A philosophical and legal notion that defines political distance in the relationship between religious organizations and the state is the separation of church and state. The word conceptually alludes to the disestablishment, or altering of an established, formal relationship between the church and the state, and the establishment of a secular state (with or without legally explicit church-state separation).[1]
Thomas Jefferson invented the expression “wall of separation between church and state,” which is where the phrase “separation of church and state” originates, even though the idea is older. Philosophers of the Enlightenment like John Locke endorsed the idea.[/2]
The separation of church and state is a philosophical and legal concept that delineates political distance in the relationship between religious organizations and the state. The term theoretically refers to the creation of a secular state and the dissolution, or modification, of a long-standing, formal relationship between the state and the church (with or without legally explicit church-state separation).[1]
The phrase “separation of church and state” comes from Thomas Jefferson, who coined the phrase “wall of separation between church and state,” even if the concept is older. Enlightenment philosophers such as John Locke supported the notion.[//2]
There are similarities between the ideologies of secularism, disestablishmentarianism, religious liberty, and religious plurality with the separation of church and state. These beliefs caused the European states to take on parts of the welfare state and the church, resulting in a societal upheaval that created a populace and public sphere that were culturally secular.[/3] In actuality, church and state separation can range from complete segregation, as required by the political constitution of the nation, as in Singapore and India, to a state religion, as in the Maldives.
History of the concept and term of Separation of church and state
Late antiquity
St. Augustine, who explored the ideal link between the “earthly city” and the “city of God” in The City of God, Book XIX, Chapter 17, made a significant contribution to the conversation about the appropriate role of the Church in state affairs. Augustine suggested that there were significant similarities between the “earthly city” and the “city of God” in this work, particularly in light of the necessity for humans to coexist peacefully on earth. Augustine thus maintained that the establishment of a “heavenly city” on earth was made possible by the actions of the “temporal city.”*[4]
Medieval Europe
Monarchs were subject to the doctrine of divine right for ages. This was occasionally employed by a monarch to bolster the belief known as caesaropapism, which held that the king oversaw both his own realm and the Church inside its borders. The opposing view was held by the Catholic Church, which claimed that the Pope, as the earthly embodiment of Christ, ought to have ultimate authority over the Church and, indirectly, over the state. The papacy’s political power was reinforced by the falsified Donation of Constantine.(5)
In documents such as the Constitutions of Clarendon, which were enacted in 1164 and maintained that Royal courts had the upper hand over clergy and that clergy may be prosecuted like any other subject, monarchs openly challenged this heavenly power.
Monarchs who governed in the secular realm but infringed on the Church’s jurisdiction over the spiritual realm were at the focus of the medieval Western debate over the separation of church and state. Power struggles and leadership crises resulted from this unresolved contradiction in the Church’s ultimate control, most notably the Investiture Controversy that was settled in the 1122 Concordat of Worms. By signing this concordat, the Emperor gave up his right to bestow onto ecclesiastics the ring and crosier, which represent their spiritual authority, as well as the assurance of election by the abbey or cathedral canons and free consecration.11]
Reformation
Martin Luther introduced the idea of the two kingdoms at the outset of the Protestant Reformation. James Madison, arguably one of the most significant modern proponents of the idea of separation of church and state, claimed that Luther’s theory of the two kingdoms was the source of the current understanding of this concept.In [12]
Lucas Cranach the Elder’s woodcut Antichristus depicts the pope utilizing temporal authority to bestow power on a ruler who freely contributes.
The Anabaptists, or Radical Reformers, expanded on Luther’s ideas by writing books such as those of Michael Sattler (1490–1527), who agreed with Luther that there were two kingdoms but contended that they should be distinct and that baptized believers should not belong to either of them.
After Pope Clement VII refused to revoke Henry VIII’s marriage to Catherine of Aragon in 1534, Henry VIII made the decision to leave the Church and establish himself as the head of the Church of England, bringing the feudal Clerical and Crown hierarchies under one monarchy.(17) Since 1534, the British monarchs—Mary, Oliver Cromwell, James II, and others—have maintained ecclesiastical authority within the Church of England, with sporadic pauses.
As such, they are currently known as the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. Under Oliver Cromwell’s Commonwealth of England, a settlement from 1654 temporarily replaced bishops and clergy courts with juries of ejectors and a Commission of Triers to choose and discipline clergy in the English Commonwealth. This arrangement was later expanded to include Scotland.
John Locke and the Enlightenment
The English philosopher John Locke (1632–1704) is frequently cited as the originator of the idea of the separation of church and state.18] It was Roger Williams who first used the term “liberty of conscience” in his 1636 essay “Soul Liberty”. Locke was to elaborate on this. Locke maintained that the government had no jurisdiction over an individual’s conscience since this was an area that reasonable individuals could not give up to the government to regulate themselves or others, in accordance with his theory of the social compact.
According to Locke, this gave rise to a natural right—the liberty of conscience—which needs to be shielded from all forms of governmental interference. These ideas about the value of human conscience, religious tolerance, and the social compact.
In his Letter Concerning Toleration, Locke maintained that ecclesiastical authority must be separated from governmental authority, or “the magistrate,” and he also championed religious toleration among various Christian sects. Locke reasoned that a church could not have jurisdiction over concerns of state since it was a voluntary community of members. He composes: [20]
It is not my responsibility to go into the origins of the clergy’s authority or dignity. I merely assert that, regardless of how their authority originated, it should remain within the boundaries of the Church and cannot in any way be extended to civil matters because the Church is something completely different and apart .
Pierre Bayle and certain fideists, who held that faith was independent of reason, were pioneers of the separation of Church and State at the same era of the 17th century.21][22] The Enlightenment philosophers of the 18th century helped to popularize Lockean and Baylean concepts, particularly the separation of church and state. Regarding religious tolerance and a certain amount of separation between religion and government, Montesquieu wrote already in 1721.23]
Denis Diderot, for example, was an advocate of a rigorous separation of Church and State, stating that “the distance between the throne and the altar can never be too great.” Voltaire, on the other hand, supported a certain degree of separation but ultimately subjugated the Church to the demands of the State[24].Reference [25]
Jefferson and the Bill of Rights
The phrase “wall of separation between church and state” is the exact name in English, which originated in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. In that correspondence, Jefferson makes reference to the First Amendment of the US Constitution and writes:
I consider with sovereign reverence the act of the entire American people, who declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus creating a wall of separation between Church and State. I share your belief that religion is a matter that lies solely between Man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, and that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions.
As Jefferson explained to the Baptists, the United States Bill of Rights forbids the creation of a national religion, allowing them to exercise their freedom to free speech without fear of governmental interference. One of the first political expressions of religious freedom was the Bill of Rights, which was ratified as ten amendments to the US Constitution in 1791[citation needed]. The French Declaration of the Rights of the Man and of the Citizen of 1789 was another, as was the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, which was also written by Thomas Jefferson and ratified by Virginia in 1786.
Jefferson’s allegory of “a wall of separation between Church and State” from the letter previously cited was incorporated into the U.S. Supreme Court’s First Amendment case law. Chief Justice Morrison Waite employed it for the first time in Reynolds v. United States (1878). Waite sought advice from American historian George Bancroft in the Reynolds case concerning the framers’ opinions on establishment. Waite should speak with Jefferson, Bancroft suggested. Historian Don Drakeman claims that Waite then skimmed through the index of Jefferson’s collected works in a library before finding the letter that is described above.
In various countries
The degree of separation between religious institutions and the government varies throughout nations. Many nations have erected clear divisions between church and state since the 1780s. There is a considerable range in the real degree of separation between the government and religion or religious institutions. The two institutions are still closely related in several nations. After communism, there are new conflicts in the world.
States that have a national religion
Some nations with high levels of religious freedom and tolerance along with largely secular political cultures—cultures that have continued to maintain state churches or financial relationships with specific religious organizations into the twenty-first century—show how different separation can be from one another. Although there is a state religion recognized by the constitution in England, other religions are accepted.29]
In certain kingdoms, it can be legally mandated for the head of state, the head of government, or other prominent officials to adhere to a specific faith. High-ranking appointments to state churches are frequently still made by worldly governments. But these abilities could be a little out of date or cosmetic, hiding how little religious freedom actually exists in the country.
There are two heads of state in Andorra, but none of them are native to the country. One is the bishop of Seu de Urgell, a town in northern Spain who is Roman Catholic. He is known as the Episcopalian Coprince; the French Head of State is the other Coprince.