Featured
Separation of Church and State: A Parable
The following is my contribution to the Blog Against Theocracy blogswarm. Essentially a blogswarm is a concerted effort by as many blogs as possible to post about a specific topic during a specific time. The Blog Against Theocracy blogswarm asks that you write a post about the Separation of Church and State and is scheduled this year during Easter weekend.
I would like to contribute a twist to the discussion. This little parable* could be used to illustrate a number of concepts but I choose to tweak it to the Separation of Church and State. I would be interested in how you interpret this since the following is very clear in my mind but not everyone thinks like me.
Separation of Church and State: A parable
In the early days of our imaginary village there were many battles between the villagers and the Devil. Many lives were lost fighting the Devil and his minions. You see, the Devil is a very tricky fellow. He could appear to be your neighbor or your brother. He would also appear as a fair maiden who would entice men to their deaths with her beauty and a broad grin. Other times he would make a terrible racket in the Eastern woods and while the villagers were busy trying to smoke the Devil out his followers would sneak in from the Western woods and wreak terrible havoc on the village. The villagers were constantly sending their young men into war against the Devil knowing that far too many would never return and that the Devil’s smile would be the last thing their loved ones would ever see.
Soon the village grew very large and the Devil found it much more fun to simply breed mistrust between neighbors and brothers. The Devil would pit village Elder against village Elder using words seemingly made of silk and that broadest of grins. Whole sections of the village would fight over the most trivial of matters. Travelers would even avoid this village because far too many would be harassed or accused of witchcraft. A great cloud of suspicion and mistrust fell upon the village. This created much anguish for the Village Council, the merchants in the market square and every day citizens.
So the Village Council assembled all of the village Elders to solve the situation of the Devil once and for all. It was clear that he could not be killed so what were they to do? After much debate an agreement was reached that seemed to satisfy everyone, or at least was opposed by the fewest. A great wall, called The Devil’s Wall, was to be built completely surrounding the village. Not everyone was happy about the Wall but it seemed the best solution. This wall must be impenetrable for even the slightest hole could be exploited. Not even a gate was to be allowed.
So the Devil’s Wall was built and for the first time in anyone’s memory there was a glimpse of lasting peace. Everyone knew the Devil was unhappy about this solution, he could be heard on occasion scraping against the wall or trying to entice people within the village into letting him in. He would assume the form of an injured traveler or visiting dignitary but cooler heads prevailed and the Devil was thwarted. There was much debate in the early days about whether or not it was the right thing to do and a number of people left the village because they were unhappy.
Over time the villagers became accustomed to the wall and after many generations it was simply a part of everyday life. On occasion the Devil would be heard from or there would be rumblings among a group of hot-headed young men during a late night at the local pub about putting together a posse to take care of the Devil.
After several more generations, the Devil wouldn’t even bother the town anymore. Soon the Devil became a story you told to children around the campfire or during sleepovers. Many people would postulate that the Devil was never even real and that no real threat exists. The Devil was simply a metaphor or the personification of unwholesome, outside influences. Some even said the Wall wasn’t even built to keep the Devil out but that this was just a story invented after the fact.
During this time, a very popular Elder decided that it was time to end the question of the Devil once and for all. The only problem with going after the Devil was that you had to tear down part of the Devil’s Wall to get to him. Over the objections of the historians and academics a plan was hatched to end the Devil.
The plan was to tear down a section of the Eastern wall but only a very small section. The hole would be small enough to send a small army of men to hunt down and destroy the Devil. Even though the hole would be small another small army of men would be posted to guard against any incursions by the Devil. The plan seemed very detailed and appeared to account for all possibilities so the Village Council approved the plan.
The hole in the wall was made and temporary fortifications were implemented on either side. The Elder’s army was ready to begin their hunt. For many months the army would leave in search of the Devil and would return every night without any luck. It was beginning to look like the Devil wasn’t real after all. Even many of the academics were beginning to question their opposition. In fact, when it was decided to create similar holes with the same precautions in the Western, Northern and Southern walls; only the historians, convinced of the folly of the plan, voiced their opposition.
Not long after the Southern hole was made did the army finally stumble upon the Devil. In a small cave in a dark wood there lay the Devil, old and frail. Long deprived of the bloody spoils of war, the satisfaction of playing his little tricks and the challenge of political manipulation he had become pale, gaunt and sickly. But at the first smell of men the Devil’s heart began to race for the first time in generations.
Despite his frailty a great battle ensued between the Devil and the army. The battle could be heard even to the village where great fear and anxiety swept through the village. For a day and a night the battle raged until the first light of morning when a Lone Soldier stumbled through the Southern wall and immediately collapsed wounded and badly burned.
He was immediately taken to the hospital and upon regaining consciousness he told the story of the Devil’s Final Battle. The Devil was indeed real but was finally no more, having succumbed to his injuries. With his last breath the Devil exploded into a ball of fire and brimstone. And, indeed, the smell of sulfur reached even to the village. The story was retold and great rejoicing was heard across the land that night. Only the historians wrung their hands and wondered how they could have been so wrong.
In the following days, the Lone Soldier would be invited to every party having become some kind of celebrity. He was soon courted by many a village Elder looking to exploit his celebrity. With the Devil finally vanquished, the Village Council commissioned a new committee dedicated to tearing down the wall. The Village Council needed someone fair and impartial to oversee the task. Many Elders names were offered up but none could be agreed upon. Finally the council announced that they had made a decision.
At the appointed time the Village Council assembled in the Great Hall and asked for the Lone Soldier to step forward. The Chief Elder then asked if the Lone Soldier would take on this noble task. The Lone Soldier stood in the center of the Great Hall weighing his decision very carefully.
After a few moments, he looked up with the broadest of grins and answered, “It would be my pleasure.”
* I am 100% sure that this “parable” is not original to me however I have no idea where I’ve heard this before. I tried to google it as well but I get nothing. My version is probably a very embellished version of the original. Another thought I had is that this may be an elaborate story that I invented around the phrase, “If you beat a path to the Devil what will prevent him from turning around on you”.
Disclaimer: The views expressed by an individual contributor to this blog are not necessarily shared by all members of FreeThought Fort Wayne. That is what makes this organization so interesting. Commenters on the FreeThought Fort Wayne blog are expected to abide by our comment policy. About the author: Skeptigator is a mystery wrapped in an enigma and served on a bed of lettuce. Read more from this author
The Separation of Church and State: A Parable by Skeptigator, unless otherwise expressly stated, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Tags: blog against theocracy, church state separation, devil, separation of church and state, theocracy Discussion
26 comments for “Separation of Church and State: A Parable”
Post a comment
Categories
Our Readers
I’m looking for general feedback but what I’m most curious as to how you interpret “who or what” the devil represents. Is the ending too subtle or kind of obvious since I telegraphed where I was going with it.
This is really a different kind of writing, and therefore unexplored territory, for me. And after Joel’s poem from the last meeting most of what I write now sounds like “Me, Skeptigator. Me think stuff.”
“telegraphed = foreshadowing” for all of you lit majors out there.
Interesting story. I don’t recall one like it, but I’ve forgotten a lot.
I interpret this story as primarily a metaphor for how people tend to isolate themselves from what we deem bad or sinful, only to become vulnerable to inevitable desire and folly.
I see how this story can be interpreted may different ways though. That’s part of the charm of it.
“This is really a different kind of writing, and therefore unexplored territory, for me. And after Joel’s poem from the last meeting most of what I write now sounds like “Me, Skeptigator. Me think stuff.””
LMAO, I’m guessing I should feel complimented??
Skeptigator,
I like this direction. It is very creative.
Skep, If you liked Joel’s poem (I did) then you will love the “What Inspires You” video. Joel has agreed to read his poem for a segment on The Enlightenment Show.
Skep, would you be willing to read your parable? Please?
-Andy
PS I will try to have the video uploaded later tonight. It will play on Acess on Monday at 9 PM on 27 Verizon and 57 Comcast.
why does this village remind me of the US?
@Andy D
No, but someone else could.
@two crows
Purely coincidence, I assure you.
You didn’t mean to write a Christian parable, did you?
@Jon Swarens You didn’t really just be that stupid, did you? Were you joking? Is it just because you’ve only heard (and understood) the word “parable” prefaced by the adjective “Christian”? Please see a dictionary and broaden your, uh, knowledge about, like, words and stuff.
You missed the entire (debatable) point of a creative church/state argument in which the negative reaches of religion into the government are ironically represented by the Devil, a Christian reference (hence the irony, here in the US).
*Sigh* But of course it’s a Christian parable because it has the Devil in it (Really? REALLY?!). This parable is using the Devil to be ironic, and has little or no relevance to any common Christian parables. It has more in common with that M. Night Shyamalan movie. You know there were parables before Christianity–oh right you don’t.
No, seriously, this isn’t Jon Swarens’ fault, he can’t be expected to think outside of his faulty wiring.
The unintended assumption here is that a dedicated believer can make any connection or imaginative reading of this “parable” (I hesitate to use the word, obviously) other than something that affirms their beliefs.
For that claim, Swarens obviously made the evidence.
As for the parable itself, I think it’s lacking in that the Devil never really left the village–the villagers never realized he was the problem, but rather blamed the *ahem* king the Devil hid behind. This is the Devil’s strength; while he continually fights against his demise, he constantly realizes his survival is dependent on avoiding any ultimatum, and forever worms his way into the cultural traditions of the village.
Maybe that’d be harder to parable (verb). But anyway. Nice story.
Why do I think of Flip Wilson and his “the devil made me do it?”
Nicely done ; )
Well said David
@David: Hi there. I’m sitting right over here (waves helpfully) as you spittle coffee all over the place. Maybe try decaf?
Anyway, I guess when your God-rejecting brain comes across the word “Devil,” you instantly replace it with a photo of Bishop D’Arcy, or maybe James Dobson with horns.
But I actually read and edit words for a living, so when my brain sees “Devil,” I think, well, “Devil.” Or maybe “dreaded evil of some sort.” I don’t automatically think “Church.” I’m sure that defect is a failure of my public education.
So maybe I am stupid. Or maybe it just means the parable only works for readers who already agree with the author.
In any case, have a good weekend, and I’ll have a great Resurrection Sunday. (And no, I’m not afraid of the word “Easter,” either.)
Wow Jon, for someone who has yet to bring a cogent argument to the table you sure do manage to sound condescending…
If you had the common sense to look at the title the fact that the devil is analogous to the church, the city is analogous to the state, and the wall they built is the separation of the two.
I’m not sure who would employ you to ‘read and edit words’ but I’m fairly sure that you’re overpaid since you can’t even make the connection between the title of a work and it’s content.
@Jn
dn’t knw hw ls t xpln ths t y.
My pnt ws tht t’s lk y’r syng ll prbls w hmg t Chrstn prbls. Ths s chp nd wrng.
BTW, thr r mny ppl wh mk lvng bng ncmptnt t thr jb. Wht mn t sy s, *spttl* s nn, y dmbss, nd dn’t drnk cff.
@ david
Welcome to the dark side
We all feel the need to go there at times, no?
@Joel Yeah you caught me.
Today’s troll award goes to David.
@Jon I apologize for the behavior from some of our members. I do want to keep open communication open with reasonable theists.
I am trying to instruct our members about civilized debate. I had a meeting with most of them about this. To be fair to David he wasn’t there. The removal of vowels is just a warning. I did send him a polite private twitter asking him to cut out the rudeness. That post swearing at Jon was his response to me.
Of course, I agree with David and the others here about the actual arguments. Unfortunately, they feel the need for ridicule. The anger is understandable because you and your fellow theists try to take away some of their freedoms and legislate very narrow ideas of morality on everyone. However, that anger doesn’t make it excusable nor do I think it will be effective in the long run to behave like this.
@David you are welcome to start your own blog. This is a community group and we will be civil here.
@Andy D. Oooh, dirty trick. I would have left it up to the thread author to fire the disemvoweling guns, but I guess I’m just classy like that.
See that little disclaimer under the post? That’s what makes it free and clear from FFW as an organization and all part of Skeptigators world. And if I were Skep, I’d be pissed that you came into my post and goosestepped around without my permission, but hey — this isn’t my post. So it doesn’t mean much coming from me.
If I’m going to have to worry about tempering my comments to fit the arbitrary, *undefined* whims of a tepid, humorless little internet tyrant, then, well, I won’t be contributing anymore.
@Andy D. true internet trolls like Mr. Swerens threaten your discourse much more than a few dirty words and a nasty tone. They stop discourse from raising above the level of a basic philosophy course and bait your members, over and over again, into fruitless exchanges.
But you go right on apologizing to them. And feel free to delete this post, I can’t stop you, but at least I know you read it.
Andy D,
I gave serious consideration to whether I should post this here or discuss it tonight… I think the disemvoweling of David was premature. I gather his primary offense was referring to Jon as a dumbass, am I correct?
Jon joined this thread with the post that if it’s a parable it must be christian, something that any fan of literature would take offense at, David took him to task on that followed by a demeaning and condescending post from Jon written to make David look like a drooling idiot for disagreeing with him…
I genuinely think that Davids annoyance was justified. Furthermore while it’s true that we want to “keep open communication open with reasonable [intelligent] theists” I have yet to see a post from Jon that would lead me to describe in this manner. He leans far more toward the troll side than that of a reasonable contributor and Davids comments were not trolling but response. The troll is the one who comes in to stir up a forum and based on Jon’s comments the past few days he hardly seems interested in intelligent conversation.
@Andy W
Dirty trick? I sent him a private message and his response was profanity through the blog (bragging about the comment on twitter no less.) You tell me who is dirty? He has now blocked me on twitter. It is a shame he can’t even handle a little criticism. I would like to keep communications open with Dave, too. It was just a warning and not a death sentence. He said I lacked a sense of humor before closing twitter. Go back and reread his comments. Were is the humor? Do I lack a funny bone?
I know he is your friend. I like him too and loved his story on TES but please get the communications under control. This kind of behavior is not helping the group. We had a meeting about this a few days ago! That wasn’t a joke.
@Joel- You were on the edge of distasteful. We can talk more tonight.
@Andy D. I never saw your twitter message until after I’d already posted. Twitter is a poor means of private communication.
My twitter blog is private, which is why you can’t see it now. Please keep the contents of its page and my personal messages to you private. What you did was disheartening and I simply had no further desire for personal communication with you.
The humor, btw, was in pointing out that in the same post that Jon cited his day job as evidence he understands words, he misused a noun as a verb. Pointing this out is called an “OH SNAP” moment.
Also, do you like fishsticks, Kanye?
@Andy D. Oh, I missed this: “he can’t even handle a little criticism.”
For the record, what you did wasn’t criticism. It was much more offensive.
“in the same post that Jon cited his day job as evidence he understands words, he misused a noun as a verb”
I laughed
TBH though I think this is passing beyond the point of constructive conversation and it may be better to continue somewhere other than the blog after everyone (myself included) has taken a moment to calm down and allow cooler heads to prevail. Too many people are on the defensive right now and they all have valid reasons to be there, so lets pause, take a few and re-approach this from a different angle… I think there are issues of context and meaning that are being overlooked by both sides and continuing on at this point and through this venue will not be productive…
To change the topic… Who’s coming to my party tonight??
@David,
OK you didn’t see my direct twitter until after my post? I didn’t see it that way. I apologize for thinking that was your response to me with a boastful Twitter post bragging about it. I hope you can see that.
It was awfully close to it and you didn’t respond to me until I removed your vowels. Also, you used the very word that I asked you to avoid. (Twitter is all I had to communicate and I didn’t think it needed to be a public discussion before that last post).
I still think the dumb A## was was too far. I don’t think I would have removed the post that quickly if I didn’t think it was a direct comment on my request of you. For that I am very sorry.
Please call Jon out for not answering the questions but stop the insults like stupid, dumb A@#. That is all I am saying. I still stand behind that.
“It was awfully close to it and you didn’t respond to me until I removed your vowels.”
From your post right after removing my vowels:
“I did send him a polite private twitter asking him to cut out the rudeness. That post swearing at Jon was his response to me. ”
That’s how I found out about the twitter messages.
Maybe there was some misunderstanding with regard to context, but I’ll remind you that I said a word that is the catchphrase of the dad on That 70’s Show. It’s said on TV.
Humor and snark are tools of persuasion, like emotional punctuation. They are important, and I think discourse void of them is bland and uninteresting–not to mention ineffective if the viewer has no desire to examine their opinion in the first place.
At that point, their only hope comes from being shocked out of ignorance by threat of embarrassment. If they see the troll getting (lightly and soundly) ridiculed, and yet parroting what they believe, it might cause them pause. “Heh, those guys are making that guy’s ideas look stupid. That guy’s ideas ARE kind of stupid. That guy’s ideas are kind of like my ideas.” Etc.
However, you’re the one who’s put all the hard work into forming this organization and this blog, and you have every right to decide these issues of presentation.
There are plenty of places on the internet for me to go where I have to worry less about offending the management.