Separation of church and state
168714
226161439
2008-07-17T02:39:29Z
Editor2020
6046894
[[WP:UNDO|Undid]] revision 226092101 by [[Special:Contributions/65.182.244.199|65.182.244.199]] ([[User talk:65.182.244.199|talk]])unsourced
[[Image:Constantine's conversion.jpg|thumb|right|300px|''Constantine's Conversion'', depicting the conversion of [[Roman Emperor|Emperor]] [[Constantine the Great]] to [[Christianity]], by [[Peter Paul Rubens]].]]
'''Separation of church and state''' is a [[political]] and [[legal]] [[doctrine]] that [[government]] and [[religion|religious]] institutions are to be kept separate and independent from each other.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.historycentral.com/Civics/S.html|title=The Civics Glossary|publisher=historycentral.com|accessdate=2007-12-29}}</ref> The term most often refers to the combination of two principles: [[secularity]] of government and freedom of [[freedom of religion|religious exercise]].<ref>Chan, Shun-hing and Beatrice Leung (2003). ''Changing Church and State Relations in Hong Kong, 1950-2000''. Hong Kong University Press, pg 12. ISBN 9622096123. "These oft-quoted clauses of Jefferson's theory of a 'wall of separation' reflect two significant foundations of Church-State relations in the US. Firstly, the separation of Church and State stands as a constitutional principle that promotes democracy and protects the religious freedom of all Americans equally. Secondly, this principle emerges as a unique American contribution to political theory (Feldman 1997, 4)."</ref>
The phrase ''separation of church and state'' is generally traced to a letter written by [[Thomas Jefferson]] in 1802 to the [[Danbury Baptists]], in which he referred to the [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution]] as creating a "wall of separation" between church and state. The phrase was then quoted by the [[United States Supreme Court]] first in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1947. This led to increased popular and political discussion of the concept.
The concept 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]].
==History of the concept and term==
===Ancient===
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]].
[[Ancient Rome|Roman]] emperors were considered divine{{Fact|date=April 2008}} 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{{Fact|date=April 2008}} (e.g., [[Justin Martyr]] under [[Marcus Aurelius]]). At various times this resulted in violent [[Persecution of Christians|persecutions]] until the [[Edict of Milan]] in 313. The [[Roman Empire]] formally became Christian by edict of [[Theodosius I]] in 380.
===Medieval===
:''See also: [[Church and state in medieval Europe]]
[[Image:PapalPolitics2.JPG|270px|left|thumb|''Antichristus'', a woodcut by [[Lucas Cranach the Elder]] of the pope using the temporal power to grant authority to a generously contributing ruler]]
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.<ref>{{cite book |last= Berman |first= Harold J. |title= Law and Revolution: The Formation of the Western Legal Tradition |publisher= Harvard University Press |year= 1983 |isbn= 0-674-51774-1 }}</ref>
In the [[Eastern Roman Empire]] the Emperor had supreme power over the church and controlled its highest representative: the [[Patriarch of Constantinople]].{{Fact|date=March 2008}} [[Eastern Orthodox Church|Eastern Orthodoxy]] was the state religion. When the [[Ottoman Empire|Ottomans]] conquered [[Constantinople]] (now [[Istanbul]]) in 1453, the Emperor was killed. The position of head of the [[Eastern Orthodox Church|Orthodox Church]] was given to Gennadius II Scholarius by the conquering [[Caliph]] and the [[Ottoman dynasty|Ottoman ruler]], Sultan [[Mehmed II]], who continued to practice the right of the Roman Emperor to appoint the head of the Eastern Orthodox Church.
When the Protestant Reformation broke out, [[Martin Luther]] began to articulate 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.<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=I6tLmjLqRfAC&pg=PA242&lpg=PA242&dq=madison+luther+%22led+the+way%22&source=web&ots=ndGIJRRB-h&sig=46eyaJhyh-XpAOUFbaoyWIzaUH4&hl=en#PPA242,M1 Madison to Schaeffer, 1821]</ref>
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 between Church and State in England.<ref>{{Citation
|url=http://www.britannia.com/history/monarchs/mon41.html
|title=Henry VIII: 1509-47 AD
|publisher=Britannia History
|accessdate=2008-03-26}}</ref>
===Modern===
:''See [[Separation of church and state in the United States]]''
The concept of separating church and state is often credited to the writings of the British philosopher [[John Locke]].<ref>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.")</ref> 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.<ref>Feldman, Noah (2005). ''Divided by God''. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, pg. 29</ref>
The concept was implicit in the flight of [[Roger Williams (theologian)|Roger Williams]] from religious oppression in Massachusetts to found what became Rhode Island on the principle of state neutrality in matters of faith. {{Fact|date=November 2007}}
[[Image:Tj3.gif|225px|thumb|right|[[Thomas Jefferson]], the third [[President of the United States]], supported the separation of church and state.]]
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 to the United States Constitution]], Jefferson writes: {{Quotation| "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." <Ref>
{{cite web
| url = http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html
| title = Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists
| accessdate = 2006-11-31
| last = Jefferson
| first = Thomas
| date = [[1802-01-01]]
| publisher = U.S. Library of Congress
}}</Ref>}}
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."<ref>(1819 letter to [[Robert Walsh]])</ref> "Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States," Madison wrote,<ref>{{Citation
|url=http://www.constitution.org/jm/18191213_monopolies.htm
|title=Monopolies Perpetuities Corporations—Ecclesiastical Endowments
|author=James Madison
|publisher=constitution.org
|accessdate=2008-06-16}}.</ref> 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."<ref>(1811 letter to Baptist Churches)</ref> 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.
{{Quotation|... 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. <Ref>
{{cite web
| url = http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/42.htm
| title = Backgrounder on the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom
| accessdate = 2006-11-30
| author = Bureau of International Information Programs
| publisher = U.S. State Department
}}</Ref>}}
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]]. {{Fact|date=November 2007}}
The United States Supreme Court has referenced the separation of church and state metaphor more than 25 times, first in 1878. In ''[[Reynolds v. United States|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 v. Board of Education|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.<ref>[[Lee v. Weisman]], {{ussc|505|577|1992}}</ref>
==International views==
{{See also|Laicite|Secularism|Pseudo-secularism|Secular humanism}}
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,<ref>Feldman, Noah (2005). ''Divided by God''. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, pg. 10 ("For the first time in recorded history, they designed a government with no established religion at all.")</ref> 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.{{Clarifyme|date=March 2008}}<!-- Like what?--><ref>{{cite book
|author=Péter Tibor Nagy
|title=The social and political history of Hungarian education - State-Church relations in the history of educational policy of the first post-communist Hungarian government
|url=http://mek.oszk.hu/03700/03797/03797.htm#10
|isbn=963 200 511 2
|publisher=Hungarian Electronic library
|accessdate=2007-04-27
| edition = HTML}}</ref>
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 [[United States federal courts|federal courts]] give [[strict scrutiny|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.<Ref>
{{cite web
| url = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_religious_freedom_by_country#United_Kingdom
| title = Status of religious freedom by country, United Kingdom
| publisher = Wikipedia
}}</Ref> In [[Norway]], the King is also the leader of the [[Church of Norway|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 [[Church of Norway|Evangelical Lutheranism]] is the official state religion.<ref> [http://odin.dep.no/odin/engelsk/norway/system/032005-990424/index-dok000-b-n-a.html The Constitution of the Kingdom of Norway] </ref> 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.
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 of the [[Spanish Civil War]].<ref>Stepan, Alfred, [http://books.google.com/books?id=nR2tF4k1PXUC&dq Arguing Comparative Politics], p. 221, Oxford University Press</ref><ref>[http://libro.uca.edu/payne2/payne25.htm 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)]</ref> President [[Nicolas Sarkozy]] has criticised this approach as a "negative laicite" 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.<ref>Beita, Peter B. [http://www.christiantoday.com/article/french.presidents.religious.mixing.riles.critics/16423.htm French President's religious mixing riles critics] Christianity Today, Jan. 23, 2008</ref> 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.<ref>http://www.lexpress.fr/info/france/dossier/sarkozy/dossier.asp?ida=430149 Religions, République, intégration, Sarkozy s'explique</ref> He visited the [[Pope]] in December 2007 and publicly acknowledged France's [[Christian]] roots, while highlighting the importance of [[freedom of thought]] <ref>[http://www.christiantoday.com/article/sarkozy.breaks.french.taboo.on.church.and.politics/15760.htm Sarkozy breaks French taboo on church and politics<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref>, 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. 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."''<Ref>
{{cite web
| url = http://www.tbmm.gov.tr/english/constitution.htm
| title = The Constitution of the Republic of Turkey
| publisher = Turkish Grand National Assembly (TBMM)
}}</Ref>
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 [[mosque]]s, 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|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 what was proclaimed a 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.<ref name=mexhistory>{{Citation
|url=http://history-world.org/mexico.htm
|title=Mexico, A brief History
|publisher=history-world.org
|accessdate=2007-10-13}}</ref><ref name=LeyLerdoClements>{{Citation
|url=http://www.historicaltextarchive.com/sections.php?op=viewarticle&artid=548
|title=Ley Lerdo
|author=Greg Clements
|publisher=historicaltextarchive.com
|accessdate=2007-10-13}}</ref>
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.<ref name=mexhistory /><ref name=LeyLerdoClements /><ref name=LeyLerdoSpanish>{{Citation
|url=http://www.historicaltextarchive.com/sections.php?op=viewarticle&artid=687
|title=Ley Lerdo (Spanish text)
|language=Spanish
|publisher=history-world.org
|accessdate=2007-10-13}}</ref> To this day all churches are owned by the Government of Mexico.{{Fact|date=October 2007}}
Japan under the military occupation government of General Douglas Macarthur, made separation of religion and state a major priority.
In contrast to separation, and varying by degrees, are [[theocracy]], [[anticlericalism]], [[state religion]] or [[state atheism]], where either the state intrudes upon religion, or visa 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").
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 [[United Kingdom|British]] writer [[George Holyoake]] in 1846<ref>Feldman, Noah (2005). Divided by God. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, pg. 113</ref> (more than half a century after the ratification of the [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution]], and nearly as long after [[Thomas Jefferson|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 ==
===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."<ref>[http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P9SYLL.HTM Syllabus of Errors]</ref> 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 [[Roman Catholic Church|Catholic Church]]'s 1983 [[Canon law (Catholic Church)|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) <Ref>
{{cite web
| url = http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P2M.HTM
| title = Code of Canon Law
| accessdate = 2006-11-30
| author = Roman Catholic Church
| publisher = intratext.com
}}</Ref>
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."<ref>
Murray, John Courtney. ''Memo to Cushing on Contraception Legislation''. Murray Archives, file 1-43. Full text available [http://woodstock.georgetown.edu/library/Murray/1965F.htm from the Woodstock Theological Center website].</ref>
===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 [[Roman Catholic Church|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):
{{Quotation|
Hear, O king, and despise not the counsel of the poor, and let their complaints come before thee.
The king is a mortal man and not God, therefore has no power over the immortal souls of his subjects, to make laws and ordinances for them, and to set spiritual lords over them.
If the king has authority to make spiritual lords and laws, then he is an immortal God and not a mortal man.
O king, be not seduced by deceivers to sin against God whom you ought to obey, nor against your poor subjects who ought and will obey you in all things with body, life and goods, or else let their lives be taken from the earth.
God save the king.
Tho. Helwys. Spittalfield near London.<ref>
{{cite book
| title = A Short Declaration on the Mystery of Iniquity: Classics of Religious Liberty 1
| year = 1998
| last = Helwys
| first = Thomas
| publisher = Mercer UP
| editor = Richard Groves
| pages = p. xxiv
}}</ref>
}}
Another formal plea for separation of church and state in England, called ''Religious Peace: or, a Plea for Liberty of Conscience''. was written to [[James I of England|King James]] by a London citizen named Leonard Busher,<ref>
{{cite book
| title = Religious Peace: or, a Plea for Liberty of Conscience
| year = 1614
| last = Busher
| first = Leonard
}}</ref> a man later identified as an Anabaptist.<ref>{{cite book
| title = A Question in Baptist History: Whether the Anabaptists in England Practiced Immersion Before the Year 1641?
| year = 1896
| last = Whitsitt
| first = Dr. William
| publisher = C. T. Dearing
| pages = pp. 69-70
}}</ref> In 1868 the renowned Baptist pastor [[Charles Spurgeon|Charles Haddon Spurgeon]] perhaps best summed up the separationist Baptist stand thusly:
{{Quotation|
Which shall we wonder at most, the endurance of the faithful or the cruelty of their tormentors? Is it not proven beyond all dispute that there is no limit to the enormities which men will commit when they are once persuaded that they are keepers of other men's consciences? To spread religion by any means, and to crush heresy by all means is the practical inference from the doctrine that one man may control another's religion. Given the duty of a state to foster some one form of faith, and by the sure inductions of our nature slowly but certainly persecution will occur. To prevent for ever the possibility of Papists roasting Protestants, Anglicans hanging Romish priests, and Puritans flogging Quakers, let every form of state-churchism be utterly abolished, and the remembrance of the long curse which it has cast upon the world be blotted out for ever.<ref>
{{cite journal
| month = August
| year = 1988
| journal = Sword and Trowel
| title = The Inquisition
| url = http://www.spurgeon.org/s_and_t/inq.htm
| last = Spurgeon
| first = Charles H.
| accessdate = 2006-12-20
}}</ref>
}}
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===
{{Unreferencedsection|date=November 2007}}
Most Islamists and islamic jurists consider the Western concept of separation of Church and State to be rebellion against God's law, but some 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. Averroes himself did not consider religious institutions as separate from the state.
===Jewish views===
[[Image:ac.manif1917.jpg|frame|A [[General Jewish Labor Union|Bundist]] demonstration, 1917]]
{{Main|Secular Judaism}}
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 [[left-wing politics|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 [[conservatism|conservative]] side of the political spectrum, even politically conservative Jews have tended to support [[Jewish views of religious pluralism|pluralism]] more consistently than many other elements of the [[right-wing politics|political right]]. Some scholars<ref>Daniel J. Elazar, [http://www.jcpa.org/dje/articles2/jud-democ.htm Judaism and Democracy: The Reality]. Undated. Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. Accessed 11 February 2006.</ref> attribute this to the fact that Jews are not expected to [[Missionary#Jewish missions|proselytize]], and as a result do not expect a single world-state, which differs from the beliefs of many religions, such as the [[Roman Catholicism|Roman Catholic]] and [[Islam]]ic traditions; rather, since in Jewish theology the religions of most [[Noahide Laws|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===
{{Unreferencedsection|date=December 2007}}
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".<Ref>
{{cite web
| url = http://education.byu.edu/edlf/archives/prophets/1st_pres.html
| title = Messages of the First Presidency
| accessdate = 2006-11-30
| last = Clark
| first = James R.
| date= 1965
| publisher = Brigham Young University, Department of Educational Leadership & Foundations
}}</Ref> <Ref>
{{cite web
| url = http://www.lds.org/newsroom/issues/answer/0,19491,6056-1-462-44-462,00.html
| title = Political Neutrality
| accessdate = 2006-11-30
| year = 2006
| publisher = The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
}}</Ref>
====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.<ref>
{{cite book
| title = The Great Controversy
| year = 1888
| last = White
| first = Ellen G.
| pages = pp. 563-581
}}</ref>
== Friendly and hostile separation ==
Scholars have distinguished between what are sometimes called "friendly" and "hostile" separations of church and state.<ref>Maier, Hans and Jodi
Bruhn [http://books.google.com/books?id=Wozo1W7giZQC&dq Totalitarianism and Political Religions], p. 109, 2004 Routledge</ref> 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.<ref>Maier, Hans and Jodi
Bruhn [http://books.google.com/books?id=Wozo1W7giZQC&dq Totalitarianism and Political Religions], p. 110, 2004 Routledge</ref> The hostile variety, by contrast, seeks to banish religion to the private realm with the walls of the home and church and limits or usurps religious education, sacred rites of passage and public displays of faith.<ref>Maier, Hans and Jodi Bruhn [http://books.google.com/books?id=Wozo1W7giZQC&dq Totalitarianism and Political Religions], p. 111, 2004 Routledge</ref> The hostile model of militant secularism arose with the [[Dechristianization of France during the French Revolution|French Revolution]] and is typified in the [[Persecution of Christians in Mexico|Mexican Revolution]] and the [[Spanish Constitution of 1931]]. <ref>Maier, Hans and Jodi
Bruhn [http://books.google.com/books?id=Wozo1W7giZQC&dq Totalitarianism and Political Religions], p. 111, 2004 Routledge</ref> The hostile model can be seen as a moving toward the type of [[political religion]] seen in [[totalitarian]] states.<ref>Maier, Hans and Jodi
Bruhn [http://books.google.com/books?id=Wozo1W7giZQC&dq Totalitarianism and Political Religions], p. 111, 2004 Routledge</ref>
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.<ref>Stepan, Alfred, [http://books.google.com/books?id=nR2tF4k1PXUC&dq Arguing Comparative Politics], p. 221, Oxford University Press</ref> 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.<ref>Beita, Peter B. [http://www.christiantoday.com/article/french.presidents.religious.mixing.riles.critics/16423.htm French President's religious mixing riles critics] Christianity Today, Jan. 23, 2008</ref> The hostilities of the state toward religion have been seen as a cause of civil war in [[Spanish Civil War|Spain]]<ref>[http://libro.uca.edu/payne2/payne25.htm 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)]</ref> and [[Cristero War|Mexico]].
== See also ==
===American===
====Historical====
*[[William Bradford (1590-1657)]], [[Plymouth Colony]]
*[[Roger Williams (theologian)]], [[Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations]]
*[[William Penn]], [[Province of Pennsylvania]] (inc. [[Delaware Colony]])
===General===
*[[1905 French law on the Separation of the Churches and the State]]
*[[Age of Enlightenment]]
*[[American Center for Law and Justice]]
*[[Antidisestablishmentarianism]]
*[[Ayatollah Mohamed Hossein Kazemini Borujerdi]]
*[[Christian anarchism]]
*[[Christian Reconstructionism]]
*[[Democratic Muslims in Denmark]]
*[[Doctrine of the two kingdoms]]
*[[Freedom of religion]]
*[[Human-Etisk Forbund]]
*[[Institute for the Secularisation of Islamic Society]]
*[[Islamic leadership]]
*[[Laïcité]]
*[[Muslim Canadian Congress]]
*[[Pledge of Allegiance criticism]]
*[[Progressive Muslim Union]]
*[[Religious toleration]]
*[[Render unto Caesar...]]
*[[Sphere sovereignty]]
*[[State religion]]
*[[Status of religious freedom by country]]
==References==
{{reflist|2}}
==External links==
{{linkfarm|date=September 2007}}
===International Separation of church and state===
*{{cite web
| url = http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2006/
| title = International Religious Freedom Report 2006
| accessdate = 2006-10-08
| publisher = U.S. Department of State
}}
* {{cite web
| url = http://undergod.procon.org/viewanswers.asp?questionID=63
| title = Q:Which other governments have separation of church and state issues?
| accessdate = 2006-11-30
| last = Hogan
| first = Michael, Ph.D.
| date = [[2001-05-16]]
| publisher = Australian review of Public Affairs, quoted by www.procon.com
}}
===Europe===
*[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3325285.stm The deep roots of French secularism], article by Henri Astier on BBC News online, Sept 1st, 2004
* {{cite web
| url = http://italy.usembassy.gov/pdf/other/rellib1.pdf
| title = Religious Liberty: The legal framework in selected OSCE countries.
| accessdate = 2007-04-06
| year = 2000
| month = May
| publisher = Law Library, U.S. Library of Congress
}}
===American activism in favor of strict separation===
* Scholars in favor, with [http://members.tripod.com/~candst/toc.htm historical documents] on-line
* [http://www.iwgonline.org/ Interfaith Working Group]
* [http://www.ajc.org/site/apps/nl/content3.asp?c=ijITI2PHKoG&b=846719&ct=1047851 American Jewish Committee] (Jewish)
* [http://www.bjcpa.org/ Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs]
===American activism against strict separation===
* [http://www.wallbuilders.com/ WallBuilders]
=== Origins of the phrase ===
* [http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/history_of_the_separation_of_chu.htm History of the Separation of Church and State in America]
* {{PDFlink|[http://www.undergodprocon.org/pdf/feldman.pdf "The Intellectual Origins of the Establishment Clause"]|251 [[Kibibyte|KiB]]<!-- application/pdf, 258028 bytes -->}} by Noah Feldman, Asst. Professor of Law, New York University, 2002.
[[Category:Christian interfaith and secular relations]]
[[Category:Religious law]]
[[Category:Religion and politics]]
[[Category:Political systems]]
[[Category:Separation of church and state]]
[[de:Trennung von Kirche und Staat]]
[[es:Separación Iglesia-Estado]]
[[fa:جدایی دین از سیاست]]
[[fr:Rapports entre États et religions]]
[[he:הפרדת הדת מהמדינה]]
[[nl:Scheiding van kerk en staat]]
[[ja:政教分離原則]]
[[pl:Rozdział państwa od kościoła]]
[[pt:Separação Igreja-Estado]]
[[ro:Separarea între biserică şi stat]]
[[fi:Kirkon ja valtion ero]]
[[ta:அரசு சமயம் பிரிவினை]]
[[zh:政教分离]]