people ran the states, and they were beholden, in a sense, to almost no one (except the religious figures they were allied to and subjected themselves to), the incentives for them to behave at variance with the interests of their people was very, very great.

So the idea of a union between church and state — a very old idea — became generally discredited by anyone who thought at all independent of some dominant group.

As a result, the Englightenment caught on like wildfire. To espouse a union of church and state during this period seemed anachronistic, like a person advocating Stalinism today.

And yet there was one major difference: hordes of religious people.

Many of whom also wanted a separation of church and state.

Is this idea a Christian notion?

The many Christians (mainly dissenters) thought so, or at least recognized that the idea was very compatible with Christian teaching. But it did not derive from religious teaching but, really, from experience. It was just common sense.

To the freethinking people, the people like Ethan Allen who found traditional religious doctrines utterly absurd (and they grew in number at that time, in large part because of the unconscionable manner in which self-proclaimed Christians had acted), this new liberal idea was not Christian at all, but part of the new thought developing in Europe and America. It was not based on any scripture. It was based on reason and experience. It was, in effect, an anti-Christian notion, since it was designed to keep Christians in check. After all, Christians are the ones who had gone mad with killing. And tyranny.

This all changed, though, as memory of the wars of religion dissipated, new memories and new contexts arose. The fear of secularism became a big thing as the 19th century commenced. And a number of Enlightenment ideas started to receive concerted opposition.

Still, throughout that century a wall of separation between church and state was erected in state after state. All the established religions were torn down, disestablished.

This gave further impetus to a multiplicity of active Christian denominations, of course. Freedom does tend to lead to diversity. And by the end of the 19th century rising tides of ecumenical activism began to demand more and more state power. The Hygiene movement, in particular, coupled with teetotalitarians amongst the evangelicals, put a series of regulations of psychoactive drugs, and then ushered in Prohibition, one of the great disasters in tyranny in America. This further eroded the sense of Constitutional limits, and helped erect the tyrannies of the Wilson and Roosevelt administrations, and the welfare-warfare state we lumber under today.

The people I admire at the Founding period most, regarding support for the separation of church and state, are not the Enlightenment figures. It's easy to wish a separation of church and state if you think that most churches are nuisances at best. But the people to admire are those who believed deeply in their religions but still supported church and state.

Think about it. They believed their religion could save mankind. They had the answers. And yet the understood that it was best if they did not have power, and did not use the monopoly power of the state to force their answers on others.

It's easy for a modern liberal environmentalist, for example, to support the First Amendment. He likely has no respect for any established religion. Doesn't believe that nonsense. So of course not laboring his government with extraneous doctrine is just fine by him.

But what about the things he cares about? Wilderness, recycling, etc. That he will demand the government not only allow but enforce, force down people's throats.

A modern liberal environmentalist expects the government to force everybody to pay for the upkeep of natural habitats and to forcibly compel people to conform to any pet notion that he thinks will help the natural world. Further, he expects governments to subsidize massive recylcing, not because it is economical to do so, but because it seems more nature-friendly to him.

He has no sense of limits on what government may provide. He's nowhere near as admirable as the 18th century Christian who supported a separation of church and state.

Did that Christian understand that by setting limits on the way he can conduct himself he was actually ensuring that good things may happen? Maybe. The economics of coöperation was just beginning to gain some foothold in the climate of opinion. Mainly he supported it because he couldn't trust himself or others with too much power.

The modern liberal environmentalist, or liberal (read: prodigal) social activist has few such thoughts. He only applies it to Republicans in power. When his own folk are in, you rarely hear a peep out of him. After all, with his own folk in power, stifling opposition, he's more apt to get his pet projects into the policy niche.

The limits that liberty places on power, on fraudulent activity, on (even) externalities like pollution, are often very unpopular. And are mostly forgotten by the bulk of today's intelligentsia, even after thirty years of libertarian intellectual efforts.

We've a long way to go, a long way to peel back the state and the state of public opinion.

We now, even, have to peel back encroachments onto First Amendment rights, not too long ago felt to be pretty secure.