Sullivan's confusion

Super-blogger Andrew Sullivan offers some (unfortunately) misguided thoughts about the "separation of church and state".  Commenting on Archbishop William Levada's (unremarkable) observation that "from the perspective of society, the tendency to 'privatize' the moral dimension, so common to America with its slogan 'separation of church and state,' can potentially have disastrous consequences."  Sullivan asks, "for Levada, church-state separation is now merely a 'slogan,' not a fundamental principle of a free society? Another sign of where Benedict is going." 

In fact, the "separation of church and state", properly understood, is -- in Sullivan's words -- a "fundamental principle of a free society."  And, as Sullivan knows very well, Archbishop Levada (and Pope Benedict) would agree with this statement.  It is also a fact, though, that in American public discourse and constitutional law, "the separation of church and state" often functions as a mantra, a misleading figure of speech, and an often anti-Catholic "slogan."  (See, e.g., Philip Hamburger, The Separation of Church and State).  Sullivan, I'm sure, knows this very well, too.  I suspect, in fact, that Sullivan agrees with what Archbishop Levada actually said, namely, that the "separation of church and state" is often misunderstood as a principle of "privatization," according to which religious belief, expression, and commitment are required by democratic values to remain outside public discourse and civil society.  Nothing about a "free society" requires -- in fact, a free society cannot tolerate -- such a principle.

Rick