Jump to content

Talk:Secular state/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

USA is not officially secular

Seperation of Church and State is NOT in the constitution. Laws just cannot respect any religion and specific religions cannot tie to the U.S. To have God in the constitution means we are a religious country but with protections from religious influence because it is inappropriate for a religion to have certain influence in government. We are religious with religions, but the pope doesn't run the country for example.

This is a constant debate obviously, usually from non religious and religious groups... but because it is a debated subject. you CAN NOT state that 'the U.S. has contradictions' because whether or not it is ACTUALLY a contradiction is in dispute. This whole section should be removed or expanded with more accuracy. It's form and style of writing is immature as well. For such a topic, it should be improved upon or removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.87.233.180 (talk) 17:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Where does God occur in the Constitution? I looked through it and could not find any mention of God. Let's face it, the USA is officially secular, although unofficially religious at heart. — Rickyrab | Talk 23:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

God is mentioned repeatedly in the Declaration of Independence. It is a legal document of the United States. This is fact. Why? BECAUSE IT WAS AN ACT OF CONGRESS YOU DOLT!

God is not mentioned "repeatedly" in the DoI. God is mentioned twice. WHEN, in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume, among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's GOD entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the Causes which impel them to the Separation.
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their CREATOR, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness
The point of this is that signers considered these natural rights, that is, rights that all people had, rather than granted rights. Regardless of how literal you take it - it is basically deistic -, it still doesn't make the US non-secular. It doesn't establish any sort of religion. But the DoI is not an act of Congress. It was an act of the Continental Congress, which became defunct with the Articles of Confederation, which itself became defunct with the Contitution.
Even if the DoI had created a non-secular country (which it didn't), the Constitution did.--RLent (talk) 15:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

And if you question my intentions, know that I AM AGNOSTIC.

I am so disgusted with how intellectually dishonest Atheists have become. Their hate of religion has skewed their once PERFECT OBJECTIVITY. --HerrQuixota (talk) 10:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I've added the USA to the list. While its official secularity is contested by some, it clearly belongs on the list. If we are to consider, say, Canada as secular, who's head of state is the head of the Anglican church, and which has a constitutional obligation to fund religious schools, I think that to remain consistent we must denote the USA as secular. If we wish to declare the US a religious state, we must also declare Canada as such, as well as over half the current list.-- JonnyLomond (talk) 14:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I find that argument pretty weak. Firstly, a nation is secular only when religion does not interfere in the affairs of state. I don't know enough about Canada to comment, but in the case of the US - whilst freedom of religion is a guarenteed right - religion clearly has and does play a role within current and past government. As such, it is not secular. What this article really fails to define is the difference between state religion and secularity. --NKC1985 (talk) 16:56, 06 June 2010 (UTC)

Hate to burst your bubble HerrQuixota, but the Declaration of Independence is not a legal document. There is not a single mention of god in the Constitution and the 1st amendment specifies the secular status of the United States. Alyeska (talk) 13:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the First Amendment prevents the foundation of a government-supported religion, which does not guarentee a secular state. It doesn't prevent the interference if religion in the affairs of state, as we have seen happen in the past. --NKC1985 (talk) 23:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.239.23 (talk)

Comment from third party, it seems that NKC1985 considers noninterference in state matters by religion to be a requirement of secularity. If this premise is correct, then I agree with NKC1985, the USA is not secular. However, the first paragraph of this article only says that secularity means the government is officially neutral in religion and provides non-preferential treatment to citizens regardless of religion. Does this necessarily mean that religion can't influence gov't? If not, then I disagree with NKC1985, the USA is indeed secular (by Alyeska's constitution/1st amendment argument). 71.231.76.242 (talk) 06:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Secular can be defined as "not pertaining to or connected with religion", which would suggest the definition offered by the article is either in error or inaccurate. A sovereign state which favours no particular religion in legislative terms is only secular if also prevents all religious concerns from influencing those same decisions. Legislating against such things as abortion and gay marriage, for example, where moral concerns are primarily religious in nature. NKC1985 (talk) 20:27, 05 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.238.189 (talk)

The Netherlands

Article 6 of the dutch law says everyone has the right to exercise their religion or beliefs, individually or in community of others, freely, within the constraints of the law.

artikel 6 van de Nederlandse Grondwet: Ieder heeft het recht zijn godsdienst of levensovertuiging, individueel of in gemeenschap met anderen, vrij te belijden, behoudens ieders verantwoordelijkheid volgens de wet.

By politics it's separated state and church wise however there is some backstory similar to France where Christmas is seen as a holiday, that we have a religious symbolic queen etc etc. On the map it's apparently red but granted The Netherlands is just a few pixels on the thumbnail. It however is bright red on the large version but not mentioned in the list of countries. This confused me to the status quo of The Netherlands enought to want to ask you guys ;) Bverveen (talk) 01:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

OR

Both the article and the map seems to be contain unsourced claims and WP:OR but the user Sting appears to determined to delete every fact tag that is added so I'm taking the discussion here. Taking a few examples, would Sting or any other user care to comment on:

  • why Argentina is listed as a religious state?
  • why England is religious but Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales are secular?
  • when did Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland separate from the UK to become states?
  • why is Finland secular despite having two national churches?

These are just a few examples. While there are good sources for many countries, the article lists 30 countries as secular without providing any sources. I want to avoid an edit war so I won't revert Sting's edit for now, but unless some arguments are put forward for why we should *not* use sources, I'll revert in due time. JdeJ (talk) 13:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Well you revert in due time or whatever floats your boat! Am I really determined to delete every fact tag? Why because I reverted your edits once? And you somehow think this is the beginning of an edit war? Get off the computer. Go out into the sunshine and get some fresh air. Spend some time with your family or friends. Consider using a section needs refs tag rather than those ugly little fact tags all over the place. Oh, and look up your own answers to the above questions. Consider it getting an education. Wikipedia is a good place to start.--Sting Buzz Me... 13:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I see your manners are as lousy as your knowledge. As you're not willing to engage in any constructive discussion, I assume you're only trolling. JdeJ (talk) 19:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Finland is NOT secular, but similar situation than Denmark and Norway. Rather "Ambiguous" than secular. Finland's Constituition section 76 states "Provisions on the organisation and administration of the Evangelic Lutheran Church are laid down in the Church Act." (http://www.finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/1999/en19990731.pdf). Map coloring should be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.156.43.47 (talk) 23:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Argentina "supports the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church"?

Section 2 of the Constitution of Argentina says "The Federal Government supports the Roman Catholic Apostolic religion". Nevertheless, Article 14 says people are free "to profess their religion" [1]. Since the government supports a major religion, I don't think Argentina is secular by the standards defined in the article. Could somebody research better and tell me what is the situation of Argentina regarding the laicité of the state? Thanks. P.S.: I think that if Argentina isn't secular the map should also be changed. — Rodrigo Gomes da Paixão. 02:01. May 24, 2007.

Sounds like Argentina has freedom of religion, without being secular. I believe most of the non-secular state constitutions support freedom of religion. even when their governments doesn't.--Per Abrahamsen 11:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
A state can have a state religion (i.e. Argentina) without automatically forcing all of its citizens to convert themselves to this religion (i.e. by tolerating freedom of religion). But secularism implies that there are no state religions. Henceforth, Argentina does not seems to be a secular state. As a sidenote, abortion is outlawed over there. Tazmaniacs 17:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Argentina is a secular state. Its constitutional commitment to support the Catholic religion does not give this religion a character of official religion (as said in a sentence of the Supreme Court). So, there isn't a state religion and freedom of religion is guaranteed by article 14 of the National Constitution. Patricio.lorente (talk) 20:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Exactly, the only relation the State and the Catholic Church hold is an economic one. The State pays for the expenses of the Church, and that's it. --Acha1993 (talk) 11:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
True Argentina, does not have a state religion, but is not secular in the French/Turkish style due to the "support" of Catholicism, according to Section 2 of the Constitution of Argentina. In a true secular state, not only is the separation of church and state stipulated in the constitution, importantly no preference and special status is given to a particular religion at all. Argentina qualifies as an ambiguous state, due to the special status given for Catholicism in Section 2 of its constituiton and does not follow the secular concept of laicité. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.224.28.165 (talk) 13:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The UK is most definitely secular

bbc

I was shocked to see that the uk was listed as non-secular, and the USA as secular, this is utter rubbish, we have separation of church and state the usa is run by evangelical right wingers.

Although remnants of religion remain in Britain , they are more for pomp and ceremony. They have very little sway on policy in any large capacity. That and the fact that even our most devout Christian followers pale in comparison to the voracity and closed mindedness of their American counterparts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.61.80 (talk) 11:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I am from the UK. As much as it pains me, the UK cannot be regarded as a secular state. We have 26 members of the Church of England appointed to parliament; the Lords Spiritual who sit in the House of Lords. Whilst they do not usually vote, there is no rule actually barring them from voting. The existence of the Lords Spiritual goes against the idea of secularity: That there must be seperation between state and religion.80.195.246.3 (talk) 15:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I bet the Church of England would disagree. NorthernThunder (talk) 06:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile, the USA had such a diversity of religions from the very beginning that it couldn't help but go secular: first, the Constitution skipped the question of religion entirely, and then when amendments came around, the first amendment's first words were "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". If it had established a religion, no doubt someone would've been offended. So the question was dodged, religion continued as it had, religion had no official influence, and our United States was secular by default. — Rickyrab | Talk 23:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I once, by the way, disagreed with a rabbi teaching my Hebrew school class that America was a "Christian country". (This was "Years and Years Ago".) My argument, based on demographics, was that the USA was a "mostly Christian country". I don't believe I argued the First Amendment, but if America were completely/ almost completely Christian (like, say, the Maldives or Saudi Arabia are Islamic and the Vatican is Catholic), then there wouldn't be all those Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Unitarian Universalist, Buddhist, etc. enclaves lying around, and so we can safely conclude that America is not a Christian country, but a largely Christian one. — Rickyrab | Talk 23:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Is Russia secular?

They seem to have brought back the Russian Orthodox Church as a quasi-state religion. I believe there are religious education classes in school now. I'd guess the claim to secularity is at least as suspect as the U.K.'s LADave (talk) 21:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Countries with large religious political factions

What are we to make of:

Does a secular constitution always make a secular state?

LADave (talk) 21:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Spain is an ambigous state

Spain is not a fully secular state because of it is not impartial about religion and donate a lot of money to Catholic Church every year. In addition, article 16.3 of Spanish Constitution says:

"No one confession has state nature. Public powers will bear in mind religious beliefs of spanish society and will maintain consequent relations of cooperation with Catholic Church and other confessions." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.55.46.110 (talk) 07:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Is Germany a secular state?

I would not call Germany a secular state. The both churches get every year around 15 billion euro. There is also religious education paid by taxpayer's money. Besides you can often(depending on state law) find crucifixes or crosses in class- and courtrooms. --91.15.78.94 (talk) 18:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I would also say that Germany belongs to the ambiguous list, as Churches are allowed to collect taxes. Finland is listed as ambiguous for that reason, Germany should be too. Source: http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/gg/art_140.html

Switzerland also should go to the ambiguous list as each canton (state) has its own way of dealing with this. I'm not an expert on Swiss cantons though, someone else might give a more detailed explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.156.13.80 (talk) 19:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Indonesia is not secular

Under the constitution of Indonesia it does not say it is a secular state, it says it believes in the One and Only True God that is it, includes all religion to be practiced within the religions of the book (Islam, Christianity and Judasiam). Same goes to Syria and Lebanon, it allows freedom of religion but President must be Muslim.Moshino31 (talk) 13:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

This page, particularly the list, is so simplistic as to be inaccurate. The criteria for secular state is that it must state it in its constitution? Who makes up the definition for this page?
Yes, there is a clause in the Indonesian constitution (1) The State shall be based upon the belief in the One and Only God. , but it has no further legal or constitutional support that I know of. However, it does go onto to say...
(2) The State guarantees all persons the freedom of worship, each according to his/her own religion or belief.
(1) Every person shall be free to choose and to practice the religion of his/her choice, to choose one's education, to choose one's employment, to choose one's citizenship, and to choose one's place of residence within the state territory, to leave it and to subsequently return to it.
(2) Every person shall have the right to the freedom to believe his/her faith (kepercayaan), and to express his/her views and thoughts, in accordance with his/her conscience.
(3) Every person shall have the right to the freedom to associate, to assemble and to express opinions.
--Merbabu (talk) 09:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it does not say it is secular. Regarding president must be a muslim, that is what I've heard/learnt as well. The president must be a muslim, and of indonesian blood (pribumi/native). But as far as I know, it has been changed to allow non-muslim people to become president (correct me if I am wrong). Also, there is definitely a law that makes Chinese, Indian, Arab Indonesians regarded as native Indonesian. I am not sure the complete details of that act. w_tanoto (talk) 11:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


http://legislasi.mahkamahagung.go.id/docs/UU/2003/UU%20NO%2023%20TH%202003.pdf Indonesian law requires president-elect to take the oath therewith his/her belief (it doesn't say anything about those who not believe in any religion). Any people with any religion has his/her own right to run on presidency (page 30 in link, "I. General; 3. Fundamental; General"), legally, Indonesian law doesn't recognize "non-believer", however, there isn't any state religion recognized,

"Pada dasarnya semua warga negara yang memenuhi persyaratan sesuai dengan Undangundang ini berhak mengikuti Pemilu. Pemilihan yang bersifat umum mengandung makna menjamin kesempatan yang berlaku menyeluruh bagi semua warga negara, tanpa diskriminasi berdasarkan suku, agama, ras, golongan, jenis kelamin, kedaerahan, pekerjaan, dan status sosial."

"In basis, all the citizen meeting the spesification (see all the spesification below) acording to this act will be rightful to run for the election. The election, which is general, i.e. ensuring the oppurtunity which is universal among the citizens, without any ethnic, religion, race, faction, gender, primordialism, occupation, and social status discrimination" Maxplanckgesselschaft (talk) 17:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It is NOT true that Indonesian President has to be moslem. The fact is Presidential oath in the constitution (UUD 1945) has 2 version: swear (form moslem), and promise (for Christian who do not want to be sworn because their faith forbade them from swearing).

However, due to the definition of secular in this wikipedia: "supporting neither religion nor irreligion" then Indonesia is clearly NOT SECULAR, since it is officially denied irreligion, and promote 6 official religion.

So I suggest to clearly erase Indonesia from ambiguous state, and put into NOT SECULAR state. Unless the definition is not correct.

The correct definition should be: "separation between government institutions and the persons mandated to represent the State from religious institutions and religious dignitaries". (as in wikipedia for secularism).

Which means, a secular government might reject irreligion, and may support several religion. The state is categorized as secular as long as there are clear separation between government institutions and the persons mandated to represent the State from religious institutions and religious dignitaries.

With these definition then Indonesia is a SECULAR STATE.

So the problem is with the WRONG DEFINITION of SECULAR STATE, which is inconsistent with other wikipedia entry (regarding secularism, secular, etc). --180.251.185.146 (talk) 16:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Khalistan

This article needs critical attention, Khalistan is a movement by Sikh to get separate land. How can it be included in 'List of Secular state' when it is fighting for one religious state. Please either remove from the list. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_state#Asia. Indusengineer (talk) 07:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

India

I don't know if India should be mentioned as an example of a country that was secular at the time of establishment. The word 'Secular' was added along with the word 'Socialist' long after establishment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.143.119.171 (talk) 05:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Norway

Norway is no longer a religious state, even the article(Wikipedia) says so, can you please edit the map, I still don't know how to do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.255.147.60 (talk) 19:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Norway does not have an official state religion (after the changes in the constitution May 21st 2012), but the state and the church are still the same legal entity, the king has to be a member of the church of Norway, the church has a monopoly on funeral services, is protected by separate laws, is finances through "church tax" and church employees are governement employees. Norway is not fully secular. I have moved Norway to ambiguous, but am unsure whether or not it should be moved off the page alltogether. --80.212.207.149 (talk) 19:51, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Israel

Israel is not a secular state. The map is wrong.--85.104.54.249 (talk) 04:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

As per its constitution it is: it is a state for Jews, but its founding ideology defines a Jew in the ethnic sense rather than the religious sense. Thus, someone who is an atheist (or even, say, one who converted to Buddhism) and has Jewish blood on his/her mother's side is considered a Jew. --Yalens (talk) 06:11, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Israel has no constitution, only a declaration of independence. In order to become a Jew, you must go through strict RELIGIOUS processes, and many laws are based on religion in Israel. Israel is -not- a secular state.NewYorkerDean (talk) 12:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
That's not true: if one's mother is a Jew, that person is also considered a Jew, regardless of if he is observant or not. Otherwise, many of the worlds most well-known Jewish figures, including many of Israel's founders, wouldn't even be considered Jewish. Most Jews "become Jews" merely by being born to a Jewish mother... that's hardly a "strictly religious process" in the least. --Yalens (talk) 17:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Israel?

It's not clear from current EN:WP content whether Israel is officially and legally a secular state or officially and legally a theocracy like Iran although Religion in Israel does state that 20-80% of Israelis declare themselves "secular". I should think this was a matter of record and even its being in a state of indeterminacy a matter of fact worth finding out. Lycurgus 09:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Israel has state salaries for rabbis and gives religious authority to oversee issues like marriage. It should at least be grey on the map. 129.72.176.51 (talk) 16:51, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Definitively secular Turkey funds mosques and definitively secular France pays catholic school teachers. Why aren't you complaining about them too? If a country explicitly says it has no official religion, then it has none, period. --Yalens (talk) 17:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Both the Israeli Declaration of Independence and the Basic Law of Israel identify Israel as a Jewish and democratic state. While this does not mean the official religion is Judaism, it does identify itself as a homeland for a specific religious group. This clearly suggests some ambiguity, as there is in many countries, like Indonesia, Lebanon, Germany, and Argentina. But it clearly does not belong in the same category of secular states as France or the US. Is there a source that shows Israel to be a secular state? Hihellowhatsup (talk) 11:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Israel doesn't in gov't documents explicitly describe itself as a "secular state" (in fact, in the Israeli context, the word has a different meaning, referring instead to the lifestyle of individuals). At the same time, it has no state religion.
For a historical context, the original founders of Zionism, such as Herzl, had hoped for Israel to become "a nation with a state like all the others" with airports and armies, and thought that the "old religion" (i.e. religious Judaism) would expire because it would become no longer necessary. On the other hand, in the modern context the minority Haredi portion of Israeli society has a very different idea, whereby the state of Israel was a "gift from God", whereas the so-called secular Israelis (secular in this case meaning individuals who are non-observant) have similar views to Herzl.
Therefore, I think our current treatment of it is correct- we don't put it in the same category as explicitly secular France, while at the same time we don't put it in the category of states with state religions. Putting it as "ambiguous" column meanwhile, involves a lot of judgment by the editors, thus violating OR and SYN. It's best just to not mention it's secularity, which is exactly what we do. Meanwhile, on the map, of course its blue because it has no state religion, even though it doesn't explicitly call itself "secular" in gov't docs --Yalens (talk) 15:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
This source- [2] - defines Israel's state as secular, however.--Yalens (talk) 15:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

France secular?

France is not secular given the fact that they do not have full freedom to religion - they ban religious wear at work, school. Please see http://www.sikhsangat.com/lofiversion/index.php/t40055.html.Hardeeps 08:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

But France does not ally itself with any religion-secularism is even specified in its constitution as its policy. Cosman246 (talk) 17:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

France ally itself with Catholic faith,teachers in Catholic schools are salaried by the state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.100.229.163 (talk) 14:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Only catholic schools which signed a specific contract with the state can have their teachers salaried by the state. This contract includes the obligation to follow the state course program (for example, teaching creationism is not allowed, and the state courses are already quite dense, leaving little time for additional religious courses). This form of contract is also opened to schools of other religions, with demonstrates the secularism of the state (though most private schools other than Catholic ones prefer not to sign the contract, because they prefer to focus teaching on religion rather than on the state course program, even if they lose state funding). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.245.16.100 (talk) 17:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Madagascar

Their most recent constitution (on December 11, 2010) begins with: 

Le peuple malagasy constitue une Nation organisée en État souverain, unitaire, républicain et laïc.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.179.26 (talk) 03:33, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Norway, Thailand, and the United Kingdom

Both Norway and Thailand are shaded in yellow, but both are secular states (and are even listed as such on the page), so they should be in red. Also, although I understand why the United Kingdom is left as "ambiguous" on the map (and it is explained clearly on this page) I personally believe that it should be shaded as it is on the state religion Wikipedia page map (with England depicted as having a state religion and the rest depicted as secular) because the only reason the UK is an ambiguous nation is due to the fact that there are four constituent countries in the UK and only one of them has a religion, not because it is impossible to determine what the religion is (on the contrary, England clearly has a state religion whilst Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland do not). I would conduct the edits myself but I do not know how to edit the image. Kind regards, Burbridge92 (talk) 23:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Additional note: If Finland is to be deemed an "Ambiguous state" on the page, the colouring of Finland on the map should be changed from red to grey to demonstrate this. Burbridge92 (talk) 23:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
As a point of fact the English are by far the largest population and England is the largest county in the UK. The English dominates the UK politically and culturally. Of the 60 million or so people in the UK more than 50 million are in England. This means for example that the population of Greater London (8.1m) is about the same as the populations of Scotland (5.3m) Wales (3.0m) combed, while the West Midlands conurbation (2.2m) has a population considerably larger than to Northern Ireland(1.8m). So when one talks about an established religion the Church of England is the established church for a nation which makes up about 80% of the population of the UK. According to the Church of England's web site about 40% of the those in England regard themselves a member of the C of E.[3] This means that about 20 million UK citizens belong to the C of E, which is a communion about twice the size of the combined populations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
It does not bring clarity the to relationship between state and established church to imply that because there are three counties and a province within the UK that the sum of three of those parts are three times the size of the fourth part, when in fact by any measure the fourth part dominates the other three. -- PBS (talk) 10:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
The Church of Scotland is an established church. It is not a state-governed church but is entirely autonomous within its general reformed settlement. As someone commented earlier, the Kirk spent some 200 years preventing encroachments by the state on its prerogatives until Parliament gave up and affirmed its independence in 1920 (by which time the reasons for state interference had been lost anyway). However it is an established church - its sessions and assemblies and its courts are recognized by law, its rules are law not mere private matters. The Queen swears to uphold it and sends a commissioner to the General Assembly. It is not long since the Kirk's courts had authority over individuals and could levy taxes. It used to run the schools of Scotland (not today though - no wonder standards have fallen).
In contrast, the Church of Ireland and Church in Wales have been expressly disestablished, so that "the ecclesiastical law of the Church in Wales shall cease to exist as law" and is declared to be contractual between members of the church, as is the case with any other private organisation. Howard Alexander (talk) 16:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Bangladesh should not be red on the map

Bangladesh restored secularism as a fundamental state principle in 2011, which overrides all previous constitutional provisions, and this has been confirmed by the High Court [4]. The provision on the state religion has been amended and gives equal status to Hinduism, Buddhism and Christianity. [5] So the country may be not be avowedly secular, but it also does not have one particular state religion.--Bazaan (talk) 04:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

According to Part 1, Article 2A of the Constitution of the People's Republic of Bangladesh, Islam is the official state religion. Therefore, the country is not secular and shall remain red on the map. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 14:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Previous Talk, My edit was reverted, why?
This is the constitution (English ver), in which 2A (state religion) is still retained and 12 (secularism) also exists. also see the principles of constitution of Bangladesh. Hence Bangladesh is a secular state (but also has a state religion), and needs a different section! বব২৬ (talk) 05:58, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Nope it needs to go into Ambigous states, along with the other states who are similar. Murry1975 (talk) 13:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Wrong citation for China

The citation for China is pointing to the Switzerland Constituition - http://www.servat.unibe.ch/icl/ch00000_.html#A036_ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faltur (talk • contribs) 01:24, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Iran under Mohammad Reza Pahlavi "Shah"

While i can confirm the state of 'non-religious' under Reza Shah I cannot say the same for the period under the second Shah of Pahlavi. Iran under Mohammad Reza Shah had Islam and Shia religion as the official religion. Christianity, Judaism and Zoroastrianism were also official religions. Bahaism was not accepted as an official religion while it's adherents were larger than all thos three non Islamic official religions alltogether. There is information on internet that the army of Shah attacked bahais main tempel in tehran and destroyed quite officially! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.202.118.113 (talk) 09:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

According to Iran constitution on Pahlavi era, Islam is formal religion of Iran and the king should have and be promoter of this religion. Therefore I remove this false uncited information about Iran.Monfie (talk) 17:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
A wiki, or user edited source isnt a WP:RS source that can be used, sorry. I have reverted, but if you could find any source that meets requirements, it doesnt have to be in english, please highlight here. Thanks. Murry1975 (talk) 18:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
how you can claim a state was secular when according to it's constitution, it was not. Another principle of that constitution was "any law passed in parliament should not be against any rules of Islam. In practice also Mohamad Reza shah released several Islamic terrorists only because some Islamic mullas claim victims were against Islam.--Monfie (talk) 07:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
You have not shown it was not the ref you give above is a wiki, not a reliable source, please give one. Murry1975 (talk) 08:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Like this link. Murry1975 (talk) 09:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

El Salvador?

According to Article 26 of the El Salvadoran constitution, the Catholic Church is recognized by the government and given legal preference. Does that mean El Salvador is not a secular state? Illegitimate Barrister 21:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Has the USA always been secular?

The introduction text says that "Secular states become secular either upon establishment of the state (e.g. United States of America)..." To be honest I don't know the history exactly, but since the USA became secular with the 1st amendment, wouldn't that mean it wasn't secular when it was established?

I assume that you are not in the US. The 1st Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights. As such, it should be thought of as always being a part of the Constitution. The Constitution was ratified knowing that the Bill of Rights would also be ratified. The BOR tidied up the individual state's concerns about the formation of a powerful federal government. You could say that there was no 1st Amendment between the time when the last state ratified the Constitution and the time when the BOR was ratified (Just over one year) but it's fairly clear that these two events were an inegral part of the the formation of the government.--gargoyle888 21:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


Several states, however, do have religious requirements according to http://robschumacher.blogspot.com/2005/02/us-state-constitutions-and-religious_12.html, namely Maryland, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Texas. --Chibiabos 07:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Those requirements have been struck down by the US Supreme Court because they violate the federal constitution. See Torcaso v. Watkins. Fagles 22:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Are they still present in the state constitutions? And don't both the official U.S. pledge of allegiance and United States currency include references to the United States being a nation 'under god' and placing its trust 'in god'? --Chibiabos 04:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Irrelevant Chibiabos, a religion is defined as "a body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices," acknowledging that God exists is different that creating a State religion. Basically: Believing in God isn't a religion, HOW you believe in God is, therefore things like "In God We Trust" can be officially sanctioned by the State, but "In Mohammed We Trust" or "In Jesus We Trust" cannot be, and would be struck down by the Supreme Court. Travis Cleveland (talk) 05:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I think he's referring to whether or not the Articles of Confederation established a state religion. Illegitimate Barrister 13:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Removing sentence about India

" India is also the only non-Muslim/Christian majority country in the world where Muslims and Christians have separate laws"

I will remove this sentence because the Philippines also have separate laws for Muslims and non-Muslims (although not specifically about Christians, there is a Christian majority in the country). If you are a Muslim in the Philippines, you can get divorced. If you are not Muslim, you can't. That will change in the next decade when the Philippines gets divorce laws, but until then, the sentence is not accurate.

Personally, I'm not a fan of "XXX is the only country in the world which does YYY". It implies the author searched through all 190-215 countries and made sure that was true, something I find unlikely.

118.149.128.250 (talk) 07:55, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

"The only country in the world"-statements should be sourced by high quality reliable secondary sources, and the claim about "only country in the world" should be directly taken from them. It would be original research if the "only country in the world"-statement was based solely on the beliefs of a random wikipedian. As such we can allow "only country in the world"-statements, but only if they are properly cited. The only citations given for the deleted statement was a forum discussion (which is not a reliable source according to Wikipedia policy) and a legal column from an online internet newspaper (which probably qualifies as a reliable source for details about Indian legislation, but definitely doesn't as to "only country in the world"-statements). As such I agree with the removal. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:47, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Secular state. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:28, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Implications of "sloppy wording" on Secularity of UK

"A secular state also claims to treat all its citizens equally regardless of religion, and claims to avoid preferential treatment for a citizen from a particular religion/nonreligion over other religions/nonreligion. Most often it has no state religion or equivalent."

Whilst I acknowledge that the Church of England is a government endorsed church for the English state, by the definition offered in that first paragraph, England is indeed secular. So, either we need to review the UK as a whole being secular, or tidy up that paragraph.

UK law holds all citizens to be equal, regardless of religion. Persecution due to religion is grounds for legal action. A couple of the conditions are thus met. And that second quoted sentence blurs the lines further. "Most often it has no state religion". So, it is possible to have a state religion and be secular? Whilst law provides seats for religious peers in the House of Lords, by convention they do not take an active role. With the sloppy wording above, that could be reasoned to make the UK as a whole secular in practice/by convention, if not in law. Would anybody care to discuss this further, as I do not believe this to be clear-cut?NKC1985(talk) 23:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

This entire section needs to be reconstructed. It does not read at all like an encyclopaedic article and the citations are tenuoous at best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.213.33 (talk) 23:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Worth noting also that England is not a sovereign state, and jurisdiction of Parliament falls over the entirety of the UK. Ergo if the argument is that England is not secular because the Lords includes the Lords Spritual, etc, then their purview covers the entire United Kingdom.

Rationally, the entire British Isles should be marked as "ambiguous" at best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.176.116 (talk) 00:58, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Mauritania and Madagascar?

Madagascar is clearly a secular state, as defined by the latest (2010) version of their constitution, which can be seen here - http://mjp.univ-perp.fr/constit/mg2010.htm - and says 'Le peuple malagasy constitue une Nation organisée en État souverain, unitaire, républicain et laïc'. If you chuck this into Google Translate, you'll see that laïc is a word meaning 'secular'. It's currently shown as being 'ambigious or no data' on the map, which is clearly not the case - so if someone could change that it'd be great!

Mauritania, on the other hand, is also clearly not 'ambiguous' but goes in the other direction - even the name of the country describes it as an 'Islamic Republic'. The current constitution, adopted on the 12th July 1991 and visible here - http://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/mau135226F.pdf - tells us that 'La Mauritanie est une république Islamique' (Mauritania is an Islamic republic), which 'proclame en outre, solennellement, son attachement à l'Islam' (that proclaims, solemnly, its attachment to Islam). So if someone could change this on the map too, would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! 90.215.69.19 (talk) 13:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 17 external links on Secular state. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:33, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Original research

I tagged the article for WP:OR - two sections above discuss the many problems in this regard of the article. 2A02:2F01:503F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:9F6D (talk) 10:19, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Secular state. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:25, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Romania is secular

The Romanian state is unambiguously secular, but it democratically supports all recognized religious denominations (according to their membership). So I would vote eliminating Romania from the list of ambiguous states. I did not remove it right away since I want to discuss it first. That being said, the Eastern Orthodox Church has a big informal influence upon Romanian politics. E.g. Ronald Reagan favored Christian values, but he was not a theocratic president. The same applies to Romania. The actual president of Romania belongs to Evangelical Church of Augustan Confession in Romania. There are 18 denominations/religions recognized by the Romanian state: [6]. All of them receive money from the state. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:46, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually, a state which gives money to 18 specific confessions is not secular by definition, because there is partiality to these 18 over the other hundred or so. Nevertheless some of the states listed as secular also do exactly that-- Turkey for example (although in that case it's because an important part of Kemalism was the cooptation and control of religious institutions, even France can be similar). One thing would be useful here is an expert opinion on Romania in political science literature. --Yalens (talk) 15:31, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
"Not secular by definition" — that's precisely within the purview of WP:OR. The fact with the Romanian state subsidizes 18 denomination is true (accurate), but it is (now) not cited. The monopoly of 18 denominations upon cult merchandise is true (accurate) and correctly cited, but the jump to "therefore Romania is not secular by definition" is sheer WP:OR. The unwritten understanding in Romanian politics is that politicians do not mess with church business and priests do not mess with political matters. Of course, the reality is messier than that (e.g. there were voices stating "Don't vote for Iohannis, since he is not Eastern Orthodox", but a majority of 80% nominally Eastern Orthodox Christians knew better than that). Painting it with a big brush Romanian state and Romanian denominations respect each other but are independent of each other (speaking of their ability to take their own decisions). The Romanian state is religiously impartial: it treats all denominations with equal dignity. Even denominations not recognized by the Romanian state may freely exercise their religion (without subsidy from the state), with the infamous exception of Gregorian Bivolaru's cult (since it has become more of a pimps club than a religious organization: there are ways of teaching Tantra without requiring women to work in brothels as karma yoga). Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
@Tgeorgescu: Looking at that again, you misunderstood me-- I don't have an opinion on whether Romania is secular. There was also no OR on my part, because it's in the lede: secularism is defined by the page as neutrality toward religious organizations. Funding 18 of them and not the others isn't technically neutrality. 'However, this does seem like it could fit the Turkish definition of secularism. France, Israel, other countries also do similar things and are considered secular. As I said, the best way for the page ultimately is to find a source that specifically describes whether Romania should be considered secular. Indeed some Romanian secularists think it isn't enough [[7]]. I agree that whether or not Eastern Orthodoxy plays a role in politics does not define whether the state is secular-- the state is not the politics that concerns it. Since Turkey is considered secular on this page, I think Romania should be considered secular on the page too, for the sake of consistency. A note about the nuances of the situation is still necessary though, don't delete any of the text. --Yalens (talk) 19:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
@Tgeorgescu: also I'm curious-- what does the Romanian constitution say with regards to state religion? It's relevant for the page too of course.--Yalens (talk) 19:55, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
The Constitution:

ARTICLE 4 (1) The State foundation is laid on the unity of the Romanian people and the solidarity of its citizens. (2) Romania is the common and indivisible homeland of all its citizens, without any discrimination on account of race, nationality, ethnic origin, language, religion, sex, opinion, political adherence, property or social origin.

ARTICLE 6 (1) The State recognizes and guarantees the right of persons belonging to national minorities to the preservation, development and expression of their ethnic, cultural, linguistic and religious identity. (2) The protection measures taken by the Romanian State for the preservation, development and expression of identity of the persons belonging to national minorities shall conform to the principles of equality and non-discrimination in relation to the other Romanian citizens.

ARTICLE 7 The State shall support the strengthening of links with the Romanians living abroad and shall act accordingly for the preservation, development and expression of their ethnic, cultural, linguistic and religious identity, with the observance of the legislation of the State whose citizens they are.

ARTICLE 29 (1) Freedom of thought, opinion, and religious beliefs shall not be restricted in any form whatsoever. No one shall be compelled to embrace an opinion or religion contrary to his own convictions. (2) Freedom of conscience is guaranteed; it must be manifested in a spirit of tolerance and mutual respect. (3) All religions shall be free and organized in accordance with their own statutes, under the terms laid down by law. (4) Any forms, means, acts or actions of religious enmity shall be prohibited in the relationships among the cults. (5) Religious cults shall be autonomous from the State and shall enjoy support from it, including the facilitation of religious assistance in the army, in hospitals, prisons, homes and orphanages. (6) Parents or legal tutors have the right to ensure, in accordance with their own convictions, the education of the minor children whose responsibility devolves on them.

ARTICLE 30 (7) Any defamation of the country and the nation, any instigation to a war of aggression, to national, racial, class or religious hatred, any incitement to discrimination, territorial separatism, or public violence, as well as any obscene conduct contrary to morality shall be prohibited by law.

ARTICLE 32 (7) The State shall ensure the freedom of religious education, in accordance with the specific requirements of each religious cult. In public schools, religious education is organized and guaranteed by law.

ARTICLE 42 (1) Forced labour is prohibited. (2) Forced labour does not include: a) activities of doing the military service, as well as activities performed in lieu thereof, according to the law, due to religious or conscience-related reasons;

ARTICLE 44 (4) The nationalization or any other measures of forcible transfer of assets to public property based on the owners' social, ethnic, religious, political, or other discriminatory features.

ARTICLE 48 (2) The terms for entering into marriage dissolution and nullity of marriage shall be established by law. Religious wedding may be celebrated only after the civil marriage.

ARTICLE 73

(3) Organic laws shall regulate: s) the general statutory rules of religious cults;

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:02, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Ireland

The Irish constitution recognises certain religions especially Catholicism - How is it secular? 

- I'm pretty sure the Rainbow Coalition did away with that in the 70's.
There is still plenty of Catholic dominance, Ireland is de jure secular.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.241.40 (talk) 22:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
The Irish constitution claims (Article 44.2.1º) not to endow any religion. But there are plenty of references to God/Religion (particularly Christianity) elsewhere in said document - especially the preamble. The rainbow coalition was the 1994-97. The fifth amendment was in 1973. 109.145.178.240 (talk) 19:28, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

New Zealand (again)

I see now that the editor who most recently removed NZ was referring to the Monarch when they said "Head of State", rather than the Prime Minister. All the same, the fact that New Zealand has no established religion and has total freedom of religion suggests that it should be considered at least ambiguous, if not entirely secular. -- Fyrael (talk) 20:57, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

This is bonkers. You want to keep New Zealand in listed without equivocation, despite it being a state with zero guarantees of state secularism whatsoever, and keep out the United States, which is the global exemplar of a secular state enshrined in constitution and maintained through the courts (though imperfect). What's ambiguous about New Zealand? You would be hard-pressed to find an authoritative, reliable to source to claim it was a secular state, far less to put into the WP:OR "ambiguous states" section and in that section list all the ways in which New Zealand is non-secular. Generally this points to a broader problem with this article, which is the inconsistent definition used of a secular state (one expansive enough to catch Canada and Spain, which do not purport to be secular states but have do have constitutional clauses about freedom of religion, but also strict enough that it queries the USA's black-and-white constitutional secularity).Zythe (talk) 09:47, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Secularism is the opposite of theocracy. So whatever isn't like theocracy, it's secular. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:43, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
It's very clearly not as simple as "whatever isn't a theocracy". For what it's worth, I totally agree with Zythe that the bulk of this article is a pile of original research, and based on the previous talk sections there's plenty of other editors who feel the same. It would be nice to just say that we will only include those countries with reliable sources calling them secular, but then you run into the issue of sources saying conflicting things, which I think is how we ended up with an Ambiguous section (and also how the US ended up there). I actually do think the US should be listed as plainly secular, but because it's been discussed more than once before, I didn't feel it should be a unilateral decision (and again, it very definitely shouldn't be left under both sections). Ultimately, I wouldn't be opposed to a large purge where only very specifically cited countries remain in the list, but still a section similar to Ambiguous (maybe "Disputed"?) for when there are conflicting sources that specifically claim both secular and non-secular. -- Fyrael (talk) 15:07, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
The US is the archetypal secular state. Moreso than any other on this list other than France - moreso than Turkey or India, which are the third and fourth examples of modern ostensibly secular states. It could have a hatnote on it to explain in detail but we shouldn't confuse the US's constitutional secularism either with its highly religious population or with American traditions that violate or conflict with the Establishment Clause (like 'In God We Trust') (which are, in any case, amenable to court challenge down the line).
Separately, the claim that whatever state is not a theocracy is a secular state is simply untrue. England has an established religion in two of four of its constituent nations and bishops in its national parliament but is not a "theocracy"; Germany and New Zealand and Greece and Poland are examples of states with highly discriminatory laws on matters of religion, but they are in no way secular states or theocracies.
Perhaps the article would benefit from more definitions of a secular state? Andrew Copson offers probably the most balanced discussion of different definitions in his recent Secularism (2017).Zythe (talk) 10:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
A more thorough definition would probably be more beneficial than almost any list changes we make. And for what it's worth, the only thing that could muddy the secular-ness of the US in my opinion is the fact that the Constitution purposely leaves very many powers up to individual states and that several states have enacted non-secular laws, such as barring atheists from holding public office. Although as far as I know, all such laws have been struck down by the courts. (and again, adding this kind of detail probably counts as WP:OR, so I'm not advocating for putting it in) -- Fyrael (talk) 17:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
"Secular state" means different things to different people. Perhaps we should acknowledge that there is no unique definition of it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
No we should not. It has an original definition. It is not "the opposite of theocracy" it is a distinct position of its own and there are many states that are both firmly non-theocratic and absolutely not secular (Lebanon). Some governments (Malaysia) took the word and tried to change it so that they can pull off the impossible balance of appeasing both foreigners by pretending to be progressive and tolerant and pluralistic, while at the same time pandering to intolerant and anti-pluralistic religious conservatives at home. In no way are we endorsing this. Side note: the US is emphatically NOT a model secular state (for crying out loud, atheists are banned from office in some states [[8]] -- even though this is usually not enforced, it is clearly not a "model").-Calthinus (talk) 22:04, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
I mean....they're not "usually not enforced". As I said and the article specifies, those laws have been declared unconstitutional and cannot be enforced. So, at the federal level at least the US is consistently secular. -- Fyrael (talk) 03:33, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Constitutionally, the US federally is secular. Both at the state and local levels, in its education (there is a whole body of literature going back decades about "Christian privilege" in the education system, not to mention the whole evolution debate) and its very Christian political culture, there are complications. Overall it is a secular country. What it absolutely is not is a "model". --Calthinus (talk) 16:51, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Secular_state/Archive_2&oldid=1137178896"