Nothing could by more mistaken than the now fashionable attempt to apply the methods and concepts of the natural sciences to the solution of social problems. -Ludwig Von Mises(Planned Chaos P-30)

We all have heard numerous times Rosie O’Donnell screaming on the television about how Catholic judges must not be allowed in SCOTUS(Supreme Court Of The United States) as a measure for separation of Church and State, and I am sure you must have heard a lot and hold an opinion about a clear separation of Church and State. But this article is not about Religion and State, rather its about the undefined separation of Science and State.

What is the meaning of separation of Science and State?

State

A clear separation of science and state is a legal doctrine means that no government policies are made by keeping Science in mind, no government money must be spent for a specific scientific project. This separation is quite similar to separation of Church and State where government money cannot be used to promote a specific religion, no policies must be made following beliefs of a specific faith, and government and religious institutions are to be kept separate from each other.^[1]

The idea of separation of Church and State was first given by Thomas Jefferson(founding father of America, and author of American Declaration of Independence) and championed by James Madison(another founding father of America and principle drafter of United States Bill of Rights).

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.” -Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Danbury Baptists^[2]

Following this phrase and the guidelines led by Thomas Jefferson, James Madison thus drafted the First Amendment as:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Unfortunately our founding fathers failed to clearly define the “wall of separation” between Science and State. Most of the laws made in United States of America or elsewhere, rely heavily on scientific basis. Massive amount of money is given to scientific funding, hard earned tax payer money is spent on “promoting science and arts”.

What is the problem with intermingling of Science and State?

Science has now become just another form of belief system - There was a time when whatever Royal Academy of Science in London proclaimed, it was considered to be a scientific truth. But with the advent of more and more scientific fronts, and decentralization of scientific research to various countries, there seems to be no clear leader in the field of scientific research, and this has resulted in creation of numerous hotly debated groups of scientists. Those who believe in Big Bang theory, those who don’t, those who believe in Global Warming, those who don’t, those who believe humans are causing global warming those who believe its a natural phenomenon.

Science is more about your faith in it than it is about the objective truth - Today scientific community is merely an agenda provider for the Atheious(as opposed to religious) people. There is a massive debate on Stem Cell research on whether government should fund it or not, the controversy is not whether government should use public money for these things or not, rather whether Stem Cell research kills human life or not. The Global Warming debate is the most famous of them all, there is no substantial evidence to show whether it is being caused by the man made pollution or its merely a natural act. Even if its known with 80% certainty that Global warming is caused by human action, the price to verify this theorem is really high. But here is the deal, if you are leftist, anti-corporationist, occidental apologist, the issue of Global warming is so much a truth to you as the Sun light. If you are a right wing conservative, then Global warming is a complete myth.

Science is merely a propaganda tool for politicians - Politicians like Al Gore use Science for their propaganda purposes, a political tool to rally the left-wing environmentalist, and to be significant again in the politics. In quasi-socialist countries like India, where the govt planners completely fail to provide utilities to people use the environmental propaganda to reduce the consumption. People in Socialist and quasi-socialist countries care more about Environment than people in Quasi-Capitalist and Capitalist countries. Socialist countries manage to completely separate church and state, but because of their failure of clear separation fo science and state, they end up mass murdering their own citizens. The best example in this regard is “Great Chinese Famine(1958-1961)” where the scientific methods of farming(the idea of planting seeds very closely as they will share the nutrition on the socialist model) , and the Great Leap Forward where the govt planners tried to scientifically induce a super fast Industrial revolution, and ended up in the death of millions of poor Chinese.

Are you saying that Science is bad, and you must not listen to Scientific advice?

No, I am not saying anything like that. I believe that there is objective truths. But I do not believe in throwing these truths, or forcing people to follow these truths against their will. I do not support the usage of science or statistics in making any public policy. For example, if scientific studies show that 80% of the black males who are once convicted, end up committing more crimes. Then I am strictly against formation of any policy which throws any black male once convicted of a crime forever in jail.

Drugs are outlawed in America because of lack of clear separation of Science and State. These people who logically harm nobody by using or selling drugs, are thrown in jail with criminals who have actually harmed other people.

Personally speaking you should sure listen to science and reason, if you feel that you are harming the environment, and must take measures to stop it, then yes, do whatever you feel like, but you do not have a right to take a gun, and enter the house of your neighbor and lock him up in your basement for 4 years because he uses more electricity then you think is the right amount for the health of the earth(which would be the case once you pass a law out which prohibits people from using too much electricity or contributing too much in “Global Warming”).
If a doctor says you will become unhealthy if you eat junk food, and if you want to listen to him, you may stop eating junk food, but you have no right to use a gun and prevent other people from buying or selling junk food.

Scientific state no different than or Theosophical state

I think at this point of the article I am losing my readers. Ok lets see it this way. Mixing Science and State is no different than mixing Church and State.
Eating pork is prohibited in Judaism and Islam, but even with a Judeo-Muslim majority pork cannot be banned in America because of clear separation of religion and state.
BUT, the same Judeo-Muslim majority can get Pork products BANNED from America if a Jewish scientist proves that eating pork is harmful for health.

Homosexuality was banned in America until 1970s for religious reasons, and LGBT celebrities like Rosie O’Donnell who go to great depths in criticizing religious Americans and their beliefs. Mainly because conservative America opposes Gay Marriage on the grounds of Culture, Tradition, and Religion. Just as much as I support Rosie O’Donnell on the issue of Gay Marriage, I totally am against on the issue of Environmentalism, where she supports the usage of Science to create oppressive laws against people.
She supports creation of environmental protection laws against Americans.

My question to her is, how is she any different than the religious fundamentalists of America who oppose Gay marriage on the grounds that it will destroy the world and throw it into sin and promiscuity? Lets say tomorrow if scientific opinion finds out that sin exists in physical form and contributes in global warming, would she support re criminalizing Homosexuality on scientific grounds?

In fact lets come on a more basic and realistic preposition. Gays and sexually promiscuous people get more AIDS than straight and sexually moral people. Should we ban homosexuality, adultery and other forms of sexual promiscuity?

Conclusion

There are many political systems who proclaim that the government’s only job is to uphold the objective truths. Sadly the problem with that is, it disastrously arms the government with tools of oppression. We may have been brainwashed into believing that Science is always more logical and reasonable than religion(Note: Merely by using the term, “brainwashed” I am not saying there is anything wrong in believing in Science, or dictating your life with Science), but we must make sure Science and State are clearly separate. Yes we may not get man on the Moon, we may not get the Internet, but if the cost of doing these things is human Liberty and Freedom, then we are running in net Loss. Voluntary human action through Free Market will eventually get us these things with most benefit to maximum number of people.
Therefore I suggest a 28th Amendment in US Constitution, the separation of Science and State.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of a scientific opinion or prohibit the free exercise of private property rights on the grounds of scientific reasoning.

Science is competent to establish what is. It can never dictate what ought to be. -Ludwig Von Mises (Planned Chaos)

1. http://www.historycentral.com/Civics/S.html
2. http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html