Separation of church and state
The separation of church and state is a concept and philosophy in modern thought and practice, whereby the structures of state or national government are proposed as needing to be separate from those of religious institutions. The concept has long been a topic of political debate throughout history. The term "church" in Western civilization is usually associated with Christianity. However, the phrase as a whole refers to religion and religious institutions in general and its/their relationship to government. In countries where other religions are dominant, the words mosque, temple, or synagogue are often substituted.
In the United States, separation of church and state is governed by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and by legal precedents, some quite controversial, interpreting that clause. Many other Western governments around the world have similar clauses in their respective constitutions. The actual term, "separation of church and state", does not appear in the constitution, but rather comes from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a group identifying themselves as the Danbury Baptists. Ulysses S. Grant also called for Americans to "Keep the church and state forever separate."
There are a variety of views regarding the degree of separation that should exist between church and state. A government that does not make direct appeal to a specific institution of religion for the justification of its powers is a secular government. Some secularists assert that state should be kept entirely separate from religion. Some secular governments establish quasi-religious justifications for their powers, constructed for ceremonial and rhetorical purposes, but designed for the benefit of the state without necessarily favoring any religious, or conforming to any doctrine other than its own - an arrangement called civil religion. Other secularists assert that the state ought to encourage religion (such as by providing exemptions from taxation, or providing funds for education and charities, including those that are "faith based"), but ought not establish one religion as the state religion, require religious observance, or legislate dogma. Churches that exercise their authority completely apart from government endorsement, whose foundations are not in the state, are conventionally called "Free" churches.
The long-debated middle, between secular and religious government, is when the state directly supports a specific religious institution, founding the state's religion, or established church, on the powers of the government. Turkey, for example, is a secular government which recognizes Islam as the established religion, but does not permit the interference of religious courts in civil affairs, and actively represses certain religious practices in public ( “The State religion of Turkey is the Muslim religion” — Articles 2 and 26 of the Turkish constitution). If every religious court were to be wiped away, or the endorsement of religion were to be purged from its constitution, the secular government would be unaffected, in a direct sense, by the demise of the religious institution.
A case in which the state is founded upon the religious institution, or especially where the courts of the religion officially direct policies of the civil government, the government is not secular but religious. A government which is an establishment of religion, where religious law is applied to state policy with the direct authority of the religious institution, is a theocracy.
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.
While there are many states that permit freedom of religious belief, none allow completely unrestricted freedom of religious practice. Usually state law takes precedence over the free exercise of religious belief, which means that laws against actions such as bigamy, sex with children, human sacrifice, or any crime can be enforced even if such practices are part of a group's religious beliefs.
History
Ancient
- Main article: Separation of church and state (ancient)
While varying greatly from state to state, the interaction between Church and State could at times become total. Roman emperors were considered divine, and controlled the state religion. At various times in the first three centuries of the Christian era, admitted membership in the Christian community was punishable by death (e.g., Justin Martyr under Marcus Aurelius) before the conversion of Constantine I (emperor) in 313 — primarily because a Christian, in not recognizing the divinity of the emperor and not accepting the state religion, was therefore a political enemy of the state. According to the Hebrew Bible, ancient Israel was also a theocracy.
Medieval
- Main article: Separation of church and state (medieval)
In the West, the separation of church and state during the medieval period saw monarchs who ruled by divine right and papal authorities who claimed to wield God's earthly authority. This unresolved contradiction in ultimate control of the state led to power struggles and crises of leadership that resulted in a number of important events in the development of the west.
Modern
- Main article: Separation of church and state (modern)
In a number of countries in the modern world, many countries have varying degrees of separation of church and state. Some states are more strict than others in disallowing church influence on the state. In some countries (such as Iran), however, the two institutions are heavily interconnected.
Motivations
There are a number of proposed reasons to support a separation of church and state:
- Historically, members of a non-majority religion often find themselves persecuted, socially shunned, and harassed. This can lead to social instability or even civil war.
- 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, historically, the Catholic Church had its views of baptism enforced, which led to persecution and emigration to the United States by dissenting groups. 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 from 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 (for instance, State Shinto in Japan); or, the state may discriminate in favor of one church and against members of other churches.
Secularism and theocracy
Secularism is the belief 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. However the concept of secularism can easily be extended into one in which the expression of religion is actively restricted or persecuted. (see also anti-clericalism)
Many Western democratic nations place a high importance on the separation of church and state. Some nations, such as the United States of America, Australia 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 the United Kingdom, 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 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.
The opposite end of the spectrum from secularism is a theocracy, in which the state and state religion are inseparable, and the rule of law is based on interpretation of a religious texts such as the Bible or the Qur'an. Examples include Saudi Arabia, the Vatican and Iran. In such countries state affairs are managed by religious authority or by its explicit consent. In theocracies, a citizen is considered to be a member of the state religion merely due to his citizenship, and is subject to religious injunctions and is legally required to believe and worship appropriately.
Though they favor a religiously neutral state, secularists generally do not hold that the state must be 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.
Some political philosophies, such as Marxism generally hold the belief that any religious influence in a state or society is a negative thing. Nations that officially embrace such beliefs, such as the former Eastern European Communist Bloc countries, will be "officially" atheist, and denounce or persecute members of religious faiths. Critics of state-atheism often argue that since atheism is in itself a belief, state-atheism is really just another form of theocracy.
Some contend that secularists who object to expressions of religious opinion by political leaders or on government property are at odds with freedom of speech. The issue is more complicated when it is difficult to discern whether the political leaders are speaking personally or as a function of their position.
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 do not discriminate on grounds of religion; yet religious motivations are usually kept out of the political process.
Countries with separation
Different countries have different approaches to the separation of church and state.
Since the founding of the Commonwealth of Australia in 1901, religious freedom has been guaranteed and state religion has been outlawed. Section 116 of the Australian Constitution says:
- 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. [1]
Some Australian judges (see Murphy ([2])) have gone as far to say that the government cannot support religious schools, even if done in a non-discriminatory way. The High Court of Australia, however, has consistently allowed funding of religious schools.
The issue of separation between religion and state is generally less contentious than in the United States. The Australian Parliament still holds prayers at the start of each sitting day and has since federation. Attendance at the prayer services is optional but many Members of Parliament do attend.
Like most countries, Canada takes its own view on the proper relationship between church and state. There is no established church. However some groups have privileges granted to them. In most parts of Canada there is a Catholic education system alongside the secular 'public' education system. Such schools are government funded in the same way that other schools are. They are run on Catholic principles and include religious activities and instruction as a matter of course. They are not exclusively attended by practicing Catholics; in fact many non-Catholics (and non-Christians) prefer these schools for either the quality of education or the opportunity to be educated in an environment where morality and spirituality are not excluded.
Again like most countries, the specific form of separation unique to the US does not apply here. There is no restriction on government funding of 'faith-based' activities. Religious activity in schools is not excluded constitutionally (though in public schools it is usually not undertaken).
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is entrenched in the Constitution, states in the preamble that Canada "is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law." [3]. Freedom of religion as also guaranteed. The Supreme Court of Canada, in the case of Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Canada v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] (1 S.C.R. 295) ruled that a 1906 statute that required most places to be closed on Sunday did not have a legitimate purpose in a "free and democratic society", and was an unconstitutional attempt to establish a religious-based closing law (see Blue law.)
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 on secularity was highly controversial at the time. France adheres to the notion of laïcité, that is, noninterference of the government into the religious sphere and noninterference of religion into government, and a strict neutrality of government in religious affairs.
References to religious beliefs by politicians 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.
The Alsace-Moselle area, which was administered by Germany at the time the 1905 law was passed and was returned to France only after World War I, 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 Reformed 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, as well as on the exclusion of other religions in Alsace-Moselle from this arrangement.
See also: laïcité
After the wars that followed the Reformation, the principle cuius regio, eius religio divided the Holy Roman Empire in statelets with a homogeneous faith. This principle, already complicated by changes in state boundaries in the early 18th century, ended with the fall of all German monarchies in the 1918 revolution.
Today, Church and state are separate, but there is cooperation in many fields, most importantly in the social sector. Churches and religious communities, if they are both large, stable and loyal to the constitution, can get special status from the state as a "corporation under public law" which allows the churches to levy taxes called Kirchensteuer (literally church tax) on their members. This revenue is collected by the state in return for a collection fee.
As required by the constitution, religious instruction (for members of the respective religions) is a ordinary subject in public schools (in most states). It is organized by the state, but also under the supervision of the respective religious community. Teachers are educated at public universities. Parents, or students 14 years old and above, can decide not to take those religion classes, but most federal states require classes in "ethics" or "philosophy" as replacements. A small but significant number of religious schools, which receive the majority of their funding (but never all of it) from the state, exist in most parts of the country; however nobody can be compelled to attend them. There was considerable public controversy when the Federal Constitutional Court declared a Bavarian law requiring a crucifix in every classroom to be unconstitutional in 1997; Bavaria replaced it with a law still demanding the same, unless parents file a formal protest with the state.
As immigration has significantly increased the numbers of Muslim inhabitants, there is ongoing discussion about introducing a Islamic religious instruction for Muslim pupils, but such plans have yet been hampered by difficulties in organising a curriculum for the whole Islamic spectrum. The Federal Administrative Court recently ruled that the Berlin Islamic Federation was a qualified religious community under Berlin law (which differs considerably from most of the rest of the country); hence, the Berlin State Government decided to begin Islamic religious instruction in public schools in areas with significant Islamic populations.
There is an ongoing controversy over the status of the Church of Scientology, as the German states deny this group tax exemption normally granted to religious communities and rather classify it as a business enterprise subject to taxation. This issue is intermingled with allegations that Scientology is a totalitarian cult. These classifications however does not prohibit the group's activities in Germany. [4]
Article 20 of the constitution of Japan, drafted in 1946 and currently in use, mandates a separation of religious organizations from the state, as well as ensuring religious freedom: "No religious organization shall receive any privileges from the State, nor exercise any political authority. No person shall be compelled to take part in any religious act, celebration, rite or practice. The State and its organs shall refrain from religious education or any other religious activity." However, like the CDU of Germany, Japan is not without a political party that has religious affiliation, namely the New Komeito Party has affiliation with Buddhism. Less than one percent of Japanese population are Christian.
Historically, during World War II, before the current constitution was drafted and when the Japanese Empire was an undemocratic nation, Shintoism was strongly backed by the government, which placed emperor Hirohito, a shinto god, at the head of state.
A precedent of limiting the rights of the church – especially the Roman Catholic Church– was set by President Valentín Gómez Farías in 1833. Later, President Benito Juárez enacted a set of laws that came to be known as the Leyes de Reforma between 1859 and 1863 in the backdrop of the Guerra de Reforma. These laws mandated, among other things, the separation of church and state, allowed for civil marriages and a civil registry, and confiscated the church's property.
Tensions also existed between the Roman Catholic Church and the post-Revolution Mexican government. Severe restrictions on the rights of the Church and members of the clergy were written into the country's 1917 constitution that led to the eruption of the Cristero War in 1926. In 1992 the government reestablished diplomatic relations with the Holy See and lifted almost all restrictions on the Catholic Church. This later action included granting all religious groups legal status, conceding them limited property rights, and lifting restrictions on the number of priests in the country. However, the law continues to mandate a strict separation of church and state. The constitution still bars members of the clergy from holding public office, advocating partisan political views, supporting political candidates, or opposing the laws or institutions of the state.
The constitution provides that education should avoid privileges of religion, and that one religion or its members may not be given preference in education over another. Religious instruction is prohibited in public schools; however, religious associations are free to maintain private schools, which receive no public funds.
According to the Religious Associations and Public Worship Law, religious groups may not own or administer broadcast radio or television stations; however, the Catholic Church owns and operates a national cable television channel. Government permission is required to transmit religious programming on commercial broadcast radio or television, and permission is granted routinely.
Source: International Religious Freedom Report 2004. United States Department of State. Last accessed: October 8, 2005.
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.
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.
The Lutheran church and state were partially separated in 1999. The Church of Sweden still maintains special status. It is now possible to register new religious organizations, but they lack the same special status and the ability to perform legally binding services such as marriage and burials.
There are ongoing efforts to remove the special status from the former state church. Marriage can now be performed by anyone who has received a certificate.
Turkey considers itself as a country with a strong separation of church and state since Kemal Atatürk's westernization movement in March 3, 1924 by removing the caliphate system from Islam. However in practice this means a subordination of religion to the state rather than what Westerners would call separation. Sunni Islam, the majority religion, is largely organized by the Turkish government through the "Department of Religious Affairs", and is state-funded; independent Sunni communities are illegal. Minority religions, like Alevi Islam or Armenian or Greek Orthodoxy, are guaranteed by the constitution as individual faiths and are mostly tolerated, but this guarantee does not give any rights to religious communities. However the Treaty of Lausanne gives certain religious rights to Jews, Greeks, and Armenians, but not, for example, to Syrian-Orthodox or Roman Catholics.
Main article: Separation of church and state in the United States
In the 1600s and 1700s, many Europeans immigrated to what would later become the United States. For some this was driven by 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 English Catholics. However, with some exceptions, such as Roger Williams of Rhode Island or the Roman Catholic Lord Baltimore in Maryland, 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.
Such history and beliefs were integrated into the U.S. Constitution with the passing of the Bill of Rights containing the First Amendment. The clause of the First Amendment that adopted the founders' principles of separation of church and state and freedom of religion is known as the Establishment Clause. It states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." The interpretation of this clause is the responsibility of the Supreme Court of the United States. After the Civil War, the Republican Congress passed the Fourteenth Amendment to ensure that the principles of the Bill of Rights applied to actions by state governments, namely the South. The Supreme Court, however, decided to apply these rights selectively through a series of decisions over a number of years in a process called "incorporation".
The modern view adopted by the Supreme Court in the latter half of the nineteenth century is that no government — federal, state or local — can perform any action or make any policy which blatantly favors one faith or church over the others, or which favors belief in a God or Supreme being over non-belief. Notably, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, an "originalist" who favors the Constitutional founders' interpretation and application of the Constitution, disagrees with the modern view.
The court-enforced separation does not extend to all elements of civil religion. By law, the country's currency carries the motto "In God We Trust". Congress begins its sessions with a prayer, and since 1954 the Pledge of Allegiance contains the phrase, "one nation, under God". Court rulings have upheld these apparently religious references, viewing them as non-substantive "ceremonial deism" or utilizing other legal theories. Recent lawsuits have unsuccessfully attempted to challenge the status quo. Some expressions of religion on public property, such as certain displays of the Ten Commandments in courtrooms or Nativity scenes on public land have been recently ruled to be unconstitutional.
Religion plays a strong role in national politics, especially in controversial moral issues like abortion, euthanasia, and homosexuality. Direct church-state issues also arise, currently including the question of whether or not school vouchers should be used to help parents pay for education at religious schools, and the status of the faith-based initiatives of the current President, George W. Bush.
The most prominent religious participants in national politics are Evangelical Christians, largely allied with the Republican Party and in the so-called Bible Belt of the Southern and Midwestern United States, but other Protestants (including predominantly liberal sects), Catholics, Mormons, Jews, Muslims, non-believers, and other faiths are also quite active. Some religious groups wish to increase the ability of government to make various religious expressions; they often emphasize the largely Christian demographics and history of the country.
It is common practice for national politicians with strongly religious constituencies to cite religious texts or beliefs in support of certain policies. In other areas voters may be more disapproving of expressions of religious faith by political candidates and government officials.
Although there are no legal religious requirements for officeholders, voters frequently prefer to vote for politicians they can identify with, who reflect their views and garner their trust. Thus voters generally entrust their vote to a candidate reflecting the majority faith in their district. Nearly every President has had a Christian religious affiliation. (See List of U.S. Presidential religious affiliations.) At least 90% of the 105th Congress from 1998 were known to be Christian, with Catholics, Baptists, and Methodists alone comprising over half of it [5]. Local demographics, and thus the religious affiliations of local politicians, are more varied.
Other countries
The status of the separation of church and state in almost any country around the world, as seen by the US government, 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 state churches
The Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland 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.
In Norway, the Evangelical-Lutheran Church of Norway has been part of the state administration since 1537. Only since 1843 have other religious communities been allowed to operate in Norway. Today, the Church of Norway still is fully financed by the Norwegian state, and bishops are appointed by the government. The conservative government tend to appoint conservative clerics, whereas social-democratic governments tend to appoint bishops that are liberal on issues like homosexuality, women issues and family issues. Half the government, and certainly the church minister have to be a member of the church. The king is the formal head of the church, meaning the royal family has no religious freedom.
Ministers are appointed by the local bishop, in co-operation with the local church council. The ministers' salaries are paid for by the local municipality, that is also responsible for building and maintaining churches.
Until 1999, everyone was born into the Church of Norway, meaning that everyone not a member of another religious community would be considered a member of the Church of Norway. However, now there is a membership list.
Other religious communities receive a per capita compensation from the state to make up for the financial privileges of the Church of Norway. There are no restrictions on the work of any religious community, and other religions are free to prozelytize.
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, holding the title of Defender of the Faith, 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.
Greece is the only European Union (EU) country to ban proselytism in its constitution, and the only EU country to have been condemned by the European Court of Human Rights for a lack of religious freedom. The position of the Church of Greece and its relations with the State are set forth in Article 3, par. 1 of the present Constitution (1975/1986/2001). According to this article: (a) The Greek-Orthodox dogma is the prevailing religion, (b) The Church of Greece is inseparably united in doctrine with the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople and with all other Orthodox Churches, and (c) The Church is self-administered and autocephalous.
The Government, under the direction of the Ministry of Education and Religion, provides some financial support by, for example, paying for the salaries and religious training of clergy, and financing the maintenance of Orthodox Church buildings. This special relation between the Greek State and the Orthodox Church has come about for historical reasons and long-established tradition, many Greeks attributing the preservation of Greek national identity during the 400 years of Ottoman occupation to the Orthodox Church. A separation of Church and State would require an amendment of the Constitution.
See GREECE: Religious freedom, the Achilles' Heel
[Various other countries can be listed here ....]
Countries in flux
From the foundation of the Kievan Rus dynasty until the institution of bolshevism, Russia maintained very close ties between the officially recognized religion, the Russian Orthodox Church, and the government. These bonds became tightest under tsar Peter I ("Peter the Great"); in 1721, the office of Patriarch of Moscow was eliminated and replaced with a "Holy Governing Synod", presided over by an 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 Soviet Union 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. 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). In 1997, however, 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. The basis for consideration as an official religion of the Russian Federation is supposed to be a 50-year presence in the state. According to this criterion, Roman Catholicism, Lutheranism, and the Baptist faith should all enjoy official status as Russian religions. However, this is not the case. Non-official 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 concept of freedom of religion, especially in countries with religious organizations that expend a great deal of money and effort in proselytizing.
The Russian government also engages in practices that have been accused of being discriminatory against citizens who profess faiths other than Orthodox Christianity. In the Russian armed forces — for which there continues to be universal conscription — no form of religious worship other than Orthodox Christian is permitted. Thus, conscripted Jews, Muslims, and Buddhists (despite their ostensible religious freedom granted in the 1997 law) are prohibited from engaging in prayer, even if they do so in solitude.
Advocacy
Religious arguments for separation
Many religious believers, including Jews, Christians and Muslims, support the separation of church and state in the belief that it protects their religion from the coercive power of government.
The Puritans, early settlers to the United States, emigrated from Britain in order to worship in accord with their conscience, free from the oppressive and coercive power of the state religion. Some then created state churches to their liking in the colonies.
Many Baptists support separation also, and hold the assertion that separation of church and state does not mean separation of God and state.
Ulysses S. Grant's statement might be interpreted as arguing not only against institutional entanglements, but separation of religion from public life. "Leave the matter of religion to the family altar, the church, and the private school, supported entirely by private contributions. Keep the church and state forever separate."
Thomas Jefferson reflected this same religious basis for belief in the separation of church and state: "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 . . . ." [6]
Many Christians, such as Jehovah's Witnesses, interpret Biblical passages such as Christ's admonition to "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and to God what is God's" as a warning that the State has a strong tendency toward corruption, and therefore religious involvement in government is more likely to corrupt the religion than to benefit the state.
Since the 5th century, the Coptic Church has advocated separation of church and state. Most Unitarian Universalists advocate separation of church and state.
Secular arguments for separation
Some non-religious people desire the legal separation of church and state to keep what they regard as superstition out of government. For example, many atheists, agnostics and freethinkers believe it inappropriate for government to be controlled by a religion.
The United States Supreme Court held in Lemon v. Kurtzman that state action must have a secular purpose, which neither advances nor inhibits religion: "The Establishment Clause forbids the enactment of any law 'respecting an establishment of religion.' The Court has applied a three-pronged test to determine whether legislation comports with the Establishment Clause. First, the legislature must have adopted the law with a secular purpose. Second, the statute's principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion. Third, the statute must not result in an excessive entanglement of government with religion. Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-613, 91 S.Ct. 2105, 2111, 29 L.Ed.2d 745 (1971).
When the Louisiana state legislature passed a law requiring public school biology teachers to give Creationism and evolution equal time in the classroom, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the law was unconstitutional because it was intended to advance a particular religion, and did not serve the secular purpose of improved scientific education. [7] See also, Creation and evolution in public education.
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. [8]
Religious arguments against separation
There is a spectrum of views among believers regarding the separation of church and state.
Some hold that while the state should not establish a particular state religion or require religious observance because of the dangers noted above, it still must be infused with the ethics and values of religion generally if it is to operate properly, and ought to encourage ethical and beneficial religious belief of all types, both inside and outside of government. They argue that the teachings of religion are the basis of law and civil society, and that a society which discourages the promulgation of those beliefs cannot function successfully. Further, these groups argue that religious groups ought to be involved in politics, to assure that laws are passed which reflect the Truth of religion. Some, such as the Christian Coalition, have become highly and vocally involved in promoting what they believe to be Christian values in government.
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." [9]
Other believers hold that the State ought to maintain an established church.
Islam holds that political life can only function properly within the context of Islamic law. To such believers, since God's law is Truth and beneficial to all people, any state law or action opposed to God's law would be harmful to the citizens, and displeasing to God. Many Muslims find the Western concept of separation of Church and State to be mere rebellion against God's 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.
A reverse view is that the state should provide a default religion for the large number of citizens who wish 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, and has links to ideas underlying Erastianism. There need not be obligation on individuals to follow the state in religion in such cases.
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. They quote "Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it" [10], without explaining why this should be the purview of the state rather than of parents. 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 arguments 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.
See also
External links
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 in favor of separation
- Activists in favor, Americans United for Separation of Church and State
- Scholars in favor, with historical documents on-line
- ReligiousRightWatch Blog
- Freedom from Religion Foundation (Freethought)
- American Civil Liberties Union
- News and commentary on the Separation of Church and State from a liberal atheist
- North American Religious Liberty Association
- People for the American Way
- Interfaith Working Group
- Anti-Defamation League (Jewish)
- Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs
- Seventh-day Adventist Church State Council
Origins of the phrase
- The Federalist Papers
- Jeremiah Project
- The Myths of Separation of Church and State
- History of the Separtion of Church and State in America