A Step in the Right Direction
A perfect separation of ideology and state is not possible, but a greater separation of ideology and state is. Under such a separation it would not be the role of religious organizations to create and enforce laws; and the government's role regarding education, media, health care and welfare would be extremely limited. The government would not provide funding to any private organization or charity in the form of cash or equipment (though the government could provide some assistance for medical equipment in the form of rebates).
Media
The government will have a role in the media, though it will be limited, particularly regarding television.
1. The government shall provide no funding for private television networks or productions, as funding must always be approved and so someone's values are promoted.
2. Government advertisements shall be limited to safety ads (e.g. seat belts, smoke alarms, asthma attacks etc) and public announcements such as cyclone warnings. These will be provided for free to all viewers on the private networks. With the help of the public the government will also decide on how television shows and movies shall be rated (e.g. PG), but beyond this the government's role should be extremely limited.
3. The government must not own any television broadcasting corporation. It should have no more than two news programs per day which are to be no longer than one hour each (unless there were exceptional circumstances such as a major terrorist attack); the government news program would be aired for free to the public and shown on one (or more) of the privately owned channels. The news programs should only focus on what the government, or those who represent the government, have done or intend to do and what bills have been passed in to law. (Bills to be debated should be publicly announced at least two weeks in advance and every day up until the day of the debate.) Parliamentary debates will also be freely broadcast on private channels at the expense of the government.
4. Can the government enact legislation which reduces the amount of sex and violence on television? I think it can. But by enacting such legislation isn't the government pushing their values on others? How then are we to get around the problem? (Read on.) The nature of free-to-air television is to become more sexually explicit and violent. This is inevitable because the more viewers a television program has the more money the station can charge for advertisements. What gets viewers? Sex and violence. Standards slowly drop; yesterday's late night movie becomes today's midday movie (note how the standards have changed over the last 50 years.) This is why all free-to-air television should be abolished. (Note: People will still be free to watch what they want. If they want porn they will pay for a porn channel. If they want the Brady Bunch they can pay for the Brady Bunch channel.) Free-to-air television is one of the main driving forces which is lowering our moral standards. As strange as it may seem, immorality, which free-to-air television gravitates toward, helps fuel things like Islamic fundamentalism (it strengthens the view of many Muslims that Islamic law is good and democracy is bad because of the things it allows and publicly promotes); television ads also increase the price of products. All TV should be true pay TV (without ads) where you only pay for the stations you want. If people want to advertise, they can do it via radio, newspapers, magazines etc. (Note: What I have suggested above does not mean that the cost of television would be out of people's reach. Some stations would choose to provide subscription at very competitive prices because of their supporters (e.g. $1 per year) but no station would be permitted to broadcast free to air so that people do not have entertainment in their living room that they don't want. (See Deliver Us From Evil by Ravi Zacharias for the difference between art and pornography.)
By limiting the role of government involvement in media (particularly television) government propaganda will be extremely limited. There would no longer be government broadcasters like the SBS and the ABC continually attacking Humanism. (I'm joking, they wouldn't dare attack that sacred cow with our money.)
Education
What would happen to the propaganda machine in a country such as North Korea if education was no longer funded and controlled by their government? Those in power could only remain in power if there was freedom of speech, freedom of religion and workers were protected. While a government funds education and the media there can be little separation of ideology and state as one worldview will always be promoted over another. Nobodies Neutral (See The Myth of Moral Neutrality by Dr John Patrick).
Note: Legislation would have to be enacted to stop foreign governments and corporations investing in schools. A government may deem it necessary to black list any investment from certain countries.
1. Since nobody is morally neutral there should be no public schools. (It is a mistake to think that the government can fund Islamic, Christian, Hindu (etc.) schools without interfering with the curriculum; whoever controls the purse strings controls the curriculum. Note the problems the Church had in France when their government started paying priests. The Church merely became a tool of the government.)
2. There shall be no government funding for religious education.
3. The Government will provide no funding for schools but should provide some assistance for students. For example, a government could pay 80% of the course fees for all students for all courses except for those courses which can be easily manipulated by the government to advance an agenda. (e.g. Assistance would be provided to each student for subjects such as chemistry, physics, computer programming, biology, etc. as these are hard for the government to manipulate and use for their own agenda. No assistance would be provided for history, philosophy, language, anthropology, sociology or any of the social sciences as these can be easily manipulated to promote the governments values.). For younger students the government could pay 100% of the fees for reading, writing and mathematics (till year 3). All students must be treated equally regarding funding despite sex, colour or religion. (There was an excellent lecture called Affirmative Action by Dr Michael Bauman but I'm not sure if it is still available.)
4. The government shall not interfere with the curriculum but it should set some exams for those subjects which are hard for the government to manipulate (as it is too easy to exclude certain facts, turning education into little more than a form of brainwashing. The government would not set exams for history, the arts, social sciences or philosophy.) The government could set exams at fixed points during a child's education. E.g. for grammar and maths in year 3, 7, 10 and 12 and for physics, chemistry and similar subjects in years 10 and 12). The government would also hold those exams (for all schools and universities) so that employers have a fixed standard by which to measure potential employees. The government does not have to set the curriculum to ensure that a student gets taught particular things, setting some of the exams will be enough. (Obviously those who set the exams will refer to particular texts, and so teachers will have to refer their students to those texts. The difference between this and the present public system is teachers will have greater freedom in what they teach on some subjects and complete freedom on others).
5. The government will have the power to close a school if the school encouraged its students to use violence against others.
6. The government must enforce laws to protect students (e.g. against sexual abuse).
7. Governments shall not determine who a school employs. Schools are free to choose or reject any teacher on the basis of their beliefs and values. (e.g. If a Muslim school rejects a Hindu teacher because she holds different values to them, that is the school's business and nobody else's. Every organisation, including universities, has selection criteria which discriminates against those who fall outside that criteria. Even clubs discriminate against those who wear thongs on their feet.)
--
Would the population be properly educated if we had no public schools? Yes, if the bulk of the courses were heavily funded by the government.
In Australia approx 25% of students attend private schools (2006). If public schools were slowly phased out private schools could easily cope with the demands of education. Whoever provided the best education at the cheapest rate would quickly begin to have a powerful influence on the society in which they lived. (If the government was worried that some would not receive an education it only has to ensure, by law, that all students have to attend school till a particular grade. If a parent has any sort of income the law could stipulate that a percentage be taken for the purpose of their children's education. Obviously, in poorer countries the government simply is not able to do this. In those countries human rights organisations would continue to play the part they are already playing. For a great example of an organisation rescuing and helping the poor see International Justice Mission.)
Health Care and Public Safety
The Government can and should support health care. This could be done through the following.
1. All hospitals will be private. However, a percentage (e.g. 80%) of the purchase of all medical equipment for hospitals and patients could be assisted through government rebates. (This will greatly reduce wasteful government spending.)
2. The government will help organisations control communicable diseases.
3. The government would provide paramedics and ambulances as well as other emergency response services freely to the public. (They should be able to match the quality the French provide (i.e. in 2010) when it comes to paramedics and ambulances as they do not have to build hospitals or pay for hospital staff.) The government will also provide funding for the building of emergency rooms in hospitals. Diagnosis and all treatment in the emergency room will be available for free to the public.
4. Governments should enact legislation to ensure that no one was rejected treatment by any facility in the event of an emergency (no matter what their race or religion).
5. Governments can play a very important role in disaster relief.
Does this seem like too much? At the moment the public health system would collapse without private hospitals. What I'm suggesting here would merely make the health care system more efficient while helping people to identify who cares the most. (Obviously those who care the most about others are going to build hospitals and provide the best service at a minimum cost.)
Welfare
Note: We all have seen people receive welfare when we think they should not be entitled to it. Welfare, and who gets it, is always a reflection of someone's values. It is not the governments role to promote anyone's values (other than through punishments and rewards as reflected in the laws it makes). Therefore, the government's role regarding welfare will be of a limited nature. (If the government insists on providing welfare, the following is how it should be done. See here.)
To clarify the following points I'd like to mention two different neighbours I had at different times. One was an alcoholic who would receive her payment from the government every fortnight; most of this was spent on alcohol. The other neighbour played computer games all day and smoked dope. He also received his payment every fortnight. He had a little boy. Do you think the government payments helped him to be a better father? Like it or not, the welfare state creates particular kinds of people, ferals. The more money the government gives out the more social problems there seem to be. (There are many unintended problems which result from big government. For example, big government encourages lying. The more regulations you have the more people will lie to get around the restrictions of over regulation. The more welfare you have, the more you will have people lying to either get their hands on government handouts or to keep them.) This is a real problem for any free society because "only a virtuous people are capable of freedom." (See The Truth About Welfare: Past, Present and Future and The Crisis of Giving by Os Guinness). What then should be the government's role when helping the poor?
1. The government would provide a negative income tax for all people despite age, sex, or religion. (Milton Friedman explains what that is here.)
2. The government should provide incentives to encourage individuals to donate to charitable organisations (such as reductions on taxable income).
3. To reduce the burden on charities there must be a financial safety net in place for those who lose their job; but it will not be the government who pays for it. All employers would pay superannuation for their workers, which could only be accessed in retirement, unless an employee lost their job; then a small amount of a person's super could be accessed weekly. Those with disabilities and those who received the pension would still receive those payments from the government (but with an aging population the old age pension may have to be reduced).
4. Government payments to the unemployed should be slowly phased out, but the government would provide assistance to non-government organisations (NGOs) who help the poor (ideally this assistance should be provided in the form of food); this assistance should be reduced over time until there was no longer any government assistance for these organisations. This will help ordinary people to identify who actually cares the most. e.g. Do Muslims, Atheists or Christians care the most? Whoever cares the most will, in time, have the biggest impact on society. Isn't this the way we want it to be? We want those who care the most to have the greatest influence in our society whether they call themselves Atheists, Hindus, Muslims etc. Naturally the transition would have to be done slowly and only those organizations which have a history of helping the poor would be assisted.
If welfare for the unemployed is reduced too quickly it will place an increased burden on individuals and charities. To combat the negative affects of reducing unemployment benefits, the minimum wage must be reduced at the same time. (They must be reduced slowly. e.g. 10% a year over 5 years.) These measures would greatly stimulate the economy. Eventually there would be near full employment, and with a shortage of labour, wages would increase as businesses competed for workers. (Governments could provide some protection for workers by ensuring that all workers are covered by adequate workplace health and safety legislation. Historically, where those things have not been in place, workers, particular unskilled workers, have been abused. But increasing the minimum wage is not good for the very poor.)
It should be noted that it is not the government's role to promote their own values in other countries or support those governments' values (e.g. as is happening in Indonesia and the Philippines). If individuals or NGOs wish to send money to people in those countries that's their business. It is not the government's role to send your money to help prop up a regime or government which holds values you may strongly disagree with. Let individuals and organisations who care send money so that their values will be promoted. Governments should not be in the value promoting business. (Governments can however do much to ensure that there is fair trade with other countries. If the government must give aid to other countries it should agree to match donations e.g. If an individual donates $1 to World Vision then the government should also give $1 to World Vision. But I think it would be better if the government was not involved at all. )
Whichever worldview promotes the greatest care for others will be the one that will eventually exert the most influence in a society where there is little government interference. Virtue will be encouraged without the government spending a cent.
The economic advantages of reducing welfare for the unemployed will be more money for the government to spend on infrastructure while reducing taxation for individuals and businesses. This will help create more jobs and so reduce the burden on charities. When there is a shortage of labourers, wages will rise naturally.
5. Governments will provide a pension for the disabled and the elderly of equal amount despite the person's sex, race or religion. (Though with an aging population the pension may have to be reduced. See America Alone by Mark Steyn.)
If the above changes were made those who care the most would become the dominant force in society (not special interest groups).
As a Christian, I believe historically Christians have cared more for the oppressed and poor than atheists. If I am wrong and atheists have cared more for others then atheism would rightly become the dominant influence when there is a separation of ideology and state.
Isn't that the way we want it to be? We want those who care the most to have the most influence in society, no matter what they claim to believe. (For my reasons why I believe Christians have done more to help the poor and oppressed than any other group see How Christianity Changed the World by Alvin Schmidt, Christianity on Trial by Vincent Carroll, Atheist Delusions by David Bentley Hart, and 6 Modern Myths about Christianity & Western Civilization by Phillip Sampson. See also The Crisis of Giving by Os Guinness).
When governments stop promoting one worldview over others we will see who really does care the most. Rousseau's vision of enlightening the public will become a reality without government propaganda. A true separation of religion and state will then exist which will allow equal opportunity for all religious worldviews. When there is a true separation of religion and state the ideas of elite groups will not be promoted by tax payers' money.*
Naturally the transition to a true separation of religion (or ideology) and government would have to be done slowly. Government funding to the media would have to go first. Non-government organisations who help the poor and disadvantaged would have to be assessed and if it was determined that they have been doing a lot to help people but could do much more, then they would be eligible to receive government aid to support and expand their work.
A true separation of ideology and state will slowly be achieved "if" when we make decisions regarding education etc, we reduce the influence of government rather than increasing it. If an idea regarding the media etc seems like a good idea but it increases the ownership and/or influence of government in the areas of education, the media, hospitals and welfare, or strengthens their current hold on those things, it is a step backwards and not a step forwards.
* To use someone's money to try and shape their beliefs about moral issues (without their permission) is immoral in principle. If you think it is important that people do not have interests in particular things, use your money to influence them, not their money in the form of taxes.
[1] The role of government must be limited in certain areas. Good government is not a guarantee. Even good governments can take a turn for the worse and then government funding for education and the media can have some very nasty consequences. Many Germans thought they had a good government in the mid to late thirties. (Germany was the most technologically advanced country in the world.) How do you know that your government will remain good or what government might follow?