Scribd
Upload
221 views1 page

Separation of Church and State

The separation of church and state is a concept that defines the relationship between religious organizations and the government. It involves creating a secular state and disestablishing any formal connections between religious institutions and the state. The degree of separation varies between countries and is determined by legal structures and views on religion's role in government. Some countries like France strongly separate the two, while others like Denmark maintain state recognition of an official religion. Separating church and state parallels philosophies of secularism and religious pluralism, and resulted in culturally secular Western societies with religion playing a smaller role in public life.

Uploaded by

Noreen Manalaysay
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
221 views1 page

Separation of Church and State

The separation of church and state is a concept that defines the relationship between religious organizations and the government. It involves creating a secular state and disestablishing any formal connections between religious institutions and the state. The degree of separation varies between countries and is determined by legal structures and views on religion's role in government. Some countries like France strongly separate the two, while others like Denmark maintain state recognition of an official religion. Separating church and state parallels philosophies of secularism and religious pluralism, and resulted in culturally secular Western societies with religion playing a smaller role in public life.

Uploaded by

Noreen Manalaysay
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

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.[3] 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.

John Locke on the separation of Church and Magistrate (1689)

John Locke (1632-1704) was also known in his lifetime as a staunch defender of religious toleration. In this
passage he calls for the complete separation of church and magistrate:

And the zealots hardly have patience to refrain from violence and rapine, so long till the cause be heard, and
the poor man be, according to form, condemned to the loss of liberty, goods or life. Oh that our ecclesiastical
orators, of every sect, would apply themselves, with all the strength of argument that they are able, to the
confounding of men’s errours! But let them spare their persons. Let them not supply their want of reasons
with the instruments of force, which belong to another jurisdiction, and do ill become a churchman’s hands.
Let them not call in the magistrate’s authority to the aid of their eloquence, or learning; lest perhaps, whilst
they pretend only love for the truth, this their intemperate zeal, breathing nothing but fire and sword, betray
their ambition, and show that what they desire is temporal dominion.

About this Quotation:

Locke’s defence of religious toleration was very comprehensive for its time, even extending to Muslims, but
unfortunately not to Catholics (they had sworn allegiance to a “foreign Prince”) or to atheists (who could not
be trusted because they did not believe in the afterlife). He rejected the use of the power of the magistrate to
enforce religious belief or practice because his sole purpose was to use coercive powers of the state to protect
the lives, liberties, and properties of every individual. As long as people “mind only their own business” the
magistrate has no interest in them whatsoever. Besides, Locke thought that to enforce outward conformity to
certain religious practices was hypocritical as it left untouched “the inward persuasion of the mind.” There
was also the “slippery slope argument” that if one allowed the zealous magistrate to enforce religious beliefs
in the name of the welfare of the people, then what was to stop them interfering in every other aspect of a
person’s life which affected their physical or spiritual wellbeing? Locke’s advice to the preacher was to make
sure their “pulpits every-where sounded with this doctrine of peace and toleration”.

You might also like