Separation of church and state

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - Cite This Source

.

Separation of church and state is the political and legal idea that government and religion should be separate, and not interfere in each other's affairs.

In the United States separation of church and state is often identified with the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…" The phrase "building a wall of separation between church and state" was written by Thomas Jefferson in a January 1 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association. .....

Overview

There are inherent entanglements between the institutions of church and state, inasmuch as religious institutions and their adherents are a part of civil society. Moreover, private religious practices often come into conflict with broad legislation not intending to target any particular religious minority.

Beliefs about the proper relationship between religion and government cover a wide spectrum, from state atheism through secular government to varying degrees of theocracy. Perhaps the primary distinctions to be made between varying forms of government are the divisions between ideas of government secularization and church independence.

History of the concept and term

Ancient

In most ancient cultures the political ruler was also the highest religious leader and sometimes considered divine. Under republican government religious officials were appointed just like political ones. Ancient Israel was different in as much as the King and the priesthood were separate and limited to their respective spheres of authority and responsibility, though interferences did happen as well. Later, under foreign supremacy, the high priest also held the highest civil authority in an autonomous theocracy. Biblically, Hezekiah destroyed a copper serpent, calling it Nehushtan, or a lump of brass. From this it was argued that the rulers in Church and State have authority to prohibit, in the public worship of God, the use of things that have been abused to Idolatry.

Roman emperors were considered divine and also occupied the highest religious office. This was challenged by Christians and Jews who acknowledged the Emperor's political authority but refused to participate in the state's religion or to recognize the emperor's divinity. While the Jews were exempted from this demand, Christians were considered enemies of the state and adherence to Christianity was punishable by death (e.g., Justin Martyr under Marcus Aurelius). At various times this resulted in violent persecutions until the Edict of Milan in 313. The Roman Empire formally became Christian by edict of Theodosius I in 380.

Medieval

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, that resulted in a number of important events in the development of the west.

In the Eastern Roman Empire the Emperor had supreme power over the church and controlled its highest representative: the Patriarch of Constantinople. Eastern Orthodoxy was the state religion. When the Ottomans conquered Constantinople (now Istanbul) in 1453, the Emperor was killed. The position of head of the Orthodox Church was given to Gennadius II Scholarius by the conquering Caliph and the Ottoman ruler, Sultan Mehmed II, who continued to practice the right of the Roman Emperor to appoint the head of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Reformation: Luther's "Two Kingdoms" Doctrine

Martin Luther's book, On Secular Authority, was an ardent expression of the principle of Liberty of Conscience. “Liberty of conscience” is the principle that forbids human authorities from coercing people’s spiritual beliefs. In this book, Luther insisted that God requires voluntary religious beliefs. Compelled or coerced faith is insincere and must never be allowed. Luther insisted that “liberty of conscience” was one of Jesus Christ’s principles. According to Luther, the civil government’s role is simply to keep outward peace in society. The civil government has no business enforcing spiritual laws. “The laws of worldly government extend no farther than to life and property and what is external upon earth,” Luther insisted. In an unmistakeable echo of Luther, writing on religious liberty, Thomas Jefferson stated, “The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others.” This is not to suggest that Jefferson had Luther specifically in mind as he wrote these words, but Jefferson was definitely an heir to the Protestant tradition which gave birth to this sentiment. Addressing the question of whether the state should permit its citizens to believe religious views which are heterodox, Luther said, “heresy can never be prevented by force... heresy is a spiritual matter which no iron can strike, no fire burn, no water drown.” In other words, it is folly to legislate and enforce religious beliefs.

Luther’s articulation of the parameters of civil government was a monumental step in the development of the separation of church and state. He argued for a clear distinction between two separate spheres: civil and spiritual. This is known as the Doctrine of the two kingdoms. The civil sphere deals with man’s physical life in society as he interacts with other human beings; in this, man is subject to human governments. The spiritual sphere deals with man’s soul, which is eternal, and which is subject only to God. The Doctrine of the two kingdoms is articulated by Luther in these terms:

God has ordained the two governments: the spiritual, which by the Holy Spirit under Christ makes Christians and pious people; and the secular, which restrains the unchristian and wicked so that they are obliged to keep the peace outwardly... The laws of worldly government extend no farther than to life and property and what is external upon earth. For over the soul God can and will let no one rule but himself. Therefore, where temporal power presumes to prescribe laws for the soul, it encroaches upon God’s government and only misleads and destroys souls. We desire to make this so clear that every one shall grasp it, and that the princes and bishops may see what fools they are when they seek to coerce the people with their laws and commandments into believing one thing or another.

Luther encouraged civil disobedience toward any government which would encroach the line of separation between the civil and the sacred:

We are to be subject to governmental power and do what it bids, as long as it does not bind our conscience but legislates only concerning outward matters.... But if it invades the spiritual domain and constrains the conscience, over which God only must preside and rule, we should not obey it at all but rather lose our necks. Temporal authority and government extend no further than to matters which are external and corporeal.

James Madison explicitly credited Martin Luther as the theorist who “led the way” in providing the proper distinction between the civil and the ecclesiastical spheres.

John Calvin echoed Luther's "two kingdoms" teaching in his Institutes of the Christian Religion:

There are two governments: the one religious, by which the conscience is trained to piety and divine worship; the other civil, by which the individual is instructed in those duties which, as men and citizens, we are bound to perform. To these two forms are commonly given the not inappropriate names of spiritual and temporal jurisdiction, intimating that the former species has reference to the life of the soul, while the latter relates to matters of the present life, not only to food and clothing, but to the enacting of laws which require a man to live among his fellows purely honorably, and modestly. The former has its seat within the soul, the latter only regulates the external conduct. We may call the one the religious, the other the civil kingdom. Now, these two, as we have divided them, are always to be viewed apart from each other. Let us now return to human laws. If they are imposed for the purpose of forming a religious obligation, as if the observance of them was in itself necessary, we say that the restraint thus laid on the conscience is unlawful. Our consciences have not to do with men but with God only. Hence the common distinction between the earthly forum and the forum of conscience.

Luther and Calvin's distinction was adopted by John Milton and John Locke. Milton wrote, A Treatise of Civil Power in Ecclesiastical Causes: Showing That it Is Not Lawful For Any Power on Earth to Compel in Matters of Religion.

John Locke later echoed the "two kingdoms" doctrine:

There is a twofold society, of which almost all men in the world are members, and from that twofold concernment they have to attain a twofold happiness; viz. That of this world and that of the other: and hence there arises these two following societies, viz. religious and civil.

Modern

See Separation of church and state in the United States

The most important conduit of the Reformation principle of "two kingdoms" which separates the spheres of church and state was the British philosopher John Locke. Locke's philosophy deeply influenced the founding of the United States. 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 inviolable by any government authority. These views on religious tolerance and the importance of individual conscience, along with his social contract, became influential in the American colonies.

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.

The phrase "separation of church and state" is derived from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to a group identifying themselves as the Danbury Baptists. In that letter, referencing the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, Jefferson writes:

Another early user of the term was James Madison, the principal drafter of the United States Bill of Rights, who often wrote of "total separation of the church from the state." "Strongly guarded . . . is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States," Madison wrote, 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." This attitude is further reflected in the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, originally authored by Thomas Jefferson, but championed by Madison, and guaranteeing that no one may be compelled to finance any religion or denomination.

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. While both are discussed in the context of the separation of church and state, it is more often 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.

The United States Supreme Court has referenced the separation of church and state metaphor more than 25 times, first in 1878. 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 was used and defended heavily by the Court until the early 1970s. In Wallace v. Jaffree, Justice Rehnquist presented the view that the establishment clause was intended to protect local establishments of religion from federal interference-- a view which diminished the strong separation views of the Court. Justice Scalia has criticized the metaphor as a bulldozer removing religion from American public life.

International views

Countries have varying degrees of separation between government and religious institutions. While the United States is recognized as the first country to completely disestablish its government from any religion in its Constitution ratified in 1791, a number of other countries have since followed. Nevertheless, 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. In the United States, the "Separation of Church and State" is generally discussed as a political and legal principle derived from the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . ." The concept of separation is commonly credited to the combination of the two clauses: the establishment clause, generally interpreted as preventing the government from establishing a national religion, providing tax money in support of religion, or otherwise favoring any single religion or religion generally; and the free exercise clause, ensuring that private religious practices are not restricted by the government. The effect of prohibiting direct connections between religious and governmental institutions while protecting private religious freedom and autonomy has been termed the "separation of church and state."

Nevertheless, issues of free exercise are also implicated by the extent to which laws are permitted to impinge upon private religious practice. In the United States, state laws can prohibit practices such as bigamy, sex with children, human and occasionally animal sacrifice, use of drugs, or other criminal acts, even if citizens claim the practices are part of their religious belief system. However, the federal courts give close scrutiny to any state or local laws that impinge upon the bona fide exercise of religious practices. The courts ensure that genuine and important religious rights are not impeded, and that questionable practices are limited only to the extent necessary. The courts usually demand that any laws restricting religious practices must demonstrate a fundamental or "compelling" state interest such as protecting citizens from bodily harm.

The many variations on separation can be seen in some countries with high degrees of religious freedom and tolerance combined with strongly secular political cultures which have still maintained state churches or financial ties with certain religious organizations into the 21st century. In England, there is a constitutionally established state religion but one inclusive of other faiths as well. 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. In countries like these, the head of government or head of state or other high-ranking official figures may be legally required to be a member of a given faith. Powers to appoint high-ranking members of the state churches are also often still vested in the worldly governments. These powers may be slightly anachronistic or superficial, however, and disguise the true level of religious freedom the nation possesses. 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. Coprinces enjoy political power in terms of law ratification and constitutional court designation, among others.

Two common examples of the most active type of separation are France and Turkey. 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.

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. In Turkey for example, despite it 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." 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.

Mexico was guided toward separation of church and state by Benito Juarez who, in 1859, attempted to eliminate the role of the Roman Catholic church in the nation by appropriating its land and prerogatives. In 1859 the Ley Lerdo was issued-separating church and state, abolishing monastic orders, and nationalizing church property. To this day all churches are owned by the Government of Mexico.

Japan under the military occupation government of General Douglas Macarthur, made separation of religion and state a major priority.

The opposite end of the spectrum from separation is a theocracy, in which the state is founded upon the institution of religion, and the rule of law is based on the dictates of a religious court. Examples include Saudi Arabia, the Vatican and Iran. In such countries state affairs are managed by religious authority, or at least by its consent. In theocracies, the degree to which those who are not members of the official religion are to be protected is decided by professors of the official religion, and ordinarily the civil rights, or restrictions of rights of the unfavored group, are defined in terms of the official religion. (See also State religion)

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 totally contradicted by the founders of the American republic who saw authority as being inherent in the people; who may then assign powers to their government, revocably. Thus, the authority of the US Constitution rests in "We the People," not in any God. The godless character of the US constitution places it in striking contrast with others such as those of Canada, Iran and Israel.

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 (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.

Advocacy

Roman Catholic views

On December 8, 1864, on the same day as the Pope's encyclical Quanta Cura, the Holy See under Pope Pius IX issued a document titled Syllabus of Errors (Latin: Syllabus Errorum). This document listed 80 specific assertions which it declared to be erroneous. Assertion number 55 in this list, in the section headed "Errors about civil society, considered both in itself and in its relation to the Church", reads: "The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church. However, the proposition here listed had been condemned as erroneous opinion in the sense and context in which they originally occurred, in this case, the proposed disestablishment of the Church in Spain, and in fact remained silent about such separation as a general rule.

The Catholic Church's 1983 Code of Canon law, while not laying down general rules about relations between Church and State, considers that a religious and moral education in harmony with the conscience of the pupils' parents is an integral part of education, and obliges Catholics to try to secure its inclusion: "Christ's faithful are to strive to secure that in the civil society the laws which regulate the formation of the young also provide a religious and moral education in the schools that is in accord with the conscience of the parents" (canon 799)

American Catholics and majority Protestants, eventually came to see the separation of church and state as a positive development . The work of Jesuit priest and theologian John Courtney Murray in the 1960s was significant as he developed a theological justification of the separation view based upon St. Thomas Aquinas' observation that there existed a necessary distinction between morality and civil law; that the latter is limited in its capacity in cultivating moral character through criminal prohibitions. As Murray said, "it is not the function of civil law to prescribe everything that is morally right and to forbid everything that is morally wrong.

Baptist views

Historically, Baptists have supported separation of church and state. In particular, many radical Anabaptist movements, sensitised by the persecution they suffered under both Protestant and Catholic authorities, held that the state should not interfere in religious affairs and vice-versa. One of the earliest calls for separation came from Thomas Helwys, the founder of the first Baptist Church in England. In his last written work, A Short Declaration on the Mystery of Iniquity, he penned a note inside the cover of a single copy that was intended for King James. Whether the King received it or not is disputed, but Helwys was later arrested and placed in Newgate Prison. The words that got him in trouble were as follows (spelling is updated to modern conventions):

Another formal plea for separation of church and state in England, called Religious Peace: or, a Plea for Liberty of Conscience. was written to King James by a London citizen named Leonard Busher, a man later identified as an Anabaptist. In 1868, the renowned Baptist pastor Charles Haddon Spurgeon perhaps best summed up the separationist Baptist stand thusly:

American Baptists also claim as a forebear Roger Williams, who fled Massachusetts Colony in order to establish a haven for religious liberty at Providence Plantation, now Rhode Island. He had suffered persecution for his religiously nonconformist beliefs, and had witnessed the oppression of Quakers. Consequently, he set up the new colony as a place where all religions could practice freely.

In more recent years, the foremost Baptist witness in the United States for the protection of separation of church and state has been the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty. An education and advocacy group in Washington, D.C., the Baptist Joint Committee is affiliated with fourteen Baptist bodies collectively representing over 10 million Baptists in the United States.

Islamic views

Most Islamists consider the Western concept of separation of Church and State to be rebellion against God's law, but an increasing number of moderate and liberal Muslims in India, Indonesia, Turkey and the Arab world are demanding such a separation. In Europe and North America, a number of Muslim organisations have the demand for secular democracy in their mission statements. There is a contemporary debate in Islam whether obedience to Islamic law is ultimately compatible with the Western secular pattern, which separates religion from civic life. However, some majority Muslim nations are secular, such as Turkey, Senegal, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Azerbaijan.

The Medieval Muslim scholar Averroes holds the view that reason and revelation do not conflict, but rather independently lead to the same truth. However, only reason provides demonstrative proofs. Averroes wrote commentaries on most Aristotelian works and defended him against allegations of self-contradiction and unbelief. The school of thought named Averroism is credited as the origin of secular thought, although Averroes himself did not consider religious institutions as separate from the state.

Jewish views

Even in religious Judaism there is much room for a range of political or moral views; this is only more so for secular Jews. However, even Jewish secular culture is often strongly influenced by moral beliefs deriving from Jewish scripture and tradition. In recent centuries, Jews in Europe and the Americas have traditionally tended towards the political left, and played key roles in the birth of the labor movement as well as socialism. While Diaspora Jews have also been represented in the conservative side of the political spectrum, even politically conservative Jews have tended to support pluralism more consistently than many other elements of the political right. Some scholars attribute this to the fact that Jews are not expected to proselytize, and as a result do not expect a single world-state, which differs from the beliefs of many religions, such as the Roman Catholic and Islamic traditions; rather, since in Jewish theology the religions of most nations are respected, there was never any perceived reason to convert others. This lack of a universalizing religion is combined with the fact that most Jews live as minorities in their countries, and that no central Jewish religious authority has existed for over 2,000 years. (See also the list of Jews in politics, which illustrates the diversity of Jewish political thought and of the roles Jews have played in politics.)

Other views

Coptic

Since the 5th century, the Coptic Church has advocated separation of church and state. Unitarian Universalists also advocate separation of church and state.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has long held to the doctrine of separation of church and state originating in part from the long antagonism local and state governments have had towards their faith. Mormon writings have affirmed "[n]o domination of the state by the church; No church interference with the functions of the state; No state interference with the functions of the church, or with the free exercise of religion; The absolute freedom of the individual from the domination of ecclesiastical authority in political affairs; The equality of all churches before the law. The Church's official Articles of Faith, which outline the basic beliefs of the church, state that: "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law".

Seventh-day Adventist

The Seventh-day Adventist Church also has a long tradition of advocating the separation of church and state, due to Sabbath-keeping persecution early in their history. Adventist writings suggest that when church and state unite in the United States of America, the antichrist will come and lead the union.

Christian opposition

However some Christian groups, such as the Christian Voice and the Christian Coalition, oppose church and state separation and have become highly and vocally involved in promoting what they believe to be Christian values in government. The Reformed Presbyterian Church, a Calvinistic denomination, also believes that the state constitutionally covenants to follow God's laws on earth. (This does not, however, involve a structural unification of church and state.)

Some religious opponents of secular government hold that while the state should not establish a particular state religion or require religious observance, it still must be infused with religious ethics and values in order to operate "properly", and needs to encourage ethical and beneficial religious belief, both inside and outside of government. These persons argue that the teachings of religion are the basis of law and civil society and that a society which discourages the promulgation of those beliefs cannot function. Furthermore, these groups argue that religious groups ought to be involved in politics in order to assure that laws are passed which reflect what they perceive as universal truths.

Other religious persons such as christian hard dominionists argue that the State ought to maintain an established church.

Another view is that the state should provide a default religion for the large number of citizens who wish to identify themselves as religious believers without actively choosing between the various alternatives. A slightly more extreme version of this is that the state should determine (or at least have the power to determine) the doctrine and structure of the state religion - this is the position in England, and has links to ideas underlying Erastianism. However, there need not be obligation on individuals to follow the state in religion in such cases.

References

External links

International Separation of church and state

International Religious Freedom Report 2006. U.S. Department of State. Retrieved on 2006-10-08..
Hogan, Michael, Ph.D. Q:Which other governments have separation of church and state issues?. Australian review of Public Affairs, quoted by www.procon.com. Retrieved on 2006-11-30..

Europe

The deep roots of French secularism, article by Henri Astier on BBC News online, Sept 1st, 2004
Religious Liberty: The legal framework in selected OSCE countries.. Law Library, U.S. Library of Congress. (2000). Retrieved on 2007-04-06..

American activism in favor of strict separation

Scholars in favor, with historical documents on-line
Interfaith Working Group
American Jewish Committee (Jewish)
Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs

American activism against strict separation

WallBuilders

Origins of the phrase

History of the Separation of Church and State in America
by Noah Feldman, Asst. Professor of Law, New York University, 2002.

Islamic activism in favor of separation

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia © 2001-2006 Wikipedia contributors (Disclaimer)
This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License.
Last updated on Wednesday March 12, 2008 at 21:54:40 PDT (GMT -0700)
View this article at Wikipedia.org - Edit this article at Wikipedia.org - Donate to the Wikimedia Foundation