Separation of religion and state

Separation of religion and state

 

Separation of church and state is a political andlegal doctrine that government and religiousinstitutions are to be kept separate and independent from each other.[1] The term most often refers to the combination of two principles:secularity of government and freedom of religious exercise.[2]

The phrase separation of church and state is generally traced to the 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.[3] The phrase was then quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878,[4] and then in a series of cases starting in 1948.[5] 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 secularismdisestablishmentreligious 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.

Roman emperors were considered divine[citation needed] 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[citation needed] (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

See also: Church and state in medieval Europe

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 theInvestiture Controversy, that resulted in a number of important events in the development of the west.[6]

In the Eastern Roman Empire the Emperor had supreme power over the church and controlled its highest representative: the Patriarch of Constantinople.[citation needed] Eastern Orthodoxy was the state religion. When the Ottomans conqueredConstantinople (now Istanbul) in 1453, the Emperor was killed. The position of head of the Orthodox Churchwas given to Gennadius II Scholarius by the conquering Caliph and the Ottoman ruler, SultanMehmed 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 kingdomsmarked the beginning of the modern conception of separation of church and state.[7]

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.[8]

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.[9] 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.[10]

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.[citation needed]

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 theFirst 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.” [11]

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.”[12] “Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States,” Madison wrote,[13] 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.”[14] In a letter to Edward Livingston Madison further expanded, “We are teaching the world the great truth that Govts. do better without Kings & Nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson that Religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of Govt.” [15] 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.

… 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. [16]

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.[citation needed]

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.[17]

International views

See also: Secular stateLaiciteSecularismPseudo-secularism, and 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,[18] 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.[clarify][19]

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 what the courts consider 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.[20] 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 theNorwegian 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.[21] 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 the Spanish Civil War.[22][23] 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.[24] 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.[25] He visited the Pope in December 2007 and publicly acknowledged France’s Christian roots, while highlighting the importance of freedom of thought [26], 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.”[27] 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 atmosques, 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 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.[28][29] 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.[28][29][30] To this day all churches are owned by the Government of Mexico.[citation needed]

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 theocracyanticlericalismstate religionor 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 British writer George Holyoake in 1846[31] (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

Catholic views

On December 8, 1864, on the same day as the Pope‘s encyclical Quanta Cura, the Holy Seeunder Pope Pius IX issued a document titled Syllabus of Errors (LatinSyllabus 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.”[32] 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) [33]

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.”[34]

Baptist views

Historically, Baptists have supported separation of church and state. In particular, many radical Anabaptist movements, sensitised by the persecution they suffered under bothProtestant 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):

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.[35]

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,[36] a man later identified as an Anabaptist.[37] In 1868 the renowned Baptist pastor Charles Haddon Spurgeon perhaps best summed up the separationist Baptist stand thusly:

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.[38]

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 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 TurkeySenegal,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

Bundist demonstration, 1917
Main article: 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 political left, and played key roles in the birth of thelabor 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[39] 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

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

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”.[40] [41] Church founder Joseph Smith wrote, “We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it,… but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish guilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul. [42]

Seventh-day Adventist

The Seventh-day Adventist Church 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.[43]

Friendly and hostile separation

Scholars have distinguished between what are sometimes called “friendly” and “hostile” separations of church and state.[44] 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.[45] The hostile variety, by contrast, seeks to banish religion to the private realm within the walls of the home and church and limits or usurps religious education, sacred rites of passage and public displays of faith.[46]

The hostile model of militant secularism arose with the French Revolution and is typified in theMexican Revolution and the Spanish Constitution of 1931.[47][48] The hostile model exhibited during these events can be seen as approaching the type of political religion seen intotalitarian states.[49]

The French separation of 1905 and the Spanish separation of 1931 have been characterized as the two most hostile of the twentieth century, although the current schemes in those countries are considered generally friendly.[50] France’s President Nicolas Sarkozy, however, still considers the current scheme a “negative laicite” and wants to develop a “positive laicite” more open to religion.[51] The hostilities of the state toward religion have been seen as a cause of civil war in Spain[52] and Mexico.

The French Catholic philosopher and a drafter of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,Jacques Maritain, noted the distinction between the models found in France and in the mid-twentieth century US. He considered the US model to be more amicable, because it had both “sharp distinction and actual cooperation” between church and state, what he called “an historical treasure”, and he admonished the US: “Please to God that you keep it carefully, and do not let your concept of separation veer round to the European one.”[53]

See also

American

[edit]Historical

General

References

  1. ^ “The Civics Glossary“. historycentral.com. Retrieved on 2007-12-29.
  2. ^ 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).”
  3. ^ Jefferson, Thomas (January 1, 1802). “[http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html Jefferson’s Letter to the Danbury Baptists The Final Letter, as Sent]“. Retrieved on 200810-21.
  4. ^ Reynolds v. United States98 U.S. 145 U.S. .
  5. ^ McCollum v. Board of Education333 U.S. 203 U.S. .
  6. ^ Berman, Harold J. (1983). Law and Revolution: The Formation of the Western Legal Tradition. Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-51774-1OCLC 185405865.
  7. ^ Madison to Schaeffer, 1821
  8. ^ Henry VIII: 1509-47 AD, Britannia History, retrieved on 26 March 2008
  9. ^ 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.”)
  10. ^ Feldman, Noah (2005). Divided by God. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, pg. 29
  11. ^ Jefferson, Thomas (180201-01). “Jefferson’s Letter to the Danbury Baptists“. U.S. Library of Congress. Retrieved on 2006-11-31.
  12. ^ (1819 letter to Robert Walsh)
  13. ^ James Madison, Monopolies Perpetuities Corporations—Ecclesiastical Endowments, constitution.org, retrieved on 16 June 2008.
  14. ^ (1811 letter to Baptist Churches)
  15. ^ Madison’s letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822
  16. ^ Bureau of International Information Programs. “Backgrounder on the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom“. U.S. State Department. Retrieved on 2006-11-30.
  17. ^ Lee v. Weisman505 U.S. 577 (1992)
  18. ^ 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.”)
  19. ^ 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, Hungarian Electronic library. ISBN 963 200 511 2. Retrieved on 2007-04-27.
  20. ^ “Status of religious freedom by country, United Kingdom“. Wikipedia.
  21. ^ The Constitution of the Kingdom of Norway
  22. ^ Stepan, Alfred, Arguing Comparative Politics, p. 221, Oxford University Press
  23. ^ 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)
  24. ^ Beita, Peter B. French President’s religious mixing riles critics Christianity Today, Jan. 23, 2008
  25. ^ http://www.lexpress.fr/info/france/dossier/sarkozy/dossier.asp?ida=430149 Religions, République, intégration, Sarkozy s’explique
  26. ^ Sarkozy breaks French taboo on church and politics
  27. ^ “The Constitution of the Republic of Turkey“. Turkish Grand National Assembly (TBMM).
  28. a b Mexico, A brief History, history-world.org, retrieved on 13 October 2007
  29. a b Greg Clements, Ley Lerdo, historicaltextarchive.com, retrieved on 13 October 2007
  30. ^ Ley Lerdo (Spanish text), history-world.org, retrieved on 13 October 2007
  31. ^ Feldman, Noah (2005). Divided by God. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, pg. 113
  32. ^ Syllabus of Errors
  33. ^ Roman Catholic Church. “Code of Canon Law“. intratext.com. Retrieved on 2006-11-30.
  34. ^ Murray, John Courtney. Memo to Cushing on Contraception Legislation. Murray Archives, file 1-43. Full text available from the Woodstock Theological Center website.
  35. ^ Helwys, Thomas (1998). in Richard Groves: A Short Declaration on the Mystery of Iniquity: Classics of Religious Liberty 1. Mercer UP, p. xxiv.
  36. ^ Busher, Leonard (1614). Religious Peace: or, a Plea for Liberty of Conscience.
  37. ^ Whitsitt, Dr. William (1896). A Question in Baptist History: Whether the Anabaptists in England Practiced Immersion Before the Year 1641?. C. T. Dearing, pp. 69–70.
  38. ^ Spurgeon, Charles H. (August 1988). “The Inquisition“. Sword and Trowel. Retrieved on 20 December 2006.
  39. ^ Daniel J. Elazar, Judaism and Democracy: The Reality. Undated. Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. Accessed 11 February 2006.
  40. ^ Clark, James R. (1965). “Messages of the First Presidency“. Brigham Young University, Department of Educational Leadership & Foundations. Retrieved on 2006-11-30.
  41. ^ “Political Neutrality“. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (2006). Retrieved on 2006-11-30.
  42. ^ Doctrine and Covenants Section 134:4..
  43. ^ White, Ellen G. (1888). The Great Controversy, pp. 563–581.
  44. ^ Maier, Hans and Jodi Bruhn Totalitarianism and Political Religions, p. 109, 2004 Routledge
  45. ^ Maier, Hans and Jodi Bruhn Totalitarianism and Political Religions, p. 110, 2004 Routledge
  46. ^ Maier, Hans and Jodi Bruhn Totalitarianism and Political Religions, p. 111, 2004 Routledge
  47. ^ Maier, Hans and Jodi Bruhn Totalitarianism and Political Religions, p. 111, 2004 Routledge
  48. ^ Martinez-Torron, Javier Freedom of religion in the case law of the Spanish Constitutional courtBrigham Young University Law Review 2001
  49. ^ Maier, Hans and Jodi Bruhn Totalitarianism and Political Religions, p. 111, 2004 Routledge
  50. ^ Stepan, Alfred, Arguing Comparative Politics, p. 221, Oxford University Press
  51. ^ Beita, Peter B. French President’s religious mixing riles critics Christianity Today, Jan. 23, 2008
  52. ^ 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)
  53. ^ Carson, D. A. Christ And Culture Revisited, p. 189, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2008

External links

 

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: