Editing Separation of church and state (section)

==In various countries==
{{See also|Secular state|Secularism|Pseudo-Secularism}}
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.{{Clarify|date=March 2008}}<!-- Like what?--><ref>{{Cite book|author=Péter Tibor Nagy|title=The social and political history of Hungarian education – State-Church relations in the history of educational policy of the first post-communist Hungarian government|url=http://mek.oszk.hu/03700/03797/03797.htm#10|isbn=9632005112|publisher=Hungarian Electronic library|access-date=2007-04-27|archive-date=2019-05-16|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190516215824/http://mek.oszk.hu/03700/03797/03797.htm#10|url-status=live}}</ref>

[[File:State Religions.svg|thumb|upright=1.5|Countries with a state religion]]
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 [[religious toleration|other faiths are tolerated]].<ref>[[Status of religious freedom by country#United Kingdom|Status of religious freedom by country]]</ref> 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===
{{Main|Separation of church and state in Australia}}
{{Further|Section 116 of the Constitution of Australia|Catholic Church in Australia}}
[[File:Hbhiggins.jpg|thumb|right|[[H. B. Higgins]], proponent of Section&nbsp;116 in the Australian pre-Federation constitutional conventions|alt=A black and white portrait of [[H. B. Higgins]]]]
The [[Constitution of Australia]] prevents the Commonwealth from establishing any religion or requiring a religious test for any office:

{{Blockquote|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 of Australia|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.<ref>{{Cite AustLII|HCA|23|2012|litigants=[[Williams v Commonwealth]]}} {{cite web|url=http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/judgment-summaries/2012/hca23-2012-06-20.pdf|title=judgement summary|date=20 June 2012|publisher=[[High Court of Australia]]|access-date=2016-04-23|archive-date=2014-03-16|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140316114702/http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/judgment-summaries/2012/hca23-2012-06-20.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref> All Australian parliaments are opened with a Christian prayer, and the preamble to the Australian Constitution refers to "humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God".<ref>[http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/Constitution/preamble Preamble to ''Commonwealth of Australian Constitution Act''] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160920070013/http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/Constitution/preamble |date=September 20, 2016 }} (Imp.) 1900.</ref>

Although the Australian monarch is [[Charles III]], also British monarch and Supreme Governor of the [[Church of England]], his Australian title is unrelated to his religious office and he has no special role in the [[Anglican Church of Australia]], despite being "by the Grace of God King 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 criticised.<ref name="hogan">Hogan, M. (2001, May 16). [http://www.australianreview.net/digest/2001/05/hogan.html Separation of church and state?] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160310121449/http://www.australianreview.net/digest/2001/05/hogan.html |date=March 10, 2016 }} ''Australian Review of Public Affairs''. Retrieved 2010-10-10.</ref>

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 organisations is established by state legislation.<ref>{{cite Legislation AU|Vic|act|acoaca1960408|Anglican Church of Australia Constitution Act 1960}}.</ref><ref>{{cite Legislation AU|Vic|act|lcoavdia1971629|Lutheran Church of Australia Victorian District Incorporation Act 1971}}.</ref> There have been two referendums 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 children permits religious adoption agencies to refuse them.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/09/03/NSW_Parliament_Passes_Adoption_Bill/ |title=Adoption Bill Passed in NSW |publisher=The Advocate |access-date=2012-04-27 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111130072816/http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/09/03/NSW_Parliament_Passes_Adoption_Bill/ |archive-date=November 30, 2011 }}</ref><ref>{{cite Legislation AU|NSW|num_act|aasca2010n66377|Adoption Amendment (Same Sex Couples) Act 2010}}.</ref>

The current situation, described as a "principle of state neutrality" rather than "separation of church and state",<ref name="hogan"/> has been criticised by both secularists and religious groups. On the one hand, secularists have argued that government neutrality to religions leads to a "flawed democrac[y]"<ref>Wallace, M. (2005). [http://www.hsnsw.asn.au/MaxWallace.html Is there a separation of church and state in Australia and New Zealand?] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160502154952/http://www.hsnsw.asn.au/MaxWallace.html |date=May 2, 2016 }} ''Australian Humanist'', ''77''. Retrieved 2010-10-10.</ref> or even a "pluralistic theocracy"<ref>Secular Party of Australia. (nd). [http://www.secular.org.au/mnu-viewpoints/mnu-separation-of-church-and-state The Separation of Church and State]. Retrieved 2010-10-10. {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130812090044/http://www.secular.org.au/mnu-viewpoints/mnu-separation-of-church-and-state |date=August 12, 2013 }}</ref> 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 [[Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001#Criticism|preventing them from criticising other groups]] and forcing them to do unconscionable acts.<ref>Davidson, S. (2009, October 27). [http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/10/27/victorian-abortion-law-overriding-the-conscience-of-doctors/ Victorian abortion law: Overriding the conscience of doctors] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160303221920/http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/10/27/victorian-abortion-law-overriding-the-conscience-of-doctors/ |date=March 3, 2016 }}. ''Crikey''. Retrieved 2010-10-10</ref>

===Azerbaijan===
[[File:Azerbaijan Republic map.png|thumb|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 mosque 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 (Caucasus)|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.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.counterextremism.com/sites/default/files/Secularism_in_Azerbaijan_June%202015.pdf |title=Secularism in Azerbaijan |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160803174257/https://www.counterextremism.com/sites/default/files/Secularism_in_Azerbaijan_June%202015.pdf |archive-date=2016-08-03 |language=en |date=June 2015 |publisher=[[European Foundation for Democracy]] |access-date=19 June 2023}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://studies.aljazeera.net/en/reports/2015/10/20151015112738701335.html|title=Azerbaijan: Religious Pluralism and Challenges of Cultivating Identity|first=Dr. Fatima|last=Al-Smadi|website=studies.aljazeera.net|access-date=2017-11-09|archive-date=2017-11-10|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171110161846/http://studies.aljazeera.net/en/reports/2015/10/20151015112738701335.html|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://visions.az/en/news/483/75eb2f55/|title=Visions of Azerbaijan Magazine ::: Islam and Secularism – the Azerbaijani Experience|website=Visions of Azerbaijan Magazine|access-date=2022-05-11|archive-date=2022-03-03|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220303135323/http://www.visions.az/en/news/483/75eb2f55|url-status=live}}</ref> At the same time, the Azerbaijani government has been frequently accused of desecrating Armenian Christian heritage and appropriating Armenian churches on its territory.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://monumentwatch.org/en/alerts/representatives-of-the-albanian-udi-community-of-azerbaijan-desecrated-and-destroyed-the-unique-pit-inside-the-armenian-church-of-the-tsitsernavank-monastery-in-the-kashatagh-region-of-artsakh/ | title=Representatives of the "Albanian-Udi" community of Azerbaijan desecrated and destroyed the unique pit inside the Armenian church of the Tsitsernavank monastery in the Kashatagh region of Artsakh | date=8 May 2023 }}</ref>{{better source needed|date=May 2024}}

===Brazil===
[[File:Rui Barbosa2.jpg|thumb|upright|[[Rui Barbosa]] had a large influence upon the text adopted as the 1891 Constitution of Brazil.]]
Brazil was a [[Colonial Brazil|colony]] of the [[Portuguese Empire]] from 1500 until the nation's [[Independence of Brazil|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 [[History of the Constitution of Brazil|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 (Brazil)|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".

In 2007, [[Brasil para Todos]] was formed with the aim of removing religious symbols from government buildings with separation of church and state in mind.

===Canada===
{{See also|Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms|Religion in Canada}}

====Quebec====
{{See also|Laïcité#Québec|Catholic Church in Canada}}

===China===
{{Main|Religion in China|Irreligion in China|State church}}
China, during the era of the [[Han dynasty]], had established [[Confucius|Confucianism]] as the official state ideology over that of [[Legalism (Chinese philosophy)|Legalism]] of the preceding [[Qin dynasty]] over two millennium ago.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://library.thinkquest.org/12255/library/dynasty/earlyHan.html |title=Early Han Dynasty |publisher=Library.thinkquest.org |access-date=2012-04-27 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120202133446/http://library.thinkquest.org/12255/library/dynasty/earlyHan.html |archive-date=2012-02-02 }}</ref> 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 City|Vatican]] for over half a century, and maintained separation of the [[temple]]s (be it a [[Taoist temple|daoguan]], a [[Buddhist temple]], a [[Church (building)|church]] or a [[mosque]]) from state affairs,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://ilookchina.net/2011/01/06/separation-of-church-and-state-%E2%80%94-part-13/ |title=Separation of Church and State – Part 1/3 |publisher=Ilookchina.net |date=2011-01-06 |access-date=2012-04-27 |archive-date=2012-05-24 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120524104832/http://ilookchina.net/2011/01/06/separation-of-church-and-state-%E2%80%94-part-13/ |url-status=live }}</ref> and although the Chinese government's methods are disputed by the Vatican,<ref>{{cite news | url=https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/pope-ok-s-communist-chosen-bishop-in-china-report-1.638601 | work=CBC News | title=Pope OK's Communist-chosen bishop in China: report | date=2007-01-18 | access-date=2011-02-22 | archive-date=2011-06-28 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110628225757/http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2007/01/18/benedict-china-070118.html | url-status=live }}</ref> [[Pope Benedict XVI]] 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.<ref>{{cite news | url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11786359 | work=BBC News | title=Vatican warning on China bishop | date=2010-11-18 | access-date=2018-07-21 | archive-date=2022-05-11 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220511193051/https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-11786359 | url-status=live }}</ref>

The [[Constitution of the People's Republic of China]] guarantees, in its article 36, that:<ref>{{cite web |url=http://english.people.com.cn/92824/92845/92875/6442436.html |title=China's Policy on Religion |publisher=English.people.com.cn |access-date=17 October 2011 |archive-date=8 July 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170708061748/http://en.people.cn/92824/92845/92875/6442436.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>[http://en.people.cn/constitution/constitution.html Constitution of the People's Republic of China (1982)] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160919004520/http://en.people.cn/constitution/constitution.html |date=September 19, 2016 }}, English translation (page visited on 17 December 2015).</ref>

{{Blockquote|[...] 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.}}

====Hong Kong====
{{Main|Religion in Hong Kong|Hong Kong Basic Law|Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui|Catholic Church in Hong Kong}}

====Macau====
{{Main|Religion in Macau|Macau Basic Law|Catholic Church in Macau}}

===Croatia===
{{Main|Religion in Croatia|Catholic Church in Croatia}}
[[File:Ustav Republike Hrvatske br 1.JPG|thumb|right|"Constitution no. 1", which is kept in the great hall of the Palace of the [[Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia|Constitutional Court]] and is used on the occasion of the [[Croatian presidential inauguration|presidential inauguration]]]]
[[Freedom of religion]] in [[Croatia]] is a right defined by the [[Croatian Constitution|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:

<blockquote>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.</blockquote>

Public schools allow religious teaching ({{langx|hr|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 public holidays also include religious festivals of: [[Epiphany (holiday)|Epiphany]], [[Easter Monday]], [[Corpus Christi Day]], [[Assumption Day]], [[All Saints' Day]], [[Christmas]], and [[Boxing Day]]. The primary holidays are based on the Catholic liturgical year, but other believers are allowed to celebrate other major religious holidays as well.

The [[Roman Catholic Church in Croatia]] receives state financial support and other benefits established in [[concordat]]s between the Government and the Vatican. In an effort to further define their rights and privileges within a legal framework, the government has additional agreements with other 14 religious communities: [[Serbian Orthodox Church]] (SPC), [[Islamic Community of Croatia]], [[Evangelicalism|Evangelical Church]], [[Reformed Christian Church in Croatia]], [[Protestant Reformed Christian Church in Croatia]], [[Pentecostal Church]], [[Union of Pentecostal Churches of Christ]], [[Christian Adventist Church]], [[Baptist Union of Croatia|Union of Baptist Churches]], [[Church of God (Cleveland, Tennessee)|Church of God]], [[Church of Christ]], [[Seventh-day Adventist Church|Reformed Movement of Seventh-day Adventists]], [[Bulgarian Orthodox Church]], [[Macedonian Orthodox Church]] and Croatian [[Old Catholic Church]].

===Finland===
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.<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Khag6tbsIn4C&dq=constitution+of+finland+church+act&pg=PA45|title=State-Religion Relationships and Human Rights Law: Towards a Right to ... – Jeroen Temperman – Google Books|date=August 19, 2020|isbn=978-9004181489 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200819135005/https://books.google.com/books?id=Khag6tbsIn4C&pg=PA45&lpg=PA45&dq=constitution+of+finland+church+act&source=bl&ots=SyaSALeKWe&sig=i9jOA2Ja-zalh7G-KT3JGBj6vKQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi1uYX6ronOAhVMWywKHY7DCxgQ6AEIKjAC#v=onepage&q=constitution+of+finland+church+act&f=false |archive-date=2020-08-19 |last1=Temperman |first1=Jeroen |publisher=BRILL }}</ref> The Lutheran Church does not consider itself a state church, and prefers to use the term "national church".<ref>{{Cite web | title = Valtiokirkko purettu kansankirkoksi | trans-title = State Church Dismantled into National Church | publisher = Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland | work = evl.fi | date = 24 November 2006 | access-date = 23 July 2016 | url = http://evl.fi/EVLfi.nsf/Documents/85BBFB4816F713BEC2256FEA003A7232 | language = fi | archive-date = 28 June 2016 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20160628125115/http://evl.fi/EVLfi.nsf/Documents/85BBFB4816F713BEC2256FEA003A7232 | url-status = live }}</ref>

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.<ref>[[Eroakirkosta.fi]] – [http://eroakirkosta.fi/media/taustatietoa/toiminta-ajatus.html Palvelun tavoite: Kirkko on erotettava valtiosta] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160307032405/http://eroakirkosta.fi/media/taustatietoa/toiminta-ajatus.html |date=March 7, 2016 }}</ref>

===France===
{{See also|Laïcité|1905 French law on the Separation of the Churches and the State|Catholic Church in France}}
[[File:Gérard - Signature du Concordat entre la France et le Saint-Siège, le 15 juillet 1801.jpg|thumb|The Signing of the [[Concordat of 1801]] between France and the Holy See, 15 July 1801, which was repealed by the 1905 French law on the Separation of Church and State]]
[[File:Liberte-egalite-fraternite-tympanum-church-saint-pancrace-aups-var.jpg|thumb|right|Motto of the French republic on the [[Tympanum (architecture)|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 French law on the Separation of the Churches and the State|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]] criticised "negative {{Lang|fr|laïcité}}" and talked about a "positive {{Lang|fr|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.<ref name="christiantoday.com">Beita, Peter B. [http://www.christiantoday.com/article/french.presidents.religious.mixing.riles.critics/16423.htm French President's religious mixing riles critics] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160420223313/http://www.christiantoday.com/article/french.presidents.religious.mixing.riles.critics/16423.htm |date=April 20, 2016 }} Christianity Today, January 23, 2008</ref> He visited the [[Pope]] in December 2007 and publicly emphasized France's [[Catholic Church in France|Catholic]] roots, while highlighting the importance of [[freedom of thought]],<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.christiantoday.com/article/sarkozy.breaks.french.taboo.on.church.and.politics/15760.htm |title=Sarkozy breaks French taboo on church and politics |publisher=Christiantoday.com |date=2007-12-23 |access-date=2012-04-27 |archive-date=2012-02-07 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120207184301/http://www.christiantoday.com/article/sarkozy.breaks.french.taboo.on.church.and.politics/15760.htm |url-status=live }}</ref> advocating that [[faith]] should come back into the [[public sphere]]. [[François Hollande]] took a very different position during the [[2012 French presidential election|2012 presidential election]], promising to insert the concept of {{Lang|fr|laïcité}} into the constitution. In fact, the French constitution only says that the French Republic is "{{Lang|fr|laïque}}" but no article in the 1905 law or in the constitution defines {{Lang|fr|laïcité}}.<ref>{{cite news |title=French president rejects calls for secular values to be in constitution|url=http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1200356.htm|archive-url=https://archive.today/20130215164402/http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1200356.htm|archive-date=2013-02-15|url-status=dead|access-date=2 February 2013|newspaper=Catholic News|date=January 27, 2012}}</ref>

Nevertheless, there are certain entanglements in France which include:
* The most significant example consists in two areas, [[Alsace]] and [[Moselle]] (see {{format link|Local law in Alsace–Moselle#Religion}} for further detail), where the 1802 [[Concordat#France|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 [[Consistory (Judaism)|consistories]]) are paid by the state, and schools have religion courses. Moreover, the [[Roman Catholic Diocese of Metz|Catholic bishops of Metz]] and [[Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Strasbourg|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 Guiana 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 [[Bishop of Urgell|Roman Catholic Bishop of Seu de Urgell]], Spain). Moreover, French heads of states are traditionally offered an honorary title of [[Canon (priest)|Canon]] of the [[Basilica of St. John Lateran|Papal Archbasilica of St. John Lateran]], Cathedral of Rome. Once this honour has been awarded to a newly elected president, France pays for a ''choir vicar'', a priest who occupies the seat in the canonical chapter of the Cathedral in lieu of the president (all French presidents have been male and at least formally Roman Catholic, but if one were not, this honour could most probably not be awarded to him or her). The French President also holds a seat in a few other canonical chapters in France.
* Another example of the complex ties between France and the Catholic Church consists in the {{Lang|fr|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, Marche|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 honours accorded to French consular officials under Capitations with the Ottoman Empire which persist for example in 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===
{{See also|Religion in Germany}}
[[File:S95CrucifixCourtroomNuremberg.jpg|thumb|left|Courtroom with a [[Crucifix]] in Nuremberg, Germany, June 2016]]
The [[Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany|German constitution]] guarantees [[freedom of religion]],<ref name="Section 4 of German Basic Law">Section 4 of German Basic Law</ref> but there is not a complete separation of church and state in Germany. Officially recognized religious bodies operate as {{Lang|de|Körperschaften des öffentlichen Rechts}} ([[statutory corporation|corporations of public law]], as opposed to private). For recognized religious communities, some taxes ({{Lang|de|Kirchensteuer}}) are collected by the state;<ref>Binder, Gerhard/Wagner, Jürgen, Grundwissen Grundgesetz.p 165.Klett.</ref> this is at the request of the religious community and a fee is charged for the service.<ref>1.5% to 4.5% of the amount collected, depending on the state (''Land'')<br />{{cite book |editor1-last = Leif | editor1-first = Thomas| editor2-first = Rudolf | editor2-last=Speth| title = Die fünfte Gewalt: Lobbyismus in Deutschland|trans-title=The Fifth Estate: Lobbyism in Germany| year = 2006| publisher = VL Verlag| language = de| isbn = 978-3531150338| page = 262}}</ref> [[Religious education|Religious instruction]] is an optional school subject in Germany.<ref name="Section 4 of German Basic Law" /> The German State understands itself as neutral in matters of religious beliefs,<ref>Binder, Gerhard/Wagner, Jürgen, Grundwissen Grundgesetz.p 17. Klett.</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.erzbistum-koeln.de/schule-hochschule/religionspaedagogik/kb/index.html |title=Kirchliche Bevollmächtigung |publisher=Erzbistum-koeln.de |access-date=2012-04-27 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120406093500/http://www.erzbistum-koeln.de/schule-hochschule/religionspaedagogik/kb/index.html |archive-date=April 6, 2012 }}</ref> The treaties with the [[Holy See]] are referred to as [[Concordats with individual states of Germany|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.<ref>Christian, Hermes, Konkordate im vereinigten Deutschland. Grünewald.</ref>

===Greece===
In Greece, there is considerable controversy about the separation between the State and the Church, causing many debates in the public sphere regarding if there shall be a more radical change in the Article 3, which is maintaining the Greek Orthodox Church of Christ as the prevailing religion of the country. The actual debate concerning the separation of the Church from the State often becomes a tool for polarization in the political competition.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Karyotakis|first1=Minos-Athanasios|last2=Antonopoulos|first2=Nikos|last3=Saridou|first3=Theodora|title=A case study in news articles, users comments and a Facebook group for Article 3 of the Greek Constitution|journal=Kome |volume=7|pages=37–56|doi=10.17646/KOME.75672.31|year=2019|issue=2|doi-access=free}}</ref> More specifically, Article 3 of the Greek constitution argues the following:

# “The prevailing religion in Greece is that of the Greek Orthodox Church of Christ. The Orthodox Church of Greece, acknowledging our Lord Jesus Christ as its head, is inseparably united in doctrine with the Great Church of Christ in Constantinople and with every other Church of Christ of the same doctrine, observing unwaveringly, as they do the holy apostolic and synodal canons and sacred traditions. It is autocephalous and is administered by the Holy Synod of serving Bishops and the Permanent Holy Synod originating thereof and assembled as specified by the Statutory Charter of the Church in compliance with the provisions of the Patriarchal Tome of June 29, 1850 and the Synodal Act of September 4, 1928.
# The ecclesiastical regime existing in certain districts of the State shall not be deemed contrary to the provisions of the preceding paragraph.
# The text of the Holy Scripture shall be maintained unaltered. Official translation of the text into any other form of language, without prior sanction by the Autocephalous Church of Greece and the Great Church of Christ in Constantinople, is prohibited.”<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://www.hellenicparliament.gr/UserFiles/f3c70a23-7696-49db-9148-f24dce6a27c8/001-156%20aggliko.pdf|title=The Constitution of Greece|publisher=Hellenic Parliament|year=2008|isbn=978-9605600730|location=Athens|pages=20–21|access-date=2019-12-28|archive-date=2019-12-11|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191211221015/https://www.hellenicparliament.gr/UserFiles/f3c70a23-7696-49db-9148-f24dce6a27c8/001-156%20aggliko.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref>

Moreover, the controversial situation about the no separation between the State and the Church seems to affect the recognition of religious groups in the country as there seems to be no official mechanism for this process.<ref>{{Cite book|title=The Changing Soul of Europe, Religions and Migrations in Northern and Southern Europe|last1=Vilaça|first1=Helena|last2=Pace|first2=Enzo|last3=Furseth|first3=Inger|last4=Pettersson|first4=Per|publisher=Routledge|year=2016|isbn=978-1315614502|location=United Kingdom|pages=69–88}}</ref>

===India===
{{Main|Secularism in India|Religion in India|Freedom of religion in India}}

The [[Constitution of India]] uses the word "Secular" in a very unique way, differing from the western concept of "Separation of the Church and the State". The western concept provides for a "vertical" separation in terms of position of the state and the religion in a political setup, where both co-exist. On the other hand, the [[Constitution of India]] defines secularism looking at the social implication of the religious practice. The article 25 of the constitution guarantees freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion subject to public order, morality, health and Fundamental Rights. The same article empowers the state to regulate secular activities which may be associated with religious practice, thus allowing state interference in the religion.

Dr B. R. Ambedkar, highlighted the social implication of religion in India in the constituent assembly debates. While defending for the state interference in prohibiting religious instruction in schools, he argued, {{Blockquote|"... unfortunately the religions which prevail in this country are not merely non-social; so far as their mutual relations are concerned, they are anti-social, one religion claiming that its teachings constitute the only right path for salvation, that all other religions are wrong. The Muslims believe that anyone who does not believe in the dogma of Islam is a fakir not entitled to brotherly treatment with the Muslims. The Christians have a similar belief. In view of this, it seems to me that we should be considerably disturbing the peaceful atmosphere of an institution if these controversies with regard to the truthful character of any particular religion and the erroneous character of the other were brought into juxtaposition in the school itself."<ref>{{cite web|title=CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY DEBATES OFFICIAL REPORT, Volume VII, 7th December 1948|url=https://eparlib.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/762993/1/cad_07-12-1948.pdf |publisher=The Parliament of India, Digital Library |pages=884}}</ref>}} On the same lines of social implication of the religion the constitution enables the state to open the Hindu temples for all classes and sections of society. 

In S. R. Bommai vs Union of India, 1994, the Supreme Court laid down the principle of "Positive Secularism" and a "horizontal" separation of secular - material world from a religious - spiritual world. Matters which are purely religious are left personal to the individual and the secular part is taken charge by the state on grounds of public interest, order and general welfare. Positive secularism, therefore, separates the religious faith personal to man and limited to material, temporal aspects of human life. Positive secularism believes in the basic values of freedom, equality and fellowship <ref>{{cite web|title=S.R. Bommai vs Union Of India on 11 March, 1994|url=https://cjp.org.in/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/S.R._Bommai_vs_Union_Of_India_on_11_March_1994-1-DONE.pdf |publisher=Supreme Court of India|pages=87–89}}</ref>        

===Italy===
{{Further|History of Roman Catholicism in Italy|Holy See-Italy relations}}
In [[Italy]] the principle of separation of church and state is enshrined in Article 7 of the [[Constitution of Italy|Constitution]], which states:<ref>{{cite web|title=The Italian Constitution |url=http://www.quirinale.it/qrnw/costituzione/pdf/costituzione_inglese.pdf |publisher=The official website of the Presidency of the Italian Republic |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161127152449/http://www.quirinale.it/qrnw/costituzione/pdf/costituzione_inglese.pdf |archive-date=2016-11-27 }}</ref> "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."

===Ireland===
{{Further|Constitution of the Republic of Ireland|History of Roman Catholicism in Ireland|Holy See-Ireland relations}}

===Japan===
[[Shinto]] became the [[state religion]] in Japan with the [[Meiji Restoration]] in 1868, and suppression of other religions ensued.<ref name="japan2012">{{cite web|url=https://digital.law.washington.edu/dspace-law/bitstream/handle/1773.1/1120/21PRPLJ363.pdf?sequence=1|title=Separation of Religion and State in Japan: A Pragmatic Interpretation of Articles 20 and 89 of the Japanese Constitution|author=Andrew B. Van Winkle|work=Pacific Rim Law & Policy Journal|volume=21|number=2|year=2012|access-date=2014-12-09|archive-date=2016-06-09|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160609204622/https://digital.law.washington.edu/dspace-law/bitstream/handle/1773.1/1120/21PRPLJ363.pdf?sequence=1|url-status=live}}</ref> Under the [[Occupation of Japan|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.<ref name="japan2012"/>

===South Korea===
{{Main|Freedom of religion in 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.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/essays/religious-freedom-in-south-korea|title=Religious Freedom in South Korea|publisher=Berkley Center for Religion, Peace and World Affairs|access-date=2014-12-09|archive-date=2015-04-28|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150428111210/http://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/essays/religious-freedom-in-south-korea|url-status=dead}}</ref> Despite this, religious organizations play a major role and make strong influence in politics.

===Mexico===
{{See also|Laïcité#Mexico|Holy See-Mexico relations}}

{{Unbalanced|section|date=October 2020}}
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.<ref name=mexhistory>{{cite web|url=http://history-world.org/mexico.htm|title=Mexico, A brief History|publisher=history-world.org|access-date=2007-10-13|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071017111717/http://history-world.org/mexico.htm|archive-date=2007-10-17|url-status=usurped}}</ref><ref name=LeyLerdoClements>{{cite web|url=http://www.historicaltextarchive.com/sections.php?op=viewarticle&artid=548|title=Ley Lerdo|first=Greg|last=Clements|publisher=historicaltextarchive.com|access-date=2007-10-13|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070314043156/http://historicaltextarchive.com/sections.php?op=viewarticle|archive-date=2007-03-14|url-status=dead}}</ref>

President [[Benito Juárez]] confiscated church property, disbanded religious orders and he also ordered the separation of church and state<ref name="Stauffer2019">{{cite book|author=Brian A. Stauffer|title=Victory on Earth or in Heaven: Mexico's Religionero Rebellion|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=NuK5DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA4|year=2019|publisher=University of New Mexico Press|isbn=978-0826361288|pages=4–|access-date=2020-10-20|archive-date=2021-04-17|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210417210429/https://books.google.com/books?id=NuK5DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA4|url-status=live}}</ref> His [[Juárez Law]], formulated in 1855, restricting the legal rights of the church was later added to the [[Federal Constitution of the United Mexican States of 1857|Constitution of Mexico]] in 1857.<ref name="CoerverPasztor2004">{{cite book|author1=Don M. Coerver|author2=Suzanne B. Pasztor|author3=Robert Buffington|title=Mexico: An Encyclopedia of Contemporary Culture and History|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=YSred4NyOKoC&pg=PA245|year=2004|publisher=ABC-CLIO|isbn=978-1576071328|pages=245–|access-date=2020-10-20|archive-date=2020-10-22|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201022165709/https://books.google.com/books?id=YSred4NyOKoC&pg=PA245|url-status=live}}</ref> 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.

In 1926, after several years of the [[Mexican Revolution]] and insecurity, President [[Plutarco Elías Calles]], leader of the ruling [[National Revolutionary Party (Mexico)|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.

===Norway===
An act approved in 2016 created the [[Church of Norway]] as an independent legal entity, effective from 1 January 2017. Before 2017 all clergy were civil servants (employees of the central government).<ref>[https://www.regjeringen.no/no/aktuelt/offisielt-fra-statsradet/id2501869/ Offisielt frå statsrådet 27. mai 2016] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170909185939/https://www.regjeringen.no/no/aktuelt/offisielt-fra-statsradet/id2501869/ |date=2017-09-09 }} regjeringen.no «Sanksjon av Stortingets vedtak 18. mai 2016 til lov om endringer i kirkeloven (omdanning av Den norske kirke til eget rettssubjekt m.m.) Lovvedtak 56 (2015–2016) Lov nr. 17 Delt ikraftsetting av lov 27. mai 2016 om endringer i kirkeloven (omdanning av Den norske kirke til eget rettssubjekt m.m.). Loven trer i kraft fra 1. januar 2017 med unntak av romertall I § 3 nr. 8 første og fjerde ledd, § 3 nr. 10 annet punktum og § 5 femte ledd, som trer i kraft 1. juli 2016.»</ref><ref>[https://stortinget.no/no/Saker-og-publikasjoner/Vedtak/Beslutninger/Lovvedtak/2015-2016/vedtak-201516-056/ Lovvedtak 56 (2015–2016) Vedtak til lov om endringer i kirkeloven (omdanning av Den norske kirke til eget rettssubjekt m.m.)] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180703220253/https://stortinget.no/no/Saker-og-publikasjoner/Vedtak/Beslutninger/Lovvedtak/2015-2016/vedtak-201516-056/ |date=2018-07-03 }} Stortinget.no</ref> On 21 May 2012, the [[Norwegian Parliament]] passed a [[Norwegian Constitution|constitutional]] amendment that granted the Church of Norway increased autonomy,<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.thelocal.no/20120521/norway-separates-church-and-state|title=Norway separates church and state|date=21 May 2012|access-date=22 March 2015|archive-date=12 May 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130512065905/http://www.thelocal.no/page/view/norway-separates-church-and-state#.UPFSb-Q0VPE|url-status=live}}</ref> 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 {{Lang|no|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 (Norway)|Centre Party]].

The constitution also says that Norway's values are based on its Christian and humanist heritage, and according to the Constitution, the [[List of Norwegian monarchs#House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg|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. The Church of Norway is regulated by its own law ({{Lang|no|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.<ref>[[Church of Norway#Legal status|"Church of Norway"]]</ref>

===Philippines===
{{Main|Freedom of religion in the Philippines|Secularism in the Philippines}}
{{Further|Religion in the Philippines|Catholic Church in the 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.<ref name=1987constII>{{cite web|url=https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/the-philippine-constitutions/the-1987-constitution-of-the-republic-of-the-philippines/the-1987-constitution-of-the-republic-of-the-philippines-article-ii/|title=The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines – Article II|access-date=22 March 2015|archive-date=11 May 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220511193054/https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/constitutions/the-1987-constitution-of-the-republic-of-the-philippines/the-1987-constitution-of-the-republic-of-the-philippines-article-ii/|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name=1973const>{{cite web|url=https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/the-philippine-constitutions/the-amended-1973-constitution/|title=The Amended 1973 Constitution|access-date=22 March 2015|archive-date=11 May 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220511193059/https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/constitutions/the-amended-1973-constitution-2/|url-status=live}}</ref>

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.<ref name=1973const /><ref name=1987III>{{cite web|url=https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/the-philippine-constitutions/the-1987-constitution-of-the-republic-of-the-philippines/the-1987-constitution-of-the-republic-of-the-philippines-article-iii/|title=The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines – Article III|access-date=22 March 2015|archive-date=11 May 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220511193054/https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/constitutions/the-1987-constitution-of-the-republic-of-the-philippines/the-1987-constitution-of-the-republic-of-the-philippines-article-iii/|url-status=live}}</ref>

===Romania===
{{Main|Religion in 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===
{{Main|Legal system of Saudi Arabia}}
The legal system of Saudi Arabia is based on [[Sharia]], [[Islam]]ic law derived from the [[Quran]] and the [[Sunnah]] (the traditions) of the [[Muhammad|Islamic prophet Muhammad]], and therefore no separation of mosque and state is present.

===Singapore===
{{Main|Religion in Singapore}}
[[Singapore]] is home to people of many religions and does not have any state religion. The [[government of Singapore]] 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 [[Singaporean flag|flag]], or swear oaths of allegiance to the state.<ref name="state.gov">{{cite web|url=https://2001-2009.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2001/5732.htm|title=Singapore|work=U.S. Department of State|access-date=22 March 2015|archive-date=22 January 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200122134142/https://2001-2009.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2001/5732.htm|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>"Singapore", ''International Religious Freedom Report 2004'', U. S. Department of State, [http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20040917024849/http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2004/35427.htm As Retrieved 2010-03-11]</ref> Singapore has also banned all written materials published by the [[International Bible Students Association]] and the [[Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York|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.<ref name=IRFR>"2010 International Religious Freedom Report 2010: Singapore", U.S. State Department, November 17, 2010, [http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20110104231744/http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2010/148893.htm As Retrieved 2011-1-15]</ref>

===Spain===
{{Further|Catholic Church and the Spanish Civil War|Catholic Church in 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]].<ref name="Arguing Comparative Politics">Stepan, Alfred, ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=nR2tF4k1PXUC Arguing Comparative Politics] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160914183055/https://books.google.com/books?id=nR2tF4k1PXUC&dq |date=September 14, 2016 }}'', p. 221, Oxford University Press</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://libro.uca.edu/payne2/payne25.htm|title=Chapter 25: A History of Spain and Portugal, vol. 2|website=libro.uca.edu|access-date=2022-05-11|archive-date=2022-03-19|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220319201254/https://libro.uca.edu/payne2/payne25.htm|url-status=live}}</ref> Following the end of the war, the Catholic Church regained an officially sanctioned, predominant position with [[Francoist Spain|General Franco]]. Religious freedom was guaranteed only [[1966 Spanish organic law referendum|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 [[Gustav I of Sweden|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 of Sweden|Gustav III]] (1771–92), but it was not until the passage of the [[Dissenter Acts (Sweden)|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 maintains that the Sovereign and the members of the royal family have 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.<ref>{{cite magazine|url=http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/januaryweb-only/11.0.html|title=Swedish Church State Separate|magazine=Christianity Today|first=Ted|last=Olsen|date=1 January 2000|access-date=27 December 2014|archive-date=19 January 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160119060652/http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/januaryweb-only/11.0.html|url-status=live}}</ref>

===Switzerland===
{{Main|Religion in 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.<ref name=CstCH>[https://www.admin.ch/opc/en/classified-compilation/19995395/index.html Federal Constitution of the Swiss Confederation] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160621000507/https://www.admin.ch/opc/en/classified-compilation/19995395/index.html |date=June 21, 2016 }}, status as of 14 June 2015, [[Federal Chancellery of Switzerland]] (page visited on 17 December 2015).</ref> 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".<ref name=CstCH/>

Churches and state are separated at the federal level since 1848. However, the article 72 ("Church and state") of the [[Federal Constitution of the Swiss Confederation|constitution]] determine that "The regulation of the relationship between the church and the state is the responsibility of the cantons".<ref name=CstCH/> Some [[cantons of Switzerland]] recognise officially some churches ([[Catholic Church]], [[Swiss Reformed Church]], [[Old Catholic Church]] and [[Jews|Jewish congregations]]). Other cantons, such as [[Canton of Geneva|Geneva]] and [[Canton of Neuchâtel|Neuchâtel]] are ''[[laïcité|laïques]]'' (that is to say, secular).

===Taiwan===
{{See also|Religion in Taiwan|Constitution of the Republic of China}}

===Turkey===
{{Further|Islam in Turkey|Secularism in Turkey|Turkish nationalism}}
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 [[Atatürk's Reforms|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."<ref>{{cite web
|url = http://www.tbmm.gov.tr/english/constitution.htm|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060810204816/http://www.tbmm.gov.tr/english/constitution.htm|archive-date=2006-08-10|title = The Constitution of the Republic of Turkey|publisher = Turkish Grand National Assembly (TBMM)}}</ref> In order to control the way religion is perceived by adherents, the State pays [[imam]]s' wages (only for Sunni Muslims) and provides religious education (of the Sunni Muslim variety) in [[Public school (government funded)|public schools]]. The State has a [[Directorate of Religious Affairs]], directly under the President bureaucratically, responsible for organizing the [[Sunni]] Muslim religion – including what will and will not be mentioned in sermons given at [[mosque]]s, 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.

===United Kingdom===

{{See also|Disestablishmentarianism}}

The [[Church of England]], a part of the worldwide [[Anglican Communion]], is an [[established church]], and the [[British monarchy|British Sovereign]] is the titular [[Supreme Governor of the Church of England|supreme governor]] and cannot be a Roman Catholic. Until the [[Succession to the Crown Act 2013]], the monarch could not be married to a Catholic.

Around a third of [[State-funded schools (England)|state schools in England]] have a religious affiliation, with the vast majority being Christian. At faith schools, the worship must be in accordance with the religion or religious denomination of the school.<ref>[https://www.educationcompany.co.uk/knowledge-bank/uk-education-data/governance-affiliations/ Religious affiliation (faith schools)]. The Education Company</ref> In state run Christian 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 in England, up to 76% of Christian affiliated faith schools do not comply with the law and the requirement is not enforced by [[Ofsted]].<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-35161361|last=Wyatt|first=Caroline|website=BBC News Online|date=2015-12-23|access-date=2022-05-10|title=Does daily worship count for anything?|archive-date=2022-05-11|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220511193054/https://www.bbc.com/news/education-35161361|url-status=live}}</ref> 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.<ref name="guardian2015">{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/dec/06/religious-teaching-school-assemblies-axe-report|last=Sherwood|first=Harriet|date=2015-12-06|access-date=2017-07-30|title=Top judge leads calls to scrap mandatory daily Christian worship in UK schools|newspaper=The Observer|archive-date=2017-07-30|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170730065258/https://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/dec/06/religious-teaching-school-assemblies-axe-report|url-status=live}}</ref> The High Court of the United Kingdom has ruled in favour of challenges, brought by pupil families supported by the [[British Humanist Association]], to secondary-level religious studies exam syllabuses that excluded non-religious worldviews.<ref name="guardian2015" />

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 Council on Religious Education|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 [[laity|lay]] [[Lords Temporal]]. The Lords Spiritual have a significant influence when they vote as a bloc on certain issues, notably moral issues like abortion and [[euthanasia]]. The Anglican Church also has specific legal rights and responsibilities in solemnised marriages that are different from other faith organisations. Non-religious couples can have a [[civil wedding]] with no religious elements, but non-religious [[humanist celebrant|humanist weddings]] are not yet legally recognised 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.{{Citation needed|reason=Source needed for whole sentence|date=November 2019}}

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 he 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 in the United Kingdom|blasphemy law]], though it had fallen into disuse, was not abolished until 2024. Non-religious couples can have a [[civil wedding]] with no religious elements, and [[humanist celebrant|humanist weddings]] have been legally recognised since 2005 and enshrined in Scottish law since 2017.

The [[Church in Wales]] was disestablished in 1920 (although certain border parishes remain part of the Established Church of England).<ref name=Enyedi2003>{{cite book|last1=Madeley|first1=John T. S.|last2=Enyedi|first2=Zsolt|title=Church and state in contemporary Europe: the chimera of neutrality|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=n5Brda6FmswC|year=2003|publisher=Psychology Press|isbn=978-0714653945|page=[https://books.google.com/books?id=n5Brda6FmswC&pg=PA203 203]|access-date=2015-08-15|archive-date=2015-09-19|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150919035809/https://books.google.com/books?id=n5Brda6FmswC|url-status=live}}</ref> 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.

The [[Church of Ireland]] was disestablished as early as 1871. Publicly funded Schools in Northern Ireland are either State or Catholic maintained schools. State schools can be classed as: Controlled (by the Education Authority), Voluntary Grammar, Integrated and Special Schools. Irish-Medium Schools are operated by both the State and the Catholic Church. Despite the common notion of 'Protestant' and 'Catholic' Schools among many citizens, all State schools accept all religions without bias, with the exception of Integrated schools which require a set ratio of 40:40:20 Protestant, Catholic and Other (Mixed or non-Christian Religious).{{Citation needed|reason=Source needed for whole sentence|date=November 2019}} An identification with the "Protestant" or "Roman Catholic" community is sought on equal opportunities-monitoring forms regardless of actual personal religious beliefs; as the primary purpose is to monitor cultural discrimination by employers. Atheists should select which community they come from; however, participation is not compulsory. Religious Education is compulsory for all children up to the age of 16, with the four major Church denominational bodies (The Catholic Church, The Presbyterian Church in Ireland, The Church of Ireland and the Methodist Church) agreeing on the content of the syllabus, focussing on Christianity and Secular Ethics. World Religions have to be introduced between the ages of 11 and 14.

===United States===
{{Main|Accommodationism|Separation of church and state in the United States}}
[[File:James Madison.jpg|thumb|upright|[[James Madison]], drafter of the [[United States Bill of Rights|Bill of Rights]]]]
The [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|First Amendment]], which was 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 states themselves were free to establish an official religion, and twelve out of the thirteen had official religions. The [[First Great Awakening]] (c. 1730–1755) had increased religious diversity in the Thirteen Colonies, and this combined with the [[American Revolution]] prompted the five southernmost states to disestablish the Church of England between 1776 and 1790.<ref name=mtsu>[https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/801/established-churches-in-early-america The First Amendment Encyclopedia]</ref> The [[Second Great Awakening]] (starting c. 1790) further increased religious diversity and prompted another round of disestablishments including New Hampshire (1817), Connecticut (1818), and Massachusetts (1833).<ref name=mtsu />

The phrase of Jefferson ([[#Jefferson and the Bill of Rights|see above]]) was quoted by the [[United States Supreme Court]] first in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1947.<ref>William M. Wiecek, ''The birth of the modern Constitution: the United States Supreme Court, 1941–1953'' (Cambridge U.P., 2006) pp. 261–264</ref> 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 [[Incorporation of the Bill of Rights|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.<ref>Kermit Hall, ed. ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=cY3er3ilgjcC The Oxford companion to the Supreme Court of the United States] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304134840/https://books.google.com/books?id=cY3er3ilgjcC |date=March 4, 2016 }}'' (2005) pp. [https://books.google.com/books?id=cY3er3ilgjcC&pg=PA303 303–304] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304130907/https://books.google.com/books?id=cY3er3ilgjcC&pg=PA303 |date=March 4, 2016 }}.</ref>

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.<ref>Philip Hamburger, [https://books.google.com/books?id=q6Axd76IE1UC ''Separation of Church and State''] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160624192830/https://books.google.com/books?id=q6Axd76IE1UC&dq |date=June 24, 2016 }}. pp. 10–11, 287–334, 342, Harvard University Press, 2004</ref><ref>Kermit Hall, ed. ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=cY3er3ilgjcC The Oxford companion to the Supreme Court of the United States] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304134840/https://books.google.com/books?id=cY3er3ilgjcC |date=March 4, 2016 }}'' (2005) pp. [https://books.google.com/books?id=cY3er3ilgjcC&pg=PA262 262–263] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304134731/https://books.google.com/books?id=cY3er3ilgjcC&pg=PA262 |date=March 4, 2016 }}.</ref>

The concept was argued to be implicit in the flight of [[Roger Williams]] from religious oppression in the [[Massachusetts Bay Colony]] to found the [[Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations]] on the principle of state neutrality in matters of faith.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Hamilton|first=Neil A.|title=Rebels and renegades: a chronology of social and political dissent in the United States|edition=illustrated|publisher=Taylor & Francis|year=2002|isbn=978-0415936392|page=[https://books.google.com/books?id=jZymqT1HmqAC&pg=PA11 11]|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=jZymqT1HmqAC|access-date=2015-08-15|archive-date=2013-11-08|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131108113951/http://books.google.com/books?id=jZymqT1HmqAC|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|last1=Bercovitch|first1=Sacvan|last2=Patell|first2=Cyrus R. K.|title=The Cambridge History of American Literature: 1590–1820|edition=illustrated|publisher=Cambridge University Press|year=1997|isbn=978-0521585712|pages=https://books.google.com/books?id=s3j5JV–SEOMC&pg=PA196 196–197|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=s3j5JV-SEOMC|access-date=2020-11-21|archive-date=2021-04-17|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210417193835/https://books.google.com/books?id=s3j5JV-SEOMC|url-status=live}}</ref>

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 religion pure.<ref>{{cite book|last=Hamburger|first=Philip|title=Separation of Church and State|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=q6Axd76IE1UC|year=2009|publisher=Harvard University Press|isbn=978-0674038189|page=[https://books.google.com/books?id=q6Axd76IE1UC&dq=williams+%22hedge+or+wall+of+Separation+between+the+Garden+of+the+Church+and+the+Wilderness+of+the+world%22&pg=PA45 45]|access-date=2015-08-15|archive-date=2016-04-30|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160430051204/https://books.google.com/books?id=q6Axd76IE1UC|url-status=live}}</ref>

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 framers 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.<ref>{{cite magazine |last=Barry |first=John M. |date=January 2012 |title=Roger Williams and the Creation of the American Soul |url=http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/God-Government-and-Roger-Williams-Big-Idea.html |magazine=Smithsonian |access-date=2012-11-17 |archive-date=2013-11-28 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131128201726/http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/God-Government-and-Roger-Williams-Big-Idea.html |url-status=dead }}</ref> Though no states currently have an established religion, almost all of the state constitutions invoke God and some originally required officeholders to believe in the [[Holy Trinity]].

====Early treaties and court decisions====

====The Treaty of Paris====
{{Main|Treaty of Paris (1783)}}
In 1783, the United States signed a treaty with [[Great Britain]] that was promulgated "in the name of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity".<ref name="BittkerIdlemanRavitch">{{cite book |last1=Bittker |first1=Boris I. |last2=Idleman |first2=Scott C. |last3=Ravitch |first3=Frank S. |title=Religion and the State in American Law |date=2015 |publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]] |isbn=978-1107071827 |page=2 |language=en}}</ref> 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".<ref name="BittkerIdlemanRavitch"/>

====The Treaty of Tripoli====
{{Main|Treaty of Tripoli}}
In 1797, the [[United States Senate]] ratified a treaty with [[Tripoli, Libya|Tripoli]] that stated in Article 11:

{{Blockquote|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 [[Musulman|Mussulmen]]; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any [[Mohammedan|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.<ref>For full text see [http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bar1796t.asp "The Barbary Treaties 1786–1816; Treaty of Peace and Friendship, Signed at Tripoli November 4, 1796" Avalon Project] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110810205612/http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bar1796t.asp |date=August 10, 2011 }}</ref>}}

According to Frank Lambert, Professor of History at [[Purdue University]], the assurances in Article 11 were:

<blockquote>...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.<ref>{{cite book| chapter=Introduction| chapter-url=http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i7500.html| title=The Founding Fathers and the Place of Religion in America| publisher=[[Princeton University Press]]| date=2005| first=Frank| last=Lambert| isbn=978-0691126029| quote=By their actions, the Founding Fathers made clear that their primary concern was religious freedom, not the advancement of a state religion. Individuals, not the government, would define religious faith and practice in the United States. Thus the Founders ensured that in no official sense would America be a Christian Republic. Ten years after the Constitutional Convention ended its work, the country assured the world that the United States was a secular state, and that its negotiations would adhere to the rule of law, not the dictates of the Christian faith. The assurances were contained in the Treaty of Tripoli of 1797 and were intended to allay the fears of the Muslim state by insisting that religion would not govern how the treaty was interpreted and enforced. John Adams and the Senate made clear that the pact was between two sovereign states, not between two religious powers.| url-access=registration| url=https://archive.org/details/foundin_lam_2003_00_2547}}</ref></blockquote>

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.<ref>F. Forrester Church. ''The separation of church and state'' (2004) p. 121</ref> The treaty was submitted by President Adams and unanimously ratified by the Senate.

====Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States====
{{Main|Church of the Holy Trinity v. United_States#Christian_nation}}
In the 1892 case ''[[Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States]]'', Supreme Court Justice [[Justice David Brewer|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."<ref name="Finkelman">{{cite book |last1=Finkelman |first1=Paul |title=Religion and American Law: An Encyclopedia |date=2003 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-1136919565 |page=76 |language=en}}</ref>

Legal historian [[Paul Finkelman]] writes that:
{{Blockquote|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.<ref name="Finkelman"/>}}

====Use of the phrase====
The phrase "separation of church and state" is derived from a letter written by President [[Thomas Jefferson]] in 1802 to [[Danbury Baptists|Baptists from Danbury, Connecticut]], and published in a Massachusetts newspaper soon thereafter. In that letter, referencing the [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution]], Jefferson writes:

{{Blockquote|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.<ref name=Jefferson11 />}}

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:

{{Blockquote|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.<ref>''Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States'' (Washington, D.C.: Gales & Seaton, 1834, Vol. I pp. 757–759, August 15, 1789</ref>}}

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."<ref>{{cite web |url=http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_religions43.html |title=James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments |publisher=Press-pubs.uchicago.edu |access-date=2012-04-27 |archive-date=2012-04-19 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120419061114/http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_religions43.html |url-status=live }}</ref> Several years later he wrote of "total separation of the church from the state".<ref>(March 2, 1819 letter to [[Robert Walsh (diplomat)|Robert Walsh]]), {{cite book|last=Lambert|first=Frank|title=The founding fathers and the place of religion in America|publisher=Princeton University Press|year=2003|page=[https://archive.org/details/foundin_lam_2003_00_2547/page/288 288]|isbn=978-0691088297|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=1qse4fZ6eQgC|access-date=2016-11-09|archive-date=2017-01-02|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170102211121/https://books.google.com/books?id=1qse4fZ6eQgC|url-status=live}}</ref> "Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States", Madison wrote,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.constitution.org/jm/18191213_monopolies.htm|title=Monopolies Perpetuities Corporations – Ecclesiastical Endowments|first=James|last=Madison|publisher=constitution.org|access-date=2008-06-16|archive-date=2008-10-10|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081010151047/http://www.constitution.org/jm/18191213_monopolies.htm|url-status=live}}</ref> 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."<ref>(1811 letter to Baptist Churches)</ref> In a letter to [[Edward Livingston]] Madison further expanded:

<blockquote>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.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.reachandteach.com/content/article.php?story=20030829111914471 |title=Madison's letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822 |publisher=Reachandteach.com |date=2003-08-28 |access-date=2012-04-27 |archive-date=2012-04-03 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120403082712/http://www.reachandteach.com/content/article.php?story=20030829111914471 |url-status=live }}</ref></blockquote>

[[File:Thomas Jefferson's Grave Site.jpg|thumb|right|[[Thomas Jefferson]]'s tombstone. The inscription, as he stipulated, reads, "Here was buried Thomas Jefferson, author of ... the [[Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom|Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom]] ...."]]
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:

{{Blockquote|… 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.<ref>J. F. Maclear, ''Church and state in the modern age: a documentary history'' (1995) p. 65</ref>}}

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.<ref>Tyler wrote, "The United States have adventured upon a great and noble experiment, which is believed to have been hazarded in the absence of all previous precedent – that of total separation of Church and State. No religious establishment by law exists among us. The conscience is left free from all restraint and each is permitted to worship his Maker after his own judgment. The offices of the Government are open alike to all. No tithes are levied to support an established Hierarchy, nor is the fallible judgment of man set up as the sure and infallible creed of faith. The Mahommedan, if he will to come among us would have the privilege guaranteed to him by the constitution to worship according to the Koran; and the East Indian might erect a shrine to Brahma if it so pleased him. Such is the spirit of toleration inculcated by our political Institutions . … The Hebrew persecuted and down trodden in other regions takes up his abode among us with none to make him afraid . … and the Aegis of the Government is over him to defend and protect him. Such is the great experiment which we have cried, and such are the happy fruits which have resulted from it; our system of free government would be imperfect without it.") quoted in Nicole Guétin, ''Religious ideology in American politics: a history'' (2009) p. 85</ref> 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 [[s:Address of Senator John F. Kennedy to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association|Address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association]] on 12 September 1960, addressed the question directly, saying:

{{Blockquote|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".<ref>* See [http://supreme.justia.com/us/465/668/case.html ''Lynch v. Donnelly'', 465 U.S. 668, 673] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111025052330/http://supreme.justia.com/us/465/668/case.html |date=October 25, 2011 }} (1984): "The concept of a 'wall' of separation is a useful figure of speech probably deriving from views of Thomas Jefferson. . . . [b]ut the metaphor itself is not a wholly accurate description of the practical aspects of the relationship that in fact exists between church and state."
* [http://supreme.justia.com/us/413/756/case.html ''Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty v. Nyquist'', 413 U.S. 756, 760] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111025052900/http://supreme.justia.com/us/413/756/case.html |date=October 25, 2011 }} (1973):

<blockquote>Yet, despite Madison's admonition and the 'sweep of the absolute prohibitions' of the Clauses, this Nation's history has not been one of entirely sanitized separation between Church and State. It has never been thought either possible or desirable to enforce a regime of total separation.</blockquote>
* Patrick M. Garry, [https://ssrn.com/abstract=1139183 ''The Myth of Separation: America's Historical Experience with Church and State'', 33 Hofstra L. Rev. 475, 486] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160303203040/https://ssrn.com/abstract=1139183 |date=March 3, 2016 }} (2004) (noting that "the strict separationist view was wholly rejected by every justice on the Marshall and Taney courts.")
* [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=343&invol=306 ''Zorach v. Clauson'', 343 U.S. 306, 312] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130619025257/http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=343&invol=306 |date=June 19, 2013 }} (U.S. 1952): "The First Amendment, however, does not say that in every and all respects there shall be a separation of Church and State.".
* [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=403&invol=602 ''Lemon v. Kurtzman'', 403 U.S. 602] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140401193740/http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=403&invol=602 |date=April 1, 2014 }} (1971): "Our prior holdings do not call for total separation between church and state; total separation is not possible in an absolute sense."</ref> In ''[[Reynolds v. United States|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 v. Board of Education|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.<ref>[[Lee v. Weisman]], {{ussc|505|577|1992}}</ref>

====Pledge of Allegiance====
Critics of the American [[Pledge of Allegiance (United States)|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.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-man-who-wrote-the-pledge-of-allegiance-93907224/|title=The Man Who Wrote the Pledge of Allegiance|work=Smithsonian|access-date=2017-12-15|language=en|archive-date=2018-01-31|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180131235459/https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-man-who-wrote-the-pledge-of-allegiance-93907224/|url-status=live}}</ref>

Since then, critics have challenged the existence of the phrase in the Pledge. In 2004, [[Michael Newdow]], an ordained [[atheist]] minister of the [[Universal Life Church]] challenged a Californian law which required students to recite the pledge. He said the law violated the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the school system in ''[[Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow]]'' due to the fact that the father could not claim sufficient custody of the child over his ex-wife who was the legal guardian and had opposed the lawsuit.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/the-latest-controversy-about-under-god-in-the-pledge-of-allegiance|title=The history of legal challenges to the Pledge of Allegiance – National Constitution Center|website=[[National Constitution Center]] – constitutioncenter.org|language=en|access-date=2017-12-15|archive-date=2017-10-03|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171003055808/https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/the-latest-controversy-about-under-god-in-the-pledge-of-allegiance|url-status=live}}</ref>

===Uruguay===
In [[Uruguay]] the principle of separation of church and state is enshrined together with the religious freedom in Article 5 of the [[Constitution of Uruguay|Constitution]], which states: "All religious cults are free in Uruguay. The State does not support any religion. It recognizes the Catholic Church the domain of all temples that have been totally or partially built with funds from the National Treasury, excepting only the chapels intended for the service of asylums, hospitals, prisons or other public establishments. It also declares temples exempt from all types of taxes dedicated to the worship of various religions."<ref>{{Cite web |title=Constitución de la República Oriental del Uruguay |url=https://www.impo.com.uy/bases/constitucion/1967-1967/5 |access-date=2023-09-23 |website=www.impo.com.uy}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Uruguay |url=https://www.state.gov/reports/2021-report-on-international-religious-freedom/uruguay/ |access-date=2023-09-23 |website=United States Department of State |language=en-US}}</ref>

The separation between church and state was officially declared in the [[Constitution of Uruguay of 1918|Constitution of 1918]] and preserved in the following ones.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Pasquet |first=Ope |date=2017-11-14 |title=A cien años de la instauración del Estado laico en el Uruguay |url=https://dialogopolitico.org/debates/a-cien-anos-de-la-instauracion-del-estado-laico-en-el-uruguay/ |access-date=2023-09-23 |website=Diálogo Político |language=es}}</ref> The [[secularization]] of the country, however, began at the beginning of the 20th century during the first administration of President [[José Batlle y Ordóñez|José Batlle y Ordoñez]] as part of the reforms that sought the firm positioning of the State in the public sphere.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2021-03-18 |title=Iglesia, batllismo y la responsabilidad de llevar la administración estatal a todos los rincones de la república {{!}} La Mañana |url=https://www.xn--lamaana-7za.uy/opinion/iglesia-batllismo-y-la-responsabilidad-de-llevar-la-administracion-estatal-a-todos-los-rincones-de-la-republica/ |access-date=2023-09-23 |language=es}}</ref> The measures included the prohibition of religious symbols in public hospitals and government buildings, as well as the suppression of religious teaching in public schools.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Alonso |first=David Fernández |date=2021-04-07 |title=Uruguay: "it is necessary to survive in a secular country!" |url=https://omnesmag.com/en/newsroom/world/america-latina/uruguay-there-is-surviving-in-a-secular-country/ |access-date=2023-09-23 |website=Omnes |language=en-US}}</ref>