Church & State

So I've been thinking, it's easy conclude that the “church” and the “state” have independent spheres to operate in, and one does not control the other. This is true to the extent that there is no state sponsored church, nor is there a papal state. But what of the idea that when there is a disagreement between the “church” and the “state” we ought to keep in mind who holds the advantage in the tie-breaker: the state. Is this a reality - an insightful description of a society we ought not desire, but society as it stands nonetheless?
But should we even seek for the balance of power in government to be different? It would seem on face that Christians should disagree with the premise that the government ought to have last say on such disputes, because it would de facto translate into a weaker church. However, I believe the real issue goes much deeper.
Churches left to their own devices have historically followed society’s discriminatory practices - such as discrimination against the deaf and hearing impaired, migrant workers, and blacks and slaves, and the poor - and have often been among the last social institutions to jump on the bandwagon of tolerance and civil rights. So just because the state does not control the church doesn’t mean society does not influence the church. At the same time, our current political system makes allowances for special interest groups and individual voting across party lines. Within the current balance of power, if the state decides a dispute between it and the church in a manner that does not satisfy a congregation’s or a denomination’s expectations, the state does not close off other avenues within the political system for the group or individual to respond. There still remain the options of lobbying, voting, and protesting. But if we make the church the final arbitrator of these disputes, then we close off due process to individual members.
The “church” need not be viewed as just its own communal entity, but also as an aggregate of individual members. While the Supreme Court has already made clear that the separation of church and state prevents them from deciding doctrinal issues, it does not prevent them from preserving social norms of safety general public welfare. And even then, the state is really not the final decision maker on any novel dispute, because it is only requiring the church to be as safe as secular buildings. What happens when the church refuses to make its parking lot handicap accessible or to follow the Fire Marshal’s mandate for fire extinguishers? Due process is shut off to the victimized if the state cannot be the final decision-maker. While it is true one individual may move to a different church, a whole America full of people cannot be expected to endure sub-human treatment or to burn alive in a church that didn’t want to pay for smoke alarms.