In Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville argues that a strict institutional separation of religion and the state strengthen both. Both are strengthened by an often-overlapping philosophical fusion. This paradox of institutional separation and philosophical overlap create a synergy and equilibrium that not only preserves the state and religion but strengthens them. In this synergy, interplay occurs between religion and the state that defines the unique role and characteristics for each in American society. Specifically, Tocqueville notes the influence of religion on the state, the influence of the state on religion and finally the influence of religion on political culture.

The basis of American democracy is the principle of equality, derived from Christianity according to Tocqueville (pg. 11). Equality has the ability to transcend social class, economic conditions and other societal barriers. As Tocqueville puts it, “Christianity, which has rendered all men equal before God, will not be loath see all the citizens equal before God” (pg 11).

He goes on to note that the most democratic of religions is Catholicism. Catholicism has a unique power that “imposes the same practices on the rich as on the poor …it likes to intermingle all classes of society at the foot of the same altar, as they are intermingled in the eyes of God” (pg. 276). The divine source of American equality has had a profound influence on the American state and political process that continues today. Equality is not merely an abstract philosophy born of man, but an extension of Christianity. Even in today’s political discourse many argue that the foundation of American democracy is not equality, but the Christianity from which it springs.

Tocqueville predicts that as barriers that separate humans come down, equality justified by a common omnipotent Creator will increase (421). This prediction is of particular interest considering that in the time elapsed since Tocqueville penned the prediction the United States has made significant progress in eliminating barriers within our society. Tocqueville’s prediction finds credence in the test of time. Today as Americans seek to improve relations between the different segments of society the argument of equality under a common Creator is still invoked as the principle justification.

The dual nature of equality of man before God and law gives birth to a very American philosophical fusion. Tocqueville asserts that though an institutional separation exists between Church and State, the philosophies of freedom and Christianity are mixed in such a way that Americans view them the as identical (pgs. 280-1). He cites as an example the fusion of instilling Christianity and freedom as a philosophical alloy on the American frontier. It would be impossible, in the minds of Americans, to establish one without the other (pg 281). This same paradigm exists today.

Recently, Justice Ray Moore of the state of Alabama was ordered by a federal court to remove a monument of the Ten Commandments from his courthouse. He refused to comply and was removed from the bench. Whether his argument was a sincere belief or an attempt to rally the public, Moore argued that Christianity and freedom were the same. In an interview with CNN Moore stated, “They don't understand what the Constitution says, what the First Amendment's about. What the Alabama Constitution says is very clear. And I think there's too many things going on in this country about the removal of God from our life. And it's fundamental. Actually, the organic law of our country establishes God as the basis for our justice system” (Alabama chief justice: 'Judges can't make the law').

Moore’s argument is buttressed by the ubiquitous citation of “organic law”. Moore has played on the strong emotions of religious freedom and the fusion of Christianity and freedom that still exists today. The court ruling does not limit the presence of religion in citizen’s lives; it only removes a stone monument from a building. Religion does not live in our society through the presence of cold stone monuments but rather it lives in the conscience of the individual citizen. Therefore the state has done nothing to “the [remove] God from [the citizen’s] life”.

Paradoxically, while a philosophical fusion of liberty and Christianity persists to this day, Tocqueville notes a strict institutional separation that exists between religion and the state. Tocqueville returns again to Catholicism to explain the separation. He returns to his argument that Catholicism is the most democratic. Catholic priests in America have carved out two intellectual realms according to Tocqueville. “In one, they have left revealed dogmas, and they submit to them without discussing them; in the other, they have placed political truth, and they think that God has abandoned it to the free inquiries of men” (pgs. 276-7).

Tocqueville continues to examine these two realms by contrasting Christianity and Islam. He argues that Christianity naturally lends itself to democracy because it does not prescribe a specific political philosophy. Thus, Christian nations are left to determine for themselves policy in the second realm through thriving pluralism. Politics cannot contradict religion because Christianity is neutral policy. Tocqueville then goes on to argue that Islam cannot support democracy because it’s doctrine prescribes specific political doctrines. Islam’s vitality is directly connected to the presence of a government that limits enlightenment to Islamic doctrine (419-20).

If Tocqueville were to examine the international political landscape today he would feel vindication of his argument. Specifically he would likely cite the turbulent history of Iran as a result of mixing political and religious doctrine in a theocratic state (“Iran”).

While Tocqueville saw theocratic politics as dangerous, he did argue that religion played an important role in defining the mores that guide government.

Tocqueville saw Christianity as the vehicle defining common values in American society for both believers and non-believers. “Among Anglo-Americans, some profess Christian dogmas because they believe them, others because they are afraid of not looking like they believe them. Christianity therefore reigns without obstacles” (pg. 279).

Religion is therefore utilitarian in nature. It defines common values where the state cannot. It exerts a powerful, but indirect influence on the state. Unfortunately this utilitarian application of religious mores lends itself to hypocrisy. If Tocqueville were alive today he would likely be amused that many of the politicians who have trumpeted family values and the sanctity of marriage in campaigns and legislation during the past decade have simultaneously engaged in adultery and extra-marital relations.

Tocqueville notes that sects differ in the forms, or mechanics of worship, and not in mores. He states “each sect therefore adores God in its manner, but all sects preach the same morality in the name of God” (pg. 278). While conflict over the mechanics of religion still exists today, differences in mores seem to elicit the most passionate responses. The religious landscape in America is more diverse today than during Tocqueville’s time both in the mechanics of worship and in the definition of mores.

The most recent example of religious conflict in the United States is an issue of mores, not mechanics. The Episcopal Church recently ordained an openly gay bishop, Gene Robinson. The debate that ensued engulfed not only the Episcopal Church, but the entire nation. Virtually nothing was said of the mechanics, or form, of worship. Rather, the debate focused on whether it was appropriate for an openly gay man to be a member of the clergy (“Episcopalians approve gay bishop”). Differences in Christian mores have increased and will continue to increase as diversity grows in America.

Tocqueville explains the religiosity of America by contrasting it with Europe. In Europe religion was used as a tool to control with “terror and faith” (pg. 285), to manipulate and suppress. Naturally, 18th century philosophers reasoned that if and when man became free he would abandon religion as the liberated captive abandons his shackles (pg. 282). The co-existent proliferation of enlightenment and religion in America are to be expected, despite the reasoning afore mentioned (pg. 282). The difference between American religion and European religion is simple. In Europe religion was used to suppress, while in America religion served as a catalyst of liberty, revolution and enlightenment. It is natural that Americans would retain the vehicle of their enlightenment.

American religion also gains strength because, according to Tocqueville, it abstains from the policy making process. When religion involves itself directly in matters of state the authority of the state increases in the present while the authority of religion is undermined in the future. Religion compromises its long-term integrity when it endorses a political movement that is defeated or becomes unpopular with the people in the future (pg. 285). Clergy, therefore, take great pride in their institutional separation from the state (pg. 282).

However, the clergy do exhibit one weakness that has the potential undermine the authority of religion. Tocqueville notes that clergy are often unwilling to stand up and oppose popular ideas and movements of the day (pgs. 423-4). In essence, American clergy finds itself submissive to the doctrine of the soveirgnty of the people. This submission has the potential of rendering relative mores (according to popular sentiment) to religion. Religion therefore, doesn’t remain neutral by abstaining from formally taking positions on issues of the day. Rather, its silence speaks as a loud endorsement of the position taken by the soveirgnty of the people. As time passes and the people abandon that position as immoral they may also implicate religion and thus undermine its power.

The true authority of religion in America is to define the mores that govern society. Religion establishes the mores that introduce social order and peace (pg. 417). These mores keep individual passions and self interest in check (pg. 418). Religion’s ability to define and apply mores to society is something that a democratic state cannot do. Tocqueville notes that political freedom without the moral restraint introduced by religion cannot exist. There must be some power that keeps man from trampling others, but in a democratic state that power cannot be the government (pgs. 418-9).

Religious peoples are strong where democratic peoples are weak. Democratic peoples are self-interested, while religion teaches a concern for the common good. Religion in democratic society balances the passions of self-interest with the need for maintenance of the common good (419).

The conflict of democratic individualism and religious altruism for the common good gives birth to the American doctrine of self-interest rightly understood. “The inhabitants of the United States almost always know how to combine their own well-being with that of their fellow citizens” (pg. 501) according to Tocqueville and then goes on to say, “each American knows how to sacrifice a part of his particular interests to save the rest.” The state could not effectively promote the doctrine of self-interest rightly understood. Even if the state attempted, it could not wield the same powerful arguments as religion. Justification for the doctrine cannot stand alone on the benefits one receives in this life. Indeed, that justification relies heavily on “recompense…in the other world” (pg. 504).

Religion in America, in contrast to the middle ages, speaks of blessings that straddle this world and the next. Thus, the benefits of selflessness are immediately realized. These selfless acts serve selfish purposes (pg. 505).

Religion plays a vital role in American political culture today, as it did in Tocquevilles day. Religion still has the power to perpetuate the doctrine of self interest rightly understood. It is the source of mores that govern our society. Many of the mores of Christianity are accepted by beleivers and non-believes. The vitality of both religion and state come from the interplay an exchange of values between the two. Even so, both gain strength from remaining institutionally separate. Religion is one of the primary sources of stability in our government. Conversely, government stabilizes religion by allowing it latitude for enlightenment.