Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
The concept of separation of church and state refers to the distance in the
relationship between organized religion on the one hand and the nation state
on the other. The term is an offshoot of the original phrase, "wall of
separation between church and state," as written in Thomas Jefferson's letter
to the Danbury Baptists Association in 1802. Jefferson was responding to a
letter that the Association had written him. In that letter, they expressed their
concerns about the Constitution not reaching the State level. The Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution did not yet exist, thus leaving
the States vulnerable to federal legislation. In Jefferson's letter, he was
reassuring the Baptists of Danbury that their religious freedom would remain
protected - a promise that no possible religious majority would be able to
force out a state's official church. 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, although the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights states that
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
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 certain "mandate
from Heaven", or the Edict of Thessalonica, whereby Christianity was officially
made the state religion of the Roman Empire.
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.[3]
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.[4]
Reformation
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.[6]
The concept of separating church and state is often credited to the writings of
English philosopher John Locke.[7] 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.[8]
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.[9][10]
Thomas Jefferson, the third President of the United States, supported the
separation of church and state.
In 1797, the United States Senate ratified a treaty with Tripoli that stated in
Article 11:
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. Allegedly drafted by
George Washington's administration with Thomas Jefferson's help, they claim
it becomes, with the Constitution, "the supreme Law of the Land" -- as Article
VI Clause 2. of the US Constitution says it must. Opponents argue variously
that the text which appears as Article 11 in the English translation does not
appear in the Arab text of the treaty,[12] that though the English phrase is
not an untrue statement since it is referring to the federal government, the
Founders openly described America as a Christian nation,[13] or that the
quotation is fraud based on an incomplete reading of Article 11.[14] and
further that the Supreme Court, after reviewing history, declared
Pennsylvania to be a "Christian nation" in Church of the Holy Trinity v. United
States 143 U.S. 457 (1892):
These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of
unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a
Christian nation.[15][16]
The phrase "separation of church and state" is derived from a private letter
written by President Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to Baptists from Danbury,
Connecticut. 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]
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]
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.[29] 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.
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[when?], 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".[30]
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 criticised.[31]
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.[32][33] 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.[34][35]
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.[39] 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.[40][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,[41] hinting that faith should come
back into the public sphere.
* The most striking example consists in two areas, Alsace and Moselle (see
here for further detail), where the Concordate 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.
* 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.
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.
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.[43][44] 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.[43][44][45] To this day all churches are owned by the Government
of Mexico.[citation needed]
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]
Philippines
Spain
Religious views
Ahmadiyya
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").
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[51] (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.
The hostile model of secularism arose with the French Revolution and is
typified in the Mexican Revolution and the Spanish Constitution of 1931.[54]
[55] The hostile model exhibited during these events can be seen as
approaching the type of political religion seen in totalitarian states.[54]
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.[47]
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.[39] The concerns of the state toward religion have been by
some, but not all, seen as a cause of civil war in Spain[56] and Mexico.
See also
American examples
Historical:
General
* 1905 French law on the Separation of the Churches and the State
* Age of Enlightenment
* American Enlightenment
* Antidisestablishmentarianism
* Christian anarchism
* Christian Reconstructionism
* Human-Etisk Forbund
* Laïcité
* Religious toleration
* Secular state
* Sphere sovereignty
* State religion
* Mandate of heaven
* Islamic leadership
2. ^ Feldman (2009)
7. ^ Feldman, Noah (2005). Divided by God. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, pg.
29 ("It took John Locke to translate the demand for liberty of conscience into
a systematic argument for distinguishing the realm of government from the
realm of religion.")
8. ^ Feldman, Noah (2005). Divided by God. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, pg.
29
12. ^ "The Barbary Treaties : Tripoli 1796 - Hunter Miller's Notes". The
Avalon Project at Yale Law School.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bar1796n.asp. Retrieved 2010-09-04.
15. ^ Justice Brewer, writing for the Supreme Court in 143 U.S. 457 (1892).
16. ^ Eidsmoe, John (1995). Christianity and the Constitution: The Faith of
Our Founding Fathers. Baker Academic. p. [page needed]. ISBN 0801052319
20. ^ (1819 letter to Robert Walsh), Lambert, Frank (2003). The founding
fathers and the place of religion in America. Princeton University Press. p.
288. ISBN 9780691088297. http://books.google.com.ph/books?
id=1qse4fZ6eQgC .
25. ^ Tyler wrote, "The United States have adventured upon a great and
noble experiment, which is believed to have been hazarded in the absence of
all previous precedent-that of total separation of Church and State. No
religious establishment by law exists among us. The conscience is left free
from all restraint and each is permitted to worship his Maker after his own
judgement. The offices of the Government are open alike to all. No tithes are
levied to support an established Hierarchy, nor is the fallible judgement of
man set up as the sure and infallible creed of faith. The Mahommedan, if he
will to come among us would have the privilege guaranteed to him by the
constitution to worship according to the Koran; and the East Indian might
erect a shrine to Brahma if it so pleased him. Such is the spirit of toleration
inculcated by our political Institutions . . . . The Hebrew persecuted and down
trodden in other regions takes up his abode among us with none to make him
afraid . . . . and the Aegis of the Government is over him to defend and
protect him. Such is the great experiment which we have cried, and such are
the happy fruits which have resulted from it; our system of free government
would be imperfect without it.") quoted in Nicole Guétin, Religious ideology in
American politics: a history (2009) p. 85
26. ^
* See Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 673 (1984): "The concept of a
‘wall’ of separation is a useful figure of speech probably deriving from views
of Thomas Jefferson. . . . [b]ut the metaphor itself is not a wholly accurate
description of the practical aspects of the relationship that in fact exists
between church and state."
* Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 312 (U.S. 1952): "The First
Amendment, however, does not say that in every and all respects there shall
be a separation of Church and State.").
* Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971): "Our prior holdings do not
call for total separation between church and state; total separation is not
possible in an absolute sense."
28. ^ Péter Tibor Nagy. The social and political history of Hungarian
education - State-Church relations in the history of educational policy of the
first post-communist Hungarian government (HTML ed.). Hungarian Electronic
library. ISBN 963 200 511 2. http://mek.oszk.hu/03700/03797/03797.htm#10.
Retrieved 2007-04-27.
32. ^ [1]
33. ^ [2]
34. ^ [3]
37. ^ Secular Party of Australia. (nd). The Separation of Church and State.
Retrieved 2010-10-10.
38. ^ Davidson, S. (2009, Oct 27). Victorian abortion law: Overriding the
conscience of doctors. Crikey. Retrieved 2010-10-10
48. ^ Payne, Stanley G. A History of Spain and Portugal, Vol. 2, Ch. 25, p.
632 (Print Edition: University of Wisconsin Press, 1973) (LIBRARY OF IBERIAN
RESOURCES ONLINE Accessed May 30, 2007)
51. ^ Feldman, Noah (2005). Divided by God. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, pg.
113
52. ^ Maier, Hans (2004). Totalitarianism and Political Religions. trans. Jodi
Bruhn. Routledge. p. 109. ISBN 0714685291. http://books.google.com/?
id=Wozo1W7giZQC&dq.
56. ^ Payne, Stanley G., A History of Spain and Portugal, Vol. 2, Ch. 25: The
Second Spanish Republic , p. 632, (Print Edition: University of Wisconsin
Press, 1973) (Library of Iberian Resources Online, Accessed July 11, 2009)
Further reading
* Feldman, Noah. "Religion and the Earthly City", Social Research, Winter
2009, Vol. 76 Issue 4, pp 989–1000
United States
* Stone, Geoffrey R., "The World of the Framers: A Christian Nation?," UCLA
Law Review, 56 (Oct. 2008), 1–26.
External links
* ReligiousLiberty.TV Current and historical information about church-state
separation