Italy has a long Catholic tradition, and today the vast majority of Italians cooperation between church and state, relatively few Italians today bother have been a byproduct of the long relationship between church and state. But, paradoxically, Italy has in many ways less religious zeal than the United States, where the lines between church and state are much more. The element, which shows better the nature of the Western systems of Church- State relations, is the distinction between spiritual and temporal, sacred and.
In French Guyana the Royal Regulation of makes the French state pay for the Roman Catholic clergy, but not for the clergy of other religions. Moreover, French heads of states are traditionally offered an honorary title of Canon of the Papal Archbasilica of St. John LateranCathedral of Rome. Once this honour has been awarded to a newly elected president, France pays for a choir vicar, a priest who occupies the seat in the canonical chapter of the Cathedral in lieu of the president all French presidents have been male and at least formally Roman Catholic, but if one were not, this honour could most probably not be awarded to him or her.
The French President also holds a seat in a few other canonical chapters in France. Louis of the French, St. Ivo of the Bretons, St. Claude of the Free County of Burgundy, and St. Nicholas of the Lorrains as well as a chapel in Loreto belong to France, and are administered and paid for by a special foundation linked to the French embassy to the Holy See.
In Wallis and Futunaa French overseas territory, national education is conceded to the diocese, which gets paid for it by the State A further entanglement consists in liturgical honours accorded to French consular officials under Capitations with the Ottoman Empire which persist for example in the Lebanon and in ownership of the Catholic cathedral in Smyrna Izmir and the extraterritoriality of St.
Anne's in Jerusalem and more generally the diplomatic status of the Holy Places. Germany[ edit ] Courtroom with Crucifix in Nuremberg, Germany, June The German constitution guarantees freedom of religion but there is not a complete separation of church and state in Germany.
For recognized religious communities, some taxes are collected by the state;  this is at the request of the religious community and a fee is charged for the service. But on the other hand, all who do teach religious instruction need an official permission by their religious community. Both are the legal framework for cooperation between the religious bodies and the German State at the federal as well as at the state level.
Religion in India and Freedom of religion in India India is a secular country and there are no special provisions favouring specific religions in its constitution.Italian Catholics 'de-baptise' to hit Vatican (BBC News, 20/11/2014)
The Shah Bano casea divorce lawsuit, generated much controversy when the Congress was accused of appeasing the Muslim orthodoxy by bringing in a parliamentary amendment to negate the Supreme Court's decision. After the Gujarat violencethere were allegations of political parties indulging in vote bank politics.
History of Roman Catholicism in Italy In Italy the principle of separation of church and state is enshrined in Article 7 of the Constitutionwhich states: Their relations are regulated by the Lateran pacts. Amendments to such Pacts which are accepted by both parties shall not require the procedure of constitutional amendments.
The Shinto Directive issued by the occupation government required that all state support for and involvement in any religious or Shinto institution or doctrine stop, including funding, coverage in textbooks, and official acts and ceremonies. In return for Stephen's support, Pepin apparently gave the Pope the lands in Italy which the Lombards had taken from the Byzantine Empire. These lands would become the Papal States and would be the basis of the Papacy's secular power for the next eleven centuries.
Inserted among the twelfth-century compilation known as the Decretum Gratiani, the document continued to be used by medieval popes to bolster their territorial and secular power in Italy. It was widely accepted as authentic, although the Emperor Otto III did denounce the document as a forgery.
Nationalism and the Renaissance In Europe, the supremacy of the pope faced challenges from kings and western emperors on a number of matters, leading to power struggles and crises of leadership, notably in the Investiture Controversy of the eleventh century over the question of who had the authority to appoint local bishops.
The reason the kings wanted to be involved was that the church owned and controlled vast areas of land and so the bishops had great economic and thus political power. A see-saw battle ensured during the succeeding centuries as kings sought to assert their independence from Rome while the papacy engaged in various programs of reform on the one hand and the exercise of considerable power against rebellious kings on the other, through such methods as excommunication and interdicts.
In England there was a clash between church and state over the legal jurisdiction. King Henry II wanted the clergy to be tried in civil courts and not church courts on the basis that everyone should be judged by the same law and receive the same punishment.
The problem was that clergy who committed even crimes such as murder were being judged very leniently by the ecclesiastical courts, which was seen as unfair. The Archbishop of CanterburyThomas Becket disagreed as he wanted to defend the independence of the church. During the Renaissancenationalist theorists began to affirm that kings had absolute authority within their realms to rule on spiritual matters as well as secular ones.
Kings began, increasingly, to challenge papal authority on matters ranging from their own divorces to questions of international relations and the right to try clergy in secular courts. This climate was a crucial factor in the success of the Protestant Reformation. He went on to dissolve the monasteries and confiscate much church land which he redistributed to his supporters. The result was the destruction of the country's welfare provision. Modern period Protestant churches were just as willing as the Catholic Church to use the authority of the state to repress their religious opponents, and Protestant princes often used state churches for their own political ends.
Years of religious wars eventually led to various affirmations of religious toleration in Europe, notably the Peace of Westphaliasigned in These seminal documents in the history of church and state played a significant role in both the Glorious Revolution of and later in the American Revolution. The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen guarantees freedom of religious opinion.
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… The French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen likewise guaranteed that: In the French case, not only would the state reject the establishment of any particular religion, it would take a vigilant stance against religions involving themselves in the political arena.
The American tradition, on the other hand, welcomed religious arguments in public debate and allowed clergymen of various faiths to serve in public office as long as they adhered to the U. The French leadership, having suffered from centuries of religious wars, was also deeply suspicious of religious passion and tended to repress its public expression, while the Americans adopted a positive attitude toward newer and smaller faiths which fostered a lively religious pluralism.
These two approaches would set the tone for future debates about the nature and proper degree of separation between church and state in the coming centuries.
Contemporary Many variations on relationship between church and state can be seen today. Some countries with high degrees of religious freedom and tolerance have still maintained state churches or financial ties with certain religious organizations into the twentieth century.
Englandfor example, has an established state religion but is very tolerant of other faiths as well. In Norwaysimilarly, the King is also the leader of the state church, and the twelfth 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 country is generally recognized to have a high degree of religious freedom. 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. Several European countries such as GermanyAustriaand several Eastern European nations officially support large religions such as the Catholic ChurchLutheran Evangelical Church, or the Russian Orthodox Churchwhile officially recognizing other churches as legitimate, and refusing to register newer, smaller, or more controversial religions.
Some go so far as to prohibit unregistered groups from owning property or distributing religious literature. In most European countries churches are involved in education.
In the UK religious education is compulsory in all state schools. There are many Church of England and Catholic schools which are funded by the state and recently Sikh and Hindu schools have received the same status.
In Germany Lutheran ministers and Catholic priests teach confessional religious education in public schools. Turkish women wearing head scarves Other countries maintain a more militant brand of separation church and state. Two prominent examples are France and Turkey. Turkey's policy has changed somewhat in recent years with the advent of a less-secularist government. This model of a secularist state protects the religious institutions from some types of state interference, but public expression by religious institutions and the clergy on political matters is limited.
Religious minorities are also limited from expressing themselves publicly by wearing distinctive clothing in the workplace or in public schools.
Church and State - New World Encyclopedia
A more liberal secularist philosophy is expressed in the American model, which allows a broad array of religious expression on public issues and goes out of its way to facilitate practices of religious minorities in the workplace, public schools, and even prisons.
American churches are forbidden, however, to support candidates for public office without jeopardizing their tax exempt status; and they are limited in the amount of money they can spend to affect pending legislation. The opposite end of the spectrum from separation of church and state is a theocracy, in which the state is founded upon the institution of religion, and the rule of law is based on the dictates of a religious court.
Examples include Saudi Arabiathe Vaticanand Iran. In such countries, state affairs are managed by religious authority, or at least by its consent. In theocracies, the degree to which those who are not members of the official religion are to be protected is usually decided by experts of the official religion.
A special case was seen in Marxist-Leninist countries, in which the state took a militantly atheistic standpoint and attempted, by varying degrees, to suppress or even destroy religion, which Karl Marx declared as the "opiate of the people" and a tool of capitalist oppression.
Some have argued that in Marxist states, the ideology of Marxism-Leninism constituted a kind of atheist religion, and that such states in fact do not separate "church and state" but replace a theistic state religion with an atheistic one. While Marxist-Leninist states today are rare, North Korea still officially holds to this ideology and China still adopts a hostile attitude toward various religious groups based in part on the Marxist attitude of its leaders.
Religion and state in Islam The advent of Islam created another attitude toward the relationship between religion and the state. Theoretically, Islam sees no distinction between religion and the state.
The ideal function of the state in Islamic tradition is to uphold the Shariaor Islamic law. In practice, however, governments in Islamic countries encompass a wide spectrum of attitudes toward the relationship between religion and the state.
Islamic lands generally recognized no distinction between religious and secular government until the period of the Ottoman Empire beginning with Osman I in the early fourteenth century. Islamic lands were ruled by the Islamic codes, or Shariausually under a caliph as the supreme political leader. Although forcible conversions of non-Muslims were allowed in some circumstances, Islamic law guaranteed the rights of both Christians and Jews to worship according to their own traditions.
Thus, Christians were usually granted greater religious freedom in Muslim lands than Muslims were granted in Christian countries; and Jews generally fared better under Muslim rulers than Christian ones. Islam generally holds to principle that both Judaism and Christianity, being religions inspired by Allah, should be tolerated and protected by the state.
However, these religions must not attempt to convince Muslims to convert; their adherents have fewer civil rights that Muslims; their men often cannot marry Muslim women; and they are to be taxed more heavily than Muslims.
Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini returns to Iran to set up his version of an Islamic republic. Certain passages in the Qur'an allow for adherents of other religions—deemed to be infidels —to be forcibly converted to Islam, while other verses declare that there is to be "no compulsion in religion. Some governments, such as that of Turkeyare firmly secularistic and even ban Islamic dress in government jobs and schools.
Most Islamic governments actually provide for religious freedom for religions other than Christianity and Judaism, such as HinduismBuddhism, and many others. Nevertheless, since the demise of the Soviet UnionIslamic countries today generally have a poor record compared to other nations, in terms of allowing religious freedom to their citizens.
A Caliphate in Sunni Islam —The head of state in this system is the Calipha successor to Muhammad 's political authority.
Church and State
No such governments exist today. The restoration of the Caliphate is one of the stated goals of certain Islamic fundamentalist groups, including the Al-Qaeda terrorist organization. A Wilayat al-Faqih for the Shia in the absence of an Imamah—This normally refers to role of the Islamic courts or a supreme Islamic leader such as the Ayatollah Khomeini as the interpreters and guardians of the Shari'a.
An Islamic republic—This is a general term for the governmental system in many nation states who adopt Islam as a religion.
However, it is best known today in the case of Iranwhich is a particular form of Islamic republic along Shia fundamentalist lines. In western democracies that practice the principle of separation of church and statethe courts are strictly forbidden from enforcing religious law, but must adhere to the constitution or laws enacted by the legislature. The Principle of Separation "Separation of Church and State" is often discussed as a political and legal principle derived from the First Amendment of the United States Constitutionwhich reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…" James Madison However, there are inevitable entanglements between the institutions of religion and the state, inasmuch as religious organizations and their adherents are a part of civil society.
Examples include laws against polygamyanimal sacrifice, hallucinogenic drugs; and laws requiring the swearing of oaths, military service, public school attendance, etc. Each of these complicate the idea of absolute separation. The phrase "separation of church and state" is derived from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a group of Danbury Baptists.
The term was used and defended by the Court until the early s. Since that time, the Court has distanced itself from the term somewhat, often suggesting the metaphor of a "wall of separation" conveys hostility to religion in contrast to Jefferson's original meaning "…in behalf of the rights of [religious] conscience.
In practice, the principle has not been a simple one. Nor should separation of church and state be considered as synonymous with "separation of religion and politics. A list of the issues in the separation between church and state in various parts of the world could include the following: Whether the state should officially establish a religion.
State religions exist in relative free countries such as the Englandas well as relatively unfree countries such as Saudi Arabiaas well as countries with a mixed record on religious and political freedom, such as Israel. Whether the state should act in a way that tends to favor certain religions over others, or which favors a religious attitude over a non-religious one. For example, is it better to encourage prayers in public schools, or to protect the rights of those students who might feel uncomfortable with certain types of prayers.
Whether the state should officially fund religious activities or schools associated with religious bodies. For example, should taxes go to pay the salaries of mainstream ministers, as they do in Germany and some other European countries today, or to aid non-religious education in Catholic schools.
Whether the state should indirectly fund religious activities such as voluntary prayer meetings and Bible studies at public schools or religious displays on public properties. Whether the state should fund non-religious activities sponsored by religious organizations.
For example, should the government support "faith-based" charitable programs to feed the hungry.
Whether the state should not prescribe, proscribe, or amend religious beliefs. For example, can the state require students to say the words "under God" when pledging allegiance to their country; and can it prohibit preachers from giving sermons that denigrate homosexual acts as sinful? Whether the state should endorse, criticize, or ban any religious belief or practice. For example should the state prohibit the wearing of distinctive religious clothing, the practice of animal sacrifice, or the refusal by parents to accept medical treatment for their children?
Should it ban the preaching of violent jihad against non-Islamic regimes? Whether the state should interfere in religious hierarchies or intervene in issues related to membership. This becomes a question, for example, when members of a religious congregation sue a religious institution for control of assets or for damages resulting from the behavior of religious officials, such as sexual abuse by priests.
Whether a state may prohibit or restrict religious practices. Examples include polygamycircumcisionfemale genital mutilation, animal sacrifices, holding prayer meetings in private homes, fundraising in public facilities, and evangelizing door to door.
Is it appropriate for the state to print "In God We Trust" on its currencyto refer to God in its national anthem, or to cause its leaders to swear public oaths to God before assuming office?