Separation of church and state

The separation of church and state is a concept defining the distance in the relationship between organized religion and the nation state. It may refer to creating a secular state, with or without explicit reference to such separation, or to changing an existing relationship of church involvement in a state (disestablishment).

Although the concept of separation has been adopted in a number of countries, there are varying degrees of separation depending on the applicable legal structures and prevalent views toward the proper relationship between religion and politics. While a country's policy may be to have a definite distinction between church and state bodies, there may be an "arm's length distance" relationship in which the two entities interact as independent organizations. A similar but typically stricter principle of laïcité has been applied in France and Turkey, while some socially secularized countries such as Denmark and the United Kingdom have maintained constitutional recognition of an official state religion.[1] The concept parallels various other international social and political ideas, including secularism, disestablishmentarianism, religious liberty, and religious pluralism. Whitman (2009) observes that in many European countries, the state has, over the centuries, taken over the social roles of the church, leading to a generally secularized public sphere.[2]

The degree of separation varies from total separation mandated by a constitution, as in India and Singapore, to an official religion with total prohibition of the practice of any other religion than the religion officially adopted by the State, as in the Maldives.

History of the concept and term

Ancient history

Many societies in antiquity had imperial cults where heads of state were worshiped as messiahs, demigods or deities. Ancient history is replete with examples of political leaders who derived legitimacy through religious titles. Sargon of Akkad was referred to as the "deputy of Ishtar"[3] and many ancient Kings of Judah claimed to rule with a mandate from Heaven. Julius Caesar was elected as Pontifex Maximus, the chief priest of the Roman state religion before he became the consul of Rome.[4] Caligula referred to himself as a god when meeting with politicians and he was referred to as Jupiter on occasion in public documents.[5][6]

The mixing of religion and state can be seen throughout antiquity, including in the Edict of Thessalonica, whereby Nicene Christianity was made the state religion of the Roman Empire, and in the execution of Socrates, sentenced to death by the Athenian state for among other things, "not believing in the gods of the state"[7]

Among ancient philosophies, Epicureanism is in favor of an early version of the separation of religion and state as can be seen in the writings of Lucretius and Epicurus.

Late antiquity

An important contributor to the discussion concerning the proper relationship between Church and state was St. Augustine, who in The City of God, Book XIX, Chapter 17, began an examination of the ideal relationship between the "earthly city" and the "city of God". In this work, Augustine posited that major points of overlap were to be found between the "earthly city" and the "city of God", especially as people need to live together and get along on earth. Thus Augustine held that it was the work of the "temporal city" to make it possible for a "heavenly city" to be established on earth.[8]

Medieval Europe

For centuries, monarchs ruled by the idea of divine right. Sometimes this began to be used by a monarch to support the notion that the king ruled both his own kingdom and Church within its boundaries, a theory known as caesaropapism. On the other side was the Catholic doctrine that the Pope, as the Vicar of Christ on earth, should have the ultimate authority over the Church, and indirectly over the state. Moreover, throughout the Middle Ages the Pope claimed the right to depose the Catholic kings of Western Europe and tried to exercise it, sometimes successfully (see the investiture controversy, below), sometimes not, such as was the case with Henry VIII of England and Henry III of Navarre.[9]

In the West the issue of the separation of church and state during the medieval period centered on monarchs who ruled in the secular sphere but encroached on the Church's rule of the spiritual sphere. This unresolved contradiction in ultimate control of the Church led to power struggles and crises of leadership, notably in the Investiture Controversy, which was resolved in the Concordat of Worms in 1122. By this concordat, the Emperor renounced the right to invest ecclesiastics with ring and crosier, the symbols of their spiritual power, and guaranteed election by the canons of cathedral or abbey and free consecration.[10]


At the beginning of the Protestant Reformation, Martin Luther articulated a doctrine of the two kingdoms. According to James Madison, perhaps one of the most important modern proponents of the separation of church and state, Luther's doctrine of the two kingdoms marked the beginning of the modern conception of separation of church and state.[11]

In the 1530s, Henry VIII, angered by the Pope Clement VII's refusal to annul his marriage to Catherine of Aragon, decided to break with the Church and set himself as ruler of the Church of England.[12] The monarchs of Great Britain have retained ecclesiastical authority in the Church of England since Henry VIII, having the current title, Supreme Governor of the Church of England. England's ecclesiastical intermixing did not spread widely, however, due to the extensive persecution of Catholics that resulted from Henry's power grab. This eventually led to Nonconformism, English Dissenters, and the anti-Catholicism of Oliver Cromwell, the Commonwealth of England, and the Penal Laws against Catholics and others who did not adhere to the Church of England.

One of the results of the persecution in England was that some people fled Great Britain to be able to worship as they wished – but they did not seek religious freedom, and early North American colonies were generally as intolerant of religious dissent as England; Puritan Massachusetts, for example, did not allow standard Church of England worship. Some of these people voluntarily sailed to the American Colonies specifically for this purpose. After the American Colonies famously revolted against King George III of the United Kingdom, the Constitution of United States was specifically amended to ban the establishment of religion by Congress.


John Locke, English political philosopher argued for individual conscience, free from state control

The concept of separating church and state is often credited to the writings of English philosopher John Locke (1632–1704).[13] According to his principle of the social contract, Locke argued that the government lacked authority in the realm of individual conscience, as this was something rational people could not cede to the government for it or others to control. For Locke, this created a natural right in the liberty of conscience, which he argued must therefore remain protected from any government authority. These views on religious tolerance and the importance of individual conscience, along with his social contract, became particularly influential in the American colonies and the drafting of the United States Constitution.[14]

At the same period of the 17th century, Pierre Bayle and some fideists were forerunners of the separation of Church and State, maintaining that faith was independent of reason.[15][16] During the 18th century, the ideas of Locke and Bayle, in particular the separation of Church and State, became more common, promoted by the philosophers of the Age of Enlightenment. Montesquieu already wrote in 1721 about religious tolerance and a degree of separation between religion and government.[17] Voltaire defended some level of separation but ultimately subordinated the Church to the needs of the State[18] while Denis Diderot, for instance, was a partisan of a strict separation of Church and State, saying "the distance between the throne and the altar can never be too great".[19]

Jefferson and the Bill of Rights

Thomas Jefferson, the third President of the United States, whose letter to the Danbury Baptists Association is often quoted in debates regarding the separation of church and state.

In English, the exact term is an offshoot of the phrase, "wall of separation between church and state", as written in Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. In that letter, referencing the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Jefferson writes:

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 and State.[20]

Jefferson was describing to the Baptists that the United States Bill of Rights prevents the establishment of a national church, and in so doing they did not have to fear government interference in their right to expressions of religious conscience. The Bill of Rights was one of the earliest examples in the world of complete religious freedom (adopted in 1791, only preceded by the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen in 1789).

Later Interpretations

John F. Kennedy, one of America's most influential presidents of the 20th century, commented in 1960: "I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference – and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

"I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish – where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source – where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials – and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all."

Christopher Hitchens, an atheist political commentator, wrote, "How dismal it is to see present day Americans yearning for the very orthodoxy that their country was founded to escape."

Robert A. Heinlein, a science fiction author, commented on the separation of church and state thus: "Almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so."

Muhammad Iqbal, a 20th-century poet considered to have inspired the movement for the independence of Pakistan and to be one of the most important figures in Urdu literature, told an academic conference at Cambridge University in 1931 that, "The biggest blunder made by Europe was the separation of Church and State", arguing that it had led to "atheistic materialism".[21]

President William Howard Taft: "There is nothing so despicable as a secret society that is based upon religious prejudice and that will attempt to defeat a man because of his religion."

In various countries

Countries have varying degrees of separation between government and religious institutions. Since the 1780s a number of countries have set up explicit barriers between church and state. The degree of actual separation between government and religion or religious institutions varies widely. In some countries the two institutions remain heavily interconnected. There are new conflicts in the post-Communist world.[22]

The many variations on separation can be seen in some countries with high degrees of religious freedom and tolerance combined with strongly secular political cultures which have still maintained state churches or financial ties with certain religious organizations into the 21st century. In England, there is a constitutionally established state religion but other faiths are tolerated.[23] The British monarch is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, and 26 bishops (Lords Spiritual) sit in the upper house of government, the House of Lords.

In other kingdoms the head of government or head of state or other high-ranking official figures 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. In the case of Andorra there are two heads of state, neither of them native Andorrans. One is the Roman Catholic Bishop of Seu de Urgell, a town located in northern Spain. He has the title of Episcopalian Coprince (the other Coprince being the French Head of State). Coprinces enjoy political power in terms of law ratification and constitutional court designation, among others.


The Constitution of Australia prevents the Commonwealth from establishing any religion or requiring a religious test for any office:

Ch 5 § 116 The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

The language is derived from the United States' constitution, but has been altered. Following the usual practice of the High Court, it has been interpreted far more narrowly than the equivalent US sections and no law has ever been struck down for contravening the section. Today, the Commonwealth Government provides broad-based funding to religious schools. The Commonwealth used to fund religious chaplains, but the High Court in Williams vs Commonwealth of Australia [2012] HCA 23 found the funding agreement invalid under Section 61. However, the High Court found that Section 116 had no relevance, as the chaplains themselves did not hold office under the Commonwealth.[24] All Australian parliaments are opened with a Christian prayer, and the preamble to the Australian Constitution refers to a "humbl[e] rel[iance] on the blessing of Almighty God."[25]

Although the Australian monarch is Queen Elizabeth II, also British monarch and Governor of the Church of England, her Australian title is unrelated to her religious office and she has no role in the Anglican Church of Australia. The prohibition against religious tests has allowed former Anglican Archbishop of Brisbane Peter Hollingworth to be appointed Governor-General of Australia, the highest domestic constitutional officer; however, this was criticized.[26]

Despite inclusion in the "States" chapter, Section 116 does not apply to states because of changes during drafting, and they are free to establish their own religions. Although no state has ever introduced a state church (NSW restricted religious groups during the early colonial period), the legal body corresponding to many religious organisations is established by state legislation.[27][28] There have been two referenda to extend Section 116 to states, but both failed. In each case the changes were grouped with other changes and voters did not have the opportunity to expressly accept only one change. Most states permit broad exemptions to religious groups from anti-discrimination legislation; for example, the NSW act allowing same-sex couples to adopt permits religious adoption agencies to refuse them.[29][30]

The current situation, described as a "principle of state neutrality" rather than "separation of church and state",[26] has been criticised by both secularists and religious groups. On the one hand, secularists have argued that government neutrality to religions leads to a "flawed democrac[y]"[31] or even a "pluralistic theocracy"[32] as the government cannot be neutral towards the religion of people who do not have one. On the other hand, religious groups and others have been concerned that state governments are restricting them from exercising their religion by preventing them from criticising other groups and forcing them to do unconscionable acts.[33]



Brazil was a colony of the Portuguese Empire from 1500 until the nation's independence from Portugal, in 1822, during which time Roman Catholicism was the official state religion. With the rise of the Empire of Brazil, although Catholicism retained its status as the official creed, subsidized by the state, other religions were allowed to flourish, as the 1824 Constitution secured religious freedom. The fall of the Empire, in 1889, gave way to a Republican regime, and a Constitution was enacted in 1891, which severed the ties between church and state; Republican ideologues such as Benjamin Constant and Ruy Barbosa were influenced by laïcité in France and the United States. The 1891 Constitutional separation of Church and State has been maintained ever since. The current Constitution of Brazil, in force since 1988, ensures the right to religious freedom, bans the establishment of state churches and any relationship of "dependence or alliance" of officials with religious leaders, except for "collaboration in the public interest, defined by law".




China, during the era of the Han Dynasty, had established Confucianism as the official state ideology over that of Legalism of the preceding Qin Dynasty over two millennium ago.[34] In post-1949 modern-day China, owing to such historic experiences as the Taiping Rebellion, the Chinese Communist Party had no diplomatic relations with the Vatican for over half a century, and maintained separation of the church from state affairs,[35] and although the Chinese government's methods are disputed by the Vatican,[36] Pope Benedict had accepted the ordination of a bishop who was pre-selected by the government for the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association in 2007. However, a new ordination of a Catholic bishop in November 2010, according to BBC News, has threatened to "damage ties" between China and the Vatican.[37]

The Constitution of the People's Republic of China guarantees, in its article 36, that:[38][39]

[...] No state organ, public organization or individual may compel citizens to believe in, or not to believe in, any religion; nor may they discriminate against citizens who believe in, or do not believe in, any religion. [...] No one may make use of religion to engage in activities that disrupt public order, impair the health of citizens or interfere with the educational system of the state. Religious bodies and religious affairs are not subject to any foreign domination.


Main article: Religion in Croatia

Freedom of religion in Croatia is a right defined by the Constitution, which also defines all religious communities as equal in front of the law and separated from the state. Principle of separation of church and state is enshrined in Article 41 which states:

All religious communities shall be equal before the law and clearly separated from the state. Religious communities shall be free, in compliance with law, to publicly conduct religious services, open schools, academies or other institutions, and welfare and charitable organizations and to manage them, and they shall enjoy the protection and assistance of the state in their activities.

Public schools allow religious teaching (Croatian: Vjeronauk) in cooperation with religious communities having agreements with the state, but attendance is not mandated. Religion classes are organized widely in public elementary and secondary schools.

The public holidays also include religious festivals of: Epiphany, Easter Monday, Corpus Christi Day, Assumption Day, All Saints' Day, Christmas, and Boxing Day. The primary holidays are based on the Catholic liturgical year, but other believers are allowed to celebrate other major religious holidays as well.

The Roman Catholic Church in Croatia receives state financial support and other benefits established in concordats between the Government and the Vatican. In an effort to further define their rights and privileges within a legal framework, the government has additional agreements with other 14 religious communities: Serb Orthodox Church (SPC), Islamic Community of Croatia, Evangelical Church, Reformed Christian Church in Croatia, Protestant Reformed Christian Church in Croatia, Pentecostal Church, Union of Pentecostal Churches of Christ, Christian Adventist Church, Union of Baptist Churches, Church of God, Church of Christ, Reformed Movement of Seventh-day Adventists, Bulgarian Orthodox Church, Macedonian Orthodox Church and Croatian Old Catholic Church.


The Constitution of Finland declares that the organization and administration of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland is regulated in the Church Act, and the organization and administration of the Finnish Orthodox Church in the Orthodox Church Act. The Lutheran Church and the Orthodox Church thus have a special status in Finnish legislation compared to other religious bodies, and are variously referred to as either "national churches" or "state churches", although officially they do not hold such positions.[40] The Lutheran Church does not consider itself a state church, and prefers to use the term "national church".[41]

The Finnish Freethinkers Association has criticized the official endorsement of the two churches by the Finnish state, and has campaigned for the separation of church and state.[42]


The French version of separation of church and state, called laïcité, is a product of French history and philosophy. It was formalized in a 1905 law providing for the separation of church and state, that is, the separation of religion from political power.

This model of a secularist state protects the religious institutions from state interference, but with public religious expression to some extent frowned upon. This aims to protect the public power from the influences of religious institutions, especially in public office. Religious views which contain no idea of public responsibility, or which consider religious opinion irrelevant to politics, are not impinged upon by this type of secularization of public discourse.

Former President Nicolas Sarkozy criticised "negative laicite" and talked about a "positive laïcité" that recognizes the contribution of faith to French culture, history and society, allows for faith in the public discourse and for government subsidies for faith-based groups.[43] He visited the Pope in December 2007 and publicly emphasized France's Christian roots, while highlighting the importance of freedom of thought,[44] advocating that faith should come back into the public sphere. François Hollande took a very different position during the 2012 presidential election, promising to insert the concept of laïcité into the constitution (the French constitution already says that the French Republic is "laïque" but there is no article of the constitution about laïcité).[45]

Nevertheless, there are certain entanglements in France which include:


The German constitution guarantees freedom of religion,[46] but there is not a complete separation of church and state in Germany. Officially recognized churches operate as Körperschaften des öffentlichen Rechts (corporations of public, as opposed to private, law). For recognized religious communities, some taxes are collected by the state;[47] this is at the request of the religious community and a fee is charged for the service.[48] Religious instruction is an optional school subject in Germany.[46] The German State understands itself as neutral in matters of religious beliefs,[49] so no teacher can be forced to teach religion. But on the other hand, all who do teach religious instruction need an official permission by their religious community.[50] The treaties with the Holy See are referred to as concordats. They are the legal framework for cooperation between the Roman Catholic Church and the German State.[51]


India is nominally a secular country and there are no special provisions favouring specific religions in its constitution. However, numerous laws (family law, for example) differentiate or discriminate on the basis of religion. In addition, many state governments, for example the Tamil Nadu State government, exercise extensive control over religious organizations.

As a result of such government power over religion, politicians are sometimes accused of playing vote bank politics, i.e. of giving political support to issues for the sole purpose of gaining the votes of members of a particular community, including religious communities. Both the Indian National Congress party and the Bharitiya Janata Party (BJP) have been accused of exploiting the people by indulging in vote bank politics. The Shah Bano case, a divorce lawsuit, generated much controversy when the Congress was accused of appeasing the Muslim orthodoxy by bringing in a parliamentary amendment to negate the Supreme Court's decision. After the 2002 Gujarat violence, there were allegations of political parties indulging in vote bank politics.[52]


In Italy the principle of separation of church and state is enshrined in Article 7 of the Constitution, which states:[53]

"The State and the Catholic Church are independent and sovereign, each within its own sphere. Their relations are regulated by the Lateran pacts. Amendments to such Pacts which are accepted by both parties shall not require the procedure of constitutional amendments."


Shinto became the state religion in Japan with the Meiji Restoration in 1868, and suppression of other religions ensued.[54] Under the American military occupation (1945–52) "State Shinto" was considered to have been used as a propaganda tool to propel the Japanese people to war. The Shinto Directive issued by the occupation government required that all state support for and involvement in any religious or Shinto institution or doctrine stop, including funding, coverage in textbooks, and official acts and ceremonies. Adopted in 1947, Articles 20 and 89 of the Japanese constitution protect freedom of religion, and prevent the government from compelling religious observances or using public money to benefit religious institutions.[54]

South Korea

Freedom of religion in South Korea is provided for in the South Korean constitution, which mandates the separation of religion and state, and prohibits discrimination on the basis of religious beliefs[55]


The issue of the role of the Catholic Church in Mexico has been highly divisive since the 1820s. Its large land holdings were especially a point of contention. Mexico was guided toward what was proclaimed a separation of church and state by Benito Juárez who, in 1859, attempted to eliminate the role of the Roman Catholic Church in the nation by appropriating its land and prerogatives.[56][57] In 1859 the Ley Lerdo was issued – purportedly separating church and state, but actually involving state intervention in Church matters by abolishing monastic orders, and nationalizing church property. In 1926, after several years of the revolutionary war and insecurity, President Plutarco Elías Calles, an atheist, enacted the Calles Law, which eradicated all the personal property of the churches, closed churches that were not registered with the State, and prohibited clerics from holding a public office. The law was unpopular; and several protesters from rural areas, fought against federal troops in what became known as the Cristero War. After the war's end in 1929, President Emilio Portes Gil upheld a previous truce where the law would remain enacted, but not enforced, in exchange for the hostilities to end. Ever since, the Catholic Church has remained active through the National Action Party (Mexico). The party gained a major foothold in 2000 when President Vicente Fox was elected, ending 70 years of unbroken rule from the Institutional Revolutionary Party.


On 21 May 2012, the Norwegian Parliament passed a constitutional amendment that granted the Church of Norway increased autonomy, and states that "the Church of Norway, an Evangelical-Lutheran church, remains Norway's people's church, and is supported by the State as such" ("people's church" or folkekirke is also the name of the Danish state church, Folkekirken), replacing the earlier expression which stated that "the Evangelical-Lutheran religion remains the public religion of the State." The final amendment passed by a vote of 162–3. The three dissenting votes were all from the Centre Party.

The constitution also says that Norway's values are based on its Christian and humanist heritage, and according to the Constitution, the King is required to be Lutheran. The government will still provide funding for the church as it does with other faith-based institutions, but the responsibility for appointing bishops and provosts will now rest with the church instead of the government. Prior to 1997, the appointments of parish priests and residing chaplains was also the responsibility of the government, but the church was granted the right to hire such clergy directly with the new Church Law of 1997. Nevertheless, even after the changes in 1997 and 2012, all clergy remain civil servants (state employees), the central and regional church administrations remain a part of the state administration, the Church of Norway is regulated by its own law (kirkeloven) and all municipalities are required by law to support the activities of the Church of Norway and municipal authorities are represented in its local bodies.[58]


In Article II "Declaration of Principles and State Policies", Section 6, the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines declares, "The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable." This reasserts, with minor differences in wording and capitalization, a declaration made in Article XV, Section 15 of the 1973 Constitution.[59][60]

Similarly, Article III, Section 5 declares, "No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights."; echoing Article IV, Section 8 of the 1973 Constitution verbatim.[60][61]


Main article: Religion in Romania

Romania is a secular country and has no state religion. However, the role of religion in society is regulated by several articles of the Romanian Constitution.

Art 29. Freedom of Conscience.

(1) Freedom of thought and opinion, as well as freedom of religion, cannot be limited in any way. No one shall be coerced to adopt an opinion or adhere to a religious faith against their will.

(5) Religious cults are autonomous in relation to the state, which provides support including the facilitation of religious assistance in the army, hospitals, penitentiaries, retirement homes and orphanages.

Art 32. Right to education

(7) The state assures freedom of religion education, according to the requirements of each specific cult. In state schools, religious education is organized and guaranteed by law.

Saudi Arabia

The legal system of Saudi Arabia is based on Sharia, Islamic law derived from the Qur'an and the Sunnah (the traditions) of the Islamic prophet Muhammad, and therefore no separation of church and state is present.


Main article: Religion in Singapore

Singapore is home to people of many religions and, as such, the Singaporean government has attempted to avoid giving any specific religions priority over the rest.

In 1972 the Singapore government de-registered and banned the activities of Jehovah's Witnesses in Singapore. The Singaporean government claimed that this was justified because members of Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to perform military service (which is obligatory for all male citizens), salute the flag, or swear oaths of allegiance to the state.[62][63] Singapore has also banned all written materials published by the International Bible Students Association and the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, both publishing arms of the Jehovah's Witnesses. A person who possesses a prohibited publication can be fined up to $2,000 Singapore dollars and jailed up to 12 months for a first conviction.[64]


In Spain, commentators have posited that the form of church-state separation enacted in France in 1905 and found in the Spanish Constitution of 1931 are of a "hostile" variety, noting that the hostility of the state toward the church was a cause of the breakdown of democracy and the onset of the Spanish Civil War.[65][66] Following the end of the war, the Catholic Church regained an officially sanctioned, predominant position with General Franco. Religious freedom was guaranteed only in 1966, nine years before the end of the regime. Since 1978, according to the Spanish Constitution (section 16.3) "No religion shall have a state character. The public authorities shall take into account the religious beliefs of Spanish society and shall consequently maintain appropriate cooperation relations with the Catholic Church and other confessions."


The Church of Sweden was instigated by King Gustav I (1523–60) and within the half century following his death had become established as a Lutheran state church with significant power in Swedish society, itself under the control of the state apparatus. A degree of freedom of worship (for foreign residents only) was achieved under the rule of Gustav III (1771–92), but it was not until the passage of the Dissenter Acts of 1860 and 1874 that Swedish citizens were allowed to leave the state church – and then only provided that those wishing to do so first registered their adhesion to another, officially approved denomination. Following years of discussions that began in 1995, the Church of Sweden was finally separated from the state as from 1 January 2000. However, the separation was not fully completed. Although the status of state religion came to an end, the Church of Sweden nevertheless remains Swedens national church, and as such is still regulated by the government through the law of the Church of Sweden. Therefore, it would be more appropriate to refer to a change of relation between state and church rather than a separation. Furthermore, the Swedish constitution still maintain that the Sovereign and the members of the royal family has to confess an evangelical Lutheran faith, which in praxis means they need to be members of the Church of Sweden to remain in the line of succession. Thusly according to the ideas of cuius regio, eius religio one could argue that the symbolic connection between state and church still remains.[67]


The articles 8 ("Equality before the law") and 15 ("Freedom of religion and conscience") of the Federal Constitution of the Swiss Confederation guarantees individual freedom of beliefs.[68] It notably states that " No person may be forced to join or belong to a religious community, to participate in a religious act or to follow religious teachings".[68]

Churches and state are separated at the federal level since 1848. However, the article 72 ("Church and state") of the constitution determine that "The regulation of the relationship between the church and the state is the responsibility of the cantons".[68] Some cantons of Switzerland recognise officially some churches (Catholic Church, Swiss Reformed Church, Old Catholic Church and Jewish congregations). Other cantons, such as Geneva and Neuchâtel are laïques (that is to say, secular).


Further information: Secularism in Turkey

Turkey, whose population is overwhelmingly Muslim, is also considered to have practiced the laïcité school of secularism since 1928. Like laïcité in France, there are some notable entanglements in Turkey:

United Kingdom

The Church of England, a part of the worldwide Anglican Communion, is an established church, and the British Sovereign is the titular Supreme Governor, and cannot be a Roman Catholic. Until the Succession to the Crown Act 2013, the monarch could not be married to a Catholic. In England, senior Church appointments are Crown appointments, the Church carries out important state functions such as coronations, and 26 diocesan bishops have seats in the House of Lords, where they are known as the Lords Spiritual as opposed to the lay Lords Temporal. The links between church and state in the UK are limited and the governance of the UK is relatively secular. The Lords Spiritual have a significant influence when they vote as a bloc on certain issues, notably abortion and euthanasia. There are also state funded faith based schools. The Anglican Church has specific legal rights and responsibilities in solemnised marriages that are different from other faith organisations.

The Church of Scotland is the largest religious denomination in Scotland, however, unlike the Church of England it is Presbyterian and (since 1921) separate from the state, with the Sovereign holding no formal role other than being an ordinary member.

The Church of Ireland was disestablished as early as 1871; the Church in Wales was disestablished in 1920 (although certain border parishes remain part of the Established Church of England).[70]

As the UK has no single written constitution, there is no explicit constitutional principle of freedom of religious exercise as there is in other countries, such as Germany and the United States. However, the unwritten constitution secures such rights, and various laws such as the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Equality Act 2010 allow religious groups to associate, worship, promote and publish their views alongside the established churches.

United States

The phrase of Jefferson (see above) was quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1947.[71] The phrase "separation of church and state" itself does not appear in the United States Constitution. The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The Supreme Court did not consider the question of how this applied to the states until 1947; when they did, in Everson v. Board of Education, the court incorporated the establishment clause, determining that it applied to the states and that a law enabling reimbursement for busing to all schools (including parochial schools) was constitutional.[72]

Prior to its incorporation, unsuccessful attempts were made to amend the constitution to explicitly apply the establishment clause to states in the 1870s and 1890s.[73][74]

The concept was implicit in the flight of Roger Williams from religious oppression in the Massachusetts Bay Colony to found the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations on the principle of state neutrality in matters of faith.[75][76]

Williams was motivated by historical abuse of governmental power, and believed that government must remove itself from anything that touched upon human beings’ relationship with God, advocating a "hedge or wall of Separation between the Garden of the Church and the Wilderness of the world" in order to keep the church pure.

Through his work Rhode Island's charter was confirmed by King Charles II of England, which explicitly stated that no one was to be "molested, punished, disquieted, or called in question, for any differences in opinion, in matters of religion."

Williams is credited with helping to shape the church and state debate in England, and influencing such men as John Milton and particularly John Locke, whose work was studied closely by Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and other designers of the U.S. Constitution. Williams theologically derived his views mainly from Scripture and his motive is seen as religious, but Jefferson's advocation of religious liberty is seen as political and social.[77]

The Treaty of Tripoli

Main article: Treaty of Tripoli

In 1797, the United States Senate ratified a treaty with Tripoli that stated in Article 11:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.[78]

According to Frank Lambert, Professor of History at Purdue University, the assurances in Article 11 were "intended to allay the fears of the Muslim state by insisting that religion would not govern how the treaty was interpreted and enforced. President John Adams and the Senate made clear that the pact was between two sovereign states, not between two religious powers."[79]

Supporters of the separation of church and state argue that this treaty, which was ratified by the Senate, confirms that the government of the United States was specifically intended to be religiously neutral.[80] The treaty was submitted by President Adams and unanimously ratified by the Senate.

Use of the phrase

The phrase "separation of church and state" is derived from a letter written by President Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to Baptists from Danbury, Connecticut, and published in a Massachusetts newspaper soon thereafter. In that letter, referencing the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Jefferson writes:

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.[20]

Another early user of the term was James Madison, the principal drafter of the United States Bill of Rights. In a 1789 debate in the House of Representatives regarding the draft of the First Amendment, the following was said:

August 15, 1789. Mr. [Peter] Sylvester [of New York] had some doubts. … He feared it [the First Amendment] might be thought to have a tendency to abolish religion altogether. … Mr. [Elbridge] Gerry [of Massachusetts] said it would read better if it was that "no religious doctrine shall be established by law." … Mr. [James] Madison [of Virginia] said he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that "Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law." … [T]he State[s] … seemed to entertain an opinion that under the clause of the Constitution. … it enabled them [Congress] to make laws of such a nature as might … establish a national religion; to prevent these effects he presumed the amendment was intended. … Mr. Madison thought if the word "National" was inserted before religion, it would satisfy the minds of honorable gentlemen. … He thought if the word "national" was introduced, it would point the amendment directly to the object it was intended to prevent.[81]

Madison contended "Because if Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body."[82] Several years later he wrote of "total separation of the church from the state."[83] "Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States", Madison wrote,[84] and he declared, "practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government is essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States."[85] In a letter to Edward Livingston Madison further expanded, "We are teaching the world the great truth that Govts. do better without Kings & Nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson that Religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of Govt."[86] This attitude is further reflected in the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, originally authored by Jefferson and championed by Madison, and guaranteeing that no one may be compelled to finance any religion or denomination.

… no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.[87]

Under the United States Constitution, the treatment of religion by the government is broken into two clauses: the establishment clause and the free exercise clause. Both are discussed in regard to whether certain state actions would amount to an impermissible government establishment of religion.

The phrase was also mentioned in an eloquent letter written by President John Tyler on July 10, 1843.[88] During the 1960 presidential campaign the potential influence of the Catholic Church on John F. Kennedy's presidency was raised. If elected, it would be the first time that a Catholic would occupy the highest office in the United States. John F. Kennedy, in his Address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association on 12 September 1960, addressed the question directly, saying,

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute – where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote – where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference – and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him. I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish – where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source – where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials – and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all. […] I do not speak for my church on public matters – and the church does not speak for me. Whatever issue may come before me as President – on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject – I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise. But if the time should ever come – and I do not concede any conflict to be even remotely possible – when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do the same.

The United States Supreme Court has referenced the separation of church and state metaphor more than 25 times, though not always fully embracing the principle, saying "the metaphor itself is not a wholly accurate description of the practical aspects of the relationship that in fact exists between church and state".[89] In Reynolds, the Court denied the free exercise claims of Mormons in the Utah territory who claimed polygamy was an aspect of their religious freedom. The Court used the phrase again by Justice Hugo Black in 1947 in Everson. In a minority opinion in Wallace v. Jaffree, Justice Rehnquist presented the view that the establishment clause was intended to protect local establishments of religion from federal interference. Rehnquist made numerous citations of cases that rebutted the idea of a total wall of separation between Church and State. A result of such reasoning was Supreme Court support for government payments to faith-based community projects. Justice Scalia has criticized the metaphor as a bulldozer removing religion from American public life.[90]

Religious views

Beyond law and philosophy, some Christians refuse to vote, carry arms, or participate in civil government in any way, often leading to their persecution, as happened to Anabaptists, their descendants including the Amish, Mennonites, and Quakers, in the 20th Century. Anabaptist and Jehovah's Witnesses, in many countries, believing by not participating they are closer to the Kingdom of God, since "Jesus answered (Pilate), 'My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight (to defend him).' " – John 18:36. For them, the term "Christian nation" cannot be a valid governmental position, leaving only Christian people, possibly in Christian communities, beyond which are the "things which are Caesar's" – Matthew 22:21.


According to the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community's understanding of Islam, Islamic principles state that the politics of government should be separate from the doctrine of religion. Special preference should not be given to a Muslim over a non-Muslim.[91][92]

Roman Catholicism

Gaudium et spes ("Joy and Hope"), the 1965 Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, noted that "... the Church has always had the duty of scrutinizing the signs of the times and of interpreting them in the light of the Gospel."[93] The mission of the Church recognized the realities of secularization and pluralism. It also recognized and encouraged the role of the laity in the life of the Church in the world. "This council exhorts Christians, as citizens of two cities, to strive to discharge their earthly duties conscientiously and in response to the Gospel spirit.".[94] This was further expanded in Apostolicam Actuositatem, Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity, of 18 November 1965.

Apostolicam Actuositatem, the Second Vatican Council's "Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity", was issued 18 November 1965. The purpose of this document was to encourage and guide lay people in their Christian service. "Since the laity, in accordance with their state of life, live in the midst of the world and its concerns, they are called by God to exercise their apostolate in the world like leaven, with the ardor of the spirit of Christ."[95] Francis Cardinal Arinze explains that lay persons "...are called by Baptism to witness to Christ in the secular sphere of life; that is in the family, in work and leisure, in science and cultural, in politics and government, in trade and mass media, and in national and international relations."[96]

The Catholic teaching in Dignitatis Humanae, the Second Vatican Council's Declaration on Religious Freedom (1986), states that all people are entitled to religious freedom and that constitutional law should recognize such freedom.[97] "If, in view of peculiar circumstances obtaining among peoples, special civil recognition is given to one religious community in the constitutional order of society, it is at the same time imperative that the right of all citizens and religious communities to religious freedom should be recognized and made effective in practice.[98]

The Roman Catholic Church takes the position that the Church itself has a proper role in guiding and informing consciences, explaining the natural law, and judging the moral integrity of the state, thereby serving as check to the power of the state.[99] The Church teaches that the right of individuals to religious freedom (enshrined in the U.S.'s "Free Exercise Clause") is sound, and, all other things being equal, ideally the Church would be the established religion of the state, without, however coercing any individual to embrace the Catholic religion. Still, it also recognizes that it would not always be prudent in all states to immediately mandate the Catholic religion as the official religion of the state, most especially in states in which Catholicism has not yet become the religion of the overwhelming religion of the majority.

Roman Catholic philosopher Thomas Storck argues that, once a society becomes "Catholicized" and adopts the Church as the state religion, it is further morally bound: "'the just requirements of public order' vary considerably between a Catholic state and a religiously neutral state. If a neutral state can prohibit polygamy, even though it is a restriction on religious freedom, then a Catholic state can likewise restrict the public activity of non-Catholic groups. "The just requirements of public order" can be understood only in the context of a people's traditions and modes of living, and in a Catholic society would necessarily include that social unity based upon a recognition of the Catholic Church as the religion of society, and the consequent exclusion of all other religions from public life. Western secular democracies, committed to freedom of religion for all sects, find no contradiction in proscribing polygamy, although some religions permit it, because its practice is contrary to the traditions and mores of these nations. A Catholic country can certainly similarly maintain its own manner of life."[100]

If, under consideration of historical circumstances among peoples, special civil recognition is given to one religious community in the constitutional order of a society, it is necessary at the same time that the right of all citizens and religious communities to religious freedom should be acknowledged and maintained.[101]

The Church takes stances on current political issues, and tries to influence legislation on matters it considers relevant. For example, the Catholic bishops in the United States adopted a plan in the 1970s calling for efforts aimed at a Constitutional amendment providing "protection for the unborn child to the maximum degree possible".[102]

Benedict XVI regards modern idea of freedom (meaning state and Church separation) as a legitimate product of the Christian environment,[103] in a similar way to Jacques Le Goff.[104] However, contrary to the French historian,[105] the Pope rejects the conception of religion as just a private affair.[106]

Friendly and hostile separation

Scholars have distinguished between what can be called "friendly" and "hostile" separations of church and state.[107] The friendly type limits the interference of the church in matters of the state but also limits the interference of the state in church matters.[108] The hostile variety, by contrast, seeks to confine religion purely to the home or church and limits religious education, religious rites of passage and public displays of faith.[109]

The hostile model of secularism arose with the French Revolution and is typified in the Mexican Revolution, its resulting Constitution and the Spanish Constitution of 1931.[110][111] The hostile model exhibited during these events can be seen as approaching the type of political religion seen in totalitarian states.[109]

The French separation of 1905 and the Spanish separation of 1931 have been characterized as the two most hostile of the twentieth century, although the current church-state relations in both countries are considered generally friendly.[65] Nevertheless, France's former President Nicolas Sarkozy at the beginning of his term, considered his country's current state of affairs a "negative laïcité" and wanted to develop a "positive laïcité" more open to religion.[43] The concerns of the state toward religion have been seen by some as one cause of the civil war in Spain[112] and Mexico.

The French catholic philosopher and drafter of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Jacques Maritain, noted the distinction between the models found in France and in the mid-twentieth century United States.[113] He considered the U.S. model of that time to be more amicable because it had both "sharp distinction and actual cooperation" between church and state, what he called a "historical treasure" and admonished the United States, "Please to God that you keep it carefully, and do not let your concept of separation veer round to the European one."[113] Alexis de Tocqueville, another French observer tended to make the same distinction, "In the U.S., from the beginning, politics and religion were in accord, and they have not ceased to be so since."[114]

See also


  1. "Norway separates church and state". Retrieved 22 March 2015.
  2. Princeton University WordNet Archived May 8, 2016, at the Wayback Machine. reads: "separationism: advocacy of a policy of strict separation of church and state."
  3. "Sargon Quotes From Texts, Sitchin Books, etc". "Sargon, the king of Akkad, the bailiff of Ishtar
  4. Velleius Paterculus, Roman History 2.43; Plutarch, Caesar 7; Suetonius, Julius 13
  5. Cassius Dio, Roman History LIX.26.
  6. Cassius Dio, Roman History LIX.28.
  7. Plato. Apology, 24–27.
  8. Feldman (2009)
  9. Elliott, Charles (1877) [1851]. Delineation of Roman Catholicism: Drawn from the authentic and acknowledged standards of the Church of Rome. p. 165.
  10. Berman, Harold J. (1983). Law and Revolution: The Formation of the Western Legal Tradition. Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-51774-1. OCLC 185405865.
  11. Madison to Schaeffer, 1821. 1865. pp. 242–43.
  12. "Henry VIII: 1509-47 AD". Britannia History. Retrieved 2008-03-26.
  13. Feldman, Noah (2005). Divided by God. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, pg. 29 ("It took John Locke to translate the demand for liberty of conscience into a systematic argument for distinguishing the realm of government from the realm of religion.")
  14. Feldman, Noah (2005). Divided by God. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, pg. 29
  15. Tinsley, Barbara Sher (2001). Pierre Bayle's Reformation : conscience and criticism on the eve of the Enlightenment. Selinsgrove, Pa.: Susquehanna University Press. ISBN 1575910438.
  16. Bayle, Pierre (2000) [1st ed 1682]. Various Thoughts on Occasion of a Comet. SUNY Press. p. 332. ISBN 9780791492734.
  17. McWhirter, Darien (1994). Exploring the separation of church and state. Phoenix, Ariz.: Oryx Press. ISBN 9780897748520.
  18. Masters, Voltaire. Transl. by Brian (2000). Treatise on tolerance [and other writings]. Cambridge [u.a.]: Cambridge Univ. Press. ISBN 9780521649698.
  19. Mason, Denis Diderot. Ed. by John Hope; Wokler, Robert (2005). Political writings (Reprint ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 225. ISBN 0521369118.
  20. 1 2 Jefferson, Thomas (1802-01-01). "Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists". U.S. Library of Congress. Retrieved 2006-11-31. Check date values in: |access-date= (help)
  21. 1 in author list, Iqbal Academy (26 May 2006). "Allama Iqbal – Biography" (PHP). Retrieved 7 January 2011.
  22. Péter Tibor Nagy. The social and political history of Hungarian education – State-Church relations in the history of educational policy of the first post-communist Hungarian government (HTML ed.). Hungarian Electronic library. ISBN 963-200-511-2. Retrieved 2007-04-27.
  23. Status of religious freedom by country
  24. "RONALD WILLIAMS v THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA & ORS [2012] HCA 23" (PDF). High Court of Australia. High Court of Australia. 20 June 2012. Retrieved 23 April 2016.
  25. Preamble to Commonwealth of Australian Constitution Act Archived September 20, 2016, at the Wayback Machine. (Imp.) 1900.
  26. 1 2 Hogan, M. (2001, May 16). Separation of church and state? Archived March 10, 2016, at the Wayback Machine. Australian Review of Public Affairs. Retrieved 2010-10-10.
  27. "ANGLICAN CHURCH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT 1960". 2011-08-24. Retrieved 2012-04-27.
  29. Editors. "Adoption Bill Passed in NSW | News". The Advocate. Archived from the original on November 30, 2011. Retrieved 2012-04-27.
  30. "Adoption Amendment (Same Sex Couples) Act (NSW) 2010." (PDF). Retrieved 2012-04-27.
  31. Wallace, M. (2005). Is there a separation of church and state in Australia and New Zealand? Archived May 2, 2016, at the Wayback Machine. Australian Humanist, 77. Retrieved 2010-10-10.
  32. Secular Party of Australia. (nd). The Separation of Church and State. Retrieved 2010-10-10. Archived August 12, 2013, at the Wayback Machine.
  33. Davidson, S. (2009, Oct 27). Victorian abortion law: Overriding the conscience of doctors Archived March 3, 2016, at the Wayback Machine.. Crikey. Retrieved 2010-10-10
  34. "Early Han Dynasty". Retrieved 2012-04-27.
  35. "Separation of Church and State – Part 1/3 « iLook China". 2011-01-06. Retrieved 2012-04-27.
  36. "Pope OK's Communist-chosen bishop in China: report". CBC News. 2007-01-18.
  37. "Vatican warning on China bishop". BBC News. 2010-11-18.
  38. "China's Policy on Religion". Retrieved 17 October 2011.
  39. Constitution of the People's Republic of China (1982) Archived September 19, 2016, at the Wayback Machine., English translation (page visited on 17 December 2015).
  40. Jeroen Temperman, 2010, State-Religion Relationships and Human Rights Law: Towards a Right to Religiously Neutral Governance, p. 45 Archived August 18, 2016, at the Wayback Machine.
  41. "Valtiokirkko purettu kansankirkoksi" [State Church Dismantled into National Church]. (in Finnish). Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland. 24 November 2006. Retrieved 23 July 2016.
  42. Eroakirkosta.fiPalvelun tavoite: Kirkko on erotettava valtiosta Archived March 7, 2016, at the Wayback Machine.
  43. 1 2 Beita, Peter B. French President's religious mixing riles critics Archived April 20, 2016, at the Wayback Machine. Christianity Today, Jan. 23, 2008
  44. "Sarkozy breaks French taboo on church and politics". 2007-12-23. Retrieved 2012-04-27.
  45. "French president rejects calls for secular values to be in constitution". Catholic News. January 27, 2012. Retrieved 2 February 2013.
  46. 1 2 Section 4 of German Basic Law
  47. Binder, Gerhard/Wagner, Jürgen, Grundwissen Grundgesetz.p 165.Klett.
  48. 1.5% to 4.5% of the amount collected, depending on the state (Land)
    Leif, Thomas; Speth, Rudolf, eds. (2006). Die fünfte Gewalt: Lobbyismus in Deutschland [The Fifth Estate: Lobbyism in Germany] (in German). VL Verlag. p. 262. ISBN 978-3-531-15033-8.
  49. Binder, Gerhard/Wagner, Jürgen, Grundwissen Grundgesetz.p 17. Klett.
  50. "Kirchliche Bevollmächtigung". Archived from the original on April 6, 2012. Retrieved 2012-04-27.
  51. Christian, Hermes, Konkordate im vereinigten Deutschland. Grünewald.
  52. Times News Network (25 March 2002). "Togadia wants parties to stop 'vote bank politics'". Times Internet Limited. Retrieved 2007-04-20.
  53. "The Italian Constitution" (PDF). The official website of the Presidency of the Italian Republic.
  55. "Religious Freedom in South Korea". Berkley Center for Religion, Peace and World Affairs.
  56. "Mexico, A brief History". Retrieved 2007-10-13.
  57. Clements, Greg. "Ley Lerdo". Retrieved 2007-10-13.
  58. "Church of Norway"
  60. 1 2 "The Amended 1973 Constitution". Retrieved 22 March 2015.
  62. "Singapore". U.S. Department of State. Retrieved 22 March 2015.
  63. "Singapore", International Religious Freedom Report 2004, U. S. Department of State, As Retrieved 2010-03-11
  64. "2010 International Religious Freedom Report 2010: Singapore", U.S. State Department, November 17, 2010, As Retrieved 2011-1-15
  65. 1 2 Stepan, Alfred, Arguing Comparative Politics Archived September 14, 2016, at the Wayback Machine., p. 221, Oxford University Press
  66. "Payne, Stanley G. A History of Spain and Portugal, Vol. 2, Ch. 25, p. 632 (Print Edition: University of Wisconsin Press, 1973) (LIBRARY OF IBERIAN RESOURCES ONLINE Accessed 2007-05-30)".
  67. Olsen, Ted (1 January 2000). "Swedish Church State Separate". Christianity Today. Retrieved 27 December 2014.
  68. 1 2 3 Federal Constitution of the Swiss Confederation Archived June 21, 2016, at the Wayback Machine., status as of 14 June 2015, Federal Chancellery of Switzerland (page visited on 17 December 2015).
  69. "The Constitution of the Republic of Turkey". Turkish Grand National Assembly (TBMM). Archived from the original on 2006-08-10.
  70. Madeley, John T. S.; Enyedi, Zsolt (2003). Church and state in contemporary Europe: the chimera of neutrality. Psychology Press. p. 203. ISBN 978-0-7146-5394-5.
  71. William M. Wiecek, The birth of the modern Constitution: the United States Supreme Court, 1941–1953 (Cambridge U.P., 2006) pp. 261–64
  72. Kermit Hall, ed. The Oxford companion to the Supreme Court of the United States Archived March 4, 2016, at the Wayback Machine. (2005) pp. 303–04 Archived March 4, 2016, at the Wayback Machine..
  73. Philip Hamburger, Separation of Church and State Archived June 24, 2016, at the Wayback Machine.. pp. 287–334, 342, Harvard University Press, 2004
  74. Kermit Hall, ed. The Oxford companion to the Supreme Court of the United States Archived March 4, 2016, at the Wayback Machine. (2005) pp. 262–63 Archived March 4, 2016, at the Wayback Machine..
  75. Hamilton, Neil A. (2002). Rebels and renegades: a chronology of social and political dissent in the United States (illustrated ed.). Taylor & Francis. p. 11. ISBN 978-0-415-93639-2.
  76. Bercovitch, Sacvan; Patell, Cyrus R. K. (1997). The Cambridge History of American Literature: 1590–1820 (illustrated ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 196–97. ISBN 978-0-521-58571-2.
  77. Barry, John M. (January 2012). "Roger Williams and the Creation of the American Soul". Smithsonian.
  78. For full text see "The Barbary Treaties 1786–1816; Treaty of Peace and Friendship, Signed at Tripoli November 4, 1796" Avalon Project
  79. Lambert, Frank (February 3, 2005). "Introduction". The Founding Fathers and the Place of Religion in America. Introduction. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-12602-9. Retrieved 2008-06-21. By their actions, the Founding Fathers made clear that their primary concern was religious freedom, not the advancement of a state religion. Individuals, not the government, would define religious faith and practice in the United States. Thus the Founders ensured that in no official sense would America be a Christian Republic. Ten years after the Constitutional Convention ended its work, the country assured the world that the United States was a secular state, and that its negotiations would adhere to the rule of law, not the dictates of the Christian faith. The assurances were contained in the Treaty of Tripoli of 1797 and were intended to allay the fears of the Muslim state by insisting that religion would not govern how the treaty was interpreted and enforced. John Adams and the Senate made clear that the pact was between two sovereign states, not between two religious powers. Check date values in: |year= / |date= mismatch (help)
  80. F. Forrester Church. The separation of church and state (2004) p. 121
  81. Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States (Washington, D.C.: Gales & Seaton, 1834, Vol. I pp. 757–59, August 15, 1789
  82. "James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments". Retrieved 2012-04-27.
  83. (March 2, 1819 letter to Robert Walsh), Lambert, Frank (2003). "The founding fathers and the place of religion in America". Princeton University Press: 288. ISBN 978-0-691-08829-7.
  84. Madison, James. "Monopolies Perpetuities Corporations – Ecclesiastical Endowments". Retrieved 2008-06-16.
  85. (1811 letter to Baptist Churches)
  86. "Madison's letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822". 2003-08-28. Retrieved 2012-04-27.
  87. J. F. Maclear, Church and state in the modern age: a documentary history (1995) p. 65
  88. Tyler wrote, "The United States have adventured upon a great and noble experiment, which is believed to have been hazarded in the absence of all previous precedent – that of total separation of Church and State. No religious establishment by law exists among us. The conscience is left free from all restraint and each is permitted to worship his Maker after his own judgment. The offices of the Government are open alike to all. No tithes are levied to support an established Hierarchy, nor is the fallible judgment of man set up as the sure and infallible creed of faith. The Mahommedan, if he will to come among us would have the privilege guaranteed to him by the constitution to worship according to the Koran; and the East Indian might erect a shrine to Brahma if it so pleased him. Such is the spirit of toleration inculcated by our political Institutions . … The Hebrew persecuted and down trodden in other regions takes up his abode among us with none to make him afraid . … and the Aegis of the Government is over him to defend and protect him. Such is the great experiment which we have cried, and such are the happy fruits which have resulted from it; our system of free government would be imperfect without it.") quoted in Nicole Guétin, Religious ideology in American politics: a history (2009) p. 85
  89. Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992)
  90. "Separation of Mosque and state" (PDF). Alislam. Retrieved 2010-09-13.
  91. "Muslims for Peace". Muslims for Peace. Retrieved 2010-09-13.
  92. Pope Paul VI. Gaudium et Spes, §4, 7 December 1965 Archived April 11, 2011, at the Wayback Machine.
  93. Gaudium et Spes, §43.
  94. Pope Paul VI. Apostolicam Actuositatem, §2, 18 November 1965 Archived June 25, 2015, at the Wayback Machine.
  95. Francis Cardinal Arinze, The Layperson's Distinctive Role, Ignatius Press, 2013 ISBN 9781586177805 Archived May 29, 2016, at the Wayback Machine.
  96. Calo, Zachary A., Catholic Social Thought, Political Liberalism, and the Idea of Human Rights Archived June 21, 2010, at the Wayback Machine., pp. 18–19, Samford University, November 2004 Archived June 21, 2010, at the Wayback Machine.
  97. Pope Paul VI. Dignitatia humanae, §6, 7 December 1965 Archived February 11, 2012, at the Wayback Machine.
  98. Grasso, Kenneth L. and Robert P. Hunt, Catholicism and religious freedom: contemporary reflections on Vatican II's declaration on religious liberty Archived May 20, 2016, at the Wayback Machine., p. 6, Rowman & Littlefield, 2006
  99. "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2016-03-10. Retrieved 2015-06-18.
  100. Murray, John Courtney and J. Leon Hooper, Religious liberty: Catholic struggles with pluralism Archived April 23, 2016, at the Wayback Machine., pp. 213–14, Westminster John Knox Press, 1993
  101. Curran, Charles. "National Catholic Reporter online, 29 November 2010". Retrieved 2012-04-27.
  102. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. "Theology and the Church's Political Stance". In: Church, Ecumenism and Politics: New Essays in Ecclesiology (NY: Crossroad, 1988, p. 162).
  103. "Les convictions européennes de l'historien Jacques Le Goff." La vie, 01/04/2014, "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2015-05-07. Retrieved 2015-10-20..
  104. "Jacques Le Goff: "Mes héros ne meurent jamais"." L' Obs, "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2016-03-04. Retrieved 2015-10-20..
  105. "Religion Not Just a Private Affair, Affirms Pontiff." Zenit, "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2015-11-21. Retrieved 2015-10-20..
  106. Maier, Hans (2004). Totalitarianism and Political Religions. trans. Jodi Bruhn. Routledge. p. 109. ISBN 0-7146-8529-1.
  107. Maier 2004, p. 110
  108. 1 2 Maier 2004, p. 111 4
  109. Maier 2004, p. 106
  110. Martinez-Torron, Javier Freedom of religion in the case law of the Spanish Constitutional court, p. 2, Brigham Young University Law Review 2001
  111. Payne, Stanley G., A History of Spain and Portugal, Vol. 2, Ch. 25: The Second Spanish Republic, p. 632, (Print Edition: University of Wisconsin Press, 1973) (Library of Iberian Resources Online, Accessed 2009-07-11)
  112. 1 2 Carson, D. A. Christ And Culture Revisited Archived May 12, 2016, at the Wayback Machine., p. 189, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2008
  113. de Tocqueville, Alexis, Democracy in America, edited and translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.

Further reading

This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the 12/2/2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.