Separation Of Church And State
Separation of church and state has long been viewed as a cornerstone of on one of the rising issues of the day: the proper relationship between religion and of church-state separation as one of the hallmarks of American government. Feb 21, The relationship between church and state is the institutional form of the .. The American tradition, on the other hand, welcomed religious. Jan 1, A wall of separation between church and state. not believe in freedom of religion and instead want America to be a Christian nation (by which.
Much of this emphasis on separation was theologically based. The institutional distinction between church and state did not lead to disestablishment or any practical sense of separation. But the Puritans did not foreswear formal establishments or the state support of religion, tying many of their civil laws to biblical mandates and maintaining a system of taxes to support religion.
It fell to radical Separatist and some-time Baptist Roger Williams to make the most complete argument for church-state separation in early colonial America. Quaker Pennsylvania also forswore a religious establishment, though it did not go as far as Rhode Island in rejecting any government role in reinforcing religious morality.
Locke envisioned a situation which would restrict the influence of each on the other. The boundaries of both sides are fixed and immovable. John, Lord Bolingbroke, who discounted the divinity of the scriptures and a religious basis of the law. Montesquieu and Bolingbroke were read by the founding generation, particularly Thomas Jefferson.
In addition to advocating freedom of conscience, Trenchard and Gordon spoke out against corruption in the Anglican Church. John Cartwright, Richard Price, and Joseph Priestly were later opposition writers who advocated for political and religious reform. Priestly, who corresponded with many of the founding generation before fleeing to America, called for repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts which imposed a religious test for public officeholding and disestablishment of the Church of England, insisting on an even greater separation of religious and secular realms.
To be sure, other ideological strains influenced the founding generation, including classical republicanism, the common law, natural law, and even Protestant evangelical and Puritan covenantal thought. The Founders synthesized these seemingly disparate ideological strains into a comprehensive republicanism. No one during the founding generation argued in favor of increasing church-state ties, and only a small number advocated retaining the status quo of religious establishments.
The point is that the Founders imbibed multiple sources that promoted various conceptions of religious toleration, freedom of conscience, disestablishment, and church-state separation.
What was important to the Founders—and is important to modern efforts to understand the period—is that the ideas about church and state were dynamic and unfolding. Because of that fluid environment, it should not be surprising that few of the Founders offered a complete understanding of church-state arrangements.
But most important, there was a clear progression in favor of greater separation. First, the American Revolution followed a period of religious experimentalism and expansion commonly called the First Great Awakening. Although known for its emotional revivals that challenged the staid religious practices of the established churches, the Great Awakening was equally significant for breaking down forces of religious uniformity and substituting notions of religious equality and volunteerism.
Historians have documented how democratic ideas flowed into the religious movement and out again, undermining assumptions about the necessity of state supported religion. The Great Awakening cemented the notion that participation in, and support of, religious worship should be voluntary, not compulsory. Granted, church establishments had never worked well in any of those former colonies or had not worked at allso disestablishment was not controversial.
But none of these new states considered moving in the opposite direction toward increasing church-state ties, even though they were theoretically free to do so.
Most disestablished states retained other practices inconsistent with a modern understanding of separation, such as religious requirements for holding public office and participating in legal proceedings i. Nonetheless, all states had taken the first steps toward separation; before long many had abolished other religious disqualifications they had retained from the colonial era. The clear trend was toward liberalizing religious disqualifications.
But this description does not indicate the ongoing dynamism in those states. Byfour additional states had abandoned their religious establishments or had neglected to fund themthus allowing them to die.
The first Georgia and Maryland Constitutions had allowed for religious assessments but neither state instituted a system.
Maryland voters rejected a proposed assessment inindicating a quick reversal of opinion, while a Georgia law of the same year apparently never went into effect. The new Georgia Constitutions of andrespectively, removed the religious test for officeholding and abolished all assessments. All of these developments reveal a progression of thought about the meaning of church-state separation and freedom of conscience at the state level.
But even in those states, the idea of a religious establishment was not particularly popular, and opposition to tax assessments and religious preferences was strong and growing. Experiencing pressure from within and without, officials in Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Hampshire denied they even had a religious establishment. Here the State do [sic] neither. It is left to each town and parish, not to prescribe rules of faith or doctrine for the members of the corporation but barely to elect a teacher of religion and morality for the society, who is to be maintained at the expense of the whole.
The privilege is extended to all denominations. There is no one in this respect superior or inferior to another. Increasingly, early Americans believed that tax support of one religion or of religion generally violated rights of conscience. The movement away from religious assessments and toward expanding notions of rights of conscience demonstrates the transformation in attitudes about church-state arrangements.
Indeed, the impetus toward achieving a more complete form of disestablishment foundered early in the next century. Attitudes about disengaging religious and temporal realms shifted as natural rights rationalism lost favor to a new Protestant evangelical ethos that came to dominate the nation culturally by the second third of the century.
This attitudinal shift affected perspectives toward church-state relations. Several factors contributed to this transformation in attitudes. First was the American reaction to the French Revolution and the subsequent decline in deistic thought in the United States. That reaction coincided with the wide-scale outbreak of evangelical revivals aftercommonly called the Second Great Awakening. Church membership tripled, and Protestant evangelicalism quickly became the dominant cultural expression in America, fueled by a post-millennialist eschatology which taught that the Second Coming of Jesus would occur at the conclusion of a thousand-year golden reign.
To facilitate the Second Coming, evangelical leaders created voluntary organizations designed to reform society by addressing issues such as intemperance, biblical illiteracy, and Sabbath observance.
Evangelical leader Lyman Beecher believed that moral reform assisted the government by ensuring public piety. Many judges of the antebellum period shared the emerging evangelical perspective.
Inthe Pennsylvania Supreme Court rejected a claim that blasphemy laws violated the religious liberty provisions of the state constitution. The real object of the [First] amendment was not to countenance, much less to advance, Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity: Public acknowledgments of religion were commonplace.
When church-state separation did arise, according to Philip Hamburger, it was used to justify Protestant dominance over public institutions—particularly public schooling and its funding source—at the expense of Catholics and other immigrants. The state dominating and using a religion for its own purposes. This is called Erastianism and happened in Lutheran Germany and Petrine Russia where the church was a department of state and was expected to support and legitimize the government.
In both countries the churches failed their prophetic responsibility to criticize the unjust actions of the state. A variant of this is caesaropapism where the king ruled both Crown and Church. Religion dominating the state. This occurred for much of western European history as the Popeusing a forged document called the Donation of Constantine, claimed that he had the authority to appoint and depose kings, and would excommunicate those who did not obey him.
Theocracy, a form of government in which divine power governs an earthly human state, either in a personal incarnation or, more often, via religious institutional representatives i.
Such was the case in Calvin 's Geneva and the Vatican. A state which has its own secular ideology and tries to suppress or eliminate traditional religions which it regards as false and socially subversive rivals as occurred in Communist countries. A separation of church and state in which there is religious freedom and all religions are treated equally, which is the case in the United Statesand no religious body has any official influence over the state.
Separation of church and state
The result can be the formation of a civil religion with a pledge of allegiance and where the symbols of the state, such as the flag, take on a quasi-religious status. The Eastern Orthodox churches conceive of the relationship between church and state as a symphony.
The state defends the church by oppressing other denominations while the church supports the state by encouraging patriotism and acceptance of the state's policies.
Each has its own domain in caring for the needs of the people. Islam has traditionally not made any distinction between religion and state as the ulema function as both jurists and theologians.
The concept of the state is not prominent in Islamic thought for theological and historical reasons. Islam sees itself as a transnational religion. The state and religion as rival sources of authority and identity which can be in conflict with each other. This was the situation in the Roman Empire before Christianity became the official religion as well as much of medieval European history. The religious state where the ruler is believed to be god and the whole of society is orientated to the worship of the ruler and the state is seen as sacred and not secular as was the case in Ancient Egypt.
History Ancient In many ancient cultures, the political ruler was also the highest religious leader and sometimes considered divine. One of the earliest recorded episodes challenging a state religion of this type is the story of Moses and Aaronconfronting the king of Egypt in order, ostensibly, to win the right to hold a three-day festival honoring the Hebrew god Yahweh.
According to the Book of Exodusthe Hebrews' petition was granted only after a series of miraculous plagues were visited upon the Egyptians.
Moses then led the Israelites out of Egypt, never to return. Cyrus of Persia meets with Jewish leaders returning to rebuild the Temple of Jerusalem.
The first government declaration officially granting toleration to non-state religions was issued in the ancient Persian Empire by its founder, Cyrus the Great in the fifth century B.
Cyrus reversed the policy of his Babylonian predecessors and allowed captured religious icons to be returned to their places of origin. He also funded the restoration of important native shrines, including the Temple of Jerusalem. Ancient Jewish tradition, on the other hand, affirmed a strict state monotheism and attempted to suppress non-Israelite religions by destroying unauthorized altars and sometimes slaughtering the priests of rival faiths. Although many of the kings of Judah and Israel in fact tolerated other religious traditions, they were condemned for this policy by the prophets and other biblical writers.
In the Orient, the right to worship freely was promoted by most ancient Indian dynasties until around C. King AshokaB. One must, on the contrary, render to other creeds the honor befitting them. However, they also insisted that indigenous peoples pay homage to the state religion as well, a policy which put monotheistic faiths such as Judaism in a position of either compromising their own principles or rebelling against the state's authority.
The Jews rebelled against enforced Hellenization in Macabeean revolt of the second century B. The Ancient Romans tolerated Jewish non-compliance with the requirement to honor the gods of the state.
The Roman state saw itself as the ultimate authority and locus of law and loyalty with an Emperor who claimed divinity and expected to be worshipped.
The Christian Church, which only appeared much later, recognized the necessity of the state in the maintenance of law and order but could not accept its claim to be sacred or to have authority over morality or people's souls.
It saw itself as having the authority to determine what was God's law and expected people to put obedience to God and the Church above obedience to civil law and the Emperor. After a period of conflict, Christianity was made the official religion of the Roman Empire so as to unite and reinforce it.
Both state and church each had their own, sometimes overlapping, spheres of influence over people, one temporal and the other spiritual. The Emperors had considerable authority over Church doctrine and discipline while trying to incorporate Christian principles into civil law.
Constantine was looking for a religion that could unify the empire in a way that the old Roman religion could not. He thought Christianity could fulfill this role and in proclaimed the Edict of Milan, which removed penalties for professing Christianity and returned confiscated Church property. He considered himself responsible to God for the spiritual health of his subjects, and thus a duty to maintain orthodoxy. By doing so he forced the church to define itself by a creed and used the power of the state to enforce orthodoxy.
Up until this time the church had rarely made such decisions and did not have the power to persecute heretics. That the church allowed an unbaptized emperor to do so changed the relationship between church and state. The Eastern Orthodox churches sometimes refer to Constantine as the "13th Apostle" so great was his influence on the Church. The idea that the Emperor is head of the church as well as the state is known as Caesaropapism.
Christianity became the official state religion under Theodosius I in the early fifth century C. The later Roman Empire under Christianity repressed non-Christian religions and Christian heresies alike. Jewstoo, suffered under the influence of Christian bishops such as Ambrose of Milanwho prevailed in his opinion that a Christian emperor must not compel a local bishop to pay for the rebuilding of a synagogue he had led his parishioners to destroy.
This precedent was also an important one for asserting the independence of the Western church from the state. Under the influence of Saint Augustine of Hippothe Western church viewed the state as a "secular" power whose role was to uphold Christian law and order and to punish those who do evil.
Augustine's teaching is the origin of the term "secular," by which he referred to the period prior to Christ's second advent. The Eastern church took a different view, seeing a positive role for the state as God's agent in society.
A third course would be adopted in lands affected by the rise of Islamwhich recognized no distinction between religion and the state. In the eastern Byzantine Empirethe emperors, although sometimes deferring to powerful bishops and monks on matters of theology, considered themselves to be the "supreme pontiff" of the Church, as well as head of state.
Justinian I promulgated the doctrine of harmonia, which asserted that the Christian state and the Church should work together for God's will on earth under the emperor's leadership. A strong supporter of Orthodoxy and opponent of heresy, Justinian secured from the bishops in attendance at the Second Council of Constantinople inan affirmation that nothing could be done in the Church contrary to the emperor's will.
Why We Should Debate Religion and Politics More, Not Less | Time
This doctrine remained in effect until the Ottomans conquered Constantinople now Istanbul in the fifteenth century. In the West the Bishop of Rome emerged as the central figure of the Roman Catholic Church and often asserted his spiritual authority over various kings, on both theological and political matters. There are two powers, august Emperor, by which this world is chiefly ruled, namely, the sacred authority of the priests and the royal power.
Of these that of the priests is the more weighty, since they have to render an account for even the kings of men in the divine judgment. You are also aware, dear son, that while you are permitted honorably to rule over humankind, yet in things divine you bow your head humbly before the leaders of the clergy and await from their hands the means of your salvation. On the basis of this document the Pope and his representatives claimed the authority to appoint and crown kings suggesting that all temporal authority had to be legitimized by the Church.
The Italian humanist Lorenzo Valla proved inthat the Donation was a fake by analyzing its language, and showing that certain phrases were anachronistic and that the purported date of the document was inconsistent with the content of the document itself.
However, the Vatican placed Valla's work on the list of prohibited books, and defended the document's authenticity. It continued to be used as genuine until Baronius in his "Annales Ecclesiastici" published admitted that the "Donation" was a forgery, and eventually the church conceded its illegitimacy.
The precise purpose of the forgery is not entirely certain, but it was clearly a defense of papal interests, perhaps against the claims of either the Byzantine Empireor the Frankish king Charlemagnewho had assumed the former imperial dignity in the West and with it the title "Emperor of the Romans. It has been suggested that an early draft was made shortly after the middle of the eighth century in order to assist Pope Stephen II in his negotiations with Pepin the Shortthe Frankish Mayor of the Palace.
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.