User:Daylight123/sandbox

The concept of separation of church and state refers to the distance in the relationship between organized religion and the nation state. The term is an offshoot of the phrase, "wall of separation between church and state," as written in Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists Association in 1802. The original text reads: "...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."[1] The phrase was quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1947. The phrase itself does not appear in the U.S. Constitution. The First Amendment to the Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

The concept of separation has since been adopted in a number of countries, to varying degrees depending on the applicable legal structures and prevalent views toward the proper role of religion in society. A similar principle of laïcité has been applied in France and Turkey, while some socially secularized countries such as Norway have maintained constitutional recognition of an official state religion. The concept parallels various other international social and political ideas, including secularism, disestablishment, religious liberty, and religious pluralism. Whitman (2009) observes that in many European countries, the state has, over the centuries, taken over the social roles of the church, leading to a generally secularized public sphere.[2] Contents [hide]

   * 1 History of the concept and term
         o 1.1 Ancient history
         o 1.2 Medieval Europe
         o 1.3 Reformation
         o 1.4 United States
               + 1.4.1 The Treaty of Tripoli
               + 1.4.2 The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine
               + 1.4.3 Use of the phrase
               + 1.4.4 Pledge of Allegiance
   * 2 In various countries
         o 2.1 Australia
         o 2.2 France and Turkey
         o 2.3 Japan
         o 2.4 Mexico
         o 2.5 Norway
         o 2.6 Germany
         o 2.7 Philippines
         o 2.8 Spain
         o 2.9 United Kingdom
   * 3 Religious views
         o 3.1 Ahmadiyya
   * 4 Theocracy
   * 5 Secularism
   * 6 Friendly and hostile separation
   * 7 See also
         o 7.1 American examples
         o 7.2 General
               + 7.2.1 Islam and secularism debate
   * 8 References
   * 9 Further reading
         o 9.1 United States
   * 10 External links

[edit] History of the concept and term [edit] Ancient history

Ancient history is replete with examples of the mixing and melding of Church and state. Typically a successful ruler or king would assume various "priestly" titles, in addition to the "temporal" titles that such a position tended to confer. Some examples of this certain Church-state mixing and melding are: the execution of Socrates, whereby Socrates was sentenced to death by the Athenian state for among other things, "his disrespect for the Gods", the claim of many of the ancient Judean kings to rule with a mandate from Heaven, or the Edict of Thessalonica, whereby Christianity was officially made the state religion of the Roman Empire.

One of the first important contributors to the discussion concerning the proper relationship between Church and state was St. Augustine, who in City of God ch 19, began an examination of the ideal relationship between the "earthly city" and the "city of God". In this work, Augustine posited that major points of overlap were to be found between the "earthly city" and the "city of God", especially as people need to live together and get along on earth. Thus Augustine held that it was the work of the "temporal city" to make it possible for a "heavenly city" to be established on earth.[3] [edit] Medieval Europe Main article: Church and state in medieval Europe

For centuries, monarchs ruled by the idea of divine right, which said the king ruled both Crown and Church, a theory known as caesaropapism. On the other side was the belief that the Pope, as vicar of God on earth, should have the ultimate authority over the state. Moreover, throughout the Middle Ages the Pope claimed the right to depose the Catholic kings of Western Europe and tried to exercise it, sometimes successfully (see the investiture controversy, below), sometimes not, such as was the case with Henry VIII of England and Henry III of Navarre.[4]

In the West, the issue of the separation of church and state during the medieval period centered on monarchs who ruled in the secular sphere but encroached on the Church's rule of the spiritual sphere. This unresolved contradiction in ultimate control of the Church led to power struggles and crises of leadership, notably in the Investiture Controversy, which was resolved in the Concordat of Worms in 1122. By this concordat, the Emperor renounced the right to invest ecclesiastics with ring and crosier, the symbols of their spiritual power, and guaranteed election by the canons of cathedral or abbey and free consecration.[5] [edit] Reformation

At the beginning of the Protestant Reformation, Martin Luther articulated a doctrine of the two kingdoms. According to James Madison, perhaps one of the most important modern proponents of the separation of church and state, Luther's doctrine of the two kingdoms marked the beginning of the modern conception of separation of church and state.[6]

In the 1530s Henry VIII, angered by the Catholic Church's refusal to annul his marriage with his wife Catherine of Aragon, decided to break with the Church and set himself as ruler of the new Church of England, The Anglican Church, ending the separation that had existed[citation needed] between Church and State in England.[7] [edit] United States Main article: Separation of church and state in the United States John Locke, English political philosopher argued for individual conscience, free from state control

The concept of separating church and state is often credited to the writings of English philosopher John Locke.[8] According to his principle of the social contract, Locke argued that the government lacked authority in the realm of individual conscience, as this was something rational people could not cede to the government for it or others to control. For Locke, this created a natural right in the liberty of conscience, which he argued must therefore remain protected from any government authority. These views on religious tolerance and the importance of individual conscience, along with his social contract, became particularly influential in the American colonies and the drafting of the United States Constitution.[9]

The concept was implicit in the flight of Roger Williams from religious oppression in Massachusetts to found what became Rhode Island on the principle of state neutrality in matters of faith.[10][11] Thomas Jefferson, the third President of the United States, supported the separation of church and state. [edit] The Treaty of Tripoli Main article: Treaty of Tripoli

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

   As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.[12]

According to Frank Lambert, Professor of History at Purdue University, the assurances in Article 11 were "intended to allay the fears of the Muslim state by insisting that religion would not govern how the treaty was interpreted and enforced. President John Adams and the Senate made clear that the pact was between two sovereign states, not between two religious powers."[13]

Supporters of the separation of church and state argue that this treaty, which was ratified by the Senate, confirms that the government of the United States was specifically intended to be religiously neutral.[14] The treaty was submitted by President Adams and unanimously ratified by the Senate.

Advocates of a Christian America argue variously that the text which appears as Article 11 in the English translation does not appear in the Arab text of the treaty,[15] or that it only applies to the federal government, not the entire nation.[16] [edit] The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine

The Age of Reason is a deistic pamphlet, written by eighteenth-century British radical and American revolutionary Thomas Paine, that criticizes institutionalized religion and challenges the legitimacy of the Bible. Published in three parts in 1794, 1795, and 1807, it was a bestseller in America, where it caused a short-lived deistic revival. British audiences, however, fearing increased political radicalism as a result of the French Revolution, received it with more hostility. The Age of Reason presents common deistic arguments; for example, it highlights what Paine saw as corruption of the Christian Church and criticizes its efforts to acquire political power. Paine advocates reason in the place of revelation, leading him to reject miracles and to view the Bible as an ordinary piece of literature rather than as a divinely inspired text. It promotes natural religion and argues for a creator-God.

Age of Reason WikiSource [edit] Use of the phrase

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

   Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.[17]

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

   August 15, 1789. Mr. [Peter] Sylvester [of New York] had some doubts...He feared it [the First Amendment] might be thought to have a tendency to abolish religion altogether...Mr. [Elbridge] Gerry [of Massachusetts] said it would read better if it was that "no religious doctrine shall be established by law."...Mr. [James] Madison [of Virginia] said he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that "Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law."...[T]he State[s]...seemed to entertain an opinion that under the clause of the Constitution...it enabled them [Congress] to make laws of such a nature as might...establish a national religion; to prevent these effects he presumed the amendment was intended...Mr. Madison thought if the word "National" was inserted before religion, it would satisfy the minds of honorable gentlemen...He thought if the word "national" was introduced, it would point the amendment directly to the object it was intended to prevent.[18]

Madison contended "Because if Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body."[19] Several years later he wrote of "total separation of the church from the state."[20] "Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States", Madison wrote,[21] and he declared, "practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government is essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States."[22] In a letter to Edward Livingston Madison further expanded, "We are teaching the world the great truth that Govts. do better without Kings & Nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson that Religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of Govt."[23] This attitude is further reflected in the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, originally authored by Jefferson and championed by Madison, and guaranteeing that no one may be compelled to finance any religion or denomination.

   ... no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.[24]

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

The phrase was also mentioned in an eloquent letter written by President John Tyler on July 10, 1843.[25]

The United States Supreme Court has referenced the separation of church and state metaphor more than 25 times, though not always fully embracing the principle.[26] In Reynolds, the Court denied the free exercise claims of Mormons in the Utah territory who claimed polygamy was an aspect of their religious freedom. The Court used the phrase again by Justice Hugo Black in 1947 in Everson. The term has been used and defended heavily by the Court, but is not unanimously held. In a minority opinion in Wallace v. Jaffree, Justice Rehnquist presented the view that the establishment clause was intended to protect local establishments of religion from federal interference. Justice Scalia has criticized the metaphor as a bulldozer removing religion from American public life.[27] [edit] Pledge of Allegiance Main article: Pledge of Allegiance

The original text of the Pledge of Allegiance of the United States by Francis Bellamy read as: I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. in 1892. The phrase "under God" was added later, in 1954.[28] [edit] In various countries See also: Secular state, Laicite, Secularism, Pseudo-secularism, and Secular humanism

Countries have varying degrees of separation between government and religious institutions. Since the 1780s a number of countries have set up explicit barriers between church and state. The degree of actual separation between government and religion or religious institutions varies widely. In some countries the two institutions remain heavily interconnected. There are new conflicts in the post-Communist world.[clarification needed][29]

The many variations on separation can be seen in some countries with high degrees of religious freedom and tolerance combined with strongly secular political cultures which have still maintained state churches or financial ties with certain religious organizations into the 21st century. In the United Kingdom, there is a constitutionally established state religion but other faiths are tolerated.[30] The British monarch is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, and 26 bishops (Lords Spiritual) sit in the upper house of government, the House of Lords.

In other kingdoms, the head of government or head of state or other high-ranking official figures may be legally required to be a member of a given faith. Powers to appoint high-ranking members of the state churches are also often still vested in the worldly governments. These powers may be slightly anachronistic or superficial, however, and disguise the true level of religious freedom the nation possesses. In the case of Andorra there are two heads of state. One is the Bishop of Seu d'Urgell, a town located in Catalunya. He has the title of Episcopalian Coprince (the other Coprince being the French Head of State). Coprinces enjoy political power in terms of law ratification and constitutional court designation, among others. [edit] Australia Main article: Section 116 of the Australian Constitution

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

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

The language is derived from the United States' constitution, but has been altered. Following the usual practice of the High Court, it has been interpreted far more narrowly than the equivalent US sections and no law has ever been struck down for contravening the section. Today, the Commonwealth Government provides broad-based funding to religious schools and also funds school chaplains for public and private schools. All Australian parliaments are opened with a Christian prayer, and the preamble to the Australian Constitution refers to a "humbl[e] rel[iance] on the blessing of Almighty God."[31]

Although the Australian monarch is Queen Elizabeth II, also British monarch and head of the Church of England, her Australian title is unrelated to her religious office and she has no role in the Anglican Church of Australia. The prohibition against religious tests has allowed former Anglican Archbishop of Brisbane Peter Hollingworth to be appointed Governor-General, the highest domestic constitutional officer; however, this was criticized.[32]

Despite inclusion in the "States" chapter, Section 116 does not apply to states because of changes during drafting, and they are free to establish their own religions. Although no state has ever introduced a state church (NSW restricted religious groups during the early colonial period), the legal body corresponding to many religious organisations is established by state legislation.[33][34] There have been two referenda to extend Section 116 to states, but both failed. In each case the changes were grouped with other changes and voters did not have the opportunity to expressly accept only one change. Most states permit broad exemptions to religious groups from anti-discrimination legislation; for example, the NSW bill[which?] to allow same-sex couples to adopt permits religious adoption agencies to refuse them.[35][36]

The current situation, described as a "principle of state neutrality" rather than "separation of church and state",[32] has been criticised by both secularists and religious groups. On the one hand, secularists have argued that government neutrality to religions leads to a "flawed democrac[y]"[37] or even a "pluralistic theocracy"[38] as the government cannot be neutral towards the religion of people who do not have one. On the other hand, religious groups and others have been concerned that state governments are restricting them from exercising their religion by preventing them from criticising other groups and forcing them to do unconscionable acts.[39] [edit] France and Turkey

Laïcité, a particular product of French history and philosophy, was formalized in the 1905 law providing for the separation of church and state, that is, the separation of religion from political power. But the concept of removing religion to the private space as opposed to the public space of politics and the civil sphere is currently fiercely contested in France, driven, especially, by reactions to various manifestations of Islam, such as wearing the headscarf in schools.

The French version of separation is called laïcité. This model of a secularist state protects the religious institutions from some types of state interference, but with public religious expression also to some extent limited. This aims to protect the public power from the influences of religious institutions, especially in public office. Religious views which contain no idea of public responsibility, or which consider religious opinion irrelevant to politics, are less impinged upon by this type of secularization of public discourse. Turkey, whose population is overwhelmingly Muslim, is also considered to have practiced the laïcité school of secularism since 1923. While France comes from a Roman Catholic tradition and Turkey from an Islamic one, secularism in Turkey and secularism in France present many similarities.[citation needed]

President Nicolas Sarkozy has criticised "negative laicite" (as in Spain) and wants to develop a "positive laicite" that recognizes the contribution of faith to French culture, history and society, allows for faith in the public discourse and for government subsidies for faith-based groups.[40] Sarkozy sees France's main religions as positive contributions to French society. He was elected on a platform proposing a modernisation of the Republic's century-old principle of laicite.[41][not in citation given] He visited the Pope in December 2007 and publicly acknowledged France's Christian roots, while highlighting the importance of freedom of thought,[42] hinting that faith should come back into the public sphere.

Nevertheless, even France and Turkey present certain entanglements (involving funding to certain religious institutions of the kind which has not been permitted in the United States). For France, such entanglements include:

   * The most striking example consists in two areas, Alsace and Moselle (see here for further detail), where the Concordat between France and the Holy See still prevails, catholic priests as well as the clergy of three other religions (Lutheran, Calvinist, and Jewish) are paid by the state, and schools have religion courses. Moreover, the catholic bishops of Metz and Strasburg are named (or rather formally appointed) by the French Head of State on proposition of the Pope, which interestingly makes the French President the only temporal power in the world to have retained the right to appoint catholic bishops, all other catholic bishops being appointed by the Pope.
   * The French President is ex officio a co-prince of Andorra, where Roman Catholicism has a status of state religion (the other co-prince being a Spanish bishop). Moreover, French heads of states are traditionally offered an honorary title of Canon of the Papal Archbasilica of St. John Lateran, Cathedral of Rome. Once this honour has been awarded to a newly elected president, France pays for a choir vicar, a priest who occupies the seat in the canonial chapter of the Cathedral in lieu of the president (all French presidents have been male and Roman Catholic, but if one were not, this honour could most probably not be awarded to him.) The French President also holds a seat in a few other canonial chapters in France.
   * Another example of the complex ties between France and the Catholic Church consists in the Pieux Établissements de la France à Rome et à Lorette: five churches in Rome (Trinità dei Monti, St. Louis of the French, St. Ivo of the Bretons, St. Claude of the Free County of Burgundy, and St. Nicholas of the Lorrains) as well as a chapel in Loreto belong to France, and are administered and paid for by a special foundation linked to the French embassy to the Holy See.
   * In Wallis and Futuna, a French overseas territory, national education is conceded to the diocese, which gets paid for it by the State.

In Turkey, one can cite:

   * Despite Turkey being an officially secular country, the Preamble of the Constitution states that "there shall be no interference whatsoever of the sacred religious feelings in State affairs and politics."[43]
   * In order to control the way religion is perceived by adherents, the State pays imams' wages (only for Sunni Muslims), and provides religious education (of the Sunni Muslim variety) in public schools. The State has a Department of Religious Affairs, directly under the Prime Minister bureaucratically, responsible for organizing the Sunni Muslim religion - including what will and will not be mentioned in sermons given at mosques, especially on Fridays. Such an interpretation of secularism, where religion is under strict control of the State is very different from that of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and is a good example of how secularism can be applied in a variety of ways in different regions of the world.

[edit] Japan

Shinto was closely associated with the state and the Emperor until 1945. Under the American military occupation (1945–50) separation of religion and state became a major priority. [edit] Mexico

The issue of the role of the Catholic Church in Mexico has been highly divisive since the 1820s. Its large land holdings were especially a point of contention. Mexico was guided toward what was proclaimed a separation of church and state by Benito Juárez who, in 1859, attempted to eliminate the role of the Roman Catholic Church in the nation by appropriating its land and prerogatives.[44][45] In 1859 the Ley Lerdo was issued - purportedly separating church and state, but actually involving state intervention in Church matters by abolishing monastic orders, and nationalizing church property. In 1926, after several years of the revolutionary war and insecurity, President Plutarco Elias Calles, an atheist, enacted the Calles Law, which eradicated all the personal property of the churches, closed churches that were not registered with the State, and prohibited clerics from holding a public office. The law was unpopular; and several protesters from rural areas, fought against federal troops in what became known as the Cristero War. After the war's end in 1929, President Emilio Portes Gil upheld a previous truce where the law would remain enacted, but not enforced, in exchange for the hostilities to end. Ever since, the Catholic Church has remained active through the National Action Party (Mexico). The party gained a major foothold in 2000 when President Vicente Fox was elected, ending 70 years of unbroken rule from the Institutional Revolutionary Party. [edit] Norway

In Norway, the King is also the leader of the state church, and the 12th article of the Constitution of Norway requires more than half of the members of the Norwegian Council of State to be members of the state church. Yet, the second article guarantees freedom of religion, while also stating that Evangelical Lutheranism is the official state religion.[46][not in citation given][47] [edit] Germany

The German constitution guarantees freedom of religion.[48] It also provides that religious instruction is a normal subject taught at German schools (with exceptions), that no teacher may be forced to give religious instruction and that religious instruction should be in conformity with the principles of the relevant religious; participation is voluntary, under-age children's parents deciding on participation.[49] Religious matters, including religious instruction, are regulated by a number of national and international treaties between various religious communities on the one hand and Germany and the German federated states on the other. The treaties with the Holy See are referred to as concordats. [edit] Philippines

Article 2, section 6 of the 1987 constitution of the Philippines declares that the separation of the church and state shall be inviolable. [edit] Spain Further information: Catholic Church and the Spanish Civil War

Commentators have posited that the form of church-state separation enacted in France in 1905 and found in the Spanish Constitution of 1931 are of a "hostile" variety, noting that the hostility of the state toward the church was a cause of the breakdown of democracy and the onset of the Spanish Civil War.[50][51] [edit] United Kingdom

Both the Church of England (Anglican church) and the Church of Scotland are still nominally established churches, and the British monarch is the titular head of the Anglican church and cannot be or marry a Catholic. In England, Church appointments are Crown appointments, the Church carries out important state functions such as coronations, and a number of high Church officials have seats in the House of Lords. The Church of Ireland was disestablished as early as 1871; the Church in Wales was disestablished in 1920.[52]

As there is no written constitution, there is no constitutional principle of freedom of religious exercise as there is in other countries, such as Germany and the United States. However, in practice, religious groups are free to associate, worship, promote and publish their views alongside the established churches.[52] [edit] Religious views [edit] Ahmadiyya

According to the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community's understanding of Islam, Islamic principles state that the politics of government should be separate from the doctrine of religion. Special preference should not be given to a Muslim over a non-Muslim.[53][54] [edit] Theocracy

In contrast to separation, and varying by degrees, are theocracy, anticlericalism, state religion or state atheism, where either the state intrudes upon religion, or vice versa.

The belief that authority derives from a God and diffuses downward through a monarch was promoted by the French philosopher Jean Bodin. His ideas were naturally welcomed by the Bourbon and Stuart monarchs who advocated the alleged "divine right of kings." The duty of the common people was simply to obey God and the king. This concept of Jean Bodin was contradicted by the founders of the American republic who saw the source of authority as being both the social contract (i.e. popular sovereignty) and natural law (i.e. rights "endowed by their Creator"). [edit] Secularism

The discussion over the separation of church and state is often connected with the general divide between the concepts of secularism and theocracy. While the term "secularism" was first coined by the British writer George Holyoake in 1846[55] (more than half a century after the ratification of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and nearly as long after Jefferson's reference to the "Wall of Separation"), it has since come to denote the general concept of separating religion from other aspects of social life, and particularly from the governmental sphere. As such, outside of the United States (where Jefferson's metaphor of the "Wall of Separation" has less importance), and to some extent in the United States as well, the discussion of secularism versus theocracy has come to provide the broader rubric for discussing the relationship between religion and government. [edit] Friendly and hostile separation

Scholars have distinguished between what can be called "friendly" and "hostile" separations of church and state.[56] The friendly type limits the interference of the church in matters of the state but also limits the interference of the state in church matters.[57] The hostile variety, by contrast, seeks to confine religion purely to the home or church and limits religious education, religious rites of passage and public displays of faith.[58]

The hostile model of secularism arose with the French Revolution and is typified in the Mexican Revolution, its resulting Constitution and the Spanish Constitution of 1931.[59][60] The hostile model exhibited during these events can be seen as approaching the type of political religion seen in totalitarian states.[58]

The French separation of 1905 and the Spanish separation of 1931 have been characterized as the two most hostile of the twentieth century, although the current schemes in those countries are considered generally friendly.[50] France's President Nicolas Sarkozy, however, still considers the current scheme a "negative laicite" and wants to develop a "positive laicite" more open to religion.[40] The concerns of the state toward religion have been seen by some as a cause of civil war in Spain[61] and Mexico.

The French philosopher and Universal Declaration of Human Rights drafter Jacques Maritain noted the distinction between the models found in France and in the mid-twentieth century United States.[62] He considered the US model of that time to be more amicable because it had both "sharp distinction and actual cooperation" between church and state, what he called "an historical treasure" and admonished the United States, "Please to God that you keep it carefully, and do not let your concept of separation veer round to the European one."[62] [edit]