The stem cell controversy is the consideration of the ethics of research involving the development, use, and destruction of human embryos. Most commonly, this controversy focuses on embryonic stem cells. Not all stem cell research involves human embryos. For example, adult stem cells, amniotic stem cells, and induced pluripotent stem cells
do not involve creating, using, or destroying human embryos, and thus
are minimally, if at all, controversial. Many less controversial sources
of acquiring stem cells include using cells from the umbilical cord,
breast milk, and bone marrow, which are not pluripotent.
Background
For many decades, stem cells have played an important role in medical research, beginning in 1868 when Ernst Haeckel
first used the phrase to describe the fertilized egg which eventually
gestates into an organism. The term was later used in 1886 by William Sedgwick to describe the parts of a plant that grow and regenerate. Further work by Alexander Maximow and Leroy Stevens
introduced the concept that stem cells are pluripotent. This
significant discovery led to the first human bone marrow transplant by E. Donnal Thomas
in 1956, which although successful in saving lives, has generated much
controversy since. This has included the many complications inherent in
stem cell transplantation (almost 200 allogeneic marrow transplants were
performed in humans, with no long-term successes before the first
successful treatment was made), through to more modern problems, such as
how many cells are sufficient for engraftment of various types of
hematopoietic stem cell transplants, whether older patients should
undergo transplant therapy, and the role of irradiation-based therapies
in preparation for transplantation.
The discovery of adult stem cells led scientists to develop an
interest in the role of embryonic stem cells, and in separate studies in
1981 Gail Martin and Martin Evans derived pluripotent stem cells from the embryos of mice for the first time. This paved the way for Mario Capecchi, Martin Evans, and Oliver Smithies to create the first knockout mouse,
ushering in a whole new era of research on human disease. In 1995 adult
stem cell research with human use, patented (US PTO with effect from
1995). In fact human use published in World J Surg 1991 & 1999 (B G
Matapurkar). Salhan, Sudha (August 2011). Textbook of Gynecology. JP
Medical Ltd. pp. 625–. ISBN978-93-5025-369-4.
Bharadwaj, Aditya; Glasner, Peter E. (2009). Local Cells, Global
Science: The Rise of Embryonic Stem Cell Research in India. Taylor &
Francis. ISBN978-0-415-39609-7 "Dr.B.G.Matapurkar gets US patent for surgical procedure for organ regeneration - Patents". www.pharmabiz.com. "Method of organogenesis and tissue regeneration/repair using surgical techniques - US Patent 6227202 Claims". patentstorm.us.
In 1998, James Thomson and Jeffrey Jones
derived the first human embryonic stem cells, with even greater
potential for drug discovery and therapeutic transplantation. However,
the use of the technique on human embryos led to more widespread
controversy as criticism of the technique now began from the wider
non-scientific public who debated the moral ethics of questions
concerning research involving human embryonic cells.
Potential use in therapy
Since
pluripotent stem cells have the ability to differentiate into any type
of cell, they are used in the development of medical treatments for a
wide range of conditions.
Treatments that have been proposed include treatment for physical
trauma, degenerative conditions, and genetic diseases (in combination
with gene therapy).
Yet further treatments using stem cells could potentially be developed
due to their ability to repair extensive tissue damage.
Great levels of success and potential have been realized from
research using adult stem cells. In early 2009, the FDA approved the
first human clinical trials using embryonic stem cells. Only cells from
an embryo at the morula stage or earlier are truly totipotent,
meaning that they are able to form all cell types including placental
cells. Adult stem cells are generally limited to differentiating into
different cell types of their tissue of origin. However, some evidence
suggests that adult stem cell plasticity may exist, increasing the
number of cell types a given adult stem cell can become.
Points of controversy
Many
of the debates surrounding human embryonic stem cells concern issues
such as what restrictions should be made on studies using these types of
cells. At what point does one consider life to begin? Is it just to
destroy an embryo cell if it has the potential to cure countless numbers
of patients? Political leaders are debating how to regulate and fund
research studies that involve the techniques used to remove the embryo
cells. No clear consensus has emerged. Other recent discoveries may
extinguish the need for embryonic stem cells.
Much of the criticism has been a result of religious beliefs, and in the most high-profile case, US PresidentGeorge W Bush
signed an executive order banning the use of federal funding for any
cell lines other than those already in existence, stating at the time,
"My position on these issues is shaped by deeply held beliefs," and "I
also believe human life is a sacred gift from our creator." This ban was in part revoked by his successor Barack Obama,
who stated "As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for
each other and work to ease human suffering. I believe we have been
given the capacity and will to pursue this research and the humanity and
conscience to do so responsibly."
Potential solutions
Some
stem cell researchers are working to develop techniques of isolating
stem cells that are as potent as embryonic stem cells, but do not
require a human embryo.
Foremost among these was the discovery in August 2006 that adult
cells can be reprogrammed into a pluripotent state by the introduction
of four specific transcription factors, resulting in induced pluripotent stem cells. This major breakthrough won a Nobel Prize for the discoverers, Shinya Yamanaka and John Gurdon.
In an alternative technique, researchers at Harvard University, led by Kevin Eggan
and Savitri Marajh, have transferred the nucleus of a somatic cell into
an existing embryonic stem cell, thus creating a new stem cell line.
Researchers at Advanced Cell Technology, led by Robert Lanza and Travis Wahl, reported the successful derivation of a stem cell line using a process similar to preimplantation genetic diagnosis, in which a single blastomere is extracted from a blastocyst. At the 2007 meeting of the International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR),
Lanza announced that his team had succeeded in producing three new stem
cell lines without destroying the parent embryos. "These are the first
human embryonic cell lines in existence that didn't result from the
destruction of an embryo." Lanza is currently in discussions with the
National Institutes of Health to determine whether the new technique
sidesteps U.S. restrictions on federal funding for ES cell research.
Anthony Atala of Wake Forest University
says that the fluid surrounding the fetus has been found to contain
stem cells that, when used correctly, "can be differentiated towards
cell types such as fat, bone, muscle, blood vessel, nerve and liver
cells". The extraction of this fluid is not thought to harm the fetus in
any way. He hopes "that these cells will provide a valuable resource
for tissue repair and for engineered organs, as well".
Viewpoints
Stem cell debates have motivated and reinvigorated the pro-life
movement, whose members are concerned with the rights and status of the
embryo as an early-aged human life. They believe that embryonic stem
cell research profits from and violates the sanctity of life and is tantamount to murder. The fundamental assertion of those who oppose embryonic stem cell research is the belief that human life is inviolable,
combined with the belief that human life begins when a sperm cell
fertilizes an egg cell to form a single cell. The view of those in
favor is that these embryos would otherwise be discarded, and if used as
stem cells, they can survive as a part of a living human being.
A portion of stem cell researchers use embryos that were created but not used in in vitro fertility
treatments to derive new stem cell lines. Most of these embryos are to
be destroyed, or stored for long periods of time, long past their viable
storage life. In the United States alone, an estimated at least 400,000
such embryos exist. This has led some opponents of abortion, such as Senator Orrin Hatch, to support human embryonic stem cell research.
Medical researchers widely report that stem cell research has the
potential to dramatically alter approaches to understanding and
treating diseases, and to alleviate suffering. In the future, most
medical researchers anticipate being able to use technologies derived
from stem cell research to treat a variety of diseases and impairments.
Spinal cord injuries and Parkinson's disease are two examples that have
been championed by high-profile media personalities (for instance, Christopher Reeve and Michael J. Fox,
who had/have lived with these conditions, respectively). The anticipated
medical benefits of stem cell research add urgency to the debates, which
has been appealed to by proponents of embryonic stem cell research.
In August 2000, The U.S. National Institutes of Health's Guidelines stated:
...research involving human pluripotent stem
cells...promises new treatments and possible cures for many debilitating
diseases and injuries, including Parkinson's disease, diabetes, heart
disease, multiple sclerosis, burns and spinal cord injuries. The NIH
believes the potential medical benefits of human pluripotent stem cell
technology are compelling and worthy of pursuit in accordance with
appropriate ethical standards.
In 2006, researchers at Advanced Cell Technology of Worcester,
Massachusetts, succeeded in obtaining stem cells from mouse embryos
without destroying the embryos.
If this technique and its reliability are improved, it would alleviate
some of the ethical concerns related to embryonic stem cell research.
Another technique announced in 2007 may also defuse the
longstanding debate and controversy. Research teams in the United
States and Japan have developed a simple and cost-effective method of
reprogramming human skin cells to function much like embryonic stem
cells by introducing artificial viruses. While extracting and cloning
stem cells is complex and extremely expensive, the newly discovered
method of reprogramming cells is much cheaper. However, the technique
may disrupt the DNA in the new stem cells, resulting in damaged and
cancerous tissue. More research will be required before noncancerous
stem cells can be created.
Update article to include 2009/2010 current stem cell usages in clinical trials.
The planned treatment trials will focus on the effects of oral lithium
on neurological function in people with chronic spinal cord injury and
those who have received umbilical cord blood mononuclear cell
transplants to the spinal cord. The interest in these two treatments
derives from recent reports indicating that umbilical cord blood stem
cells may be beneficial for spinal cord injury and that lithium may
promote regeneration and recovery of function after spinal cord injury.
Both lithium and umbilical cord blood are widely available therapies
that have long been used to treat diseases in humans.
Endorsement
Embryonic
stem cells have the potential to grow indefinitely in a laboratory
environment and can differentiate into almost all types of bodily
tissue. This makes embryonic stem cells a prospect for cellular therapies to treat a wide range of diseases.
Human potential and humanity
This argument often goes hand-in-hand with the utilitarian argument, and can be presented in several forms:
Embryos are not equivalent to human life while they are still
incapable of surviving outside the womb (i.e. they only have the
potential for life).
More than a third of zygotes do not implant after conception. Thus, far more embryos are lost due to chance than are proposed to be used for embryonic stem cell research or treatments.
Blastocysts are a cluster of human cells that have not
differentiated into distinct organ tissue, making cells of the inner
cell mass no more "human" than a skin cell.
Some parties contend that embryos are not humans, believing that the life of Homo sapiens only begins when the heartbeat develops, which is during the fifth week of pregnancy, or when the brain begins developing activity, which has been detected at 54 days after conception.
Efficiency
In vitro fertilization (IVF) generates large numbers of unused embryos (e.g. 70,000 in Australia alone).
Many of these thousands of IVF embryos are slated for destruction.
Using them for scientific research uses a resource that would otherwise
be wasted.
While the destruction of human embryos is required to establish a
stem cell line, no new embryos have to be destroyed to work with
existing stem cell lines. It would be wasteful not to continue to make
use of these cell lines as a resource.
Superiority
This
is usually presented as a counter-argument to using adult stem cells as
an alternative that does not involve embryonic destruction.
Embryonic stem cells make up a significant proportion of a
developing embryo, while adult stem cells exist as minor populations
within a mature individual (e.g. in every 1,000 cells of the bone
marrow, only one will be a usable stem cell). Thus, embryonic stem cells
are likely to be easier to isolate and grow ex vivo than adult stem cells.
Embryonic stem cells divide more rapidly than adult stem cells,
potentially making it easier to generate large numbers of cells for
therapeutic means. In contrast, adult stem cell might not divide fast
enough to offer immediate treatment.
Embryonic stem cells have greater plasticity, potentially allowing them to treat a wider range of diseases.
Adult stem cells from the patient's own body might not be effective in treatment of genetic disorders. Allogeneic embryonic stem cell transplantation (i.e. from a healthy donor) may be more practical in these cases than gene therapy of a patient's own cell.
DNA abnormalities found in adult stem cells that are caused by toxins and sunlight may make them poorly suited for treatment.
Embryonic stem cells have been shown to be effective in treating heart damage in mice.
Embryonic stem cells have the potential to cure chronic and
degenerative diseases which current medicine has been unable to
effectively treat.
Individuality
Before the primitive streak
is formed when the embryo attaches to the uterus around 14 days after
fertilization, two fertilized eggs can combine by fusing together and
develop into one person (a tetragametic chimera).
Since a fertilized egg has the potential to be two individuals or half
of one, some believe it can only be considered a 'potential' person,
not an actual one. Those who subscribe to this belief then hold that
destroying a blastocyst for embryonic stem cells is ethical.
Viability
Viability is another standard under which embryos and fetuses have been regarded as human lives. In the United States, the 1973 Supreme Court case of Roe v. Wade concluded that viability determined the permissibility of abortions
performed for reasons other than the protection of the woman's health,
defining viability as the point at which a fetus is "potentially able to
live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid."
The point of viability was 24 to 28 weeks when the case was decided and
has since moved to about 22 weeks due to advancement in medical
technology. Embryos used in medical research for stem cells are well
below development that would enable viability.
Objections
Alternatives
This argument is used by opponents of embryonic destruction, as well as researchers specializing in adult stem cell research.
Pro-life supporters often claim that the use of adult stem cells
from sources such as the umbilical cord blood has consistently produced
more promising results than the use of embryonic stem cells.
Furthermore, adult stem cell research may be able to make greater
advances if less money and resources were channeled into embryonic stem
cell research. Stem cell research is highly frowned upon in many ethnic and religious groups.
In the past, it has been a necessity to research embryonic stem cells and in doing so destroy them for research to progress.
As a result of the research done with both embryonic and adult stem
cells, new techniques may make the necessity for embryonic cell research
obsolete. Because many of the restrictions placed on stem cell research
have been based on moral dilemmas surrounding the use of embryonic
cells, there will likely be rapid advancement in the field as the
techniques that created those issues are becoming less of a necessity.
Many funding and research restrictions on embryonic cell research will
not impact research on IPSCs (induced pluripotent stem cells) allowing
for a promising portion of the field of research to continue relatively
unhindered by the ethical issues of embryonic research.
Adult stem cells have provided many different therapies for
illnesses such as Parkinson's disease, leukemia, multiple sclerosis,
lupus, sickle-cell anemia, and heart damage (to date, embryonic stem cells have also been used in treatment),
Moreover, there have been many advances in adult stem cell research,
including a recent study where pluripotent adult stem cells were
manufactured from differentiated fibroblast by the addition of specific
transcription factors.
Newly created stem cells were developed into an embryo and were
integrated into newborn mouse tissues, analogous to the properties of
embryonic stem cells.
Stated views of groups
Government policy stances
Europe
Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Portugal and Ireland do not allow the production of embryonic stem cell lines, but the creation of embryonic stem cell lines is permitted in Finland, Greece, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.
United States
Origins
In 1973, Roe v. Wade legalized abortion in the United States. Five years later, the first successful human in vitro fertilization resulted in the birth of Louise Brown
in England. These developments prompted the federal government to
create regulations barring the use of federal funds for research that
experimented on human embryos. In 1995, the NIH Human Embryo Research
Panel advised the administration of President Bill Clinton to permit federal funding for research on embryos left over from in vitro
fertility treatments and also recommended federal funding of research
on embryos specifically created for experimentation. In response to the
panel's recommendations, the Clinton administration, citing moral and
ethical concerns, declined to fund research on embryos created solely
for research purposes, but did agree to fund research on leftover embryos created by in vitro fertility treatments. At this point, the Congress intervened and passed the 1995 Dickey–Wicker Amendment
(the final bill, which included the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, was signed
into law by Bill Clinton) which prohibited any federal funding for the
Department of Health and Human Services be used for research that
resulted in the destruction of an embryo regardless of the source of
that embryo.
In 1998, privately funded research led to the breakthrough discovery of human embryonic stem cells (hESC).
This prompted the Clinton administration to re-examine guidelines for
federal funding of embryonic research. In 1999, the president's National
Bioethics Advisory Commission recommended that hESC harvested from
embryos discarded after in vitro fertility treatments, but not
from embryos created expressly for experimentation, be eligible for
federal funding. Though embryo destruction had been inevitable in the
process of harvesting hESC in the past (this is no longer the case),
the Clinton administration had decided that it would be permissible
under the Dickey-Wicker Amendment to fund hESC research as long as such
research did not itself directly cause the destruction of an embryo.
Therefore, HHS issued its proposed regulation concerning hESC funding in
2001. Enactment of the new guidelines was delayed by the incoming George W. Bush administration which decided to reconsider the issue.
President Bush announced, on August 9, 2001, that federal funds,
for the first time, would be made available for hESC research on
currently existing embryonic stem cell lines. President Bush authorized
research on existing human embryonic stem cell lines, not on human
embryos under a specific, unrealistic timeline in which the stem cell
lines must have been developed. However, the Bush Administration chose
not to permit taxpayer funding for research on hESC cell lines not
currently in existence, thus limiting federal funding to research in
which "the life-and-death decision has already been made".
The Bush Administration's guidelines differ from the Clinton
Administration guidelines which did not distinguish between currently
existing and not-yet-existing hESC. Both the Bush and Clinton guidelines
agree that the federal government should not fund hESC research that
directly destroys embryos.
Neither Congress nor any administration has ever prohibited
private funding of embryonic research. Public and private funding of
research on adult and cord blood stem cells is unrestricted.
U.S. Congressional response
In April 2004, 206 members of Congress
signed a letter urging President Bush to expand federal funding of
embryonic stem cell research beyond what Bush had already supported.
In May 2005, the House of Representatives voted 238–194 to loosen
the limitations on federally funded embryonic stem-cell research – by
allowing government-funded research on surplus frozen embryos from in vitro fertilization clinics to be used for stem cell research with the permission of donors – despite Bush's promise to veto the bill if passed. On July 29, 2005, Senate Majority LeaderWilliam H. Frist (R-TN), announced that he too favored loosening restrictions on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.
On July 18, 2006, the Senate passed three different bills concerning
stem cell research. The Senate passed the first bill (the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act)
63–37, which would have made it legal for the federal government to
spend federal money on embryonic stem cell research that uses embryos
left over from in vitro fertilization procedures.
On July 19, 2006 President Bush vetoed this bill. The second bill makes
it illegal to create, grow, and abort fetuses for research purposes.
The third bill would encourage research that would isolate pluripotent,
i.e., embryonic-like, stem cells without the destruction of human
embryos.
In 2005 and 2007, Congressman Ron Paul introduced the Cures Can Be Found Act, with 10 cosponsors. With an income tax credit, the bill favors research upon non–embryonic stem cells obtained from placentas, umbilical cordblood, amniotic fluid,
humans after birth, or unborn human offspring who died of natural
causes; the bill was referred to committee. Paul argued that hESC
research is outside of federal jurisdiction either to ban or to
subsidize.
On March 9, 2009, President Obama removed the restriction on federal funding for newer stem cell lines. Two days after Obama removed the restriction, the president then signed the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009, which still contained the long-standing Dickey–Wicker Amendment
which bans federal funding of "research in which a human embryo or
embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of
injury or death;" the Congressional provision effectively prevents federal funding being used to create new stem cell lines
by many of the known methods. So, while scientists might not be free to
create new lines with federal funding, President Obama's policy allows
the potential of applying for such funding into research involving the
hundreds of existing stem cell lines as well as any further lines created using private funds or state-level funding. The ability to apply for federal funding for stem cell lines
created in the private sector is a significant expansion of options
over the limits imposed by President Bush, who restricted funding to the
21 viable stem cell lines that were created before he announced his
decision in 2001.
The ethical concerns raised during Clinton's time in office continue to
restrict hESC research and dozens of stem cell lines have been excluded
from funding, now by judgment of an administrative office rather than
presidential or legislative discretion.
Funding
In 2005, the NIH funded $607 million worth of stem cell research, of which $39 million was specifically used for hESC. Sigrid Fry-Revere
has argued that private organizations, not the federal government,
should provide funding for stem-cell research, so that shifts in public
opinion and government policy would not bring valuable scientific
research to a grinding halt.
In 2005, the State of California took out $3 billion in bond loans to fund embryonic stem cell research in that state.
Asia
China has one
of the most permissive human embryonic stem cell policies in the world.
In the absence of a public controversy, human embryo stem cell research
is supported by policies that allow the use of human embryos and
therapeutic cloning.
Religious views
Generally
speaking, no group advocates for unrestricted stem cell research,
especially in the context of embryonic stem cell research.
Jewish view
According
to Rabbi Levi Yitzchak Halperin of the Institute for Science and Jewish
Law in Jerusalem, embryonic stem cell research is permitted so long as
it has not been implanted in the womb. Not only is it permitted, but
research is encouraged, rather than wasting it.
“
As
long as it has not been implanted in the womb and it is still a frozen
fertilized egg, it does not have the status of an embryo at all and
there is no prohibition to destroy it...
However in order to
remove all doubt [as to the permissibility of destroying it], it is
preferable not to destroy the pre-embryo unless it will otherwise not be
implanted in the woman who gave the eggs (either because there are many
fertilized eggs, or because one of the parties refuses to go on with
the procedure – the husband or wife – or for any other reason).
Certainly it should not be implanted into another woman.... The best and
worthiest solution is to use it for life-saving purposes, such as for
the treatment of people that suffered trauma to their nervous system,
etc.
”
— Rabbi Levi Yitzchak Halperin, Ma'aseh Choshev vol. 3, 2:6
Similarly, the sole Jewish majority state, Israel, permits research on embryonic stem cells.
Catholicism
The Catholic Church
opposes human embryonic stem cell research calling it "an absolutely
unacceptable act." The Church supports research that involves stem cells
from adult tissues and the umbilical cord, as it "involves no harm to
human beings at any state of development."
This support has been expressed both politically and financially, with
different Catholic groups either raising money indirectly, offering
grants, or seeking to pass federal legislation, according to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Specific examples include a grant from the Catholic Archiocese of
Sydney which funded research demonstrating the capabilities of adult
stem cells, and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops working to pass
federal legislation creating a nationwide public bank for umbilical cord
blood stem cells.
Baptists
The Southern Baptist Convention
opposes human embryonic stem cell research on the grounds that "Bible
teaches that human beings are made in the image and likeness of God
(Gen. 1:27; 9:6) and protectable human life begins at fertilization." However, it supports adult stem cell research as it does "not require the destruction of embryos."
Methodism
The United Methodist Church opposes human embryonic stem cell research, saying, "a human embryo, even at its earliest stages, commands our reverence." However, it supports adult stem cell research, stating that there are "few moral questions" raised by this issue.
Pentecostalism
The Assemblies of God opposes human embryonic stem cell research, saying, it "perpetuates the evil of abortion and should be prohibited."
Islam
The
religion of Islam generally favors the stance that scientific research
and development in terms of stem cell research is allowed as long as it
benefits society while using the least amount of harm to the subjects.
"Stem cell research is one of the most controversial topics of our time
period and has raised many religious and ethical questions regarding the
research being done. With there being no true guidelines set forth in
the Qur'an against the study of biomedical testing, Muslims have adopted
any new studies as long as the studies do not contradict another
teaching in the Qur'an. One of the teachings of the Qur'an states that
“Whosoever saves the life of one, it shall be if he saves the life of
humankind” (5:32), it is this teaching that makes stem cell research
acceptable in the Muslim faith because of its promise of potential
medical breakthrough."
This statement does not, however, make a distinction between adult,
embryonic, or stem-cells. In specific instances, different sources have
issued fatwas, or nonbinding but authoritative legal opinions according to Islamic faith, ruling on conduct in stem cell research. The Fatwa
of the Islamic Jurisprudence Council of the Islamic World League
(December 2003) addressed permissible stem cell sources, as did the Fatwa
Khomenei (2002) in Iran. Several different governments in predominantly
Muslim countries have also supported stem cell research, notably Saudi
Arabia and Iran.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
The First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
"has not taken a position regarding the use of embryonic stem cells for
research purposes. The absence of a position should not be interpreted
as support for or opposition to any other statement made by Church
members, whether they are for or against embryonic stem cell research.”
The separation of church and state is a philosophic and jurisprudential concept for defining political distance in the relationship between religious organizations and the nation state. Conceptually, the term refers to the creation of a secular state
(with or without legally explicit church–state separation) and to
disestablishment, the changing of an existing, formal relationship
between the church and the state.
In a society, the degree of political separation between the
church and the civil state is determined by the legal structures and
prevalent legal views that define the proper relationship between
organized religion and the state. The arm's length principle
proposes a relationship wherein the two political entities interact as
organizations independent of the authority of the other. The strict
application of secular principle of laïcité
(secularity) is used in France, while secular societies, such as
Denmark and the United Kingdom, maintain a form of constitutional
recognition of an official state religion.
The philosophy of the separation of the church from the civil state parallels the philosophies of secularism, disestablishmentarianism, religious liberty, and religious pluralism, by way of which the European states assumed some of the social roles of the church, the welfare state, a social shift that produced a culturally secular population and public sphere. In practice, church–state separation varies from total separation, mandated by the country's political constitution, as in India and Singapore, to a state religion, as in the Maldives.
An important contributor to the discussion concerning the proper relationship between Church and state was St. Augustine, who in The City of God,
Book XIX, Chapter 17, examined the ideal relationship between the
"earthly city" and the "city of God". In this work, Augustine posited
that major points of overlap were to be found between the "earthly city"
and the "city of God", especially as people need to live together and
get along on earth. Thus, Augustine held that it was the work of the
"temporal city" to make it possible for a "heavenly city" to be
established on earth.
Medieval Europe
For centuries, monarchs ruled by the idea of divine right.
Sometimes this began to be used by a monarch to support the notion that
the king ruled both his own kingdom and Church within its boundaries, a
theory known as caesaropapism. On the other side was the Catholic doctrine that the Pope,
as the Vicar of Christ on earth, should have the ultimate authority
over the Church, and indirectly over the state. Moreover, throughout the
Middle Ages the Pope
claimed the right to depose the Catholic kings of Western Europe and
tried to exercise it, sometimes successfully (see the investiture
controversy, below), sometimes not, such as was the case with Henry VIII of England and Henry III of Navarre.
In the West the issue of the separation of church and state during the medieval period centered on monarchs who ruled in the secular sphere
but encroached on the Church's rule of the spiritual sphere. This
unresolved contradiction in ultimate control of the Church led to power
struggles and crises of leadership, notably in the Investiture Controversy, which was resolved in the Concordat of Worms
in 1122. By this concordat, the Emperor renounced the right to invest
ecclesiastics with ring and crosier, the symbols of their spiritual
power, and guaranteed election by the canons of cathedral or abbey and
free consecration.
Reformation
At the beginning of the Protestant Reformation, Martin Luther articulated 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.
Those of the Radical Reformation (the Anabaptists) took Luther's ideas in new direction, most notably in the writings of Michael Sattler
(1490–1527), who agreed with Luther that there were two kingdoms, but
differed in arguing that these two kingdoms should be separate, and
hence baptized believers should not vote, serve in public office or
participate in any other way with the "kingdom of the world." While
there was a diversity of views in the early days of the Radical
Reformation, in time Sattler's perspective became the normative position
for most Anabaptists in the coming centuries.
Anabaptists came to teach that religion should never be compelled by
state power, approaching the issue of church-state relations primarily
from the position of protecting the church from the state.
One of the results of the persecution in England was that some
people fled Great Britain to be able to worship as they wished – but
they did not seek religious freedom, and early North American colonies
were generally as intolerant of religious dissent as England; Puritan Massachusetts,
for example, did not allow standard Church of England worship. Some of
these people voluntarily sailed to the American Colonies specifically
for this purpose. After the American Colonies famously revolted against George III of the United Kingdom, the Constitution of United States was specifically amended to ban the establishment of religion by Congress.
The concept of separating church and state is often credited to the writings of English philosopher John Locke (1632–1704). 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.
At the same period of the 17th century, Pierre Bayle and some fideists were forerunners of the separation of Church and State, maintaining that faith was independent of reason.
During the 18th century, the ideas of Locke and Bayle, in particular
the separation of Church and State, became more common, promoted by the
philosophers of the Age of Enlightenment. Montesquieu already wrote in 1721 about religious tolerance and a degree of separation between religion and government. Voltaire defended some level of separation but ultimately subordinated the Church to the needs of the State while Denis Diderot, for instance, was a partisan of a strict separation of Church and State, saying "the distance between the throne and the altar can never be too great".
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 and State.
Countries have varying degrees of separation between government and
religious institutions. Since the 1780s a number of countries have set
up explicit barriers between church and state. 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.
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 other faiths are tolerated. The British monarch is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, and 26 bishops (Lords Spiritual) sit in the upper house of government, the House of Lords.
In other kingdoms 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, neither of them native
Andorrans. One is the Roman Catholic Bishop of Seu de Urgell, a town
located in northern Spain. He has the title of Episcopalian Coprince
(the other Coprince being the French Head of State). Coprinces enjoy
political power in terms of law ratification and constitutional court
designation, among others.
Australia
H. B. Higgins, proponent of Section 116 in the Australian pre-Federation constitutional conventions
The Constitution of Australia prevents the Commonwealth from establishing any religion or requiring a religious test for any office:
Ch 5 § 116 The Commonwealth shall
not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any
religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any
religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for
any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.
The language is derived from the United States' constitution, but has been altered. Following the usual practice of the High Court,
it has been interpreted far more narrowly than the equivalent US
sections and no law has ever been struck down for contravening the
section. Today, the Commonwealth Government provides broad-based funding
to religious schools. The Commonwealth used to fund religious
chaplains, but the High Court in Williams v Commonwealth
found the funding agreement invalid under Section 61. However, the High
Court found that Section 116 had no relevance, as the chaplains
themselves did not hold office under the Commonwealth.
All Australian parliaments are opened with a Christian prayer, and the
preamble to the Australian Constitution refers to a "humbl[e] rel[iance]
on the blessing of Almighty God."
Although the Australian monarch is Elizabeth II, also British monarch and Governor of the Church of England, her Australian title is unrelated to her religious office and she has no role in the Anglican Church of Australia. The prohibition against religious tests has allowed former Anglican Archbishop of Brisbane Peter Hollingworth to be appointed Governor-General of Australia, the highest domestic constitutional officer; however, this was criticized.
Despite inclusion in the "States" chapter, Section 116 does not
apply to states because of changes during drafting, and they are free to
establish their own religions. Although no state has ever introduced a
state church (New South Wales restricted religious groups during the
early colonial period), the legal body corresponding to many religious
organizations is established by state legislation.
There have been two referenda to extend Section 116 to states, but both
failed. In each case the changes were grouped with other changes and
voters did not have the opportunity to expressly accept only one change.
Most states permit broad exemptions to religious groups from
anti-discrimination legislation; for example, the New South Wales act
allowing same-sex couples to adopt permits religious adoption agencies
to refuse them.
The current situation, described as a "principle of state neutrality" rather than "separation of church and state",
has been criticized by both secularists and religious groups. On the
one hand, secularists have argued that government neutrality to
religions leads to a "flawed democrac[y]" or even a "pluralistic theocracy"
as the government cannot be neutral towards the religion of people who
do not have one. On the other hand, religious groups and others have
been concerned that state governments are restricting them from
exercising their religion by preventing them from criticizing other groups and forcing them to do unconscionable acts.
Azerbaijan
Azerbaijan and its main cities
Islam is the dominant religion in Azerbaijan, with 96% of Azerbaijanis being Muslim,
Shia being in the majority. However, Azerbaijan is officially a secular
state. According to the Constitution of Azerbaijan, the state and
religion are separate. Article 7 of the Constitution defines the
Azerbaijani state as a democratic, legal, secular, unitary republic.
Therefore, the Constitution provides freedom of religions and beliefs.
The Azerbaijani State Committee for Work with Religious Organizations controls the relations between the state and religions.
Ethnic minorities such as Russians, Georgians, Jews, Lezgis, Avars, Udis and Kurds with different religious beliefs to Islam all live in Azerbaijan.
Several religions are practiced in Azerbaijan. There are many Orthodox
and Catholic churches in different regions of Azerbaijan.
Brazil
Rui Barbosa had a large influence upon the text adopted as the 1891 Constitution of Brazil.
Brazil was a colony of the Portuguese Empire from 1500 until the nation's independence from Portugal, in 1822, during which time Roman Catholicism was the official state religion. With the rise of the Empire of Brazil,
although Catholicism retained its status as the official creed,
subsidized by the state, other religions were allowed to flourish, as
the 1824 Constitution secured religious freedom.
The fall of the Empire, in 1889, gave way to a Republican regime, and a
Constitution was enacted in 1891, which severed the ties between church
and state; Republican ideologues such as Benjamin Constant and Ruy Barbosa were influenced by laïcité
in France and the United States. The 1891 Constitutional separation of
Church and State has been maintained ever since. The current Constitution of Brazil,
in force since 1988, ensures the right to religious freedom, bans the
establishment of state churches and any relationship of "dependence or
alliance" of officials with religious leaders, except for "collaboration
in the public interest, defined by law".
China
China, during the era of the Han Dynasty, had established Confucianism as the official state ideology over that of Legalism of the preceding Qin Dynasty over two millennium ago. In post-1949 modern-day China, owing to such historic experiences as the Taiping Rebellion, the Chinese Communist Party had no diplomatic relations with the Vatican for over half a century, and maintained separation of the church from state affairs, and although the Chinese government's methods are disputed by the Vatican, Pope Benedict had accepted the ordination of a bishop who was pre-selected by the government for the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association in 2007. However, a new ordination of a Catholic bishop in November 2010, according to BBC News, has threatened to "damage ties" between China and the Vatican.
[...] No state organ, public
organization or individual may compel citizens to believe in, or not to
believe in, any religion; nor may they discriminate against citizens who
believe in, or do not believe in, any religion. [...] No one may make
use of religion to engage in activities that disrupt public order,
impair the health of citizens or interfere with the educational system
of the state. Religious bodies and religious affairs are not subject to
any foreign domination.
Freedom of religion in Croatia is a right defined by the Constitution,
which also defines all religious communities as equal in front of the
law and separated from the state. Principle of separation of church and
state is enshrined in Article 41 which states:
All religious communities shall be equal before the law
and clearly separated from the state. Religious communities shall be
free, in compliance with law, to publicly conduct religious services,
open schools, academies or other institutions, and welfare and
charitable organizations and to manage them, and they shall enjoy the
protection and assistance of the state in their activities.
Public schools allow religious teaching (Croatian: Vjeronauk)
in cooperation with religious communities having agreements with the
state, but attendance is not mandated. Religion classes are organized
widely in public elementary and secondary schools.
The Constitution of Finland declares that the organization and administration of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland is regulated in the Church Act, and the organization and administration of the Finnish Orthodox Church
in the Orthodox Church Act. The Lutheran Church and the Orthodox Church
thus have a special status in Finnish legislation compared to other
religious bodies, and are variously referred to as either "national
churches" or "state churches", although officially they do not hold such
positions. The Lutheran Church does not consider itself a state church, and prefers to use the term "national church".
The Finnish Freethinkers Association has criticized the official
endorsement of the two churches by the Finnish state, and has campaigned
for the separation of church and state.
France
Motto of the French republic on the tympanum of a church in Aups,
Var département, which was installed after the 1905 law on the
Separation of the State and the Church. Such inscriptions on a church
are very rare; this one was restored during the 1989 bicentennial of the
French Revolution.
The French version of separation of church and state, called laïcité, is a product of French history and philosophy. It was formalized in a 1905 law providing for the separation of church and state, that is, the separation of religion from political power.
This model of a secularist state protects the religious
institutions from state interference, but with public religious
expression to some extent frowned upon. 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 not impinged upon by this type of secularization of public
discourse.
Former President Nicolas Sarkozy
criticized "negative laïcité" and talked about a "positive laïcité"
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. He visited the Pope in December 2007 and publicly emphasized France's Catholic roots, while highlighting the importance of freedom of thought, advocating that faith should come back into the public sphere. François Hollande took a very different position during the 2012 presidential election,
promising to insert the concept of laïcité into the constitution. In
fact, the French constitution only says that the French Republic is
"laïque" but no article in the 1905 law or in the constitution defines
laïcité.
Nevertheless, there are certain entanglements in France which include:
The most significant example consists in two areas, Alsace and Moselle, where the 1802 Concordat between France and the Holy See still prevails because the area was part of Germany when the 1905 French law on the Separation of the Churches and the State was passed and the attempt of the laicist Cartel des gauches in 1924 failed due to public protests. Catholic priests as well as the clergy of three other religions (the Lutheran EPCAAL, the Calvinist EPRAL, and Jewish consistories) are paid by the state, and schools have religion courses. Moreover, the Catholic bishops of Metz and of Strasbourg
are named (or rather, formally appointed) by the French Head of State
on proposition of the Pope. In the same way, the presidents of the two
official Protestant churches are appointed by the State, after
proposition by their respective Churches. This makes the French
President the only temporal power in the world to formally have retained
the right to appoint Catholic bishops, all other Catholic bishops being
appointed by the Pope.
In French Guyana the Royal Regulation of 1828 makes the French state
pay for the Roman Catholic clergy, but not for the clergy of other
religions.
In the French oversea departments and territories since the 1939 décret Mandel the French State supports the Churches.
The French President is ex officio a co-prince of Andorra, where Roman Catholicism has a status of state religion (the other co-prince being the Roman Catholic Bishop of Seu de Urgell, Spain). Moreover, French heads of states are traditionally offered an honorary title of Canon of the Papal Archbasilica of St. John Lateran, Cathedral of Rome. Once this honor 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 honor
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.
Another example of the complex ties between France and the Catholic Church consists in the Pieux Établissements de la France à Rome et à Lorette: five churches in Rome (Trinità dei Monti,
St. Louis of the French, St. Ivo of the Bretons, St. Claude of the Free
County of Burgundy, and St. Nicholas of the Lorrains) as well as a
chapel in Loreto belong to France, and are administered and paid for by a special foundation linked to the French embassy to the Holy See.
In Wallis and Futuna, a French overseas territory, national education is conceded to the diocese, which gets paid for it by the State
A further entanglement consists in liturgical honors 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
Courtroom with Crucifix in Nuremberg, Germany, June 2016
The German constitution guarantees freedom of religion, but there is not a complete separation of church and state in Germany. Officially recognized religious bodies operate as Körperschaften des öffentlichen Rechts (corporations of public law, as opposed to private). 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. Religious instruction is an optional school subject in Germany. The German State understands itself as neutral in matters of religious beliefs,
so no teacher can be forced to teach religion. But on the other hand,
all who do teach religious instruction need an official permission by
their religious community. The treaties with the Holy See are referred to as concordats
whereas the treaties with Protestant Churches and umbrellas of Jewish
congregations are called "state treaties". 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.
India
Despite 80% of Indian population are Hindus, under the Constitution of India, India is a secular country and there are no special provisions favoring specific religions in its constitution. Jawaharlal Nehru declared India is a secular state in order to avoid Hindu nationalism and religious conflicts between Hinduism, Islam, Sikhism and other religions.
As a result of such government power over religion, politicians are sometimes accused of playing votebank
politics, i.e. of giving political support to issues for the sole
purpose of gaining the votes of members of a particular community,
including religious communities. Both the Indian National Congress
(INC) and the [Bharatiya Janata Party]] (BJP) have been accused of
exploiting the people by indulging in vote bank politics. The Shah Bano case,
a 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 2002 Gujarat violence, there were allegations of political parties indulging in vote bank politics.
Italy
In Italy the principle of separation of church and state is enshrined in Article 7 of the Constitution, which states:
"The State and the Catholic Church are independent and sovereign, each
within its own sphere. 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."
Japan
Shinto became the state religion in Japan with the Meiji Restoration in 1868, and suppression of other religions ensued. Under the American military occupation (1945–52) "State Shinto" was considered to have been used as a propaganda tool to propel the Japanese people to war. 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.
The new constitution adopted in 1947, Articles 20 and 89 of the Japanese Constitution
protect freedom of religion, and prevent the government from compelling
religious observances or using public money to benefit religious
institutions.
South Korea
Freedom of religion in South Korea is provided for in the South Korean Constitution, which mandates the separation of religion and state, and prohibits discrimination on the basis of religious beliefs. Despite this, religious organizations play a major role and make strong influence in politics.
Mexico
The issue of the role of the Catholic Church in Mexico
has been highly divisive since the 1820s. Its large land holdings were
especially a point of contention. Mexico was guided toward what was
proclaimed a separation of church and state by Benito Juárez
who, in 1859, attempted to eliminate the role of the Roman Catholic
Church in the nation by appropriating its land and prerogatives.
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. President Benito Juárez confiscated church property. He disbanded religious orders and ordered the separation of church and state at Constitution of Mexico.
In 1926, after several years of the Mexican revolutionary war and insecurity, President Plutarco Elías Calles, an atheist and leader of the ruling National Revolutionary Party, enacted the Calles Law,
which eradicated all the personal property of the churches, closed
churches that were not registered with the State, and prohibited clerics
from holding a public office. The law was unpopular; and several
protesters from rural areas, fought against federal troops in what
became known as the Cristero War. After the war's end in 1929, President Emilio Portes Gil upheld a previous truce where the law would remain enacted, but not enforced, in exchange for the hostilities to end.
On 21 May 2012, the Norwegian Parliament passed a constitutional amendment that granted the Church of Norway
increased autonomy, and states that "the Church of Norway, an
Evangelical-Lutheran church, remains Norway's people's church, and is
supported by the State as such" ("people's church" or folkekirke is also
the name of the Danish state church, Folkekirken),
replacing the earlier expression which stated that "the
Evangelical-Lutheran religion remains the public religion of the State."
The final amendment passed by a vote of 162–3. The three dissenting
votes were all from the Centre Party.
The constitution also says that Norway's values are based on its
Christian and humanist heritage, and according to the Constitution, the King
is required to be Lutheran. The government will still provide funding
for the church as it does with other faith-based institutions, but the
responsibility for appointing bishops and provosts will now rest with
the church instead of the government. Prior to 1997, the appointments of
parish priests and residing chaplains was also the responsibility of
the government, but the church was granted the right to hire such clergy
directly with the new Church Law of 1997. Nevertheless, even after the
changes in 1997 and 2012, all clergy remain civil servants (state
employees), the central and regional church administrations remain a
part of the state administration,
the Church of Norway is regulated by its own law (kirkeloven) and all
municipalities are required by law to support the activities of the
Church of Norway and municipal authorities are represented in its local
bodies.
Philippines
In Article II "Declaration of Principles and State Policies", Section 6, the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines
declares, "The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable."
This reasserts, with minor differences in wording and capitalization, a
declaration made in Article XV, Section 15 of the 1973 Constitution.
Similarly, Article III, Section 5 declares, "No law shall be made
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious
profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall
forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise
of civil or political rights."; echoing Article IV, Section 8 of the
1973 Constitution verbatim.
Romania
Romania
is a secular state and has no state religion. However, the role of
religion in society is regulated by several articles of the Romanian
Constitution.
Art 29. Freedom of Conscience. (1) Freedom of thought and
opinion, as well as freedom of religion, cannot be limited in any way.
No one shall be coerced to adopt an opinion or adhere to a religious
faith against their will.
(5) Religious cults are autonomous in relation to the state, which
provides support including the facilitation of religious assistance in
the army, hospitals, penitentiaries, retirement homes and orphanages.
Art 32. Right to education (7) The state assures freedom of
religious education, according to the requirements of each specific
cult. In state schools, religious education is organized and guaranteed
by law.
Saudi Arabia
The legal system of Saudi Arabia is based on Sharia, Islamic law derived from the Qur'an and the Sunnah (the traditions) of the Islamic prophet Muhammad, and therefore no separation of church and state is present.
Singapore
Unlike Malaysia, Singapore is home to people of many religions other than Islam. Also, Singapore does not have any state religion. The Singaporean government has attempted to avoid giving any specific religions priority over the rest.
In 1972 the Singapore government de-registered and banned the
activities of Jehovah's Witnesses in Singapore. The Singaporean
government claimed that this was justified because members of Jehovah's
Witnesses refuse to perform military service (which is obligatory for
all male citizens), salute the flag, or swear oaths of allegiance to the state. Singapore has also banned all written materials published by the International Bible Students Association and the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society,
both publishing arms of the Jehovah's Witnesses. A person who possesses
a prohibited publication can be fined up to $2,000 Singapore dollars
and jailed up to 12 months for a first conviction.
Spain
In Spain, 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. Following the end of the war, the Catholic Church regained an officially sanctioned, predominant position with General Franco. Religious freedom was guaranteed only in 1966, nine years before the end of the regime.
Since 1978, according to the Spanish Constitution
(section 16.3) "No religion shall have a state character. The public
authorities shall take into account the religious beliefs of Spanish
society and shall consequently maintain appropriate cooperation
relations with the Catholic Church and other confessions."
Sweden
The Church of Sweden was instigated by King Gustav I (1523–60) and within the half century following his death had become established as a Lutheran
state church with significant power in Swedish society, itself under
the control of the state apparatus. A degree of freedom of worship (for
foreign residents only) was achieved under the rule of Gustav III
(1771–92), but it was not until the passage of the Dissenter Acts of
1860 and 1874 that Swedish citizens were allowed to leave the state
church – and then only provided that those wishing to do so first
registered their adhesion to another, officially approved denomination.
Following years of discussions that began in 1995, the Church of Sweden
was finally separated from the state as from 1 January 2000. However,
the separation was not fully completed. Although the status of state
religion came to an end, the Church of Sweden nevertheless remains
Sweden's national church, and as such is still regulated by the
government through the law of the Church of Sweden. Therefore, it would
be more appropriate to refer to a change of relation between state and
church rather than a separation. Furthermore, the Swedish constitution
still maintain that the Sovereign and the members of the royal family
has to confess an evangelical Lutheran faith, which in practice means
they need to be members of the Church of Sweden to remain in the line of
succession. Thusly according to the ideas of cuius regio, eius religio one could argue that the symbolic connection between state and church still remains.
Switzerland
The articles 8 ("Equality before the law") and 15 ("Freedom of religion and conscience") of the Federal Constitution of the Swiss Confederation guarantees individual freedom of beliefs.
It notably states that " No person may be forced to join or belong to a
religious community, to participate in a religious act or to follow
religious teachings".
Turkey, whose population is overwhelmingly Muslim, is also considered to have practiced the laïcité school of secularism since 1928, which the founding father Mustafa Kemal Atatürk's policies and theories became known as Kemalism.
Despite Turkey 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." 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 mosques,
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.
The exercise of their religion in Turkey by the Greek Orthodox and the
Armenian Apostolic communities is partly regulated by the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne. No such official recognition extends to the Syriac communities.
Under Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's tenure since 2003, Turkish secularism has come under heavy fire as a new Islamistright-wing populist
mood has overtaken Turkish politics. Erdoğan has pursued a suite of
policies determined to give state backing to particular interpretations
of Islam.
In state-run schools in England, Wales and Northern Ireland (but
not in privately run schools), there is a requirement for a daily act of
worship that is "wholly or mainly of a Christian character", although
non-Christian faith schools are exempt (instead having to have their own
form of worship) and sixth-form pupils (in England and Wales) and
parents of younger pupils can opt out. Official reports have recommended
removing the requirement entirely. The High Court of the United Kingdom has ruled in favor of challenges, brought by pupil families supported by the British Humanist Association, to secondary-level religious studies exam syllabuses that excluded non-religious worldviews.
In England, senior Church appointments are Crown appointments;
the Church carries out state functions such as coronations; Anglican
representatives have an automatic role on Standing Advisory Councils on Religious Education; and 26 diocesan bishops have seats in the House of Lords, where they are known as the Lords Spiritual as opposed to the layLords Temporal.
The Lords Spiritual have a significant influence when they vote as a
bloc on certain issues, notably moral issues like abortion and euthanasia.
All of state-funded schools in England are religious school, too, and
most are controlled by the Church of England, with significant numbers
of state-funded Catholic, Muslim, and Jewish schools as well. The
Anglican Church also has specific legal rights and responsibilities in
solemnized marriages that are different from other faith organizations.
Non-religious couples can have a civil wedding with no religious elements, but non-religious humanist weddings
are not yet legally recognized in their own right. Collective worship
makes prayer and worship of a Christian character mandatory in all
schools, but parents can remove their children from these lessons, and
sixth formers have the right to opt out.
The Church of Scotland (or Kirk) is the largest religious denomination in Scotland, however, unlike the Church of England it is Presbyterian
and (since 1921) not a branch of the state, with the Sovereign holding
no formal role in the Church other than being an ordinary member.
However, though the Kirk is disestablished, Scotland is not a secular
polity. The Kirk remains a national church
to which the state has special obligations; it is conventional that the
monarch, who is head of state, must attend the Church when she visits
Scotland, and they swear in their accession oath to maintain and
preserve the church. The state also gives numerous preferences to the
Church of Scotland and Catholic Church, particularly in education. The blasphemy law has not been abolished in Scotland, though it has fallen into disuse. Non-religious couples can have a civil wedding with no religious elements, and humanist weddings
have been legally recognized since 2005, and enshrined in Scottish law
since 2017. Collective worship makes prayer and worship of a Christian
character mandatory in all schools, but parents can remove their
children from these lessons, though sixth formers have no right to opt
out.
The Church of Ireland was disestablished as early as 1871; the Church in Wales was disestablished in 1920 (although certain border parishes remain part of the Established Church of England). Unlike the UK Government and to some extent the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government
has no religious links, though state-funded religious schools are
routinely approved in Wales. Collective worship makes prayer and worship
of a Christian character mandatory in all Welsh schools.
Northern Ireland is the most religious part of the UK, but
technically has secular governance. However, in practice, it is the
least secular in the UK. Schools, as in Northern Ireland, are largely
divided between Anglican and Catholic schools, and identification with
one community or the other is often sought on equal
opportunities-monitoring forms. The religious education curriculum is
drawn up exclusively by six Christian churches, to the exclusion of
other religions or beliefs, and collective worship is mandatory in all
schools.
The First Amendment
which ratified in 1791 states that "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof." However, the phrase "separation of church and state"
itself does not appear in the United States Constitution.
The phrase of Jefferson was quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1947. The Supreme Court did not consider the question of how this applied to the states until 1947; when they did, in Everson v. Board of Education, the court incorporated
the establishment clause, determining that it applied to the states and
that a law enabling reimbursement for busing to all schools (including
parochial schools) was constitutional.
Prior to its incorporation, unsuccessful attempts were made to
amend the constitution to explicitly apply the establishment clause to
states in the 1870s and 1890s.
Williams was motivated by historical abuse of governmental power,
and believed that government must remove itself from anything that
touched upon human beings' relationship with God, advocating a "hedge
or wall of Separation between the Garden of the Church and the
Wilderness of the world" in order to keep the church pure.
Through his work Rhode Island's charter was confirmed by King Charles II of England,
which explicitly stated that no one was to be "molested, punished,
disquieted, or called in question, for any differences in opinion, in
matters of religion."
Williams is credited with helping to shape the church and state debate in England, and influencing such men as John Milton
and particularly John Locke, whose work was studied closely by Thomas
Jefferson, James Madison, and other designers of the U.S. Constitution.
Williams theologically derived his views mainly from Scripture and his
motive is seen as religious, but Jefferson's advocation of religious
liberty is seen as political and social.
Early treaties and court decisions
The Treaty of Paris
In 1783, the United States signed a treaty with Great Britain that was promulgated "in the name of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity".
It was dipped in religious language, crediting "'Divine Providence'
with having disposed the two parties to 'forget all past
misunderstandings,' and is dated 'in the year of our Lord' 1783."
As the Government of the United
States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian
religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws,
religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan
nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from
religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony
existing between the two countries.
According to Frank Lambert, Professor of History at Purdue University, the assurances in Article 11 were
...intended to allay the fears of the Muslim state by
insisting that religion would not govern how the treaty was interpreted
and enforced. President John Adams and the Senate made clear that the pact was between two sovereign states, not between two religious powers.
Supporters of the separation of church and state argue that this
treaty, which was ratified by the Senate, confirms that the government
of the United States was specifically intended to be religiously
neutral. The treaty was submitted by President Adams and unanimously ratified by the Senate.
Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States
In the 1892 case Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, Supreme Court Justice David Brewer
wrote for a unanimous Court that "no purpose of action against religion
can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is a
religious people. ... [T]his is a Christian nation."
Brewer, the son of a
Congregationalist missionary to Asia Minor, quoted several colonial
charters, state constitutions, and court decisions that referred to the
importance of Christian belief in the affairs of the American people;
cited the practice of various legislative bodies of beginning their
sessions with prayer, and noted the large number of churches and
Christian charitable organizations that exist in every community in the
country as evidence that this is a Christian nation. In doing so, Brewer
expressed the prevailing nineteenth-century Protestant view that
America is a Christian nation.
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.
Another early user of the term was James Madison, the principal drafter of the United States Bill of Rights. In a 1789 debate in the House of Representatives regarding the draft of the First Amendment, the following was said:
August 15, 1789. Mr. [Peter]
Sylvester [of New York] had some doubts. … He feared it [the First
Amendment] might be thought to have a tendency to abolish religion
altogether. … Mr. [Elbridge] Gerry [of Massachusetts] said it would read
better if it was that "no religious doctrine shall be established by
law." … Mr. [James] Madison [of Virginia] said he apprehended the
meaning of the words to be, that "Congress should not establish a
religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law." … [T]he
State[s] … seemed to entertain an opinion that under the clause of the
Constitution. … it enabled them [Congress] to make laws of such a nature
as might … establish a national religion; to prevent these effects he
presumed the amendment was intended. … Mr. Madison thought if the word
"National" was inserted before religion, it would satisfy the minds of
honorable gentlemen. … He thought if the word "national" was introduced,
it would point the amendment directly to the object it was intended to
prevent.
Madison contended "Because if Religion be exempt from the authority
of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the
Legislative Body." Several years later he wrote of "total separation of the church from the state." "Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States", Madison wrote,
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." 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.
This attitude is further reflected in the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom,
originally authored by Jefferson and 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.
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.
Both are 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.
During the 1960 presidential campaign the potential influence of the
Catholic Church on John F. Kennedy's presidency was raised. If elected,
it would be the first time that a Catholic would occupy the highest
office in the United States. John F. Kennedy, in his Address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association on 12 September 1960, addressed the question directly, saying,
I believe in an America where the
separation of church and state is absolute – where no Catholic prelate
would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no
Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote – where
no church or church school is granted any public funds or political
preference – and where no man is denied public office merely because his
religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people
who might elect him. I believe in an America that is officially neither
Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish – where no public official either
requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the
National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source – where
no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon
the general populace or the public acts of its officials – and where
religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is
treated as an act against all. […] I do not speak for my church on
public matters – and the church does not speak for me. Whatever issue
may come before me as President – on birth control, divorce, censorship,
gambling or any other subject – I will make my decision in accordance
with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be
the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressures
or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to
decide otherwise. But if the time should ever come – and I do not
concede any conflict to be even remotely possible – when my office would
require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national
interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious
public servant would do the same.
The United States Supreme Court has referenced the separation of
church and state metaphor more than 25 times, though not always fully
embracing the principle, saying "the metaphor itself is not a wholly
accurate description of the practical aspects of the relationship that
in fact exists between church and state". 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. In a minority opinion in Wallace v. Jaffree,
Justice Rehnquist presented the view that the establishment clause was
intended to protect local establishments of religion from federal
interference. Rehnquist made numerous citations of cases that rebutted
the idea of a total wall of separation between Church and State. A
result of such reasoning was Supreme Court support for government
payments to faith-based community projects. Justice Scalia has criticized the metaphor as a bulldozer removing religion from American public life.
Pledge of Allegiance
Critics of the American Pledge of Allegiance
have argued that the use of the phrase "under God" violates the
separation of church and state. While the pledge was created by Francis Bellamy in 1891, in 1954, the Knights of Columbus,
a Catholic organization, campaigned with other groups to have the words
"under God" added to the pledge. On June 14, 1954, President Dwight Eisenhower signed the bill to make the addition.
Since then, critics have challenged the existence of the phrase
in the Pledge. In 2004, an atheist man challenged a Californian law
which required students to recite the pledge. He said the law violated
his daughter's right to free speech. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of
the school system in Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow,
mainly due to the fact that the father could not claim sufficient
custody of the child over his ex-wife who was the legal guardian.
Additionally, the Supreme Court stated that teachers leading students in
the pledge was constitutional, and therefore the pledge should stay the
same.
According to the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community's understanding of Islam,
Islamic principles state that the politics of government should be
separate from the doctrine of religion. Special preference should not be
given to a Muslim over a non-Muslim.
Christianity
Historically, the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church
have deemed a close relationship between church and state desirable
wherever possible. The Catholic Church, in addition, teaches that states
have a duty to recognize the Catholic faith officially and in its laws
and mores, if such states' populations are or become predominantly
Catholic. The Orthodox churches have historically at times formed a "symphonia" with the state, whether de jure or de facto.
On the other hand, while some Protestants hold views similar to those above, some Protestants refuse to vote, carry arms, or participate in civil government in any way, often leading to their persecution, as happened to Anabaptists, their descendants including the Amish, Mennonites, and Quakers, in the 20th Century. Anabaptist and Jehovah's Witnesses, in many countries, believing by not participating they are closer to the Kingdom of God, since "Jesus answered (Pilate), 'My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight (to defend him).' " – John 18:36. For them, the term "Christian nation"
cannot be a valid governmental position, leaving only Christian people,
possibly in Christian communities, beyond which are the "things which
are Caesar's" – Matthew 22:21.
Methodism
In its section on National Reform, the Book of Discipline of the Allegheny Wesleyan Methodist Connection states, with respect to Church and state relations:
It shall be the duty of the
ministers and members of the Wesleyan Methodist Connection to use their
influence in every feasible manner in favor of a more complete
recognition of the authority of Almighty God, in the secular and civil
relations, both of society and of government, and the authority of our
Lord Jesus Christ as King of nations as well as King of saints.
We should regard the successful
attempt to expel all religious instruction and influence from our public
schools as an evil of the first magnitude. Nor do we see how this can
be done without inflicting a deadly wound upon the intellectual and
moral life of the nation…We look upon the state as an ordinance of God,
and not a mere creature of the popular will; and, under its high
responsibility to the Supreme Ruler of the world, we hold it to be both
its right and bound duty to educate its children in those elementary
principles of knowledge and virtue which are essential to its own
security and well-being. The union of church and state is indeed against
our American theory and constitutions of government; but the most
intimate union of the state with the saving and conservative forces of
Christianity is one of the oldest customs of the country, and has always
ranked a vital article of our political faith.
Roman Catholicism
The first full articulation of the Catholic doctrine on the principles of the relationship of the Catholic Church to the state (at the time, the Eastern Roman Empire) is contained in the document Famuli vestrae pietatis, written by Pope Gelasius I
to the Emperor, which states that the Church and the state should work
together in society, that the state should recognize the Church's role
in society, with the Church holding superiority in moral matters and the
state having superiority in temporal matters. Monsignor John A. Ryan
speaks of this Catholic doctrine thusly: "If there is only one true
religion, and if its possession is the most important good in life, for
states as well as individuals, then the public profession, protection,
and promotion of this religion, and the legal prohibition of all direct
assaults upon it, becomes one of the most obvious and fundamental duties
of the state. For it is the business of the state to safeguard and
promote human welfare in all departments of life." Gaudium et spes
("Joy and Hope"), the 1965 Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the
Modern World, noted that "... the Church has always had the duty of
scrutinizing the signs of the times and of interpreting them in the
light of the Gospel."
The mission of the Church recognized that the realities of
secularization and pluralism exist despite the traditional teaching on
confessional statehood. Because of this reality of secularization, it
also recognized and encouraged the role of the laity in the life of the
Church in the secular world, viewing the laity as much-needed agents of
change in order to bring about a transformation of society more in line
with Catholic teaching. "This council exhorts Christians, as citizens of
two cities, to strive to discharge their earthly duties conscientiously
and in response to the Gospel spirit.". This was further expanded in Apostolicam Actuositatem, Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity, of 18 November 1965.
Apostolicam Actuositatem, the Second Vatican Council's
"Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity", was issued 18 November 1965.
The purpose of this document was to encourage and guide lay people in
their Christian service. "Since the laity, in accordance with their
state of life, live in the midst of the world and its concerns, they are
called by God to exercise their apostolate in the world like leaven,
with the ardor of the spirit of Christ." Francis Cardinal Arinze
explains that lay persons "...are called by Baptism to witness to
Christ in the secular sphere of life; that is in the family, in work and
leisure, in science and cultural, in politics and government, in trade
and mass media, and in national and international relations."
The Catholic teaching in Dignitatis Humanae, the Second Vatican Council's
Declaration on Religious Freedom (1986), states that all people are
entitled to a degree of religious freedom as long as public order is not
disturbed and that constitutional law should recognize such freedom.
"If, in view of peculiar circumstances obtaining among peoples, special
civil recognition is given to one religious community in the
constitutional order of society, it is at the same time imperative that
the right of all citizens and religious communities to religious freedom
should be recognized and made effective in practice.
At the same time, the document reiterated that the Church "leaves
untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and
societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ."
The traditional teaching of the duty of society towards the Church in a
Catholic-majority nation is establishment of Catholicism as the state religion. This doctrine is further declared in the current edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, number 2105.
The Catholic Church takes the position that the Church itself has
a proper role in guiding and informing consciences, explaining the natural law, and judging the moral integrity of the state, thereby serving as check to the power of the state. The Church teaches that the right of individuals to religious freedom (enshrined in the U.S.'s "Free Exercise Clause")
is sound, and, all other things being equal, ideally the Church would
be the established religion of the state, without, however coercing any
individual to embrace the Catholic religion. Still, it also recognizes
that it would not always be prudent in all states to immediately mandate
the Catholic religion as the official religion of the state, most
especially in states in which Catholicism has not yet become the
religion of the overwhelming majority.
Catholic philosopher Thomas Storck argues that, once a society
becomes "Catholicised" and adopts the Church as the state religion, it
is further morally bound: "'the just requirements of public order' vary
considerably between a Catholic state and a religiously neutral state.
If a neutral state can prohibit polygamy, even though it is a
restriction on religious freedom, then a Catholic state can likewise
restrict the public activity of non-Catholic groups. "The just
requirements of public order" can be understood only in the context of a
people's traditions and modes of living, and in a Catholic society
would necessarily include that social unity based upon a recognition of
the Catholic Church as the religion of society, and the consequent
exclusion of all other religions from public life. Western secular
democracies, committed to freedom of religion for all sects, find no
contradiction in proscribing polygamy, although some religions permit
it, because its practice is contrary to the traditions and mores of
these nations. A Catholic country can certainly similarly maintain its
own manner of life."
If, under consideration of historical circumstances among
peoples, special civil recognition is given to one religious community
in the constitutional order of a society, it is necessary at the same
time that the right of all citizens and religious communities to
religious freedom should be acknowledged and maintained.
The Church takes stances on current political issues, and tries to
influence legislation on matters it considers relevant. For example, the
Catholic bishops in the United States adopted a plan in the 1970s
calling for efforts aimed at a Constitutional amendment providing "protection for the unborn child to the maximum degree possible".
Benedict XVI regards modern idea of freedom (meaning the Church
should be free from governmental coercion and overtly political
influence from the state) as a legitimate product of the Christian
environment, in a similar way to Jacques Le Goff. However, contrary to the French historian, the Pope rejects the conception of religion as just a private affair.
Friendly and hostile separation
Scholars have distinguished between what can be called "friendly" and "hostile" separations of church and state.
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.
The hostile variety, by contrast, seeks to confine religion purely to
the home or church and limits religious education, religious rites of
passage and public displays of faith.
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 church-state relations in both countries
are considered generally friendly. Nevertheless, France's former President Nicolas Sarkozy
at the beginning of his term, considered his country's current state of
affairs a "negative laïcité" and wanted to develop a "positive laïcité"
more open to religion. The concerns of the state toward religion have been seen by some as one cause of the civil war in Spain and Mexico.
The French Catholic philosopher and 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 United States.
He considered the U.S. model of that time to be more amicable because it
had both "sharp distinction and actual cooperation" between church and
state, what he called a "historical treasure" and admonished the United
States, "Please to God that you keep it carefully, and do not let your
concept of separation veer round to the European one." Alexis de Tocqueville,
another French observer tended to make the same distinction, "In the
U.S., from the beginning, politics and religion were in accord, and they
have not ceased to be so since."
