Talk:Separation of church and state/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

14th

The first paragraph says "The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution did not yet exist, thus leaving the States vulnerable to federal legislation. " What does the 14th amendment have to do with this? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

From the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution article, "Its Due Process Clause ... has been used to make most of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states, as well as to recognize substantive rights and procedural rights." Also see Separation of church and state in the United States#Interpretive controversies ("... the incorporation ultimately bases on the passage of the 14th Amendment in 1868, at which point the first amendment's application to the state government was recognized.[46] ") and Talk:First Amendment to the United States Constitution#John Leland, James Madison, and political dealmaking, which pertains here a bit but which didn't make it into the 1st Amendment article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

"supporters of separation of church and state"?

"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"

Congrats wikipedians of the US, if you can't keep this weasel-slant out of this page you are on your way to losing this precept.124.149.123.95 (talk) 11:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

This is cited to F. Forrester Church (2004). The separation of church and state: writings on a fundamental freedom by America's founders. Beacon Press. p. 121. ISBN 9780807077221. That book is not previewable online. Amazon.com says that the author is minister of All Souls Church in Manhattan, earned his doctorate in church history at Harvard, and has written or edited twenty-two books. A quick check shows that he writes from the point of view one might expect from an author with that background. Are you asserting that the article misrepresents the book? Do you have a citeable source with a different view (re who argues what about this, or some other point which goes to what you've quoted above) which you believe ought to be given due weight in the article? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

In proper English, I mean to ask how the previous response relates at all to the preceding suggestion that a POV slant was injected into the article through the use of language which seems to be chosen to attempt to paint the status of the separation of church and state to be one of opinion rather than fact.124.168.16.94 (talk) 11:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

In the US, what is is the constitution is fact. The much farther reaching meaning of the phrase "separation of church and state" (e.g. complete separation in all respects) is not. North8000 (talk) 13:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

It is a fact that the supreme court has reinforced and echoed the sentiments and words of Thomas Jefferson that the constitution puts forth the concept that there be a separation of church and state. Insomuch as the supreme court deals exclusively with opinion, their involvement reflects an ongoing understanding by learned scholars and/or legal practitioners that the concept of such a separation is indeed factual and not a matter of dispute or perspective or interpretation. If a separation of church and state is referred to, then it must be a referral to the factual status quo, not one of the concept being an ethereal proposition, since as you suggested the separation as it is has wide implications that are not mere hypotheticals.124.168.16.94 (talk) 15:45, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

You are missing my point. I'm saying that threr are thousands of meanings of the broad, vague term "separation of church and state" Half of them are the case in the US, half of them aren't. North8000 (talk) 01:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and the US-specific article Separation of Church and State in the United States does exist, and is mentioned as a summary style article in the "United States" subsection. I haven't moved it, but it looks to me as if the U.S. subsection belongs under the "Various countries" section rather than under the "History" section. Perhaps "In various countries" should be a subsection of "History", with the individual countries (including the United States) as sub-subsections under that. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

"You are missing my point. I'm saying that threr are thousands of meanings of the broad, vague term "separation of church and state" Half of them are the case in the US, half of them aren't." And you might have missed the point, read the quote again and you might see how it is specifically about the US, not merely the vast nebulous concept. 124.168.0.71 (talk) 12:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't even know if we are disagreeing. My point is that that the statement "separation of church and state" is very broad and vague and not in the constitution nor any US law. Certain more specific things that would fall under that topic ARE in the US Constitution and US law. That was my only point, I am not disputing or arguing any other point. North8000 (talk) 13:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Hans Maier refs

Something seems wrong with these refs down in numbers 54 through around 57. They all seems to point to the same link but call out various pages. Anyone else see a problem here? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 14:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

"There is no legal ..." comment

There's a comment that was just tagged as needing a citation which reads:

There is no legal (technical) evidence in the Constitution of the United States that separation of church and state was intended

I'd agree with the tagger that it definitely needs a citation as this seems to go counter to everything I have ever read on the subject. Not sure how this even got into the article without being cited. Anyone against removing it right out? Eldamorie (talk) 21:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I certainly agree with removing it, which is why I just did so.—Kww(talk) 22:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

It was badly written, so no argument with its removal. But what was trying to say would be important content here. Namely correction of the common misconception that the phrase "Separation of Church and State" is in the US Constitution. That phrase covers zillions of possible things, a FEW of which are ARE in the constitution. North8000 (talk) 17:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The introduction already has quite a long discussion, including the sentence The phrase itself does not appear in the U.S. Constitution. Since it is US-centric, I personally think the disussion might be better moved to the United States section, with the details belonging in the main article Separation of church and state in the United States.--Boson (talk) 19:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Church and State are effectively separated in the UK

The way the author has written "but other faiths are tolerated" makes the UK sound a highly Christian country where not many people are anything other than Christian. The UK actually has one of the least religious populations in Europe, only 48% of people are Christians.

I find it odd that you write a section about seperation of church and state in Norway, but not in the UK a country much bigger and I dare say much more significant. Church and state in the UK are at least as separated in Norway. It even says in the section that over half the members of the Norwegian parliament have to be members of the State Church. There is no legislation like this in the UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.245.3 (talk) 08:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

According to Church of England#Structure, "The British monarch ... has the constitutional title of Supreme Governor of the Church of England". It's hard to believe in the separation of the church and state when the leader of the Church is also the head of State. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Following on this discussion, I have added a United Kingdom subsection to the article, with content supported by a single cited source. Feel free to improve this. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The UK is an odd case. Protestant Christianity is the religion by law of the monarch. But there is no obligation on officers of state or MPs, except the bishops in the Lords who are of course members of the Church of England. Gazzster (talk) 01:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Reference 51

The link given under number 51 does not work. I guess this is because I don't have access to the library. I doubt the usefulnes of a link that cannot be used by the majority of users... Bromatom (talk) 11:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

51 (Payne) works fine Rjensen (talk) 04:50, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

antiquity

In the ancient societies familiar to me, Egypt, Greece and Rome, there is no concept of a separation of religious and secular, so to speak of 'melding' etc. is nonsensical. Socrates was put to death because he was accused of trying to introduce a new cult (his 'daimonion') without permission. I suspect that the separation concept became an acute reality with Jews under Greco-Roman rule. Pamour (talk) 15:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Material going in and out of the first paragraph

We might not have a difference of opinion here. I am concerned about wrong/unsourced implied statements, not the main material. "Separation of Church and State" is a very broad, wide reaching and undefined term. Although certain aspects that fall under it are mandated by US and state constitutions, federal and state laws, and implemented / clarified by court decisions, overall "Separation of Church and State" is not mandated by or included in any of those. And so the inference that it is is incorrect. North8000 (talk) 15:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I tried looking at it for a minor re-write but as written it is deeply scrambled. The sentence basically says that the US constitution was changed by the court, which is obviously false. The parts of the constitution which adress this have been there from the start. The 14th amendment (late 1800's) though general is also considered relevant. As did a long line of folks starting with Thomas Jefferson. the 1947 decision used the term in its discussions on it's actual rulings, it did not have a ruling that mandated this broad vague terms as even law, much less modify the constitution. North8000 (talk) 16:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Rjensen, your edit summary is accurate, but it is different than what you put in which is inaccurate. Do you want to try to fix? North8000 (talk) 16:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

"Advocates of a Christian America ..." moved here for discussion

I've moved the following here for discussion:

Advocates of a Christian America insist that treaties only apply to the federal government, and that individual states retain the power to reject a treaty's declarations about the country if an individual state does not agree.^[1] However, because of the fact that America is a group of united States - and not separate from a central form of government - the argument that a national treaty does not apply to state members of the nation is null.

The version of this quoted above is the version after this edit, which added the words "because of". The original addition seems to have come from this edit, which said that the group being characterized here "argue variously", not "insist".

Re this attribution of the point said to be either argued or insisted upon to a vaguely defined interest group, see WP:WEASEL.

The attribution is supported by a cite of this article by David Barton (author). Leaving aside here the implication making him out to be a spokesperson for that vaguely defined interest group, as far as I can see, the cited article does not support the assertion that he argues or insists that "... that treaties only apply to the federal government, and that individual states retain the power to reject a treaty's declarations about the country if an individual state does not agree." The relevant portion of the cited article seems to be the following paragraph:

Recall that while the Founders themselves openly described America as a Christian nation (demonstrated in chapter 2 of Original Intent), they did include a constitutional prohibition against a federal establishment; religion was a matter left solely to the individual States. Therefore, if the article is read as a declaration that the federal government of the United States was not in any sense founded on the Christian religion, such a statement is not a repudiation of the fact that America was considered a Christian nation.

Reading that as asserting that that treaties only apply to the federal government and that individual states today retain the power to reject a treaty's declarations (either this particular treaty or any other treaty) if an individual state does not agree is, I think, a real stretch. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

I think that the preponderance of evidence is that US was founded as a very slightly christian nation, with strong limitations put in place on the establishment of a religion by the Constitution. The linked article (asserting a more deeply christian nation) has a logical flaw in that it has a premise that the only governmental mechanism refuting a broader "christian nation" statement is that particular treaty.

That opinion aside, I think that a condensed version (a few sentences) material, with a proper contex statement, .... might be appropriate for the article. North8000 (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I have no objection to such a statement but, whatever the statement says, it should be supported by cited sources which directly support whatever is being asserted. Any context statement should be clear, and that context should be obvious from a look at the cited supporting sources (for example, the text under discussion might have said something like "David Barton, founder of WallBuilders, an organization with a goal of exposing the claimed US constitutional separation of church and state as a myth,^[2]^[3] has written that ..." rather than, "Advocates of a Christian America insist that ..."). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it should be brief/condensed to avoid wp:undue.....this is a top level article. North8000 (talk) 01:37, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Which America?

Some, but not all, of the States were officially Christian in 1787; two of them had an established church, but New Hampshire abandoned it three years after joining the Union, and Connecticut in 1818.

But the Federal Government was not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Maier's "friendly" separation

I see that the section header Friendly and hostile separation has been in place since at least this 2008 edit. I wonder, though, who other than Hans Maier describes a state policy of limiting the interference of the church in matters of the state as "friendly separation". Is this actually generally accepted terminology?

I googled around a bit and didn't come up with much on this. I did come up with this Washington Post piece which says "[friendly separation] involves the institutional and, to some extent, the functional separation between church and state where government assumes a posture of 'benevolent neutrality' toward religion, to use a phrase coined by the U.S. Supreme Court." Googling for benevolent neutrality, though, turned up this (a two volume set, no less, plus a boatload of other stuff), which gave me a headache. The term "benevolent neutrality" is apparently something of a code word in re this topic.

I don't have a specific suggestion or request here, but it seems to me that the terminology used here is a bit too "inside baseball". Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:40, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

No mention of Israel

What's with that? Looking at the archives, it hasn't always been the case. The article is even tagged as under WikiProject Judaism's scope. --BDD (talk) 20:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

After a very quick look, I see that this August 2010 edit removed a significant amount of material saying, "Advocacy: drop unsourced POV". The removed material included a subsection headed Jewish views which included cites of supporting sources. I haven't read through the removed material or tried to relate it to the article as it stands today -- I'm just providing what may be a useful link to the removed material. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Truthiness

But I see this article is engaging in truthiness in a rather more serious fashion.

This is supposedly an article of world-wide scope, yet we have the following lengthy passage in the intro:

Prior to 1947, however, these provisions were not considered to apply at the state level; indeed in the 1870s and 1890s unsuccessful attempts were made to amend the constitution to accomplish this, but it was accomplished by judicial decision in 1947.

More important, what are the sources?

William M. Wiecek, The birth of the modern Constitution: the United States Supreme Court, 1941-1953 (Cambridge U.P., 2006) pp 261-4
A decent book; but the passage cited does not discuss the 1870s at all, and makes clear that the question in Everson, the 1947 cmeowmeowase, had never come before the Supreme Court, so the first two clauses are unsupported from this source.
Philip Hamburger, Separation of Church and State. pp. 287-334, 342, Harvard University Press, 2004</ref>
Doubtless a fascinating book; but its publisher describes it as follows: "In a powerful challenge to conventional wisdom, Philip Hamburger argues that the separation of church and state has no historical foundation in the First Amendment" That is not the language in which one describes consensus writing.

In short, let us have a real source, representing the consensus of scholarship; but it would be preferable to leave this doubtful tidbit to articles on the United States - which should in turn mention the state Constitutions, most, if not all, of which, contain much the same language as the Federal Constitution. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Doubtful is right. Needing a source that might satisfy WP:RS, where Barton does not, Hamburger is just the latest love child of the religious right. Didn't you know the decision in Everson was based on the court's anti-catholic bigotry? Shot me. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 06:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

And any real discussion should include the 1921 decision which applied the Establishment Clause to the states, when Oregon outlawed parochial schools. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Hamburger is the leading scholar of the subject (and most reviews of his book have been very favorable). Hugo Black was elected to the Senate after campaigning as an anti-Catholic KKK activist, say his biographers. Rjensen (talk) 07:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Tha-at's right; when the law and the facts are against you, abuse the plaintiff's attorney; when abusing the plaintiff's attorney doesn't work, throw mud at the judge. Some minor details omitted here; Black left the Klan before entering the Senate, and Everson was twenty years later. Also, Black's decision permitted the aid to parochial students involved in the case; the dissent, by Robert H. Jackson. built the same wall, and would have denied the aid. Was he an agent of the KKK too? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

If you mean Hamburger is the only scholar of this opinion then leading comes pretty easy. See WP:UNDUE, again. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 13:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Along those lines, it seems really clear that the Philip Hamburger article deserves a careful look - some of the sources are questionable and the article is dominated by a single quotation. All the praise in that article comes from partisan religious or political sources. eldamorie (talk) 15:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Five bucks says the quote is Dreisbach quoting Hamburger. Makes it more RSy if there are two. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 15:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

As I remember I may have put that first part in there, but that it was a "dialing back" of an even worse (farther-reaching unsourced and implausible) statement which had been put in there prior to that. (I think to the effect that the phrase "separation of church and state" (or all ramifications contained by it) was itself decided by courts to considered to be a part of the constitution) I have no objections to an overall deletion or major repair of it. North8000 (talk) 10:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The lede is not controversial at all--it summarizes the application of Separation to the states, from the late 19th century to 1940s, citing standard scholarly sources. All constitutional history texts cover this point. Rjensen (talk) 18:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)]]

No, it uses one source. Not even its publisher thinks it uncontroversial. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

And he has added another source; The Oxford Compagnion to the Supreme Court of the United States, The%20Oxford%20companion%20to%20the%20Supreme%20Court%20of%20the%20United%20States&pg=PA262#v=onepage&q=Separation&f=false pp. 262-3, which does not discuss church and state at all; it's an article about judicial disability. I have added what the book does say about Everson. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

So when Congress wrote what became the religion clauses of the First Amendment, it meant to do much more than leave religion to the states. It intended to enshrine in the federal Constitution the protections against religious coercion that Americans had learned to think of as natural rights. —Divided by God, Feldman, 2005

I raise your Hamburger one Feldman. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that that quote is accurate, not that that matters. North8000 (talk) 01:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

What this sentence is attempting to get at is the "incorporation" of the Establishment Clause into the protections of the 14th Amendment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights#Amendment_I The 14th Amendment's due process protections apply to every citizen and protect their most important rights. Incorporation occurs when the Supreme Court decides that the right is so important it falls under the due process protections. The Court incorporated the Establishment Clause in 1947 in the Everson case. Constitutional Scholar (talk) 22:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

We should clarify what the open question is and a proposed change. The issue noted with the opening of this section (US-centrism in the lead) has long been fixed. North8000 (talk) 12:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

This discussion has been going on since the {{dubious}} tag was placed over a year ago, with the last contribution having been made about two months ago. Can we wind it up and remove the tag? I'm no legal scholar, but it seems clear to me that SCOTUS applied the Establishment Clause to State law in the 1947 Everson case, which is what the Everson v. Board of Education article clearly asserts. I think the {{fv}} tag following the Ref for the {Hamburger 2004) cite ought to be removed, as the cited source clearly discusses attempts to amend the constitution to guarantee separation of Church and State from page 287 onwards. Also, it looks to me as if the page range cited in the (Hall 2005) cite ought to be 303-305, not 262-263. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The History Section Does NOT Describe Separation of Church and State

this article is about the separation of church and state. Therefor, the "History" section should provide examples of the separation of church and state. The sections on Ancient history, Late antiquity, and Medieval Europe do the OPPOSITE.

"Ancient history is replete with examples of the mixing and melding of Church and state."

That is NOT an example of the separation of church and state.

The history section describes Luther as the first "modern" proponent of the separation of church and state, but no earlier historical proponents or examples are provided. Therefor, Luther should be described as the FIRST proponent of the separation of church and state, and not the first "modern" proponent.

The sections on Ancient history, Late antiquity, and Medieval Europe should be combined, shortened, and simplified to state simply that "prior to the Western European Reformation, governments were commonly melded with religious institutions or laws", with some examples.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.238.140 (talk) 22:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is a fascinating topic and at present justice has not been done to it. There is a lot of confusion here. The problem firstly is that the article starts out by defining separation of church and state in the vaguest of terms, as 'the distance' between religion and state. But what does that mean? Before the French and American Revolutions we can talk about the distinction between religion and state, ie., religious institutions were distinct in government (for the most part- notable exceptions the papacy and Byzantine Empire) from state institutions. Nevertheless the state supported and observed the national religion, preserving its freedoms and privileges, and, to some extent, governed according to the code of morality of that religion. But I suspect the article means to treat of the concept of separation of church and state which only really began (in the West, anyway) with the United States of America.

Yes, there are problems with the history section. Henry VIII is presented as instituting separation of church and state with the break with Rome. But the opposite is true! By proclaiming himself head of the English Church he united church and state in such a way as to destroy the distinction between the two that had existed before. One could not be a 'loyal' subject of the state without also being subject to the Church of England!Gazzster (talk) 23:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Good point. But Henry VIII's power grab did eventuate in a separation of church and state ideology, but due to persecution. Great Britain has retained her intermingled church/state system for 500 years. Meanwhile, the people who fled her ended up embracing the opposite thoughts, not to mention Ireland's issues with all of this. See my edits. I like to saw logs! (talk) 19:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

United States section

This edit caught my eye. Go figure indeed. Now that it's been brought up, it doesn't seem to make sense to have the separation history and status info for the U.S. in the History of the concept and term section. It seems to me that the U.S. ought to have a subsection in the In various countries section just like other countries, and the role played by the U.S. in the history of the concept and term should be covered in that section without a United States section header. Restructure, anyone? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know. This article is sort of about two subjects:

The phrase itself which I think was birthed in the USA
A summary of the relationship between the sate and religion in various countries.

(So, BTW, in the US, the phrase is merely a metaphor for what actually IS in the Constitution) So maybe the US should have it's mention at the top level regarding birth of the phrase, and also have its situation under #2 described like any other country. (?) North8000 (talk) 19:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Your "So maybe .." describes what I was trying to suggest above. On rereading. I see that I described it badly -- I should have said "the History of ... section" instead of "that section" . Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like we're thinking alike. North8000 (talk) 00:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think that the concept of separation of church and state is invented by Jefferson (or even by the Bill of Rights). He was the first to talk about a wall of separation but you can find the concept in earlier texts of the Enlightenment (that are mostly ignored by this article by the way, except for those of Locke). One is the Traité sur la tolérance (1763) by Voltaire and you can also find similar ideas in the writings of Denis Diderot and John Locke. It seems clear that the concept was already well known in the 1760's and that the separation of church and state was a common idea in the intellectual class in the 18th century. Eleventh1 (talk) 10:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. Jefferson and the other revolutionaries didn't live in a vacuum, they were heavily influenced by European enlightenment thought. They were the first to implement many of those thoughts in practice due to circumstances, but most of the ideas had had a long history in Europe. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Eleventh1 / Saddhiyama, are you talking about:

The phrase
The general concept of having laws, amendments, objectives to create some degree of separation between church and state, i.e. to some extent lean towards separation
A general term / metric referring to the relationship between the state and religion in various countries. E.g. to what degree they are or aren't separated.

I know that you didn't mean #3 but I listed it just for completeness. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I was talking about the concept but if it is only about the phrase, Locke talked about "the unhappy agreement between the Church and the State. Whereas if each of them would contain itself within its own bounds [etc.]" (Two Treatises of Government: And, A Letter Concerning Toleration) and Diderot said "the distance between the throne and the altar can never be too great" (observations sur le Nakaz). They don't exactly use the terms separation of church and state but it is very close. And I am sure that if we search thoroughly, we would find mentions of these terms prior to the letter of Jefferson. Eleventh1 (talk) 12:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't have an opinion, I'm just trying to help sort this out. And to do that I think we need to acknowledge that those are three separate things and cover them. North8000 (talk) 15:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

That said, my suggestion is to have two main sections in the article which are #2 and #3 from above. #1 would have a place in both #2 and in the US section of #3. That would mean moving (and possibly condensing) the material from the current "United States" section into those two sections. North8000 (talk) 15:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

That seems like a good idea but I would maybe add a sub-section about the Enlightenment in the section about the History/concept (#2) of the separation of Church and State. It is kind of strange to see Medieval Europe, Reformation and not Enlightenment. The paragraph about John Locke could be there with additional elements about other key people and writings of the Enlightenment (Voltaire, Diderot, etc.). Eleventh1 (talk) 15:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good! North8000 (talk) 16:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Map errors

Thailand does NOT have a state religion as indicated in the map. The only article in the Constitution which comes close is: "Article 9: The King is a Buddhist and Upholder of Religions", and "Section 79. The State shall patronise and protect Buddhism as the religion observed by most Thais for a long period of time and other religions, promote good understanding and harmony among followers of all religions as well as encourage the application of religious principles to create virtue and develop the quality of life."

The debate was had on whether to specify Buddhism as the state religion, but that notion was rejected. 198.103.104.11 (talk) 23:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Re map errors and verifiability, see the related discussions here and here and the image description page here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

The graph at the top of the page in the right hand corner is wrong

Finland has a status comparable to a state religion. Please fix the graph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FinFihlman (talk • contribs) 18:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Map is Problematic, at the Very Least

I just logged in, and I am doubting that the map is accurate. I appreciate the user who put this together, but I worry that it was haphazardly researched. I was particularly surprised by Europe, as I know that there *were* established Churches in Scandinavia. After a bit of research, I found that Sweden and Norway only RECENTLY got rid of their Separation of Church and State. Norway did this only in May 2012. So those are accurate, at least.

Another problem: the idea that there is "no data" for the United Kingdom. England has an established Church that is the state Church; citizens of the UK are not obliged to join, however. If the other non-English parts of the UK (Scotland, Wales, etc.) are not part of this arrangement), then we should color them differently as we do in, i.e., states of the United States and Mexico in the Same Sex Marriage article.

I disagree with the person who thinks that the US is not a secular state; I'm not doubting that most of the countries are accurate, but, in particular, there are many shades of grey. I am going to take the picture down until we decide a better way to color the map. Perhaps the year that the state decided to separate itself from the Church? Would that be better? --cpsteiner 17:25 UTC 5 Mar 2013

For a somewhat related matter and a possible approach to resolution, see

Talk:State_religion#Map;
This archived policy discussion about that;
The relevant image description page from Commons, seen at File:Map_of_state_religions.svg;
The Commons discussion page here for that image description page.

I see here that File:Secularmap.PNG, the map at issue here, is currently linked from one other article.Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Why liberalism?

The sidebar of liberalism has been added to the article but separation of church and state is a concept separated from liberalism. I am not convinced that it is really a good thing to have this sidebar (especially when you see that there is now 4 sidebars). What are your thoughts on that? Eleventh1 (talk) 17:32, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Not a good idea for it to be there. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:01, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Reverted recent major changes to lead sentence

I've recently reverted a couple of edits by User:Saddhiyama which changed the lead sentence to read, "The separation of church and state is the distance in the relationship between organized religion and the nation state." Such a major change should have prior talk page consensus. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:34, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Reverted recent major changes to lead sentence

I've recently reverted a couple of edits by User:Saddhiyama which changed the lead sentence to read, "The separation of church and state is the distance in the relationship between organized religion and the nation state." Such a major change should have prior talk page consensus. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

This raises the question on what this article is actually about. Is it about the phrase/metephor, is it about the distancing or lack thereof between church and state around the world, or both. I think that "both" is the best answer. I think that Saddhiyama trying to write a lead sentence based on it being only "distancing or lack thereof between church and state around the world" and I do not think that that is a good idea. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Countries in alphabetical order

The countries in the "In various countries" section are in alphabetical order, except for the United States. Presumably it was placed first because 'America' is first alphabetically, but the title of the sub-section is 'United States', which is last alphabetically. If there is no objection, the United States section should be moved to fit in with the established alphabetical order. The Giant Purple Platypus (talk) 09:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Charles II

The article contains this sentence. 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.” Given that Parliament and Cromwell drove Charles II to France after less than three years on the throne largely (entirely?) on account of his tolerance of non-Protestant denominations (indeed the whole House of Stewart/Stuart on that throne was similarly given short shrift for just this reason), this sentence's implication that Rhode Island's charter had England's blessing seems disingenuous and should be set straight somehow. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 14:38, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Use term Separation of religion and state

The term Separation of religion and state links to this article, but isn't used once. The phrase is used in academic publishing and journalism when referring to religious freedom in countries that don't have a history of Christian majorities.

The page includes discussion of political secularism of India, Japan and Turkey, which do not have majority Christian populations. Terms like "separation of mosque and state" are clunky for each religion in multicultural societies.

I've put some figures for web searches as of this writing:

Search	Separation of Church and state	Separation of Religion and state
Google Scholar	50,300	3,090
Microsoft Academic	134	8
Google Web	8,740,000	3,340,000
Bing	3,900,000	633,000

I propose that the term "separation of religion and state" be used throughout the article, not in the lede, for all sections unrelated to Christianity, eg pre-axial age religions should not be referred to as "Church" -- Aronzak (talk) 03:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this is a good idea. "separation of church and state" is widely used English idiom. It's clearly a meytonomy in which Church is intended to stand in for any kind of organized religion (not just Christianity) and State is intended to represent any kind of government (not just an American style state). The alternative phrase you are proposing is not so widely used and unlikely to be something that people search for. Also your proposal goes against our article title policy - I'd suggest you have a read at that. --Salimfadhley (talk) 13:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Shariah Law

Should this not be discussed where the Church has absolute dominion over the State? 2.31.0.60 (talk) 11:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Japan

The statement about Japan and the American occupation is easily one of the most asinine misrepresentations I have ever read regarding the relationship of church and state in Japan.74.134.145.218 (talk) 03:56, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
What a coincidence! It's one of the most asinine misrepresentations of church and state in Japan that I have ever read, too. Jackaroodave (talk) 13:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

It looks like that happened in this July 2014 edit. That edit seems to my inexpert eye to have been an attempt at clarification based on the State Shinto article. However, that article seems to take a POV position about what the term "State Shinto" refers to which is at odds with at least some other sources (see e.g. [1]), [2], Hardacre, Helen (1989). Shint_ and the State, 1868-1988. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-02052-3., Woodard, William P. (1972). "Appendix F: The Shinto Directive". The Allied Occupation of Japan 1945-1952 and Japanese Religions. Brill Archive. GGKEY:WHELR2ZGW3K. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)). It looks to me as if the second sentence in the paragraph in that section needs to be rewritten and expanded a bit. It also looks to me as if the State Shinto article needs a look. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:14, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Wtmitchell (talk · contribs), please look closely at the sources used in the State Shinto article. They are all academic and from after 2000, when there was a big methodological shift in recognizing errors that religious scholars had previously made on this issue. In contrast, the sources you just mentioned are from as early as 1972, and one of them was actually written by one of the GHQ administrators in charge of the State Shinto policy. You can read Josephson's The Invention of Religion in Japan for the best summary of this issue. Shii (tock) 23:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not a topical expert. I did see on your user page that you claim topical expertise. I make no such claim. I didn't note the publication dates of of the sources I looked at after googling a bit and mentioned above. I see that the Josephson book is partially previewable here, but I haven't read much in it beyond a few bits here.

I commented on this after seeing two WP editors characterize the article section here as "one of the most asinine misrepresentations I have ever read". The accepted meaning and usage of descriptive terms can and does change over time but, if that is what has happened with the term State Shinto, it strikes me as inappropriate for the WP article on that topic not to point that out. Actually, I'd say that WP:DUE requires that the State Shinto article, and probably this one as well, if that term is used here, present info about the difference in meaning ascribed to the term from one source to another. I'll leave it to editors who have more topical knowledge than I to sort that out, though. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what the article should point out. Simply that people characterized Japan's separation of church and state in ideologically loaded terms in the past? I think I kind of did that... I'd be happy to add more details if I knew exactly what was missing. Shii (tock) 08:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Separation of church and state. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Separation of church and state. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Philippines's "separation of church and state"

I think that there should be a section that states that the Philippines's separation is merely on paper. However, only things that I have are a blog post, we are the only country where divorces are illegal, and other articles regarding legality of abortion.

However, I have not found an article that says that the Church is directly involved with this, except for the fact that these ARE what the Church believes. Probably just because the Philippines is a very Catholic country, and, unfortunately, our beliefs poison our laws. Regginator729 (talk) 13:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Separation of church and state. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Wall of separation an interpretation or a summary of the Establishment Clause

I have twice tried to edit the following passage in Intelligent design and been reverted:

“

the school district's promotion of [Intelligent design] therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, often described as the "wall of separation between church and state".

”

I first removed the words "wall of", and then removed the entire "often described as..." phrase. I think these phrases are biased towards particular interpretations of the Establishment Clause, but I'm no legal scholar. Is this considered an fair summary of the Establishment Clause, or is it unnecessary editorializing? Sondra.kinsey (talk) 14:49, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

The metaphor "Separation of church and state" has been used by the courts as such and they do not present it as being a summary or description of the establishment clause. North8000 (talk) 17:53, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment about separation of church and state being one of the most divisive issues in the U.S.

For now, I'm letting this comment stand on its own, but I need to come back and add data from public opinion surveys, if people are comfortable with that: For Peter Irons, professor emeritus of political science at the University of California, San Diego, "the issue of separation of church and state still divides American society today, perhaps more starkly than anything else besides race." Robincantin (talk) 21:48, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

This article is not about American society today. MPS1992 (talk) 22:55, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Adding public opinion survey data is usually problematic. Inevitably the poster picks the ones that support their side of the issue. While there is strife related to this issue, it is really on a whole bunch of related topics. North8000 (talk) 03:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what @MPS1992: means by today in "American society today" above, but today becomes yesterday as time passes, and an article written with a focus {{as of}} a particular time frame becomes dated thereby. See MOS:DATED. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:57, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I worded that badly -- my intention was not for the emphasis to be on the word "today". I was a little concerned that Robincantin's proposed additions might involve changing the focus of the article to be unduly on the U.S. perspective and its perceived importance. Robincantin's latest edit has not done that, although I wonder if it may give undue prominence to Irons' views, sourced partly to a podcast. Fortunately or unfortunately, this is not my area of expertise, so I'll leave it to those with more knowledge. MPS1992 (talk) 16:40, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Separation of church and state. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120202133446/http://library.thinkquest.org/12255/library/dynasty/earlyHan.html to http://library.thinkquest.org/12255/library/dynasty/earlyHan.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:13, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

World Evangelical Christian opinion on the Separation of church and state

This article could use some info on the opinion of Modern Evangelical Christians regarding the concept of Separation of church and state. Currently, they largely are against the concept, especially in the U.S., where they dominate the Opposition discussion on the subject. We need info on their POV, especially why a majority of them oppose such a separation, on principle. --Notcharliechaplin (talk) 14:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Do you have citeable sources supporting the assertions that modern evangelical christians in the US are largely against the concept and that they dominate discussion in the US on the subject? I'm not challenging those assertions, just pointing out that they need support. Also, I think that this article should be kept in summary style, and that the summary info in article sections ought to grow out of more detailed info in articles wikilinked or named as {{main article}}s in the summary sections.

Are modern evangelical christians in the US a sufficiently identifiable and cohesive subgroup that this would fit in the United States subsection? Do wikilinkable articles exist with more detailed info about their views on this?

If this characteristic of world (or modern?) evangelical christians extends beyond the US, the summary info about this ought to be in one or more subsections under the Religious views section. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:43, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Also "Separation of Church and state" is a vague term with many meanings and so there is some ambiguity in that statement. Its general connotation is generally broader / more far-reaching than the degree of separation legally established in the US. North8000 (talk) 13:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Sweden

The person who wrote the entry of Sweden clearly do not understand Sweden. The USA is a Christian nation that is nominally secular. Sweden is a secular nation that is nominally Christian. 40% of the population in the USA go to church each week. It's 4% in Sweden. Even that only tells a small part of the story.

In a bit of good luck, Zuckerman met up with a Danish friend after he returned home to the United States. Morten spent nine months here, and Zuckerman, having interviewed him in Denmark in 2005, did so again in 2007. The interviews make up the book’s last several pages. Morten had been among the minority of believers in Denmark, but having lived in the United States and having witnessed the extent to which American believers center their lives around religion, he realized how vague his own sense of religion was and returned to Denmark realizing that he was really “an agnostic, maybe an atheist.” And he carried with him a second awareness, of the profound difference between Denmark and the United States, where “religious fanatics have a very high influence on what’s going to happen,” for example in going to war. Morten had become determined to warn his fellow Danes about this. “I don’t think they would be afraid—but I think they would say, No, no, we don’t want to be part of that.” https://thehumanist.com/magazine/january-february-2010/arts_entertainment/society-without-god-what-the-least-religious-nations-can-tell-us-about-contentment

It has been said that Swedes are not just irreligious, but that they have no concept of religion. Religion is understood by most people as something people did in the past. Religion in Sweden is mostly about culture, and not faith. This is probably true for most of the world, if not the entire world with the notably exception of the USA. Conversion is not a common thing outside of the USA. Outside of the USA, if you drop out of your religion, you drop out of religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.253.73.146 (talk) 22:23, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. This article is about the relationship between church and state; I don't think you were saying that it didn't do that correctly. I think that you were more saying that it missed the "gorilla in the living room" which is that Sweden is a non-religious country. IMO that should be added for perspective. On something like that IMO we'd to find a source that supports whatever we write. North8000 (talk) 22:59, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Synoptic Gospels (removed article section)

I'm opening this talk page section after having seen this removal of article content. Reference to the Synoptic Gospels article might be useful here -- I don't know. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:58, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Secular state?

The two edit summaries of dueling edits which can be seen here caught my eye. When the first of these edits came up on my watchlist, I thought about the usually-credited origin of the phrase in English with Thomas Jefferson, then I took a look at the supporting cite at the end of the lead paragraph, then I did some googling with WP:GLOBALIZE in mind, and I ended up doing nothing. The second edit, a reversion, begs a WP:BRD discussion here about whether the phrase means/implies Secularism ("indifference to, or rejection or exclusion of, religion and religious considerations"), or Separationism ("advocacy of a policy of strict separation of church and state"), or something else. The two edits disagree about whether the phrase does or does not refer to the creation of a secular state, citing support from U.S. jurisprudence which, it is implied, supports whichever of those two alternatives is present in the article text at a particular time.

Googling around, I find a lot of sentiment to the effect that the phrase, and Jefferson's "wall of separation between church and state", mean keeping the government out of religious matters but do not mean, or do not necessarily mean, keeping religion out of government -- at least to the extent of not excluding religious thought from argument which shapes government. I didn't put that very well there -- I had in mind something like what is said here, particularly regarding the text of the text of the 1786 Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom.

This appears to need discussion and editorial WP:consensus. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:07, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

India is a secular country?

Under India: "India is a secular country and there are no special provisions favouring specific religions in its constitution." India is far from a secular country, maybe in terms of the gov't but in no way is India "secular". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:186:4301:20E:4C2C:96DB:5597:D812 (talk) 04:07, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

good to know, but I suppose you didn't notice thats exactly what this article is about?: Secularness and its idealogies as they relate to governments,constitutions and official jurisdictions. Perhaps there should be a section discussing glaring examples of disparity between official positions and the actual excersise of secularism in the practical operations of governments or their communities...then of course notable information and accounts of such conditions in India and other places could be outlined/digest in the wikipedia...or maybe just find a source to justify the insertion of a line that further conveys the reality in India. Eg however religous influence and controversy has continued to have a major impact on politics in India and has led to major domestic and regional conflicts and including its role in the partitions of India, Pakistan etc..etc." ijs I "get" the irony that your comment is referring to...just leaving it at "India is a secular state is almost misleading given its history and ongoing struggles with competative religous communities,intolerance,and traditional practices that are...challenging...to the establishment of civil rights.99.49.255.39 (talk) 08:21, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Short description and Wikidatadescription

This edit caught my eye. It established a WP:Short description for this article as Principle to separate religious and civil institutions, importing that from this article's description in WP:Wikidata. That description seems inappropriate to me. It seems to me that both of those descriptions need to be changed to something more appropriate. (the wikidata description can be edited here). What description is most appropriate? Separation of government from religion comes to mind, but I'm sure that there is a better choice. Choosing the best description is something needing consensus. Please discuss this and come to a consensus about this. Thanks. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 16:57, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Sentence in lead of limited value-add

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.

This is dry, abstract prose bordering on tautology. I don't see a value-add here sufficient to making the average reader wade through this. — MaxEnt 21:19, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Maybe, but it could be viewed as sort of a "foundation" for the rest of the paragraph. North8000 (talk) 17:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

How about Israel

I do not have the means to write a full paragraph about judaism, and the idea of separation of rabbinate and state in Israel, but I believe there is some information in Jewish State, and that Wikipedia is lacking without it. נדב ס (talk) 13:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Church and State which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 07:33, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Pope Benedict XVI did not support stopping Church from overt political influence

Pope Benedict XVI, in an address to representatives of civil society, praised St. Thomas More as a “great English scholar and statesman," and added that St. Thomas More “chose to serve God first.” Benedict XVI continued, stating that the dilemma More faced touches on the “perennial question of the relationship between what is owed to Caesar and what is owed to God.” Benedict XVI later gave one example of this issue: “the lack of a solid ethical foundation for economic activity has contributed to the grave difficulties now being experienced by millions of people throughout the world,” and that "just as every economic decision has a moral consequence, so too in the political field, the ethical dimension of policy has far-reaching consequences that no government can afford to ignore.” Benedict XVI then lodged the central question, “where is the ethical foundation for political choices to be found?” He subsequently answered, “The Catholic tradition.”

- Pope Benedict XVI's address to representatives of civil society, 17 September 2010

Also

“aggressively intervene into political affairs, using issues such as abortion and homosexuality to foster the development of a social base for right-wing parties and policies. … https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2005/04/pope-a22.html Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 01:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

More examples, https://www.pewforum.org/2007/11/14/publicationpage-aspxid668/ Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 01:49, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@Solidarityandfreedom: Thanks for your post. But the phrase that you have been trying to remove (in bold, caps added by me) is: "Benedict XVI regards modern idea of freedom (meaning the Church should be free from governmental coercion and overtly political influence FROM the state." Are your thoughts really about this? North8000 (talk) 02:00, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@North8000 sorry I think I misread Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 13:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Irrelevant Information

While the information of the book, The City of God, and St. Augustine was nice, I do not think it added much to the article. The addition of this information seemed distracting to me and did not provide any deeper understanding nor did it provide much context. The wording of the information may have to do with this as speaking of an "earthly city", the "city of God", and the "temporal city" did not add much for me as I have no prior understanding or information on what this means. Rwold02 (talk) 22:33, 24 April 2022 (UTC)Riley Wold (talk), 15:32, 24 April 2022.

Another occurrence of unneeded information appears under the 'Reformation' section: at the very end of the section there is an addition of two or three sentences that talk about how separation of church and state was established in the United States colonies. I think the information is relevant to this article, however I do not think it is relevant here. It seems that these sentences were thrown in right at the end just because they could be. I would like to see these sentences maybe moved to the section on separation of church and state in the United States and taken out of this section all together.Rwold02 (talk) 22:53, 24 April 2022 (UTC) Rwold02 (talk) 22:53, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Contrasting Information

In the first couple paragraphs in the article, it is stated that Norway is a non-secular state. However, in checking the citations I have found there is a news article discussing how Norway has become a secular state after separating church and state in 2012. Rwold02 (talk) 23:07, 24 April 2022 (UTC)Riley Wold, 16:07, 24 April 2022

"Abortion" insertion

A paragraph on how the abortion debate in the United States has been twice inserted into the page. Both times it was put under the heading "In various countries" at the level of a country. Even if placed as a sublevel of United States, this is not the right place for discussing how a singular issue in the United States interacts or intersects with separation of church and state, because this page is about separation itself, not how it plays out as it relates to specific issues. Please stop inserting this here. Magidin (talk) 14:39, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree that it should be left out. North8000 (talk) 17:37, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Hindi

Language 157.37.210.110 (talk) 01:13, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Separation of Church and State in "Max Weber - Economy and Society Volume 2" talking about Calvinism.

The Translated English version by Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich of Max Weber's Economy and Society Volume 2, states "the separation of church and state". http://books.google.com/books?isbn=0804747172 http://www.answers.com/topic/economy-and-society-bureaucracy

renegadeviking 1/11/2014 10:55AM

Should add Russia

Russia is a nation whose separation of church and state is rapidly eroding. I believe it should be included on the list, as it would contain relevant info and a different perspective.

^ Barton, David (2000), Treaty of Tripoli Wall Builders.
^ Billy Bruce (1992-02-18). "First Amendment specialist views church/state separation as "myth"". Daytona Beach Sunday News-Journal. Retrieved 2011-09-28.
^ "NOW: God's Country". PBS. 2006-04-28. Retrieved 2011-09-28.

[1] Barton, David (2000), Treaty of Tripoli Wall Builders.

[2] Billy Bruce (1992-02-18). "First Amendment specialist views church/state separation as "myth"". Daytona Beach Sunday News-Journal. Retrieved 2011-09-28.

[3] "NOW: God's Country". PBS. 2006-04-28. Retrieved 2011-09-28.

[1]

[2]

[3]