Separation of church and state |
The separation of church and state is a concept in law whereby the
structures of state or national government are kept separate from those of
religious institutions. The concept has long been a topic of political debate. Its opponents in places where there is an established church take a position of antidisestablishmentarianism.
The separation of church and state is related to freedom of
religion, but the two concepts are different and one should not infer hastily that countries with a state church do not
necessarily have freedom of religion, nor should one infer that a country without a state church necessarily enjoys freedom of
religion.
Motivations
There are a number of proposed reasons to support a separation of church and state:
- The rights of the minority have historically been violated by the rights of the majority. Members of a non-majority religion
often find themselves persecuted, socially shunned, and harassed.
- The church might harm the state. For
example, religious conviction might cause the state to become involved in a disastrous war, or to remain pacific when force is
necessary for the preservation of the state. It may also influence public policies in a manner detrimental to those who do not
follow all the church's teachings; for instance, a ban on homosexual
activity (see sodomy law) or abortion, decided for religious reasons, harms those who feel they have the right to such practices. In addition,
religious conviction may make political debate difficult, it being impossible to contradict arguments which, essentially, arise
from personal faith. Granting them official status allows politicians to use religion as
an argument of
authority.
- The state might harm the church. For example, the state might dictate a religious ceremony that the church's dogma declares is wrong; or, the state may force the participation of religious people in some aspect of civic life in a manner that
offends their religious convictions and offends their conscience; or, the state may discriminate in favor of one church and
against members of other churches.
Secularism and theocracy
A commonly advocated position is that the government should be a secular
institution; that is, have no state religion, have no legislation that
outlaws or favors one religion over another, and have no religiously motivated regulations on the eligibility of the nation's
politicians. A secular state has no power over the nation's churches and the
nation's churches have no political powers over the members of the government. A related notion is the French laïcité.
Many Western democratic nations place a high importance of the
separation of church and state. Some nations, such as the United States of
America and Canada, even have specific clauses in their constitutions which are widely interpreted as forbidding the government from
favoring one religion over another.
Other democracies, such as Argentina or the United Kingdom, have a distinction between church and state which is slightly more blurred. These
nations have a constitutionally established State religion, but are
inclusive of citizens of other faiths.
In countries like these, the head of government or head of state may be legally required to be a member of a given faith. Powers to
appoint high-ranking members of the state churches are also often still vested in the worldly governments. These powers may be
slightly anachronistic or superficial, however, and disguise the true level of religious freedom the nation possesses.
Secularists generally do not hold that the state must be atheist —
that is, opposed to religion. However, traditionalist religious critics of secularism often consider secularism to be a departure
from tradition in the direction of atheism. Those who believe that the state has religious obligations, or that it must be
informed by religious values, often regard secularism as atheism.
The opposite end of the spectrum from secularism is a theocracy, in which a
religion controls the government, and the rule of law is closely linked with
the interpretation of a religious texts such as the Bible or the Koran. A few outright theocracies exist today, such as the
Vatican or Iran, in which poltics is either completely run by religious authorities or
run only with its explicit consent. Arguably a few other nations in the Middle
East have political policies which are often directly dictated or strongly influenced by religious leaders.
Many religions, such as Catholicism and Islam, hold that one must not separate Church and State. The Catholic Church's 1983 Canon Law proclaims that "Christ's faithful are to strive to secure that in the civil
society the laws which regulate the formation of the young also provide a religious and moral education in the schools that is in
accord with the conscience of the parents." [1]
Islam holds that all political life must exist within Islamic law. There is a contemporary debate in Islam whether obedience to God is ultimately compatible with the Western secular pattern, which separates
religion from civic life, as opposed to Islamic ideals of toleration.
At the same time, some religions appear to advocate such separation. For example, many Christians, such as Jehovah's Witnesses, interpret Biblical passages such as Christ's
admonition to "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" as a warning not to be involved in civil governments. One common theme
among such religions is that the world and the government are hopelessly corrupt and that religious involvement in government
would corrupt the religion more than it would save society.
Enactment
Separation of church and state occurs in different ways:
- legal separation
- voluntary separation, such as by churches teaching that religious ceremony should be confined to either the church or the
home.
Some countries of the world have a stable separation between church and state, while other countries are in a state of
political unrest over the separation. The 1905 French law on the separation of Church and State started considerable controversy and even riots.
Separation of Church and State is a notion related to, but separate from, freedom of religion. There are many countries with an official religion, such as the United Kingdom or
Belgium, where freedom of religion is guaranteed. Conversely, it is possible for a
country not to have an official religion, or a set of official religions, yet to discriminate against atheists or members of
religions outside of the mainstream. For instance, while the United States does not officially advance any particular religion,
proponents of atheism were persecuted in many US jurisdictions in the 19th
century.
There are different interpretations of the notion of separation of Church and State:
- one sees this separation from a legal and financial point of view: the State should not establish nor fund religious
activities, and may even be prohibited from funding non-religious activities affiliated to religious organizations;
- another sees this separation in keeping religious beliefs out of the motivations of public policies, preventing interference
from religious authorities into state affairs, and disapproving of political leaders expressing religious preferences in the
course of their duties.
For instance, France is legally prohibited from funding religious activities (except
for Alsace-Moselle and military chaplains), but funds some private religious schools for their non-religious activities as long as they apply the
national curriculum and don't discriminate on grounds of religion; yet religious motivations are usually kept out of the
political process. On the other hand, in the United States such funding would be questionable at best (although in 2002, the
Supreme Court ruled that
school vouchers were
constitutional), but religious beliefs are often cited by leading public figures as justification for public policy.
Countries with stable separation
Different countries have different approaches to the separation of church and state.
France
Since 1905, France has had a law requiring separation of church and state, prohibiting
the state from recognizing or funding any religion. According to the French constitution, freedom of religion was already a constitutional right. The
1905 law was highly controversial at the time. France adheres to the notion of laïcité, that is, noninterference of the government into the religious sphere and non interference of religion
into government, and a strict neutrality of government in religious affairs.
References to religious beliefs to justify public policies is considered a political faux pas, since it is widely believed that religious beliefs should be kept out of the public sphere.
Public tax money supports some church-affiliated schools, but they must agree to follow the same curriculum as the public schools and are prohibited from forcing students to attend religion courses or to
discriminate against students on the basis of religion.
Churches, synagogues, temples and cathedrals built before 1905, at the taxpayers' expense, are now the property of the state
and the communes; however they may be gratuitously used for religious activities
provided this religious use stays continuous in time. Some argue that this is a form of unfair subsidy for the established religions in comparison to Islam.
For historical reasons, the Alsace-Moselle area is still under the
pre-1905 regime established of the Concordat, which provides for
the public subsidy of the Roman Catholic Church, the
Lutheran Church, the Calvinist Church and the Jewish Religion as well as public
education in those religions. An original trait of this area is that priests are paid by the state; the bishops are named by the
President on the proposal of the Pope.
Controversy erupts periodically on the appropriateness of these and other extraordinary legal dispositions of Alsace-Moselle.
See also: laïcité
Germany
In Germany, church and state are declared by law to be separate, but some large
churches can get special status from the state as a "corporation under public law" which allows the churches to levy taxes
against the members of the church in return for a collection fee paid to the state. Most public schools give religious
instruction, and the Federal Administrative Court recently ruled that the Islamic Federation was a qualified religious community;
hence, the Berlin State Government decided to begin Islamic religious instruction in public schools in areas with significant
Islamic populations. Germany continues to determine which religions merit federal protection; a significant controversy remains
over the German government's denial of this protection to the Church of Scientology. [2]
The church and state were partially separated in 1999. The Church of Sweden still maintains special status. There is now possible to
register new religious organizations, but they lack the same special status and the ability to perform services such as marriage
and burials.
United States of America
The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked
the soil of Europe in blood for centuries. — James
Madison.
In the 1600s and 1700s, many Europeans
immigrated to the United States. The primary reason for many was the desire to
worship freely in their own fashion. These included a large number of nonconformists such as the Puritans and the Pilgrims as well as Catholics. However, with
some exceptions, such as Roger Williams
of Rhode Island, most of these groups did not believe in religious toleration and in some cases came to America with the
explicit aim of setting up a theocratic state.
Today, most Americans hold the separation of Church and State to be one of their nation's key political values. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution explicitly bans Congress for making a law to establish an official
state religion for the United States, and according to various constitutional scholars also indicates that the US Government
cannot perform any action or make any policy which blatantly favors one faith or church over another, or even favors belief over
non-belief. Constitutional interpretation and political reality often vary, however.
- See also: Separation of church and state in the United States
However, contrary to practice in some other countries, the United States does not excise all religious expression from
politics and government. US currency carries the "In God we trust" motto; Congress begins its sessions with a prayer; the
Pledge of Allegiance refers to God; and politicians often
make references to faith as a foundation of political decisions. Such political and governmental expressions of religious belief
are usually interpreted as being Judeo-Christian in nature.
In this regard it is often stated that while the US has a separation of Church and State, it is not an separation of
government and religion.
The Canadian view on Church and State is largely similar to the view in the United States. Unlike the US however, the Canadian
constitution acknowleges that Canada is founded "under the supremacy of God."
As well, Canadian religious schools in certain provinces receive government funding, despite their exclusive nature.
Canada also observes the British Monarch as its head of state, an
office which is deeply religious in nature (see United Kingdom, below).
By passing through the numerous phases of colonial occupation, the relationship of the church and state in the Philippines has repeatedly changed from the collaboration of the Roman Catholic Church with the government during the Spanish era
to the generally accepted separation today.
- See also: Separation of church and state in the Philippines
Recent events
For current reports on the status of the church and state in the Philippines, check the International Religious Freedom Report 2002 by the U.S. Department of State.
Other countries
The status of the separation of church and state in almost any country around the world can be viewed by clicking on the
appropriate geographical region in the left panel of the Web page maintained by the United States Department of State.
Countries with stable state churches
The Finnish Evangelical Lutheran Church and the Finnish Orthodox Church have a status protected by law. Both churches have the right to levy an
income tax on their members and corporations run by their members, and the tax is collected by the state. The administration of
the state churches is regulated by their respective church laws, which are drafted by the churches and enacted by the parliament.
State universities provide training for the clergy of the state churches. The general direction has been to restrict and remove
the privileges of the state churches, and as of 2004, in most other official business (such as officiating marriages) any
registered religious community has a status comparable to that of the state churches.
United Kingdom
In the United Kingdom, there are two state-approved churches. The Church of Scotland is Presbyterian while the
Church of England is Anglican. The former is a national church guaranteed by law to be separate from the state, while the latter is a
state-established church and any major changes to doctrine, liturgy or
structure must have parliamentary approval. Neither Wales nor Northern Ireland currently have established churches: the Church in Wales was disestablished in 1920; the Church of Ireland in 1871. The king or queen must promise to uphold the rights of the Presbyterian church in Scotland and the Anglican church in England. He or she is the
Supreme Governor of
the Church of England but an ordinary member of the Church of Scotland. Neither church receives direct funding from taxation.
State schools must provide religious instruction and regular religious ceremonies, though parents may withdraw their children
from either; the choice of religion left up to the school governors, but in the absence of an explicit choice it is by default
"broadly Christian"; the Church of England and the Roman Catholic
Church operate many state-funded schools and there are a small number of Jewish and
Muslim ones. Senior Church of England bishops
have a right to sit in the House of Lords, the upper chamber of the
Parliament of the United
Kingdom.
Countries in flux
From the foundation of the Kievan Rus dynasty to the institution of bolshevism, Russia under the old regime maintained very close ties between the
officially recognized religion and the government. These bonds became tightest under tsar
Peter I ("Peter the Great"), when the office of Patriarch of Moscow was eliminated in 1721 and replaced with a "Holy Governing Synod", presided over by Imperial appointee and regulated
by Imperial law. From that point until 1917 the Russian Orthodox Church was explicitly a department of the Russian government.
After the October Revolution and bolshevik coup, the government of the old Soviet
Union actually was quite active in religious affairs, even though it was theoretically atheist and purely secular. Between 1917 and 1922, Soviet authorities executed 28 Orthodox Bishops and over 1,000 priests. In 1922, a government-sponsored
"renovation" known as the Living Church was instigated in May of 1922 as a replacement for the Russian Orthodox Church. It was eliminated in 1943 during the Second World War, but state
intervention in religious affairs did not end, and religion was highly regulated and controlled until the end of the Soviet
Union.
On October 9 and November
10 of 1990, the Russian Parliament passed two freedom of conscience laws that formally
disestablished the Russian Orthodox Church as the state church of Russia (this step had never actually been explicitly taken in
the Soviet Union). However, in 1997 The Russian Parliament passed a law restricting the
activities of religious organizations within Russia. Complete freedom is given to any religious organization officially
recognized by the Soviet government before 1985: the Orthodox Church, Judaism, Islam, and Buddhism. All other religions are strictly limited in that they are not permitted to operate schools or import
non-Russian citizens to act as missionaries or clergy. Likewise, they must annually re-register with local officials.
This act has been sharply criticized as antithetical to the freedom of religion, especially in countries with religious
organizations that expend a great deal of money and effort in proselytizing. However, Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople (Greek Orthodox) had the following to offer in
interpretation:
Many Protestant missionaries from the West whose voices were not heard during the decades of oppression have come not to lend
support, but to convert Orthodox believers. These so-called missionaries claim to be Christians, but they behave as wolves in
sheep's clothing.
New York Times, Oct. 25, 1997)
Advocacy
Believers for separation
Many religious believers, including Jews, Christians and Muslims, want the separation of church and state to protect their
religion from other religions.
Thomas Jefferson justified the separation of church and state based on his religious belief that "Almighty God hath created
the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments, or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to
beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy author of our religion who being Lord both
of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either . . . ." [3]
Since the 5th century, the Coptic Church has advocated separation of
church and state.
Believers against separation
Those who wish to continue with an existing established
church take a position described as antidisestablishmentarianism.
Many religious believers, usually fundamentalist Christians and Muslims, believe that their God should guide and direct the
state; they hold that there should be no separation between Church and State. However, religious believers cannot agree on whose
God or gods, and which interpretation thereof, should be demanded.
A reverse view is that the state should provide a default religion for the large number of citizens who which to identify themselves as religious believers without actively choosing between the various
alternatives. A slightly more extreme version of this is that the state should determine (or at least have the power to
determine) the doctrine and structure of the state religion - this is the position in England. There need not be obligation on
individuals to follow the state in religion is such cases.
Some religious believers hold that one can have a sort of intermediate position, in which a general belief in God and the
Bible should be upheld by the state, but not the beliefs of any one specific church. This school of thought holds that religion
is a fundamental and essential part of many moral and ethical values, and that the removal of public displays of religion from
government is a form of religious discrimination,
in that it prohibits them from exercising their religious views in a forum of government. These groups also object to the idea
that holy writings, such as the Bible and the Qur'an, are not used as the foundation of the law.
Several religious groups are heavily involved with politics. Some, such as the Christian Coalition, have publicly stated their intent to abolish the separation of church and state,
and introduce their own religious views and agenda into the lawmaking process.
Many religious people in America believe that prayer in the schools will improve the morals of American children, and they
maintain that the Supreme Court's banning of prayer from the schools does not protect religion but rather harms religion. "Train
up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it. "
[4]
These religious groups do not consider the Supreme Court's ban on teacher-led prayer to be legitimate but rather a distortion of
constitutional language and history.
Secular for Separation
Some non-believers want the legal separation of church and state to keep superstition out of government. For example,
atheists, agnostics and freethinkers believe that it would be a bad idea for government to be controlled by a religion.
When fundamentalists attempted to force biology teachers to teach the Genesis
creation story if they taught evolution, the Supreme Court ruled that labeling a
religious doctrine as "science" was insufficient to allow it to be taught to a child in public school for the purpose of
converting the child to a religion. [5]
Also, religious texts such as the Ten Commandments cannot be
displayed in public buildings for the purpose of converting people to a religion. That is, religious people cannot display
religious symbols on public property with the purpose of advocating their religion. There are still many exceptions to the
general rule. [6]
Secular against Separation
Some non-believers, like Charles Maurras, thought that the
influence of the Catholic Church was necessary for the continuation of their country and their political objectives.
External Links
World views on separation
- All countries. Click on the appropriate geographical region in the left panel of the Web page
maintained by the United States Department of
State
American court battles over separation
- 1947 ,
the first instance of legal separation
- 1962
,
banning teacher-led prayer from public schools
- 1987
,
declared the Creation Act invalid, which had mandated the teaching of Creation if Evolution was taught
- 1992
,
banning prayers given by clergy as a part of an official public school graduation ceremony.
American activism over separation
|